Archbishop Lefebvre

[JReducation]

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY
GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSION TO THE EUCHARIST
BETWEEN THE CHALDEAN CHURCH
AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST

3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

I looked up the GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSION TO THE EUCHARIST BETWEEN THE CHALDEAN CHURCH AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST and found that the allegations raised against Pope John Paul II on this issue have been seriously exaggerated.

Here is the site with the complete document, including a step by step description of the process of reflection that went into this declaration and the rules as to how it is applied without violating any previous teachings of the Catholic Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

Here, the document presents the issue.

**The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. **

The Catholic Church restates the traditional teaching regarding the necessity of the words of institution of the Eucharist. Neither John Paul II nor the bishops who wrote the document denied it.

In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger was at the head of the study and it was his Congregation that presented the final recommendations for the approval from John Paul II.

Therefore, John Paul acted with the consensus of his brother bishops, one of whom is now pope.

**As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. **

John Paul II approved a long and prayerful study that the Sacred Congregation, headed by then Cardinal Ratzinger, presented. This would mean that the theologians, bishops and cardinals, including Ratzinger, who wrote this proposal were also heretical.

**H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. This conclusion rests on three major arguments. **

Here the Sacred Congregation of the Faith explains that the validity of the Anaphora of the Addai and Mari have never been questioned, even by previous councils and popes. Therefore, their recommendations are not in conflict with Christian tradition or Church history.

In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested, neither in the Christian East nor in the Christian West.

Here the Sacred Congregation for the Faith suggested that the Assyrian Church is built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession.

the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist.

Here the Sacred Congregation presents its finding that the words of consecration are indeed present in the Anaphora of the Assyrian Church and how they are present.

Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.

I hope this helps.

 

[JReducation]

A SUGGESTION

In looking back at the original post, I believe that this thread has gone all over the place. I’d like to recommend that we go back to respond to the original question.

With all due respects to everyone of good faith who has participated in this thread, I believe that we have veered into areas that require extensive knowledge of Canon Law, Church History, Systematic Theology, Liturgy, Eschatology, Exegesis, Philosophy and other disciplines.

It’s like having a debate on cancer without having all of the proper experts at the table. I can only speak for me. While I have a graduate education in Mystical Theology and Roman Catholic studies, I have only one area of expertise. Theology, much like medicine, has many branches. Those who study theology formally, just like physicians, receive broad exposure to each branch of theology, but eventually focus on one area. I’m not sure how many of us have expertise in all of the areas of theology that have been thrown on the table to have a coherent discussion.

Speaking for me, there are areas that I must research before I can offer a truly academic response. Of course, I can respond from the gut and from general knowledge. But justice requires that we ask ourselves how fair it is to present bits and pieces of theological arguments, out of context, without the expertise to shed light on them. Are we doing more harm than good to the average person who comes looking for clarity?

If there are theologians on this thread, it would be helpful if they shed some light from their branch of theology. If there are no such experts on the thread, it is better that we return to the original post and respond to it without pulling up theological documents and decrees out of context. Such would do more harm than good to the average reader, by confusing and overwhelming.

I suggest that we get experts on these issues to clarify or that we go back to the simple question at the onset of the thread as an act of charity to those whom we may confuse or overwhelm with debate that lacks discipline.

 

[catharina]

A SUGGESTION

In looking back at the original post, I believe that this thread has gone all over the place. I’d like to recommend that we go back to respond to the original question.

With all due respects to everyone of good faith who has participated in this thread, I believe that we have veered into areas that require extensive knowledge of Canon Law, Church History, Systematic Theology, Liturgy, Eschatology, Exegesis, Philosophy and other disciplines.

It’s like having a debate on cancer without having all of the proper experts at the table. I can only speak for me. While I have a graduate education in Mystical Theology and Roman Catholic studies, I have only one area of expertise. Theology, much like medicine, has many branches. Those who study theology formally, just like physicians, receive broad exposure to each branch of theology, but eventually focus on one area. I’m not sure how many of us have expertise in all of the areas of theology that have been thrown on the table to have a coherent discussion.

Speaking for me, there are areas that I must research before I can offer a truly academic response. Of course, I can respond from the gut and from general knowledge. But justice requires that we ask ourselves how fair it is to present bits and pieces of theological arguments, out of context, without the expertise to shed light on them. Are we doing more harm than good to the average person who comes looking for clarity?

If there are theologians on this thread, it would be helpful if they shed some light from their branch of theology. If there are no such experts on the thread, it is better that we return to the original post and respond to it without pulling up theological documents and decrees out of context. Such would do more harm than good to the average reader, by confusing and overwhelming.

I suggest that we get experts on these issues to clarify or that we go back to the simple question at the onset of the thread as an act of charity to those whom we may confuse or overwhelm with debate that lacks discipline.

I agree with your assessment and suggestion.

To have a thread on a Catholic site that suggests/insists recent Popes could have been heretical is a horrifying notion to me.

 

[pnewton]

If there are theologians on this thread, it would be helpful if they shed some light from their branch of theology.

My degree in college is in theology, with two years of seminary. But since I was a Baptist, I do not comment as an authority here at all. Even after ten years, I am a new Catholic. Now if we talk abou the Bible or language, then I may express a more authoritative opinion.

 

[cam100]

I will say this, though.

The whole list of usual John Paul II attacks…the Koran kissing, Assisi, the sign of the tilac, the bare-breasted lectors…all of which I deplore thoroughly and intensely…do not bother me as much as one thing he did more than once.

He would sometimes omit the word “Filioque” from the Nicene Creed at a Roman Rite Mass.

Huh? Come again? Is that word in brackets and marked optional in the Missale Romanum HE promulgated in 2002?

No, of course not. It’s required.

Oh…wait…he’s the Pope…he can do that, right?

Well, no. He can’t. He is a custodian of what he inherited.

And for those who want to twist into pretzels to justify everything a pope did, let’s return to my other example.

John Paul omitted the word “Filioque” more than once from a Roman Rite liturgy.

Justified? Never.

Actually, the “Filioque” wasn’t added to the Creed in the Mass until 1014.

The Council of Lyons, in an attempt to appeal to the Greek Orthodox and encourage their return, allowed them to omit this phrase from the Creed, although they were supposed to accept the doctrine nonetheless.

This demonstrates that this phase is not required in the Creed, and Pope John Paul II was not the first to omit it for ecumenical reasons.

 

[JReducation]

I’m in the same boat. My MA is in Mystical Theology and my BA in Roman Catholic Studies. I have been a catechist, DRE, and college prof, but most of my work has been in the area of spiritual development. Ask me anything in that area and I can respond or tell you where to get an answer.

When you go into systematic theology, ecclesiology, church history, etc etc, the best that I can give you is what I learned in graduate school through broad stokes, as I like to call them. LOL

Now returning to the original question that was posed, I believe that it would not be contrary to faith or the welfare of one’s soul to believe that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a good man who only wanted good things for the Church.

There is no shame in admitting that even good men make mistakes, but that doesn’t change the big picture. While Msgr. Lefebvre did defy John Paul’'s orders not to ordain the new bishops, thus incurring an excommunication, the whole of his life has to be looked at in determining whether this was a good man or not.

I know little about his personal life, but from what I can gather, this was a man in turmoil. My best guess, from reading about his conflicts is that he was probably a person who was very scrupulous, much like Luther.

Luther was so scrupulous that he saw sin and danger everywhere. Mystical theology tells us that scruples open the door for the devil to deceive us. We’re not responsible for what the Devil does. We are only responsible for what we do. Let’s make that clear.

One of the best tools that the devil uses is doubt. St. Teresa, St. John of the Cross and St. Francis of Assisi suffered periods of struggle, dryness and doubts. They second guessed themselves a great deal. Where they part company with the Archbishop is that they took a leap of faith in the Church.

St. Francis, who lived during the reign of two very powerful popes, Innocent III and Honorius, went to them for guidance. Both of these men were not just popes, they were monarchs and heads of great armies. Both restricted Francis’ ambition to embrace the crucified Christ by a literal application of the Gospel to his life and that of his followers. Francis never said so, but knowing his passion for the cross and Christ’s poverty, he must have been disappointed. But here lies the difference.

Francis, Teresa, John of the Cross and many other holy men and women have had to deal with popes and have been told what to do or not do. In spite of the fact that they were completely convinced that what God wanted of them was good for the Church, they also trusted the Lord to guide them. They obeyed and placed their own soul in God’s hands. They fully understood that in order to progress in the spiritual life, one had to take a leap of faith and trust that God blesses obedience, even if the person who is giving the order is mistaken.

I believe this is where the Archbishop took a wrong turn. At some point, we must place our faith in the Holy Spirit and do what we have promised to do.

Pope John Paul was not asking the Archbishop to teach heresy. He was prohibitting the ordination of new bishops, for whatever reason.

Archbishop Lefebvre is not the first bishop who presents candidates for ordiantion to the episcopacy and is turned down, even when he feels that their ordination would be good for the Church.

In mystical theology we have a concept that is very true, the grace of obedience can overcome sin and the proof is Christ Crucified. While in the Garden he surrenders to the will of the Father, “Let thy will be done.”

In a nutshell, there is no problem with admiring the Archbishop and even agreeing with him. It is important to remember that Peter’s authority is the final voice of the Church. Unless one can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that something is wrong. And this has to be done before a council of bishops. One person alone cannot assume the authority to pass judgment on the successor of Peter. It’s permissable to say that one agrees with Archbishop Lefebvre’s concern and regret that he allowed his scruples and anxiety to obscure his judgement to the point that he violated his priestly vow of obedience.

 

[catharina]

…

In a nutshell, there is no problem with admiring the Archbishop and even agreeing with him. It is important to remember that Peter’s authority is the final voice of the Church. Unless one can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that something is wrong. And this has to be done before a council of bishops. One person alone cannot assume the authority to pass judgment on the successor of Peter. It’s permissable to say that one agrees with Archbishop Lefebvre’s concern and regret that he allowed his scruples and anxiety to obscure his judgement to the point that he violated his priestly vow of obedience.

If you don’t mind (or even if you do mind), I must state that I think you have oversimplified the situation. I believe It would be far more precise to say that while one might have shared some concerns with the archbishop, one still must disavow Lefebvre’s act of disobedience toward the Pope. Saying anything more - regarding Lefebvre’s possible scruples and possible anxiety in the matter - seems to me to be saying quite a bit too much.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…And how do you justify this
disagreement?

Because the Roman Pontiff has not made it sententia certa, nor de fide, nor universally binding discipline upon me in particular nor all the faithful, as I have already explained.

Should the Roman Pontiff promulgate such teaching in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as sententa certa, even if not intending it to be definitive, I will certainly be obligated under canon law and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church to give my religious submission of intellect and will to this teaching. Should the Roman Pontiff decide to promulgate such teaching as dogma (de fide), then I will be obligated to give my assent of faith. That’s how traditional Catholicism works.

"…when a Traditonalists does the same on other points it is you who produces quotes stating that we must believe ALL that the Church teaches. … …You reject a teaching of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith

You clearly lack understanding of dogmatic theology if you think this document is an exercise of either the solemn or ordinary magisterium. The agreement with regard to the anaphora is an exercise of governing power of the Church. I am not bound to agree with Church governance, but am bound to obey it should such lawful governance demand something of me in particular. This doesn’t. According to my understanding of this text, the Roman Pontiff has not bound me to affirm that this anaphora is valid.

Now, if I were an Eastern Rite Catholic, and there was no priest around excepting a priest of the Assyrian Church, then I “can” consider their anaphora valid, but the document doesn’t say that I MUST. That, the Holy See has left to my discretion.

On the contrary, Lefebvre and his disciples do more than just disagree with something the Holy See leaves open to one’s own discretion. Instead, they rejected the teachings of an Ecumenical Council and disregarded universal canon law. Both of these are authentic magisterial and disciplinary papal acts which are binding upon all the faithful and promulgated the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as such.

… was signed by John Paul II The Great Himself?

I doubt it was signed by the pope.

Do you realize that by rejecting that document you standed condemned by the teaching fo Vatican I?

I disagree. Since the Holy See does not mandate that I should attend the Eucharistic liturgy of the Assyrian Church, you are just groping around for a comparison which does not exist.

"… simply because they taught contradicts what the Church has always taught?

Incorrect again. If it were promulgated by the pope as binding upon me, I would obey. If it were promulgated by the pope as doctrine, I would give it my assent. I would have difficulty understanding, but faith and love does not depend upon understanding.

In contrast, the Lefebvrist approach clings to the Modernist dogma of “the primacy of conscience” as the final arbiter of truth and authentic interpreter of Scripture and Tradition. They don’t really care about the manifest mind and will of the Roman Pontiff on the matter. The only thing that matters is their subjective understanding of Scripture and Tradition, as though it were infallible.

I don’t use that epistemology at all. I adhere to the Roman Pontiff according to his manifest mind and will. I follow Lumen Gentium, which states that the “the judgments made by [the Roman Pontiff] are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (no. 25)

Since I don’t have to participate in the Eucharist of the Assyrian Church, I cannot be accused of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff. Since this is neither doctrine nor dogma that is being promulgated, I don’t owe either “religious assent” or “assent of faith” to its contents.

If the Lefebvrists stuck to this epistemology, they too would be in full communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Don’t you realize that you are rejecting a governing document of the Pope himself

I don’t “reject” the document. I disagree with its conclusions. If religious assent was demanded of me by the Roman Pontiff, I would certainly give it.

 

[JReducation]

If you don’t mind (or even if you do mind), I must state that I think you have oversimplified the situation. I believe It would be far more precise to say that while one might have shared some concerns with the archbishop, one still must disavow Lefebvre’s act of disobedience toward the Pope. Saying anything more - regarding Lefebvre’s possible scruples and possible anxiety in the matter - seems to me to be saying quite a bit too much.

If you want to say that, you may.

I believe I made my point the way I wanted to make it. One may identify with his concerns, but must also recognize his mistake.

As to scrupples and anxiety, his behavior and choices are very similar to people who suffer from these. Cannot I prove it? Of course not; I never met the man nor was I his spiritual director. I can only say that he looks like members of this population.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am simply following the teaching of a Pope.

There is only one pope, the current one. The late Roman Pontiffs are no longer in office. Their teachings are part of the tradition of the Church. However, the traditional Catholic understanding of the relationship between tradition and the living magisterium is described by the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, written during St. Pius X’s papacy:

…it will be understood that the living magisterium

searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds…

The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, ***distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. ***

It is revealed truth always living in the…present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which ***the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. ***Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–***she judges them more than she is judged by them. ***
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t agree that the current pope is always right. However, he is always my lawful superior, and therefore Heb 13:17 always applies. If St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Catherine of Sienna are correct (and I believe I’m on good traditional Catholic ground in asserting that they are), it is impossible for the pope to be a heretic.

If Pope Hadrian did indeed accuse John XXII of heresy, he was in error, as there was no de fide dogma regarding the beatific vision prior to John XXII.

With regard to Honorius, Leo II did not condemn him for heresy, but for negligence in defending the faith. (Note: only a successor pope can condemn a prior pope).

From Warren Carroll, The History of Christendom, vol. 2: the Building of Christendom (Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1987), p. 254:
Writing to the Emperor … Pope Leo II wrote that Pope Honorius was condemned because “he permitted the immaculate Faith to be subverted.” Writing in Latin to the Spanish bishops, he declared that Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but rather gaining them by his negligence. To King Erwig he wrote that Honorius was condemned for negligence in not denouncing the heresy and for using an expression which the heretics were able to employ to advance their own cause …

… Pope Honorius, therfore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence [in] allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY
GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSION TO THE EUCHARIST
BETWEEN THE CHALDEAN CHURCH
AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST

3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

I looked up the GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSION TO THE EUCHARIST BETWEEN THE CHALDEAN CHURCH AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST and found that the allegations raised against Pope John Paul II on this issue have been seriously exaggerated.

Here, the document presents the issue.

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative.

The Catholic Church restates the traditional teaching regarding the necessity of the words of institution of the Eucharist. Neither John Paul II nor the bishops who wrote the document denied it.

In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger was at the head of the study and it was his Congregation that presented the final recommendations for the approval from John Paul II.

Therefore, John Paul acted with the consensus of his brother bishops, one of whom is now pope.

As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid.

Notice the underlined part above. They concluded that it was “valid”.

Do you find it at all curious that they concluded two contrary things? That the words of consecration are required, yet at the same time they are not requried?

If that surprises you, it shouldn’t. One of the characteristics of moderninsts is a dual mind. They have no problem affirming contradictions.

If you want another example of this, read Cardinal Ratzinger’s answer to Raymond Arroyo when he was asked about the validity of the old Covenant.

Unfortunately, there are few members of the hierarchy today have been poisoned with modernism.

John Paul II approved a long and prayerful study that the Sacred Congregation, headed by then Cardinal Ratzinger, presented. This would mean that the theologians, bishops and cardinals, including Ratzinger, who wrote this proposal were also heretical.

You said it, not me.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

There is only one pope, the current one. The late Roman Pontiffs are no longer in office. Their teachings are part of the tradition of the Church. However, the traditional Catholic understanding of the relationship between tradition and the living magisterium is described by the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, written during St. Pius X’s papacy:

I completely agree with the quote you provided from the encyclopedia… but I’m curious why you posted that in response to my saying that I was in agreement with a Pope?

Do you believe a document issued by a Pope, or a statement made by a Pope, loses all authority as soon as the Pope dies? Are we only allowed to quote the current Pope? Do you believe Church starts over again with a new set of teachings each time a new Pope is elected?

If not, then why did you post what you did when I merely I was following the teaching of a Pope? The only logical thing to conclude is the you think it is wrong to follow the teaching of a Pope after he dies. Is that what you think?

I noticed that you quoted the opinion of Robert Bellarmine earlier in this thread and ridiculed the person who did not agree fully with it. If I remember, you either called him a modernist or implied that he was one. Yet when I quote a Pope as my authority you respond my saying there is only one Pope, thus implying that it is wrong to quote the words of a previous Pope.

First you ridicule Traditionalists for refusng to blindly follow novel teaching that are contrary to what the Church has always taught - all the while you yourself were doing the same thing in secret; and now you imply that I am wrong for agreeing with a past Pope when you yourself imply that another poster is guilty of modernism for not agreeing with a past theologian?

 

[catharina]

If you want to say that, you may.

I believe I made my point the way I wanted to make it. One may identify with his concerns, but must also recognize his mistake.

As to scrupples and anxiety, his behavior and choices are very similar to people who suffer from these. Cannot I prove it? Of course not; I never met the man nor was I his spiritual director. I can only say that he looks like members of this population.

Of course, I may say it and I did.

I found your conclusion in the referenced post to be ambiguous. If your total statement was to conclude: “One may identify with his concerns, but must also recognize his mistake” then I don’t think you made that clear in your conclusion. By mentioning possible scriples/anxiety, you seemed to be dismissing his error.

 

[AlexV]

You know what’s scary?

Here we are on a Catholic thread, a Roman Catholic thread, actually, and I raise the issue of John Paul II omiting the “Filioque” from a ROMAN Rite Mass.

And someone posts that well, you know, it was “only” added in the 11th century (note: Medieval prejudice) and it is allowed to be omitted by Easterners (note: Easterners know best prejudice) and THEREFORE John Paul gets a free pass for dropping it from the ROMAN Mass.

Huh, come again?

Do Roman Catholics value their faith and doctrines so little that they blithely accept the dismissal of WHAT IS PRINTED IN THEIR OWN 2002 MISSAL because it’s “only” a millenium old and people from a DIFFERENT rite regularly omit it?

That’s scary indeed.

 

[AlexV]

It’s important to clarify for the sake of the record, too, that the Holy Spirit does not guarantee that the pope will never a be a heretic.

It guarantees that the pope will never TEACH heresy.

That’s a big difference.

Hence my examples above. John Paul II didn’t TEACH heresy. Whether he privately held heretical views/opinions is open to debate.

 

[childofmary1143]

You know what’s scary?

Here we are on a Catholic thread, a Roman Catholic thread, actually, and I raise the issue of John Paul II omiting the “Filioque” from a ROMAN Rite Mass.

And someone posts that well, you know, it was “only” added in the 11th century (note: Medieval prejudice) and it is allowed to be omitted by Easterners (note: Easterners know best prejudice) and THEREFORE John Paul gets a free pass for dropping it from the ROMAN Mass.

Huh, come again?

Do Roman Catholics value their faith and doctrines so little that they blithely accept the dismissal of WHAT IS PRINTED IN THEIR OWN 2002 MISSAL because it’s “only” a millenium old and people from a DIFFERENT rite regularly omit it?

That’s scary indeed.

Pardon my ignorance but what does Filioque mean in English?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pardon my ignorance but what does Filioque mean in English?

It means “from the son”. It comes from the part of the Creed that says the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son (filioque).

The Orthodox do not believe that, but it is a definitive teaching of the Church. In order to appease the heretics, John Paul II the great left that phrase out of the Creed when he said Mass. Not everytime, but when he thought it might offend the heretics who deny that particular article of faith.

The result is that now many Catholics feel that this phrase is not very important, and they justify this by erroneously claiming that it was added to the Creed in the 11th century (see post # 325).

 

[AlexV]

In some ways John Paul was a master of the theatrical gesture.

In other words, he never said the Koran was a holy book. But he kissed it…a clear mark of respect.

He never said the Holy Spirit didn’t proceed from the Son. But he omitted the word “Filioque”, which was of course duly noted in the press.

He never said the “archbishop” of Canterbury was a validly consecrated bishop. But he gave him an episcopal ring.

So no, he wasn’t a manifest (or public) heretic. But the above gestures were unnecessary at best, scandalous at worst.

 

[catharina]

The Orthodox do not believe that, but it is a definitive teaching of the Church. In order to appease the heretics, John Paul II the great left that phrase out of the Creed when he said Mass. Not everytime, but when he thought it might offend the heretics who deny that particular article of faith.

“Not everytime, but when he thought it might offend the heretics who deny that particular article of faith.” So say you - as you seem to imagine you can read the mind/intentions of Pope John Paul II. What a slippery slope. How frightening to think like you.