.

As well it should.

.

Filioque was a huge source of misunderstanding, and added fuel to the east/west battles, since neither side wanted to understand the other. When you understand what the Latins meant, it isn't a problem. Unfortunately, so a Greek priest has said, when you translate filioque into Greek, you get a word that implies the Son originated from the Father - dear old Arius lives again. But given the purpose for which filioque was put into the Latin Creed to begin with, there probably is little purpose in it remaining there today.

Some rites have used it in the past, especially those with more Latin leanings. Others have either dropped it, or never had it. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if it is still in some books.

.

Yes, it was admitted late. Filioque was never in the original Greek Creed, and still isn't.

some political.

All political, if you ask me.

Pippinid Kings: "We're King of the Romans! This is the Holy Roman Empire!"
Roman Emperors in Constantinople: "What?! No! We're the Roman Empire. You can't.."
Popes of Rome: "We're goin' with these guys over here."
Roman Emperors in Constantinople: "Dude?! Really!"
Popes of Rome: "Excommunication for you!"
Patriarchs of everywhere that isn't Rome: "No! Excommunication for you!"
Pippinid Kings: "Hurrah for Lay Investiture!"


That's how I understand it, anyway.

.

.

What about the EF in Greek?

Ok- I read it.

Makes some worthwhile points, which - overall - are similar to all the points that could be made in favor of the older rite over the newer in general. Nothing remarkably new here for me.

I do have a few thoughts, not cohered into a single train:

1. While I have lots of opinions on these matters, they are just that: opinions. I don't make decisions, so I don't know that it matters much what I think. Moreover, I can't say that my opinions regarding the EF Lectionary are even very valuable as opinions, since I have not lived with the EF Lectionary. A cycle of prayer only reveals its benefits when lived over a period of time. I have no such experience with the EF Lectionary; but plenty with the OF.

2. The relative value of the OF vs. EF lectionaries as lived experiences is something we can't ever gauge, as there is no way to control for other factors: the rest of the liturgical experience, the type of people generally devoted to the EF, the quality of preaching, etc.

3. Like most everything else related to the post-V2 liturgical reforms, my general feeling is that the best thing (if it could be called that) lies somewhere between what existed already (and was considered in need of reform) and what ended up happening. It's a shame (in my opinion) that the old rite is essentially "frozen" in 1962, as it seems to me that some reforms (rather than wholesale re-creation) would probably have had a better result. In terms of the Lectionary- I can imagine a 1-year cycle that starts with the old lectionary but adds an additional (usually Old Testament) reading. This would have gone a long way to fulfilling SC's desire for more scripture, without disrupting the rhythm of the year.

4. The paper makes a strong case for lay involvement in the Liturgy of the Hours. I wholly agree with this.

5. The paper makes a distinction between the dogmatic (that is, teaching) function of lections and their latreutic (praise-oriented) function, arguing that the purpose of reading scripture in Mass is essentially "verbal incense," as opposed to the teaching/edification of the faithful. I wholly disagree with this view. Moreover, I think it's a bad argument for the EF cycle, since:
(A) If the edification of the listeners is not the point, the rest of the argument - which essentially deals with the EF lectionary is more edifying - is moot.
(B) It seems clear to me that the ancient framers of the Latin liturgy during the first millenium or so were very concerned with the edification of the listeners.
(C) Based on my (yes, weak) understanding of cultic practices in other formal religions, I suspect any latruetic recitation of scripture would tend toward completeness rather than curation.

6. And, of course, you can't hardly talk about the lectionary without also talking about the calendar, and the general flattening of the year....

Bottom Line (of my opinion):
If the Ordinary Form lectionary is deficient (and all things are, really) I don't think it's deficiency lies in the fact that it adds Old Testament readings (+Psalm) to the Gospel. I think that's it's best quality.

(facetious).

Are you sure? :)

I can't say that my opinions regarding the EF Lectionary are even very valuable as opinions, since I have not lived with the EF Lectionary. A cycle of prayer only reveals its benefits when lived over a period of time. I have no such experience with the EF Lectionary

... which is why I won't even begin to try to frame opinions and expound upon them here.

Alrighty, everyone gets a chance to derail one thread, and I think this is my turn. :) While we are on the topic of the filioque, it should be noted that even up until the 1600s were the Latins and Eastern Orthodox (and yes, I do mean EO proper, not Byzantine Catholics) receiving Holy Communion from the other church, even after their formal split.

it should be noted that even up until the 1600s were the Latins and Eastern Orthodox (and yes, I do mean EO proper, not Byzantine Catholics) receiving Holy Communion from the other church, even after their formal split.

Well- someone would have had to tell them that there was a split. It's not like everyone followed the Pope on Twitter back then.

3. Like most everything else related to the post-V2 liturgical reforms, my general feeling is that the best thing (if it could be called that) lies somewhere between what existed already (and was considered in need of reform) and what ended up happening. It's a shame (in my opinion) that the old rite is essentially "frozen" in 1962, as it seems to me that some reforms (rather than wholesale re-creation) would probably have had a better result. In terms of the Lectionary- I can imagine a 1-year cycle that starts with the old lectionary but adds an additional (usually Old Testament) reading. This would have gone a long way to fulfilling SC's desire for more scripture, without disrupting the rhythm of the year.

I agree with so much of this; well put, Adam.