Catholic

[trifecta]

Greetings banished!

trifecta-

I agree with the Orthodox about Vatican II.

It's Vatican I that I have a problem with.

I don't know how they could justified going against the Creed of St Athanasius? "Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost for ever."

You may have heard of the saying of St. Vincent of Lerins--the faith is "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all".    The Creed of Saint Athanasius was a local affirmation that only curriculated in the West (I think Spain mainly.) and therefore, would not qualify under St. Vincent's criteria.  Firstly, it was not written by St. Athanasius (whom we love a lot), and secondly, it was not approved by any ecumenical council (I don't know if it was approved by a western council.) and therefore does not hold universal authority. Thirdly, it contains the filioque, and that we definitely reject.

[banished]

Greetings banished!

trifecta-

I agree with the Orthodox about Vatican II.

It's Vatican I that I have a problem with.

I don't know how they could justified going against the Creed of St Athanasius? "Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost for ever."

You may have heard of the saying of St. Vincent of Lerins--the faith is "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all".    The Creed of Saint Athanasius was a local affirmation that only curriculated in the West (I think Spain mainly.) and therefore, would not qualify under St. Vincent's criteria.  Firstly, it was not written by St. Athanasius (whom we love a lot), and secondly, it was not approved by any ecumenical council (I don't know if it was approved by a western council.) and therefore does not hold universal authority. Thirdly, it contains the filioque, and that we definitely reject.

I live in California so I'm more tuned into the Spanish and Our Lady of Guadalupe, That is probably why St Athanasius comes to mind.  We used to say the Creed of St Athanasius on Trinity Sunday before Vatican II, but it was not included in the modern NO Mass.  St Athanasius went out the window with the Latin Mass, communion cloths, and communion rails. I always thought that St Athanasius was the Doctor of the church? I don't remember anything about St Vincent of Lerins.  Was he under the Church of Rome or the Eastern Church?

[winsome]

Greetings banished!

trifecta-

I agree with the Orthodox about Vatican II.

It's Vatican I that I have a problem with.

I don't know how they could justified going against the Creed of St Athanasius? "Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost for ever."

You may have heard of the saying of St. Vincent of Lerins--the faith is "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all".    The Creed of Saint Athanasius was a local affirmation that only curriculated in the West (I think Spain mainly.) and therefore, would not qualify under St. Vincent's criteria.  Firstly, it was not written by St. Athanasius (whom we love a lot), and secondly, it was not approved by any ecumenical council (I don't know if it was approved by a western council.) and therefore does not hold universal authority. Thirdly, it contains the filioque, and that we definitely reject.

I live in California so I'm more tuned into the Spanish and Our Lady of Guadalupe, That is probably why St Athanasius comes to mind.  We used to say the Creed of St Athanasius on Trinity Sunday before Vatican II, but it was not included in the modern NO Mass.  St Athanasius went out the window with the Latin Mass, communion cloths, and communion rails. I always thought that St Athanasius was the Doctor of the church? I don't remember anything about St Vincent of Lerins.  Was he under the Church of Rome or the Eastern Church?

St. Vincent Lerins lived in southern Gaul (now France) in the 5th century, well before the split between east and west.

He wrote this excellent piece about the development of dcotrine:

“Is there to be no development of Doctrine in Christ’s Church? Certainly there should be great development.
Who could be so grudging towards his fellow-men and so hostile to God as to try to prevent it? But care should be taken to ensure that it is development of the faith and not alteration. Development implies that each point of doctrine is expanded within itself, while alteration suggests that a thing has been changed from what it was into something different..
It is desirable that development takes place……….But it must be growth within the framework of its own nature, that is to say it is development within the framework of the same dogma and of the same meaning…..
The limbs of infants are tiny, while those of young men are large, but they are the same limbs. The man has no more parts to his body than the little child…as a result it can be said that nothing new is produced in old men that was not already present in an undeveloped form when they were boys…..
But if the human form is changed into some shape that is not of its own kind, or at least if something is added or taken away from the full complement of its members, then the body must perish, or become a monster or at least be weakened in some way……So then, when something evolves from those first beginnings, as from seeds, it should now be received with joy and cultivated with care.”

[banished]

Greetings banished!

trifecta-

I agree with the Orthodox about Vatican II.

It's Vatican I that I have a problem with.

I don't know how they could justified going against the Creed of St Athanasius? "Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost for ever."

You may have heard of the saying of St. Vincent of Lerins--the faith is "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all".    The Creed of Saint Athanasius was a local affirmation that only curriculated in the West (I think Spain mainly.) and therefore, would not qualify under St. Vincent's criteria.  Firstly, it was not written by St. Athanasius (whom we love a lot), and secondly, it was not approved by any ecumenical council (I don't know if it was approved by a western council.) and therefore does not hold universal authority. Thirdly, it contains the filioque, and that we definitely reject.

I have been using the "Filioque" in my prayer life without realizing it until now.  I sometimes go direct to the Father and ask that the Holy Spirit have the freedom in me to bring forth his son Jesus.  When praying for a person who seems weak in his faith I have been using the "Filioque".  This the first time I came in contact with that word.  Wonder how I picked up that prayer habit? Why do Orthodox reject the filioque, becasue I can always change the way I pray.

[Basherbelding]

Yes, it makes a difference.
 
John 3:5  "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
 
If you have been baptized under the sign of water through the power of the Holy Spirit in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, within any Christian tradition, that is sufficient.  It need not be Catholic.

What does this mean? Does this mean because i have been christened a Chatholic i cannot enter the Kingdom of God?

[banished]

Yes, it makes a difference.
 
John 3:5  "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
 
If you have been baptized under the sign of water through the power of the Holy Spirit in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, within any Christian tradition, that is sufficient.  It need not be Catholic.

What does this mean? Does this mean because i have been christened a Chatholic i cannot enter the Kingdom of God?

I already explained that yesterday.  If you take John 3:16 out of text you will go into Heaven with the Protestants as Born Again, and if want to go with all of John 3 as Baptism then you will go in with the Catholics.  The choice is yours, but if you go with the Catholics it is a renewable process until the day you die.  If you are old enough to be on the Internet you are old enough to proceed with the Sacraments of the Catholic Church if you go that route.  As a Catholic you can't just sit there and do nothing and expect salvation, becasue you are not Born Again like the Protestants.  I think at this stage in your life you had better do what your parents tell you to do.

[Basherbelding]

When your said then you will go in with the Chatholics do you mean go into Heaven with them or go into Hell with them?

[banished]

When your said then you will go in with the Chatholics do you mean go into Heaven with them or go into Hell with them?

Someday we will all stand before Jesus Christ for his judgement.

[mclees8]

desertknight-

I am widowed from my first wife and never have been divorced and neither was she.  My present wife (who never was married) and I did what many single Catholics have done.  We went on a date to a Christian Crusade at the the Convention Center.  A popular TV Evangelist who asked for an alter call at the end of the service for people to become Born Again.  Most of the people got up out of their seat and went to the front.  We all prayed the Sinner's Prayer and were given a tract. Then we formed small individual groups and prayed together.  My present wife and I were in love with each other and decided to get married with the Born Again people we were with.  They seemed to be so happy and full of Jesus that we didn't think about what might happen to us at our home church.  Canon Law ? ? Huh?      

OK, I'll admit it.  You got me stumped.  I have never heard of a scenario like yours and am ignorant of specific Church doctrine as to what to say about it.  It's a new one on me.  It would seem to be more complicated than just one marriage outside the church, after you became a widower from the first one, that was conducted without proper dispensation, but maybe not.  It would also seem that your wife's refusal to participate in any convalidation, even though she would remain Protestant, adds to the conundrum.  St. Margaret Mary parish in Oakland is an excellent church with great and very orthodox priests so I would take heed as to what you were told in the confessional.  If you are living in a persistent state of sin without desire to make amends then it is the priest's duty to deny absolution and yours to pray and reflect on what to do about it.  I can only offer you a prayer, and I have done that.      
[/quote

What is convalidation?

[trifecta]

I have been using the "Filioque" in my prayer life without realizing it until now.  I sometimes go direct to the Father and ask that the Holy Spirit have the freedom in me to bring forth his son Jesus.

This doesn't sound so bad to me.   We can address any of the Trinity in our prayer life.  Their are Orthodox prayers directed towards all three.  

When praying for a person who seems weak in his faith I have been using the "Filioque".  This the first time I came in contact with that word.  Wonder how I picked up that prayer habit?

Must be from the west!  

Why do Orthodox reject the filioque, becasue I can always change the way I pray.

The problem with the filioque lies both in its theology and its history.   It comes from the Nicene Creed talking about the Holy Spirit.  The words were chosen very carefully from scripture.  (John 14:26)  Jesus says The Holy Spirit is sent from (proceeds from) the Father.   The Filioque is the phrase --and the son--which follows (in the Catholic Nicene Creed) "The Holy Spirit . . . who proceeds from the Father."   (I find it interesting that the Protestants go along with this Catholic change to the creed).  Theologically, the problem is that it puts the Father and Son above the Spirit, since they both have this power that the Holy Spirit can't do.  

The other problem with it is historical.  The original Nicene Creed did not include these three words.  In dealing with a heresy someone added the three words in the Creed.   Some popes outright rejected it, others said it was okay to do in local recitations of the creed, but the creed of the whole church should remain as the original version.  Eventually, the RCC decided that it was necessary and expelled the eastern church; this is the great schism.

Today, the Catholics feel less strongly about it, since their own eastern churches are allowed to delete the phrase from the Nicene Creed.   (Important sidebar: You have to wonder about a church that claims to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth when the filioque is mandated in one time and place and is optional in another.  )

Confused yet?  

The eastern churches were not thrilled to be excommunicated but there was another problem.  When the Creed was created, it was at an ecumenical council, in, you guessed it, Nicea.  Such a change would need to be approved by the entire church as it is gathered in council (see Acts 17).
Rome unilaterally imposed the filioque and that just not how the church historically did it.

  

[banished]

desertknight-

I am widowed from my first wife and never have been divorced and neither was she.  My present wife (who never was married) and I did what many single Catholics have done.  We went on a date to a Christian Crusade at the the Convention Center.  A popular TV Evangelist who asked for an alter call at the end of the service for people to become Born Again.  Most of the people got up out of their seat and went to the front.  We all prayed the Sinner's Prayer and were given a tract. Then we formed small individual groups and prayed together.  My present wife and I were in love with each other and decided to get married with the Born Again people we were with.  They seemed to be so happy and full of Jesus that we didn't think about what might happen to us at our home church.  Canon Law ? ? Huh?      

OK, I'll admit it.  You got me stumped.  I have never heard of a scenario like yours and am ignorant of specific Church doctrine as to what to say about it.  It's a new one on me.  It would seem to be more complicated than just one marriage outside the church, after you became a widower from the first one, that was conducted without proper dispensation, but maybe not.  It would also seem that your wife's refusal to participate in any convalidation, even though she would remain Protestant, adds to the conundrum.  St. Margaret Mary parish in Oakland is an excellent church with great and very orthodox priests so I would take heed as to what you were told in the confessional.  If you are living in a persistent state of sin without desire to make amends then it is the priest's duty to deny absolution and yours to pray and reflect on what to do about it.  I can only offer you a prayer, and I have done that.      
[/quote

What is convalidation?

mclees8-

I could explain the legal process of convalidation, because my first wife and I went through it. It would be a waste of time.  You can take my word for it, the Catholic Priests and Bishops are not married, so they don't understand the process.  When it comes to the romanitic relationship between married couples they are heartless bastards, and don't have a clue.  All they know is Canon Law and how to hang you with it. I will never give up my Catholic Faith, but I don't like convalidation with a priest's finger in my marrage.

[banished]

mclees8-

I could explain the legal process of convalidation, because my first wife and I went through it. It would be a waste of time.  You can take my word for it, the Catholic Priests and Bishops are not married, so they don't understand the process.  When it comes to the romanitic relationship between married couples they are heartless bastards, and don't have a clue.  All they know is Canon Law and how to hang you with it. I will never give up my Catholic Faith, but I don't like convalidation with a priest's finger in my marrage.

[desertknight]

What is convalidation?

It simply means Catholic Church recognition of a non-Catholic marriage.

[banished]

I have been using the "Filioque" in my prayer life without realizing it until now.  I sometimes go direct to the Father and ask that the Holy Spirit have the freedom in me to bring forth his son Jesus.

This doesn't sound so bad to me.   We can address any of the Trinity in our prayer life.  Their are Orthodox prayers directed towards all three.  

When praying for a person who seems weak in his faith I have been using the "Filioque".  This the first time I came in contact with that word.  Wonder how I picked up that prayer habit?

Must be from the west!  

Why do Orthodox reject the filioque, becasue I can always change the way I pray.

The problem with the filioque lies both in its theology and its history.   It comes from the Nicene Creed talking about the Holy Spirit.  The words were chosen very carefully from scripture.  (John 14:26)  Jesus says The Holy Spirit is sent from (proceeds from) the Father.   The Filioque is the phrase --and the son--which follows (in the Catholic Nicene Creed) "The Holy Spirit . . . who proceeds from the Father."   (I find it interesting that the Protestants go along with this Catholic change to the creed).  Theologically, the problem is that it puts the Father and Son above the Spirit, since they both have this power that the Holy Spirit can't do.  

The other problem with it is historical.  The original Nicene Creed did not include these three words.  In dealing with a heresy someone added the three words in the Creed.   Some popes outright rejected it, others said it was okay to do in local recitations of the creed, but the creed of the whole church should remain as the original version.  Eventually, the RCC decided that it was necessary and expelled the eastern church; this is the great schism.

Today, the Catholics feel less strongly about it, since their own eastern churches are allowed to delete the phrase from the Nicene Creed.   (Important sidebar: You have to wonder about a church that claims to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth when the filioque is mandated in one time and place and is optional in another.  )

Confused yet?  

The eastern churches were not thrilled to be excommunicated but there was another problem.  When the Creed was created, it was at an ecumenical council, in, you guessed it, Nicea.  Such a change would need to be approved by the entire church as it is gathered in council (see Acts 17).
Rome unilaterally imposed the filioque and that just not how the church historically did it.

  

trifecta,


I did a Google search and found that as a Christmatic I pray as an Orthodox and not Catholic. The Western Church believes that the Holy Spirit came from both the Father and Son and Eastern Church the Holy Spirit to be only of the Father. I sometimes go direct to the Father and ask that the Holy Spirit have the freedom in me to bring forth his son Jesus. I never ask the Father and the Son to give the Holy Spirt the freedon in to minister through me. Maybe that's why my prayers have been so effective in the past?

Another thing that I found with this Google Search was that the dispute over the Nicene Creed known as the (filioque) was a key issue for the split of the Orthodox from the Catholics. I think it's interesting that as many times as I have prayed the Nicene Creed during Mass, it did not effect my prayer life as a Christmatic.  My anointed prayers are Orthodox.  Thanks, you really helped me.

[winsome]

trifecta,


I did a Google search and found that as a Christmatic I pray as an Orthodox and not Catholic. The Western Church believes that the Holy Spirit came from both the Father and Son and Eastern Church the Holy Spirit to be only of the Father. I sometimes go direct to the Father and ask that the Holy Spirit have the freedom in me to bring forth his son Jesus. I never ask the Father and the Son to give the Holy Spirt the freedon in to minister through me. Maybe that's why my prayers have been so effective in the past?

Banished,

As a Charismatic have you come across, or been involved with, Catholic Charismatic Renewal?

Another thing that I found with this Google Search was that the dispute over the Nicene Creed known as the (filioque) was a key issue for the split of the Orthodox from the Catholics. I think it's interesting that as many times as I have prayed the Nicene Creed during Mass, it did not effect my prayer life as a Christmatic.  My anointed prayers are Orthodox.  Thanks, you really helped me.

I suppose we all have our views on this but personally I don't think the filioque clause was the key issue as such. My understanding is that it was the way it was inserted that upset the Eastern Church more than the actual clause. It was about authority.

And the big spilt came several hundred years after the filioque dispute. I think the main dispute was over the authority of the Pope, plus when the split came there were big personality clashes and the whole dispute at that time was badly handled on both sides.

But that just my two pennyworth.