Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: «In Unitate Fidei» omits filioque  (Read 113990 times)

0 Members and 79 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Geremia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
  • Reputation: +1668/-373
  • Gender: Male
    • St. Isidore e-book library
«In Unitate Fidei» omits filioque
« on: November 29, 2025, 04:04:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • In Unitate Fidei §8:
    Quote from: Leo XIV
    Consequently, the Creed took the name “Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed,” and now states: “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”10
    "[N]ow"‽ "Now" is 2025, not 425 A.D.!

    fn. 10 reads:
    Quote from: Leo XIV
    The statement “and proceeds from the Father and the Son ( Filioque)” is not found in the text of Constantinople; it was inserted into the Latin Creed by Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 and is a subject of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.
    Logged
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co

    Online WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1192
    • Reputation: +859/-123
    • Gender: Male
    Re: «In Unitate Fidei» omits filioque
    « Reply #1 on: November 29, 2025, 04:18:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • If by "subject of Orthodox-Catholic ('Catholic-Orthodox' wouldn't be very ecuмenical) dialogue" he means:

    The Church: "Assent to the Filioque"

    The "Orthodox": "No"

    Then yeah, he's right :laugh1:

    Logged
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5601
    • Reputation: +4212/-291
    • Gender: Female
    Re: «In Unitate Fidei» omits filioque
    « Reply #2 on: November 29, 2025, 07:51:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • All anyone has to do is read the Athenasian Creed which was written 500 years before the Great Schism of 1054.
    "Pope" Bob remains in apostasy- surprise!

    "The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

    Could it be more clear?
    (and is of couse, Catholic Dogma).
    Logged

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5601
    • Reputation: +4212/-291
    • Gender: Female
    Re: «In Unitate Fidei» omits filioque
    « Reply #3 on: November 29, 2025, 08:02:10 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Even the Tetragrammaton (Hebrew letters of God), displays who the Trinity is with it's four relationships. After both God the Father and Christ , the spiration of the Holy Ghost is shown to proceed from each of them.

    YHVH
    Yod- meaning the Creator or the Divine
    Heh- meaning the breath or spiration of God ( with the sound heh/ breath)
    Vav- meaning the connection of God to Man- as in the God-Man Christ
    Heh- again meaning the spiration of the God /Man

    How dare even suggest at leaving the Filioque out.
    Logged

    Online Twice dyed

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 799
    • Reputation: +311/-31
    • Gender: Male
    • Violet, purple, and scarlet twice dyed. EX: 35, 6.
    Re: «In Unitate Fidei» omits filioque
    « Reply #4 on: November 29, 2025, 08:40:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2025-11/council-nicaea-history-arianism-divinity-christ.html


    "...Nonetheless, the ecclesial  unity that marked the Council of Nicaea stands as a witness to and inspiration for the ecuмenical journey Christians are making today."

    *****
    Hmmm ... So they invent a new meaning for the word "ecuмenical", ...Vatican II false doctrine # 666,667. Their Agenda not too hidden. 
    🙏
    Logged
    The measure of love is to love without measure.
                                     St. Augustine (354 - 430 AD)

    Offline ihsv

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 753
    • Reputation: +1049/-137
    • Gender: Male
    Re: «In Unitate Fidei» omits filioque
    « Reply #5 on: Yesterday at 10:00:47 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • There are numerous examples showing that the Church taught and professed the Filioque long before the schism of 1054. For example, Pope Hormisdas, who healed the Acacian schism between East and West in 519, later wrote to Emperor Justin with a clear and explicit affirmation of the Filioque.

    Letter LXXIX to Justin, Emperor

    No one in Constantinople objected to it.

    Moreover, the Filioque was not the cause of the 1054 rupture. Michael Cerularius’ accusations against the West centered on comparatively minor disciplinary matters, such as the use of unleavened bread, fasting on Saturdays, clerical celibacy, and even Western priests shaving their beards. The Filioque was a marginal concern at the time and only later became a prominent point of controversy when a doctrinal justification was needed to perpetuate the ongoing schism.
    Logged
    Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. - Nicene Creed

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1389
    • Reputation: +621/-115
    • Gender: Male
    Re: «In Unitate Fidei» omits filioque
    « Reply #6 on: Yesterday at 10:23:54 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: josefamenendez on November 29, 2025, 08:02:10 PM
    Even the Tetragrammaton (Hebrew letters of God), displays who the Trinity is with it's four relationships. After both God the Father and Christ , the spiration of the Holy Ghost is shown to proceed from each of them.

    YHVH
    Yod- meaning the Creator or the Divine
    Heh- meaning the breath or spiration of God ( with the sound heh/ breath)
    Vav- meaning the connection of God to Man- as in the God-Man Christ
    Heh- again meaning the spiration of the God /Man

    How dare even suggest at leaving the Filioque out.

    Yes, and John 15:26 says:

     26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.
    cuм autem venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit de me;



    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47670
    • Reputation: +28203/-5285
    • Gender: Male
    Re: «In Unitate Fidei» omits filioque
    « Reply #7 on: Yesterday at 03:44:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • So, just like with the Co-Redemptrix, Prevost carfully dances around heresy.

    Unfortunately, it's easy to start shooting from the hip and declaring him guilty, but there's nothing strictly heretical in anything he said here or with Co-Redemptrix.

    1) with Co-Redemptrix, even pre-V2 theologians said the term was confusing because it required much explanation to avoid misconstruing the force of the prefix "Co-", and that's all the Tuchonian note said.  In a later clarification, he even said that it may be used in private, but not in the Church's public liturgy, again, due to the confusion it might cause

    2) with this here, nothing Prevost says is incorrect.  Note that he refers to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed NOW not having the Flioque.  That statement is factually correct.  It is in fact correct also that the Nicene Creed did not originally include the Flioque.  He's distinguishing the Constantinople version of the Nicene Creed from the one used by the Roman Church.  He rightly indicates that it was inserted by a certain Pope in the West.

    So, the mere fact that they're in "dialogue" over the point indicates that there's no agreement on it, and suggests that they have not simply conceded the point.  Yes, these statements can be considered scandalous by failing the condemn the Orthodox's heresy and implying that it might be merely "different point of view" rather than objective error ...

    but in both these cases they do carefully dance around explicit error.

    It's a shame that Trads are so desperate to find the heresy among the Conciliars because ... their main heresy that they practically advertise on their foreheads, and repeatedly teach ... is denial of EENS dogma.  But, alas, most Trads have fallen into that same heresy, so they're desperate to find some other explanation for the Conciliar heresy.  Look, it's Religious Liberty, or Co-Redemptrix, or Filioque, etc. ...

    No, it's EENS-denial, stupid.
    Logged

    Offline SkidRowCatholic

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 138
    • Reputation: +20/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: «In Unitate Fidei» omits filioque
    « Reply #8 on: Yesterday at 04:53:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 03:44:34 PM
    So, just like with the Co-Redemptrix, Prevost carfully dances around heresy.

    Unfortunately, it's easy to start shooting from the hip and declaring him guilty, but there's nothing strictly heretical in anything he said here or with Co-Redemptrix.

    1) with Co-Redemptrix, even pre-V2 theologians said the term was confusing because it required much explanation to avoid misconstruing the force of the prefix "Co-", and that's all the Tuchonian note said.  In a later clarification, he even said that it may be used in private, but not in the Church's public liturgy, again, due to the confusion it might cause

    2) with this here, nothing Prevost says is incorrect.  Note that he refers to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed NOW not having the Flioque.  That statement is factually correct.  It is in fact correct also that the Nicene Creed did not originally include the Flioque.  He's distinguishing the Constantinople version of the Nicene Creed from the one used by the Roman Church.  He rightly indicates that it was inserted by a certain Pope in the West.

    So, the mere fact that they're in "dialogue" over the point indicates that there's no agreement on it, and suggests that they have not simply conceded the point.  Yes, these statements can be considered scandalous by failing the condemn the Orthodox's heresy and implying that it might be merely "different point of view" rather than objective error ...

    but in both these cases they do carefully dance around explicit error.
    Agreed. but his particular heresy is implied in the case of "dancing" around the Filoque. All his statements and actions together amount to a denial that the Filoque is dogma. 
    Logged

    Offline SkidRowCatholic

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 138
    • Reputation: +20/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: «In Unitate Fidei» omits filioque
    « Reply #9 on: Yesterday at 05:00:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 03:44:34 PM
    It's a shame that Trads are so desperate to find the heresy among the Conciliars because ... their main heresy that they practically advertise on their foreheads, and repeatedly teach ... is denial of EENS dogma.  But, alas, most Trads have fallen into that same heresy, so they're desperate to find some other explanation for the Conciliar heresy.  Look, it's Religious Liberty, or Co-Redemptrix, or Filioque, etc. ...

    No, it's EENS-denial, stupid.
    Agreed, that the denial of EENS is the root heresy.

    But where I disagree is with the notion that Religious Liberty is something other than a denial of EENS.

    Religious Freedom as taught by Vatican II is nothing less than to say:

    "God gives man the right to follow his erring conscience and worship Him in whatever way seems best."

    Which is to say, "God has willed the diversity of religions."

    Which is to say "All religions are paths to God."

    The practical result of affirming the heresy of Religious Liberty is to deny EENS.

    This is not the only attack that can be leveled at EENS though,

    Others include;

    1) Holding up the opinion of implicit BOD as if it were dogma.
    2) Effacing the teaching on what being a member of the Church means.
    3) Denying the unity of the Church through using language such as "subsists in"
    etc.

    The heretics came at EENS from many angles...
    Logged
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »