Did Pope Benedict commit litugrical abuse with the Eastern Orthodox?

[RyanBlack]

The filioque is not discipline, but a solemn teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as stated in the Ecumenical 14th Council, Second Council of Lyons (A.D. 1274).

The decision to excommunicate for not reciting the filioque, however, was a matter of discipline.

 

[UncleBill]

**

The filioque is not discipline, but a solemn teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as stated in the Ecumenical 14th Council, Second Council of Lyons (A.D. 1274).

But as every Pope since Paul VI has stated, only the first 7 councils are truly ecumenical, the rest only pertain to the West. **

 

[JReducation]

I have a curiosity, because I’m a Roman Catholic I don 't always understand the Eastern Catholic point of view and I would like to do so. I’ve always been a curious chap.

From my Roman point of view, it’s very hard for a pope to commit a liturgical abuse. Even if something is in the law, as long as it’s a law from which the pope can dispense another, he can also dispense himself. The Filioque is dogma, but the profession of faith itself is not dogma. It’s something that we do. It’s hard for me to explain what I mean. I hope I’m not too confusing.

My question is this, why would it be an issue at all since the pope can dispense himself from laws that the Church creates? I’m always fascinated by the things that seem to upset people.

 

[UncleBill]

I have a curiosity, because I’m a Roman Catholic I don 't always understand the Eastern Catholic point of view and I would like to do so. I’ve always been a curious chap.

From my Roman point of view, it’s very hard for a pope to commit a liturgical abuse. Even if something is in the law, as long as it’s a law from which the pope can dispense another, he can also dispense himself. The Filioque is dogma, but the profession of faith itself is not dogma. It’s something that we do. It’s hard for me to explain what I mean. I hope I’m not too confusing.

My question is this, why would it be an issue at all since the pope can dispense himself from laws that the Church creates? I’m always fascinated by the things that seem to upset people.

What bugs me is the Pope is above the law and tradition.

I can sympathize with the Orthodox on this.

Could you imagine if the Patriarch of Moscow put himself above the law and tradition? There would be riots!

 

[Tomdstone]

But as every Pope since Paul VI has stated, only the first 7 councils are truly ecumenical, the rest only pertain to the West.

But the Council declares that anyone who denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is condemned.

 

[UncleBill]

But the Council declares that anyone who denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is condemned.

But it is a council that only applies to the West!

 

[Tomdstone]

But it is a council that only applies to the West!

It may be true that it is the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, I don’t see this as the view of the Roman Church, since the word “anyone” was used. “Anyone” who rejects the filioque is subject to a condemnation and an ecclesiastical curse? Isn’t that what was declared?

 

[JReducation]

What bugs me is the Pope is above the law and tradition.

I can sympathize with the Orthodox on this.

Could you imagine if the Patriarch of Moscow put himself above the law and tradition? There would be riots!

The Pope is the successor of Peter and the law is inscribed by Christ onto Peter’s heart and transmitted to the Church through Peter. The Patriarch of Moscow is not the Successor of Peter. He does not have the rights that come with the Office of Peter. There is nothing that should bother anyone here. It’s pretty black and white.

The pope is not just another bishop. He is the Bishop of Rome, the Mother of All Churches. It is the mother who makes the laws. Therefore, the mother can also dispense with the laws, including dispensing herself.

The Orthodox point of view, though it’s an important one is also based on a mistaken understanding of the Primacy. It’s an understanding that has to be worked on slowly and lovingly.

But the Council declares that anyone who denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is condemned.

Not saying it is different from denying it. Not including it in a profession of faith does not mean that one denies it. The Apostles Creed does not include this statement, but we don’t deny it when we say the Apostles Creed.

As far as the councils are concerned, the only part of the councils that binds a pope is that which is divinely revealed. Anything that is created by the council does not bind the pope of that time or his successors. It makes no difference whether it’s an ecumenical council or not. Peter is always above the council, because it is Peter who gives legitimacy to the council. Without his recognition a council has no authority. We have to be careful that we do not place councils over popes. Divinely revealed dogma and divinely revealed moral law are above the pope. When councils profess these, it it the dogma that is binding on the pope as well as every other Catholic.

I’m still not sure I understand why the pope not saying the Filoque is upsetting to anyone, given his office and his authority. I’m confused about the pope, but about people’s reaction.

 

[Lester_S]

The Pope is the successor of Peter and the law is inscribed by Christ onto Peter’s heart and transmitted to the Church through Peter. The Patriarch of Moscow is not the Successor of Peter. He does not have the rights that come with the Office of Peter. There is nothing that should bother anyone here. It’s pretty black and white.

The pope is not just another bishop. He is the Bishop of Rome, the Mother of All Churches. It is the mother who makes the laws. Therefore, the mother can also dispense with the laws, including dispensing herself.

The Orthodox point of view, though it’s an important one is also based on a mistaken understanding of the Primacy. It’s an understanding that has to be worked on slowly and lovingly.

Not saying it is different from denying it. Not including it in a profession of faith does not mean that one denies it. The Apostles Creed does not include this statement, but we don’t deny it when we say the Apostles Creed.

As far as the councils are concerned, the only part of the councils that binds a pope is that which is divinely revealed. Anything that is created by the council does not bind the pope of that time or his successors. It makes no difference whether it’s an ecumenical council or not. Peter is always above the council, because it is Peter who gives legitimacy to the council. Without his recognition a council has no authority. We have to be careful that we do not place councils over popes. Divinely revealed dogma and divinely revealed moral law are above the pope. When councils profess these, it it the dogma that is binding on the pope as well as every other Catholic.

I’m still not sure I understand why the pope not saying the Filoque is upsetting to anyone, given his office and his authority. I’m confused about the pope, but about people’s reaction.

Check this link and this link

Again, I think Pope Francis has been a real blessing, especially for Eastern churches.

 

[Aramis]

The filioque is not said in a Divine Liturgy, whether it is Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. The reason being is it is not within their tradition to say the filioque.

It is however, unacceptable to exclude the filioque during a Latin Mass, or to include the filioque during a Divine Liturgy. The reason being is that every Catholic must observe the traditions of whichever service that are at.

God Bless.

Nice,but wrong. The Roman Rite does NOT use the filioque in Greek, nor in a couple other languages with similar issues, as adding it to the Greek creed is heretical, becaause of the proenai/ekorousis issue. In greek, the creed explicitly states origination.

 

[bben15]

Nice,but wrong. The Roman Rite does NOT use the filioque in Greek, nor in a couple other languages with similar issues, as adding it to the Greek creed is heretical, becaause of the proenai/ekorousis issue. In greek, the creed explicitly states origination.

My apologies. I misunderstood what he was asking. I thought he was asking if a Mass could be celebrated in Greek. When translated in Greek, the filioque means “Son of the Father,” not “proceeds from the Father.” So, they just exclude the filioque during Greek Masses. Please forgive for misunderstanding.

 

[Peter_J]

Why is filioque a heresy in Greek, but not in Latin?

It’s because the verb is different. “Proceeds” isn’t exactly equivalent to the Greek “ekporousis”, which is why we can say “proceeds from the Father and the Son”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have a curiosity, because I’m a Roman Catholic I don 't always understand the Eastern Catholic point of view and I would like to do so. I’ve always been a curious chap.

From my Roman point of view, it’s very hard for a pope to commit a liturgical abuse. Even if something is in the law, as long as it’s a law from which the pope can dispense another, he can also dispense himself. The Filioque is dogma, but the profession of faith itself is not dogma. It’s something that we do. It’s hard for me to explain what I mean. I hope I’m not too confusing.

My question is this, why would it be an issue at all since the pope can dispense himself from laws that the Church creates? I’m always fascinated by the things that seem to upset people.

The concept of “Liturgical Abuse” does not exist in the East. Though priests and bishops would tread carefully before “improvising”, certainly they can improvise on the Liturgy as long as it is “orthodox”, that is the faith is preserved. Normally the differences are subtle even though some are controversial. One of the big ones happening today is the issue whether the Royal Doors should be shut during the Anaphora (outside of Pascha) or not. There are those who don’t and there are those who do, even in the Orthodox Church. As long as one does not commit sacrilege or heresy or a grave break in tradition, improvisations in the Liturgy is allowed. It is not without scandal of course, but this is how we got to where we are today,and we will continue moving forward in the same manner to the future.

I am a bit troubled about the thought that the Pope is above Canon Law. Although I get what you mean that he can dispense the law so he can say it doesn’t apply to him. Orthodox Bishops are the same way to, they can apply laws and dispense as necessary for the good of their flock, but not in a way that means they are above the law. They would still be bound to it and held accountable by their brother bishops,and if dispensing on a law is found to be not just, they can be deposed. So they can’t just go act on a whim, there is a check and balance.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Pope is the successor of Peter and the law is inscribed by Christ onto Peter’s heart and transmitted to the Church through Peter. The Patriarch of Moscow is not the Successor of Peter. He does not have the rights that come with the Office of Peter. There is nothing that should bother anyone here. It’s pretty black and white.

From the Orthodox point of view, all bishops are successors of St. Peter. Anyone who follows Christ and confesses that He is the Son of God confesses as Peter.

The Orthodox point of view, though it’s an important one is also based on a mistaken understanding of the Primacy. It’s an understanding that has to be worked on slowly and lovingly.

There is no way the Orthodox Church will accept the Roman Catholic definition of Primacy as it is today.

Not saying it is different from denying it. Not including it in a profession of faith does not mean that one denies it. The Apostles Creed does not include this statement, but we don’t deny it when we say the Apostles Creed.

The reason why the Apostle’s Creed was dropped as “THE” creed of the Church is precisely because the Apostle’s Creed does not include professions about the divinity of Christ. Arius himself can profess the Apostle’s Creed without being a liar, nothing he taught would contradict what is in the Apostle’s Creed. So words not being in the creed is indeed a big deal.