Honestly, as a Latin Catholic, I'd be fine with dropping the filioque, and I think it'd be a very good thing for ecumenism and reunification with the Eastern Orthodox (yes, I know that *technically* it's now a resolved matter on paper, but still). I actually see this as the best option all around.
Honestly, as a Latin Catholic, I'd be fine with dropping the filioque, and I think it'd be a very good thing for ecumenism and reunification with the Eastern Orthodox (yes, I know that *technically* it's now a resolved matter on paper, but still). I actually see this as the best option all around.
All it would take is a bull from the Pope of Rome saying "We authoritatively declare that the recitation of the filioque in the creed is now suppressed. The Catholic Church maintains her theological position on the Doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit, and this disciplinary directive should not be construed as a reversal of teaching or anything thereabouts. Also, the use of the filioque in artistic liturgical contexts (Classic settings for Masses and other choral arrangements from the past) are permitted." Easy peasy, lemon sqeezy.
Drop the filioque, and then we can tackle the big prize: restoring the discipline of administering the sacraments to align with the Eastern (and actually traditional) arrangement of Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, and Eucharist together from birth. The whole "age of reason" thing makes no sense theologically, and was clearly just something convenient Saint Pius X used to justify his reform of sacramental communion practices. When I go to Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy and my friend's toddler can receive Jesus in the Eucharsit, but my toddler can't, you feel just how wrong this practice is practically and theologically.
Is it resolved on paper? Every time I've talked with an Orthodox (which hasn't been often) they make a point about that. And about Uniatism (their word). And about purgatory. And about the papacy. And about...
Lots.of thing are passed.around in Orthodoxy,especially among the hyper-dox and zealots.
Many of their lay faithful remember what Yaya or Baba told them more than anything they got in Church school.
Their hierarchs don't want to rock the boat with talk about the filioque.
They rarely speak pastorally about how an Orthodox and Catholic married couple can live out their faith which is expressed differently but that there is more that unites instead of divides our two Churches.
My favourite anti-Ecumenical event was that 87 page letter from two Greek Orthodox bishops in April 2014. They urged Pope Francis to repent of his many errors and convert to Orthodoxy. Then there was that humiliating fiasco in Bucharest where the Romanian Orthodox patriarch quite correctly refused to even say the Lord's Prayer with PF. And Pope Francis declares that it is a grave error to try to convert any Orthodox. Reunion is an unbelievably long way off.
Thanks for a thought provoking comment Matthew. My immediate reaction was recalling the words of that great theologian Humpty Dumpty who famously declared that when he used a word it meant anything he meant it to mean. If the words of the Creed can be amended anytime, it sends a very bad message, pastorally and psychologically. It is far worse than having Mass in another language and we have had 60 years of wrangling over Latin. Ditto if you can just abandon the "age of reason" reasoning....or lack of reasoning.
Try explaining this change to your average Joe and Josephine in the pew. They probably already have accepted for years that sodomy is AOK, Fiducia Supplicans confirms that the Pope has finally caught up to the 21st century and this "age of reason" change further confirms that our clergy, ancient and modern, are beyond clueless.
Other Christians endow certain practices with huge significance. One obvious example is the bitter split between the Russian Orthodox and the Old Believers which runs to this day. Look at the reasons behind that, which look ridiculously trivial to most Catholics.
The article states that "The Catechism says that Pope Leo I, who led the Church 440 from 461, had 'confessed [the Filioque] dogmatically' in the year 447".
Exactly. The recitation of the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed has been adjusted at several points throughout Church History, primarily as a matter of discipline to address some theological matter in the Church. Leo’s profession at the Toledo Synod is one example.
That said, not retaining the Filioque in the recitation of the Creed is not necessarily a reversal of dogma, because such a change is a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine.
The discipline of what is recited in the Creed is not the same thing as the various dogmatic teachings posited in the Creed.
Just fyi age of reason is not that new at all. Baptism and confirmation were separated in the west over a thousand years prior as the west chose to emphasize apostolic succession with confirmation retained by bishops and east chose to emphasize unity of sacraments of initiation. This was as t he church grew too large for bishop to attend every baptism.
St Pius the X moved first communion EARLIER to age of reason bc custom had become 12ish or some foolish bound up with heresies of “never good enough to receive Eucharist” that also meant nobody ever went to communion at weekly mass.
Before SPx, babies weren’t being confirmed in the west . Not since early hundreds.
Honestly, as a Latin Catholic, I'd be fine with dropping the filioque, and I think it'd be a very good thing for ecumenism and reunification with the Eastern Orthodox (yes, I know that *technically* it's now a resolved matter on paper, but still). I actually see this as the best option all around.
All it would take is a bull from the Pope of Rome saying "We authoritatively declare that the recitation of the filioque in the creed is now suppressed. The Catholic Church maintains her theological position on the Doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit, and this disciplinary directive should not be construed as a reversal of teaching or anything thereabouts. Also, the use of the filioque in artistic liturgical contexts (Classic settings for Masses and other choral arrangements from the past) are permitted." Easy peasy, lemon sqeezy.
Drop the filioque, and then we can tackle the big prize: restoring the discipline of administering the sacraments to align with the Eastern (and actually traditional) arrangement of Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, and Eucharist together from birth. The whole "age of reason" thing makes no sense theologically, and was clearly just something convenient Saint Pius X used to justify his reform of sacramental communion practices. When I go to Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy and my friend's toddler can receive Jesus in the Eucharsit, but my toddler can't, you feel just how wrong this practice is practically and theologically.
Is it resolved on paper? Every time I've talked with an Orthodox (which hasn't been often) they make a point about that. And about Uniatism (their word). And about purgatory. And about the papacy. And about...
Lots.of thing are passed.around in Orthodoxy,especially among the hyper-dox and zealots.
Many of their lay faithful remember what Yaya or Baba told them more than anything they got in Church school.
Their hierarchs don't want to rock the boat with talk about the filioque.
They rarely speak pastorally about how an Orthodox and Catholic married couple can live out their faith which is expressed differently but that there is more that unites instead of divides our two Churches.
My favourite anti-Ecumenical event was that 87 page letter from two Greek Orthodox bishops in April 2014. They urged Pope Francis to repent of his many errors and convert to Orthodoxy. Then there was that humiliating fiasco in Bucharest where the Romanian Orthodox patriarch quite correctly refused to even say the Lord's Prayer with PF. And Pope Francis declares that it is a grave error to try to convert any Orthodox. Reunion is an unbelievably long way off.
Thanks for a thought provoking comment Matthew. My immediate reaction was recalling the words of that great theologian Humpty Dumpty who famously declared that when he used a word it meant anything he meant it to mean. If the words of the Creed can be amended anytime, it sends a very bad message, pastorally and psychologically. It is far worse than having Mass in another language and we have had 60 years of wrangling over Latin. Ditto if you can just abandon the "age of reason" reasoning....or lack of reasoning.
Try explaining this change to your average Joe and Josephine in the pew. They probably already have accepted for years that sodomy is AOK, Fiducia Supplicans confirms that the Pope has finally caught up to the 21st century and this "age of reason" change further confirms that our clergy, ancient and modern, are beyond clueless.
Other Christians endow certain practices with huge significance. One obvious example is the bitter split between the Russian Orthodox and the Old Believers which runs to this day. Look at the reasons behind that, which look ridiculously trivial to most Catholics.
ok, pal
Bravo!
The article states that "The Catechism says that Pope Leo I, who led the Church 440 from 461, had 'confessed [the Filioque] dogmatically' in the year 447".
No takebacks for dogmatic declarations, right?
Exactly. The recitation of the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed has been adjusted at several points throughout Church History, primarily as a matter of discipline to address some theological matter in the Church. Leo’s profession at the Toledo Synod is one example.
That said, not retaining the Filioque in the recitation of the Creed is not necessarily a reversal of dogma, because such a change is a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine.
The discipline of what is recited in the Creed is not the same thing as the various dogmatic teachings posited in the Creed.
Just fyi age of reason is not that new at all. Baptism and confirmation were separated in the west over a thousand years prior as the west chose to emphasize apostolic succession with confirmation retained by bishops and east chose to emphasize unity of sacraments of initiation. This was as t he church grew too large for bishop to attend every baptism.
St Pius the X moved first communion EARLIER to age of reason bc custom had become 12ish or some foolish bound up with heresies of “never good enough to receive Eucharist” that also meant nobody ever went to communion at weekly mass.
Before SPx, babies weren’t being confirmed in the west . Not since early hundreds.