27 December 2013
private message to stephen
I have enabled a couple of your comments, but not the one in which you say that the Pope introduced the Filioque. This is because I have a policy of not enabling comments which ignore, as if I had never said it, something that I explained carefully and in detail only a few days previously. See my piece published on December 16. Hope you don't mind. My sincerest wishes for a very happy New Year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Father, you put me right on the self-same subject on 25 November citing a post of 2010.
Father Bless!
I completely understand your position, and appreciate your kindness in contacting me personally.
May I posit however that we are not talking about the same or even mutually contradictory things?
I did read your fascinating post in the development of the Filioque in the West. Had it remained a local usage, it would not have become the controversy it did; would you not agree however that it was ultimately Papal promotion of the Filioque (a change from earlier Popes) by virtue of Papal authority that was the differentiator?
It was for this reason of authority - which I understood the post and responses were talking about - that I thought to add my response, which I did not mean to duplicative of your earlier post.
That said, let me thank you again for your courtesy and for your wonderful blog
Stephen: I think I was probably hasty. I see your point. We schoolmasters tend to be over-inclined to snarl "I explained all that last period"!
Fr.,
I have just referred back to your Dec 16th note which I missed at the time.
My missal, which I use fully as and when I can, circa once a month if my wife lets me, was purchased at enormous expense in 1958 and bears my B.F.P.O. Germany, National Service address on the inside page.
When I apply the Stowe test to my once a month Mass, the result is Evolution, but when I apply it to my routine Novus Ordo Mass, then REVOLUTION!
p.s. I use it often at the N.O. Mass because the “prayers after Communion” section are so beautiful and appropriate (provided I can shut out the sound of the 4th or 5th hymn) and I have plenty of time while all 100% of the congregation shuffle up to Communion to say them.
Stephen is correct it was Benedict VII who in 1014 was the first Pope to use the filioque in the creed in Rome. Ultimately it is the Pope who caused the schism.
I certainly agree that the filioque itself is free of heresy , but to mandate it upon the entire church to use with the threat of excommunication by the Pope... that is where the debate over heresy lies.
Stephen is correct that it was Pope Benedict the VII who in 1014 first accepted the filioque into the creed at Rome, he was one of the exponents for originating this controversy, which is very much rooted in failing to respect regional churches authentic historic self governance.
While I acknowledge the content and meaning of the "filio que" in the creed is Orthodox and free of heresy, I would not be able to acknowledge that it is not heretical for the Pope to add it to the creed for the entire church without an ecumenical council.
From the bottom of my heart and all my soul, I confess that I personally am unable to view this as a legitimate aspect of the Pontiff's authority granted by Our Lord Jesus Christ to him.
I say this as a life long traditional latin rite Catholic.
Post a Comment