P
phil19034
Guest
“Liberal” Catholic clergy would be willing to concede every single point to the Eastern Orthodox EXCEPT the Novus Ordo.
Last edited:
- Status
P
phil19034
Guest
No. The there is nothing wrong with the Greek. As @babochka said, When the Roman Mass is celebrated in Greek, the filioque is not included.
P
phil19034
Guest
huh? 16 characters
G
greenrangerx
Guest
I think what was being said is that if “filioque” were to be translated into Greek, that would be heretical, since there isn’t a Greek word with the proper nuance, hence the Greek version of the Creed being prayed without it.
A
AlNg
Guest
No because the filioque is not said in the Russian Orthodox Church, in the Serbian Orthodox Church, in the Romanian Orthodox church, in the Antiochian Orthodox Church and in the Latin or western rite of the Antiochian Orthodox church.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Are you sure? Every single point?
No purgatory
No infallibility of the Pope
No papal universal supremacy
Married clergy generally allowed, not just in some particular cases.
No musical instruments during Divine Liturgy (Mass), only the human voice.
Sign of the cross made correctly from right to left.
No indulgences
No unleavened bread
Strict fasting laws during lent and before Holy communion.
Baptism by triple immersion with few exceptions.
No filioque, but per filium accepted.
No statues, only icons
etc.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
I was mostly being tongue in cheek… but I’ve answered you above.phil19034:
Are you sure? Every single point?
No purgatory ---- yes, liberal Catholics would concede here
No infallibility of the Pope ---- yes, liberal Catholics would concede here
No papal universal supremacy ---- yes, liberal Catholics would concede here
Married clergy generally allowed, not just in some particular cases. ---- yes, liberal Catholics would concede here
No musical instruments during Divine Liturgy (Mass), only the human voice. No, liberal Catholics need their guitar and drums
Sign of the cross made correctly from right to left. ---- I don’t think they would concede this because they would view you has being Pharisaical on this one *
No indulgences **---- yes, liberal Catholics would concede here**
No unleavened bread ---- yes, liberal Catholics would concede here
Strict fasting laws during lent and before Holy communion. No, liberal Catholics would never concede
Baptism by triple immersion with few exceptions. No, liberal Catholics would never concede
No filioque, but per filium accepted. ---- yes, liberal Catholics would concede here
No statues, only icons ---- yes, liberal Catholics would concede here – they might even go as far as saying no statues and no icons
etc.
But seriously some of these are very silly and due to Eastern Orthodox trying to push their views on the Latins. I will address these seriously later.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
No, there are questions concerning what you are talking about.
What is meant by a liberal Catholic clergyman?
What percent of Catholic clergy are liberal Catholics?
Which bishops qualify as liberal Catholics?
In any case, what you said was false. It is not true that ““Liberal” Catholic clergy would be willing to concede every single point to the Eastern Orthodox”.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
I was being tongue-in-cheekphil19034:
No, there are questions concerning what you are talking about.
What is meant by a liberal Catholic clergyman?
What percent of Catholic clergy are liberal Catholics?
Which bishops qualify as liberal Catholics?
In any case, what you said was false. It is not true that ““Liberal” Catholic clergy would be willing to concede every single point to the Eastern Orthodox”.
A
AlNg
Guest
What is meant by a liberal Catholic clergyman?
Further, I did not start the discussion, I was only responding to what someone else had said.
However, to answer your question on statues, some might say that icons are not merely practices but are mandated by Holy Scripture which forbids the veneration of 3D objects. At least, I did hear that.
And many consider practices to be very important. For example, they might say that stricter fasting before Holy Communion shows greater respect for the Sacrament.
Further, I did not start the discussion, I was only responding to what someone else had said.
However, to answer your question on statues, some might say that icons are not merely practices but are mandated by Holy Scripture which forbids the veneration of 3D objects. At least, I did hear that.
And many consider practices to be very important. For example, they might say that stricter fasting before Holy Communion shows greater respect for the Sacrament.
S
Spyridon
Guest
You are aware many Orthodox Christians, specifically Coptic and Armenian, cross left to right, right?
Also, that many Orthodox Churches employ statuary?
Also, that many Orthodox Churches employ statuary?
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I was speaking of Eastern Orthodox, not Oriental Orthodox.
S
Spyridon
Guest
This Russian Orthodox Nun didn’t get your memo.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A
AlNg
Guest
Yes. From time to time, you will see statues used by Eastern Orthodox. but I don’t believe it is the norm.
S
Spyridon
Guest
Oh yeah I forgot, hyperdox fundies also consider the Oriental Orthodox to be heretics.
The whole “anything not Byzantine is of the devil” mentality.
The whole “anything not Byzantine is of the devil” mentality.
S
Spyridon
Guest
It’s a mere cultural difference.
It’s not something to set up as a stumblingblock to full communion.
Some EO really need to learn to accept ritual and cultural plurality.
Non Byzantine does not equal evil.
It’s not something to set up as a stumblingblock to full communion.
Some EO really need to learn to accept ritual and cultural plurality.
Non Byzantine does not equal evil.
Last edited:
S
Spyridon
Guest
Purgatory is a Latin doctrine, not Eastern. Easterns don’t have to accept it, only admit it can be understood as an orthodox doctrine. EO believe in all the substance of the doctrine.
The infallibility and supremacy of the Pope was a widely held belief in the East, see some things St. Maximos and St. Chrysostom wrote.
Married clergy is a traditional discipline of the East, not in the Latin West. Difference disciplines should not stop communion with each other.
No musical instruments is a cultural and disciplinary issue, not doctrinal.
Sign of the cross a devotional issue and difference, not doctrinal.
Indulgences are an orthodox Latin doctrine, not Eastern. East doesn’t have to use them, only understand how they can be orthodox.
Unleavened bread is a non issue and a disciplinary difference, not doctrinal.
Fasting is a mere disciplinary difference, not doctrinal.
Baptism by immersion, discipline, not doctrine.
Filioque and the position of the Pope are the ONLY doctrinal issues you raised. Everything else is disciplinary or a mere cultural or linguistic difference.
P
phil19034
Guest
Of course the Filioque isn’t used in the Russian, Serbian, and Romanian Orthodox Churches. They use the Byzantine Rite, which is based on GREEK, not Latin.phil19034:
No because the filioque is not said in the Russian Orthodox Church, in the Serbian Orthodox Church, in the Romanian Orthodox church, in the Antiochian Orthodox Church and in the Latin or western rite of the Antiochian Orthodox church.
The problem is with the word “proceeds” (in English).
The Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον (ekporeuomenon) refers to the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, but the Latin verb “procedere” (and the corresponding terms used to translate it into other languages) can apply also to proceeding through a mediate channel. The West used the more generic Latin term “procedere” (to move forward; to come forth) which is more synonymous with the Greek term προϊέναι (proienai) than the more specific Greek term ἐκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai, “to issue forth as from an origin”).
The West traditionally used one term and the East traditionally used two terms to convey arguably equivalent and complementary meaning, that is, “ekporeuesthai” from the Father and “proienai” from the Son. Moreover, the more generic Latin term, “procedere,” does not have "the added implication of the starting-point of that movement; thus it is used to translate a number of other Greek theological terms. It is used as the Latin equivalent, in the Vulgate, of not only ἐκπορεύεσθαι, but also ἔρχεσθαι, προέρχεσθαι, προσέρχεσθαι, and προβαίνω (four times) and is used of Jesus’ originating from God in John 8:42, although at that time Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι was already beginning to designate the Holy Spirit’s manner of originating from the Father as opposed to that of the Son (γέννησις — being born).
While I’m not a big fan of Wikipedia, they actually have a lot of good info regarding this: Filioque - Wikipedia
Again… it is a translation issue. When the Creed was translated into Latin, the word “procedere” cased the Arianism heresy to point to the Creed to defend their heretical position. The filioque had to be added to the Latin translation in order to end that argument due to the multiple meanings of the Latin word “procedere.”
A
AlNg
Guest
The western or Roman rite of the Antiochian Orthodox church is not based on the Greek, but on the Latin Mass. And they don’t say the filioque.
S
Spyridon
Guest
The only REAL issue which needs to be hammered out is the Pope. Everything else is just a matter of the Greco-Slavic Churches accepting the fact that other Rites, disciplines, and devotions exist outside of the Byzantine ones.
- Status