Filioque Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
With good reason. But we’ll get back to that.

First, a thought or two about forum-based apologetics. Some questions that are posed by visitors to this forum (or any other forum, for that matter) appear again and again, and again. For example, do you have any idea how many times Protestants ask us why we Catholics worship Mary?

There are three possible ways to address this repetition.
  1. Write a fresh, original response each and every time.
  2. Write one original response, post it on a third-party site and link to it.
  3. Write one original response, store it as a file on my hard drive and recycle it as needed.
Option #1 sounds great until you have done it a few dozen times.

Option #2 sounds great, and more than a few CAF members have taken this approach. However, I have observed over the years here, that people RARELY follow a link to read original material.

Option #3 is my preferred approach. I have lots of original material stored on my hard drive and I simply use it over and over as needed. For example, the posts about Peter as the Royal Steward? All my stuff.

Other times, I don’t bother to re-invent the wheel. There is a wealth of information in the Catholic Answers library as well as on other sites as you have noted. Now, there are two ways to handle this material: with sourcing or without.

Normally, I try to provide sourcing (Title, author, link or other standard bibliographical data - as much as I have available). If you compare my posts with those of most other members of CAF, you’ll see that I have a pretty good track record in this regard.

However, I have also had people say, “I don’t read anything written by Catholic Answers” or “I didn’t bother to read that because it was cut & pasted from another site.” So even with credit given to the original author people won’t read it. That’s no good.

So the other option is to simply give the material for the sake of the soul reading it without any link or source because they need the information.

I’m not getting paid by the hour or by the word to be here, and I don’t give two hoots what anyone thinks of me personally. I will say that I get more kudos by PM than you probably care to imagine. But whatever. I’m happy to help others because others first helped me.

To repeat, I’m not in this for the money and I don’t need glory. I want you to hear the truth, and I will present it in anyway necessary to try to get you to hear it. Okay?

If you are truly observant, you would have noticed that I did not care for the form in which I found that material, so I re-ordered some paragraphs and added some clarification (including the timeline at the top) to make it easier to read and understand. I’m all about making things simple whenever possible.

Perhaps. There are Catholics as well as Eastern Catholics who are not happy with the fact that I won’t simply “make nice” with the EO. Popes have been trying to extend a warm welcome for quite a while, and all we’ve gotten in return is a stiff-arm and a cold shoulder.

Do you honestly believe that some little old [Russian] lady from Pasadena is going to become a Catholic simply because some guy was very sweet to her on the Internet? That’s just a guilt-trip designed to get me to stop pointing out the errors in Orthodoxy. Why are you here? To cozy up to us Latins? To help some Anglicans see the errors of the Reformation? No, you’re here because you want to talk to Catholics. Well, MOST of them will not join these threads, and the reason is lack of fruit. Pause and think about that.

:hmmm:

Long enough. You want to chat about subjects you consider important? Okay. You found me. Just don’t whine about me when you don’t like how I “play”.

There have been replies, but no answers.

Oh, and that particular piece was sourced here.

So, I’m providing Catholic Answers on Catholic Answers’ own forum using Catholic Answers’ own material. If you found it elsewhere on the web, that says a lot about the great reputation of CA, doesn’t it?

Now, did you have any thoughts on the timeline and argument presented in the post, Knitnut?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Hi Randy: Just wanted to say thanks for all of your posts I learned much from them!
 
Randy_Carson said:
As is my custom, I would like to mis-represent the shoddy scholarship of others as follows:

AD 325 – Nicaea (formulated the Nicene Creed)
AD 381 – Constantinople I (made changes to the Nicene Creed)
AD 431 – Ephesus (prohibited changes made to the Nicene Creed)
AD 451 – Chalcedon (clarified Ephesus’ prohibition by approving changes made for clarification by Constantinople)
AD 1438 – Florence (added additional clarification to Nicene Creed as authorized by Chalcedon according to precedent of Constantinople)

The Council of Ephesus (431) prohibited the making of new creeds. It stated:

It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered together in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges, and if they are laymen they are to be anathematized. (Definition of the Faith at Nicaea)

Note that Ephesus referred to the creed as composed by the Fathers at Nicaea (325), not as modified at Constantinople in 381. This is significant because the final portion of the Nicene Creed, which deals with the Holy Spirit and contains the filioque clause, was not composed until the First Council of Constantinople (381). If the prohibition of Ephesus undermined the modern Catholic creed, it undermines the Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Eastern Orthodox version includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople I. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.

Ephesus’s prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the clarifying material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated,

Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city–the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed by later ecumenical councils.

Therefore, according to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also.

Thus, the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45) had the authority to add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession; therefore, the Creed was changed, and the council ruled that the addition of the words “and the Son” was valid.
Click to expand...
Is this historically accurate?

If so, then I will use this as the basis for future discussions.

Thanks.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Is this historically accurate?

If so, then I will use this as the basis for future discussions.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
It is.

St. Cyril ought to understand the canon, which he probably himself framed, as presiding over the Council of Ephesus, as Archbishop of Alexandria and representative of Celestine, Bishop of Rome. His signature immediately succeeds the Canon. We can hardly think that we understand it better than he who probably framed it, in fact, who presided over the Council which passed it. He, however, explained that what was not against the Creed was not beside it.

St Cyril Testifies :
For the holy Ecumenical Synod gathered at Ephesus provided, of necessity, that no other exposition of faith besides that which existed, which the most blessed fathers, speaking in the Holy Ghost, defined, should be brought into the Churches of God. But they who at one time, I know not how, differed from it, and were suspected of not being right-minded, following the Apostolic and Evangelic doctrines, how should they free themselves from this ill-report? by silence? or rather by self-defence, and by manifesting the power of the faith which was in them? The divine disciple wrote, ‘be ready always to give an answer to every one who asketh you an account of the hope which is in you.’ But he who willeth to do this, innovates in nothing, nor doth he frame any new exposition of faith, but rather maketh plain to those who ask him, what faith he hath concerning Christ.”
Click to expand...
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.

“These things being framed by us with all accuracy and care on every side, the holy and ecumenical Synod defines, that it shall be lawful for no one to produce or compose, or put together, or hold, or teach others another faith, and those who venture, etc.” (as in the Council of Ephesus).

The Council of Chalcedon enlarged greatly the terms although not the substance of the faith contained in the Nicene Creed; and that, in view of the heresies, which had since arisen; and yet renewed in terms the prohibition of the Canon of Ephesus and the penalties annexed to its infringement. It showed, then, in practice, that it did not hold the enlargement of the things proposed as de fide to be prohibited, but only the producing of things contradictory to the faith once delivered to the saints. Its prohibition, moreover, to “hold” another faith shows the more that they meant only to prohibit any contradictory statement of faith. If they had prohibited any additional statement not being a contradiction of its truth, then ,as Cardinal Julian acutely argued in the Council of Florence, any one would fall under its anathema, who held (as all must) anything not expressed in set terms in the Nicene Creed; such as that God is eternal or incomprehensible.quote
 
Randy_Carson said:
Is this historically accurate?
Click to expand...
Wandile said:
It is.
Click to expand...
SUMMATION

If the prohibition of Ephesus undermined the modern Catholic creed, it undermines the Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Eastern Orthodox version includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople I. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.

Thus, the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45) had the authority to add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession; therefore, the Creed was changed, and the council ruled that the addition of the words “and the Son” was valid.

After this material was posted, objections to the “Filioque” fell strangely silent.
 
Surely you realize, Wandile, that St. Cyril seems to be saying the opposite of what you are arguing. Self-defense, St. Cyril argues, is not equivalent to the innovation of composing another creed. Indeed, at Ephesus, no new creed was composed, but rather a collection of St. Cyril’s writings was simply approved by the Synod.
 
Randy_Carson said:
SUMMATION

If the prohibition of Ephesus undermined the modern Catholic creed, it undermines the Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Eastern Orthodox version includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople I. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.

Thus, the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45) had the authority to add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession; therefore, the Creed was changed, and the council ruled that the addition of the words “and the Son” was valid.

After this material was posted, objections to the “Filioque” fell strangely silent.
Click to expand...
The Council of Florence had no such authority, because it taught contrary to the teachings of the fathers, namely the explicit teachings of St. Maximus the Confessor, St. John of Damascus, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, that the Son should not be confessed to be cause of the Holy Spirit.
 
Cavaradossi said:
Surely you realize, Wandile, that St. Cyril seems to be saying the opposite of what you are arguing. Self-defense, St. Cyril argues, is not equivalent to the innovation of composing another creed. Indeed, at Ephesus, no new creed was composed, but rather a collection of St. Cyril’s writings was simply approved by the Synod.
Click to expand...
Is post #506 HISTORICALLY accurate?

I’m not asking you to agree with the conclusions regarding Orthodox changes to the creed, of course.

I simply want to know if you accept the facts regarding the decisions of the Councils that were presented.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Is post #506 HISTORICALLY accurate?
Click to expand...
I would disagree. As we can gain from the acts of Chalcedon, a majority of the bishops understood the prohibition at Ephesus against composing another creed or faith in a strict manner, and so they objected very strongly when it was suggested that the council should draft its own profession of faith. Had it not been for the Emperor’s insistence, the Chalcedonian Definition probably would never have been drafted at all. For this reason, the Chalcedonian Definition seems to be rather carefully constructed, so that it does not give the impression of introducing a new creed. The text of the Chalcedonian Definition itself receives both the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople as one; praises the Nicene Creed as being sufficient for perfect knowledge and piety, decreeing also that it should remain inviolate; and offers a short exposition on the incarnation (“Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all in harmony teach confession…”), after which it repeats the 7th canon of Ephesus, prohibiting anybody from composing or constructing another creed. The wording of the exposition notably does not employ as its main verb πιστεύομεν (we believe) or ὁμολογοῦμεν (we confess) as one might expect in a creedal text, but the verb ἐκδιδάσκομεν (we expound or teach thoroughly).
 
Cavaradossi said:
I would disagree. As we can gain from the acts of Chalcedon, a majority of the bishops understood the prohibition at Ephesus against composing another creed or faith in a strict manner, and so they objected very strongly when it was suggested that the council should draft its own profession of faith. Had it not been for the Emperor’s insistence, the Chalcedonian Definition probably would never have been drafted at all. For this reason, the Chalcedonian Definition seems to be rather carefully constructed, so that it does not give the impression of introducing a new creed. The text of the Chalcedonian Definition itself receives both the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople as one; praises the Nicene Creed as being sufficient for perfect knowledge and piety, decreeing also that it should remain inviolate; and offers a short exposition on the incarnation (“Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all in harmony teach confession…”), after which it repeats the 7th canon of Ephesus, prohibiting anybody from composing or constructing another creed. The wording of the exposition notably does not employ as its main verb πιστεύομεν (we believe) or ὁμολογοῦμεν (we confess) as one might expect in a creedal text, but the verb ἐκδιδάσκομεν (we expound or teach thoroughly).
Click to expand...
Your source for this? I couldn’t help but notice that you spent a lot of time researching this before posting. 😉

Additionally, would you agree or disagree with the idea that the Eastern Orthodox version of the creed includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople I? Examining the two texts from an Orthodox website seems to make it pretty obvious that it is.

If true, would it be inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea?

Thanks.
 
Cavaradossi said:
Surely you realize, Wandile, that St. Cyril seems to be saying the opposite of what you are arguing. Self-defense, St. Cyril argues, is not equivalent to the innovation of composing another creed. Indeed, at Ephesus, no new creed was composed, but rather a collection of St. Cyril’s writings was simply approved by the Synod.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree cav… The events at the council clearly show that the prohibitions was against the profession of a different faith not a creed. They specifically reference the creed of Nicaea as “the creed” but yet accept also the creed of Constantinople as valid form too. Even a basic reading of St Cyril’s words alone prove this interpretation at least from my view and many other who have addressed this issue from my research. That’s why again it has to be said that Cardinal Julian accurately argued in the Council of Florence, that if the EO interpretation would be true, then anybody (Including the EO themselves) would fall under its anathema, who held (as all must) anything not expressed in set terms in the Nicene Creed e.g. The extra portions of the creed of Constantinople

No one is allowed to change the faith of the creed yet the creed may be added on to and altered under circumstances where various truths are being challenged or for whatever reason, the church in question feels the need to express a certain truth explicitly in the creed. Hence numerous churches of apostolic origin have variations of the creed not identical to the Byzantines. The Romans, Assyrians, Armenians etc… All felt comfortable tampering with the creed just as the fathers of the local synod of Constantinople (later deemed ecumenical) felt comfortable to do so; because the faith of the creed had not changed but certain implicit truths were made explicit.
 
I would only be so humble to suggest that if I have read all this correctly[perhaps I haven’t] that from the First Council forward from the Saints, most important Athanasius. As he grew and from the First Council he continued the work of defining and defending up through the Synod of Alexandria. When they were speaking of not changing the Creed he knew through all he went through, we had a vague compromising formula. They all knew this from the first Council in which this was first defended. If this be true, which in my reading is what I also understand.
The Greeks asserted that when they say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, they do not use it because they wish to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them, as they say, that the Latins assert the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son, as from two principles and by two spirations, and therefore they abstain from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But the Latins affirm that they have no intention when they say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son to deprive the Father of his prerogative of being the fountain and principle of the entire Godhead, viz. of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; nor do they deny that the very procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, the Son derives from the Father;
Click to expand...
Thus as mentioned right above
No one is allowed to change the faith of the creed yet the creed may be added on to and altered under circumstances where various truths are being challenged or for whatever reason, the church in question feels the need to express a certain truth explicitly in the creed. Hence numerous churches of apostolic origin have variations of the creed not identical to the Byzantines. The Romans, Assyrians, Armenians etc… All felt comfortable tampering with the creed just as the fathers of the local synod of Constantinople (later deemed ecumenical) felt comfortable to do so; because the faith of the creed had not changed but certain implicit truths were made explicit.
Click to expand...
 
So think about it, these issues worked on by Athanasius, (homoousios) and (homoiousios) which led to 381. In consideration of all the work in the Church, collectively this bears witness to the same faith professed?🙂
 
spina1953 said:
Hi Gary: Thanks for the info I am always looking to learn more history concerning the topic.
Click to expand...
St. Athanasius was represented as a political fire-brand whose watchword was homoousion. The Emperor Constantius (337-361), to his great personal annoyance, was obliged to allow Athanasius to return from his second exile (339-346)
Click to expand...
I feel blessed to see that he continues through prayer intercession. :signofcross:

Least we suggest there even is some other faith? 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top