C
Cecilianus
Guest
I would also like to apologize and clarify that some of the wording I used came off on screen a lot stronger, and a lot more pugnacious, than I had intended.
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
:tiphat: No problem, same for Cecilianus
I made 8 responses on this thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=8759828 I only regret we couldn’t be more productive.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Steve,
For my part, I thought this was one of the most productive discussions ever on this subject!
For me, it demonstrated both the theological and sociological reasons behind the East/West conflicts over Triadology.
And it convinced me more than ever that both East and West can be rigid about their own spiritual culture by which Faith is expressed.
Only until we can distinguish properly between what is the universal Faith and what is the Particular expression/developments of that Faith can we ever hope to achieve a new unifying synthesis that will lead to a reunited Church.
I believe strongly that the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue is well ahead of us on this score.
Cheers, Servant of Christ!
Alex
S
steve_b
Guest
Speaking of spiritual culture(s),
The West doesn’t force the Greeks to say the filioque. The West only asks the Greeks to accept the Western expression as we mean it when we say it. The East won’t do that. It want’s the West to drop it totally, and will not compromise on that. It’s the East therefore, that is not only rigid on this, but intollerant toward our theology and our culture.
Considering an ecumenical council approved the filioque, confirmed by the pope, I doubt the filioque is going away.
C
ciero
Guest
There are only 7 Ecumenical Councils and NONE of them approve the filioque. The filioque MUST go away…and it will!
S
steve_b
Guest
You should remove then, what’s underlined in your bio. Orthodox in communion with RomeThere are only 7 Ecumenical Councils and NONE of them approve the filioque. The filioque MUST go away…and it will!
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Steve,
How is any desire to see the Filioque removed from a Creed intended to be a universal expression of Trinitarian faith a contradiction re: being in union with Rome?
I didn’t read Ciero calling anyone a heretic for holding to the Filioque.
I happen to agree with Ciero - it would be optimal if the West returned to the original form of the Creed which Rome approved.
The Orthodox are simply insisting that the original form be observed, that form which all agreed to at one time and which Popes defended. I believe they have the upper hand in that discussion.
No one here is suggesting the Filioque need be abandoned by anyone - only that it not be used, as an expression of Latin theology, in a creed intended to be one intended for the Universal Church and which affirms a Trinitarian theology that cuts across all Particular Church Trinitarian theologies.
The Creed is not the property of any one Particular Church to be tampered with - I’ve not heard Rome condemn this, indeed, Rome has affirmed that the original Creed without the Filioque is always a legitimate and complete expression of the Faith within the Catholic Church.
I’m just put off by your readiness to excommunicate us on that score. You might wish to discuss this matter with the administrators here to see if Ciero and I should both be put out as “Eastern schismatics” or tending toward the same.
I think you owe Ciero an apology sir.
Alex
How is any desire to see the Filioque removed from a Creed intended to be a universal expression of Trinitarian faith a contradiction re: being in union with Rome?
I didn’t read Ciero calling anyone a heretic for holding to the Filioque.
I happen to agree with Ciero - it would be optimal if the West returned to the original form of the Creed which Rome approved.
The Orthodox are simply insisting that the original form be observed, that form which all agreed to at one time and which Popes defended. I believe they have the upper hand in that discussion.
No one here is suggesting the Filioque need be abandoned by anyone - only that it not be used, as an expression of Latin theology, in a creed intended to be one intended for the Universal Church and which affirms a Trinitarian theology that cuts across all Particular Church Trinitarian theologies.
The Creed is not the property of any one Particular Church to be tampered with - I’ve not heard Rome condemn this, indeed, Rome has affirmed that the original Creed without the Filioque is always a legitimate and complete expression of the Faith within the Catholic Church.
I’m just put off by your readiness to excommunicate us on that score. You might wish to discuss this matter with the administrators here to see if Ciero and I should both be put out as “Eastern schismatics” or tending toward the same.
I think you owe Ciero an apology sir.
Alex
C
ciero
Guest
Rome has stated over and over all councils since the original 7 are local councils of the Western church. The filioque has NOT been approved by ANY Ecumenical council.
F
Formosus
Guest
I’m sorry you don’t see the irony in posting this after highlighting Dr. Roman’s post.
The west did force the filioque on the Greeks initially at Lyons, it was only later on (Florence) that the latins realized it wasn’t going to fly if the goal was a more lasting reunion.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Where?Rome has stated over and over all councils since the original 7 are local councils of the Western church. The filioque has NOT been approved by ANY Ecumenical council.
S
steve_b
Guest
What was the context of my response to ciero?
A:
Did I say that ciero did?
A:
Rome approved that original form AND approved the filioque also.
A:
If we say the creed in Greek we say it the Greek way. The language of the Latin rite however, is Latin. NOT Greek.
A:
That’s exactly what is being said. It MUST be abandoned. No negotiations.
A:
And THAT’S the problem & the issue.
Catholic Trinitarian theology is crystal clear. And it’s easy as pie for anyone to read it online. No one has any excuse or right, to misrepresent the Catholic position.
A:
Who ever said the creed was cast in concrete? The east already changed it from it’s original, that original that was NOT supposed to be changed.
The creed in 325 was NOT supposed to be changed. But it was changed in 381. So how did that happen? These were Eastern councils. The pope didn’t approve of that council; (381) for ~80 + years AFTER that council adjourned. iow Constantinople I, was a local council for all those years. And it changed the creed by itself… Such hypocrasy I’m seeing here.
Keep in mind, regardless of what the Eastern bishops did after they got home from Florence, they WERE there in council, and they agreed while they were there in council, that the East misunderstood the filioque as the West was saying it. iow, there was peace then, no problem with the West saying the filioque…at least for the moment.
A:
Obviously it was added because it is a fuller expression of faith within the CC. And we know it was needed because of Arianism.
A:
:coffeeread: you’ve gotten yourself wound around the axel for the wrong reasons. Okay, I’ll tell you where you misjudged this. I said to ciero the filioque was decided on at Florance, an ecumenical council. Ciero responded back, there are only 7 ecumenical councils. The filioque must go. To which I responded, then you should remove “in union with Rome” from your bio.
One needs to ask themselves what does union with the pope mean?
My statement is fair.
A:
Here’s the context of my response. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8056107&postcount=64
ciero shows intollerance of Catholic teaching on many levels.
C
ciero
Guest
Ciero does show intolerance for Catholic teaching ONLY when it is Latin Catholic teaching being foisted upon us Easterners! And he is mighty proud of that as well!
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Roman Catholics in Greece do say the Mass (according to the Roman Rite) in Greek, but they leave out the filioque.
According to St. Maximos the Confessor, it’s wrong to do it in Greek because it would be incorrect - the word “proceed” is ekphoreusthai (apologies for possibly incorrect transliteration - I’m not really sure how the word is supposed to be pronounced). It’s fine in Latin (according to St. Maximos) because the word procedit is a translation of proinei, not ekphoreusthai, so the meaning of the whole phrase changed.
In English, it’s kind of ambiguous since we don’t have two words for “proceed”, and the word is used for both meanings. So in English it should probably be dropped.
That doesn’t change my conviction that the word needs to stay in the Creed of the Roman Rite, because (a) unless it stays, theological understanding between East and West is not achieved, and (b) my views on the Roman Liturgy are “Traditionalist” - I’d scrap the Novus Ordo entirely and go back to 1962 before thinking about any changes - but that’s a topic for a different post.
Exphoreusthai means an ontological sort of procession indicating hypostatic origin - “he proceeded forth from his mother’s womb”. Proinei just means an accidental change - “he proceeded out of the courtyard into the street”.)
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
The creed in 325 was NOT supposed to be changed. But it was changed in 381. So how did that happen? These were Eastern councils. The pope didn’t approve of that council; (381) for ~80 + years AFTER that council adjourned. iow Constantinople I, was a local council for all those years. And it changed the creed by itself… Such hypocrasy I’m seeing here.
Dear Steve,
OK, perhaps I did go the wrong way with respect to the context of what you were saying to Ciero.
However, I think we all need to step back and take a deep breath on things since we’re getting to the point where we’re calling the first councils “Eastern” as if what they had to say was foreign to Rome (which is not true at all, as you know).
However we may see the process by which the creed was augmented (which was also urged by St Basil the Great who was fighting heretics who denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit), the point is that Rome had affirmed that Creed itself and her popes defended it, as did Pope St Leo IV.
And, if I may, and it is probably my fault, we are beginning to confuse the Filioque IN the Creed with the Filioque OUTSIDE the Creed.
They are two separate issues and we are only talking about it IN the Creed, without (I would hope) attacking it as a legitimate expression of Latin Trinitarian theology OUTSIDE the Creed.
It would be up to Rome to agree to return to the original Creed, of course, and I believe there is a statement by Pope Paul VI that I’ve even seen here somewhere where the Pontiff suggests the affirmation of the Filioque in the Creed is what is not written in stone.
Other than this proposition, I’ve no interest in forcing Traditional Catholics to do anything they don’t want to. I’ve too much respect for them to want to offend them.
Alex
Dear Steve,
OK, perhaps I did go the wrong way with respect to the context of what you were saying to Ciero.
However, I think we all need to step back and take a deep breath on things since we’re getting to the point where we’re calling the first councils “Eastern” as if what they had to say was foreign to Rome (which is not true at all, as you know).
However we may see the process by which the creed was augmented (which was also urged by St Basil the Great who was fighting heretics who denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit), the point is that Rome had affirmed that Creed itself and her popes defended it, as did Pope St Leo IV.
And, if I may, and it is probably my fault, we are beginning to confuse the Filioque IN the Creed with the Filioque OUTSIDE the Creed.
They are two separate issues and we are only talking about it IN the Creed, without (I would hope) attacking it as a legitimate expression of Latin Trinitarian theology OUTSIDE the Creed.
It would be up to Rome to agree to return to the original Creed, of course, and I believe there is a statement by Pope Paul VI that I’ve even seen here somewhere where the Pontiff suggests the affirmation of the Filioque in the Creed is what is not written in stone.
Other than this proposition, I’ve no interest in forcing Traditional Catholics to do anything they don’t want to. I’ve too much respect for them to want to offend them.
Alex
- Status