Question for Catholics and Orthodox: would you follow your Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marsha_Adams said:
The Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). The Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father.

Filique was added to the Creed in Spain if I remember correctly as a response to refute a heresy going around at the time, perhaps arianism but I’m not absolutely sure. The use of “and the Son” spread through western Europe. The Pope liked it and stuck it permanently into the Creed. The problem was that he didn’t discuss it with any of his fellow Bishops and the Eastern Bishops felt it was not a true statement.

I read this in a book written by a Greek Orthodox Bishop.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I read basically the same thing. My point was that if we all believe in the Trinity, that the Father and the Son are one then with or without the Filique we are saying the same thing. So that the west should not have a problem it the East does not say it and the East should have no problem it the West does say it.
 
To go back to the earliest doxologies, we have statements like

To the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.

That was how our prayers went. We prayed in the Holy Spirit, to the Father by way of the Son.

Now when we say To the Father Son and Holy Spirit it is not wrong, just a different way of saying came into being, because the old way led some people to think the trinity was not equal.

So too the Filoque was added to combat heresy, it does not destroy the idea, rather it simply changes the way we say it.

Unfortunatly this has also lead to a different heresy held by some that would characterize the Holy Spirit as the relationship between Father and Son, which is not right either. The Spirit is its own person best revealed to us on Pentacost. The Earliest Creeds of the Church said things like “I believe in the Holy Spirit in the the one holy catholic and apostolic church.” The Holy Spirit is revealed to us in the life of the Church. The Filoque helps better explain this. So it fits. Some of the early proponents of the filioque were Eastern Bishops (most early supports were frankish, I will give you that). But nonetheless the idea is not unfounded, it is better explanation of the theology of the Trinity from what limited knowledge we have of our Lord God the blessed triune God. Mostly the disagreement of the filioque is a misunderstanding, just as the issues that drove the Oriental Orthodox out of the Church were misunderstandings, as we(both E.O. and Catholics) are realizing. The Filioque just doesnot translate well into Greek, which would cause a major stumbling block. THe Greek bishops couldn’t understand it when it first came out… so they rejected it. Who can blame them, If we bring this discussion around into a language like latin I think we could come to a better agreement. But who knows?
 
Glory to Jesus Christ!

Herlo Marsha,
Marsha_Adams said:
The Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). The Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father.

Filique was added to the Creed in Spain if I remember correctly as a response to refute a heresy going around at the time, perhaps arianism but I’m not absolutely sure. The use of “and the Son” spread through western Europe. The Pope liked it and stuck it permanently into the Creed. The problem was that he didn’t discuss it with any of his fellow Bishops and the Eastern Bishops felt it was not a true statement.

I read this in a book written by a Greek Orthodox Bishop.
Click to expand...
Good post.

To be more accurate, and a bit more detailed, the synod in Spain (Toledo 589AD) introduced the filioque without the prior approval of the reigning bishop of Rome at the time. These men did not have that close a relationship with bishops across northern and western Europe. Today such a local synod would not be able to unilaterally do something like that without the proceedings and decrees being vetted by people at the Vatican.

In any case, it was an isolated case.

Two centuries later, the Frankish bishops decided to include the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed in the Mass (it was not commonly done in the west before this time), and the text they used was the Spanish one. This was decided at another local synod of bishops, meeting at Aachen (809AD).

At this point, a Pope learned of it. His immediate reaction was to oppose the interpolation, he actually forbad it…he was ignored by the bishops of the Frankish empire. This was Leo III, of blessed memory.

He decreed against the filioque, and possibly recognizing the danger that this new phrase could bring to the church in the city of Rome (and Christian unity generally), he had two silver plates cast with the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed in Latin and Greek…without the filioque. As far as I can tell these were mounted in the Lateran cathedral and may possibly be visible today.

What is most interesting about these plates is the declaration the good bishop made as his reason for posting the creed publicly…

HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA FIDEI ORTHODOXA

Two centuries later king Henry II of the Holy Roman empire came to Rome with his entire retinue for his formal coronation, at this time it was discovered by them that the diocese of Rome was not reciting the Creed in Mass.

At Henry’s insistance, the Creed was recited in the Mass in Rome for the very first time in 1014AD, just as it was recited by the Franks and Germans in the north, complete with the* filioque*! This was 633 years after the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed was finished without the filioque, and 425 years after the local synod of Toledo first introduced it without papal permission, 205 years after Pope Leo III formally forbad the interpolation.

Michael
 
Hesychios said:
Glory to Jesus Christ!

At Henry’s insistance, the Creed was recited in the Mass in Rome for the very first time in 1014AD, just as it was recited by the Franks and Germans in the north, complete with the* filioque*! This was 633 years after the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed was finished without the filioque, and 425 years after the local synod of Toledo first introduced it without papal permission, 205 years after Pope Leo III formally forbad the interpolation.

Michael
Click to expand...
A** regional church council in Persia (431 AD) introduced one of the earliest filioque clauses in the Creed and specified that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son,” and this comes from East Syrian Christianity. Therefore, the filioque cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

In many liturgies, when celebrating with Eastern bishops, the Pope has recited the Nicene Creed without the filioque. It is certain that Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II regarded the text of 381 to be entirely correct on its own merit and that using filioque in Eastern liturgies would not even be appropriate.

In October 2003, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, recommended, in part, that “the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.” **
 
peary said:
A** regional church council in Persia (431 AD) introduced one of the earliest filioque clauses in the Creed and specified that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son,” and this comes from East Syrian Christianity. Therefore, the filioque cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope. **
Click to expand...
No, it is not a solely western innovation, and it did not originate with a Pope. The fact that a Persian synod adopted the idea at one point did not make it any more acceptable to the rest of the church. The Persians approved marriage for bishops at one time as well, that idea didn’t get very far either.

This is not an anti-Papal issue as such because the early Popes were good guys, they opposed it, and the eruption of the crises predates Papal Supremacy. The two issues are not connected.
 
No work of ours can lead to reuinion with the Orthodox. We can only pray:

*"Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that Our Lord God would rescue them from all their errors, and recall them to their holy Mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church. *

Almighty and everlasting God, Who savest all and wouldst that none should perish: turn Thy gaze to souls deceived and led astray by the devil; may they cast off the evil of their heresy and in true repentance of their errors return to the unity of Thy truth. Through our Lord.

Amen."
 
Dauphin said:
No work of ours can lead to reuinion with the Orthodox. We can only pray:

*"Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that Our Lord God would rescue them from all their errors, and recall them to their holy Mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church. *

Almighty and everlasting God, Who savest all and wouldst that none should perish: turn Thy gaze to souls deceived and led astray by the devil; may they cast off the evil of their heresy and in true repentance of their errors return to the unity of Thy truth. Through our Lord.

Amen."
Click to expand...
Amen, May the Lord lead our brothers of orthodox back to Holy Catholic Church.
 
Amen. May the Lord lead the Roman Church back to the Orthodox faith! 🙂
 
It seems like we must all be led back to the true faith, but how will that ever happen if we all make these prideful statements:

“I pray that the Catholic Church comes back to Holy Orthodoxy”
“I pray that the Orthodox come back to the Catholic Church”

shouldn’t we all just pray:

“I pray that all Christians find unity in the way that our Holy and Mighty Lord God sees fit.”

To me it just seems like praying for a return of one to another seems prideful shouldnt we offer up the problem to Christ. He can give a better answer than we could ever come up with to this issue. If Catholics should be come orthodox or vis versa then if we just pray for Christ to lead us all to the right place then the correct thing will happen. Lets trust in Christ not in our human ways. Division among Christians will never be stoped by the actions of us on a forum, but only by Christ, who reigns in glory!
 
Most of the ‘issues’ separating the branches of east and west are practically resolved already. It’s only a matter of time; probably the unification will occur in the next generation of Christians.
 
zagjames said:
It seems like we must all be led back to the true faith, but how will that ever happen if we all make these prideful statements:

“I pray that the Catholic Church comes back to Holy Orthodoxy”
“I pray that the Orthodox come back to the Catholic Church”

shouldn’t we all just pray:

“I pray that all Christians find unity in the way that our Holy and Mighty Lord God sees fit.”

To me it just seems like praying for a return of one to another seems prideful shouldnt we offer up the problem to Christ. He can give a better answer than we could ever come up with to this issue. If Catholics should be come orthodox or vis versa then if we just pray for Christ to lead us all to the right place then the correct thing will happen. Lets trust in Christ not in our human ways. Division among Christians will never be stoped by the actions of us on a forum, but only by Christ, who reigns in glory!
Click to expand...
No. That would be a profession of religious indifferentism.

The doctrines of the Catholic Church are not “human ways”. Every Catholic is bound to profess them as true, Divine revelation. The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy are not on equal footing here. An Eastern Orthodox faithful may not attain salvation unless suffering from invincible ignorance of the teaching of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is no salvation outside the Church. Why do Catholics so often see fit to ignore this?

Veiling our differences in ambiguous terms and vaguely hoping for a reunification will do nothing but bring the ruin of souls. To a true Catholic, the terms are clear; the Eastern Orthodox must abandon their heresy and return to the genuine orthodoxy of the Catholic Church.

A false and purely material reunification which destroys the integrity of the Catholic faith most certainly should not be our goal.
 
Yes, I absolutely would. Why? Because the gates of Hell will never overcome Christ’s true Church and therefore, I am not afraid of any changes that may come. I trust that the Church will always be here to guide me to Heaven as long as I am obedient.

That said, I am currently dating a Maronite Catholic. If him and I get married someday, I will convert to the Maronite rite of the Catholic Church. I feel that he would also accept any possible changes that must be made in order for full reunion to happen. 🙂
 
Dauphin said:
The doctrines of the Catholic Church are not “human ways”.
Click to expand...
Holy Orthodoxy views the post-schism doctrinal innovations of Rome as “human ways” Hence, the Latin Catholic Church must abandon Her strange doctrine and embrace true Orthodoxy. There can be no false ecumenism. There can be no compromise.

It is not a matter of pride–it is a matter of truth.
 
Mickey said:
Holy Orthodoxy views the post-schism doctrinal innovations of Rome as “human ways” Hence, the Latin Catholic Church must abandon Her strange doctrine and embrace true Orthodoxy. There can be no false ecumenism. There can be no compromise.

It is not a matter of pride–it is a matter of truth.
Click to expand...
It’s not going to be a matter of what you think or what I think. It will be the cooperation of the patriarchs and the papacy that will help unity to occur. Nobody is going to abandon anything with regard to doctrine, neither orthodoxy nor the western church. As I said before, unity will revolve around the Eucharist.
 
Mickey said:
The laity have a say in the Holy Orthodox Church. Are you familiar with St Mark of Ephesus?
Click to expand...
**The laity will just have to put aside their own prejudices. For the sake of Christianity’s survival, east and west will have to unite again. This will be the work of the Holy Spirit, not what the laity may or may not want. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top