When The Vatican Changes Things

[Guyonthestreet]

No, he didn’t say that the Creed cannot be changed without an ecumenical council. To quote from The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue? “While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it.”

My understanding was that no one could change the creed following the 3rd eccumenical council without resort to a further full eccumenical council. That’s what Leo was enshrining on the silver plates. Bizzare then that at the same time he approved the changes in private recitations of faith and in the catechism.

Which comes back to my original concern of Rome not leading, but being led.

Interesting linked article. I notice it’s a joint statement, A lot of the Orthodox sites Ive visited appear to be a lot less conciliatory on the matter of the Filioque.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Excellent advice - which is why I own one

If I were a catholic, I would be far more concerned about the millions of catholics that neither know, nor are faithful to, their churchs teaching, rather than lauding it over non-catholics in a non-catholic forum on the internet, like some pitiful individuals here

May God Bless and keep you too

But your not Catholic, so you may want to keep your opinions to yourself because they are negative and Catholics don’t think like you.

 

[Peter_J]

Bizarre then that at the same time he approved the changes in private recitations of faith and in the catechism.

How is that “bizarre”? There are many truths which Christians believe but that are not included in the Creed.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

How is that “bizarre”? There are many truths which Christians believe but that are not included in the Creed.

I understand that.

But it is bizzare to me that a Pope holds to the teaching of the eccumenical council regarding the Creed in public, but in private tolerates and even encourges the use of the filioque. Why not just call another council of all bishops including those in the east and discuss the folioque with all concerned? Why have the creed minus the filioque enscribed on silver plates and laid by St. Peter’s tomb while encouraging the filioque?

If the council was authored by the Holy Spirit as was believed, and all agreed no further addtions to the creed could be done without the full approval of another full eccumenical council, then why was the pope tolerating the filioque - even if it was to address specific herecies that arose in Spain.

Surely there was a better more open and more timely way to address the problem.

But hey, Im no pope

 

[Peter_J]

I understand that.

But it is bizzare to me that a Pope holds to the teaching of the eccumenical council regarding the Creed in public, but in private tolerates and even encourges the use of the filioque.

What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Pope Leo III was well aware that the filioque is true (or, to make that into a complete sentence, he was well aware that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father). The fact that it wasn’t part of the Creed (at that time) doesn’t change the fact that the filioque is true.

By the same token, transubstantiation isn’t included in the Creed (even today), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Is it hypocritical for the current Pope to “tolerate and even encourge” the use of the word “transubstantiation” without inserting it into the Creed? Certainly not!

 

[Guyonthestreet]

What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Pope Leo III was well aware that the filioque is true (or, to make that into a complete sentence, he was well aware that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father). The fact that it wasn’t part of the Creed (at that time) doesn’t change the fact that the filioque is true!

Maybe we’re talking at cross purposes here. Im not questioning his belief in the filioque. Or if the filioque is true or not.

Im questioning the behavior of publically upholding the eccumenical councils teaching that nothing can be added to or taken from the creed without a further full eccumenical council, while at the same time privately condoning the filioque and it’s use in certain parts of the world, which was at that time not part of the approved creed.

 

[rpp]

Maybe we’re talking at cross purposes here. Im not questioning his belief in the filioque. Or if the filioque is true or not.

Im questioning the behavior of publically upholding the eccumenical councils teaching that nothing can be added to or taken from the creed without a further full eccumenical council, while at the same time privately condoning the filioque and it’s use in certain parts of the world, which was at that time not part of the approved creed.

I do not think that receiving on the tongue (or hand) is part of the deposit of faith. It is part of Church law and part of liturgical norms and disciplines. Receiving only on the tongue is not an infallible doctrine or moral issue.

 

[Peter_J]

Maybe we’re talking at cross purposes here. Im not questioning his belief in the filioque. Or if the filioque is true or not.

Im questioning the behavior of publically upholding the eccumenical councils teaching that nothing can be added to or taken from the creed without a further full eccumenical council, while at the same time privately condoning the filioque and it’s use in certain parts of the world, which was at that time not part of the approved creed.

You’re still not making sense. Pope Leo III allowed people to say “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son filioque]”, he just didn’t allow them to include that statement in the Creed. What’s strange about that?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

You’re still not making sense. Pope Leo III allowed people to say “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son filioque]”, he just didn’t allow them to include that statement in the Creed. What’s strange about that?

Because the third eccumenical council defined, in entirely, what the Creed should consist of, and further stated that no changes what so ever could be made to the creed without the approval of a further full eccumenical council.

Allowing the creed to be recited in a different form is knowingly going againt the council, which he agreed was led by and authored by the Holy Spirit.

Can catholics add words to the Our Father?

Can the priest change the words of the consecration?

Saying Leo allowed people to say the filioque when reciting the creed, but not actually allow the filioque to to written down as part of the creed, is the same thing.

So, it would be like a local parish says ‘‘Our Father and Mother who art in Heaven and Earth and all over the place as well at the same time, now and always hallowed be thy name’’ this then spreads in practice - the pope knows and agrees with it but wont allow it written down so the text in the books say ‘‘Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name’’… eventually it builds up a head of steam and its global - then the pope holds a council and changes the text in the books to agree with the additions.

This is being led - not leading.

If the changes were necessary to address some herecy, then a council should have been called immediately and the herecy rooted out by the addition of the filioque and the faithful worldwide all singing off the same hymn sheet.

I cant make myself any clearer and you cant see the point Im making and think I make no sense.

So be it,

Have a good one

 

[Peter_J]

Saying Leo allowed people to say the filioque when reciting the creed, but not actually allow the filioque to to written down as part of the creed, is the same thing.

Can you produce any evidence that that’s what Leo did? I don’t think so.

Pope Leo III’s issued instructions that the filioque was not to be inserted into the Creed. He did not say “You can say the filioque in the Creed just so long as you don’t put it in the written text.”

Not everyone obeyed his instructions:

While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their own dioceses.

• usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml