Both Catholics and Evangelicals have lost their moorings

[Ignatius33]

Clearly, there was not a unanimous opinion among the CFs on Mary’s sinlessness. But as a matter of logic and common sense, one side must be right and the other wrong, despite the lack of unanimity. Either she was sinless (as maintained by some CFs) or she wasn’t (as suggested by others). Neither side can point to a “consensus view” to decide the issue (and, unsurprisingly, many CFs didn’t address the question one way or the other at all). Do you see my point here? Deniers of Mary’s sinlessness, relying on Tradition, have no unanimity to support their position. Mary’s “sinfulness” is not a unanimous opinion of the CFs (far from it), nor does the Bible contain a verse explicitly stating that “Mary sinned.” In other words, the notion that Mary sinned also fails Vincent’s famous maxim, if that maxim is taken too literally and is not balanced with his explicit acknowledgement that doctrine does in fact develop through the Church’s ever-deepening understanding of divine revelation. People who rely on conflicts between CFs on a given point employ a double standard in their reasoning (Protestant apologists, in particular, seem to do this, even using this “conflict methodology” to dismiss such a core belief of the CFs as the Real Presence in the Eucharist – a conclusion both RCs and EOs would agree is absolutely ludicrous).

Yet, over the centuries, culminating in Duns Scotus’ “anticipatory redemption” breakthrough realization in the Middle Ages (meaning that someone can be redeemed if, by a special act of God, that person is preserved from sinning altogether), the Church came to understand that Mary was sinless and that she was immaculately conceived (i.e., preserved from the stain of Original Sin in the first instance of her conception, meaning that God “saved” her through the Christ’s redemption in an anticipatory manner). Ultimately, the Church infallibly declared the Immaculate Conception to be de fide in 1854. In doing so, the Church decided, once and for all, which CFs were right (e.g., Ephraim, Augustine) and which were wrong (e.g., Origen, Chrysostom). Indeed, there is much in both Scripture and Tradition to support the Church’s realization; I can only briefly touch on three such items here:

1. The idea that Mary was the “New Eve” is undoubtedly an Apostolic Tradition, the analogy having been made by such early CFs as St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus (In fact, the Gospel of John itself hints that Mary was the New Eve by identifying Mary with “the woman” in Gen. 3:15 – see Jn. 2:5-11; Jn. 19:26-27; see also Rev. 12, suggesting that the Apostle John himself was most likely the source of this Apostolic Tradition). The title “New Eve” calls attention to Mary’s cooperation in our redemption. Now, this role as Second Eve in the history of our redemption would seem to fit awkwardly with the hypothesis that Mary was a sinner. How could she fulfill her lofty office of leading the opposition to the devil if she had been herself at one time a slave of the devil, a sinner? Furthermore, we know that the Second Adam, Jesus, was free from sin. By analogical extension, therefore, it is not unreasonable to think of Mary as enjoying this privilege as well. The Genesis text speaks of a mutual enmity between the devil and the Second Eve, an enmity which is shared by Christ, the “seed.” Obviously in the case of Christ the enmity is perfect, which it would not be if he had ever sinned. Couldn’t this same reasoning be applied to Mary? Finally, it would be unfitting if Second Eve, who as the antitype of the First Eve surpasses her in excellence, should herself have an origin that was less perfect than the First Eve. But Eve, from the first moment of her existence, was free from Original Sin, and so it seems reasonable to infer that Mary also would enjoy this privilege. Indeed, the Old Testament “types” are always surpassed by their New Testament fulfillments, meaning that while Eve later fell into sin, Mary didn’t.

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

1. In accordance with Luke 1:28, where the Archangel Gabriel hails Mary as “full of grace,” Mary’s unparalleled level of sanctity, achieved by grace, is a constant theme in the writings of the CFs. Origen himself seemed to attribute a special sanctity to Mary in saying that even she must have had at least some fault for which Christ had atoned (as I will explain shortly, Origen’s view that Mary sinned was predicated purely on an incorrect exegesis of Scripture, the same error made by Protestants today who deny Mary’s sinlessness). Her title as the Panagia – the “all-holy one” – was widely accepted by the Eastern Church and was apparently acknowledged even by Origen. In a vision, St. Gregory the Wonderworker in the third century sees the Apostle John say to Mary that he wants to please her in all things because she is the one closest to his heart. Apparently, some Christians at this time were giving Mary a status even above the Beloved Disciple, John. The ancient Greek prayer, Sub tuum praesidium, calls Mary the one who is “alone pure and blessed.” St. Athanasius holds out Mary as a worthy example of holiness that Christians should consciously imitate, and says that Mary is greater than the cherubim and seraphim. St. Ephraim and St. Ambrose explicitly wrote that she was sinless. St. Epiphanius stated that Mary “remained stainless” and “never did any wrong as far as fleshly actions are concerned” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies [377 AD]). St. Cyril of Jerusalem held Mary out as an example of chastity worthy of imitation. St. Gregory Nazianzen stated that Mary underwent a special purification by grace in preparation for her role in the Incarnation, a statement that, at least according to positive substance, anticipates the Immaculate Conception. St. Jerome repeatedly calls Mary “holy,” even going so far as to say she was so pure she merited the privilege of becoming the Mother of God. St. Augustine taught the same thing. St. Cyril of Alexandria remarked that Mary was a “venerable treasure of the whole world.” What is striking about all of this is that even those CFs who denied that Mary was sinless still give evidence of a Tradition exalting her for her unparalleled sanctity. She is a model of imitation, an exemplar of virtue, the all-holy one, stainless, pure, and greater than angels. These attributions are precisely what we would expect to find if the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness had been formally-implicitly revealed by the Apostles. We might say that while the notion of her unparalleled sanctity was realized, its import had not yet been fully grasped. Recall in this connection the words of St. Vincent: “Let posterity welcome . . . what antiquity venerated without understanding” (Notebooks 53).

Furthermore, it is simply false to suggest that the Latin Vulgate’s translation of Lk. 1:28 as “full of grace” was the historical cause of the medieval view that Mary was the distributor (mediatrix) of grace, a claim made by Protestant scholars like Alister McGrath. The idea that Mary mediated grace to the Christian faithful is ancient. Eastern Christians prayed to her at least in the 4th century and very possibly the 3rd, if we are to accept the 3rd century dating of the (Greek, not Latin) prayer, Sub tuum praesidium. Moreover, the theological articulation of the view that Mary was mediatrix of grace arose in the East (again, not the Latin West) after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. It is not clear who first applied the term “mediatrix” to Mary, but it is clear that it originated in the East; proposals include Ephraim, Romanos the Singer, Basile of Seleucia, Andrew of Crete or Germanus of Constantinople. Eventually, this Eastern theology made its way to the West, being popularized by men like Peter Damien and Bernard of Clairvaux. To suggest, then, that this view of Mary arose on the basis of the Latin Vulgate, which was not even used by the Eastern CFs, is positively false. It is a myth perpetuated by Protestant scholars with very little, if any, historical basis. The Vulgate had very little if anything to do with the “elevation” of Mary in the West.

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

1. There is a parallel between Mary and the Church (and “the woman” in Genesis 3/Revelation 12 can be viewed as an image of both Mary and the Church; there is no need to introduce a false dichotomy in those passages, as if “the woman” could refer only to one to the exclusion of the other). For the CFs, the Church was constantly called a “mother” and “virgin” bride of Christ. It did not take long before this paradoxical state of virginal motherhood was linked to mariology, since Mary was another famous Virgin and Mother. St. Clement of Alexandria drew a parallel between the Virgin Mary and the Church, as if the two are associated closely in his mind (Paed. 1:6). Later, St. Ephraim would write: “We call the Church by the name of Mary, for she deserves a double name” (Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church pg. 115). St. Epiphanius also taught that Mary was a symbol of the Church. St. Gregory Nazianzen said that Mary was the temple of Christ, a statement that closely associates her with the Church (id. at 163). St. Ambrose went so far as to call Mary the type and image of the Church (id. at 198). It does seem that the Mary-Church parallel can be justified by typology alone, since Mary, as the Second Eve, is the “mother of all living” (Gen 3:20), and the CFs all teach that the Church is also our mother. Moreover, Mary contained the body of Christ within her womb, and the Church is the body of Christ – so in some sense we may say she is the mother of all Christians (Rev 12:17); she has given birth to us all in giving birth to Christ, just as the Church gives birth to us all. Why is this important? If in fact Mary is the image of the Church, then the way is paved for a typological argument in favor of her sinlessness. For the Church is called “holy” in all of the ancient creeds – “I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.” St. Paul himself had said that Christ will “present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). If Mary is, in the plan of God, the woman chosen to be the living and personal image of the Church, then she also might be expected to be “holy” and “without blemish” – which is precisely what the CFs do say of her. One therefore can justify the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness on the basis of the pattern and structure of Biblical ecclesiology as it applied to Mary.

So, why then did some of the CFs hold that Mary had in fact sinned? (the two specific sins I’ve seen mentioned are the sins of doubt and vainglory.) Let’s start with Origen. Initially, it’s important to note that although Origen sometimes explicitly bases doctrines on an oral Apostolic Tradition (he does so with infant baptism), he does not do so with respect to his view that Mary committed sin. Rather, Origen appears to have based his view on two things. First, it was an exegetical inference he made, especially from Luke 2:34-35, where it was prophesied that Mary would be “pierced by a sword.” For Origen, these words meant that Mary would doubt her son, and thus commit sin. While this reading is perhaps plausible, it is by no means the only interpretation (and is certainly not the consensus interpretation among the CFs). Second, as a theological point, Origen reasoned that Mary must have sinned because Jesus died for all humans, and Mary was a human, presupposing that a human could be redeemed only if he or she had in fact sinned (this is a view shared by Protestants). Duns Scotus adequately answered this charge in realizing that Mary could have been anticipatorily redeemed, preserving Christ’s universal redemption. We may therefore conclude that Origen erred in supposing that someone can be redeemed only if that person sinned. Origen cannot be faulted for not knowing about anticipatory redemption – how could he have foreseen a development that took hundreds of years to unfold? But once the nature of anticipatory redemption is understood, we immediately see the unsoundness of Origen’s argument against Marian sinlessness. If someone opposes Mary’s freedom from sin, then, they must do so on grounds other than those supplied by Origen. This conclusion is important because St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Cyril of Alexandria explicitly based their doctrine on Origen. Thus, in one swoop, most of the patristic witnesses against Mary’s sinlessness are called into serious question.

Furthermore, while most CFs after Origen appealed to his argument, they did offer a few of their own. For instance, some of them appealed especially to a very low estimation of women to ground their assertion that Mary committed sin. CFs falling into this category would include St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom and possibly St. Cyril of Alexandria. In other words, these CFs attributed imperfections to Mary for no other reason than that she was a woman who, as such, participated in a “weak” nature that is incapable of moral perfection. It goes without saying that this view is out of harmony with modern sensibilities and Church teaching (and it should be noted that not all the CFs shared this view on women). Since I always like to bring up St. Thomas Aquinas, I’d just point out that he writes that Chrysostom “goes too far” when he said that Mary succumbed to human frailty in seeking vainglory; and although Aquinas did not formally endorse the Immaculate Conception as it was later defined by the Church in 1854 (he lived 600 years earlier and died before Duns Scotus), he did state that “she was sanctified in the womb” (Summa Theologica III, Q.27, Art. 1) and affirmed that she was “preserved from all actual sin” during her life (id. III, Q. 27, Art. 4).

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

The only other patristic arguments against Mary’s sinlessness are based on pure Scriptural exegesis. I’ll just address a couple of their misinterpretations of the Bible. First, we can easily dismiss the argument from Luke 1:46, where Mary calls God her “savior.” In calling God her savior (which He was), Mary in no way admits that she was a sinner. Second, although Paul writes that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23), he cannot literally mean every single person because Jesus, infants and the severely handicapped cannot sin. If there are exceptions to the rule, nothing prevents Mary from being such an exception.

At bottom, what’s clear is that the CFs who taught that Mary sinned did not ground this view on Apostolic Tradition. Rather, it was based on (1) the misplaced theological argument that only sinners are capable of being redeemed; (2) a narrow view of the nature of women; and (3) private Scriptural exegesis.

 

[banjo]

This is a nice quotation – it kind of articulates a point I have been trying to make here. The Bible is full of sentence tokens, and the CFs are full of both sentence tokens and propositional readings of sentence tokens, although they are not perfectly in harmony with one another on any given question. This is precisely why Christ left us a Church, as an infallible guide, to sort out which propositions are true and which aren’t. It is the Church that has the final say regarding the objectively correct or orthodox propositions that are to be gleaned from the myriad sentence tokens left to us by Jesus and the Apostles.

I believe this holds true for statements made by the Church in various Councils and in Papal Bulls, Encyclicals, etc. Commenting on a particular case, Fr. William Most wrote, “We must understand this the way the Church means it, not by private interpretation.”

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Ignatius,

1. EO apologists have no problem shouting from the rooftops that the bishop of Rome improperly arrogated to himself the supremacy over the Church and that the Catholic Church misinterpreted Matthew 16 in the process. Yet, when this supposed usurpation was taking place in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th centuries, their Eastern forefathers said nary a word. To the contrary, they participated (unwittingly, I suppose) in this alleged usurpation.

Where do you get this?

The supposed usurpation did not happen in the east. The bishops of Rome did not have these powers in the east ever in the first millennium. The “2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th centuries” you write of is a strawman. In fact, outside of the Metropolitan Province of Rome (in central Italy) the Papacy did not have these powers in the west either at that time (a fact easily demonstrated), but in the east? Never.

Whatever powers the bishop of Rome has today in your church are a later development in the west and was not exercised over the east at any time (with the exception of the various areas of military occupation after the schism).

1. Today’s Eastern patriarchs wouldn’t consult the bishop of Rome for advice on which museums or eateries to visit while vacationing in Rome (perhaps this is an overstatement, but you get my point). Yet, their Eastern forefathers consulted and appealed to the bishop of Rome on the most critical matters of Church business – orthodox doctrine and the deposition of bishops.

This claim of yours overlooks the fact that all Patriarchs heard appeals. The process is still in place in the east.

What the bishop of Rome seems to claim is the right to intervene without being asked. That’s a whole different kettle of fish and no, he does not have that right outside of his own patriarchal church.

1. Photius was the first Eastern patriarch, that I know of, to forcefully challenge Rome’s claim to the primacy. He did so in the 9th century(!) and only after the bishop of Rome had sided against him on his claim to be patriarch of Constantinople (a claim that was completely baseless – unless the civil authorities have supreme authority over the Church – and premised on gross fabrications on Photius’ part), rendering his motives and objectivity suspect, to say the least. Yet, who do EO apologists look to, more than anyone else, in their cause against the Roman primacy? Photius. Not Athanasius. Not Basil. Not Chrysostom. Not Cyril (all four of whom are Doctors of the Catholic Church, incidentally).

Saint Photios was a brilliant theologian, and the evangelist of eastern Europe. He did not have to challenge the papacy over it’s authority, the Pope had no authority over him to challenge.

Saint Photios is most noteworthy for his criticism of the wests adoption and use of the filioque. Although some Latin polemicists like to demonize Saint Photios, in the end Saint Photios and the Pope of the day (I forget his name) were in communion and the relationship between the two offices had not changed. The bishops of Rome still had no control over the east. And Saint Photios is a Catholic as well as Orthodox saint.

A little trivia: most people do not realize that Saint Photios is thought by some sources to be the father of a Pope!

So, I have to ask, which Church has “changed” its model or “looks different” in the past millennium?

You are trying too hard to convince yourself. The various churches were autocephalic, the church at Rome was just one of these. It went it’s own way and forgot that it was just one of several locally governed churches, in fact forgetting it’s own origins.

When the final break happened, there were no changes in the east. No new canons, no crises management, no questions like: “what do we do now?!..who’s going to approve and supervise everything we do?!”

Nothing changed for the eastern church because the bishops of Rome did (for all practical purposes) nothing of importance for them.

If anyone wants to know what the job was like then for the “First Among Equals” they can just take a look at the Ecumenical Patriarchate today, and see what he does. This issue is a real yawner… :yawn:

 

[Ignatius33]

Hello Ignatius,

The supposed usurpation did not happen in the east. The bishops of Rome did not have these powers in the east ever in the first millennium. The “2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th centuries” you write of is a strawman. In fact, outside of the Metropolitan Province of Rome (in central Italy) the Papacy did not have these powers in the west either at that time (a fact easily demonstrated), but in the east? Never.

Thanks for your comments; I’ve enjoyed this thread. I have a few comments in response. I don’t think it is “easily demonstrated” that the early Church of the first five centuries was purely conciliar and that Rome did not enjoy a special primacy, derived from St. Peter himself. Nor do I think I’ve constructed a “straw man” in asserting that the bishops of Rome in the 4th and 5th centuries were acting as though they possessed a universal jurisdiction over the Church (obviously, I think Jesus Himself set up such a model, grounded in Peter’s primacy, as evidenced by Matt 16:18-19; Jn. 21:15-17; Lk. 22:31-32 as well as early Apostolic Tradition consistently maintaining that Rome was “Peter’s See” or “the Apostolic See”).

More specifically, I think you have to respond to the patristic passages contained in posts 38-40; 61-63; and 70 (particularly 62, 63 and 70) if you want to back up your position that Rome was merely a figural “first among equals” in the early Church. I’ve previously given numerous specific instances of Rome’s jurisdiction over both East and West. To repeat just a few, I think you need to answer passages like these:

1. In the fourth century, St. Athanasius, the de-posed bishop of Alexandria, appealed to Pope St. Julius, who reinstated Athanasius, reopening and reversing the sentence of an Eastern Council. Pope Julius wrote: “[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. For they were bishops who suffered; and they were not ordinary Churches which suffered, but were those which the Apostles themselves had governed. And above all, why was nothing written to us about the Church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there * notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here. But now, after they have done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him . Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. I beseech you, bear with me willingly: what I write about this is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter to Bishops of the Eusebian faction at Antioch [341 AD]).

If Pope Julius was way off track here (as you assert), where is the rebuttal from the East? Why didn’t anybody in the East, at any point in the 4th or 5th centuries, take issue with Pope Julius’ clear assertions of jurisdiction over the East? I mean, here we have a Pope rebuking the East for failing to consult Rome (alone) before deposing the bishop of Alexandria. To me, the answer for the East’s silence is simple – it’s because Pope Julius was not saying anything controversial here.

continued…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. In the fifth century, St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, appealed to Pope St. Celestine to render a decision on the orthodoxy of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople: “God requires us to be vigilant in these matters and the ancient customs of the Churches persuades that we should communicate with your Holiness [in Rome]. We do not openly and publicly break off communion with [Nestorius] before communicating these things to your Piety. Deign therefore to declare what seems to you right; and whether one must remain still in communion with him, or ought it to be proclaimed publicly that no one communicated with one who professes to teach such errors?” (Letter to Pope Celestine [ca. 431 AD]). Nestorius, likewise, appealed to Pope Celestine, attempting to persuade him of the orthodoxy of his views. In response to these cross-appeals, Pope Celestine authorized Cyril to act with Rome’s authority in condemning Nestorius “assuring to yourself the authority of our See [Rome] and using our stead and place, you will execute this sentence with the utmost severity” (Letter [ca. 431 AD]). After he was deposed (at the Council of Ephesus), Nestorius bitterly commented about the proceedings: “Who was judge? Cyril. Who was accuser? Cyril. Who was Bishop of Rome? Cyril. Cyril was everything.” The fact that Nestorius equated his judge and accuser with the bishop of Rome sheds light on his views on the Roman primacy. In his eyes, Cyril had arrogated to himself the authority and prerogatives of the pope himself.

Again, why did Cyril feel the need to appeal to the Pope before proceeding against Nestorius? There is no need to speculate; he says so in his own words – “ancient customs” require it. And as far as I know, neither Cyril nor Nestorius appealed to the other two Eastern sees – Antioch or Jerusalem. Rather, they appealed to Rome alone.

1. In the sixth century, it is true, Pope St. Gregory the Great repudiated the title of “universal bishop.” But, his repudiation was proper in light of his understanding of that title – that being an outright denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Epistle 5:21). In his view, no one could usurp that apostolically constituted power. Yet, he was a strenuous asserter of the immediate jurisdiction of Rome over all the faithful. For example, he reversed a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act that involved a claim to a universal authority (Epistle 6:15), and explicitly stated that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12).

If Rome was not exercising a universal authority, how could the Pope overturn a decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople relating to a priest in Constantinople?

1. In the ninth century, Photios and Ignatius – both claimants to the See of Constantinople – appealed to Pope St. Nicholas. In appealing to Rome, Photios expressly wrote that the Pope possessed the authority to decide the matter. Pope Nicholas sided with Ignatius (clearly, the rightful claimant). Only after the Pope had sided against him, Photios wrote his famous polemical anti-Roman works.

Again, why did Photios (and Ignatius) appeal to Rome (alone) to decide the identity of the Patriarch of Constantinople, if Rome was simply a figural first among equals with no power or prerogative to decide a matter by itself?

It is not enough to say that all five of the apostolic sees (well, Constantinople was not founded by an Apostle, but no matter) heard appeals. As a matter of historical fact, a decision rendered by Rome has never been appealed to the East. Yet, as I have demonstrated, many of the most important decisions pertaining to the East were appealed to Rome. The fact that the appeals-process was one-sided is telling.

 

[Ignatius33]

Saint Photios was a brilliant theologian, and the evangelist of eastern Europe. He did not have to challenge the papacy over it’s authority, the Pope had no authority over him to challenge.

Saint Photios is most noteworthy for his criticism of the wests adoption and use of the filioque. Although some Latin polemicists like to demonize Saint Photios, in the end Saint Photios and the Pope of the day (I forget his name) were in communion and the relationship between the two offices had not changed. The bishops of Rome still had no control over the east. And Saint Photios is a Catholic as well as Orthodox saint.

I don’t deny that Photios was a brilliant theologian – he was. But I will say two things about him, from a RC perspective. First, as far as I know, he is not a saint recognized by Rome (I think some Eastern Catholic Churches recognize him as a saint – perhaps that is what you meant). From the RC point of view, he is the originator of the Eastern schism and therefore cannot be reckoned a saint. Second, he only turned against Rome after the Pope had ruled in favor of his adversary for the See of Constantinople. Photios’ objectivity and motives in writing his polemical anti-Rome works are therefore called into serious question – particularly when you look at his list of accusations against the West: (1) they fasted on Saturday; (2) they did not begin Lent until Ash Wednesday (instead of three days earlier, as in the East); (3) they did not allow priests to marry (as far as I know, the East does not allow its bishops to marry); (4) they did not allow priests to administer confirmation (only the bishop could); and (5) they added the “filioque” to the creed (until that point, there had never been any real controversy about the filioque in the East, at least as far as I know).

Of these five objections – which, I have to be honest, look rather manufactured – only the fifth has had any lasting consequence. I’m not going to get into a full-on discussion of the filioque at this point (though I guess I will if I have to), but I do know that St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas adequately defended the RC view against Photios’ objections back in their day. In fact, in an earlier post, I commented that the East distrusts logic because “logic is against them.” When I said that, I specifically had the filioque in mind (and was only saying that with regard to the issues that keep the East separated from communion with Rome – I didn’t mean that “logic was against them” in everything EOs believe!). As a matter of logic, I think it can be proven that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, and not the Father alone. And to the extent the East complains that nothing could be added to the creed, the RC response is that nothing was “added” – rather, the creed was merely made more clear by adding the filioque. If you’ve followed the discussion between JesusforMadrid and I regarding the Catholic view of the development of doctrine, I think this is a defensible view of the filioque – a dogma of the Catholic faith.