Symbol of Faith .... but not the Filioque this time :)

  • Thread starter Thread starter 5Loaves
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
5

5Loaves

Guest
We spend so much bandwith talking about the Filioque. I find it interesting that I’ve never seen any discussion about another significant difference in the wording of the Symbol of Faith East and West.

In the East we pray: “…and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures…”

The Latin Church prays: “… He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, He** suffered death and was buried, and rose again** on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…”
 
I don’t see the difference except for “suffered” and “suffered death”.
In the Apostles’ Creed you can see:
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
I found also in the Nicene creed: “he suffered death and was buried”,
but I found that Ruthenian Catholic Church has “and suffered and was buried”.
But I think that the creed of Ruthenian Catholic Church is not really, obviously, Catholic because they do not accept the “Filioque” doctrine - “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son…” (source: patronagechurch.com/HTML/creed.htm) I think that their creed is not very appropriate to speak about the official creed of (Roman) Catholics. But anyway, we acknowledge that they are in the full communion with Rome.
I think that Orthodox faithful do not say “suffered death”, but everybody knows that Jesus really suffered and died on the cross.
“Then he released Barabbas to them, but after he had Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified.” (Matthew 27:26)
“After they had crucified him, they divided his garments by casting lots.” (Matthew 27:35)
“But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.” (Matthew 27:50)
To give up your spirit means to die. The flesh without the spirit is, of course, nothing - dead.
Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, He generally suffered, He was crucified, died and was buried. And He resurrected (to rise again) and that’s how the humanity was redeemed. 🙂
 
Dear belovucic,
belovucic said:
But I think that the creed of Ruthenian Catholic Church is not really, obviously, Catholic because they do not accept the “Filioque” doctrine - “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son…” (source: %between%
That is not true. It’s a rather ignorant claim. The Creed of the Ruthenian Church is the UNIVERSAL Creed of the Catholic Church. It is the Latin Creed with filioque that is NOT universal.

But this thread is not about the filioque. There are two currently active threads on the filioque. If you want to discuss it, please express your concerns there.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
 
The “Filioque” doctrine is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church. If you don’t accept it, you are not the Eastern Catholic, you are Orthodox.
The creator of this thread did not want too much talking about filioque.
God bless you
 
belovucic said:
**But I think that the creed of Ruthenian Catholic Church is not really, obviously, Catholic because they do not accept the “Filioque” doctrine **
Click to expand...
Your statement about the creed used by the Ruthenians being “not really, obviously Catholic because they do not accept the Filioque doctrine” is wrong, for at least two reasons. First of all, the Union of Brest, the agreement with Rome through which Ruthenians came back into union with Rome, grants us the right to recite the Creed without the Filioque. Second, the fact that we do not recited it in the Creed does not mean that we reject the doctrine.
 
belovucic said:
The “Filioque” doctrine is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church. If you don’t accept it, you are not the Eastern Catholic, you are Orthodox.
The creator of this thread did not want too much talking about filioque.
God bless you
Click to expand...
Belovucic - unless I am very much mistaken it was YOU who dragged up the Filioque
But** I think that the creed of Ruthenian Catholic Church is not really, obviously, Catholic because they do not accept the “Filioque” doctrine **- “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son…” (source: patronagechurch.com/HTML/creed.htm) I think that their creed is not very appropriate to speak about the official creed of (Roman) Catholics. But anyway, we acknowledge that they are in the full communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
perhaps you would now like to move on and make comments / observations on the OP’s post ?
 
Dear The Idiot, you gave to yourself very good name which describes you totally! 🙂
I dropped nothing. You can see clearly that on the certain website where I found Ruthenian creed there is no “filioque”.
I think there are many more bigger and severer problems in the world than “filioque”.
I don’t intend to argue with you and I won’t return anymore to this threat.
God bless you, God bless Ruthenians, Catholics, Christians. Everybody. 😉
 
5Loaves said:
In the East we pray: “…and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures…”

The Latin Church prays: “… He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, He** suffered death and was buried, and rose again** on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…”
Click to expand...
This phrasing “suffered death” is not what the “Latin Church” prays, I think. It is a recent English rendering. I don’t think that you will find it in other languages (I checked a few); certainly not in the Latin. Here is link that compares the traditional and more recent English renderings.

spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm
 
belovucic said:
Dear The Idiot, you gave to yourself very good name which describes you totally! 🙂
I dropped nothing. You can see clearly that on the certain website where I found Ruthenian creed there is no “filioque”.
I think there are many more bigger and severer problems in the world than “filioque”.
I don’t intend to argue with you and I won’t return anymore to this threat.
God bless you, God bless Ruthenians, Catholics, Christians. Everybody. 😉
Click to expand...
Well, now, isn’t this a nice witness to those lurking on these boards as to how Christians behave toward one another–NOT.
I think there is a problem here that is far bigger than the filioque or the difference in wording in the Creeds.
 
5Loaves said:
We spend so much bandwith talking about the Filioque. I find it interesting that I’ve never seen any discussion about another significant difference in the wording of the Symbol of Faith East and West.

In the East we pray: “…and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures…”

The Latin Church prays: “… He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, He** suffered death and was buried, and rose again** on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…”
Click to expand...
To be fair, in Latin, the text in question reads:
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto; passus, et sepúltus est. Et resurréxit tértia die …
Click to expand...
It is interesting, though, that the SOC uses (in English translation – I don’t have the SOC Syriac text at hand right now, but I think it’s the same. I’m also not thrilled with the translation itself but it’s quoted as given)
was crucified for us in the days of Pontius Pilate, and He suffered, died and was buried, and the third day He rose …
Click to expand...
Interesting, too, that the Copts do not.
And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. And on the third day He rose from the dead …
Click to expand...
All that said, though, it seems to me that it’s nothing more than a matter of words and that the intent is the same. The suffering had to result in physical death, else the Resurrection from the Dead makes no sense.

Just my unsolicited :twocents:
 
malphono said:
To be fair, in Latin, the text in question reads: It is interesting, though, that the SOC uses (in English translation – I don’t have the SOC Syriac text at hand right now, but I think it’s the same. I’m also not thrilled with the translation itself but it’s quoted as given). Interesting, too, that the Copts do not.

All that said, though, it seems to me that it’s nothing more than a matter of words and that the intent is the same. The suffering had to result in physical death, else the Resurrection from the Dead makes no sense.

Just my unsolicited :twocents:
Click to expand...
 
dvdjs said:
This phrasing “suffered death” is not what the “Latin Church” prays, I think. It is a recent English rendering. I don’t think that you will find it in other languages (I checked a few); certainly not in the Latin. Here is link that compares the traditional and more recent English renderings.

spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm
Click to expand...
There is the understanding that he suffered death.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1009 Death is transformed by Christ. Jesus, the Son of God, also himself suffered the death that is part of the human condition. Yet, despite his anguish as he faced death, he accepted it in an act of complete and free submission to his Father’s will.574 The obedience of Jesus has transformed the curse of death into a blessing.575

574 Cf. Mk 14:33-34; Heb 5:7-8.
575 Cf. Rom 5:19-21.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a11.htm
 
Dear brother Ryan,
RyanBlack said:
Your statement about the creed used by the Ruthenians being “not really, obviously Catholic because they do not accept the Filioque doctrine” is wrong, for at least two reasons. First of all, the Union of Brest, the agreement with Rome through which Ruthenians came back into union with Rome, grants us the right to recite the Creed without the Filioque. Second, the fact that we do not recited it in the Creed does not mean that we reject the doctrine.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍

I would only question your phrasing, “grants us the right to recite the Creed without the Filioque.” I don’t think the Pope “grants us” anything. Rather, he RECOGNIZES the rights that we as Easterns and Orientals have always had.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
dvdjs said:
This phrasing “suffered death” is not what the “Latin Church” prays, I think.
Click to expand...
Mea culpa. The “he suffered death and was buried” is the new translation of the Roman Missal coming into practice in Advent 2011. Current English usage is “suffered, died, and was buried.”

I hadn’t thought about our usage “suffered and was buried”. We sing the Symbol of Faith in the Russian Churches I worship in and it is spoken in the Latin Churches I worship in and for some reason that singing vs speaking seems to have made me have no problem mixing them up the many places where we have differences in the construction of sentences (Ex: And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate/For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, etc.) tho sometimes I do find myself speaking “for the remission of sins” in the Latin Church. 🙂 I think that may be the deacon’s words ringing in my ear from Eucharist “for the remission of her sins and unto life everlasting.”

The fact we have not “death” in our Symbol of Faith came up as I was seated next to a priest friend, also was my canon law teacher, in a workshop in American Sign Language on the new translation of the Roman Missal. We were all going through the changes in the new English text and discussing the best way to sign various words/concepts, and I was running through our EC/Orthodox Symbol of Faith in my head and remarking on places where the new translation for the Latin Church is now closer to what we (my Russian EC parish and OCA, and I think more like what the rest of the non-English speaking Catholic world has been praying all these years) say now the Creed (I believe, all things visible and invisible, was incarnate.) When we got to the new English translation of the Roman Missal of “suffered death and was buried” I said we say “suffered and was buried” to which Father jokingly responded “So you are ____ (whatever heresy it is), not believing in the death of Jesus”. Let me say he is not the least bit hostile to the Eastern Churches, he was just noting this apparent fact in the omission of death in the creed. I suppose that heresy, which I’m not familiar with, would say that Christ would not have to die to go to the place of the dead. He is God He can go anywhere. So the fact he rose from the dead or the place of the dead does not inherently mean he died.

Again I brought it up because it seems to me a place where Latins could easily get riled up but never seem to have done so, whereas the Filioque is argued every five minutes. 🙂
mardukm said:
But this thread is not about the filioque. There are two currently active threads on the filioque. If you want to discuss it, please express your concerns there.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Amen! Would that that could be remembered! 🙂
 
GOA, Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil, Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, The Resurrection Apolytikia:

Fifth Tone

To the Word, coeternal with the Father and the Spirit, born of the Virgin for our salvation, let us, the faithful, give praise and worship. Of His own will, He mounted the cross in the flesh, He suffered death, and raised the dead by His glorious resurrection.
 
5Loaves said:
…“suffered and was buried” to which Father jokingly responded “So you are ____ (whatever heresy it is), not believing in the death of Jesus”. Let me say he is not the least bit hostile to the Eastern Churches, he was just noting this apparent fact in the omission of death in the creed. I suppose that heresy, which I’m not familiar with, would say that Christ would not have to die to go to the place of the dead. He is God He can go anywhere. So the fact he rose from the dead or the place of the dead does not inherently mean he died.
Click to expand...
My guess: crucifixion is a means of execution. To say that “he was crucified” means that he was killed by means of crucifixion, and adding that “He died” is redundant. Like: he was sent to the guillotine … and died.

This may have been very clear in the days of crucifixion, but less so centuries later. Then, becuase of the unnamed heresy, the earlier content of the Apostles Creed - suffered, died, and was buried - was worked in. Why “suffered death”? Just a wild guess: “passus” cannot mean “suffered, died” but could, in the context, be taken to mane suffered death, vs, say suffered insult. Then “death” is not an addition but a matter of contextual translation. The problem is that the change could be taken as implying that He felt no pain through all of this. As we know, there is always a way to misunderstand anything written.

Here is another one:
[God from God], Light from Light, true God from true God
Click to expand...
Does anyone know the history of why the “God from God” was deleted in the East? How it was retained in the West? Was there a theological issue at the time? Was there ever one raised later?: Was the distinction ever made into an issue between West and West?
 
Pakesh said:
How utterly rude!:mad:

God Bless,
Pakesh
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. You should see what does a Mormon writes to me. It’s more terrible than this. I put also a smiling emoticon.
Isn’t, truly, that name a little bit silly?

God BLESS you!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top