Filioque and the Council of Ephesus?

[Catholic_Dude]

I just came across this quote from St Cyril of Alexandria’s “Third Letter to Nestorius” which is also the main body of the Council of Ephesus. I came across two different versions online:
For even though* the Spirit exists in his own hypostasis* and is thought of on his own, as being Spirit and not as Son, even so he is not alien to the Son. He has been called “the Spirit of truth”, and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit was poured forth by the Son, as indeed the Son was poured forth from the God and Father.

For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of him by himself, as he is the Spirit and not the Son; but he is not different from him; for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the Truth, and he is sent by him, just as, moreover, he is from God and the Father.
Does this have anything to do with the Filioque?

 

[Charlie_Vivian]

I read a book on the Orthodox Church recently. It appears that the only 2 areas of disagreement between OC and RCC are:

1. Is the Pope the first among equals of the patriarchs (OC), or is he prime? (RC)
2. Does the Holy Spirit (HS) proceed from the Father (OC), or the Father and the Son (RC).

These problems are linked, because after the split, the RC church decided (2) in isolation from the OC patriarchs.

Really interesting to see that Ephesus looked like it had already addressed the issue.

I’m longing for church unity, as it’s great for evangelism of the world (Jn 17), and for God’s power to be fully revealed (Eph 3)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I just came across this quote from St Cyril of Alexandria’s “Third Letter to Nestorius” which is also the main body of the Council of Ephesus. I came across two different versions online:
For even though* the Spirit exists in his own hypostasis* and is thought of on his own, as being Spirit and not as Son, even so he is not alien to the Son. He has been called “the Spirit of truth”, and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit was poured forth by the Son, as indeed the Son was poured forth from the God and Father.

For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of him by himself, as he is the Spirit and not the Son; but he is not different from him; for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the Truth, and he is sent by him, just as, moreover, he is from God and the Father.
Does this have anything to do with the Filioque?

The differenc is between proinai (economic procession) and ekporeusis (theological/hypostatic procession: the one the Creed is talking about).

Canon VII of Ephesus forbids composing a differnt Creed. We are told that Constantinople I (composed of Fathers not in communion with Rome at the time, and with no impute from Rome:btw canon I of that council also forbad a different Creed) was not Ecumenical until the pope said so at Chalcedon, so the pope has the authority to change the Creed. However, the Nestorians, who never accepted Ephesus, use the Constantinopolitan Creed as THE Creed (without filioque), and the Miaphysites, who do not recognzie Chalcedon, do the same.

 

[Ghosty]

The differenc is between proinai (economic procession) and ekporeusis (theological/hypostatic procession: the one the Creed is talking about).

Canon VII of Ephesus forbids composing a differnt Creed. We are told that Constantinople I (composed of Fathers not in communion with Rome at the time, and with no impute from Rome:btw canon I of that council also forbad a different Creed) was not Ecumenical until the pope said so at Chalcedon, so the pope has the authority to change the Creed. However, the Nestorians, who never accepted Ephesus, use the Constantinopolitan Creed as THE Creed (without filioque), and the Miaphysites, who do not recognzie Chalcedon, do the same.

The problem with this analysis is that St. Cyril is not refering to economic procession; the Son is not poured forth economically from the Father.

Peace and God bless!

 

[johnnykins]

Canon VII of Ephesus forbids composing a differnt Creed.

The exact thing forbidden is hardly agreed upon:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xi.html

It has been held by some and was urged by the Greeks at the Council of Florence, and often before and since, as well as by Pope Leo III., in answer to the ambassadors of Charlemagne, that the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus to make, hold, or teach any other faith than that of Nice forbade anyone, even a subsequent General Council, to add anything to the creed. This interpretation seems to be shewn to be incorrect from the following circumstances….

I suggest the above article be reviewed.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The exact thing forbidden is hardly agreed upon:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xi.html

It has been held by some and was urged by the Greeks at the Council of Florence, and often before and since, as well as by Pope Leo III., in answer to the ambassadors of Charlemagne, that the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus to make, hold, or teach any other faith than that of Nice forbade anyone, even a subsequent General Council, to add anything to the creed. This interpretation seems to be shewn to be incorrect from the following circumstances….

I suggest the above article be reviewed.

1. That the prohibition was passed by the Council immediately after it had heard Charisius read his creed, which it had approved, and on the strength of which it had received its author, and after the reading of a Nestorian creed which it condemned. From this it seems clear that ἑτέραν must mean “different,” “contradictory,” and not “another” in the sense of mere explanatory additions to the already existing creed.
   Filioque doesn’t explain anything, and is different and contradictory: even the Vatican sees that putting the filique in the Original Greek (the languages the Fathers used) yields a different faith, and hence forbids it.
2. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, by their practice, are authoritative exponents of the Canon of Ephesus. For they renewed the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus to “adduce any other faith,” but, in “the faith” which is not to be set aside, they included not only the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople, but the definitions at Ephesus and Chalcedon itself. The statements of the faith were expanded, because fresh contradictions of the faith had emerged. After directing that both Creeds should be read, the Council says, “This wise and saving Symbol of Divine grace would have sufficed to the full knowledge and confirmation of the faith; for it teaches thoroughly the perfect truth of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and presents to those who receive it faithfully the Incarnation of the Lord.” Then, having in detail shewn how both heresies were confuted by it, and having set forth the true doctrine, they sum up.
   Toledo was not an Ecumenical Council. No “fresh contradiction had emerged” that needed an expansion.
3. [sic] The Fifth Ecumenical Council, the Second of Constantinople, received both the creeds of Nice and that of Constantinople, as well of the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and yet at the end of the fourth Session we find in the acts that the fathers cried out, with respect to the creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia: “This creed Satan composed. Anathema to him that composed this creed! The First Council of Ephesus anathematized this creed and its author. We know only one symbol of faith, that which the holy fathers of Nice set forth and handed down. This also the three holy Synods handed down. Into this we were baptized, and into this we baptize, etc., etc.” From this it is clearer than day that these fathers looked upon the creed of Constantinople, with its additions, to be yet the same creed as that of Nice.

We bring this up every time the claim is brought up that Constantinople I was not Ecumenical until the Pope said so at Chalcedon.

Canon I of Constantinople is the basis of this canon of Ephesus: it is clearer than day that the Fathers of Constantinople were not anathematizing themselves as they were setting their seal on their Creed.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This thread is not about whether an EC permitted new creeds or modifications to the Nicene*, it is about that specific quote and what it means (I’m not sure what it means).

*Constantinople 1 actually did modify various parts of the original Nicene Creed.

 

[Taboric_Light]

The problem with this analysis is that St. Cyril is not refering to economic procession; the Son is not poured forth economically from the Father.

I’m wondering what the Greek says. The Father sent the Son to us which is an economic procession. In the English translation that has been presented I do not see it implicitly deny an economical procession. If, however, the Greek text clearly speaks of an eternal hypostatic procession than that would be something indeed.

In Christ through Mary

 

[marlo]

Since we dont know greek, can somebody post the greek text of this letter?

I’m wondering what the Greek says. The Father sent the Son to us which is an economic procession. In the English translation that has been presented I do not see it implicitly deny an economical procession. If, however, the Greek text clearly speaks of an eternal hypostatic procession than that would be something indeed.

In Christ through Mary

 

[johnnykins]

1. That the prohibition was passed by the Council immediately after it had heard Charisius read his creed, which it had approved, and on the strength of which it had received its author, and after the reading of a Nestorian creed which it condemned. From this it seems clear that ἑτέραν must mean “different,” “contradictory,” and not “another” in the sense of mere explanatory additions to the already existing creed.
   Filioque doesn’t explain anything, and is different and contradictory: even the Vatican sees that putting the filique in the Original Greek (the languages the Fathers used) yields a different faith, and hence forbids it.

Nonsense and you know better. “Filioque” clearly explains the procession - it was the reason for the addition. It most certainly does not yield a different faith - except for those who want it to do so - like the "Greeks who want to say it’s different - including Scholarius who sold his faith and self to the Turks. Provide one site that says the Vatican says the filioque yeilds a different faith. The fact that it could be ambiguous has been clarified numerous times - the “greeks” simply refuse to agree that the “vatican” means what it says - at say, Florence.The Vatican allows the Greek version without it - it simply doesn’t demand it in Greek - but it certainly demands that it not be rejected.

1. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, by their practice, are authoritative exponents of the Canon of Ephesus. For they renewed the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus to “adduce any other faith,” but, in “the faith” which is not to be set aside, they included not only the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople, but the definitions at Ephesus and Chalcedon itself. The statements of the faith were expanded, because fresh contradictions of the faith had emerged. After directing that both Creeds should be read, the Council says, “This wise and saving Symbol of Divine grace would have sufficed to the full knowledge and confirmation of the faith; for it teaches thoroughly the perfect truth of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and presents to those who receive it faithfully the Incarnation of the Lord.” Then, having in detail shewn how both heresies were confuted by it, and having set forth the true doctrine, they sum up.
   Toledo was not an Ecumenical Council. No “fresh contradiction had emerged” that needed an expansion.

Never said Toledo was. Yeah, Arianism in the west was the reason - as we all know.

1. [sic] The Fifth Ecumenical Council, the Second of Constantinople, received both the creeds of Nice and that of Constantinople, as well of the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and yet at the end of the fourth Session we find in the acts that the fathers cried out, with respect to the creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia: “This creed Satan composed. Anathema to him that composed this creed! The First Council of Ephesus anathematized this creed and its author. We know only one symbol of faith, that which the holy fathers of Nice set forth and handed down. This also the three holy Synods handed down. Into this we were baptized, and into this we baptize, etc., etc.” From this it is clearer than day that these fathers looked upon the creed of Constantinople, with its additions, to be yet the same creed as that of Nice.

We bring this up every time the claim is brought up that Constantinople I was not Ecumenical until the Pope said so at Chalcedon.

Canon I of Constantinople is the basis of this canon of Ephesus: it is clearer than day that the Fathers of Constantinople were not anathematizing themselves as they were setting their seal on their Creed.

Hence not a different Creed. QED

 

[Taboric_Light]

Nonsense and you know better. “Filioque” clearly explains the procession - it was the reason for the addition. It most certainly does not yield a different faith - except for those who want it to do so - like the "Greeks who want to say it’s different - including Scholarius who sold his faith and self to the Turks. Provide one site that says the Vatican says the filioque yeilds a different faith. The fact that it could be ambiguous has been clarified numerous times - the “greeks” simply refuse to agree that the “vatican” means what it says - at say, Florence.The Vatican allows the Greek version without it - it simply doesn’t demand it in Greek - but it certainly demands that it not be rejected. Never said Toledo was. Yeah, Arianism in the west was the reason - as we all know.

Hence not a different Creed. QED

Johnny,

The reason for the addition of the filioque at the Council of Toledo was not to explain the procession of the Spirit, but rather to defend and affirm the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Also, the filioque still has some ambiguities. There are things such as hypostatic procession that are not clarified in the clarification on the filioque, which also does not mention Florence even in a footnote (it mentions St. Palamas though ).

That the filioque would change the meaning of the creed if it were said in the original greek is absolutely true. In greek there are two words that are translated as “proceeds” into latin. These two words are not just nuances but actually mean different things. The original greek uses the word ekpouriosis (please forgive the spelling) when it says that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” If you kept the original greek and said that the Spirit “ekpouriosis from the Father and the Son” then you would be speaking heresy. The Council of Florence, other Western councils, the clarification on the filioque all affirm the Father as sole source of the Holy Spirit. If you say “and from the Son” in the greek creed then you are saying that the Father and the Son are both the source of the Spirit.

Hope this clarifies some things.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Nonsense and you know better. “Filioque” clearly explains the procession - it was the reason for the addition. It most certainly does not yield a different faith - except for those who want it to do so - like the "Greeks who want to say it’s different - including Scholarius who sold his faith and self to the Turks. Provide one site that says the Vatican says the filioque yeilds a different faith. The fact that it could be ambiguous has been clarified numerous times - the “greeks” simply refuse to agree that the “vatican” means what it says - at say, Florence.The Vatican allows the Greek version without it - it simply doesn’t demand it in Greek - but it certainly demands that it not be rejected. Never said Toledo was. Yeah, Arianism in the west was the reason - as we all know.

Hence not a different Creed. QED

Your coreligionist has already answered.

 

[Fuerza]

Johnny,

The reason for the addition of the filioque at the Council of Toledo was not to explain the procession of the Spirit, but rather to defend and affirm the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Also, the filioque still has some ambiguities. There are things such as hypostatic procession that are not clarified in the clarification on the filioque, which also does not mention Florence even in a footnote (it mentions St. Palamas though ).

That the filioque would change the meaning of the creed if it were said in the original greek is absolutely true. In greek there are two words that are translated as “proceeds” into latin. These two words are not just nuances but actually mean different things. The original greek uses the word ekpouriosis (please forgive the spelling) when it says that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” If you kept the original greek and said that the Spirit “ekpouriosis from the Father and the Son” then you would be speaking heresy. The Council of Florence, other Western councils, the clarification on the filioque all affirm the Father as sole source of the Holy Spirit. If you say “and from the Son” in the greek creed then you are saying that the Father and the Son are both the source of the Spirit.

Hope this clarifies some things.

In Christ through Mary

Taboric Light,

Nobody denies that adding the Filioque in Greek changes the meaning into something heretical. That is precisely why the Vatican does not allow it in Greek. However, as Latin is not as restrictive in its meaning, it is possible to add the Filioque without altering the faith.

 

[JohnVIII]

I just came across this quote from St Cyril of Alexandria’s “Third Letter to Nestorius” which is also the main body of the Council of Ephesus.

There are those who say that Saint Cyril Alexandria was a Monophysite! One thing he said was: “One nature, the Word incarnate”. Some say Pope Vigilius (537-555) was Monophysite too. Jesus’ divine nature came from the Father and his human nature from Mary. Holy Spirit’s divine nature came from the Father and his divine nature came from the Son - oops! That would make the Holy Spirit have double divine nature wouldn’t it? Something’s not right!

The Arian heresy was not that Jesus was not divine but that he was less divine than the Father. In other words, it introduced degrees into the Godhead. Since the filioque was said to make Jesus more divine and thus fight the heresy of Arianism, it too introduces degrees into the Godhead, but in the opposite direction. Trying to make the Son more divine by having the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well as the Father is sort of a reverse-Arian heresy itself.

 

[Peter_J]

JohnVIII,

I agree that the filioque and Arianism is also an important topic. In fact, I took the liberty of starting a thread on it.