Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

Cvengr and kosta50,

I see that you have some difficulty in following a reasoning and often twist the discussion.

Cvengr writes :” sin in marriage implicitly results in a separation in the anthropology of man and woman in marriage. This separation might also be explained as a destruction of a marriage.”

This reasoning is twisted logic because it supposes that the words “separation” and “destruction” have the same meaning.

May I ask according to which dictionary the two words have the same meaning?

Yes, the sin causes a separation, the catholic church says clearly that, in case of adultery for example the innocent spouse can “separate” from the other.

Also the devil is separeted from God, and does not love God. But God is still loving him, because God hates the sin but loves the sinner and loves His own creation.

However, no remarriage is possible because the marriage still holds although it is wounded.

kosta50, you cite +Justn Martyr, I am glad you have found one citation. However, +Justn Martyr seems to confirm what I am telling.

+Justn Martyr said that “According to our teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it is in accord with human law”.

See, +Justn Martyr is saying that the those who enter in a second marriage (when one spouse is still alive) even if it is according to the human law (or according to the Orthodoc Church’s novelties), are sinning.

Why do you have so much difficulty in finding a Father of the Church that would confirm the Orthodox custom about divorce and remarriage?

Moreover, +Justn Martyr said that even if one just desires to do an adultery, he is already adulterous if front of God.

According your logic, a spouse would have the right of divorcing and remarry even if s/he accuses the other spouse of a "thought adultery"!!!

Don't you see how redicolous would be if a man/woman goes to a Orthodox priest and tells him he/she wants to divorce and remarry because the other spouse just had a "thought" or a dream of having sex with onother person?

So, now you have to conclude that it is not necessary to have "consumed" an actual adultery, but simply a "thought" of it proves that the marriage is an illusion!!!!

The marriage is a union. Similar to fellowship with God.

Turning away from God implicitly dissolves that union of fellowship. It doesn;t remove the spirit life provided by God the Holy Spirit, because He remains indwelt in us even after post-salvation sin, but are not in fellowship with Him after sin (until repentence and confession) because we chose to rebel.

If one turns away, then a return is possible provided the mechansims are just.

I agree with the distinction you identify between destruction and separation, but the union is dissolved upon separation.

The human life in marriage is more than simple bodily union and mental agreement with one another. Our anthropology was originally perfectly made in body, soul, and spirit.

Without love, even a dream wherein the dreamer commits adultery might qualify for a divorce. This doesn't mean the adulterating dreamer isn't able to turn to God and confess sin and reenter into the marriage with his spouse. That is encouraged as a part of reconciliation in Scripture.

We are believers 24-7, even in our dreams.

May I ask you why people separate from God? Because they love Him or because they hate Him? You are so blinded by legalisms that you fail to ask "where is love?"

Let's forget about a spouse for a moment and ask ourselves do you call it love if you wish you had someone else's child and not the one you have? I'd say if you long for someone else's child, you don't love your own.

The same goes for spouses. Or God. When love is gone, there is no God either.

You mean to tell me that marriage is marriage if there is love in it or not? Just because God loves the guilty and the innocent just the same? What is marriage to you, in your "straight" logic nic206?

Is a marriage marriage if it is loveless? Is our relationship with God a fellowship with Him if we hate Him, or is it a divorce from Him? You are stuck on labels. You haven't even gotten to the logic part.

Just as God doesn't force us to come to Him but invites us lovingly, so neither is there any reason to believe that marriage is captivity created to hold man in it against his will. God respects human will. He gave it to us and He respects it even if doesn't have to. God does not send us to hell. We do. Love does not impose.

A for the St. Justin (Martyr) it is very clear that he is equating even as much as lusting in your thoughts as no different than actually "doing it."

Is that ridiculous? Yes it is ridiculous to think that one could ask for a divorce and re-marriage based on one's suspicion, but I have news for you: Jewish laws provided for just than kind of ridiculousness. An Old Covenant Jew could divorce his wife for any reason, in fact, including suspicion that she looked at someone. That's why our Lord put an end to such practices, but He also tempered that with economy of mercy. Do no harm is much more important and loving than perpetuating torture because "it's the law." Next time ask yourself "where's love in it?" and you will know if it's from God or not.

Or, if you cannot unswer, at least acnowledge that the "so-called" Orthodox Church has departed from the apostolic tradition on this point, while the Catholic Church didn't

I know only one thing: the Orthodox Church includes divorce for special cases. I know for a fact that at least two Byzantine Emperors divorced while the Church was still united, one of whom was Constantine VI (c. 770 AD) and re-married immediately thereafter and neither one was ex-communicated by the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Pope in Rome (and the Pope was already heavily compromised with Franks and had no reason to be nice to the Emperor; and the pope's weren't as many papal letters show precisely at that time).

Many Fathers stated their feelings and opinions about the issue of divorce but, as far as I know, the Church never ruled on the issue of divorce as such.

The issue of divorce was never an issue handled by an Ecumenical Council, and was never a matter of theological insults from the West as it seems to be today. The fact that divorces were recognized (and for a short time they were granted in the west as well), means that it was a matter of discipline and not theology.

The Fathers did not individually decide what is the official faith and dogma. That was the job of Ecumenical Councils. The Councils dealt with issues such as Christology and Holy Trinity, but never on divorce. Emperor Justinian (6th c.) did issue a law banning divorce, but that was a civil law as far as I know.

It was designated to protect women, just as one can interpret Christ's teaching to be, given Jewish divorce practices. Prudent laws always leave room for exception and in the Case of Christ it is mercy which the Orthodox Church uses in the form of economy.

I can only suggests that you contact the Pope on his way to Turkey and, like the troll before you, make sure to tell him to bring this up at the meeting in Instanbul. Tell him to tell the Ecumenical Patriarch that the "so-called" Orthodox Church excuses adultery.

You should be in pain just thinking that the Pope is going to visit a "so-called" Church and deal with "so-called" clergy who excuse adultery.

You don't seem to be able to accept that not everyone agrees with your "official truth." Please do not ping me or write to me or ask me anything any more.

Kosta50,

I am sorry that you felt offended, ok I apologize.

But you should not dismiss the history, if you want to understand this issue. Unfortunately the history tells us that the Orthodox Churches have progressivly adopted a laxer and laxer view on this issue under the pressure of the civil legislations. This did not happen in the West.

This is a short history. As you can see there are several clear declarations from synods and Popes.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

The synods of all centuries, and more clearly still the decrees of the popes, have constantly declared that divorce which annulled the marriage and permitted remarriage was never allowed. The Synod of Elvira (A.D. 300) maintains without the least ambiguity the permanence of the marriage bond, even in the case of adultery. Canon ix decreed: "A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity" (Labbe, "Concilia", II, 7). The Synod of Arles (314) speaks indeed of counseling as far as possible, that the young men who had dismissed their wives for adultery should take no second wife" (ut, in quantum possil, consilium eis detur); but it declares at the same time the illicit character of such a second marriage, because it says of these husbands, "They are forbidden to marry" (prohibentur nubere, Labbe, II, 472). The same declaration is to be found in the Second Council of Mileve (416), canon xvii (Labbe, IV, 331); the Council of Hereford (673), canon x (Labbe, VII, 554); the Council of Friuli (Forum Julii), in northern Italy (791), canon x (Labbe, IX, 46); all of these teach distinctly that the marriage bond remains even in case of dismissal for adultery, and that new marriage is therefore forbidden.

The following decisions of the popes on this subject deserve special mention: Innocent I, "Epist. ad Exsuper.", c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500): "Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides." Compare also with "Epist. ad Vict. Rothom.", xiii, 15, (P.L., XX, 479): "In respect to all cases the rule is kept that whoever marries another man, while her husband is still alive, must be held to be an adulteress, and must be granted no leave to do penance unless one of the men shall have died." The impossibility of absolute divorce during the entire life of married people could not be expressed more forcibly than by declaring that the permission to perform public penance must be refused to women who remarried, as to a public sinner, because this penance presupposed the cessation of sin, and to remain in a second marriage was to continue in sin.

Besides the adultery of one of the married parties, the laws of the empire recognized other reasons for which marriage might be dissolved, and remarriage permitted, for instance, protracted absence as a prisoner of war, or the choice of religious life by one of the spouses. In these cases, also, the popes pronounced decidedly for the indissolubility of marriage, e.g. Innocent I, "Epist. ad Probum", in P.L. XX, 602; Leo I, "Epist. ad Nicetam Aquil.", in P.L., LIV, 1136; Gregory I, "Epist. ad Urbicum Abb.", in P.L., LXXVII, 833, and "Epist. ad Hadrian. notar.", in P.L., LXXVII, 1169. This last passage, which is found in the "Decretum" of Gratian (C. xxvii, Q, ii, c. xxii), is as follows: "Although the civil law provides that, for the sake of conversion (i.e., for the purpose of choosing the religious life), a marriage may be dissolved, though either of parties be unwilling, yet the Divine law does not permit it to be done." That the indissolubility of marriage admits of no exception is indicated by Pope Zacharias in his letter of 5 January, 747, to Pepin and the Frankish bishops, for in chapter vii he ordains "by Apostolic authority", in answer to the questions that had been proposed to him: "If any layman shall put away his own wife and marry another, or if he shall marry a woman who has been put away by another man, let him be deprived of communion" [Monum. Germ. Hist.: Epist., III:Epist. Merovingici et Karolini ævi, I (Berlin, 1892), 482]

Council of Elvira

"Likewise, women who have left their husbands for no prior cause and have joined themselves with others, may not even at death receive communion"

(canon 8 [A.D. 300]).

"Likewise, a woman of the faith [i.e., a baptized person] who has left an adulterous husband of the faith and marries another, her marrying in this manner is prohibited. If she has so married, she may not at any more receive communion--unless he that she has left has since departed from this world"

(ibid., canon 9).

"If she whom a catechumen [an upbaptized person studying the faith] has left shall have married a husband, she is able to be admitted to the fountain of baptism. This shall also be observed in the instance where it is the woman who is the catechumen. But if a woman of the faithful is taken in marriage by a man who left an innocent wife, and if she knew that he had a wife whom he had left without cause, it is determined that communion is not to be given to her even at death"

(ibid., canon 10)

Nic, name-calling is not conducive to anything positive. I do not want to stoop to that level and start labeling the Roman Catholic Church with offensive words in return, so I would rather not continue if this is going to be our level of "discussion." Your apology is accepted.

Only the decisions of the General (Ecumenical) Councils were binding for the whole Church, East and West. The synods you mention are local councils. As such they were not binding for the whole Church. Since these were western synods, they applied to the Western Patriarchate, but not the remaining four (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch).

The same can be said of papal decrees. They had no juridical sway in other patriarchates because the Undivided Church of the first millennium of Christianity was not organized, nor pope-dominated as you want to believe. The Pope had no juridical authority over other Patriarchs. He was one of them, senior in honor, but not their lord.

The undivided Church was apostolic in its makeup: the patriarch stood in place of the major Apostles (The Bishop of Old Rome for +Peter and +Paul, the Bishop of Constantinople (New Rome) for +John and +James; the Bishop of jerusalem for +James; the Bishop of Antioch for +Peter; the Bishop of Alexandria for +Mark). They were equals. None lorded over the other. Peter was the "elder brother" who was respected and who had "head of the line privileges" for the lack of a better word, but lorded over none of the Patriarch.

The Synod of Elvira also dealt with the discipline of celibacy for the priests, I believe. The Western Patriarchate has, from the earliest days, favored celibacy although Latin clergy continued to be married way past the Great Schism in 1054, and even when they were forced to divorce their wives, that was done for economic reasons.

Clearly, the Synod of Elvira or Council of Hereford (Wales) were non binding on the East, and so were the papal statements regarding the marriage of clergy or divorce in general.

You say "Unfortunately the history tells us that the Orthodox Churches have progressively adopted a laxer and laxer view on this issue under the pressure of the civil legislations. This did not happen in the West."

It most certainly did the latest one being the Vatican II. Although the intention of the Vatican II was not chaos, the liberalization attributed to that paericualr Council has certainly been the driving force behind many of the abuses and until then unheard-of changes the Church was subjected to.

We could say (and we do) that the Latin Church introduced innovations theologically (filioque), eccelsiologically (host wafer, crossing with the whole palm, and numerous others) and in terms of discipline (prescribed celibacy for priests, fasting rules, etc.) that were not known to the Undivided Church.

But we do not let these differences become the ammunition for trading insults and discontent. There are always individuals who do and they are not doing anyone any favors, nor are they helping heal the rifts.

We must understand that our Lord did not leave us a Church, with a written Bible and canons. Everything about the Church is man-made. ;

This, we could say that everything in the Church is an innovation. The original Divine Liturgy was longer, much longer than it is today. Can we call modern Catholic fasting and shorter Mass something more "lax?" I would say, of course. So clearly, we Orthodox are not the only ones.

I am not denying your arguments and I am not saying you are wrong and we are right: I am simply telling you what we believe. Accept it and move on or dwell on it, I can't change it.

We prefer to use that which we have in common in order to get closer, rather than to exaggerate marginal differences and blow them out of proportion. Once the system is restored to its God-given union, we can deal with these issues much better through a general, binding Ecumenical Council.

Ok, I agree about the fact that insults do not help healing the rifts.

So, I hope you agree that calling the Easter Catholics with the offensive title of "Uniats" should be dismissed by the Orthodoxs. Also calling the Catholic Church with the diminutive title of "Roman" Catholic Church should be dismissed as well (only the Catholic Church of the city of Rome can be properly called "Roman").

About the General (Ecumenical) Councils, they were dealing with fundamental issues of faith and morals on which there was a disagreement during a particular moment of history. The fact that the ecumenical councils do not deal with this issue explicitly, but several western synods have clearly thought on this issue and that several Greek Fathers were telling the same thing, would suggest that there was no disagreement on this issue during the first centuries.

The General (Ecumenical) Council of Trent has dogmatically thought on this

Dogmatic Decision on the Indissolubility of Marriage -- The Council of Trent was the first to make a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v: "If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of willful desertion; let him be anathema", and in canon vii: "If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party -- not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery -- can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema." The decree defines directly the infallibility of the church doctrine in regard to indissolubility of marriage, even in the case of adultery, but indirectly the decree defines the indissolubility of marriage.

So, for the Catholic Church (not only the "Roman" Catholic Church) the issue is well defined.

About the Pope and the other patriarchs, the pope has never claimed to be the "Lord" of the other bishops both from the East and the West. There are several evidences that the Easter Bishops were appealing to the Pope when did not know how to deal with a problem. So, everybody agree that the Pope had the last word, not the the pope was their "Lord".

About the problem of "filioque" it is not correct that the formula was unknown in the East. In fact, it is improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the son and Father [St. Basil, Ep. cxxv; Ep. xxxviii (alias xliii) ad Gregor. fratrem; "Adv.Eunom.", I, xx, III, sub init.]

Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athan., Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; "De Incarn.", ix; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, "Adv. Eunom.", v, in P.G.., XXIX, 731; cf. Greg. Naz., Orat. xliii, 9).

Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Greg. Thaumat., "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufius, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphan., Haer., c. lxii, 4; Greg. Nyss. Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", ass. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.

The only Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John, xv, 26, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father.

See, the problem of "filioque" is quite simple.
Do you believe that the Father Loves the Son and that the Son loves the Father? If so, you are believing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

However, I agree that we cannot solve these problems here, and that there might be the need of to deal with these issues much better through a general, binding Ecumenical Council.

However, I believe there is the need to study history well before this future council.

So, I hope you agree that calling the Easter Catholics with the offensive title of "Uniats" should be dismissed by the Orthodoxs

The name "Uniat" was used by some Orthodox posters clearly using quotation marks to indicate that it is not a real term. The Uniat name itself was used by the Catholic Church to denote formerly-Orthodox Christians who are now part of the "Eastern Catholic" or "Greek Catholic" fold. We do not recognize any of those. Sorry. That's why we use the shorter term. Please explain why the word "Uniat" is "offensive?"

The "Russian Greek-Catholic Church of SS Peter and Paul – Uniat"

Google search yields pages of "Uniat" churches posted by — Christians who call themsleves "Uniats."

In addition to a reasonable explanation as to why this is "offensive" although it is a Catholic word and still being used, I would like to know what other names are "palatable."

Also calling the Catholic Church with the diminutive title of "Roman" Catholic Church should be dismissed as well (only the Catholic Church of the city of Rome can be properly called "Roman")

You are a Roman Catholic Church to us because you belong to the Roman (Western) Patriarchate, with the See in Rome. The Orthodox Church is also Catholic, it has valid clergy and apostolic authority through succession and valid sacraments. The terminology is designed to distinguish without confusion.

several western synods have clearly thought on this issue and ... several Greek Fathers were telling the same thing, would suggest that there was no disagreement on this issue during the first centuries

Dogma was proclaimed by ecumenical councils, not individual Fathers or local councils. Obviously, the Greek side was not practicing the same habits as those in the West. The Orthodox Church recognizes divorce, yours doesn't. So, then what does that mean?

We do not believe that God imposes anything and we also believe that God finds room for mercy even if means "breaking" the law. You don't have to agree with that. That's your prerogative.

Council of Trent has dogmatically thought on this

The Council of Trent is not binding on the Orthodox. The only valid Ecumenical Councils were the first Seven, with both Churches attending.

The Pope always enjoyed primacy of honor and was sought after for religious opinions in existing disputes because the popes of Old Rome maintained strict Orthodoxy. There are many Roman popes who are Orhtodox saints.

I will not discuss filioque as this is another can of worms. This ha been rehashed on many different threads previously. The latest Catholic-Orthodox Commission's finding, however, favors the Greek side. This is because, regardless of the double procession which the Orthodox naturally hold to be true, the Holy Spirit, as regards to His existence, proceeds form the Father alone.

However, I believe there is the need to study history well before this future council

The people who will be talking to each other at the next Ecumenical Council know their history and theology. Just remember, reunion can happen only, as +BXVI said "without absorption or conversion." It will be curious to see where that takes us.

"We do not recognize any of those. Sorry." ?

Don't you realize how offensive might be such a statement?
Don't you realize that you look like the Turks that want to enter in Europe but at the same time do not want to recognize Cyprus that is part of Europe? !!!!

Well, we do, and they are fully Catholic and you should call them with their name that is "Eastern Catholic" or "Greek Catholic".

"You are a Roman Catholic Church to us because you belong to the Roman (Western) Patriarchate, with the See in Rome."

I am sorry, that is not correct. There is no "Roman Patriarchate". The Patriarchate is called "Patriarchate of the West". And in any case there are millions of Catholics who do not belong to the Western Patriarchate.

So, I invite you to call the Catholic Church with the name that it has always had, that is "Catholic Church," given the fact that local churches of all rites and traditions belong to it.

"The Council of Trent is not binding on the Orthodox."
But, it is so for the Catholic Church.

"when the popes of Old Rome maintained strict Orthodoxy,"

Well, Jesus has promised to +Peter strict Orthodoxy, not to Emperor Constantine that moved the capital to Byzantium.

Honestly I believe that the Orthodoxs should realized that the time of the emperors is gone, but the See of Peter is still there where +Peter has established it and it is still helping the Orthodox brothers although they never say a "thank you" and accuse the Catholic Church of ridiculous things such as the question of "Filioque" that all Greek Fathers would have agree with.

Don't you realize how offensive might be such a statement?

Non-recognition is not offensive in and of itself.

Well, we do, and they are fully Catholic and you should call them with their name that is "Eastern Catholic" or "Greek Catholic"

How can they be fully Catholic when they use the Creed without the filioque?

If they are fully Catholic, then they should be referred to as just Catholic. And since they belong to the Vatican, they should be distinguished as Roman Catholic. The fact that they use Eastern rites and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is irrelevant. After all, I am always told that Catholic is Catholic.

Besides, if that is so, then you should be referring to the Eastern Orthodox as Catholics as well. But you don't. The "fullness" of catholicity in your mindset is being in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that is the only factor that makes all Catholics, well, Roman Catholic. Again, the Bishop of Rome does not have monopoly on the Catholic Faith.

But, [the Council of Trent is binding] for the Catholic Church

Again if you mean the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, than that's not so. It is binding to Catholic Church in the West and all its member Churches. The Orthodox Christians did not partake in that Council.

You are forgetting again, that our clergy is valid, our sacraments are valid and our apostolic succession gives us the apostolic authority that your Church also claims — and recognizes. We are just not in communion with your Bishop of Rome because the west changed its theology and no longer professes the same Orthodox Faith as we continue to do.

Until such time that we can resolve our theological differences, we can not possibly be in communion with each other, not out of some meanness but simply because inter-communion is a sign and not a means of achieving unity in faith. None of which makes any one of us less Catholic, just separate.

Inter-communion at this point is impossible. That does not mean we do not recognize the primacy of honor of +Peter's successors; we just can't be in communion with him.

Honestly I believe that the Orthodoxs should realized that the time of the emperors is gone, but the See of Peter is still there where +Peter has established it and it is still helping the Orthodox brothers although they never say a "thank you"

Let me say we very much appreciate Pope Benedict's fraternal overtures, as he gives everyone in the East as well as in the West a ray of hope that some movement towards eventual convergence is possible and is being actively worked on.

But, do not for a moment assume that we need you! Our Church survived despite oppression and without anyone's help because it is in the heart of its believers. For centuries under the Ottoman rule, the Serbs, Turks, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc. kept their faith, as did the Russians under godless communism for almost a century of oppression. No one was there to help and "give us water."

Do not give if you expect something in return. True gifts are those that are given without any expectations and without offense if no gratitude is expressed. We do not need your charity. We want your friendship and fraternal love, but not charity.

But if you are going to approach us as brothers, then you need to step down from your high horse. You say the emperors are gone. True. So are the Franks. And with them gone, there should be no imperial or haughty anything, but apostolic fraternity among all Catholic Christians, East and West.

"How can they be fully Catholic when they use the Creed without the filioque?"

Well, the Catholic Church has never imposed the Eastern Catholic Church to include the filioque in the creed. This is because with or without it the faith would be the same.

The truth is that the Orthodox party wanted to have an exuse to separate from Rome (under the emperor pressure that wanted to controll the Church) and accused Rome of a meaningless theological accusation.

These are few citations from the Latin and Greek fathers of the Church that say the same thing and support the filioque.

Hilary of Poitiers
"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Ambrose of Milan
"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" ((The Holy Spirit , 1:2:120 [A.D. 381]).

The Athanasian Creed
"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).

Augustine
"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

Cyril of Alexandria
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

Council of Toledo
"We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible.
. . . The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son" (Council of Toledo [A.D. 447]).

You always accuse the Catholic Church of having changed the faith, but it is me who continuously cite the fathers of the Church. When, I asked you a citation that would support your claim (divorce and remarriage, etc) you have done us nothing.

Are you so sure that it is the Catholic Church to have changed the faith? Why do the Fathers agree with the Catholic Church?

"No one was there to help and "give us water."

Are you sure for that? The Popes have done what they could to help the Orthodox from the Turks and the communist. When Constantinople collapsed it was defended by Catholic armies that were present even if small in number because of the arrogance of the Orthodox patriarch, The Ottoman empire was defeated and then collapsed because defeated by Western and Catholic armies, the communist collapsed because of the Western and Catholic pressure. Finally, the Catholic Church has always prayed from the Orthodox.

But you never say “thank you.”

Well, the Catholic Church has never imposed the Eastern Catholic Church to include the filioque in the creed

That is not true. It is only recently (check Internet sites) that Eastern Catholics and Melkites have dropped the filioque.

The truth is that the Orthodox party wanted to have an excuse to separate from Rome

That's pathetic. You have no proof of such a claim, because there isn't one. I really don't think you know the detailed history of the Church in the first millennium.

and accused Rome of a meaningless theological accusation

You also do not understand the issue of filioque. But as I said, that's another thread.

These are few citations from the Latin and Greek fathers of the Church that say the same thing and support the filioque

Not as regards His {the Holy Spirit's] existence.

You also do not understand the difference between the His Origin and his precedence as manifested in Divine Economy of our salvation.

The Fathers were speaking of the latter. You are mixing apples and oranges because you don't understand what filioque means. The Fathers understood it. That's obvious from their writing. They did not talk about His eternal coming into existence, which is from the Father alone.

The Popes have done what they could to help the Orthodox from the Turks and the communist.

By establishing the Latin Empire in Constantinople, or by encouraging and supporting Maria Theresa of Austria to create what you now insist on calling "Eastern Catholic" churches, or by beatifying cardinal Stepinac of Croatia?

Thanks would be appropriate if what the Popes offered was truly help. Thanks were expressed for returning the relics of two saints by JPII.

Unlike you and some other members of your Church, who may be actually on the periphery of it, most of the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are content with putting the past behind us and seeking fraternal recognition of one and the same Church in each other, but without confusion or absorption.

You may find it quite joyful to do the same. I hope you do. I will now end my dialog with you on this positive note, in hopes that we can meet next time as brothers and not as adversaries.

Kosta50, this is what Orthodox Bishops are saying right now on the filioque issue.

*****
Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
******

As you see, it is necessary humble study to understand the things. But, of course you think to understand this issue even better than those Orthodox bishops who are sincerly trying to understand it!!!

About again the correct interpretation of filioque is quite evident that the Catholic Church has never intended that the the Holy Spirit's "existence" derives from the Son as if the Son is a second "Archai" in the Trinity.

Nothing could be clearer than that the theologians of the West never had any idea of teaching a double source of the Godhead. The doctrine of the Divine Monarchy was always intended to be preserved, and while in the heat of the controversy sometimes expressions highly dangerous, or at least clearly inaccurate, may have been used, yet the intention must be judged from the prevailing teaching of the approved theologians. And what this was is evident from the definition of the Council of Florence, which, while indeed it was not received by the Eastern Church, and therefore cannot be accepted as an authoritative exposition of its views, yet certainly must be regarded as a true and full expression of the teaching of the West. "The Greeks asserted that when they say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, they do not use it because they wish to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them, as they say, that the Latins assert the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son, as from two principles and by two spirations, and therefore they abstain from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But the Latins affirm that they have no intention when they say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son to deprive the Father of his prerogative of being the fountain and principle of the entire Godhead, viz. of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; nor do they deny that the very procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, the Son derives from the Father; nor do they teach two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is one only principle, one only spiration, as they have always asserted up to this time."

This further prove the importance of humble study and carefully listening.

The question of Filioque is nothing that a misconception

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.