P
pistis87
Guest
This is what I was wondering about. I was not expecting to find the creed of 381 there. So the removal of the filioque in EC liturgies was recent?
- Status
P
pistis87
Guest
Yeah, it’s right up there with the Orthodox Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism. Quote: “We proclaim that Roman Catholicism is a womb of heresies and fallacies.”
P
pistis87
Guest
Thanks! I guess I’ll just keep learning more and checking it out. It’s certainly not a decision to make quickly.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Where it has been removed, it would have been recently, but I couldn’t give you any specifics.
Hopefully some of the other regulars here, like Patchunky or Alex can fill in the details.
V
Vico
Guest
It was Leo III, 809 A.D., Saint Peter’s Church, both the Latin and Greek Symbol of Faith (of 381).
Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei.
V
Vico
Guest
The Byzantine Divine Liturgy promulgated in 2006 does not have it, the prior books did (1994) and the 1965 version has “(and the Son)”. The Byzantine Book of Prayer, 1995, has “[and the Son]”.
5
5Loaves
Guest
We have some little paperback copies of “The Byzantine Liturgy: A new English Translation of the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great, Third Revised Edition” put out by the **Russian Center at Fordum Copyright 1956 **(imprimautur from NY, Baltimore, and NY Provincial of the SJs.) which were apparently used by parishoners at that time because they have the names of parishoners written inside them. The parish was founded in 1955, The Liturgy would have been entirely in Church Slavonic in my parish at that time, and for long after that time. Anyway, Symbol of Faith does not include the Filioque. Current usage in our parish is the English version of the DL from the OCA which likewise has no Filioque. So as far as I can tell it’s never been used in our Russian Greek Catholic parish.
OP might like to listen to the interviews with the monks of Holy Resurrection Romanian Catholic Monastery: “Who are Eastern Catholics?” PART 1 and PART 2 with Fr. Maximos, Eastern Catholic Theology PART 1 and PART 2 with Fr. Abbot Nicholas, and Fasting in the Byzantine Church and Feasting in the Byzantine Church, both with Father Moses.
OP might like to listen to the interviews with the monks of Holy Resurrection Romanian Catholic Monastery: “Who are Eastern Catholics?” PART 1 and PART 2 with Fr. Maximos, Eastern Catholic Theology PART 1 and PART 2 with Fr. Abbot Nicholas, and Fasting in the Byzantine Church and Feasting in the Byzantine Church, both with Father Moses.
A
Aramis
Guest
Mid-1990’s at St. Nick, but the pastor was quick to do so.
C
crazzeto
Guest
I believe it was Pope Benedict XVI and Ecumenical Patriarchate Bartholomew
C
crazzeto
Guest
I think that might be good enough to declare intent, but it wouldn’t be good enough to make it actually true. At the very least, there is a practical question as to where in the church higharchy they would fit, under what Bishop etc.
V
Vico
Guest
I just looked in the little paperback OCA Divine Litugy (English and Russian) from the OCA 1977 text, approved May 21, 1989 by Metropolitan Theodosius which it does not have “and the Son” either. Maybe that is the same book you have?
P
pistis87
Guest
Great links! I’ll listen to them at work today
Thanks for the info, too. That was fascinating.
5
5Loaves
Guest
Well, I’m not sure which little paperback that would be. Sorry. Certainly any OCA text wouldn’t have the Filioque in their Symbol of Faith/Creed. There are a number of different little ones. Is it like this one for Bridegroom Services for example, but except it’s for the DL? They are nice little service books for different services.
I recently brought one of these to leave at church because we had a deaf person, who was a lip reader, at Liturgy a few weeks ago and we didn’t have something to hand her to assist her in knowing what was being said, and this I know follows our text. I actually like this little blue one, mine doesn’t have any design on the front, the print is large, there are some grainy photos of Fr. Schmemann as celebrant in DL peppered throughout which I think actually do give some visual clues as to where you are in the Liturgy. So for a visitor or someone just wanting the bare bones text of only the DL it’s good.
We don’t have any service books for visitors in my parish. We do have laminated copies of the Creed/Symbol of Faith, and of the prayers before communion. In the DL if you look at a service book, at least traditionally, all of the parts are for the clergy and the choir. The only parts for the people are the Creed and the Our Father. Even the “I believe O Lord, and I confess…” prayer before communion in the service books is said by the priest. In the Russian Orthodox I’ve been in locally and in our Russian Catholic parish we all say the prayers before communion, they do also in the Greek Orthodox here, and in the Russian Churches locally, Orthodox and our Catholic, the people sing with the choir except for the daily Kontakion and Troparion.
I have a black hardbound pocket size “The Order of the Divine Liturgy according to St. John Chrysostom, with appendices from St. Tikon’s Seminary Press 3rd Ed”. It lists under printing History 1967, 1977, and 2008. So your 1977 may be the same. Our clergy I believe are using also service books from St. Tikon’s Seminary Press. I leave my book at home and store my old prayer intentions in it.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I guess I missed this remark my first tme through 
…
The Pope did not actually control the Spanish church nor the Gallic church in those centuries nor earlier. Those synods were essentially self governing.
So the bishop of Rome could object, but he couldn’t really do anything about it. He would have to use moral suasion, and that did not seem to work with those people.
This may explain why the biggest crises between the Pope and the Patriarchs occurred after the filioque was introduced by a Frankish Pope into the liturgy at Rome. He was removed from the diptychs. Before then the Pope was not considered the head and absolute authority of the other western synods, and he was not ultimately held responsible for them. But he was in charge at Rome and was definitely considered accountable for that church’s practices.
Ironically, if the Papacy had the power then that it has now, we probably would not be having this discussion. It would be a footnote of church history because an earlier Pope would have squashed the filioque in Spain and Gaul.
…It appears to be a matter of the ecclesiology.
The Pope did not actually control the Spanish church nor the Gallic church in those centuries nor earlier. Those synods were essentially self governing.
So the bishop of Rome could object, but he couldn’t really do anything about it. He would have to use moral suasion, and that did not seem to work with those people.
This may explain why the biggest crises between the Pope and the Patriarchs occurred after the filioque was introduced by a Frankish Pope into the liturgy at Rome. He was removed from the diptychs. Before then the Pope was not considered the head and absolute authority of the other western synods, and he was not ultimately held responsible for them. But he was in charge at Rome and was definitely considered accountable for that church’s practices.
Ironically, if the Papacy had the power then that it has now, we probably would not be having this discussion. It would be a footnote of church history because an earlier Pope would have squashed the filioque in Spain and Gaul.
V
Vico
Guest
That is a puzzling remark, because In A.D. 587 (589?), the local council of Toledo (Spain) added filioque to the Creed as an attempt to combat Arianism, but Pope St. Leo the Great had already made it a dogma ~140 years before that with “Quam Laudabiliter,” to Turibius, Bishop of Astorga (21 July 447) stating: [The Holy Spirit] “who proceeds from the two.”
Since the Latin Church was not at the local council of 381 they were working with the Creed of 325 and received the revision of 381 at Chalcedon 451 where it was approved.
S
SubdeaconJohn
Guest
Even on the strictest modern understanding of Papal Infallibility, the holy Pope’s use of a phrase in a letter to a bishop can hardly be considered as having “made it a dogma”. Quam laudabiliter, if it shows anything, shows simply that Pope Saint Leo wasn’t averse to using the verbal formula of double procession.
M
mardukm
Guest
The puzzling thing is that while the Westerns did not consider the Pope to have absolute authority, it was the EASTERNS who assigned to him such a prerogative. Why else would they hold him accountable for something that he had no ultimate control over? I believe it was our EO brother Adrian (handle - JohnVIII) who has consistently pointed out (correctly, it seems) that it was the East who always attempted to the give to the Pope an authority he did not really have or even want.
The problem with that statement is that the Pope does not have the authority you pretend he does.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Good point, brother Subdeacon. However, I need to point out that the term “double procession” does not have any Magisterial backing, so it would be a mistake for you to assume it accurately describes the Catholic understanding of the matter.
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
I am suprised you said this. The double internal procession as one spiration is the dogma of the filioque.
From Fr. John Hardon, S.J. Dictionary:
PROCESSION. The origin of one from another. A procession is said to be external when the terminus of the procession goes outside the principle or source from which it proceeds. Thus creatures proceed by external procession from the triune God, their Primary Origin. An internal procession is immanent; the one proceeding remains united with the one from whom he or she proceeds. Thus the processions of the Son and the Holy Spirit are an immanent act of the Holy Trinity. An internal, divine procession signifies the origin of a divine person from another divine person (Son from the Father), or from other divine persons (the Holy Spirit from Father and Son) through the communication of numerically one and the same divine essence.
M
mardukm
Guest
Your response contains too many qualifiers for me to believe you yourself actually think “double procession” is on its own a proper way to express the Catholic dogma.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status