"We are travellers…not yet in our native land" – St. Augustine
This is the second of two talks I gave during Lent at a parish in Los Angeles this year…
“Apologetics for the confused” (Download)
— Questions —
• What does IHS stand for?
• Who is your blog’s patron saint?
• How do you evangelize at work?
• How do I deal with my Mormon family attacking my Faith?
• What can I do about my niece who is drifting away from the Faith?
I could tell I was tired this morning… During the Divine Liturgy I went into autopilot as we sung the Creed, which unfortunately meant that I sang loudly “I believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds from the Father and the Son“. Oops!
In case you are unaware, in Eastern Christianity, the last part of that sentence is not included in the Nicene Creed. This creed was the product of two Ecumenical Councils, Nicaea and Constantinople, so technically we should call it the Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed.
The argument surrounding the clause “and the Son” is known as the “Filioque Controversy”, since “Filioque” is the Latin word which was added to the Creed in the West. This controversy dates back to the Great Schism of 1054. The history surrounding it is a little complicated, but the long and the short of it is that one of the reasons much of the Eastern Church broke communion with Rome was due to the addition of this word to the Creed in the West.
However, my purpose in this post isn’t so much to speak about the Filioque, but to talk about another slip up I made today when I sang “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God…”
Back when I lived in San Diego, I often attended the San Diego Orthodox Young Adults Group. Once when I was hanging out with them, one of my Eastern Orthodox friends asked me why the Catholic Church made so many changes to the Creed. What did he mean? There were changes in addition to the Filioque?! That was news to me! However, he then pointed out that in the West we say:
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
In the East, however, the phrase in bold, “God from God”, does not appear!
I spent a little bit of time digging into this issue and I was rather surprised to find out that there were actually quite a few creedal variations in the ancient Church. In fact, you could go as far as to say that all the ancient versions differ at least to some degree from the official text given at Nicaea and Constantinople.
For example, the Councils used the first person plural throughout: “We believe… We confess… We await…”. However, the Byzantine Churches changed it to the first person singular: “I believe… I confess… I await”. Historically, the Latin Church did the same, although until relatively recently, English-speaking Catholics would say “We”. However, following the liturgical reforms of 2011 and retranslation of the Roman Missal to represent more faithfully the Latin text, all Catholics now say “I” instead.
Another textual variation in the Latin text is the one mentioned by my Eastern Orthodox friend. It is true that, in addition to the Filioque clause, the Latin liturgical text has another difference. In the Latin, it reads “Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero”, which translates as “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God”. It turns out that the clause, “God from God”, although not found in the Creed from Constantinople, is actually found in the earlier creed from Nicaea. For some reason, this was retained in the Latin. The Armenian text includes this and other variations as well.
So what should we conclude? I’m not really sure, but I think we can acknowledge two things. The first is simply that there is more variation in the “Nicene Creed” than we commonly think, and the second is that I need to make sure I have a nice cup of tea before I attempt to sing any complex theology in the mornings.
UPDATE: Michael Lofton just recorded a livestream with even more details on this subject:
In this series I’m trying to examine some of the issues and problems within the Catholic dating world. However, before I get underway with today’s post I would like very briefly to reply to an important question which was raised in response to an earlier post. The question was asked, is there actually even a problem here to address?!
I would suggest that we do indeed have a problem. In addition to anecdotal evidence, there is statistical data to demonstrate that there are fewer and fewer marriages taking place today, even among practising Catholics:
This decline has far reaching consequences, both for Catholic schools and parishes, as well as for Catholic culture and the Church’s witness to the world. If you would like to read about this further then I would recommend this article by Msgr. Pope.
So with that issue addressed, let’s return to the main question of this series: why aren’t more Catholic guys asking girls out on dates? One possible answer might be because many guys are in no hurry to settle down.
Society today praises choice. With regards to commitment, we are urged to be cautious: “Don’t commit yourself!”, “Someone better might be just around the corner!”, “Leave yourself an escape!”. I would suggest that, because of this, some guys refrain from dating in a misguided attempt to keep their options open (there is a related dynamic here on the part of the ladies, but I plan to deal with that in a later post).
To make matters worse, do we sometimes hear a message from the Church that can sound somewhat similar? In the Catholic Church, marriage is a Sacrament, something serious, important, binding and lifelong. We are therefore often urged to move with great caution. Additionally, with broken marriages all around us, isn’t it sensible to be extremely careful in selecting a future spouse?
I think there is good sense in caution, but have we gone too far? Are we encouraged to wait too long?
I went to Mass at lunch today and was thinking about the common concern among Protestants that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox worship the Saints.
Let me just say up front that we don’t worship the Saints, we honour them. Now, that’s a fine and dandy thing to say, but really, is there a difference between “worship” and “honour”?
Today Andrew Lazo returned to explain Part II of Till We Have Faces and review the book as a whole.
S3E29: “After Hours” with Andrew Lazo (Download)
If you enjoy this episode, you can subscribe manually, or any place where good podcasts can be found (iTunes, Google Play, Podbean, Stitcher, TuneIn and Overcast), as well as on YouTube.
If you’d like to support us and get fantastic gifts, please join us on Patreon.
More information about us can be found on our website, PintsWithJack.com.
The Season 3 roadmap is available here.
Read more
