Question on Filioque

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephentlig
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stephentlig

Guest
Hope I’ve spelled it correctly. My question is why do most ugcc parishes not include the filioque in their DL? But Romans do?

Has it got something to do with translation of texts? 🤷

I ask because I notice at my own local DL they do not include the Filioque

Thanks for your replies already

In Christ
Stephen
 
Hope I’ve spelled it correctly. My question is why do most ugcc parishes not include the filioque in their DL? But Romans do?

Has it got something to do with translation of texts? 🤷

I ask because I notice at my own local DL they do not include the Filioque

Thanks for your replies already

In Christ
Stephen
To preserve their tradition, agreed to on re-union with the Catholic Church, See the Treaty of Brest, item 1, at the link below:

byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/document-library-mainmenu-124/33-documents-of-the-byzantine-catholic-churches/335-treaty-of-brest-1595
 
And the Creed without the Filioque was also the tradition of the Roman Church during the first millennium so it was the tradition of the entire Church, East and West. … stop that, Alex, stop it! :o

Alex
 
And the Creed without the Filioque was also the tradition of the Roman Church during the first millennium so it was the tradition of the entire Church, East and West. … stop that, Alex, stop it! :o

Alex
Thanks my question was due to not being able to respond to those who say that because both eastern catholics and western catholics say the creed differently that there can not be unity between the two. WIsh I knew how to respond to that one.

In Christ
Stephen
 
Thanks my question was due to not being able to respond to those who say that because both eastern catholics and western catholics say the creed differently that there can not be unity between the two. WIsh I knew how to respond to that one.

In Christ
Stephen
How to respond to those who make such claims depends on who they are, I suppose. If they are Catholic, I would point them to what the CCC states concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as to union agreements that state that an Eastern Church retains its right to recite the Creed without the filioque.
 
How to respond to those who make such claims depends on who they are, I suppose. If they are Catholic, I would point them to what the CCC states concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as to union agreements that state that an Eastern Church retains its right to recite the Creed without the filioque.
Thanks. It is our Eastern Orthodox brethren who claim that the East and west are not One and united because the filioque is different in each. But I always thought that they pray the same creed. It just so happens that Eastern Catholics retain the creed without the filioque in which the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and The Son is agreed but just not emphasized. So here in the west they decided to emphazize it. Am I right?
 
Thanks. It is our Eastern Orthodox brethren who claim that the East and west are not One and united because the filioque is different in each. But I always thought that they pray the same creed. It just so happens that Eastern Catholics retain the creed without the filioque in which the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and The Son is agreed but just not emphasized. So here in the west they decided to emphazize it. Am I right?
The filioque was pronounced domatically by Pope Leo I in, Quam laudabiliter , See CCC 247:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P17.HTM#-8C

Filioque was added to the Latin creed at the 3rd Council of Toledo 589 A.D. (canon 2)
mb-soft.com/believe/txn/filioque.htm

The creed was to be said aloud “For the fortifying of our people’s recent conversion” from Arianism, and moved to after the fraction but before receipt of comunion, where is remains today in the Mozarabic Mass.

books.google.com/books?id=zTdm1WjdfKUC&pg=PA487&dq=Filioque+Toledo+anti-Arian&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Filioque%20Toledo%20anti-Arian&f=false

An interesting read from the 11th Council of Toledo 675 A.D.
fordham.edu/halsall/source/toledo.txt

The first time the filoque was used in Rome (it was already used in East Francia), in the Latin Mass, was by Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 A.D.

600 A.D. Europe:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

700 A.D. Europe:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
The Filioque does have a dogmatic status in the West, to be sure. But Toledo was a local Council only - Rome’s Popes refused to add the Filioque to the Nicene Creed until later.

And yet, this is the interesting thing, the existence of the Filioque in the Latin version beginning in 1014 did not lead to any schism at that time.

We can even say with a good deal of certainty that the excommunications hurled by West and East at each other in 1054 were not “church-wide” but only “personal” between the papal emissary Cardinal Humbertus and the Patriarch Cerularios. In fact, there are testimonies that East and West considered themselves on Church until at least 1200.

There is at least that precedent to confirm that the Latin West’s use of the Filioque did not mean it was automatically in conflict with the East and that the East, although considering it an aberration, did not shout “heretics!” at the Latins for so doing.

This came later when positions hardened on both sides - including the Western villification of Photios who, as Dvornik and others in the West attest, was reconciled to Rome and died in union with Rome while Rome affirmed the principle of the original Creed without the Filioque and Pope St Leo IV (love that saint!) produced tablets with the Nicene Creed in both Latin and Greek inscribed on them without the Filioque (or any other addition) and had them placed on the tomb of St Peter.

The Filioque is a specifically Latin expression which is rejected and will be rejected by the East as suggesting two Origins of the Spirit within the Holy Trinity.

For the East, it is a most clumsy theological expression at best. There is no doubt that Roman Catholic theologians can explain its meaning to mitigate the immediate alarms that sound in Eastern ears whenever they see it.

But then, the addition to the Creed just might have to be: “And the Son (see 17 page attachment with bibliography in appendix at end of missalette.” 😃

The Filioque is a long-standing tradition in the West, it is deeply rooted in Latin Catholic liturgy and devotion and it is also popular in Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

Alex
 
The Filioque needs to go…in both the East & the West!!! It is about time that this happens!!! 😃
 
The Filioque needs to go…in both the East & the West!!! It is about time that this happens!!! 😃
But it was the consensus of the Father’s that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I think the Creed of the east was not saying that the Holy Spirit only proceeded from the Father but that it agrees that the Holy spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son but does not use the language to express it more which is why the west decided to do so.

For the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. Both are one, therefore the Holy Spirit must proceed from both. Which is why I have no problem saying either Creed as both are one and the same.
 
The Filioque does have a dogmatic status in the West, to be sure. But Toledo was a local Council only - Rome’s Popes refused to add the Filioque to the Nicene Creed until later.

And yet, this is the interesting thing, the existence of the Filioque in the Latin version beginning in 1014 did not lead to any schism at that time.

We can even say with a good deal of certainty that the excommunications hurled by West and East at each other in 1054 were not “church-wide” but only “personal” between the papal emissary Cardinal Humbertus and the Patriarch Cerularios. In fact, there are testimonies that East and West considered themselves on Church until at least 1200.

There is at least that precedent to confirm that the Latin West’s use of the Filioque did not mean it was automatically in conflict with the East and that the East, although considering it an aberration, did not shout “heretics!” at the Latins for so doing.

This came later when positions hardened on both sides - including the Western villification of Photios who, as Dvornik and others in the West attest, was reconciled to Rome and died in union with Rome while Rome affirmed the principle of the original Creed without the Filioque and Pope St Leo IV (love that saint!) produced tablets with the Nicene Creed in both Latin and Greek inscribed on them without the Filioque (or any other addition) and had them placed on the tomb of St Peter.

The Filioque is a specifically Latin expression which is rejected and will be rejected by the East as suggesting two Origins of the Spirit within the Holy Trinity.

For the East, it is a most clumsy theological expression at best. There is no doubt that Roman Catholic theologians can explain its meaning to mitigate the immediate alarms that sound in Eastern ears whenever they see it.

But then, the addition to the Creed just might have to be: “And the Son (see 17 page attachment with bibliography in appendix at end of missalette.” 😃

The Filioque is a long-standing tradition in the West, it is deeply rooted in Latin Catholic liturgy and devotion and it is also popular in Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

Alex
Patriarch Sisinnius made issue of the procession of the Holy Ghost such that in 1009 Patriarch Sergius removed the Pope from the names on the diptychs. It also happened another time before that for the same issue.
 
Dear brother Vico,
Patriarch Sisinnius made issue of the procession of the Holy Ghost such that in 1009 Patriarch Sergius removed the Pope from the names on the diptychs. It also happened another time before that for the same issue.
Can you please explain the issue here? Were the Patriarchs expecting the Pope to unilaterally change the practice of the Latin Churches? And since they (the Popes) didn’t (or couldn’t), they laid all the blame at his feet.

This is rather ironic. The episode demonstrates that even until that time, Eastern Patriarchs understood that a head bishop has actual authority in his entire jurisdiction, which exposes the novelty of the Low Petrine claim that head bishops have no jurisdiction at all except in their own immediate, local diocese.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Patriarch Sisinnius made issue of the procession of the Holy Ghost such that in 1009 Patriarch Sergius removed the Pope from the names on the diptychs. It also happened another time before that for the same issue.
I didn’t say otherwise - only that the Filioque has its own tradition in Eastern Catholic Churches to this day.

Rome would definitely like it if EC’s not recite the Filioque, but political circumstances (such as Russification via the Russian Orthodox Church) made EC’s defensive about Latinizations which came to be seen as ‘our traditions.’

My own parish, a VERY Eastern one, continues to celebrate the May devotion with services to the Mother of God on each and every day of the month of May. The people simply MUST have them.

Alex
 
I didn’t say otherwise - only that the Filioque has its own tradition in Eastern Catholic Churches to this day.

Rome would definitely like it if EC’s not recite the Filioque, but political circumstances (such as Russification via the Russian Orthodox Church) made EC’s defensive about Latinizations which came to be seen as ‘our traditions.’

My own parish, a VERY Eastern one, continues to celebrate the May devotion with services to the Mother of God on each and every day of the month of May. The people simply MUST have them.

Alex
SHAME!! SHAME!! SHAME!!! 😃

What makes the parish VERY Eastern if you MUST have Latinizations? Doesn’t sound VERY Eastern to me! 😛
 
Dear Ciero,

It would seem that that is the only Latinization, but the people have to have it. Eastern molebens and akathists are used together with some rather excellent sermons about the Mother of God. A different miraculous icon is placed on the tetrapod throughout May.

But I think a much more serious issue is how some at the parish seem to think that the beginning and ending of their spiritual commitment is the Sunday DL only and that prayer outside of it is something not done (how sad!). For a number of them, Sunday attendance is like going to see a show etc.

I don’t see the fervour surrounding the May devotion as being a bad thing. But I know you will disagree with me. You should take it up with the parish priests - I’m sure they would have some choice words for you . . . 🙂

Cheers,

Alex
 
Dear brother Vico,

Can you please explain the issue here? Were the Patriarchs expecting the Pope to unilaterally change the practice of the Latin Churches? And since they (the Popes) didn’t (or couldn’t), they laid all the blame at his feet.

This is rather ironic. The episode demonstrates that even until that time, Eastern Patriarchs understood that a head bishop has actual authority in his entire jurisdiction, which exposes the novelty of the Low Petrine claim that head bishops have no jurisdiction at all except in their own immediate, local diocese.

Blessings,
Marduk
The issues over which Constantinople removed the Pope from the diptychs since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 A.D., that I am aware of, have been:

879 Papal jurisdiction (opposed at the Orthodox recognized Fourth Council of Constantinople) (Pope John VIII)
903 antipope Christopher used the filioque
1006 Pope John XVIII (1003-9) used the filioque, then the next Pope added it in the creed (Pope Sergius IV 1009-12)
1054 Latin Church replacement of artos with azymes and removal of epiclesis (St. Pope Leo IX)

All of these things were not to be done (even in the Latin Church) according to the Patriarchs of Constantinople.
 
The Filioque needs to go…in both the East & the West!!! It is about time that this happens!!! 😃
The filioque was approved East and West at the council of Florence 572 years ago. Don’t be a part of keeping this fight going. Please read the link at the bottom.

The Greek bishops and theologians attended the council of Ferrara from 9 April 1438. The council was transferred to Florence on 10 January 1439. There, in the session on 6 July 1439, the decree of union with the Greek church was approved. Subsequently decrees of union with the Armenian and Coptic churches were approved. Finally the council was transferred to Rome on 24 February 1443. There other decrees of union with the Bosnians, the Syrians and finally with the Chaldeans and Maronites of Cyprus, were approved. The last session of the council was held on 7 August 1445.

Please read session 6 (1439)
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top