OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 08:17:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Filioque Homily, Extraordinary Form  (Read 855 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« on: May 26, 2013, 05:31:00 PM »

For the Feast of the Trinity today I took my family to the Extraordinary Form (Latin Mass/Solemn). The mass itself was rather profound, though I do like some music to accompany worship. In any case, the priest was discussing analogia entis and how to properly predicate names and characteristics of God and in this homily he discussed the Filioque and said this: The Council of Nicaea and Constantinople said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and that outside of an Ecumenical Council it is not to be changed. He said that "the Eastern Christians, who today call themselves Orthodox, are right to keep this formula since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (as the only principle) even though it may be said that it is through the Son." And yes his actual words were that the Father is the sole principle.

The priest explained the resurgence of Arianism and how Arians in Spain were denying the divinity of the Son based on the Creed and how Christians in the local churches stood for the Catholic/Orthodox faith against the Arians by paradoxically using the Filioque, but in today's context it would be appropriate for theologians to take this issue up again. He then quoted Pope John Paul II who basically stated the Creed as explained by Orthodox theologians.

Just thought I would share.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2013, 05:33:46 PM by Surnaturel » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,171


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2013, 09:55:50 PM »

For the Feast of the Trinity today I took my family to the Extraordinary Form (Latin Mass/Solemn). The mass itself was rather profound, though I do like some music to accompany worship. In any case, the priest was discussing analogia entis and how to properly predicate names and characteristics of God and in this homily he discussed the Filioque and said this: The Council of Nicaea and Constantinople said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and that outside of an Ecumenical Council it is not to be changed. He said that "the Eastern Christians, who today call themselves Orthodox, are right to keep this formula since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (as the only principle) even though it may be said that it is through the Son." And yes his actual words were that the Father is the sole principle.

The priest explained the resurgence of Arianism and how Arians in Spain were denying the divinity of the Son based on the Creed and how Christians in the local churches stood for the Catholic/Orthodox faith against the Arians by paradoxically using the Filioque, but in today's context it would be appropriate for theologians to take this issue up again. He then quoted Pope John Paul II who basically stated the Creed as explained by Orthodox theologians.

Just thought I would share.

I can understand the use of the Filioque as a shield of sorts at the time to fend off Arianism but it has no place as an article of faith even then.
Its a 'hand me down' of sorts, but I think the RC went too far in accepting it as dogma without a universal acceptance at a proper council....
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,390


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2013, 08:45:04 AM »

I think it would be great if the Latin Church dropped the filioque from its recitation of the Creed during mass.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,820


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2013, 10:20:46 AM »

I'm impressed.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,956



« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2013, 10:21:39 AM »

I'm impressed.

+1
Logged

Fabio Leite
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,449



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2013, 11:03:05 AM »

It seems to me that the Filioque is almost a non-issue today. People understand that *in the Creed* it's a mistake and also the broader Orthodox sense of the expression in which it is correct.

Do you what would cut the union as correct and acceptable to me? A "new" Creed detailing those ambiguities.

Specifically, something more or less like this:


"We believe in one triune God, one unknowable essence, Three Persons, many energies; We believe the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible..."

"... and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, uniting in His Person human and Divine natures, wills and energies."

"... who proceeds from the Father and is sent to the world through the Son, the only Infallible and Inerrant Teacher of the Church, who blows wherever it wills..."

"...and in the Church, One, Holy Catholic, Apostolic, Orthodox, Visible, Undivided, Mother of the Scriptures, built on the Son, its only Rock and Head, earthly governed by the Bishops, who all sit on the Throne of Peter and are equal in honor, dignity and whose orthodoxy of faith create their authority, first among them, the first in the Diptychs in honour of orthodoxy of faith and tradition".

"We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, and one chrismation for the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. We believe in the real Presence in the Eucharist, and that the bread truly becomes the Son's own most pure Body, and that the wine truly becomes His own most precious Blood."

If we all could agree to this Creed "who's guilty of what in the past" could be relegated to a discussion of history only, and, I belive, union would be true and complete.
Logged

Go ma minions of modesty!
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,820


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2013, 11:04:40 AM »

The Creed of the 150 Fathers is good enough for me
« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 11:05:15 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,390


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2013, 11:06:55 AM »

The Creed of the 150 Fathers is good enough for me
+1
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,318


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2013, 11:27:00 AM »

The Creed of the 150 Fathers is good enough for me

+1

If they RCC really wants to have a meaningful dialogue with the EO then dropping the filioque would be the place to start.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,070



« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2013, 11:09:40 PM »

filioque in creed is outrage!
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2013, 01:28:29 AM »

For the Feast of the Trinity today I took my family to the Extraordinary Form (Latin Mass/Solemn). The mass itself was rather profound, though I do like some music to accompany worship. In any case, the priest was discussing analogia entis and how to properly predicate names and characteristics of God and in this homily he discussed the Filioque and said this: The Council of Nicaea and Constantinople said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and that outside of an Ecumenical Council it is not to be changed. He said that "the Eastern Christians, who today call themselves Orthodox, are right to keep this formula since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (as the only principle) even though it may be said that it is through the Son." And yes his actual words were that the Father is the sole principle.

The priest explained the resurgence of Arianism and how Arians in Spain were denying the divinity of the Son based on the Creed and how Christians in the local churches stood for the Catholic/Orthodox faith against the Arians by paradoxically using the Filioque, but in today's context it would be appropriate for theologians to take this issue up again. He then quoted Pope John Paul II who basically stated the Creed as explained by Orthodox theologians.

Just thought I would share.
How did the priest explain the fact that the filioque was declared to be an unchangeable doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church at the Second Council of Lyon – 1274?
“I. On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith
1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike.   Read what the Church Fathers actually professed.   But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.”
Please see: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LYONS2.HTM#01
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2013, 10:44:35 PM »

For the Feast of the Trinity today I took my family to the Extraordinary Form (Latin Mass/Solemn). The mass itself was rather profound, though I do like some music to accompany worship. In any case, the priest was discussing analogia entis and how to properly predicate names and characteristics of God and in this homily he discussed the Filioque and said this: The Council of Nicaea and Constantinople said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and that outside of an Ecumenical Council it is not to be changed. He said that "the Eastern Christians, who today call themselves Orthodox, are right to keep this formula since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (as the only principle) even though it may be said that it is through the Son." And yes his actual words were that the Father is the sole principle.

The priest explained the resurgence of Arianism and how Arians in Spain were denying the divinity of the Son based on the Creed and how Christians in the local churches stood for the Catholic/Orthodox faith against the Arians by paradoxically using the Filioque, but in today's context it would be appropriate for theologians to take this issue up again. He then quoted Pope John Paul II who basically stated the Creed as explained by Orthodox theologians.

Just thought I would share.
How did the priest explain the fact that the filioque was declared to be an unchangeable doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church at the Second Council of Lyon – 1274?
“I. On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith
1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike.   Read what the Church Fathers actually professed.   But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.”
Please see: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LYONS2.HTM#01

He didn't. The homily was already almost 45 min long and it wasn't even on the Filioque, so unsurprisingly the priest did not address your concern. However, statements have been made the Vatican on the Filioque and an excellent response has been given by Metropolitan Zizioulas ( http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm )

Lyons has terminogical ambiguity which the metropolitan addresses, for one. Secondly, the RCC sees the Father as the unoriginate source of the Son and HOly Spirit. It also concurs with St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximus the Confessor that the Son plays a 'mediating' function in the procession. Consequently, like Tertullian from the 2nd century, I think that the Filioque should be rendered from the Father through the Son which does not displace the monarchy of the Father, while also, from my tradition, stating the truth of Trinitarian relations in the Godhead for which the Son is involved in the procession of the HS.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,391


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2013, 11:48:14 PM »

Consequently, like Tertullian from the 2nd century, I think that the Filioque should be rendered from the Father through the Son which does not displace the monarchy of the Father, while also, from my tradition, stating the truth of Trinitarian relations in the Godhead for which the Son is involved in the procession of the HS.

I didn't comment on the original post, though I found it interesting when I read it.  I've never heard a traditional RC priest espouse such a viewpoint.  In my experience, homilies at traditional Latin Masses are typically, though not always, mediocre to blah.  I'd like to visit your church. 

Regarding the quote above, it's interesting that we have something similar in the Syriac tradition.  We stick, for the most part, with formulae indicating the procession of the Spirit from the Father, but in the liturgical texts, there is a curious phrase that'll turn up here and there with an equally curious terminology I haven't seen in any other non-Syriac tradition: that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and takes from the Son."  On the face of it, it's less than "proceeds from the Father and the Son", but more than "proceeds from the Father through the Son".  I need to look into that more...   
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2013, 11:59:02 PM »

Consequently, like Tertullian from the 2nd century, I think that the Filioque should be rendered from the Father through the Son which does not displace the monarchy of the Father, while also, from my tradition, stating the truth of Trinitarian relations in the Godhead for which the Son is involved in the procession of the HS.

I didn't comment on the original post, though I found it interesting when I read it.  I've never heard a traditional RC priest espouse such a viewpoint.  In my experience, homilies at traditional Latin Masses are typically, though not always, mediocre to blah.  I'd like to visit your church. 

Regarding the quote above, it's interesting that we have something similar in the Syriac tradition.  We stick, for the most part, with formulae indicating the procession of the Spirit from the Father, but in the liturgical texts, there is a curious phrase that'll turn up here and there with an equally curious terminology I haven't seen in any other non-Syriac tradition: that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and takes from the Son."  On the face of it, it's less than "proceeds from the Father and the Son", but more than "proceeds from the Father through the Son".  I need to look into that more...   
It actually wasn't my home parish; I was visiting my parents church (not this particular detail matters  laugh). I know that some TLM priests can tend towards ultramontanism and 'hyper-Latinization' but there are quite of the younger breed that are rather good.

I am intrigued by the liturgical addition of 'takes from the Son.' It strikes me as capturing the same core truth of 'through the Son', but you're right to say that it slightly more than from the Father alone and slightly less than Filioque. Let me know what you find on this brother.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,391


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2013, 12:12:13 AM »

It actually wasn't my home parish; I was visiting my parents church (not this particular detail matters  laugh). I know that some TLM priests can tend towards ultramontanism and 'hyper-Latinization' but there are quite of the younger breed that are rather good.

I am intrigued by the liturgical addition of 'takes from the Son.' It strikes me as capturing the same core truth of 'through the Son', but you're right to say that it slightly more than from the Father alone and slightly less than Filioque. Let me know what you find on this brother.

I shall...at least, I hope I remember to.  Tongue

The local TLM I visit from time to time is led by a priest from a traditional order who seems to know what he's doing, but the homilies are so dry.  It is half-homily, half-catechism without really succeeding at either and ending abruptly in mid-thought.  He's got potential, but unrealized.  Then there's the FSSP guys, who basically are all catechism.  I don't blame them, they're trying to offset the abysmal catechism most people have received since the reforms.  But it seems to rob the Mass of the homily, which is itself a liturgical act, the unfolding of the proclaimed Scriptures to prepare for the Eucharist, and replaces it with a class.  It's not a problem unique to the FSSP, but I've seen it there in the context of the TLM.  The best TLM preacher I've heard was a regular, OFM friar.  Solid stuff, but alas, he was a substitute.   
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2013, 02:23:47 AM »

The Creed of the 150 Fathers is good enough for me
+1
+3
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2013, 02:30:43 AM »

The Creed of the 150 Fathers is good enough for me

+1

If they RCC really wants to have a meaningful dialogue with the EO then dropping the filioque would be the place to start.
It would be a great place to start.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2013, 08:02:51 AM »

It does seem that lately, alot of RC priests and bishops have been backing off of the filioque.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2013, 01:06:39 PM »

It actually wasn't my home parish; I was visiting my parents church (not this particular detail matters  laugh). I know that some TLM priests can tend towards ultramontanism and 'hyper-Latinization' but there are quite of the younger breed that are rather good.

I am intrigued by the liturgical addition of 'takes from the Son.' It strikes me as capturing the same core truth of 'through the Son', but you're right to say that it slightly more than from the Father alone and slightly less than Filioque. Let me know what you find on this brother.

I shall...at least, I hope I remember to.  Tongue

The local TLM I visit from time to time is led by a priest from a traditional order who seems to know what he's doing, but the homilies are so dry.  It is half-homily, half-catechism without really succeeding at either and ending abruptly in mid-thought.  He's got potential, but unrealized.  Then there's the FSSP guys, who basically are all catechism.  I don't blame them, they're trying to offset the abysmal catechism most people have received since the reforms.  But it seems to rob the Mass of the homily, which is itself a liturgical act, the unfolding of the proclaimed Scriptures to prepare for the Eucharist, and replaces it with a class.  It's not a problem unique to the FSSP, but I've seen it there in the context of the TLM.  The best TLM preacher I've heard was a regular, OFM friar.  Solid stuff, but alas, he was a substitute.   

Eh, I see where you're coming with wrt the FSSP, but definitely a generalization. There are a wide range of priests, some rarely stray from St Thomas, some rarely stray from the week's Gospel. Remember in the old Mass (unlike the new) the homily or sermon isn't considered a liturgical act, which is why the priest removes the maniple and can don the biretta. That being said, it is nonetheless important and isn't removed from the Liturgy.

The mindset in the 1960s was to throw out the entire Liturgy and replace it with a class. Many of the reformers explicitly aimed at this.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.089 seconds with 48 queries.