So you're saying that I was correct in the first place.
Where did I get what idea?
it's not used in any mass or liturgy. I'm just curious, but what difference does that make? This sounds a bit like the Protestant thing of "it's not in the bible". Certainly Trent and Vat I are far more important when it comes to defining the beliefs of the Catholic Church than the liturgy is, aren't they?
What gives you that idea? It is not a contest to see which elements are more important. The Catholic Church teaches lex oradi lex credendi as well as Orthodoxy.
The idea that you're writing off this creed because it isn't in the Liturgy? Well I got that from the part where you and another said it isn't in the Liturgy so you feel you can ignore it.
There are many Creedal statements that I am perfectly able to ignore. The one I cannot ignore is the one contained in the divine liturgy.
Why bother asking where I got the idea then?
No. You are not correct in your comparison at all.
There are many credal statements over the centuries. Do you pay attention to those from the east that are not in the divine liturgy? If not, does that make you like the Protestants and sola scriptura?
Can you name one required of converts and theologians-like the Vatican required subscription to the Tridentine-that we are free to ignore? I know we have some elaboration on the Nicene Creed in the office of reception of converts, and in the consecration of bishops, but we are not free to ignore them, as we accept the one to be among us and the other to be above us by such Creeds.
And we are not free to ignore the ones we do not use verbatim in the DL. We don't usually recite the entire definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, but we read the exclamations on the Triumph of Orthodoxy. We do not recite the Twelve Chapters, upon which the sentence against Nestorius was based at Ephesus, but we call her Theotokos in conformity, and anyone who cannot subscribe to the Twelve Chapters does not subscribe to the Orthodox Faith and thus cannot commune in the Catholic Church.
The Confession of Dositheos, limited in authority as it is, cannot be ignored, nor can the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic Church of the East of Met. St. Peter Movila, because they are lex credendi what the lex orandi is teaching. They bear the authority of the Councils (Jerusalem in the former, Iasi (and Jerusalem) in the latter) which produced/approved them. Hence why they are of a lesser authority than any definition produced by an Ecumenical Council.
Which brings up to the problem of your stand on this creed of the church of your baptism, EM. It was produced by a council that your magisterium pronounces as ecumenical/general. It was important enough three centuries later that it was updated by the next council your magisterium pronounced as ecumenical/general-Vatican I. Given the importance of the council which produced this creed in stamping its name-Tridentine-on the very mass which was being imposed on everyone at the time in communion with the Vatican
Finally came uniformity in the old Roman Rite and the abolition of nearly all the medieval variants. The Council of Trent considered the question and formed a commission to prepare a uniform Missal. Eventually the Missal was published by Pius V by the Bull "Quo primum" (still printed in it) of 14 July 1570. That is really the last stage of the history of the Roman Mass. It is Pius V's Missal that is used throughout the Latin Church, except in a few cases where he allowed a modified use that had a prescription of at least two centuries. This exception saved the variants used by some religious orders and a few local rites as well as the Milanese and Mozarabic liturgies. Clement VIII (1604), Urban VIII (1634), and Leo XIII (1884) revised the book slightly in the rubrics and the texts of Scripture (see LITURGICAL BOOKS). Pius X has revised the chant (1908.) But these revisions leave it still the Missal of Pius V. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm
it would seem that the creed came as a matched set with the missal of Trent.
Which leaves the question of the OP about the Byzantines. They all post-date Trent, and exemption from the Liturgy of Trent was one of the main, if not the main, demands of those who submitted to the Vatican in the "unions." Such exemption would be immediately in conflict, as we have seen, to the Tridentine Creed. Agreeing to the exemption, did your supreme pontiff absolve them of subscription to the Tridentine Creed as well? In which case your Latins should take it up with your supreme pontiff, and stop pestering your Byzantines. But if not, then the Byzantines didn't look at the fine print before they signed.