www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology A question on the filioque....

I was on forum with some Traditionalists and discussing the idea that since they hate the Novus Ordo Mass, they might find a more comfortable home in the East.

One reply stated that since we do not recite the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, he couldn't become Eastern.

My question is this....I have noticed that in many of the pew books and prayer books, the filioque is inserted in parenthesis. Could a Traditional minded Western Catholic join the East and be allowed to follow his conscience by reciting the filioque during the Creed?

My other question is this:

When did the Tridentine Mass actually begin? Traditionalist Catholics act as if it was handed to the apostles by Jesus Himself. What forms came in the West prior to the Tridentine Mass?

Thank you for your answers

Brother Ed

I have heard people include the filioque in a BC church, whether out of habit or consciously I cannot say. It has been my experience that if someone has a serious concern about something like the filioque that they would probably find a number of other things objectionable in the Byzantine tradition and would, therefore, not be happy.

As to the Tridentine Liturgy I have no information.

Check out Shawn Tribe\'s blog [thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com]

Scroll down and on the right you'll see a 'reading list'. Followed by 'liturgical classics'. You should be able to find a title on their capable of answering your queries.

Brother Myles,

I'm glad you posted a link to his blog, it has much good info, as least for me, it also has comments and input by Eastern Catholics...

james

Thank our resident member 'Shawn Tribe' its his weblog

Brother Ed-

Whether filioque's in the books depends on what eparchy you're in. And yes I'm sure you could recite "and the son" if you wanted to and no one would really care.

My question would be: why? The word does not sit well with Byzantine theology or ecclesiology, and the trend is such that I doubt it'll be recited in any Byzantine Churches 20-30 years from now.

When you reduce the Mass to the service-book, Tridentine Mass itself more or less the same as the Roman Curial Mass of the 1400s. This was an abbreviated form of the Medieval Mass, which made daily celebration by a single priest convenient.

Prior or along side this were several fairly similar but different Masses in England, among the religious orders, and in other parts of the world. The historical data is vague, but the evidence is clear that Pope St. Gregory did not say Mass in the same manner.

If you look more broadly at Liturgy to include Music, vestments, architecture, there's been tremendous change even in the Tridentine era. The "Old Roman Chant" St. Gregory may have been familiar with is NOT Gregorian Chant (though it has the same text and is similar. Similarly, Gregorian chant of the 800s is NOT medieval chant (similar, but sometimes different), which is decidedly NOT the music in the more-or-less official Medician chant book of the Tridentine era.

Gregorian chant as you'd hear in an indult Mass emerged only in 1903, a resurrected and tiny sampling of the variety of pre-tridentine, Medieval chant.

Bottom line: there was tremendous liturgical change even in the Tridentine era.

There are many problems with the Tridentines at my home parish. They have caused much upheavel and distress on the liturgical and social life of the parish.

We welcome all guests to worship with us at Liturgy, however, a malicious intent to cause spiritual havoc by attempting to change parts of our Liturgy, and even liturgical items inside of the church, is most unwelcomed.

Back home, when ever the Creed is chanted in English, the Tridentines in unison shoutout, "and the Son!" Not only is that disrespectful to others in the church praying, but to God because at Liturgy we worship Him; we do not go to force our grievances upon others.

Just my take on the issue. Welcome them to partake in our Liturgy as we do, not to come just as a refugee.

-uc

First off apologies for the typos in my last post. I wrote hastily, and by now of course I can't edit it.

One final statistic for you that I found flipping through a book. Of 21 pre-Tridentine Missals from the area of Val D'Aosta alone, we find:

-93 variations in the Ordinary of the mass
- variants in the saints mentioned in the Roman Canon
- differences in rubrics
- "considerable" differences in the cycle of readings
- "considerable" differences in the Offertory and pre-communion prayers.

Each area, sometimes each diocese and Parish, had its own variations of the Latin Rite before Trent. In fact, most of the differences (except for the alternate canons) between the the so-called "TLM" and "NO" Mass have precedent in Latin Rite liturgical history.

So, my opinion is that the "NO is contrary to tradition" opinion doesn't stand on solid historical grounds. However, it does exist, because the Usage of the Mass in the US (can't speak for other places) - the architecture, the choice of music, etc. - is poor, there are prayers which are arbitrarily substituted for what's in the book, and all of this is frequently in support of a questionable theological system. Some people literally see either heresy or "tradition" and reach back to "tradition".

The Melbourne Eparchy has recenlty introduced dropping the Filioque from the liturgy as part of it's de-latinisation process.

We used to ahve Tredentine's going to Ukrainian churches in Australia. I was not impressed to discover their attitude was more or less based th idea that Byzantine liturgy was near enough but really not quiet good enough. It was 'valid' but they were waiting for the 'real mass' to become available. When the various Latin rite diocese established their own 'Tredentine chaplains' they were off and gone like a flash.

There are a number of things to consider here, but I'd like to talk about just one. Namely, most Catholics believe that the pope can give permission to recite the Creed of Toledo (i.e. the Creed with the "filioque") in the liturgy. On the other hand, using the Creed of Toledo without the pope's permission (as was done by the Carolingians in the 9th and 10th centuries) would be unacceptable.

At the present time, it is clear that this papal permission does exist; so the question is, exactly how generally is this permission bestowed? In particular, Latin Catholics certainly have his permission to use the Creed of Toledo in their liturgies. Has this permission also been given to the Eastern Catholic Churches? I would have to say yes, but it has been offered to each of these Churches as a whole, not to each individual Eastern Catholic.

Thus, it seems to me, if one of these Churches decides to use the 381 version of the Creed (as in the case under consideration), an individual EC does not have the right to unilaterally inserted the "filioque" (nor does a Latin Catholic who is visiting an EC liturgy).

Now, an objection might be made to what I've just said. Namely, someone (a traditional Latin, perhaps) might say that the Pope's authority is not bound by the desires or preferences of EC clergy; and hence that a faithful EC could go over the heads of his synod of bishops, and get permission directly from the pope to use the filioque.

I don't really have any problem with this kind of reasoning. I mean, if, at some point in the future, the pope declares: "an individual Catholic may unilaterally inserted the 'filioque' into the Creed at any EC liturgy, without consulting the hierarchy of that particular Church", then I shall have to rethink what I've said above. But the point is simply that at the present time, the pope hasn't done that.

God bless,
Peter.

It is important to note that the Latin liturgical creed is not normative for the Church as a whole, for as the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity indicated in its 1995 clarification, "The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church." Moreover, as the Vatican clarification went on to say, ". . . the Orthodox East has always refused the formula to ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou to the formula ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins." Thus, the recitation of the creed with the "filioque" is something that should be avoided in the Eastern Catholic Churches, because it does not reflect their doctrinal and theological tradition.

It seems to me that anyone who cannot in conscience respect the theology and wording of the original Symbol of Faith (without filioque) as proclaimed in Eastern Catholic Churches is lacking a proper formation in the Catholic Faith. I�d refer them to the Catholic Catechism (the part that speaks to validity of either formula but which condemns rigidity on either side).

I agree. And I would like to add that this kind of rigid insistence on adding the "filioque" comes not only from those who are deliberately hostile to the Creed of 381. Certainly there ARE such people (e.g. those mentioned by ukrainiancatholic); but I think that when a Latin Catholic is visiting an Eastern Church and inserts the filioque into the Creed, it is usually because he or she (through no fault of his/her own) has been so conditioned to say the filioque that there is simply no room left in the mind for the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

In this light, I'd like to make a suggestion: that those churches (Eastern and Western) that intend to continue using the Creed of Toledo could recite it in choirs. E.g.

I'm not suggesting that this would be a complete solution, but at least it would be a definite step in the right direction, an interim compromise you might say. It would mean that Latin (and some Eastern) churches could continue to use the filioque, but without conditioning their faithful to insert the filioque automatically -- and hence Latins could reasonably be expected to say the Creed of 381 when appropriate, e.g. when visiting an Eastern parish or attending and inter-church or ecumenical ceremony.

Many years,
Peter.

Dear Peter,

Ultimately, if Rome gave the order to drop the Filioque so as to return to the original Creed and explained more about this, everyone would have to comply.

Those who would not, already don't comply with Rome . . .

Eastern Catholic parishes who use the Filioque would definitely drop it - because the Latins no longer used it . . .

Alex

Alex,

You make a good point, as usual. Waiting -- with patience, prayer, and faith -- is very important, and I'm glad you reminded us all of that.

At the same time, this ought to be balanced by a consideration of what we can do at the present. In particular, Catholics of all rites and Churches can say a creed together -- and the most appropriate choice of creed for such situations is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, not the Creed of Toledo or the Apostles' Creed.

Has this been put into practice? Yes, at least at "the top": we all know that JPII used the N-C Creed on numerous occasions when praying with Eastern bishops, and I imagine BXVI will do likewise. But what about at the grassroots level? What about the vast majority of us? When we pray together (in ecumenical or inter-church gatherings), could we recite the Creed of 381 together? Yes. Should we? Yes. Do we?

Based on my experiences and impressions, the answer would be "not very often".

Regards,
Peter.