F
firstNicholas12
Guest
According to some Orthodox Christians, the insertion of the filioque into the “Nicene Creed,” is strictly forbidden by Canon 7 of Ephesus (431), and by the Definition of Faith at Chalcedon (451), which anathematized anyone who composed a different creed other than the one established at “Nicea” (325). It should be noted, however, that the liturgical creed in use for both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, is not the Nicene Creed proper, rather it is a revised version which has typically been attributed to the Council of Constantinople I (381). To argue against such an attribution, however, goes beyond the scope of our present discussion.
Attempting to use both canon 7 and the DoF in favor of prohibiting formal word changes to the creed, proves to be a self-contradictory task, since the Council of Chalcedon itself adopted a new creed. The only way our Orthodox friends can maintain their argument from canon law, is if they suggest that the Council of Ephesus simply prohibited changes to the “faith” of the creed, while simultaneously positing that the Council of Chalcedon prohibited formal word changes. Even so, one could then simply appeal to canon 7, and disregard the later prohibition, since the two prove to be self-contradictory in any case.
Despite this, the theory itself is incompatible with the facts of history, since according to David Gwynn:
"We can at least be certain that some of those at Chalcedon did refuse to adopt the 381 creed. This attitude was particularly strong in Egypt where the earlier silence of Cyril and Dioscorus concerning the Council of Constantinople and their rejection of any creed other than Nicaea remain highly influential. When Diogenes of Cyzicus in the passage quoted earlier from the first session condemned Eutyches for failing to recognize the clarification of Nicaea provided and 381, the Egyptian bishops immediately defended Eutyches and appealed to canon 7 of (Ephesus) 431, exclaiming ‘No one admits any additional or subtraction. Confirm the work of Nicaea’ (Acts I.161). The 13 Egyptian bishops in the fourth session who asked to remain outside the debates until Dioscorus, who had been condemned in the third session, was replaced likewise refer in their petition only to the creed of 325 (Acts IV.25) and omit any reference to the creative 381 as a symbol of orthodoxy. The strength of the Egyptian feeling on this question was apparently recognized by the emperor Marcian when is letter to the Monks of Alexandrian 454 (Documents after the Council 14) appeals solely to the faith of 325 and not (as in his other writings after Chalcedon) to the creeds of both 325 and 381.”
(Chalcedon in Context, the Definition of Christian Tradition, pp. 18)
In any case, the prohibition issued by the Council of Ephesus falls under the pastoral/disciplinary canons, and thus, it is not absolutely irrevocable. It would require another thread to determine whether the filioque goes beyond the apostolic deposit of faith, or whether it comprises a part of it. The fact that reunion was achieved (although only temporarily) between East & West at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence gives credence to our position that the dogma of the filioque belongs in the apostolic deposit of faith. (For an in depth treatment of the Filioque, see: “The Divine Trinity,” Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology II, pp. 161-191)
Attempting to use both canon 7 and the DoF in favor of prohibiting formal word changes to the creed, proves to be a self-contradictory task, since the Council of Chalcedon itself adopted a new creed. The only way our Orthodox friends can maintain their argument from canon law, is if they suggest that the Council of Ephesus simply prohibited changes to the “faith” of the creed, while simultaneously positing that the Council of Chalcedon prohibited formal word changes. Even so, one could then simply appeal to canon 7, and disregard the later prohibition, since the two prove to be self-contradictory in any case.
Despite this, the theory itself is incompatible with the facts of history, since according to David Gwynn:
"We can at least be certain that some of those at Chalcedon did refuse to adopt the 381 creed. This attitude was particularly strong in Egypt where the earlier silence of Cyril and Dioscorus concerning the Council of Constantinople and their rejection of any creed other than Nicaea remain highly influential. When Diogenes of Cyzicus in the passage quoted earlier from the first session condemned Eutyches for failing to recognize the clarification of Nicaea provided and 381, the Egyptian bishops immediately defended Eutyches and appealed to canon 7 of (Ephesus) 431, exclaiming ‘No one admits any additional or subtraction. Confirm the work of Nicaea’ (Acts I.161). The 13 Egyptian bishops in the fourth session who asked to remain outside the debates until Dioscorus, who had been condemned in the third session, was replaced likewise refer in their petition only to the creed of 325 (Acts IV.25) and omit any reference to the creative 381 as a symbol of orthodoxy. The strength of the Egyptian feeling on this question was apparently recognized by the emperor Marcian when is letter to the Monks of Alexandrian 454 (Documents after the Council 14) appeals solely to the faith of 325 and not (as in his other writings after Chalcedon) to the creeds of both 325 and 381.”
(Chalcedon in Context, the Definition of Christian Tradition, pp. 18)
In any case, the prohibition issued by the Council of Ephesus falls under the pastoral/disciplinary canons, and thus, it is not absolutely irrevocable. It would require another thread to determine whether the filioque goes beyond the apostolic deposit of faith, or whether it comprises a part of it. The fact that reunion was achieved (although only temporarily) between East & West at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence gives credence to our position that the dogma of the filioque belongs in the apostolic deposit of faith. (For an in depth treatment of the Filioque, see: “The Divine Trinity,” Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology II, pp. 161-191)