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

Re: Digest Number 440

Expand Messages
  • rriley@kc.rr.com
    In regard to filioque , Cody Unterseher writes:
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 1 6:46 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      In regard to "filioque", Cody Unterseher writes:

      <<<
      I was under the impression that the Oriental Catholic Churches do use
      it, while their Orthodox counterparts do not.
      >>>

      See the article "The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The
      Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions" by the
      Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The article says,
      in part:

      <<<
      That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek
      tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon [an unwisely proposed
      translation of "who proceeds from the Father and the Son"] and the
      Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou [and the Son]
      to the formula ek to Patros ekporeumenon in the Greek text of the
      Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by
      Latins.
      >>>

      The article can be found at:

      http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/filioque.html

      Sincerely,
      Robert J. Riley

      --- In liturgy-l@y..., "Cody Unterseher" <oblate21@y...> wrote:
      > --- In liturgy-l@y..., asteresplanetai <asteresplanetai@j...> wrote:
      > > > Recalling the use, or more particularly the omission, of the
      > filioque in a
      > > > Catholic document, it should be noted that the Creed without
      the
      > filoque
      > > > has been accepted and used in Catholic Churches continuously,
      and
      > that in
      > > > recent years, the Roman Pontiffs have, on several occasions,
      used
      > this form
      > > > on many occasions.
      > >
      > > I was not aware of this. Could you cite some examples? Is there a
      > > pattern?
      > >
      >
      > A very recent event: Vatican Radio provided translation for both
      the
      > Liturgy of St John Chysostom and the Roman Rite Liturgy during this
      > past week's Papal Visit to Kiyv and L'viv. (EWTN provided
      haphasard
      > translation and too much commentary.) The Vatican Radio translator
      > used the standard ICEL translation for the Sunday Eucharist (Roman)
      > including the 'Filioque' clause. (This was the liturgy at which
      John
      > Paul II was president and principal celebrant.)
      >
      > However, on Monday in Kiyv and on Wednesday in L'viv, the Eastern
      > Divine Liturgy was celebrated by the local "Ukranian-Greek
      Catholic"
      > bishop, with John Paul II as president. It struck me both times
      that
      > the translator, when reciting the English of the creed, did not use
      > the ICEL text but a translation very close to the Episcopal Book of
      > Common Prayer, and _omitted_ the 'Filioque' clause.
      >
      > Whether or not it was actually recited, I do not know. (I am
      > dependant on the translator for most of the liturgy when celebrated
      > in a Slavic language.) I was under the impression that the
      Oriental
      > Catholic Churches do use it, while their Orthodox counterparts do
      not.
      >
      > Cody Unterseher
      > oblate21@y...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.