The Symbol of the Faith

“The Symbol of the Faith must be preserved inviolate, as at its origin.”

-Saint Mark of Ephesus (15th century)

I have a question (for both Orthodox and Catholics)

I am confused… I recently heard that there are “Old Catholics” who are not in communion with Rome.

“The Old Catholic Churches reject the doctrine of papal infallibility; thus they reject the dogmatic status of the teachings promulgated in the Roman Catholic Church by such means, namely the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. While Old Catholics affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist, they do not emphasize transubstantiation as the sole dogmatic explanation for this presence. Old Catholics generally refrain from using filioque and deum de deo clauses in the Nicene Creed and also reject a dogmatic understanding of Purgatory.”

So what’s their difference from Orthodox? Can anyone help me?

Solutions to Problems That Don’t Exist

Historically, Western Christianity has developed four major theories of atonement.

1. Will There Be the Devil to Pay?

The first significant unbiblical theory of atonement is called the “ransom” or “bargain” theory. Its position is that in the Fall, Adam and Eve sold humanity to the devil. Because of this, we have all come under the devil’s ownership, and justice demands he must be paid a ransom for our freedom. From this idea comes the expression, “There will be the devil to pay.”

The solution presented in this theory is that God tricks the devil into accepting Jesus’ death as a ransom. Death and Hades could not maintain a hold on Jesus, but His sacrifice and death nevertheless satisfied the devil’s claim for justice. In providing Himself as the sacrificial Lamb of God, Jesus has freed fallen humanity from the devil’s claim over us. This view dominated Western Christianity during the first thousand years after Christ.

2. A Payment to Appease an Angry God?

In the eleventh century, Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote, Why Did God Become Man? This critique of the ransom/bargain theory resulted in its virtual abandonment. Anselm’s critique held that the devil is an outlaw and has no claim on humanity. Thus God does not have to pay him anything in order to free us.

Read More

Why Catholic priests are not allowed to get married?

I have watched the Thorn Birds many times, which is a pretty nice mini series. There I saw this priest’s love (Richard Chamberlain’s) with Meggie and I really wondered why priests are not allowed to get marry?

Dear Catholic friends, can you explain why is this happens? Because in this issue I do not have many knowledge and I really wanted to learn the Catholic point of view in this issue!

I searched and I found why some Orthodox clergy categories are married and why (copy-paste from http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/30/) :

“Apparently there is some confusion between the requirements for priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church, and the requirements in the Eastern Orthodox Church. In Orthodoxy it is true that priests cannot get married, but this is a misleading way to phrase things. Married men may be ordained to the presbyterate (become a priest) if they are qualified, but a man who has been ordained to priesthood, and who is single (celibate), cannot get married. A man must make a decision regarding his state of life and ministry (married or celibate) before his ordination as deacon or presbyter (priest), and then may not change.

This has been the historical position of the Church all the way back to ancient times. There have been married priests, and even married bishops at times, all the way back to the Apostles.”

Thank you all in advance for your answer! :)

In Christ

Filioque

 bankston replied to your post: I believe…

Could you summarize why the Filioque split the Church? When I’ve heard it explained I’ve just shrugged. I’ve never been able to get worked up about it either way.

Hello!

Though this is a controverial issue and I could post many links with large articles about it, I prefer to post something which is quite short and easy to understand. 

Objections on doctrinal grounds

• It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in John 15:26: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit’s procession in terms of the Father.

• The justifications for including the filioque in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as “light of light, very God of very God,” and so forth. The Spirit also “with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified.” Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in “one God.”

• The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit’s procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.

• Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the filioque into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church’s unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.

Objections on canonical and historical grounds

• Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of inserting the filioque into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at Nicea and its subsequent revision at Constantinople, the decision to include the filioque in the Creed was not done by an Ecumenical Council. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589).

• Rome resisted the inclusion of the filioque for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the filioque began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in filioque. Later, however, Rome contradicted its previous more Orthodox stance by the promulgation of the filioque, thus anathematizing its own spiritual forebears.

A book about the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches

His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches

A comprehensive, objective, scholarly and yet easy-to-read presentation of the differences, both historical, theological and liturgical between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The ideal complement (or even antidote) to such books as Upon this Rock; Jesus, Peter and the Keys; Two Paths; Popes and Patriarchs; The Primacy of Peter; etc. Discusses Peter’s Primacy and Apostolic Succession, Ecclesiology, Infallibility, the Filioque, Divorce, Celibacy, etc

About the “Pope” tab

Orthodox Christians do not accept pope, they have a first bishop (the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople), but not an infallible head with absolute authority over all the faithful (You can find out why here).

But it doesn’t mean that I felt good when today I saw in the “pope” tab many bad things about him and in general about Catholicism. Yes, we may not agree, as well as someone does not agree with Orthodoxy or another denomination, but it’s not correct to laugh at them. Not at all.