Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [liturgy-l] NCR: Pope orders German Catholics to make the 'for many' change

Expand Messages
  • Lewis Whitaker
    Now if Rome will only abandon the illicit addition to the Creed, then perhaps there would be serious dialogue towards reconciliation. Not holding my breath,
    Message 1 of 24 , May 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Now if Rome will only abandon the illicit addition to the Creed, then perhaps there would be serious dialogue towards reconciliation.

      Not holding my breath, though. Rome has boxed itself in, as it usually does.

      Lew

      On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM, <dlewisaao@...> wrote:


      Yes, that does put a different spin on the matter.
       
      ---------------------------
      David Lewis
      dlewisaao@...

       
      In a message dated 5/7/2012 2:10:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ferrellsd@... writes:


      The endnotes from Enriching Our Worship (that includes a form of the Creed without the filioque clause) includes this tidbit.

      In 1976, the Anglican members of the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission said in an Agreed Statement that the filioque should not be included in the Creed because it had been introduced without the authority of an Ecumenical Council. In 1978, Anglican bishops meetings at the Lambeth Conference recommended that churches of the Anglican Communion consider omitting the filioque from the Nicene Creed. The 1985 General Convention recommended the restoration of the original wording of the Creed, once this action had been approved by the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council. The change was then endorsed by the Lambeth Conference of 1988, the 1990 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, and the 1993 joint meeting of the Anglican Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council. The 1994 General Convention affirmed the intention of the Episcopal Church to remove the filioque clause at the next revision of the Book of Common Prayer.

      So it appears that this move has Worldwide Anglican Communion seal of approval on it rather than The Episcopal Church acting illicitly.

      The endnotes also include these words....

      ,
      In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Anglican theologians were unanimous in claiming that the only true bases of doctrine were Scripture and the teaching of the undivided Church (i.e., the five Ecumenical Councils held between the years 325 and 451). The Church of England taught only what Scripture and tradition taught, they asserted. Not knowing the full history of the filioque addition and mistakenly assuming that it had always formed part of the Creed, Anglicans retained the phrase, and some divines even went to great lengths to explain why the Greeks deleted it!

      So I suppose it could be argued that Anglicanism would likely have removed the filioque in the 16th and 17th centuries, armed with the information we have today. Interesting to say the least.

      Sean+

      The Reverend Sean Ferrell, Rector

      Saint Luke's Episcopal Church
      Jackson, Tennessee


      On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, <dlewisaao@...> wrote:
       

      I see an additional issue emerging: the report that the Episcopal Church is moving toward dropping the filioque clause (from the Creed).  Huh?  What authority does a less-than-two-million-member body have to tamper with the Nicene Creed as received through Western Christianity?  I've heard others argue that the clause was inserted by the Council of Toledo, which was not an Ecumenical Council, and thus was not licit, but ... who properly should make these decisions? 
       
      ---------------------------
      David Lewis
      dlewisaao@...

       
      In a message dated 5/7/2012 12:45:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, k95dl01@... writes:




      On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Lewis Whitaker <lhwhitaker@...> wrote:


      It does seem strange that this Pope wants to make this one very specific correction to the liturgy. Is he attempting to restate the old claim of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus est? 

      I restate my question: If Christ's sacrifice was not made for all, then for whom was it not made? Who is excluded? 

      Lew


      Lew, perhaps you're asking the wrong question. Ours is not to know the economy of salvation, nor to dictate who is or is not excluded (thanks be to God that it isn't!). But the competence to make the change in question (changing "pro multos" to "for all") doesn't belong to a translator charged with faithfulness to the original text.

      Many could, in fact, include all. Or it might not. But bodies charged with translating a text from Greek to Latin to English aren't doing their job correctly if they change the content of the prayer to say something potentially substantially different than the translated text. It *might* be the case that those saved by the blood of Christ include all. It might be the case that there is some non-empty set of those for whom the blood of Christ was not shed. For translators to change a claim that "the blood of Christ is shed for many" to "the blood of Christ is shed for all" is to make a stronger claim than the original text allows.

      To assert "for many" isn't to claim that "for all" is false -- it's to claim that we don't have the textual basis to assert that "for all" is true.

      Similarly, in the worship documents distributed by the Episcopal Church (not in front of me right now) justifying our transition away from the filioque cause, we are not asserting that the Holy Spirit does *not* proceed from the Son; we are asserting that the original text does not make that claim, and so for translators to add it is unwarranted.

      It is my fervent hope that the Blood of Christ is, in fact, shed for *all*. I would not dare to claim that there are some for whom Christ's sacrifice is not made. But the claim in the IN seems to be that the Blood of Christ is shed for more than merely those gathered in the upper room. One can assert that without deciding decisively who is in or out of the reach of Christ's salvation.

      Peace,
      Daniel Lawson





    • Scott Knitter
      The Canadian BAS (Book of Alternative Services) has been filioque-free, at least in the modern-language rite, since 1985 or so.
      Message 2 of 24 , May 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        The Canadian BAS (Book of Alternative Services) has been
        filioque-free, at least in the modern-language rite, since 1985 or so.
      • Daniel Lawson
        Those would be the documents I would have cited had I been at home and not been writing during a break at work.
        Message 3 of 24 , May 7, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Those would be the documents I would have cited had I been at home and not been writing during a break at work.

          On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Sean Ferrell <ferrellsd@...> wrote:


          The endnotes from Enriching Our Worship (that includes a form of the Creed without the filioque clause) includes this tidbit.

          In 1976, the Anglican members of the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission said in an Agreed Statement that the filioque should not be included in the Creed because it had been introduced without the authority of an Ecumenical Council. In 1978, Anglican bishops meetings at the Lambeth Conference recommended that churches of the Anglican Communion consider omitting the filioque from the Nicene Creed. The 1985 General Convention recommended the restoration of the original wording of the Creed, once this action had been approved by the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council. The change was then endorsed by the Lambeth Conference of 1988, the 1990 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, and the 1993 joint meeting of the Anglican Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council. The 1994 General Convention affirmed the intention of the Episcopal Church to remove the filioque clause at the next revision of the Book of Common Prayer.

          So it appears that this move has Worldwide Anglican Communion seal of approval on it rather than The Episcopal Church acting illicitly.

          The endnotes also include these words....

          ,
          In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Anglican theologians were unanimous in claiming that the only true bases of doctrine were Scripture and the teaching of the undivided Church (i.e., the five Ecumenical Councils held between the years 325 and 451). The Church of England taught only what Scripture and tradition taught, they asserted. Not knowing the full history of the filioque addition and mistakenly assuming that it had always formed part of the Creed, Anglicans retained the phrase, and some divines even went to great lengths to explain why the Greeks deleted it!

          So I suppose it could be argued that Anglicanism would likely have removed the filioque in the 16th and 17th centuries, armed with the information we have today. Interesting to say the least.

          Sean+

          The Reverend Sean Ferrell, Rector

          Saint Luke's Episcopal Church
          Jackson, Tennessee


          On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, <dlewisaao@...> wrote:
           

          I see an additional issue emerging: the report that the Episcopal Church is moving toward dropping the filioque clause (from the Creed).  Huh?  What authority does a less-than-two-million-member body have to tamper with the Nicene Creed as received through Western Christianity?  I've heard others argue that the clause was inserted by the Council of Toledo, which was not an Ecumenical Council, and thus was not licit, but ... who properly should make these decisions? 
           
          ---------------------------
          David Lewis
          dlewisaao@...

           
          In a message dated 5/7/2012 12:45:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, k95dl01@... writes:




          On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Lewis Whitaker <lhwhitaker@...> wrote:


          It does seem strange that this Pope wants to make this one very specific correction to the liturgy. Is he attempting to restate the old claim of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus est? 

          I restate my question: If Christ's sacrifice was not made for all, then for whom was it not made? Who is excluded? 

          Lew


          Lew, perhaps you're asking the wrong question. Ours is not to know the economy of salvation, nor to dictate who is or is not excluded (thanks be to God that it isn't!). But the competence to make the change in question (changing "pro multos" to "for all") doesn't belong to a translator charged with faithfulness to the original text.

          Many could, in fact, include all. Or it might not. But bodies charged with translating a text from Greek to Latin to English aren't doing their job correctly if they change the content of the prayer to say something potentially substantially different than the translated text. It *might* be the case that those saved by the blood of Christ include all. It might be the case that there is some non-empty set of those for whom the blood of Christ was not shed. For translators to change a claim that "the blood of Christ is shed for many" to "the blood of Christ is shed for all" is to make a stronger claim than the original text allows.

          To assert "for many" isn't to claim that "for all" is false -- it's to claim that we don't have the textual basis to assert that "for all" is true.

          Similarly, in the worship documents distributed by the Episcopal Church (not in front of me right now) justifying our transition away from the filioque cause, we are not asserting that the Holy Spirit does *not* proceed from the Son; we are asserting that the original text does not make that claim, and so for translators to add it is unwarranted.

          It is my fervent hope that the Blood of Christ is, in fact, shed for *all*. I would not dare to claim that there are some for whom Christ's sacrifice is not made. But the claim in the IN seems to be that the Blood of Christ is shed for more than merely those gathered in the upper room. One can assert that without deciding decisively who is in or out of the reach of Christ's salvation.

          Peace,
          Daniel Lawson





        • Ormonde Plater
          I have read somewhere that the pro multis of Eucharistic prayers and the synoptics has its origin in an Aramaic figure of speech (a synecdoche?), in which
          Message 4 of 24 , May 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment

            I have read somewhere that the pro multis of Eucharistic prayers and the synoptics has its origin in an Aramaic figure of speech (a synecdoche?), in which “many” stands for “all.”

            Ormonde Plater

          • Robert White
            Re: [liturgy-l] NCR: Pope orders German Catholics to make the for many change Monday, May 7, 2012, 1:32:30 PM,dlewisaao@aol.com wrote: I see an additional
            Message 5 of 24 , May 7, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Re: [liturgy-l] NCR: Pope orders German Catholics to make the 'for many' change Monday, May 7, 2012, 1:32:30 PM,dlewisaao@... wrote:


              I see an additional issue emerging: the report that the Episcopal Church is moving toward dropping the filioque clause (from the Creed).


              In Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), the NC comes with this footnote "Or, 'who proceeds from the Father.' The phrase 'and the Son' is a later addition to the creed."

              -- 
              Best regards,
               Bob White                        
              mailto:prrmwhite@...

              Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.
              - Martin Luther King Jr.
                   
            • Scott Knitter
              Maybe ELCA congregations should recite the footnote when saying the Creed. :)
              Message 6 of 24 , May 7, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Maybe ELCA congregations should recite the footnote when saying the Creed. :)

                On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Robert White <whiteslists@...> wrote:

                > In Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), the NC comes with this footnote "Or, 'who proceeds from the Father.' The phrase 'and the Son' is a later addition to the creed."
              • Lewis Whitaker
                Ormonde: I wouldn t be surprised. Latin is not a very precise or expansive language. Lew ... Ormonde: I wouldn t be surprised. Latin is not a very precise or
                Message 7 of 24 , May 7, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ormonde:

                  I wouldn't be surprised. Latin is not a very precise or expansive language.

                  Lew


                  On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Ormonde Plater <oplater@...> wrote:


                  I have read somewhere that the pro multis of Eucharistic prayers and the synoptics has its origin in an Aramaic figure of speech (a synecdoche?), in which “many” stands for “all.”

                  Ormonde Plater




                • Frank Senn
                  I believe the Lutheran World Federation, perhaps reflecting a prior decision of the World Council of Churches, agreed that the filioque would be omitted in
                  Message 8 of 24 , May 7, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I believe the Lutheran World Federation, perhaps reflecting a prior decision of the World Council of Churches, agreed that the filioque would be omitted in worship services that included the Eastern Orthodox.  Neither the world council or the world federation has the authority to require member Churches to make the change.

                    Frank C. Senn

                    --- On Mon, 5/7/12, Robert White <whiteslists@...> wrote:

                    From: Robert White <whiteslists@...>
                    Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] NCR: Pope orders German Catholics to make the 'for many' change
                    To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Monday, May 7, 2012, 2:52 PM

                     

                    Monday, May 7, 2012, 1:32:30 PM,dlewisaao@... wrote:


                    I see an additional issue emerging: the report that the Episcopal Church is moving toward dropping the filioque clause (from the Creed).


                    In Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), the NC comes with this footnote "Or, 'who proceeds from the Father.' The phrase 'and the Son' is a later addition to the creed."

                    -- 
                    Best regards,
                     Bob White                        
                    mailto:prrmwhite@...

                    Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.
                    - Martin Luther King Jr.
                         

                  • Frank Senn
                    Actually, in older Lutheran worship books a footnote to the Creeds that were translated holy Christian Church said that holy catholic Church was the
                    Message 9 of 24 , May 7, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Actually, in older Lutheran worship books a footnote to the Creeds that were translated "holy Christian Church" said that "holy catholic Church" was the original text and many did begin reciting what was in the footnote.  Some took to shouting "catholic" at that point in the Creed.  Of course, it's hard to shout out a deletion.

                      Frank C. Senn

                      --- On Mon, 5/7/12, Scott Knitter <scott.knitter@...> wrote:

                      From: Scott Knitter <scott.knitter@...>
                      Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] NCR: Pope orders German Catholics to make the 'for many' change
                      To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Monday, May 7, 2012, 2:57 PM

                       

                      Maybe ELCA congregations should recite the footnote when saying the Creed. :)

                      On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Robert White <whiteslists@...> wrote:

                      > In Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), the NC comes with this footnote "Or, 'who proceeds from the Father.' The phrase 'and the Son' is a later addition to the creed."

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.