Filioque & the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Nicea

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kepha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kepha

Guest
Hello,

In the Catholic Answers tract article entitled, “What the Early Church Believed: Filioque”, the following reference is provided: “‘We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son’ (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787])". This reference is attributed to the 2nd Nicean Council but I’ve searched a number of documents from that council and cannot find this quotation anywhere. Can you please show me exactly where I can find this statement, i.e, that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. If this is accurate, then the implications are huge.

God bless,
Kepha
 
Last edited:
The theology for the Filioque would be vindicated due to its support from a recognized ecumenical council that no Byzantine could legitimately reject.
 
Can you explain what you mean by that because when I take what you say at face value, I couldn’t disagree more with that assessment, since the Eastern Churches make theological arguments against it. Perhaps if you could expand on what you mean, then perhaps we might find agreement.
 
James Likoudis provides an excellent summary of the reasons for the schism following the 1204 sacking of Constantinople. The history is dense and multifaceted, and I’d caution simply pointing to one reason for the schism between Rome and the Greco-Slav Churches.
 
The following is from “Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church” by Crocker III about the topic.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
It seems that Athanasius Bibliothecarius (c.810-c.878), the chief archivist of the Church of Rome, about 870 translated from the Greek into Latin the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea. His Latin translation of the Profession of Faith includes the filioque. (See Migne Patrologia Latina, Volumen 129, (Anastasius Bibliothecarius Abbas, Sancta Nicaena Secunda), column 458) (pdf) This appears to be the reference mentioned in the Catholic Answers tract.

See Philip Schaff’s The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice, pages 549-551, footnote 535
 
Last edited:
Kepha said:
This reference is attributed to the 2nd Nicean Council but I’ve searched a number of documents from that council and cannot find this quotation anywhere.
Click to expand...
The reference is from the 7th act of the council, where the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan creed was recited (as was customary in prior councils).

The issue is that the Greek and Latin manuscripts for Nicaea II diverge.

Looking at Labbe and Cossart’s Sacrosancta Concilia (a collection of most councils), in the Greek text it only reads τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον to ek tou patros ekporeuomenon (proceeding from the Father). However, the text for the Latin manuscript includes filioque (and the Son).

Schaff makes a helpful note:
Anastasius in his Interpretatio (Migne, Pat. Lat ., Tom. CXXIX., col. 458), gives the word, “Filioque.” Cardinal Julian in the Fifth Session of the Council of Florence gave evidence that there was then extant a very ancient codex containing these words; and this ms., which was in Greek, was actually shown. The Greek scholar Gemistius Pletho remarked that if this were so, then the Latin theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas would long ago have appealed to the Synod. (Cf. Hefele, Hist. Councils , Vol. V., p. 374, Note 2.) This reasoning is not conclusive if Cardinal Bellarmine is to be believed, who says that St. Thomas had never seen the Acts of this synod. ( De Imag. Sanct ., Lib. ii., cap. xxii.)
Click to expand...
The Greek manuscripts are largely considered more authoritative as the councils were conducted in Greek.

Edit: @Todd_Easton beat me to it!
 
Last edited:
JamesV.Cameron said:
The Eastern Orthodox churches didn’t schism because they disagree about the father and the son being equal, or that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both.
Click to expand...
That is true now and was historically true… but sometimes there arose Anti-Latin parties in pre-schism Constantinople who would actually oppose theology behind Filioque… and post-schism that was not very different. Even now some deny it. Of course officially East can not deny any theology behind it since it’s proven from their Fathers, but still knowing how to defend theology behind Filioque is a good thing in this world ! 🙂
 
I don’t find the reference to be particularly helpful in that case since an Eastern Orthodox apologist will simply point to the Latin manuscripts and say that they were interpolated to reflect a Latin bias.
 
The Eastern Orthodox make a big deal about this because Catholics use ‘The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son’ while they use ‘proceeds from the Father through the Son’. Properly understood, this is just semantics. No real difference.
 
Last edited:
Kepha said:
Hello,

In the Catholic Answers tract article entitled, “What the Early Church Believed: Filioque”, the following reference is provided: “‘We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son’ (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787])". This reference is attributed to the 2nd Nicean Council but I’ve searched a number of documents from that council and cannot find this quotation anywhere. Can you please show me exactly where I can find this statement, i.e, that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. If this is accurate, then the implications are huge.

God bless,
Kepha
Click to expand...
That reference appears to be an error. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the filioque documents are these:
Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:
  • the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Epistle 15 (447);
  • the so-called Athanasian Creed;
  • several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI);
  • the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521);
  • St. Martin I’s synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655;
  • Pope Adrian I’s answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795;
  • the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680);
  • the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem;
  • the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii;
  • the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054);
  • the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215;
  • the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the
  • Council of Florence, 1439.
Click to expand...
Maas, A. (1909). Filioque. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 7, 2020 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

Note that the Catechism has this:
247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, 76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

76 Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This one might not be that helpful in the end, but in the end intention was fine. It didn’t work out in the end but there are numerous other things that prove Filioque theology anyway.

God bless you.
 
Actually it’s not an error. Indeed in the speech of Patraicrh St Terasius he confesses the filioque in the form of “through the son” in the creed.

This came up at the council of Florence during the debates over the addition. The Latins claimed the 7th council had it in its creed and provided a very Ancient Greek codex to prove it. Corroborating evidence is that the Latin acts translated from the Greek acts also contain this.

The only Greek argument offered to claim it waS forged was that if the codex was genuine then Latin theologians like St Thomas would have appealed to it instead of using elaborate arguments to prove dogmas. This was flawed as many Latin theologians never even saw the acts of councils but were more concerned with the underlying theology and reasoning of dogmas (to prove why they should be believe and how they refute certain errors) rather than from where the dogmas were dogmatised
 
Last edited:
Wandile said:
Actually it’s not an error. Indeed in the speech of Patraicrh St Terasius he confesses the filioque in the form of “through the son” in the creed.

This came up at the council of Florence during the debates over the addition. The Latins claimed the 7th council had it in its creed and provided a very Ancient Greek codex to prove it. Corroborating evidence is that the Latin acts translated from the Greek acts also contain this.

The only Greek argument offered to claim it was forged was that if the codex was genuine then Latin theologians like St Thomas would have appealed to it instead of using elaborate arguments to prove dogmas. This was flawed as many Latin theologians never even saw the acts of councils but were more concerned with the underlying theology and reasoning of dogmas (to prove why they should be believe and how they refute certain errors) rather than from where the dogmas were dogmatised
Click to expand...
The original question was where in the documents of Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.) is the profession of faith with the filioque? Do you know the answer to that question?
 
Last edited:
In the council documents, The profession of faith of Ecumenical Patriarch St Terasius of Constantinople
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
40.png
Wandile:
In the council documents, The profession of faith of Ecumenical Patriarch St Terasius of Constantinople
Click to expand...
I have not see a complete list of the document for that council. The Greek are considered authoritative since the Latin legates were not present. Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals

Another source includes a canon 23. Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals
Click to expand...
Like I said, the Catholics at Florence had an ancient Greek codex of the same acts of the council which contained the filioque expression. This Codex was brought to the west from Constantinople by Nicholas de Cusa when he was in the east preparing for the council. Corroborating evidence is that Latin acts also contain this same clause. This was evidence that the acts the Greeks possessed were edited and it’s these acts which we mainly rely on today unfortunately.

That was not the only time at the council that texts in the possession of the Greeks were shown to be edited.

The reference given to us is from the Mansi collection in (Mansi, XII, 1122 D)"

Lastly the papal legates were most definitely at the council.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top