Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

May 4th 2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: You are incorrect. Pope Leo III forbade the liturgical use of the filioque in the creed and even ...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

You are incorrect. Pope Leo III forbade the liturgical use of the filioque in the creed and even had a silver plaque placed in Old St. Peter's in Rome without the filioque. But the Franks ignored the Pope and continued using it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's author is trying to gloss over this fact of history. The Church of Rome OMITTED the filioque.

From the USCCB website: While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peters, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their own dioceses.

www.usccb.org

The controversy has a lot to do with the imprecision of the Latin verb precedere, which means to send. It stands in stark contrast with the meaning of the original Greek text that uses ex pouresis, which connotes an origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone.

Pope Francis should consider striking the filioque from the Latin creed as a gesture to the Eastern Churches.

The Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity put out an excellent document on the subject back in the 1990s. www.ewtn.com
--hide--

May 4th 2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: You are incorrect. Pope Leo III forbade the liturgical use of the filioque in the creed and even ...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

You are incorrect. Pope Leo III forbade the liturgical use of the filioque in the creed and even had a silver plaque placed in Old St. Peter's in Rome without the filioque. But the Franks ignored the Pope and continued using it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's author is trying to gloss over this fact of history. The Church of Rome OMITTED the filioque.

From the USCCB website: While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peters, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their own dioceses.

www.usccb.org

The controversy has a lot to do with the imprecision of the Latin verb precedere, which means to send. It stands in stark contrast with the meaning of the original Greek text that uses ex pouresis, which connotes an origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone.

Pope Francis should consider striking the filioque from the Latin creed as a gesture to the Eastern Churches.

The Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity put out an excellent document on the subject back in the 1990s. www.ewtn.com
--hide--

Nothing you quoted contradictated anything I said. And what I said was drawn from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Note your quote states that he advised against using the CREED, any creed, in the Mass.

Why should Pope Framncis make the concession? It is the Orhodox who are in scism not the Latin Church. Especially since theologians on both sides agree it is not a problem. Even more, historically, until the Great scism in the 1000's there was in fact no disagreement on the issue between the West and the East.

May 5th 2013 new

Hi, John,

I looked up something for you in the definition of the Holy Ecumenical Synod of Florence (6 July 1439) at which the Greek East had delegates:

"For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

"And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

"We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need."

From what I get from reading your posts, you're not disputing the doctrine, merely the prudence of professing it in the creed at Holy Mass. Well, Pope Eugenius IV assures us by his definition that the Filioque was licitly and reasonably added to the creed.

May 5th 2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Nothing you quoted contradictated anything I said. And what I said was drawn from the Catholic E...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



Nothing you quoted contradictated anything I said. And what I said was drawn from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Note your quote states that he advised against using the CREED, any creed, in the Mass.



Why should Pope Framncis make the concession? It is the Orhodox who are in scism not the Latin Church. Especially since theologians on both sides agree it is not a problem. Even more, historically, until the Great scism in the 1000's there was in fact no disagreement on the issue between the West and the East.

--hide--


He should make the concession as a peace gesture because the Latin Church ruptured the peace of the Church by unilaterally adding it to the creed. Doing so would be a step in the right direction.

Pride caused the schism. Now humility can go a long way to healing it.
May 5th 2013 new
Chelsea. The Council of Florence isn't a place to start because it was not a meeting of Latins and Greeks meeting as equals.

Pope Eugenius didn't speak Greek, so he was ignorant of the fact the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son has an entirely different connotation in Greek.

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity notes;

This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as principle of the whole Trinity is called ekporeusiV by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers. St Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusiV, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusiV (Discourse 39, 12, Sources chrtiennes 358, p. 175). Even if St Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusqai the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (Cf. Commentary on St John, X, 2, PG 74, 910D; Ep 55, PG 77, 316 D, etc.). Even for St Cyril, the term ekporeusiV as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai) can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.

That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou PatroV kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou to the formula to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins.
May 5th 2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: He should make the concession as a peace gesture because the Latin Church ruptured the peace of t...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

He should make the concession as a peace gesture because the Latin Church ruptured the peace of the Church by unilaterally adding it to the creed. Doing so would be a step in the right direction.

Pride caused the schism. Now humility can go a long way to healing it.
--hide--

Since the theological commission on both sides have agreed that the Filioque is not a hindrance to reunification, there is no need.

Obviously your view on the schism is biased towards the East. There is plenty of blame on both sides for the split. Nevertheless, it was the East that split so it is ridiculous to claim that the West Caused the rift.

Prior to its official adoption, the Filoque presented no problem to the Eastern Churches. Nor does it do so now to those Eastern Churches in Union with Rome, even if they do not include it in the Creed they use. The more ancient Creed used by both East and West, we know it as "The Apostle's Creed," makes no mention one way or the other. It merely state, "I believe in the Holy Spirit... ."

Read your own references which clearly state that when its use first appeared in the 400s, the Eastern Churches had no problem.

Prior to his death last year, the Coptic Othodox Pope was advocating among his fellow Orthodox bishops that they should all reunite with Rome.

I fully agree with you that pride on both sides caused the schism. But do not forget that, just as in the Reformation, there was, to a large extent, a purely secular political side that further encouraged and fueled the break.

May 5th 2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Since the theological commission on both sides have agreed that the Filioque is not a hindrance ...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



Since the theological commission on both sides have agreed that the Filioque is not a hindrance to reunification, there is no need.



Obviously your view on the schism is biased towards the East. There is plenty of blame on both sides for the split. Nevertheless, it was the East that split so it is ridiculous to claim that the West Caused the rift.



Prior to its official adoption, the Filoque presented no problem to the Eastern Churches. Nor does it do so now to those Eastern Churches in Union with Rome, even if they do not include it in the Creed they use. The more ancient Creed used by both East and West, we know it as "The Apostle's Creed," makes no mention one way or the other. It merely state, "I believe in the Holy Spirit... ."



Read your own references which clearly state that when its use first appeared in the 400s, the Eastern Churches had no problem.



Prior to his death last year, the Coptic Othodox Pope was advocating among his fellow Orthodox bishops that they should all reunite with Rome.



I fully agree with you that pride on both sides caused the schism. But do not forget that, just as in the Reformation, there was, to a large extent, a purely secular political side that further encouraged and fueled the break.

--hide--


The Apostle's Creed is unknown to the East. The problem from the Eastern perspective is the ab utroque procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, which appears to confuse the persons of the Father and the Son.

The filioque can only be considered acceptable by Eastern Christians as long as the monarchy of the Father as the unique source of the Holy Spirit is maintained. As St. John of Damascus says, "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit OF the Son not FROM the Son."

That's an important difference.

Papal primacy isn't the problem for the Orthodox. It's the papal supremacy that concentrates all ecclesiastical power in the Pope and the Roman curia. I somehow don't think Pope Shenouda said anything about acceptance of Vatican I's definition of papal authority.

I know the Copts very well.
Posts 21 - 27 of 27