Orthodox Christians...?

Question

...this is from a Catholic. "ekporeuomenon" is a word I'm sure you're familiar with. Do you recognize a difference between its meaning and in infamous "procedentum" of the western Creed, or do you see them as being synonymous?

George; you know the doctrine of Papal infallibility isn't that simple, don't you?

George A:

I seriously doubt the validity of the last quote. If you can show me the original language document it was issued in, I would appreciate it.

Anyway, the doctrine of Papal infallibility is simply that the Pope is protected with the gift of infallibility when he (1) acting in the authority his office as the successor of St. Peter (2) makes a declaration on Faith or Morals (3) which he binds all the Catholic Faithful to believe.

Come to think of it, George, all of those quotes sound fishy. You can e-mail me from here. Mind sending me links, or at least references, to the original, untranslated documents?

Answer 1

If the pope is the vicar of Christ, God on earth and speaks for Christ and Pope Leo III denounced the Filioque in 809 why are we having this conversation? I suppose God must have changed his mind at some point and let later Pope's know about the change without informing the Orthodox.

delsydebothom,

"George; you know the doctrine of Papal infallibility isn't that simple, don't you?"

I know the Popes have said things like the following:

"The Pope is Christ in office, ...... we bow down before the holy father as we would before Christ himself" (1870 proclamation)

"We hold upon this earth the place of God almighty" Pope Leo XIII

"The Pope is not only representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself" Pope Pius X

"Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus himself who speaks" Pope Pius X

"You know that I am the holy father, the representative of God on earth, the vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on earth" Pope Pius XI"

So you're saying they were incorrect in these simple and no room to wiggle statements?

delsydebothom,

For a starter read:

January 9 1870 Vatican 1 Official Proclamation
Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, June 20, 1894
Decretales Domini Gregorii Papae IX
Corpus Juris Canonici 1582 Codified by Pius X 1904

Every Catholic I have ever had a conversation with has denied these and many other quotes like these. The bottom line is that if you research the history and look at it without bias it is clear that the concept that many Popes have said these things cannot be denied.

"Anyway, the doctrine of Papal infallibility is simply that the Pope is protected with the gift of infallibility when he (1) acting in the authority his office as the successor of St. Peter (2) makes a declaration on Faith or Morals (3) which he binds all the Catholic Faithful to believe"

Again, research what Popes and Bishops of the church have said about this and see that what you read on the official modern Catholic web sites is not what the history is. Of course then there is the whole question of the myth of his authority over all Christians and the Catholic interpretation of the Peter and the rock statement. But that's a different story.

Back to the original topic, Please explain why Pope Leo III was wrong and later Pope's were right. Why after hundreds of years the Creed needed a change.

The problem you have in defending the Catholic position on all of these Papal innovations is that they are innovations. Departures from the truth of the undivided Church that included Rome.

Answer 2

I am a former Orthodox Christian and the question of the third person of the Blessed Trinity was an important one in my return to the Catholic Church.

The question of the "filioque" is settled thoroughly by considering both Scriptures and the writings of the Greek Fathers.

In many passages of the New Testament the Holy Spirit is called not only “the Spirit of the Father” (Mt. 10: 20) but also “the Spirit of the Son.” Therefore, there is a clear Trinitarian order that is implied that cannot be ignored. The Son proceeds from the Father, while the Spirit proceeds from both the Father AND the Son. Further, Scripture tells us the Holy Spirit is sent into the world by the Father in the name of the Son (Jn. 14: 16, 26) and by the Son from the Father (Jn. 15: 26). It is clear that both the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit, in communion with one another.

And now to the Fathers......in their explanations of the Godhead, there is a CLEAR difference between the words "ekporeumenon" and "procedentum." The former refers simply to a relationship of origin to the principle (the Father). The latter refers specifically to the Holy Spirit when it is said that He "proceeds through the Son or from the Father and the Son" in their consubstantial communion.

The Latin language had one word for both realities: this word was “processio” (proceeds). This is what caused the confusion. And the language barrier further aggravated the theological dialog between East and West.

Answer 3

I'm not an expert on the issue, but you're talking about the doctrines regarding the relations of the Persons of the Trinity. An ecumenical council provided that the Holy Spirit is generated (ekporeuomenon) by the Father. Later, Latin (Catholic) writers took it upon themselves to change this to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from (procendentum) the Father AND THE SON.

The rest of the Christian world couldn't figure out why on earth the Latins would take it upon themselves to change the Church's agreed upon teachings ... and the Latins made it in effect a point of some kind of honor to insist that their formula was the one and only truth.

So the churches split, with the culturally more rich and advanced Greek-speaking churches no longer in communion with the Latin Churches.

The Latin, Catholic churches ended up in greater numbers over the centuries, though, when the Islamic civilization conquered most of the Greek speaking parts of Christendom. But the Catholics and the Greek Orthodox halves of the Church have yet to come to full agreement on the change the Latins made on this issue.

Centuries and centuries of religious division over a couple of words inserted into the doctrinal teachings.
.

Answer 4

Speaking as someone grew up in the Orthodox Christian faith in a Greek-speaking household (not all Orthodox use Greek as their liturgical language), the word DOES translate as "proceeds" BUT the major differance between the Creed in the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity is in the "filioque" as the Orthodox do NOT believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son, but the Father alone.

Although I no longer practice Christianity, I do maintain close contact with my family

Answer 5

I see them as the same...but, the two words are not really synonymous. The Latin means "proceeding from" and the Greek "spirating from".

The funny thing is, I heard Bishop Kalistos Ware speak one time, and he gave us the Augustinian version (and appeared to be agreeing with the Western position on the filioque!) - and I punched my fellow cleric and asked:

"Then what the heck are we fighting about??"

Of course, I'm a Western Catholic...and that's the way I was trained!

Answer 6

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only .
tell me where is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Answer 7

I see it as being just another form of trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Answer 8

Oh absolutely.

Answer 9

i'm not Catholic what are you saying?