www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology filioque and purgatory

i know it is optional to say during the liturgy but do eastern catholics have to atleast accept that the hoy spirit spirit proceeds from the father and the son?

and what about purgatory, do eastern catholics accept the belief of purgatory?

In awnser no and no. Those are both particular teachings and have no definitive Scriptural basis.

Dear Mateusz,

There have many long threads on both of these issues, so you might like to search the archives.
A good starting point, however, is a document of 33 Articles from the Union of Brest:
http://www.archeparchy.ca/history/union_of_brest.htm

ok i understand now, but another question is can a eastern rite catholic believe in purgatory and filioque if they so choose ?

As my understanding of the Filioque, its optinal for byzantines to recite it personally during the Divine Liturgy even though we dont say it as a congregation. I know that in, i believe the Gospel of St. John that Jesus says he will send a helper who "proceeds from the father". So i perosonally dont believe in the filioque as a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic.

Purgatory does have a scriptural basis thats why its a doctorine of the Church.

2. Macc, Rev, and 1 Cor 3:15 all give the idea of a place of purification. 1 Cor specifically does. It says as im sure your aware of that we will pass through a fire in refering to your end days.

From: Daniel
IC XC NI KA

I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that some people call themselves Byzantine Catholics while rejecting the "filioque" doctrine out of hand. The whole idea of Eastern Catholicism is that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not incompatible, but are reconcilable, and, in fact, are the same religion. Along those lines, here is a link to a recent document from the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity that clarifies how the Catholic Church understands the "filioque":

http://praiseofglory.com/Stmaximus.htm/filioque.htm/

We don't use the filioque in the liturgy, but that doesn't mean we ought to have any problem with saying/singing the word if we find ourselves at a Roman Mass.

The plaques of the Creed on the wall of St. Peter's in Rome, written in Greek, do not contain the Filioque. It is not really a mandatory belief even within the Latin Church.

It seems to me, that if one believes the part of the Creed "...one in being with the Father...", that arguing about the Filioque is a waste of time and effort. I think the Kyivan Bishops of 1596 agreed.

Article one of the Union of Brest, 1596 :

"1. Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us..."

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

ok, what about the immaculate conception? correct me if i am wrong but eastern catholics believe in this doctrine but call it the conception of saint Anna ?

Dear Mateusz,

Sorry I didn't see this thread - too busy with another one . . .

These issues you raise do periodically resurface and they are worth reviewing from time to time.

No one should recite the "Filioque" in the Nicene Creed - not even Roman Catholics. They do, but they shouldn't.

There is no reason for it theologically and it could be interpreted heretically, even by RC standards.

The RC Church has always affirmed that the Spirit can ONLY be said to proceed from the Son "passively" but from the Father "actively." But the term "Filioque" does not make any distinction in this way.

RC's are used to it, but they should get used to the Creed of the first millennium and get rid of the later addition.

Both East and West today agree that the Filioque should never have been placed unilaterally in a creed meant to confess the faith of the universal Church.

In terms of "purgatory," I wish RC theologians could make up their minds about whether this is a "state" or a "place" or what.

In any event, it reflects a later eschatology that is certainly foreign to the East.

The East prays for the dead continuously and it believes that our prayer can help bring the reposed closer to God etc. The East denies that we are finally assigned to heaven or hell before the Second Coming of Christ.

As for the Immaculate Conception - it was a doctrine developed by Rome to prevent it from saying the Mother of God had the "stain of original sin" on her soul, following Augustinianism.

The East has ALWAYS believed the Mother of God to have been conceived in holiness.

She would not have had any "stain" on her soul at her conception. And she (and John the Baptist) were sanctified by the Spirit at their conception - we celebration the Conception of St Anne which is the Conception of the Mother of God.

The fact that we already and liturgically celebrate her Conception MEANS that she was sanctified from the beginning of her existence - only the feasts of Saints may be celebrated.

The Orthodox icon of the Conception of St Ann, according to the OCA website, is like the Western picture of Our Lady of Grace with Sts. Joachim and Anna on either side.

Alex

All members of the Catholic Communion are required to accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church including the Filioque and the Purgatory.

But this does not meant that the Filioque is not consistent with the Orthodox faith. The main reasons of the disputes are because of terminology. The words for "Procession" in the Greek version refer to the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, being the Father the "sole principle without principle", while the Latins by adding the Filioque (which was an arbitrary decission) adhered to what St. Cyril, and also the Latin Fathers said, meaning that the principle belongs only to the Father, but that the Spirit procceeds from the consubstantial communion between Father and Son.

Dear Snoopers,

Yes and no . . .

(Since when are you such an expert on Catholicism? Yes, I know - since I became an expert on Orthodoxy . . . ).

All members of the Eastern Catholic Communion do NOT recite the Filioque in the Creed - that is up to their bishops in any event.

We accept that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. We also accept, as does the Latin Church, that it the procession of the Spirit from the Father is different from that from the Son. Even by the Latin Church's estimation, that is already a stated distinction between the Son and the Spirit within the internal life of the Trinity.

It is not so much that the Eastern Catholic Churches must adhere to the Filioque but that we have come to see in the Filioque a statement that, when understood as the RC Church actually understands it, is not at variance with the Eastern theology.

But the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed is another matter - it should be removed.

And when was "purgatory" ever affirmed as an infallible doctrine? At best, it is a Latin perspective on what happens to the soul after death and on prayer for the dead.

The East has always believed and practiced what the West prefers to define dogmatically.

Alex

so....if rome was wrong in inserting filioque in the creed, doesnt that make them heretical? thus no church should be in communion with a heretical one? just curious. i personally believe in the filioque for it has scriptural basis.

The answer to our first quesion is: No!
What, precisely, do you mean by "wrong"; or, for that matter by "filioque". This single word in the Creed has been given three distinct interpretations by noted Orthodox writer Fr. John Romanides, who suggests that one or two may be heterodox, but the other fully Orthodox. The situation was best summarized, IMO, by the Bishops at Brest.

I just love it when people outside of the Catholic Church speak up and tell us what we must believe to be Catholic. :rolleyes:

I know the feeling, David. I feel the same way when those outside the communion of the Eastern Orthodox Church do the same thing to the Orthodox.

OrthodoxEast