www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Pope: Increase opportunities between Rome and Contantinople

Dear MalpanaGiwargis,

The Missal of St. Pius V was not the unilateral work of the Pope, nor was it his own initiative. Rather it was the Council Fathers who requested the Liturgy to be standardized as part of the remedy against Protestantism. One of the points brought up by detractors of Vatican 1 was the inordinate control that Pius IX had over the proceedings of the Council. In previous ecumenical Councils, such as Trent, the Fathers did everything and the Pope confirmed. At the Vatican Council, the Fathers suggested, and the final decision lay with the Pope (though this change in procedure was actually provided by none other than Hefele, simply for the sole purpose of establishing good order for the largest gathering of bishops in history thus far).

Thus it was at Trent. It was the Council fathers' initiative that the Liturgy should be standardized, and the Pope accordingly responded.

Blessings

Dear Peter J,

I seriously wonder where I stated "the fact that the Orthodox do not agree with the filioque is a reason for saying it in the creed."

Blessings

Dear mardukm,

Though the Council of Trent left the decision to the Pope, the two bulls promulgating the Breviary and the Missal, Quod a nobis (1568) and Quo primum (1570), respectively, are published in St. Pius V's name and on his authority, though he does mention the charge he was given by the Council. However, I still don't see how a bishop could lawfully change the Creed in his diocese after this point. In Quo primum, after permission for rites and usages 200 years or older to continue, we read:


Emphasis mine. And there is more language similar to the above in the bull. [papalencyclicals.net] Later Gallican changes seem to be contra legem, and were most likely tolerated for reasons of political expedience, not because the bishops were actually free to change the liturgical decisions of Rome. I think the bishops should be free to regulate the liturgy in their diocese, but what I would like and what is are different things!

Dear MalpanaGiwargis,

I'm not claiming the bishops can stop saying the filioque on their own authority. I don't believe individual bishops have the authority to countermand the prescriptions of an ecumenical council (though our canons permit bishops to grant dispensations according to need even from the universal laws of the Church).

My point was that the directives of the Pope were the directives of the Council as a whole, even if promulgated by his personal authority. There is no example here of a unilateral action by the Pope by which one can conclude that he has such UNILATERAL authority. When the Pope acts as primate of the Church universal, he necessarily acts FOR the Church, according to the needs OF the Church, not for himself nor his personal whims (not saying you are making such a claim, but others might think it).

Blessings

Dear Peter J,

That's a creative corruption of my statement. I suppose a polemic mind will naturally see polemics everywhere.

Blessings

I appreciate your rising-to-the-occasion.

Dear Marduk,

You raise a number of issues here and perhaps the last thing we need is yet another thread on the Filioque!

The Filioque was something the Latin Church introduced but not at Rome at first - you are absolutely correct.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that if the Pope wished to not change but to RETURN to the original Creed sans Filioque, he most certainly could. And he could do it for the entire Latin Church. It is also doubtless true that such a move would require a period of "education" etc. However, the Nicene Creed is not frquently used by the Latin Church, as is the Apostles' Creed, so other than some very traditionalist/ultramontanist RC's and their ilk, I doubt very much that Latin Catholics would be too concerned by that change. In any event, they are used to hearing from their hierarchy all about "returning to the Primitive usage" etc. They will probably be happy about such a return (as they would should Rome decide to unite with the Eastern world on the old calculation of Easter).

Here I'm talking ONLY about going back to the original Creed. The theology of the Filioque is an entirely separate matter.

It certainly CAN be understood in an heretical sense and this is how the Orthodox East has always understood the meaning of the western use of the Filioque.

But the Creed that we confess, its wording, can be one again (without disallowing Local usages and/or other creedal affirmations). And that is all we can say about that issue.

The Orthodox accept the Filioque ie. the temporal Mission of the Holy Spirit. But as the late Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff wrote, both sides could have the same original Creed AND accept that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son - without adding this to the Creed. "Through the Son" is a much more precise theological formulation than "And the Son" for reasons we all know.

The Filioque, at best, is an expression that derives from the Particular Latin theological/triadological tradition. It can be OK for the Latin Church, but not as something to be imposed on the entire Church. Again, the whole theology of the Filioque would have to be "re-presented" at any future union Council between East and West. The differences can be maintained without them being a reason for separation.

Alex

In the event that the clause was dropped, what would the actual consequences be? How would it be perceived?

It would depend, I suppose, by whom.

Trads would definitely see this as a "giving in" to the Orthodox (whom they already see as "schismatics") for little or no gain in terms of "getting them to come under Rome."

There are also those Catholics who just find any change suspicious.

However, Rome would have to issue a declaration or a letter of explanation as to why it has now chosen to use the original Creed liturgically.

Given the fact that "what is original" has usually been a kind of "standard of orthodoxy," there really shouldn't be a problem.

Unless, of course, one is suspicious of anything smacking of "returning to origins" in the aftermath of the Novus Ordo (which was, as we recall, likewise promoted as a liturgical return of sorts).

Rome is in the habit of making changes here and there all the time. I'm sure this one won't be ground-breaking should and when it occurs.

Alex

I would say that in the average Roman parish the priest would not say anything, the missalette would change the prayer at the beginning of the next church year and 99% of the parishioners would continue to recite the filioque just like they have done for the last who knows how many years.

One of the priests at the church we attend never uses the Nicene Creed any way but always recites the Apostles Creed.

The traditionalists who haven't gone away are going to the Latin mass anyway and they don't recite the creed themselves anyway. As long as they can use the same prayer book with the unchanged English translation they probably won't notice either.

Well, because the Nicene Creed is used so seldom in the West, perhaps those reading it when it is used won't notice the change, should there ever be one emanating from Rome.

Certainly, Rome would have to explain/educate as to the reason for the return to the original Creed.

There is so much Roman Catholics were used to liturgically that was jettisoned in the last several decades that this one change, if it occurs, won't be the end of the world.

It took my EC parish quite a while to recite the Nicene Creed without the Filioque, but then again that word has a quite involved history in the Ruthenian Catholic tradition.

My parish choir and readers now use the original Creed without giving it a second thought.

And what is more reliable from both an orthodox and catholic perspective is always what is more ancient.

Alex