Uniting the Patriarchs of Antioch

[Ungcsertez]

The same way it was for three centuries prior to the First Ecumenical Council.

The Faith is the same, whether the Creed is recited every day or not. It’s not as if the words of the Creed make the Faith or the Liturgy, after all. The Liturgy is the presence of Christ and the Communion between man and God in the Eucharist; the Creed verbally expresses our Faith, but the Eucharist is our Faith.

One could say that the Creed is implicitely present in Christ, who is the Word, and who is received in the Eucharist. It’s not as if leaving the Creed out of a Liturgy in any way represents a refutation of it.

Peace and God bless!

Are you saying that a public profession of Faith, the exact profession that is instilled in all of us (the orthodox catholic Christian faithful) at the time of our initiation into the the Church (baptism, chrismation and reception of the Holy Eucharist), isn’t important in our modern world?

Ungcsertezs

 

[ASimpleSinner]

To me and other Eastern and Oriental Particular Church members in union w/Rome, this is very odd. Is not the Creed the foundation of our orthodox catholic (small “c” and small “o”) Christian faith? Was not the Council of Nicea (325 AD) the most important Ecumenical Council because the Creed was needed to define true doctrine during a time of numerous heretical teachings that was rampant throughout the then united universal Church? How can an Eucharistic liturgy not contain a recited/sung Creed?

Ungcsertezs

I don’t know that Nicea is unequivocally the “most important” council… But I will offer that I personally don’t see the compelling argument that it is outrageous that a Eucharistic liturgy during the weekday may not have it. Honestly, some differences are just differences. I would look askance (and have) at those from the Western Church who are perplexed by the aliturgical days or the fact that many parishes (the majority?) in the Eastern Catholic churches and Eastern Orthodox communion do not have DL daily 7 days a week.

Does it really occur to any of us to wonder if those attending Mass where the creed is not offered are without knowledge of the creed otherwise?

 

[Ungcsertez]

I don’t know that Nicea is unequivocally the “most important” council… But I will offer that I personally don’t see the compelling argument that it is outrageous that a Eucharistic liturgy during the weekday may not have it. Honestly, some differences are just differences. I would look askance (and have) at those from the Western Church who are perplexed by the aliturgical days or the fact that many parishes (the majority?) in the Eastern Catholic churches and Eastern Orthodox communion do not have DL daily 7 days a week.

Does it really occur to any of us to wonder if those attending Mass where the creed is not offered are without knowledge of the creed otherwise?

Is it not taught to all of us that after the commemoration of the Trinity, the Creed is the second most important belief in the orthodox catholic Christian Church?

Ungcsertezs

 

[Ghosty]

Are you saying that a public profession of Faith, the exact profession that is instilled in all of us (the orthodox catholic Christian faithful) at the time of our initiation into the the Church (baptism, chrismation and reception of the Holy Eucharist), isn’t important in our modern world?

Ungcsertezs

Who said anything about it not being important? The Latins have never recited it during weekday Liturgies, so far as I know, so it’s not as if they’ve abandoned a part of the tradition. Rather, over time other Churches and traditions added the Creed, and the Latins have also added it to the Sunday and Feasts.

The Creed is indeed important, critical even, but it’s not the Sacrament, it’s a statement that was made centuries after the Apostles, and while it’s the common and binding profession of Faith, it’s not the Faith itself; the Church, the Apostles even, got on without it. If the Latin tradition can get on without using it during the Mass for five days out of the week, I don’t think that’s a problem.

This has always been the Latin custom, and it’s never been a bone of contention. If anything it’s the Latins who are maintaining the most ancient tradition in this regard.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ungcsertez]

Who said anything about it not being important? The Latins have never recited it during weekday Liturgies, so far as I know, so it’s not as if they’ve abandoned a part of the tradition. Rather, over time other Churches and traditions added the Creed, and the Latins have also added it to the Sunday and Feasts.

The Creed is indeed important, critical even, but it’s not the Sacrament, it’s a statement that was made centuries after the Apostles, and while it’s the common and binding profession of Faith, it’s not the Faith itself; the Church, the Apostles even, got on without it. If the Latin tradition can get on without using it during the Mass for five days out of the week, I don’t think that’s a problem.

This has always been the Latin custom, and it’s never been a bone of contention. If anything it’s the Latins who are maintaining the most ancient tradition in this regard.

Peace and God bless!

What time period are we talking about? Since what century has this been a pratice in the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church tradition??

Ungcsertezs

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Is it not taught to all of us that after the commemoration of the Trinity, the Creed is the second most important belief in the orthodox catholic Christian Church?

Ungcsertezs

And…?

No one said it wasn’t important. As I alluded to before, some Latin traditionalists are rather aghast that the parochial situation is such that Easterners don’t “have Mass everyday”… They in turn could say, Is it not taught that the reception of the Eucharist brings healing and life?"

The practice is just different. Ecept to seize on an opportunity for contradistinction that reflects a somewhat self-serving and rather arbitrary sensibility about what MUST be done (because we do it that way!)… Well, I am not sure I can see that this is really as controversial as you are wanting us to see it as.

Some do X, some do Y.

 

[Ungcsertez]

And…?

No one said it wasn’t important. As I alluded to before, some Latin traditionalists are rather aghast that the parochial situation is such that Easterners don’t “have Mass everyday”… They in turn could say, Is it not taught that the reception of the Eucharist brings healing and life?"

The practice is just different. Ecept to seize on an opportunity for contradistinction that reflects a somewhat self-serving and rather arbitrary sensibility about what MUST be done (because we do it that way!)… Well, I am not sure I can see that this is really as controversial as you are wanting us to see it as.

Some do X, some do Y.

So there is no definitive point where and when this liturgical rubric started in the Latin/Roman/Western Church? I thought everything was defined in the Western Church right down to the smallest minutia detail???

Ungcsertezs

 

[Isa_Almisry]

To me and other Eastern and Oriental Particular Church members in union w/Rome, this is very odd. Is not the Creed the foundation of our orthodox catholic (small “c” and small “o”) Christian faith? Was not the Council of Nicea (325 AD) the most important Ecumenical Council because the Creed was needed to define true doctrine during a time of numerous heretical teachings that was rampant throughout the then united universal Church? How can an Eucharistic liturgy not contain a recited/sung Creed?

Ungcsertezs

Actually the practice of chanting the Creed didn’t start until the fifth century in the East, and took several centuries to catch on at all in the West, which is how the filioque escaped notice for some time. When the Franks heard it at the DL, the came to the conclusion that the East had omitted it.

 

[Ungcsertez]

Actually the practice of chanting the Creed didn’t start until the fifth century in the East, and took several centuries to catch on at all in the West, which is how the filioque escaped notice for some time. When the Franks heard it at the DL, the came to the conclusion that the East had omitted it.

So from 325 AD to the 400’s AD, no Particular Church Tradition’s Eucharistic liturgy contained a public recitation (or sung) of the Creed? Is this what you are saying?

Ungcsertezs

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So from 325 AD to the 400’s AD, no Particular Church Tradition’s Eucharistic liturgy contained a public recitation (or sung) of the Creed? Is this what you are saying?

Ungcsertezs

Yes, it doesn’t seem to have been the practice until between Ephesus and Chalcedon.

 

[Ungcsertez]

Yes, it doesn’t seem to have been the practice until between Ephesus and Chalcedon.

So no orthodox catholic Christian Church’s Eucharistic liturgy contained a Creed until the late 400’s AD. That it was in one of the numerous Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches that the Nicene Creed was first used in it’s original form (sans filioque clause), and was adopted much later by the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church which added the filioque clause. Is this what you are saying?

Getting back to my original question, in what year did the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church’s weekday liturgy start omitting the Creed?

Ungcsertezs

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Getting back to my original question, in what year did the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church’s weekday liturgy start omitting the Creed?

Ungcsertezs

What everyone has already said is that The Creed was not recited during mass to begin with, and when Latins DID start reciting it, they only recited in on Sundays and on Feats. Therefore, they NEVER omitted it during weekdays, because it was never there!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So no orthodox catholic Christian Church’s Eucharistic liturgy contained a Creed until the late 400’s AD.

Between Ephesus and Chalcdeon would be the early/mid 400s.

That it was in one of the numerous Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches that the Nicene Creed was first used in it’s original form (sans filioque clause), and was adopted much later by the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church which added the filioque clause. Is this what you are saying?

Yes.

Getting back to my original question, in what year did the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church’s weekday liturgy start omitting the Creed?

Never. It was not the original practice of Sunday DL. It never was adopted for the weekday.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

So there is no definitive point where and when this liturgical rubric started in the Latin/Roman/Western Church? I thought everything was defined in the Western Church right down to the smallest minutia detail???

Ungcsertezs

Wow. You really thought “thought everything was defined in the Western Church right down to the smallest minutia detail”? And you are then confused? Really? That is what you thought?

Maybe you should spend some time with the Latins to get disabused of that silliness. That is almost as embarassingly insulting as a westerner saying something inane like “I thought the Eastern Church just worried about growing beards and fasting.” You know better, but now you are just trifling.

So from 325 AD to the 400’s AD, no Particular Church Tradition’s Eucharistic liturgy contained a public recitation (or sung) of the Creed? Is this what you are saying?

Ungcsertezs

That was confirmed that is what he was saying… But for good measure you re-form the exact same question after an answer was offered for:

So no orthodox catholic Christian Church’s Eucharistic liturgy contained a Creed until the late 400’s AD. That it was in one of the numerous Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches that the Nicene Creed was first used in it’s original form (sans filioque clause), and was adopted much later by the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church which added the filioque clause. Is this what you are saying?

Getting back to my original question, in what year did the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church’s weekday liturgy start omitting the Creed?

Ungcsertezs

And the answer to the same question will be the same the second time.

Really, what is the impetus for the whole “Is outrage!” card you are playing on something the west just doesnt do that is common in the east. Does this “prove” something to you?

 

[Ghosty]

So there is no definitive point where and when this liturgical rubric started in the Latin/Roman/Western Church? I thought everything was defined in the Western Church right down to the smallest minutia detail???

I don’t know what Latin tradition you’re talking about.

The Latin tradition is perhaps the most diversified single tradition in the Church, followed closely by the Byzantine (must be a Roman thing).

I think a more accurate close-minded caricature would be that Latins argue amongst themselves over every smallest, minute detail, but don’t define it. In some cases, such as the dispute over “efficacious and sufficient Grace” between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, the Pope basically just said “argue all you want, but you’ll get no definition on the matter” and told them they’d have to find away to “agree to disagree”.

As one popular Latin Catholic writer put it: “The Church defines a few things so that we can argue about everything else”.

If you want a taste of this reality, go wading in the Philosophy, Apologetics, and Traditional Catholicism forums on this website. One of the reasons I come to the Eastern forum is because there’s less arguing, and the minutia of the discussions is more defined.

Peace and God bless!

 

[twf]

Yes Ghosty is totally correct. I don’t know where this myth of the Latin Church defining everything comes from. Jimmy was pushing it earlier on this thread to…
As I said before, I find that the Byzantines tend to be much more dogmatic than the Latin Church. They allow for fewer interpretations of various aspects of the faith…less internal debate between different traditions than there is in the Latin Church. For example, are the “brothers of Jesus” the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, Jesus’ cousins, or simply distant relatives from the same region? You’ll find all three views tolerated and debated in the Latin Church but only the first in the Byzantine churches. (I realize that’s a relatively trivial example, but it’s the first one that came to mind).

 

[Ungcsertez]

Never. It was not the original practice of Sunday DL. It never was adopted for the weekday.

It is obviously now a practice of the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church Sunday DL. So after the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church did adopt the use of the Creed in their Sunday DL, it never was used in the weekday Latin DL?

What is the difference of including it in the Latin Particular Church’s Sunday Divine Liturgy, but not in the weekday DL? Is there some theological reason for this difference?

Ungcsertezs

 

[Ghosty]

It is obviously now a practice of the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church Sunday DL. So after the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church did adopt the use of the Creed in their Sunday DL, it never was used in the weekday Latin DL?

Correct. The “daily Mass” never incorporated the Creed, at least not on any significant scale (I’m allowing for the possibility of local variations, which were once the rule of the day in the Latin Church prior to Trent).

What is the difference of including it in the Latin Particular Church’s Sunday Divine Liturgy, but not in the weekday DL? Is there some theological reason for this difference?

No theological reason, it just wasn’t added. The essence of the Liturgy is totally complete without it, unless you believe that the Apostles and their successors and disciples for four centuries weren’t actually celebrating the Liturgy. We implicitely say “I believe” when we receive the Eucharist, regardless of whether or not we recite a theological formula produced over the course of several Councils centuries after the Eucharistic celebration was instituted.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ungcsertez]

Correct. The “daily Mass” never incorporated the Creed, at least not on any significant scale (I’m allowing for the possibility of local variations, which were once the rule of the day in the Latin Church prior to Trent).

No theological reason, it just wasn’t added. The essence of the Liturgy is totally complete without it, unless you believe that the Apostles and their successors and disciples for four centuries weren’t actually celebrating the Liturgy. We implicitely say “I believe” when we receive the Eucharist, regardless of whether or not we recite a theological formula produced over the course of several Councils centuries after the Eucharistic celebration was instituted.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Thank you (Djakuju krasna!) for you patience and for you very polite response to my questions! I know very little or next to nothing regarding the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church.
Again, thank you for your kindness. May God grant you peace, health and happiness for many years, Mnohaja i Blahaja L’ita!

Ungcsertezs

 

[Formosus]

Never. It was not the original practice of Sunday DL. It never was adopted for the weekday.

It is obviously now a practice of the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church Sunday DL. So after the Latin/Roman/Western Particular Church did adopt the use of the Creed in their Sunday DL, it never was used in the weekday Latin DL?

What is the difference of including it in the Latin Particular Church’s Sunday Divine Liturgy, but not in the weekday DL? Is there some theological reason for this difference?

Ungcsertezs

Daily Mass started out of the “private Mass” in the west. The priest saying Mass by himself probably did not feel the need to recite the Creed (which , as pointed out earlier was a newer addition to sunday Mass). In the west, the private Mass is also where the “Low Mass” came from. Perhaps that helps answer your question.