Topic: Papal Liturgy nowadays

[Papist]

Are you telling me that there are no parishes in Poland who offer a reverential Novus Ordo liturgy?

I don't know what is reverential enough for you, but, AFAIK, there are no parishes in Poland which would offer the NOM in Latin, in Gregorian chant, ad orientem, with six candles and a crucifix in the middle of the altar, etc., etc.

So if it doesn't have the precise combination, then it is not reverent? ... Interesting.

[Papist]

You miss.  

Never met a child quite so jaded.

Indeed. Too much smugness and snark.  

Funny, I was just reading about you guys in Psalm 2.

I read about you every time Jesus condemns the pharisees.

[Michał]

The option you offer . . .

It wasn't me who offered it. It was Peter J.

. . . is unacceptable because it changes the meaning of the Creed because it EXPLICITLY rules out the teaching that the Father is the cause of the divinity.

So you are telling me that both "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" and "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou proeinai" are heretical? Interesting. So, according to the Vatican, Greek happens to be the only language in the world in which there is absolutely no way to put the Nicean-Constantinopolitan-Toledan Creed in a non-heretical manner? I always used to think that Greek is a very rich language in which there are virtually unlimited possibilities to express philosophical and theological ideas...

How the heck did you twist that?

The papal Church does not say that "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" is heretical.

You are contradicting yourself.

[Michał]

So if it doesn't have the precise combination, then it is not reverent? ... Interesting.

What is interesting is how you read it in my posts. I didn't say that. As a matter of fact, I don't really like the "big six."

[elijahmaria]

The option you offer . . .

It wasn't me who offered it. It was Peter J.

. . . is unacceptable because it changes the meaning of the Creed because it EXPLICITLY rules out the teaching that the Father is the cause of the divinity.

So you are telling me that both "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" and "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou proeinai" are heretical? Interesting. So, according to the Vatican, Greek happens to be the only language in the world in which there is absolutely no way to put the Nicean-Constantinopolitan-Toledan Creed in a non-heretical manner? I always used to think that Greek is a very rich language in which there are virtually unlimited possibilities to express philosophical and theological ideas...

How the heck did you twist that?

The papal Church does not say that "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" is heretical.

You are contradicting yourself.

Not at all...I am only responsible for the message delivered.  I can do nothing about the message received.

[Peter J]

How the heck did you twist that?

The papal Church does not say that "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" is heretical.

You are contradicting yourself.

That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou to the formula ek to Patros ekporeumenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins.

[Peter J]

So you are telling me that out of all the languages on earth, Greek happens to be the only one in which there is no way to express the "truth" of Filioque in a way which wouldn't be heretical for the Vatican? What about the translation proposed by Peter J (ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou proeinai)? Is it heretical or not?

I'm not sure what you are upset about here.  The Latin Church has conceded that the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without Filioque is the ecumenical and normative Creed and does not allow it to be inserted in the Greek Creed and in fact never required any Eastern Church to insert it.  The Latin Church acknowledges that "originating from" and "proceeding from" are two seperate things.  That being the case why would the Latin Church want to insert it into the Greek Creed?

Can you, please, answer my question: is the phrase "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou proeinai" heretical or not? If not, then what is preventing the Greek-speaking Roman Catholics from reciting the Nicean-Constantinopolitan-Toledan Creen, which is recited by all other Roman Catholics in the world?

I don't speak for Deacon Lance, but I would say that you are right to distinguish between those two questions: if "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou proeinai" is acceptable (and I admit I myself am curious whether he will say that it is) then it doesn't necessarily follow that there should be a Greek version of the creed that includes it.

[elijahmaria]

How the heck did you twist that?

The papal Church does not say that "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" is heretical.

You are contradicting yourself.

That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou to the formula ek to Patros ekporeumenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins.

The formula above cannot be used WITH the addition of "from the Son" because it then DOES make the double procession a causal and originating one.

You see there are two ways of conveying procession in Greek...NEITHER one does what the Latin does which is to have the capacity to express BOTH the originating procession and the sourcing non-originating procession both in the same word.

You cannot do in Greek what you can do in Latin...no matter how hard you try.

I was not contradicting myself.  It is NO-GO in both Greek examples.

PS Michal: Please pardon.  We both got tangled for different reasons so now I see what you were saying to me about my Church saying that you cannot add from the Son to the phrase above...You simply cannot add it to either one: 

One makes it a double causal procession and the other leaves out the causal procession altogether...while the Latin form includes both types of procession and it does so by including Filioque to give context for the second type of procession.

[Michał]

You are contradicting yourself.

Not at all...

Yes, you are. First you wrote: "He [Peter J] is right about the filioque. In Greek it is a heresy because in Greek the word used to indicate procession inherently means source as in originate source or cause" (ergo: "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" is considered heretical by both Orthodox and Catholics). Then you wrote: "The papal Church does not say that 'ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon' is heretical."

[Peter J]

I'm not sure what you are upset about here.  The Latin Church has conceded that the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without Filioque is the ecumenical and normative Creed and does not allow it to be inserted in the Greek Creed and in fact never required any Eastern Church to insert it.

The latin church concedes this about a thousand years too late. And they DID REQUIRE the Church to insert it at one point..or at least a Cardinal Humbert did.

You shouldn't attribute too much importance to what one single Cardinal says.

Take Cardinal Mahoney.

[elijahmaria]

You are contradicting yourself.

Not at all...

Yes, you are. First you wrote: "He [Peter J] is right about the filioque. In Greek it is a heresy because in Greek the word used to indicate procession inherently means source as in originate source or cause" (ergo: "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" is considered heretical by both Orthodox and Catholics). Then you wrote: "The papal Church does not say that 'ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon' is heretical."

I am not going to confuse things by trying to explain what I thought you meant.  I understand now and answered your question above.

You cannot use "from the Son" in either one of the possible Greek phrasings.  I explained why above.

[Peter J]

I read about you every time Jesus condemns the pharisees.

So if it doesn't have the precise combination, then it is not reverent? ... Interesting.

Alright now ... stop having fun and start working.

[Michał]

PS Michal: Please pardon.  We both got tangled for different reasons so now I see what you were saying to me about my Church saying that you cannot add from the Son to the phrase above...You simply cannot add it to either one: 

One makes it a double causal procession and the other leaves out the causal procession altogether...while the Latin form includes both types of procession and it does so by including Filioque to give context for the second type of procession.

OK, so for your Church the "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" phrase is unaccatable because it is a heresy and the "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou proeinai" -- because it flattens the meaning of the N-C-T Creed? Am I getting it right?

[elijahmaria]

PS Michal: Please pardon.  We both got tangled for different reasons so now I see what you were saying to me about my Church saying that you cannot add from the Son to the phrase above...You simply cannot add it to either one: 

One makes it a double causal procession and the other leaves out the causal procession altogether...while the Latin form includes both types of procession and it does so by including Filioque to give context for the second type of procession.

OK, so for your Church the "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" phrase is unaccatable because it is a heresy and the "ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou proeinai" -- because it flattens the meaning of the N-C-T Creed? Am I getting it right?

I think we are there...I think so...hope so 

They would both be heterodox...if used with "from the Son"...