B
bobzills
Guest
Of course.
- Status
B
bobzills
Guest
The two cases are not comparable. As I mentioned already, the SSPX has resisted the imposition of the New Mass and so it is relevant to the topic here where a Pope reforms the liturgy of the Church. The situation with SSJ is different and as I pointed out above, I am interested in a discussion of the issues involved with SSJ on a thread dedicated to this question.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I think a better question to ask, would be, Could the Pope require Eastern Catholics to recite the Filioque ? And in this regard I believe he could.
D
Diak
Guest
Article I of the Union of Brest which was ratified by the Pope does not require the Filioque. ** Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son. **
The Pope would first have to renounce the Union, in which case the UGCC would no longer be bound to remain in communion with Rome, since that is the basis of our communion with Rome. Several Magisterial documents since the Union have praised that very Union, and the current Pope himself as Cardinal Ratzinger specifically ommitted the Filioque in Dominus Iesus.
Such a move would also be absolutely counter to several Magisterial documents such as Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Orientale Lumen and instructions on Eastern liturgy that Rome herself has promulgated.
Once again we appear to have another ultramontane hypothetical situation couched in absurdity.
The last religious order that has attempted to enforce the mandatory recitation of the Filioque in Ukrainian Catholic liturgies has been excommunicated (SSJ).
B
bobzills
Guest
The historical evidence shows conclusively that the Vatican has required the Orientals to recite the filioque:
"Rome has directly imposed the recitation of the Filioque on Eastern Catholics and attempted to do so with the Orthodox and the Orientals on a good number of occasions.
Pope Nicholas III for example imposed the recitation of the Filioque as did Martin IV and Nicholas IV. Eugenius IV imposed the Filioque on Armenians when they were received by Rome. When Callistus III sent Simon, O.P. to Crete as an Inquisitor he bid him to make sure that the Greeks recited the Filioque. Even Eastern churches in traditionally Latin geographical locations have been required to employ the Filioque."
energeticprocession.com/2009/06/13/an-imposition/
Also please see:ALLATAE SUNT
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755
“At other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition.”
“The latter position was taken by Pope Nicholas III when he realized that Emperor Michael was not acting in good faith and was not abiding by the promises he had made in establishing union with his predecessor Pope Gregory X. The evidence for this comes from the Vatican Archives and is printed in Raynaldus, 1278, sect. 7. Martin IV and Nicholas IV acted in the same manner. Although the sources are contradictory about the attitude of these popes to this affair, Pachymeres, who was then writing the history of Constantinople, openly declares that they did not imitate the fair judgment of their predecessors. Rather they required that Orientals and Greeks add “and from the Son” to the Creed, in order to remove doubts about their orthodoxy, “to make a definite trial of the faith and opinion of the Greeks; the suitable pledge of this would be for them to say the same Creed as the Latins.”
M
malphono
Guest
Please, folks, don’t hijack this thread. If anyone wants yet another interminable “filoque” thread, might be best to start a new one.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Seamus,
As an example, here is the response of the Armenians at the Council of Florence:
“When the aforesaid decree had been solemnly read out in our and the holy synod’s presence, straightaway our beloved son Narses, an Armenian, in the name of the said envoys, publicly recited the following in Armenian and thereupon our beloved son Basil of the order of friars Minor, the interpreter between us and the Armenians, publicly read it out in Latin as follows…[herein are the details of the conditions of union, which included the recitiation of the filioque]…Therefore we envoys, in our own name and in the name of our reverend patriarch and of all Armenians, with all devotion and obedience accept, admit and embrace, just as your holiness affirms in the decree, this most salutary synodal decree with all its chapters, declarations, definitions, traditions, precepts and statutes and all the doctrine contained in it, and also whatever the holy apostolic see and the Roman church holds and teaches. We accept with reverence all those doctors and holy fathers approved by the Roman church. Indeed we hold as reprobated and condemned whatever persons and things the Roman church reprobates and condemns. We promise that as true sons of obedience, in the name of the above, we will faithfully obey the ordinances and commands of this apostolic see.”
To repeat, without the consent of the body, the head could not have imposed filioque on any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches. That is the ancient principle of Apostolic Canon 34 at work.
Blessings
As Father Deacon Diak stated, he can’t require such a thing without the consent of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. And there is no example in the history of the Church that could cause someone to believe that, in instances when the filioque was recited, it was not through the consent of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches.
As an example, here is the response of the Armenians at the Council of Florence:
“When the aforesaid decree had been solemnly read out in our and the holy synod’s presence, straightaway our beloved son Narses, an Armenian, in the name of the said envoys, publicly recited the following in Armenian and thereupon our beloved son Basil of the order of friars Minor, the interpreter between us and the Armenians, publicly read it out in Latin as follows…[herein are the details of the conditions of union, which included the recitiation of the filioque]…Therefore we envoys, in our own name and in the name of our reverend patriarch and of all Armenians, with all devotion and obedience accept, admit and embrace, just as your holiness affirms in the decree, this most salutary synodal decree with all its chapters, declarations, definitions, traditions, precepts and statutes and all the doctrine contained in it, and also whatever the holy apostolic see and the Roman church holds and teaches. We accept with reverence all those doctors and holy fathers approved by the Roman church. Indeed we hold as reprobated and condemned whatever persons and things the Roman church reprobates and condemns. We promise that as true sons of obedience, in the name of the above, we will faithfully obey the ordinances and commands of this apostolic see.”
To repeat, without the consent of the body, the head could not have imposed filioque on any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches. That is the ancient principle of Apostolic Canon 34 at work.
Blessings
M
mardukm
Guest
You mean the Latin Church.
Yes, that is all you did - point it out - but you gave no justification for it. Basically, you were wrong and were refuted.
M
mardukm
Guest
Sorry, brother. I didn’t read your exhortation before responding to the other posts. I think we can distinguish between the theological debate about filioque, from the textual addition. Perhaps the filioque issue - as far as its textual addition is concerned - may have some relevance to the topic.
Blessings
B
bobzills
Guest
Nonsense.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, the textual addition does have relevance in principle. That’s really what I meant. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
"
To repeat, without the consent of the body, the head could not have imposed filioque on any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches. That is the ancient principle of Apostolic Canon 34 at work.
The quote is quite clear that the Armenians accepted Rome’s conditions for union, but I’m not so sure this is a good example: agreed that the Armenians acquiesced to the imposition of the text, but was that not part of the price of union? Had the Armenians refused to add that text, I posit that the union (which ended up being only partial anyway) would never have taken place.
It seems to me there is a fundamental difference between the Armenian example above and the Union of Brest of the UGCC. As Diak points out, Brest specifically excluded the textual addition. Perhaps time taught Rome a lesson about such things, (i.e., suggest but don’t require)? The case with the Syro-Malankara Church (20th century) is similar in that they have never included the textual addition. If one notes that the UGCC union occurred a century or so later, and the Syro-Malankara some 4 centuries later, I suppose one can say there’s a certain amount of support for that “time” theory.
The Maronites, and Chaldeans fall somewhere between the above (in principle as well as in time, since both occurred in the 16th century). Despite the fact that there was no formal union involved, the Maronites, (of course at Rome’s insistence), embraced the textual addition, (and still retain it). At the time of its union, the Chaldeans (which recently reverted to the ancient text), did the same. (I’m not sure of what transpired with the Syriac CC (18th century), although they incorporated, and retain, the addition. From what I’ve seen, the Syro-Malabar case is similar. (I know little of the story among the Alexandrenes nor, for that matter, the story among other Byzantines.)
In the Maronite and Chaldean cases, at least, while I suppose the principles of canon 34 could be said to have been technically respected, a couple of questions arise: (1) was it respected by design or merely by happenstance? (2) what would have happened had either or both refused to embrace the textual addition?
D
Diak
Guest
Indeed - regarding the “time” theory you allude to every Catholic should read Blessed John Henry Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine. Taking one Papal document, or even worse, parsings from one papal document, without the entire development of Magisterial teaching and Church history up to the present is either ignorance or misguided polemic intent.
One of the most recent encyclicals written then by the current Pope specifically omits the insertion, the last four Popes since John XXIII have publically recited the Creed without the insertion, and once again I am returned to the absurdity of the question since if it were such a crisis of faith that some would purport then no Pope could ever omit it under any circumstances or allow it to be ommitted, as Rome did in our Greek and Slavonic service books approved by the Holy See in the late 19th and the 20th centuries.
I stand by my own previous statements, that Rome has never unilaterally required the UGCC to make the addition to Creed since the Union of Brest, and when it was done it was done by our own synods [and later removed by same in service books approved by Rome]. I admittedly do not know the details of most of the Oriental Catholic union history.
In any case it doesn’t matter now, as Rome doesn’t require the insertion, and the Pope himself [and three before him] has said the Creed without the insertion and before he was Pope authored a major encyclical without the insertion.
I agree with Marduk, this is a useless detraction since the polemical retorts will continue regardless of what any of us write. The thread began in absurdity and it still remains there.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Returning to the original question. Suppressing the Divine Liturgy just isn’t something that would be done by a Vicar of Christ guided by the Holy Spirit. The question is almost on par with those who now ask, Will the Pope one day allow priests to marry, Will he alow the ordination of women, and so on.
I think there is an underlying problem that surfaces with this question however ( absurd as it is), and that is whether or not we believe the Pope's full authority extends to the Eastern Catholic Churches. As a Traditional Catholic I most assuredly believe it does, however I've noticed a trend among those who refer to themselves as Orthodox in Communion that disputes that belief.
H
Harpazo
Guest
There was a lot of suppression of other Liturgies that Rome did in the Middle Ages. Namely, the Mozarabic, Gallican, et al. Recently, the Gallican was restored, but not by Rome. St. John Maximovitch (whose feast day it was yesterday) had a great interest in the early Western Liturgies that were stamped out by Rome wanting to conform the West to one liturgy.
Some of the liturgies were allowed to survive, but only in the local diocese of their origin, sadly. I find it interesting the Orthodox are seeking to restore these lost gems and Rome seemingly wants nothing to do with it.
It is a very real possibility that Orthodox also made note of this and why they are wary of union with Rome.I found a copy of the Gallican Liturgy here. I am aware that it may have some minor Byzantines influence on it, but it still looks like a beautiful liturgy.
In Christ,
Andrew
M
malphono
Guest
Actually, that’s not quite true. Yes, the Gallican and Sarum usages (among a few lesser-known others and host of minor variants) were suppressed by Trent for one reason: they had fallen into disuse, meaning that they had not been in continuous use for a minimum of 200 years. On the other hand, the Mozarabic, Ambrosian, and Bragan usages (as well as the proper usages of the Dominicans, Carmelites, Carthusians, and Cistercians) had been in continuous use and still survive today.
Considering that the Gallican and Sarum missals had fallen into disuse on their own, one can hardly say they were “stamped out” by anyone.
Each and every one of them was locally regionalized in the first place.
The Carmelite usage, although it is unique in itself, is said to derive in great measure from the Gallican. The so-called “Anglican Usage” is similar, in that it is said to have a good measure of Sarum influence.I find it interesting the Orthodox are seeking to restore these lost gems and Rome seemingly wants nothing to do with it.
I rather doubt that the idea of suppression of liturgy is a prime factor for the Orthodox (mainly the MP, but others as well) to be “wary” of anything.
Undoubtedly it’s lovely, but apparently those who used it were less convinced and allowed it to fall by the wayside. Again, Harpazo, had it not fallen into disuse, it would be still be alive today.I found a copy of the Gallican Liturgy here. I am aware that it may have some minor Byzantines influence on it, but it still looks like a beautiful liturgy.
As you might have noticed in this thread (and others), I’m not a supporter of the “Absolute Petrine view” but at the same time I don’t think it’s fair to demonize Rome for things that were legitimately done within the bounds of its own Patriarchate.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Indeed, if it were a factor in their wariness of Rome, these Orthodox would somehow have to manage to ignore, for example, the wholesale Byzantinization of the Antiochian church.
In particular without holding Orthodox Patriarchates to the same standard.
But Harpazo does inadvertently touch on an interesting question: What is the interest of the EO’s in Western liturgies that had fallen into disuse?
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, it is a most interesting question. Great topic for another thread.
F
fritzz_ezz
Guest
Why would any Eastern Catholic want to celebrate your Mass of contrition? We follow the Apostle St. James the Just Liturgy asking for God’s Mercy! Find an Orthodox Church that prays the great Divine Liturgy on his feast day - 28 October. You will understand the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil to St. John Chrysostom. The Pre-Sanctification we use during the Great Lent comes down to us today from Pope St. Gregory the Great.
Fritzz
B
bobzills
Guest
It does matter because the rule can be changed in the future. As we have seen, according to ALLATAE SUNT the Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755, there have been times when the Roman Pontiff has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the filioque in the creed in their Divine Liturgy. This is not an example of the Pope “throwing out” the DL of course, but it is an example of where the Roman Pontiff required a pretty serious modification in the Divine Liturgy, is it not?
M
mardukm
Guest
Here’s a response from an old post by brother Hesychios:
**An interesting resource for understanding this point on the Filioque is Allatea Sunt. I don’t have a link at present, I use a hard copy. It should be traceable through Google.
You will see that the bishops of Rome have, at different times held differing policies on requiring recitation of the Filioque.
For the “Greeks” the bishops of Rome usually only insisted on recitation of the Filioque when there was some doubt as to whether the population as a whole accepted it. This was the case in Crete, where Uniatism was the law for a time.
In those areas where it was taken for granted that the “Greeks” accepted the validity of the doctrine, the recitation was not always required by Rome. (On the other hand, at that point the local bishops sometimes decided to insert the Filioque anyway.) The Ruthenians used to recite the Filioque, now they are not required to.
Interestingly, the Armenians were required to recite the Filioque simply because it was believed that they would not vigorously resist it. A different standard entirely from that applied to the “Greeks”.**
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3360282&postcount=46
In all cases when filioque was inserted, it was with the approbation of the local Eastern or Oriental hierarchs.
On the issue of the Armenians, here is a history from the official website of Holy Etchmiadzin:
66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=60&pid=2
Not to derail the thread, but to get a historical perspective, here is a history of the Armenian Catholic Church from the website of St. Gregory the Illuminator Armenian Catholic Church:
armeniancatholicchurch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=26
The Armenians were never totally opposed to the filioque, as the history from the official website of Holy Etchmiadzin indicates, and as brother Hesychios pointed out. Those who adopted it did so freely. It was the same with other Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. An interesting and relevant point to bring up about the history from the Holy Etchmiadzin website is the fact that the Pope was pressured a couple of times by the Armenian hierarchy to change his “conditions” of union. That should be ample proof, and should be used as a general guideline, for a fair assessment of this matter - i.e., that any and all changes to the Traditions of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches did not come about by a unilateral action by the Pope. Rather, they came about by a united agreement between head and body - the ancient principle of Apostolic Canon 34 at work.
Those who opposed such changes did not come to or remain in Catholic communion. Those who accepted them did so freely, and were in Catholic communion. In today’s ecclesiastical reality, when the Catholic Church as a whole realizes that unity cannot be gained by uniformity, it is simply impossible that such “impositions” would ever occur again, because the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches would not consent to it. In some instances, those who have wanted to maintain the Latinization have even been excommunicated.
Once again, your fearmongering does not matter.
- Status