RC Church becoming more Eastern?

[TrueLight]

I I’ve been so zealous for years about ritual, ritual, ritual and have contemplated going to a Tridentine Mass, Orthodox Divine Liturgy, etc. Now that I hear it, I actually longed for a nic

Please do try a Tridentine Mass.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The nearest one is up in Fresno where the Orthodox also are. If I’m going to drive clear up there, I’d prefer the Divine Liturgy. At least it’s in my language!

Please do try a Tridentine Mass.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

As was pointed out a few posts earlier, the wording and the understanding of words tends to get in the way of some of the issues separating the churches.
Specifically the filioque. Why doesn’t the (Roman) Catholic Church simply remove it? It would be a grand act of humility – the Pope could say that it is not wrong, but that he is removing it to clear up confusions and aid in unification of Christians everywhere.
And to be fair, given the structure of the Creed, it describes how the Father is the source of the Son, but then doesn’t describe where the Spirit comes from (where it’s sourced from) – in the English / Latin – doesn’t make sense. I would practically guarantee that the vast majority of Catholic & protestants do not understand the trinity – OK I’m not sure that I do either

 

[TrueLight]

As was pointed out a few posts earlier, the wording and the understanding of words tends to get in the way of some of the issues separating the churches.
Specifically the filioque. Why doesn’t the (Roman) Catholic Church simply remove it? It would be a grand act of humility – the Pope could say that it is not wrong, but that he is removing it to clear up confusions and aid in unification of Christians everywhere.
And to be fair, given the structure of the Creed, it describes how the Father is the source of the Son, but then doesn’t describe where the Spirit comes from (where it’s sourced from) – in the English / Latin – doesn’t make sense. I would practically guarantee that the vast majority of Catholic & protestants do not understand the trinity – OK I’m not sure that I do either

I think the humility can go both ways.

If the Pope did remove it, would that guarantee unification? I don’t think so.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

I keep having a re-occurring attraction / pull towards the East (for the past year or so). When I do, I start exploring the websites and reading and I feel a deeper inner peace. However, there also usually follows a lot of sleeplessness and some increased spiritual attacks (to myself and family). As soon as I give it up, everything seems to click back into place as far as being able to sleep, minimal spiritual attacks, and get some “signs” that I am where I am supposed to be (in the RC Church).
I started trying to determine why I am so attracted:

• Chanting
• Liturgy
• greater awareness and appreciation of fathers
• No Protestant influences
• Greater Appreciation for liturgical seasons
• RC seems to Mary-centric; for instance all the CHurches named after MAry compared with Eastern Churches that spread out with names of other saints as well
• East seems more Masculine; West more feminine

BUT of course there is the universality of the RC church – i.e. there are many churches practically wherever you go in th US – and many I work with, etc OTOH, have no real spiritual connection with them.

Is it possible to live a more Eastern spiritiual life while going to a RC Mass on sundays?

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

I think the humility can go both ways.

If the Pope did remove it, would that guarantee unification? I don’t think so.

True…
But who’s to say it wouldn’t? If we don’t try we’ll never get there.
We are called to sacrifice – not because be we hope to get something out it – but because of the love that God has already showed for us.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dave,

As was pointed out a few posts earlier, the wording and the understanding of words tends to get in the way of some of the issues separating the churches.
Specifically the filioque. Why doesn’t the (Roman) Catholic Church simply remove it? It would be a grand act of humility – the Pope could say that it is not wrong, but that he is removing it to clear up confusions and aid in unification of Christians everywhere.
And to be fair, given the structure of the Creed, it describes how the Father is the source of the Son, but then doesn’t describe where the Spirit comes from (where it’s sourced from) – in the English / Latin – doesn’t make sense. I would practically guarantee that the vast majority of Catholic & protestants do not understand the trinity – OK I’m not sure that I do either

Your statement is rather telling - in a positive sense. As a Latin Catholic, you demonstrate that you do not understand the phrase “proceeds from the Father and the Son” to refer to the idea of SOURCE. So you have a very orthodox understanding of filioque.

In a poll I made, out of 38 Latin respondents (I wish there were more), 30 did not understand the phrase to refer to the idea of SOURCE either (the other 8 were not sure what it meant). forums.catholic-questions.org/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=5381

Easterns and Orientals, however, do believe that the phrase refers to the principle of Source (Orientals are actually half-way between the Eastern and Latin understanding, since we generally understand that line in the Creed to refer not only to the principle of Source, like the Easterns, but also to the consubstantiality, like the Latins). That is why we cannot accept filioque in the Creed - because it is heretical to say that there are two Sources of the Holy Spirit.

There was a North American EO-CC colloquy on the matter in the 1990’s, which affirmed the constant orthodoxy of the Latin Catholic Church on the matter AND made the proposal that filioque should be removed. I have met EO online who appeal to that colloquy to insist that filioque should be removed. But you know what? These same EO did not care to admit the constant orthodoxy of the Latin Catholic Church on the matter, but believed the Latin CC was heretical. So I disagree with your suggestion. Without the concurrent admission that the Latin CC has been constantly orthodox from the EO (and OO, for that matter), I see no merit in removing the filioque. I propose removal of the filioque if and only if there is a concurrent OFFICIAL admission from the Orthodox Churches of the constant orthodoxy of the Latin CC on the issue (which would mean official synodal approval of the recommendations of the North American EO-CC Consultation). Removal of filioque without concurrent admission of Latin CC orthodoxy would only fuel EO uniatism, which will do absolutely nothing to increase genuine ecumenism.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TrueLight]

There was a North American EO-CC colloquy on the matter in the 1990’s, which affirmed the constant orthodoxy of the Latin Catholic Church on the matter AND made the proposal that filioque should be removed. I have met EO online who appeal to that colloquy to insist that filioque should be removed. But you know what? These same EO did not care to admit the constant orthodoxy of the Latin Catholic Church on the
Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, by “constant orthodoxy”, do you mean the CC always believed in the filioque?

 

[mardukm]

Marduk, by “constant orthodoxy”, do you mean the CC always believed in the filioque?

Yes it has, from the very beginning. I notice you are in RCIA.

The filioque teaches one thing and one thing only - the fact that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. EVERY apostolic Church, including the Orthodox Churches, believe in this dogma of the Faith.

The filioque has never once taught, nor intended to teach, that the Son is the Source of the Holy Spirit.

The issue is that the Eastern Church understands the line in the Creed “The Holy Spirit proceeds from…” as referring to the SOURCE of the Holy Spirit. Thus, filioque is unacceptable and heretical according to that understanding, since the Holy Spirit only has one Source, Who is the Father.

In distinction, the Latin Catholic Church understands (and has always understood) the line in the Creed “The Holy Spirit proceeds from…” as referring to the CONSUBSTANTIALITY of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead. Thus, filioque is perfectly acceptable and orthodox according to that understanding, since the Holy Spirit is indeed consubstantial to the Father and the Son (i.e., filioque).

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Marduk, by “constant orthodoxy”, do you mean the CC always believed in the filioque?

Alhough one might claim that it has been believed from the beginning, there is no evidence of it.

The filioque was introduced like a gloss, into the creed of Spain, which was at the time overrun with Arian heretics, The purpose was to try to reinforce the idea that Jesus Christ was divine by showing that He, like the Father, was a source of the Holy Spirit and thus had to be divine to do that.

This happened, not at an ecumenical Council, but at a regional Council (which the western Catholic church used to have in the early days) in the year 589AD, which is about 550 years after the Pentecost event.

At that point, the filioque was recited among the Catholics of Spain, but no where else.

Why this was significant, was because in those days the Catholic church also had different Masses (liturgies) from region to region. So, the local churches called their own Councils, and had different liturgies, all across Europe.

In Spain the Nicene Creed was recited in the liturgy (an early version of the Mozarabic liturgy) in the same manner as the orthodox eastern churches. This was not true of the liturgy in Gaul (France) or the liturgy in Italy, or even in the city of Rome. The Mass did not include a recitation of the Creed, and the Creed taught was the original version.

King Charlemagne’s church at his capital adopted the practice of reciting the Nicene Creed in 798AD, about 200 years after the Spanish/Mozarabic church. They chose to use the version of the creed used in Spain (possibly because he controlled a small part of Spain in his day). It spread from Aachen all over the region under Charlemagne’s control (the Frankish kingdom was quite extensive). Charlemagne was aware (or became aware) of a difference in his version of the Creed from the eastern version, because he actually accused to Greeks of omitting or dropping the filioque (it was probably a political ploy). He seems to have been unaware of the actual history of the phrase in the creed.

Pope Leo, the Pope at the time, opposed the use of the Creed with the filioque, but in the Catholic church of those days he had no authority to make either the Spanish church or the church in Gaul change their practices in the liturgy. He may have been under some pressure from Charlemagne to conform, because he manfully opposed the inclusion of the filioque in the creed within his own jurisdiction.

It was not until the year 1014AD that the Creed was recited in Rome, including the filioque. This was 425 years after it was introduced by the Mozarabic church of Spain, 623 years after the Council of Constantinople forbad any changes to the creed. It was after this event (1014) that the Pope was dropped from the dyptichs of the eastern Catholic churches.

It was still another two hundred years before the filioque was made a dogma of the Roman Catholic church. Thus over 600 years between it’s introduction in Spain to it’s confirmation as a dogma. From the Catholic Encyclopedia …

The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Vico]

That is why it was stated at Council of Florence in 1439:

“In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the approval of this sacred and universal Council of Florence, we establish that this truth of faith must be believed and accepted by all Christians: and thus all must profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally of the Father and the Son, that he has his existence and his subsistent being from the Father and the Son together, and that he proceeds eternally from the one and from the other as from a single principle and from a single spiration”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html

 

[TrueLight]

Yes it has, from the very beginning. I notice you are in RCIA.

I wish I were in RCIA - 4 months until the Sept class begins.

The filioque teaches one thing and one thing only - the fact that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. EVERY apostolic Church, including the Orthodox Churches, believe in this dogma of the Faith.

The filioque has never once taught, nor intended to teach, that the Son is the Source of the Holy Spirit.

The issue is that the Eastern Church understands the line in the Creed “The Holy Spirit proceeds from…” as referring to the SOURCE of the Holy Spirit. Thus, filioque is unacceptable and heretical according to that understanding, since the Holy Spirit only has one Source, Who is the Father.

In distinction, the Latin Catholic Church understands (and has always understood) the line in the Creed “The Holy Spirit proceeds from…” as referring to the CONSUBSTANTIALITY of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead. Thus, filioque is perfectly acceptable and orthodox according to that understanding, since the Holy Spirit is indeed consubstantial to the Father and the Son (i.e., filioque).

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

It helps quite a bit. I have never seen anyone on the forum making this point that the filioque should only be removed if the Orthodox state that the CC has always been orthodox in its understanding of the filioque.

Interesting.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Alhough one might claim that it has been believed from the beginning, there is no evidence of it.

So you are claiming that the Latin Catholic Church did not always believe that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father AND THE SON?

The filioque was introduced like a gloss, into the creed of Spain, which was at the time overrun with Arian heretics, The purpose was to try to reinforce the idea that Jesus Christ was divine by showing that He, like the Father, was a source of the Holy Spirit and thus had to be divine to do that.

That’s not true. The purpose of adding the filioque was to demonstrate the consubstantiality. You’re imposing your Eastern understanding on the Latin paradigm – EO uniatism, something EO have got to get out of your system.

At that point, the filioque was recited among the Catholics of Spain, but no where else.

But did this mean the Latin Catholic Church as a whole did not believe that the Holy Spirit was consubstantial with the Father AND THE SON?

Why this was significant, was because in those days the Catholic church also had different Masses (liturgies) from region to region. So, the local churches called their own Councils, and had different liturgies, all across Europe.

But did this mean that the belief that the Holy Spirit was consubstantial with the Father AND THE SON was not believed by all Latin Catholics?

In Spain the Nicene Creed was recited in the liturgy (an early version of the Mozarabic liturgy) in the same manner as the orthodox eastern churches. This was not true of the liturgy in Gaul (France) or the liturgy in Italy, or even in the city of Rome. The Mass did not include a recitation of the Creed, and the Creed taught was the original version.

But did this mean that they did not always believe that the Holy Spirit was consubstantial with the Father AND THE SON?

Pope Leo, the Pope at the time, opposed the use of the Creed with the filioque, but in the Catholic church of those days he had no authority to make either the Spanish church or the church in Gaul change their practices in the liturgy. He may have been under some pressure from Charlemagne to conform, because he manfully opposed the inclusion of the filioque in the creed within his own jurisdiction.

But did this mean that Pope St. Leo did not always believe that the Holy Spirit was consubstantial with the Father AND THE SON?

It was not until the year 1014AD that the Creed was recited in Rome, including the filioque. This was 425 years after it was introduced by the Mozarabic church of Spain, 623 years after the Council of Constantinople forbad any changes to the creed.

Did this mean that the Church in Rome did not believe before this time that the Holy Spirit was consubstantial with the father AND THE SON?

It was after this event (1014) that the Pope was dropped from the dyptichs of the eastern Catholic churches.

For affirming in their Creed that the Holy Spirit was consubstantial with the Father AND THE SON? Rather rash, don’t you think? Maybe they should have followed the example of St. Maximos and inquired about the matter to the Latins first.

It was still another two hundred years before the filioque was made a dogma of the Roman Catholic church. Thus over 600 years between it’s introduction in Spain to it’s confirmation as a dogma. From the Catholic Encyclopedia …

You mean to say that the consubstantiality of the the Holy Spirit with the Father AND THE SON was not a dogma in the Eastern Church? NO WONDER they thought the East was heretical!!!

Seriously, though, brother Michael. These are just rhetorical questions, intended to make you think that before you present such a – jaundiced – exposition of the history of the matter, you should realize that the interpretations can easily be turned around to make the EO look like the villain in the whole matter.

The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

As I’ve noted elsewhere, you will find no Magisterial document using the term “double procession.” Though I trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia on most things Latin, in this instance, it was a BIIIIIG mistake for it to even use this terminology to defend filioque. Both the Councils of Lyons and Florence condemned the notion that there are two processions. So the term “double procession” - despite tortured attempts by Latins to defend the use of the term - is actually dogmatically condemned by the Catholic Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I wish I were in RCIA - 4 months until the Sept class begins.

It helps quite a bit. I have never seen anyone on the forum making this point that the filioque should only be removed if the Orthodox state that the CC has always been orthodox in its understanding of the filioque.

Interesting.

Well, the North American EOC-CC Consultation was the one that affirmed BOTH propositions. So I’m not suggesting anything new. I think fair is fair. If one part of the North American consultation is accepted (i.e., the proposal to remove filioque), EVERY part of it should be accepted, don’t you think? It’s one whole package.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. My I address you as “brother” or “sister?”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sister

Well, the North American EOC-CC Consultation was the one that affirmed BOTH propositions. So I’m not suggesting anything new. I think fair is fair. If one part of the North American consultation is accepted (i.e., the proposal to remove filioque), EVERY part of it should be accepted, don’t you think? It’s one whole package.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. My I address you as “brother” or “sister?”

 

[TrueLight]

Well, the North American EOC-CC Consultation was the one that affirmed BOTH propositions. So I’m not suggesting anything new.

New to me. I’m learning - though at a voracious pace, thanks to you CAF folks.

P.S. My I address you as “brother” or “sister?”

Sister.

 

[TrueLight]

Sister

Ha ha. You answered for me!

 

[TrueLight]

Alhough one might claim that it has been believed from the beginning, there is no evidence of it.

Hi Hesychios,

Is there really no evidence of it?

I am reading “The Fathers Know Best” and I there is quote from St Basil of Caesarea written about 375 AD:

One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity.

And also St Epiphanius of Salamis- around 374 AD

The Father always existed, and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son

What is your view of those quotes and please feel to correct me if I am misunderstanding something.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve said it a million times, I’m FINE with the filioque. I don’t see the reason for the outrage or frustration with it. Despite all my reading about the “controversy,” I still feel it was more a reaction of anger toward Rome that the West adopted it without coming to that decision in a conciliar fashion. It’s the “hey, you went over our heads!” reaction. And perhaps the East has a point that it should’ve been arrived at in a conciliar way? But that doesn’t change the fact that I think it’s perfectly fine to say and has sound logic behind it. The Trinity is co-equal, cohesive, unified, and One. The Catholic Church is only affirming the indivisible, co-equal, eternal splendor of the Trinity IMO.

 

[Hesychios]

So you are claiming that the Latin Catholic Church did not always believe that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father AND THE SON?

That’s not true. The purpose of adding the filioque was to demonstrate the consubstantiality. You’re imposing your Eastern understanding on the Latin paradigm – EO uniatism, something EO have got to get out of your system.

But did this mean the Latin Catholic Church as a whole did not believe that the Holy Spirit was consubstantial with the Father AND THE SON?

You have tried to pull this dissembling before in the non-Catholic section, and it didn’t work then either.

The Holy Spirit being con-substantial is not the issue here, it is the monarchy of the father that is the issue.

You are using a red herring to confuse the case.

… it was a BIIIIIG mistake for it to even use this terminology to defend filioque.

Thanks for admitting that.

It didn’t look like a big mistake at the time because that is what it [filioque] actually says, and that was how Roman Catholics thought of it. The proof is that the article has a Nihil Obstat from an official Roman Catholic church censor named Remy Lafort S.T.D. (doctor of Sacred Theology) and an Imprimatur (“let it be printed”) from the Cardinal Archbishop of New York. It forms part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the church for that time.

I dare say if we wait around a while we will still see some Roman Catholics come here to CAF and argue for the double-procession of the Holy Spirit. It happens every so often. The mistake is so deeply ingrained in the Roman Catholic populace we may never see an end of it.

I would have no objection to the concept of filioque as meaning proceeding THROUGH the Son (it would be proper, although it does not belong in the creed), but the filique does not say that. It actually says the Holy Spirit has two sources, although the modern Roman Catholic church agrees that is not what the church means any more (if ever). So it needs to be reworded.

Then of course, if it was reworded it wouldn’t be the filioque any more would it? *It would be something else *in Latin, and it would look like the Roman Catholic church had reversed itself. The Papacy could never admit that, or give the impression that it had changed it’s position, so it does nothing and lets this poorly worded theological opinion stand as a dogma which must be believed by all (even if they don’t really understand what it really says ) because of the church’s own pride.