J
jean8
Guest
DK,
I asked the same questoon. I didn’t receive an answer , so I looked it up.
It’s a Constantinople Creed. I wonder how long it is?
We can look it on the net.
See, catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp
God bless,
jean
- Status
I asked the same questoon. I didn’t receive an answer , so I looked it up.
It’s a Constantinople Creed. I wonder how long it is?
We can look it on the net.
See, catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp
God bless,
jean
D
Deacon_Lance
Guest
It did forbid priests from confering Chrismation, but from what I can tell this was completely ignored by our priests until this provision was withdrawn.
P
Patchunky
Guest
So did an earlier decree…
1907 The papal bull *Ea Semper *curtailed the rights of Greek Catholics in the United States. It required that all Ruthenian Clergy be celibate, forbade clergy from administering baptism and chrismation, made the Ruthenian church in the US report directly to Rome rather than to the leaders in Ruthenia and Galacia, mandated that bishops be appointed directly by Rome, required Ruthenian bishops to obtain permission from Latin Rite Bishop before visiting Ruthenian parishes, and allowed Ruthenians wishing to be priests to study at Latin seminaries, but only if they were celibate.
M
mardukm
Guest
Wasn’t Ea Semper quickly overturned in 1913, an action formalized in 1914 with the decree Cum Episcopo?
Blessings
S
Sunflower15
Guest
To be perfectly honest. This is what I really hear whenever this subject comes up…Hello Sunflower, No. By this same logic then, the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Yet the Fathers of the church wisely refused to speculate upon that, and no one inserted the concept into the Creed.
Hello dear friend,
Hm, m…interesting that the Latin Fathers didn’t say something about that…since in the Bible is clearly has Mary “overshadowed” by the HS, not the Father…if that doesn’t mean “begotten”…am not sure what does!
It is important for theological reasons to preserve the monarchy of the Father.
And do we know why is this monarchy theme so important theologically? Is there something else “hinging” upon it? Not creation maybe? I’m just trying to understand why we would segregate from each other for centuries over this…I don’t see other significant differences [culture & rituals should not be considered good reasons]
In other words, the Son is Begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father is Un-Begotten, and Un-Proceeding.
What does begotten mean, and what does proceeding mean? How do these two concepts differ? No one really knows, this is beyond our ability to understand.
You are not dense.
Thanks for your charity. He also likes the simple, you must be like Him. I wonder if these incredibly futile [as in impossible to be grasped] distinctions we are making even mean anything to God…and if not, why should it to us?
There has been just far too much speculation on the subject.
some historical figure from either side said “x” back “then” and his counterpart said “x” back “then”…and [repeat ad nauseam]…taking great care NOT to truly delve AT ALL into the WHAT they were ALL referring to at length, [as in the actual theological belief], since really NO ONE can possibly understand or know for sure this incredibly essential piece of info with our finite minds…but let’s keep the “WHO said what ABOUT it” withOUT really touching on the WHAT part…going on indefinitely…for dear life!
Maybe it’s just me…
J
jimmy
Guest
No, the pope doesn’t make every decision according to the Eastern Orthodox. The west tries to reduce everything down to the pope but that is just not how the early Church was.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Fr. Deacon Lance and Patchunky:
Yup - it’s right in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Greek Cathoics in the US. In the Rusyn Encylopedia, however, Magosci doesn’t mention this item, but does say that Ea Semper was pretty much ignored in every particular. Ea Semper tried to preserve certain perogatives of the indigneous Catholic hierarchy, notwithstanding the contemporaneous arrival of the first Greek Catholic Bishop in the US. Things worked out much differently.
The working out of a solution to new problems that arose in an unprecedented period of masss immigration took a little bit of time. I think it’s unfair of Cluny to take situations that emerged at that time as exemplary of our interaction with the Vatican - anymore than the setting up of Orthodox rival juridictions in the US is exemplary of the realtionships among different Orthodox churches.
But then again, this subtopic was about forced liturgical latinizations. And that we haven’t heard about.
Yup - it’s right in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Greek Cathoics in the US. In the Rusyn Encylopedia, however, Magosci doesn’t mention this item, but does say that Ea Semper was pretty much ignored in every particular. Ea Semper tried to preserve certain perogatives of the indigneous Catholic hierarchy, notwithstanding the contemporaneous arrival of the first Greek Catholic Bishop in the US. Things worked out much differently.
The working out of a solution to new problems that arose in an unprecedented period of masss immigration took a little bit of time. I think it’s unfair of Cluny to take situations that emerged at that time as exemplary of our interaction with the Vatican - anymore than the setting up of Orthodox rival juridictions in the US is exemplary of the realtionships among different Orthodox churches.
But then again, this subtopic was about forced liturgical latinizations. And that we haven’t heard about.
M
mardukm
Guest
Not EVERY decision, but he has a right to hear and judge on the appeals of bishops to him. Not even the Vatican Council claimed that the Pope is involved in EVERY decision, so where to you get that idea?
Blessings
J
jimmy
Guest
The Vatican Council may not have said it but that is the way it is developing. Look at the fact that the American bishops can’t even approve of an English translation of the liturgy without the approval of Rome.
D
Diak
Guest
“Subtopic” or red herring (as the case may be) regarding “forced liturgical latinizations” aside, the opening topic had to do with Eastern Catholic Churches dropping the Filioque.
The answer appears to be that many if not most particular Eastern Catholic Churches have or are in the process of doing this.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
That is not an indication of what you are suggesting. We are a family and in fact, the when the Liturgy was renewed, we also seeked the Holy See’s (name removed by moderator)ut and comments, and later the Vatican said everything thing was good but insisted we remove the Filioque.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Jimmy,
You would have a point if AND ONLY IF the Pope currently has to approve the text of liturgies in other Patriarchal territories. Does he?
Otherwise, you have no basis for your complaint.
Blessings
The bishop of Rome is approving a translation of the Liturgy in HIS PATRIARCHAL territory. Why is that a big deal? The Latin bishops get the same treatment/consideration.
You would have a point if AND ONLY IF the Pope currently has to approve the text of liturgies in other Patriarchal territories. Does he?
Otherwise, you have no basis for your complaint.
Blessings
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Hmmm, I think he does. He approves the Latin Liturgical texts for liturgies in the Patriarchal territoriesm, such as Antioch, does he not?
M
mardukm
Guest
Thanks for the info. I suppose if the Patriarch has an official office for Latin Translation in his curia, then the responsibility would fall to him. Otherwise, I don’t see why a Latin Translation should NOT be fully under the supervision of the Patriarchal curia of the Latin Church. In comparison, does the papal Curia have to approve Liturgies in slavonic or Russian or any other language for Eastern Churches in the Western patriarchal territories - or only the English liturgies?
So it would seem that the approval of Latin liturgies in non-Latin Patriarchal territories is merely a practical matter, and does not really touch upon canonical considerations. I mean, Eastern/Oriental liturgies in English within the Western patriarchal territories can affect English speaking Latin Catholics, so the Patriarch of those parts (who also happens to be the Pope) needs to get involved. But he would not get involved, it seems, if the Liturgy is NOT in English (i.e., the approval for the non-English liturgies would be the sole responsibility of the hierarchs of those non-Latin Churches (?)).
Blessings,
Marduk
M
malphono
Guest
Perhaps I’m misreading, but I take this
jimmy:
I am unaware of any requirement for English-language translations of Eastern and Oriental liturgies to be approved by Rome. Am I just not reading between the lines?
to mean the USCCB and the upcoming revision of the ICEL (mis)-translation of the Latin Rite liturgy.
I am unaware of any requirement for English-language translations of Eastern and Oriental liturgies to be approved by Rome. Am I just not reading between the lines?
C
CristusRex
Guest
So, what you suggest would be a better solution ? To get as many Missals as english language country are there ?
- Status