Why the Mass in Latin?
#61
(06-15-2011, 09:24 AM)Melkite Wrote: Are you able to read the whole Greek text of what you posted?

Having studied Greek in school, I can make my way through it with the help of a dictionary.

(06-15-2011, 09:24 AM)Melkite Wrote:  I don't know Greek, so I can't.  Ultimately, in Greek, and in English, the filioque is best expressed by saying through the Son, not from the Son. From the Son is heretical in Greek and English in a way that it is not in Latin.  What would have been heretical would be if the Latin were to say ex Filio rather than filioque.  Filioque implies that the Spirit's procession from the Son is subordinate to his procession from the Father.

Heresy is by definition dissent from defined dogma. Because, as stated above, the Council of Florence dogmatically defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son in a text authoritatively issued in Greek as well as in Latin, it cannot be heretical to state that the Holy Spirit "ἐξ ἀμποτἐρων ἐκπορεὔεται"--"ex utroque procedit"--"proceeds from both," to quote the Council directly.

Although in the Creed it is said that the Holy Spirit "ex Patre Filioque procedit," the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son has also been expressed other than with the enclitic -que.  For example, the dogmatic definition itself stated that, "Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio aeternaliter est"--"The Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son". Moreover, the enclitic -que does not express subordination, as you seem to assert. At least according to Lewis and Short, "it is, in archaic and official language, preferred to et [the normal word for and], from which it is distinguished by denoting a closer connection."

To state "Spiritus Sanctus procedit ex Filio"--"Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son" is in no way heretical. Florence itself says that verbatim (Denzinger 691).
Reply
#62
(06-16-2011, 01:43 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 08:56 AM)Rosarium Wrote: The Nicene Creed was altered for liturgical use by both the East and West. The problems people have with it are seemingly just excuses. While in traditional Eastern theology it does not really make sense, it does work if understood properly, but it is not essential to the Creed. For example, the Apostles Creed does not explicitly say there is one God. Using the Creed in its original approved form is just as acceptable as a proper alteration to it as long as one is not denying teachings of the Church, there is no reason to add to the Creed. It is very selective in what it professes. Lack of profession does not mean denial.

Lack of explicit profession does not necessarily mean denial, but it definitely makes denial a lot easier. I've met a number of Eastern "Catholics" who deny outright that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. One way to root out this heresy would be to mandate the use of the Filioque whenever the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is recited liturgically.

Ruling with an iron fist never goes over well, and is especially not what Christ intended for the successor of St. Peter when he granted him the keys.  Inserting the filioque into the creed by force or coersion will inevitably lead to an otherwise avoidable schism.  Roman pride pitted against Byzantine pride.  One way to root out this schismatic tendency would be for Rome to lead in humility and remove the filioque from the creed wherever it is recited liturgically.
Reply
#63
(06-16-2011, 02:33 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 01:43 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 08:56 AM)Rosarium Wrote: The Nicene Creed was altered for liturgical use by both the East and West. The problems people have with it are seemingly just excuses. While in traditional Eastern theology it does not really make sense, it does work if understood properly, but it is not essential to the Creed. For example, the Apostles Creed does not explicitly say there is one God. Using the Creed in its original approved form is just as acceptable as a proper alteration to it as long as one is not denying teachings of the Church, there is no reason to add to the Creed. It is very selective in what it professes. Lack of profession does not mean denial.

Lack of explicit profession does not necessarily mean denial, but it definitely makes denial a lot easier. I've met a number of Eastern "Catholics" who deny outright that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. One way to root out this heresy would be to mandate the use of the Filioque whenever the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is recited liturgically.

Ruling with an iron fist never goes over well, and is especially not what Christ intended for the successor of St. Peter when he granted him the keys.  Inserting the filioque into the creed by force or coersion will inevitably lead to an otherwise avoidable schism.  Roman pride pitted against Byzantine pride.  One way to root out this schismatic tendency would be for Rome to lead in humility and remove the filioque from the creed wherever it is recited liturgically.

Can't we just keep our translation of the creed the way it is, let you keep your  translation of the creed the way it is, and let bygones be bygones?
Reply
#64
(06-15-2011, 09:24 AM)Melkite Wrote: At the first 7 ecumenical councils, the military force was in Constantinople, so the Byzantines would not have needed to supplicate a foreign power because of their own military weakness as they did in Florence.  The circumstances are entirely different.

The political pressure wasn't the same, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. One historian of Christianity describes the First Council of Nicaea thus:

Diarmaid MacCulloc, Christianity, p. 214 Wrote:He [Constantine], told the delegates that they would enjoy the climate and also, with a hint of menace, that he intended to 'be present as a spectator and participator in those things which will be done': the first time in Christian history that this had happened. Some think that he actually presided at the council. It was he, probably on the recommendation of his ecclesiastical adviser, a Spanish bishop, Hosius or Ossius of Cordova, who proposed a most significant clause in the creed which emerged as the council's agreed pronouncement: the statement that the Son was 'of one substance' (homoousios) with the Father. Faced with the awe-inspiring presence of the emperor of the known world, there could be little opposition to this: only two bishops are recorded as standing out against it.

It thus seems to me that, even if bishops at a Council are politically pressured into signing its documents, the Council's decrees remain valid.

But even if the bishops present at Florence did not validly agree to Laetentur Caeli (the document that treats on the Filiioque), the document itself was a papal bull, promulgated in person by Eugene IV. Thus the definition contained therein would still be dogmatic due to papal infallibility.

(06-15-2011, 09:24 AM)Melkite Wrote: It better expresses it in Latin.  But, there is nothing in the Creed about the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, the Assumption, etc., etc.  The Creed without the Filioque perfectly expresses fundamental Catholic dogma.  

The Immaculate Coneption, Papal Infallibility, and the Assumption have never been explicitly mentioned in the Nicene Creed. On the other hand "the explanation of words 'and the Son' for the sake of declaring the truth and also because imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed."
Reply
#65
(06-16-2011, 02:44 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 02:33 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 01:43 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 08:56 AM)Rosarium Wrote: The Nicene Creed was altered for liturgical use by both the East and West. The problems people have with it are seemingly just excuses. While in traditional Eastern theology it does not really make sense, it does work if understood properly, but it is not essential to the Creed. For example, the Apostles Creed does not explicitly say there is one God. Using the Creed in its original approved form is just as acceptable as a proper alteration to it as long as one is not denying teachings of the Church, there is no reason to add to the Creed. It is very selective in what it professes. Lack of profession does not mean denial.

Lack of explicit profession does not necessarily mean denial, but it definitely makes denial a lot easier. I've met a number of Eastern "Catholics" who deny outright that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. One way to root out this heresy would be to mandate the use of the Filioque whenever the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is recited liturgically.

Ruling with an iron fist never goes over well, and is especially not what Christ intended for the successor of St. Peter when he granted him the keys.  Inserting the filioque into the creed by force or coersion will inevitably lead to an otherwise avoidable schism.  Roman pride pitted against Byzantine pride.  One way to root out this schismatic tendency would be for Rome to lead in humility and remove the filioque from the creed wherever it is recited liturgically.

Can't we just keep our creed the way it is, let you keep your creed the way it is, and let bygones be bygones?

I've been ok with that all along.  I don't come from the Church where ecclesial universality is dependent upon liturgical conformity.  I'm just trying to point out to people like Resurrexi who seem to be quick to demand non-Romans scrap their traditions in favor of the Roman, how quickly they will then balk if anyone suggest the Latin give up his tradition instead and replace it with a non-Roman.  It's a one way street with some Latins.  You're practically a heretic if you refuse to give up your own traditions for that of Rome, and you're a heretic if you suggest Romans should give up some of their traditions for someone else's.  Such Latins are guilty of the same patrimonial arrogance they accuse the Byzantines of.
Reply
#66
(06-16-2011, 02:54 AM)Melkite Wrote: I've been ok with that all along.  I don't come from the Church where ecclesial universality is dependent upon liturgical conformity.  I'm just trying to point out to people like Resurrexi who seem to be quick to demand non-Romans scrap their traditions in favor of the Roman, how quickly they will then balk if anyone suggest the Latin give up his tradition instead and replace it with a non-Roman.  It's a one way street with some Latins.  You're practically a heretic if you refuse to give up your own traditions for that of Rome, and you're a heretic if you suggest Romans should give up some of their traditions for someone else's.  Such Latins are guilty of the same patrimonial arrogance they accuse the Byzantines of.

I don't think its a matter of arrogance as much as you think although there can be arrogance on both sides. Certain things like the words of institution have been defined by the universal Church. And there's no need to listen to other ideas about when the consecration occurs. Other things have room for discussion and they will always be discussed and debated. The East and West have different languages, and different liturgies it's bound to happen.

The worst event in church history was due to some of these issues (filioque, etc.) We are better to stick together as one church your'e right about that. But what has been defined by the church is defined and can't just be removed.

Reply
#67
(06-16-2011, 02:54 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 02:44 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 02:33 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 01:43 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 08:56 AM)Rosarium Wrote: The Nicene Creed was altered for liturgical use by both the East and West. The problems people have with it are seemingly just excuses. While in traditional Eastern theology it does not really make sense, it does work if understood properly, but it is not essential to the Creed. For example, the Apostles Creed does not explicitly say there is one God. Using the Creed in its original approved form is just as acceptable as a proper alteration to it as long as one is not denying teachings of the Church, there is no reason to add to the Creed. It is very selective in what it professes. Lack of profession does not mean denial.

Lack of explicit profession does not necessarily mean denial, but it definitely makes denial a lot easier. I've met a number of Eastern "Catholics" who deny outright that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. One way to root out this heresy would be to mandate the use of the Filioque whenever the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is recited liturgically.

Ruling with an iron fist never goes over well, and is especially not what Christ intended for the successor of St. Peter when he granted him the keys.  Inserting the filioque into the creed by force or coersion will inevitably lead to an otherwise avoidable schism.  Roman pride pitted against Byzantine pride.  One way to root out this schismatic tendency would be for Rome to lead in humility and remove the filioque from the creed wherever it is recited liturgically.

Can't we just keep our creed the way it is, let you keep your creed the way it is, and let bygones be bygones?

I've been ok with that all along.  I don't come from the Church where ecclesial universality is dependent upon liturgical conformity.  I'm just trying to point out to people like Resurrexi who seem to be quick to demand non-Romans scrap their traditions in favor of the Roman, how quickly they will then balk if anyone suggest the Latin give up his tradition instead and replace it with a non-Roman.  It's a one way street with some Latins.  You're practically a heretic if you refuse to give up your own traditions for that of Rome, and you're a heretic if you suggest Romans should give up some of their traditions for someone else's.  Such Latins are guilty of the same patrimonial arrogance they accuse the Byzantines of.

I think many traditional Roman Catholics are very sympathetic to the treatment of Eastern Catholics over the years as we ourselves don't like they way our liturgy has been treated.  In fact many traditional Roman Catholics often prefer to attend Eastern Rite services instead of the Novus Ordo.  I don't think you want to let a bad experience with a particular Roman Catholic let you stereotype us all.  
Reply
#68
(06-16-2011, 03:04 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: I think many traditional Roman Catholics are very sympathetic to the treatment of Eastern Catholics over the years as we ourselves don't like they way our liturgy has been treated.  In fact many traditional Roman Catholics often prefer to attend Eastern Rite services instead of the Novus Ordo.  I don't think you want to let a bad experience with a particular Roman Catholic let you stereotype us all.  

This is very true. I think most of us are sympathetic to the Eastern Rites. Although I can't speak for all I would attend a Divine Liturgy any day over a Novus Ordo mass. Just like there are Easterners who are sympathetic to the Latins and a few who aren't.
Reply
#69
(06-16-2011, 02:24 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 02:00 AM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 01:43 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: Of course it is by the power of God that transubstantiation occurs; I never said otherwise. What I was saying is that the Words of Institution alone constitute the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the "Epiklesis" is no part of the form.

If I'm not mistaken the sacred host was transformed during the words of consecration and not the Epiklesis during the miracle of Lanciano which was a Greek Liturgy said by a Basillian monk.

It does not matter whether it is the Mass or the Divine Liturgy it is the words of consecration alone that constitute the form.

Why does it really matter for Latins to know when exactly the consecration takes place?  Is it insufficient for you to preserve the mysteries of God?

It matters for a number of reasons.

One is so that, if the priest makes a mistake in celebrating the Mass, he knows whether he needs to go back and fix it or not. For example, if a priest accidentally skipped the beginning of the Canon, but still managed to say the Words of Institution properly, does he need to go back and say the part he skipped if he later realizes his mistake? Since we know that the Words of Institution are the only thing necessary for validity, then the priest doesn't have to go back and say "Te igitur" and "Communicantes".

Another reason is that, if a priest has made a mistake that needs to be fixed, he knows how to fix it. Let's say a priest says the entire Canon correctly, except that he accidentally omits the Words of Institution over the Chalice. When he realizes his mistake, he needs to go back and say and say the proper Words of Institution for the Chalice, or else the wine will not be transubstantiated.

A third reason is that, if a person attending the liturgy notices that the priest did something incorrectly, he can know whether he may adore the species or not. If one notices that, in the course of saying the Canon, the priest failed to say the Words of Institution for the bread, that person may not adore the host, since Christ is not present therein. Such a person would also know not to attempt to receive holy Communion, since he wouldn't be receiving anything more than mere bread.

A fourth reason is that, out of piety and devotion, many of the faithful desire to adore Christ as soon as He is substantially present. In order to do this, the faithful must know precisely when transubstantiation occurs.
Reply
#70
(06-16-2011, 02:33 AM)Melkite Wrote: Ruling with an iron fist never goes over well, and is especially not what Christ intended for the successor of St. Peter when he granted him the keys.  Inserting the filioque into the creed by force or coersion will inevitably lead to an otherwise avoidable schism.  Roman pride pitted against Byzantine pride.  One way to root out this schismatic tendency would be for Rome to lead in humility and remove the filioque from the creed wherever it is recited liturgically.

Removing the Filioque from the liturgical recitation of the Creed where it was already present would give the impression that the Church had changed its doctrine. It would lead many falsely to believe that one can reject what the Lyons II and Florence dogmatically defined, namely, "that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" (Denzinger 691).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)