Posted on 07/27/2005 1:05:40 PM PDT by GF.Regis
No priest ever told me about the filioque clause. I learned about it in college in a history of religions class. Maybe I didn't remember it correctly and it was that the Orthodox didn't take out the clause - they just didn't want it put in. But it was that and the Bishop of Constantinople didn't like the power the Bishop of Rome had. My understanding is that they both ex-communicated each other.
You are really getting rude and defensive and I don't think I'm going to reply to you any more. I've tried to be polite, but you are very angry about something and I refuse to be the brunt of it. When you feel like speaking nicely, maybe I will reply.
You're missing the point, "The Protestant interpretation of those verses is that Jesus........"
The ONLY Protestant interpretation to ANY Bible passage, all the way from "In the beginning " to "with you all. Amen." is "I believe (or think)". Or "In MY opinion..." Or "I interpret it..." "MY view is..."
Now do you see what I was driving at?
As one of the Russian fathers put it(and I'm terribly sorry I don't have his name for you), the Holy Scriptures are like the blinding Sun that gives us light. If we look at the Sun directly, we will burn our eyes and do them permanent injury, even blind ourselves. To protect our eyes from the Sun's burning rays, we have to look at it through a very thick dark glass. The Holy Scriptures are the same. If you attempt to interpret them for yourself, you will harm yourself spiritually and maybe even physically as well. You have to look at them through the eyes of the fathers of the Church, not through some Magisterium but through the consistent teaching of the fathers.
Are familiar with the Vincentian Canon? As you say you are an Anglican or former Anglican, I would think you should be. If you are, I urge you to refamiliarize yourself with it, particularly as to the filioque heresy. If you are not familiar with it, click on http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.html
...he (Justin Martyr),was writing to demonstrate the harmlessness of Christianity, especially the mysterious Christian meetings, which were illegal, about which pagans believed horrible things. In reading his description we must remember that he writes for this purpose, not to supply future archaeologists with a complete picture of liturgical practices. Nevertheless his defence takes the form of an outline of the service which to the liturgist is the most precious document of the first three centuries.
There have been many liturgical practices instituted and then done away with for various reasons over the millenia. Perhaps the Kiss of Peace began to descend into the goofiness us ole curmudgeons complain about and so, was modified at the Council of Trent.
At the very least I think its position needs to be re-thought seriously and I am certainly not the only Catholic who thinks this way. Why, a quick search on the Internet landed me this little gem from America Magazine, (hardly a conservative rag), by Fr. Thomas Reese S.J.:
Likewise, the kiss of peace could be given either during the entrance rite (hello and welcome), after the penitential rite (a sign of reconciliation), prior to the preparation of gifts (first be reconciled to your brother [and sister], and then come and offer your gift) or at the end of the Eucharist (go in peace).
Of all the places to have the kiss of peace, its current position has by far the least symbolic value. In fact, its early opponents were correct in pointing out that it interfered with the flow of action from the Eucharistic prayer into the Communion. Historically, there was a time when the Our Father was used to conclude the prayer of the faithful, and the kiss of peace then followed. There is no reason why these options could not be permitted, and gradually pastors would learn which are most suitable for their communities at different times.
Over time the Roman Mass took shape and became a beautiful offering to God. Seeing what it has become, (and I am speaking of the Novus Ordo since 1978), in so many places is, to say the least, dis-heartening. The loss of the sacred and the enshrinement of mediocrity are the consequences of inventing how we think the early Christians practiced their faith. Perhaps some of these liturgists at Vatican II "felt" it was appropriate to place a Kiss of Peace right after the Consecration. Who are we to argue when feelings become the guide? Maybe we should go back to worshiping in our homes; or dig catacombs, (I shouldn't laugh it may come to this), or; as this one liturgist nun of my acquaintance has suggested, use the bodies of the sick as our Altars!
Last time this was said in those words was in the 9th century by semi-iconoclast Frankish stormtroopers.
The Creed was established and finalized by Ecumenical Councils and could not be changed by someone's opinion. Some Eastern Fathers (i.e. St. John Chrystostom) seem to have thought it was correct, but they didn't change the Creed in their Liturgies. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Councils that infallibly decreed the Symbol of Faith without the Filioque. That didn't stop the Latins from blatantly violating them by adding it to ther Creed. That alone makes the RCC non-Chalcedonian, or -- shall we say? -- beyond schismatic.
Yet, curiously, while the rest of Catholics say the Filioque, the Vatican does not profess it even to this day but sings the Creed in the original Greek, without the Filioque. The silver plates on the Vatican walls are without it too. The Roman Bishops refused to add it for 600 years.
As you are well aware, there are many Eastern rite churches in the Roman flock
Most Eastern-rite churches in communion with Rome are going back to their Orthodox roots, undergoing active de-latinization and returning to the original Creed without the Filioque.
The situation is far superior to what it was when I was raised in the rules and regulations, (relationship with Jesus?) fortress-Catholicism.
Justin Martyr's descriptions, whether they were "videotape accurate" or not, are irrelevant. The Roman liturgy was NOT what JM described only 100 years later, and certainly not what was canonized after Trent.
Finding antique practices is nice. Precisely how this contributes to "devlopment of the liturgy" is another question entirely, as Pius XII and Ratzinger have made extremely clear.
Because we accept the possibility of GOOD being developed.
It doesn't always work that way--as is clear.
Remember that a good deal of the Orthodox liturgy is also "developed" from the Apostolic practice.
Ummmnnnhh...I've heard a few Credo III's sung from the Vatican, (St Peter's) all of which incorporate Filioque.
"Remember that a good deal of the Orthodox liturgy is also 'developed' from the Apostolic practice."
I go by what the Council in Trullo said in Canon XXXII.
* I have already told you I am done responding to you. One reason I am done responding is typified by this post. My post to another gentleman had nothing to do with an insult to orthodoxy and it was not directed at you. It had to do with the gentleman's refusal to shake hands during the Catholic Liturgy. It was not directed at you. It had nothing to do with you or Orthodoxy.
In FACT, the gentleman I quoted, Jeroslav Pelikan IS ORTHODOX. A CONVERT TO ORTHODOXY FROM LUTHERANISM. SO HOW COULD HIS QUOTE BE TAKEN BY YOU TO BE AN INSULT TO ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY IS BEYOND ME AND, FURTHERMORE, SO FAR BEYOND ME I DON'T CARE TO HEAR THE EXPLANATION WHY YOU CONSIDER IT DOES APPLY TO YOU OR ORTHODOXY.
And from here on out, I will have nothing to do with you.
Please stop pinging me.
"My post to another gentleman...Please stop pinging me"
Now that I think about it, you're probably right. I took the Pelikan remark the wrong way, probably because he is well known as being a leader in the "development" school of thught that the West is presently enslaved by.
Are you the character who asked me not to send you any PMs? That really mystified me because, to tell you the truth, I cannot recall having sent you any in the first place.
Just my personal opinion, but I think you seem to have some issues to deal with, as I see from some of your posts. Are you a "still feeling very much wounded" Sen. John Kerry supporter maybe? Or are you afraid of the new Pope of Rome, fearful he might tell you to start fasting again on Fridays?
Ninenot,
FYI, an extract from
The Canons of the Council in Trullo; Often Called the Quinisext Council
Canon XXXII
For also James, the brother, according to the flesh, of Christ our God, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy...Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles... let him be deposed, as imperfectly shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down.
Now, some(but only some), of what was handed down is contained in Canon XXXII itself. The remainder is found in the Divine Liturgy According to St. James the Brother of the Lord. And as to the Presanctified Liturgy implicitly referred to by Canon XXXII, that is referred to more explicitly by another of the canons of the Council in Trullo and was handed down to us by St. Gregory the Dialogist Patriarch of the West and Pope of Rome.
So what's to develop? Nothing. All we need do is 2Th 2:15 "...stand fast, and hold the traditions which [we] have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
Would you then, in the interest of being liberal and progressive, help the enemy sappers? Thank you but the Church IS in FACT a fortress. And I don't want to alarm you but it is eternally besieged by the legions of hell. If you find the idea that evil exists, and IS TRYING TO DESTROY the Church, too rigid, perhaps you should pick a religion less dichotomous in it's morality. I don't think you appreciate the dangers of a Changing Liturgy. At who's will is it Changing? God's or man's? (keeping in mind that God is eternal and therefor immutable).
As to the legions of hell trying to destroy our fortress, they are already inside, and have been since Judas.
"...pagans, heathens, kooks, weirdoes, Jews, muslims etc....are your brothers and sisters."
Excuse me, but when these come into the Church, they are not to bring their heresies along with them but to repent of them on the way in.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
What a doofus! Pope Benedict sure has them running scared, doesn't he? I'm lovin it!
Another good analogy... an Ark is a ship, a ship must have rules and regulations. It must be governed rigidly or it will wreck.
Now you did not answer my question about the origin of modern tasteless liturgical vicissitude.
No need to worry. The Ark of Salvation can't sink. As to rigid or lax rule, I leave that to those with authority. I can only control myself
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.