Dropping the Filoque

[Ghosty]

Apophatic mentioned the filioque as used to combat Arianism in the West. I was commenting on its intended use in the West, where it was added to the Creed and propagated.

Concerning the Cappadocian Fathers: they largely wrote before the Council of Constantinople (381). The Nicene-Constantinople Creed does not have a filioque clause, yet effectively affirms the divinity (and sovereignty) of the Holy Spirit: …“Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds (*ekporeusai) *from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified.” If the Greeks, in their combat against the Macedonians, thought it necessary to affirm that the Holy Spirit “flows from” the “Father and the Son,” they could have included this clause as well, but they did not. Not saying that they didn’t believe in it; but in directly addressing the heresy of the Spirit-fighters, they did see to include it in the Creed.

What I never understood is why the Latins don’t go the whole way and say that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit. Surely the Father doesn’t beget the Son without any relation to the Holy Spirit. Maybe not two sources, but an idea akin to “flows from” both as one. A future clarification, perhaps.

The tradition of the Fathers is that the Spirit is of the Son, never that the Son is of the Spirit. As can be seen by the numerous quotes on this thread so far by Eastern Fathers, when the relation between the Son and Holy Spirit is mentioned it’s always the Holy Spirit being in some way “from” or “through” the Son, never the other way around.

The Latins don’t make such an argument because it’s not part of Apostolic Tradition, whereas the Son’s relationship as in some way participating in the procession of the Holy Spirit is. Even Scripture makes reference to the Holy Spirit receiving of the Son eternally, and not the other way around.

As for the Cappadocian Fathers, the Creed they recited did not contain “who proceeds from the Father”, so I’m not sure I understand your point.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

No one has ever claimed that the Son alone Spirates the Holy Spirit; it’s never even come up in the ongoing, century-long debates. I don’t think anyone should be concerned that this is the claim of the filioque, especially since the filioque itself says “from the Father and the Son”, indicating that the Father Spirates.

Peace and God bless!

Yes, they claim a double procession. It still destroys the Monarchy of the Father. If ‘through the Son’ simply means that the Father gives the power of spiration to the Son then it amounts to either a double procession or the Son spirating the Spirit Himself. If the west means that the two terms are equivalent in the sense that ‘through the Son’ simply points to a participation of the Son while the Father is the source and principle then I can understand how you can say the east and west hold to the same faith.

 

[Madaglan]

True, Modalists worked off of the premise that there was only ONE hypostasis in God. Off of that assumption, they could ONLY conclude that the Son and Holy Spirit were merely aspect of the Father.

But that is not the same premise off which the Eastern/Oriental Fathers worked when they taught that the Spirit originates from the Father and proceeds through the Son, nor. the Western Fathers when they taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. All Fathers worked off the same premises that: 1) the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons of the Trinity; 2) that they are one in Divinity and Godhood (i.e., homoousious); 3) that the Father is the Source of the Son and Holy Spirit.

Now, if the Western Fathers taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, while teaching that the Father is the Source of the Son and the Spriit, how does one possibly conclude that the Spirit is somehow involved in the generation of the Son? How does one even make such a claim that is in clear violation of one of the most standard proofs of the relational properties of three Persons - namely, the doxology? Does any apostolic Church ever proclaim the order of Persons to be “Son, Father, and Holy Spirit”?
Or “Father, Holy Spirit, and Son?” Or “Holy Spirit, Son, Father?” Or “Son, Holy Spirit, Father?” Remember, brother, WE PRAY, THEREFORE WE BELIEVE. The doxology (the order of the Names) itself reflects not only their distinct hypostases, but also their proper relationship in the Trinity.

So why and how, pray tell, do such thoughts possibly enter your mind? I believe the very fact that the Latin Church did not “go all the way,” as you put it, indicates that the hand of God had and has been protecting her up until now. Let’s hope the Holy Spirit likewise protects Eastern Orthodoxy, and prevents the spread of this polemical novelty that seeks to cause not mere distinction, but actual division between the Essence and Energies of God.

Blessings,
Marduk

I wasn’t claiming the Eastern Fathers or anyone else for that matter as being modalists.

This mentioned, one need not have the same premise as the original heresy to fall into that heresy. John Henry Cardinal Newman, for example, saw the Protestants as the “pure Arians,” even as the Protestants professed the Nicene Creed and declared the Son to be one in substance with the Father.

The order of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit reflects the economy by which they have been revealed to us. The doxology emphasizes the co-eternity of the three persons.
The suggestion of the Father and Spirit begetting the Son is not some polemical novelty invented by Romanides or any other contemporary Orthodox theologian. St. Photius mentions it in his Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.

 

[jimmy]

Yes, they claim a double procession. It still destroys the Monarchy of the Father. If ‘through the Son’ simply means that the Father gives the power of spiration to the Son then it amounts to either a double procession or the Son spirating the Spirit Himself. If the west means that the two terms are equivalent in the sense that ‘through the Son’ simply points to a participation of the Son while the Father is the source and principle then I can understand how you can say the east and west hold to the same faith.

I have tried to edit this post a few times but my internet keeps going bad.

I wanted to add an example in which the first use of ‘through the Son’ seems to be the line of defense. Here is a quote from the Catholic Answers article.
These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son. However, some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate “through the Son” with “from the Son” is a departure from the true faith.
catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp

The defense is that the Father is the source of the power in the Son and for this reason the two terms are equivalent. It doesn’t say that the Father is the single principle or source from which the Spirit proceeds through the Son. On the contrary, there are now two equivalent principles because the Son has recieved the power from the Father. It is consequently not like the analogy with the river but more like an analogy of association or something. Kind of like you could apply all the actions of Hillary Clinton to Obama since it is his administration that she represents.

It goes side by side with the defense which quotes Christ as saying that the Father has given Him everything. Since the Father has given the Son everything He has consequently also given Him the power of spiration. Since the power came from the Father then you can say that the Spirit proceeds both ‘from the Son’ and ‘through the Son’ and you are saying the same thing but you have changed the sense in which ‘through the Son’ is used.

 

[Madaglan]

The tradition of the Fathers is that the Spirit is of the Son, never that the Son is of the Spirit. As can be seen by the numerous quotes on this thread so far by Eastern Fathers, when the relation between the Son and Holy Spirit is mentioned it’s always the Holy Spirit being in some way “from” or “through” the Son, never the other way around.

The Latins don’t make such an argument because it’s not part of Apostolic Tradition, whereas the Son’s relationship as in some way participating in the procession of the Holy Spirit is. Even Scripture makes reference to the Holy Spirit receiving of the Son eternally, and not the other way around.

As for the Cappadocian Fathers, the Creed they recited did not contain “who proceeds from the Father”, so I’m not sure I understand your point.

Peace and God bless!

Matthew 1:20:

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Gotcha! jk

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as the Latin Creed now stands, it affirms two things:

1. The Son is born of the Father (implied: Father alone is the **source **of the Son)
2. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (not from the two as from a single “source,” but in the sense of procedit/“going out from” Father and Son)

In short, the Latin Creed goes from the Son being born or begotten of the Father (implied: alone as source) to the Holy Spirit proceeding,“going out from,” the Father and the Son–but not at all in the sense of them together being the source of this procession.

I was lightly mentioning that the Latins should “go all the way” by further changing the wording of the Creed to read something like “[the Son] brought forth from the Father and the Spirit.” The altered Creed wouldn’t deny that the Son is begotten of the Father [alone], but it would take some focus off the filioque.

Of course, I’m not seriously recommending this.

The Cappadocian Fathers did not recite the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. Granted. I was pointing rather to the Fathers of Constantinople who had at least some familiarity with anti-Macedonian writings of the Cappadocian Fathers.

 

[Madaglan]

I have tried to edit this post a few times but my internet keeps going bad.

I wanted to add an example in which the first use of ‘through the Son’ seems to be the line of defense. Here is a quote from the Catholic Answers article.These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son. However, some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate “through the Son” with “from the Son” is a departure from the true faith.
catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp

The defense is that the Father is the source of the power in the Son and for this reason the two terms are equivalent. It doesn’t say that the Father is the single principle or source from which the Spirit proceeds through the Son. On the contrary, there are now two equivalent principles because the Son has recieved the power from the Father. It is consequently not like the analogy with the river but more like an analogy of association or something. Kind of like you could apply all the actions of Hillary Clinton to Obama since it is his administration that she represents.

It goes side by side with the defense which quotes Christ as saying that the Father has given Him everything. Since the Father has given the Son everything He has consequently also given Him the power of spiration. Since the power came from the Father then you can say that the Spirit proceeds both ‘from the Son’ and ‘through the Son’ and you are saying the same thing but you have changed the sense in which ‘through the Son’ is used.

:bigyikes: !!!

That Obama/Hilary Clinton analogy to the Latin understanding of Trinity is bolder than I’m willing to go. So, who proceeds from Obama and Hilary?

Nancy Pelosi?

 

[jimmy]

The Cappadocian Fathers did not recite the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. Granted. I was pointing rather to the Fathers of Constantinople who had at least some familiarity with anti-Macedonian writings of the Cappadocian Fathers.

That is an understatement. It is essentially the theology of Basil. Gregory of Nazianzen would have presided over the council but it was challenged because according to the council of Nicea a bishop can’t transfer from one see to another so the consecration as bishop of Constantinople was invalid. It was largely influenced by Gregory of Nyssa who was at the council.

 

[justacloserwalk]

In the Orthodox Church we say “I believe” when we say the Nicene Creed. I was watching the Christmas Eve Catholic service and noticed they said “We believe”
Is this new?

 

[Ghosty]

On the contrary, there are now two equivalent principles because the Son has recieved the power from the Father. It is consequently not like the analogy with the river but more like an analogy of association or something. Kind of like you could apply all the actions of Hillary Clinton to Obama since it is his administration that she represents.

This is nonsense because the Latin Church has already clarified that the Father alone is the Source. There is absolutely no way to derive the notion you are suggesting from the actual teaching of the Church.

People can make up straw-men all they want, twisting the language and taking it in a different context, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Latin Church has always insisted on the direct and Personal Spiration by the Father, of the Holy Spirit.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Apophatic]

1) A hearty WELCOME TO THE BOARDS!!!

…and a just as hearty thank you.

I am VERY pressed for time right now and will only be able to respond infrequently at times, but please, let nobody take that as a snub or that I am miffed, etc.

2) should I address you as "brother" or "sister"?

Brother.

3) Given your name, would it be correct to assume that you are an Eastern/Oriental Catholic?

I said to myself, must be an Oriental of some type. Only an Easterner would get that name.

Actually I am Latin and assist at Extraordinary Form Masses, ie, the Traditional Latin Mass from before Vatican II. My mother was Eastern Catholic but followed my father into the Latin Rite. My paternal grandfather was originally Orthodox but followed my French paternal grandmother into the Western Church, hence I am 3/4 Eastern blood, but Latin in practice. I spent close to 50% of my youth in Eastern Catholic or Orthodox churches and have a keen appreciation of the beauty and holiness of the Divine Liturgy.

I chose the name Apophatic because, while I am Latin and a Thomist to boot, I have read extensively the writings of Vladimir Lossky. While I disagree with his ecclesiology and and some of his theology, he dove-tailed nicely with Saint John of the Cross, who I am also a fan of. Also, his incredible patient love oozes through the lines, especially in his apologetic works. Apologists today, of any stripe, could learn from this.

 

[Apophatic]

I am going to address a number of points in this one post rather than making numerous replies. Sorry if this causes any confusion.

Yes, they claim a double procession. It still destroys the Monarchy of the Father.

If you remember from my original post, you MUST use the complete definition of this procession including the clause, “as from a single principle.” See below for a quick summary of this.

Matthew 1:20:
The Cappadocian Fathers did not recite the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. Granted. I was pointing rather to the Fathers of Constantinople who had at least some familiarity with anti-Macedonian writings of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Actually Basil could not have said that creed because he died two years before the council. Both Gregorys were there, though one died eight years later and the other fourteen years later. They would have supported it or at least accepted the council’s ratification of it. One cannot reference their earlier writings as evidence of anything.

The creed itself arose liturgically as a Baptismal Creed in Asia Minor by 372AD probably around Caesaria. We do not know when it started. Being close neighbours, the Cappadocians would have known of it.

In the Orthodox Church we say “I believe” when we say the Nicene Creed. I was watching the Christmas Eve Catholic service and noticed they said “We believe”
Is this new?

This is the result of a bad English translation by the ICEL. The Latin still says Credo, “I believe”. It also says “one in being with the Father” instead of “Consubstantial”. Rome has ordered a re-translation of the English for the whole rite to more closely match the Latin, which we hope is about two years away from being finished. (Another long story)

I
The suggestion of the Father and Spirit begetting the Son is not some polemical novelty invented by Romanides or any other contemporary Orthodox theologian. St. Photius mentions it in his Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.

To clairfy for everyone, Photius does not endorse this theology, he mentions it as a argument AGAINST the Filioque. I am sure that you know this but I did not and found it confusing, so I looked it up.

Processions

What follows is a loosely stated summary and not in full theological form since that would make the post too long. I apologize in advance if I compacted it too far.

There are two INTERNAL operations of the Godhead from the Father that give rise to the Processions. I say internal because if they were external, God would have motion and therefore be changeable. They are, the Intellect, which goes forth as the Word (the Son) and the Will, which goes forth as Love. Now Love which goes forth must have an object to receive it. That object is the perfect love of the Father for the Son. The Son perfectly and completely returns that perfect love(from the Father) back to the Father. This love IS the procession of the Holy Spirit. Remember that this love is from the very Essence of God and therefore is itself infinite and eternal just like the Father and the Son.

In Scripture, Jesus says that He will sent the Holy Spirit. He also says that He will ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit. In some places Scripture refers to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of Christ. So, who is doing the Sending and whose Spirit is it? Can Scripture contradict itself? With the Filioque there is a clear answer to these and other points.

The Orthodox delegates to Florence and Lyons accepted this but were later rejected by their own people due to other considerations. To me the Filioque is a dead issue and could be resolved afterward. Either side could back off of Filioque and there would still be no re-unification. The REAL problem is one of Ecclesiology. I will not get into it because that belongs on another thread.

In Pax Christi

 

[Aramis]

I fail to see what the Apostle’s Creed has to do with the addition of the filioque in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed./QUOTE]

quite simple: in adding to it, it ceased being the Nicene-Contantinoplean Creed, and became the Roman Credo.

The Apostle’s Creed was in use before, and is still in use since, the formulation in Council at Nicea, and revision and promulgation in the Council at Constantinople.

The adherence to the Creed of Constantinople is mandated for all Catholics and Orthodox, by the council. It is the creed that defines the faith.

The council did not, however, prohibit the Apostle’s creed from use outside the liturgy.

The Roman Credo, as a translation is imperfect; after the addition of the filioque, it is no longer even a translation, but a new creed, imposed upon the latins by the latins, to combat a heresy that was latin in origin and latin in scope.

 

[johnnykins]

Taboric Light;4892381:

I fail to see what the Apostle’s Creed has to do with the addition of the filioque in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed./QUOTE]

quite simple: in adding to it, it ceased being the Nicene-Contantinoplean Creed, and became the Roman Credo.

The Apostle’s Creed was in use before, and is still in use since, the formulation in Council at Nicea, and revision and promulgation in the Council at Constantinople.

The adherence to the Creed of Constantinople is mandated for all Catholics and Orthodox, by the council. It is the creed that defines the faith.

The council did not, however, prohibit the Apostle’s creed from use outside the liturgy.

The Roman Credo, as a translation is imperfect; after the addition of the filioque, it is no longer even a translation, but a new creed, imposed upon the latins by the latins, to combat a heresy that was latin in origin and latin in scope.

You might want to check the canons as such are available.

A few comments. the Greek orthodox archdiocese of America clearly hold the Athanasian Creed to be a basic source of Orthodoxy:

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7064
“THE ATHANASIAN CREED
The next source of the teachings of the Orthodox Church is the Athanasian Creed, which was written and used by the Western part of the Church and later accepted by the Eastern part, though not used in its liturgical life. This Creed is a source because it states the orthodox teaching of the faith of the Church. This Creed was not written by Athanasius, but attributed to him, and is believed by some to have been written by St. Ambrose in Latin. It is believed to have been written in either the fourth or fifth century.”

Interestingly the Athanasian Creed specifically includes the procession from the Son. - Look it up on the web if you need to do so. Your point that an interpolation destroys the translation of the Nicean Creed raises the issue as to how any translation can be done without interpolation. The point being, you simply dislike this one and approve of others.
Further the prohibition on another Creed was not, and is not, a prohibition on a change - but the prohibition on a heretical change - which clearly the “filioque” cannot be since a basic source of Orthodoxy - the Athanasian creed - has the same language.

You may disagree with my interpretation of the prohibition, and many do and have, OK the language is not clear from the council. However, the Council itself admitted other Creeds - so how do you square that? Perhaps all are subject to questions of ambiguity - Orthodox as well as Catholics?

 

[Aramis]

Aramis;4933922:

You might want to check the canons as such are available.

A few comments. the Greek orthodox archdiocese of America clearly hold the Athanasian Creed to be a basic source of Orthodoxy:

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7064

“THE ATHANASIAN CREED
The next source of the teachings of the Orthodox Church is the Athanasian Creed, which was written and used by the Western part of the Church and later accepted by the Eastern part, though not used in its liturgical life. This Creed is a source because it states the orthodox teaching of the faith of the Church. This Creed was not written by Athanasius, but attributed to him, and is believed by some to have been written by St. Ambrose in Latin. It is believed to have been written in either the fourth or fifth century.”

Interestingly the Athanasian Creed specifically includes the procession from the Son. - Look it up on the web if you need to do so. Your point that an interpolation destroys the translation of the Nicean Creed raises the issue as to how any translation can be done without interpolation. The point being, you simply dislike this one and approve of others.
Further the prohibition on another Creed was not, and is not, a prohibition on a change - but the prohibition on a heretical change - which clearly the “filioque” cannot be since a basic source of Orthodoxy - the Athanasian creed - has the same language.

You may disagree with my interpretation of the prohibition, and many do and have, OK the language is not clear from the council. However, the Council itself admitted other Creeds - so how do you square that? Perhaps all are subject to questions of ambiguity - Orthodox as well as Catholics?

The Council at Constantinople mandates the use of the Creed they adopted. It doesn’t prohibit others from being used, just that that creed was the faith of the church.

The Athanasian is in the same situation as the Apostolic Creed: It is a good symbol of faith, but it is not THE faith.

The addition of the Filioque puts the Roman Credo into the same condition.

 

[Apophatic]

The Council at Constantinople mandates the use of the Creed they adopted. It doesn’t prohibit others from being used, just that that creed was the faith of the church.

The Athanasian is in the same situation as the Apostolic Creed: It is a good symbol of faith, but it is not THE faith.

The addition of the Filioque puts the Roman Credo into the same condition.

No, it does not. Read the actual papers of the council. No acts or doctrinal pronouncements have survived. All we have from that council is the Creed, a letter of promulgation, and seven Canons.

The Creed listed is slightly different from what we say today (excluding the Filioque consideration) and therefore it went through further development. It says “we” instead of “I” and does not have “God from God” as well as other differences.

The Canons were not ratified by the Church and therefore not binding, however, the first Cannon does say that the Creed of NICAEA was not abrogated and is to remain in force. It says nothing about the new creed.

It was CHALCEDON that dealt with this 126 years later. It said the Creed of NICAEA was to remain inviolate. It then approved of the Constantinople changes because it clarified in response to a heresy.

No ecumenical council of the Church has ever said that Constantinople version of the Creed cannot be changed. In fact, with Chalcedon, changes are allowed if they clarify. The Creed from Nicaea is held up as the standard of comparision. See my earlier post where I quoted these councils.

Rather than writing off the Athanasian Creed, I think makes interesting evidence that Filioque was known and accepted in the East as early as the 4th century. And yes, I know that Athanasias is not its direct author, but that it is thought to have come from a regional council in 361 at Alexandria issued it with Athanasias presiding.

 

[Madaglan]

No, it does not. Read the actual papers of the council. No acts or doctrinal pronouncements have survived. All we have from that council is the Creed, a letter of promulgation, and seven Canons.

The Creed listed is slightly different from what we say today (excluding the Filioque consideration) and therefore it went through further development. It says “we” instead of “I” and does not have “God from God” as well as other differences.

The Canons were not ratified by the Church and therefore not binding, however, the first Cannon does say that the Creed of NICAEA was not abrogated and is to remain in force. It says nothing about the new creed.

It was CHALCEDON that dealt with this 126 years later. It said the Creed of NICAEA was to remain inviolate. It then approved of the Constantinople changes because it clarified in response to a heresy.

No ecumenical council of the Church has ever said that Constantinople version of the Creed cannot be changed. In fact, with Chalcedon, changes are allowed if they clarify. The Creed from Nicaea is held up as the standard of comparision. See my earlier post where I quoted these councils.

Rather than writing off the Athanasian Creed, I think makes interesting evidence that Filioque was known and accepted in the East as early as the 4th century. And yes, I know that Athanasias is not its direct author, but that it is thought to have come from a regional council in 361 at Alexandria issued it with Athanasias presiding.

The Athanasian Creed is interesting. We only have handed down to us the Latin version of this creed. Some scholars argue that the Athanasian Creed was actually formulated in the West, while Eastern sources were influential.

If the Athanasian Creed were formulated in the East, I would be interested in what the Greek translation would be as regards the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Latin version on the procession of the Holy Spirit reads as follows:

Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.

(todayscatholicworld.com/athanasian-creed.htm)

If this creed were originally written in Greek, I cannot imagine the Greek original using ἐκμόνου (or a similar conjugation), as found in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

 

[jean8]

Well, let’s see how Hes answers whether he agrees that the Catholic understanding is orthodox. Translation issues are always a problem with multiple languages. If he agrees that Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree on the issue - it will truly be interesting to see how he handles the Orthodox rejection of Florence. Honestly, Hes has a problem no matter which way he turns.

What is ‘filoque?’
I have a vague idea, but please enlighten my idea.

jean8

 

[jean8]

The Athanasian Creed is interesting. We only have handed down to us the Latin version of this creed. Some scholars argue that the Athanasian Creed was actually formulated in the West, while Eastern sources were influential.

If the Athanasian Creed were formulated in the East, I would be interested in what the Greek translation would be as regards the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Latin version on the procession of the Holy Spirit reads as follows:

Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.

(todayscatholicworld.com/athanasian-creed.htm)

If this creed were originally written in Greek, I cannot imagine the Greek original using ἐκμόνου (or a similar conjugation), as found in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

magdaglan,

“While the Athanasian Creed is a good summary of Christian doctrine on the subjects of the Trinity, and the deity / humanity of Jesus Christ, there are a couple of issues that must be dealt with. First, in regards to the phrase “catholic church,” this does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The word “catholic” means universal. The true “catholic” church is all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. Please see our article on the universal church. Second, the Athanasian Creed demands belief in all of its tenets for salvation. While we agree with the tenets, we do not believe that all of them are mandatory for salvation.”

To believe ‘catholic’ refers to the RCC would mean only Catholics will be saved. do you really believe this? Oneness Pentecosts believe they are only christians who are saved.
See Mt.7:1-5

Oh dear,
jean8

PS. We recite this Creed in our church. I believe this is for all christians.

 

[Apophatic]

The Athanasian Creed is interesting. We only have handed down to us the Latin version of this creed. Some scholars argue that the Athanasian Creed was actually formulated in the West, while Eastern sources were influential.

If the Athanasian Creed were formulated in the East, I would be interested in what the Greek translation would be as regards the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Latin version on the procession of the Holy Spirit reads as follows:

Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.

(todayscatholicworld.com/athanasian-creed.htm)

If this creed were originally written in Greek, I cannot imagine the Greek original using ἐκμόνου (or a similar conjugation), as found in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

You are absolutely correct, that is why I said “interesting” rather than “definitive”.

The Latin text is often attributed to a revision of the original by St. Ambrose of Milan. He died in 397AD, so it is still a very ancient witness. The text itself shows a strong correspondence to Athanasian theology and to some things he did say. In places, I would make it very Eastern. Ah, well.

I would think that από τον Πατέρα και τον Υιό would do very nicely as the original, excusing my rusty Greek.

 

[Apophatic]

This is not really the thread for protestant apologetics, but I will give you this one reply.

magdaglan,

First, in regards to the phrase “catholic church,” this does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The word “catholic” means universal.

Actually η καθολική εκκλησία, “The Catholic Church” means “for the whole people called together into assembly”. A variant meaning of κατά from which the καθ part of the word comes includes “coming down from above” thus making it “That which comes down from above for the whole people called together into assembly”.

The official name of the RCC (so-called by protestants) is just the “Catholic Church”, nothing more nothing less. It has been so from at least 107AD. The name came into use to distinguish ourselves from the heretics who also called themselves Christian

The true “catholic” church is all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

Looking at the definition above, you have it backwards. God calls, we respond, “No one comes to me unless the Father draws him.” As long as your definition of Faith includes obedience to Christ’s commandments as a requirement to salvation, I could agree with the second half of this sentence.

Second, the Athanasian Creed demands belief in all of its tenets for salvation. While we agree with the tenets, we do not believe that all of them are mandatory for salvation."

You believe wrongly then. When these creeds were composed there was only one Church and the rest were heretics. The creeds were part of Baptism and mandatory when a heretic was re-joining the Church. It was a clear statement of what it mean to be Christian.

Belief in the tenets of the Creed
To believe ‘catholic’ refers to the RCC would mean only Catholics will be saved. do you really believe this? Oneness Pentecosts believe they are only christians who are saved.

You need to read the the Catholic Catechism and statement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith last year to understand what the Catholic position is. By the way we do believe that catholic refers to us, but not in a way the excludes all others.

See Mt.7:1-5

I fail to see how this is relevant. Paul tells us that if we see a brother in sin and bring him to righteousness, it will cover a multitude of our sins. How am I to tell him he is in sin without making some kind of judgment?

PS. We recite this Creed in our church. I believe this is for all christians.

I believe that this is for all Christians too. But why do you recite this if you do not hold to all of the tenets???