Great job, Luke. Solid research, as always. I smiled at the irony of the statement:
"The Catechism says that Pope Leo I, who led the Church 440 from 461, had “confessed [the Filioque] dogmatically” in the year 447, following “an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition.”
Since creedal formulas were rarely recited (except at Councils) in the…
Great job, Luke. Solid research, as always. I smiled at the irony of the statement:
"The Catechism says that Pope Leo I, who led the Church 440 from 461, had “confessed [the Filioque] dogmatically” in the year 447, following “an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition.”
Since creedal formulas were rarely recited (except at Councils) in the early Church. The first five Ecumenical Councils never obliged that the Symbols be recited at a Sunday Mass. They were confessions, in the early Church, of the orthodoxy and unity of bishops when they gathered.
The Creed is in the Gelasian Missal (in Latin), for the baptism rite. It does *not* have the filioque clause. As you correctly point out, the filioque clause was added in the liturgical missals a century or two later.
From what I understand, several trends led to the adoption of the filioque clause. I wasn't aware the Pope had endorsed it in the fifth century. There were also regional episcopal councils that adopted the filioque as a defense of Christ's divinity. During the time of Charlemagne, there was a push to popularize the use of the filioque in the Creed as it was published in some of the Latin Rite Missals. While there was sound theological basis for the use of the filioque in the West, some historians say Charlemagne pushed for its wide adoption in order to bring Rome into Charlemagne's political orbit, and away from the influence of Constantinople.
Great job, Luke. Solid research, as always. I smiled at the irony of the statement:
"The Catechism says that Pope Leo I, who led the Church 440 from 461, had “confessed [the Filioque] dogmatically” in the year 447, following “an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition.”
Since creedal formulas were rarely recited (except at Councils) in the early Church. The first five Ecumenical Councils never obliged that the Symbols be recited at a Sunday Mass. They were confessions, in the early Church, of the orthodoxy and unity of bishops when they gathered.
The Creed is in the Gelasian Missal (in Latin), for the baptism rite. It does *not* have the filioque clause. As you correctly point out, the filioque clause was added in the liturgical missals a century or two later.
From what I understand, several trends led to the adoption of the filioque clause. I wasn't aware the Pope had endorsed it in the fifth century. There were also regional episcopal councils that adopted the filioque as a defense of Christ's divinity. During the time of Charlemagne, there was a push to popularize the use of the filioque in the Creed as it was published in some of the Latin Rite Missals. While there was sound theological basis for the use of the filioque in the West, some historians say Charlemagne pushed for its wide adoption in order to bring Rome into Charlemagne's political orbit, and away from the influence of Constantinople.