C
Contarini
Guest
So is the new version of the Mass going to omit the Filioque?
I am not holding my breath.
And yes, my church uses the Filioque too.
Edwin
- Status
I am not holding my breath.
And yes, my church uses the Filioque too.
Edwin
N
Nicea325
Guest
No need to remove it.Yes, we can talk about it as soon as the Catholic Church removes the filioque from the Creed as recommended by the Consultation.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
The Catholic participants in the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation disagree.No need to remove it.
C
Contarini
Guest
So you disagree with the Consultation. That’s your misfortune.
How you can claim dogmatic unity when one part of your Communion recites the Creed one way and another recites it another way is beyond me. Oh yes–the Pope is the magic ingredient that makes everything come out OK. . . . as a Protestant friend said to me back when I was more impressed with your kind of Catholicism than I am today, “Add Pope and stir.”
Edwin
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
There has been a ton written about the filioque and how it is acceptable to pray both versions of the Creed in Catholicism for various reasons.
J
josie_L
Guest
There is no need to take out the filioque from the creed for unification because it is a valid theology. Moreover, just because some Catholics recite the filioque while others don’t does not mean we are practicing two different faiths. The filioque does not contradict what was/is said in the original creed. They are in fact complimentary because it delineates different aspects of the Trinity, that is, one focuses on the same essence/substance shared by the Father and the Son (the filioque), and the other on the order of procession, i.e., the Father is the first cause (which the filioque does not reject).
P
patricius79
Guest
I don’t know if it will. I do know that there is nothing wrong with the original creed from the regional Council of Constantinople, and that the Filioque was believed in the Eastern fathers.
And I know that we are responsible for becoming one.
J
josie_L
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
Where can I find the official teaching on Orthodox ecclesiology, i.e., is there one? Because right now all I’m getting is your opinion and that of others, I would really like something more concrete.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
But in this context we are discussing the recommendations of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation. Here is the list.
- that our Churches commit themselves to a new and earnest dialogue con-cerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit, drawing on the Holy Scriptures and on the full riches of the theological traditions of both our Churches, and to looking for constructive ways of expressing what is central to our faith on this difficult issue;
- that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God;
- that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;
- that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;
- that those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together;
- that the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
- that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
- 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.
C
Contarini
Guest
So any valid theological belief has a place in the Creed?
Furthermore, the validity of the Filioque is subject to grave doubt. It’s a lot more certain that it doesn’t belong in the Creed than that it is a valid opinion.
Yes, that’s the line taken by your Communion. Maybe it’s true. How would I know? What I do know is that this has divided Christendom. And when something has divided Christendom, then it shouldn’t be recited in the Symbol of Unity unless it is unquestionably true and central to the Faith. The Filioque isn’t. That should be the end of the matter.
Edwin
J
josie_L
Guest
His error was not having dealt with the Monothelite heresy, i e., he was not condemned for being a Monothelite. Pope St. Leo III qualified this when he ratified the sixth ecumenical council.
p.s. Why did you refer to him as a “secret Monothelite”, was it not obvious that he was one?
C
Contarini
Guest
There has been a ton written about most of the things we discuss on this forum
I’m not sure how you think that’s relevant to the present discussion.
And, of course, there has been a ton of nonsense written about most subjects. There has been a ton written about how the Papacy is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope’s miter has a Latin title whose numerical value is 666 and the Church fell into paganism at the time of Constantine, and other such nuggets of wisdom.
So, again, your remark was singularly irrelevant. I’m concerned with the truth, not with a “ton” of writing that may or may not be true.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Such as a papal decree?
There are all kinds of synodical documents and canons pertaining to ecclesiology. What specifically are you looking for?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Thank you, there are no Orthodox churches in communion with the Pope.If One makes the claim of Orthodoxy to the Aposotlic faith from antiquity you will find all Eastern and Western Catholic Churches from Orthodoxy in full communion with the Pope.
What you are doing not in communion with the Pope? Removes you from the Orthodoxy from antiquity, to a new type of reform Orthodoxy. We need not discuss your new liturgies introduced in the West, that Orthodoxy refuse to participate in from the East, yet “call” themselves Orhodox? I will not engage in mud slinging from why you are of the opinion to separate your self from our Eastern Orthodox brothers in unity with the Pope, and refuse to recognize these Apostolic successors to the Apostles both in the East and Western churches with such firece anxiety to the Uniate churches because they remained Orthodox in “unity” with the Pope and did not take your side to remove themselves from Orthodoxy, isolating yourself from both sides of the Apostolic successors.
Grant it that, your take from Orthodoxy historically was coined for those Christians who believed in the Council of Chalcedon (451), that clarified and defended Christ’s divinity against the monophysites. Originally, although this Orthodox title was used to indentify the Eastern Rites with Constantinople, who had to identify themselves from the heretical Eastern churches who became “heterodox” (wrong believing). You mislead the western world to believe this title of Orthodox identifies you alone to the Apostolic Catholic Church when this self made title was to distinguish yourselves from Eastern Churches who fell into heresy.
Although, now that this Orthodox title takes on a new meaning from your separted brethren such as the Nestorians, Jacobites and most recently now the copts from Egypt have taken on your new title of Orthodoxy to their names.
Origins of the Schism have two views from East and West, both dealing with politics and pride of men who the East used as their excuse disciplines by the West which should never determine a seperation of the brethren as well as politics, while the West used the excuse, that the East when they fell into the control of Islam began to slowly disregard Rome, which Constantinople now became the official Church in the East in that the authority looked too from the church in Jerusalem and Antioch now become an item of the past. (This is a summary not a sequence of actual events) then we get into the Eastern complaints of the crusaders who went to deliver them out of the hands of Islam, but instead created more anxiety between East and West power struggles, not the faith.
This breach of disunity between the East and West was brought about by the greed and lust of those who had embarked upon a war of aggression and conquest and never by quarrelsome theologians or ambitious prelates of the Catholic Church.
The greatest crime I see from history between East and West is when Caerularius defied the pope and emperor, and struck Pope Leo IX’s name from the diptychs, or commemoration in the Liturgy. Since when did an Orthodox Church have the authority to change its liturgy here? and remain Orthodox? These examples are too numerious to digress here and there is enough blame to go around on both sides.
In summary the seperation was caused by external extremeties, not by internal dogma theological affairs. But now your new Orthodoxy in title and structure (isolation) has taken on the new protestant objections to authority and a worse one yet, you attack and reject the defined Apostolic dogmas of the Catholic Church. It is one thing to object and disagree with open communication to clarify these items, and it is another thing to isolate yourself from the Apostolic successors including the Pope and publicly attack Church authority placed by Christ himself in Peter’s chair, and the Churches divine right to bind and loose on earth as Jesus binds and loose in heaven. ( Iam referencing the defined Apostolic doctrines from the "theotokos, Trinity, Jesus divinity and humanity all the way down Infallibility, Immaculate conception etc…) The Catholic Church will continue to define the Apostolic defined and or not defined but believed doctrines any time she comes under attack.
Peace be with you
J
josie_L
Guest
Ok, Edwin, which Church father apart from Photius believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone?
NO, IT IS AN EXCUSE TO REMAIN DIVIDED, because you see Edwin, the Orthodox would have to admit that the filioque was not wrong as they initially thought.
J
josie_L
Guest
Something that all the Churches would have to abide to would be nice, i.e., like an ecumenical council.Such as a papal decree?
There are all kinds of synodical documents and canons pertaining to ecclesiology. What specifically are you looking for?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
No, it has not Contarini, He was not condemned as a Monothelite, i.e., they could not know for sure what he meant in his letter to Sergius because Sergius had misled him. What we do know however is that he allowed Monothelitism to continue in the East not by intention but by fact when he agreed with Sergius to silence both the opponents of one operation and/or two operations. He failed in his duty to teach authoritatively as befitting his role as head of the Church. This is why he was condemned by Pope St. Leo III who ratified the sixth council.
Note: Moreover, Honorius did not speak ex-cathedra because he issued no authoritative statement/teaching.
- Status