The lawfulness of filioque

[beng]

This is not about whether filioque is a heresy. This is about the lawfulness of adding filioque into the creed.

Now, I check the Canon of Ephesus which some Orthodox said to forbid the addition of filioque. Here it is:

newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

Canon 7

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

If you look at the first paragraph, the canon is talking about a different faith than which was established by the holy fathers in “Nicæa.”

But since the Constantinople I creed is added to the Nicean Creed, then it’s obvious that, contrary to what Orthodox believe, adding the creed without changing the faith is not against the law.

My question is… I’ve read Council of Florence by Joseph Gill and I notice that this argument was never proposed by the Latin fathers against their Greek counterpart. Anyone know why that is? It seems like an argument that would’ve ended the debate [about the lawfulness of adding filioque].

 

[beng]

Please move this to apologetic main forum if needs be.

 

[dmar198]

This is not about whether filioque is a heresy. This is about the lawfulness of adding filioque into the creed.

Now, I check the Canon of Ephesus which some Orthodox said to forbid the addition of filioque. Here it is:

newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

Canon 7

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

If you look at the first paragraph, the canon is talking about a different faith than which was established by the holy fathers in “Nicæa.”

But since the Constantinople I creed is added to the Nicean Creed, then it’s obvious that, contrary to what Orthodox believe, adding the creed without changing the faith is not against the law.

My question is… I’ve read Council of Florence by Joseph Gill and I notice that this argument was never proposed by the Latin fathers against their Greek counterpart. Anyone know why that is? It seems like an argument that would’ve ended the debate [about the lawfulness of adding filioque].

You are correct that Constantinople I didn’t write a different Creed; rather, they re-produced the old one. And on the Filioque, the Old did not say anything different from the New, but simply used fewer words to express it and neglected the clearer expression provided by the word filioque; and heretics took advantage of that. Constantinople added that word, but it did not thereby re-write the faith. It was the same faith, the same idea, expressed the same way, except with one added clarifying term. Not a new faith at all.

As to why this wasn’t brought up at Florence, it may be that the terms of the debate over filioque have changed, and at that time the mere addition of a word, from a legal perspective, wasn’t the issue, but the issue was, whether that word contained heresy. As I read the debate as it developed historically, in the 17th century St. Alphonsus Liguori answered the critics of filioque with certain Scriptural and philosophical proofs that filioque wasn’t heretical; he didn’t address the question whether the Council had a right to add the word, because it seems that wasn’t the issue, but the issue was, whether by adding this word they fell into heresy. And that is what they addressed in Florence, at least as I understand it.

 

[mardukm]

My question is… I’ve read Council of Florence by Joseph Gill and I notice that this argument was never proposed by the Latin fathers against their Greek counterpart. Anyone know why that is? It seems like an argument that would’ve ended the debate [about the lawfulness of adding filioque].

Because the issue of TEXT was never important to the Fathers of the Church. The issue to the Fathers both East and West was always about the DOCTRINAL propriety of the filioque.

That the addition of TEXT should divide us today is the invention of MODERN non-Catholic polemicists and some apologists.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

Mardukum, the issue of whether the west had the authority to alter the creed has always been a part of the debate over the filioque. This was one of st. Photios’ concerns along with the doctrinal issues. It’s not just a question of modern polemicists.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

Mardukum, the issue of whether the west had the authority to alter the creed has always been a part of the debate over the filioque. This was one of st. Photios’ concerns along with the doctrinal issues. It’s not just a question of modern polemicists.

I have read St. Photius’ treatise on the matter. He felt the Pope had no authority to add filioque because he thought filioque was heretical - i.e., a Pope cannot add to the Creed something that is heretical. He did not argue against it merely because a piece of text was added.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[beng]

The Council of Florence DID discuss about the lawfulness of adding filioque. You can read it from this excerpt of Fr Gill’s book (don’t miss two other excerpts from the book). Can’t really be call “excerpt” btw, it’s rather long.

I have the book and read it and it’s nowhere written that the Latin fathers used the argument (as I’ve presented in my initial post). I’m wondering why…

 

[Alfonsus]

I think addition only is not the problem.
Because we see there was never an uproar about “Deum de Deum” (God from God) clause in Latin Creed. That was part of Nicea Creed, not Constantinople Creed.
There was no uproar also regarding, say, Armenian Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father, only-begotten, that is of the substance of the Father.

God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten and not made; of the same nature of the Father, by whom all things came into being in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible;

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, took body, became man, was born perfectly of the holy Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.

By whom he took body, soul and mind and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.

He suffered and was crucified and was buried and rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven with the same body and sat at the right hand of the Father.

He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.

We believe also in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated and the perfect; who spoke through the Law and through the Prophets and through the Gospels;

Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles and dwelled in the saints.

We believe also in only one catholic and apostolic holy Church;

In one baptism with repentance for the remission and forgiveness of sins;

In the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgment of souls and bodies, in the kingdom of heaven and in the life eternal.

 

[marnanegu]

viagra super active
http://superviagraactive.com/Viagra_Super_Active_files/viagra_super_active.jpg
Viagra Super Active (SILDENAFIL) is a new therapy for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. This super-active formulation gives the pill the quickest level of absorption, most intense effect on chemical messengers within the tissues of the penis and a fail-safe response of the nervous system. It may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.

 

[hazcompat]

I think addition only is not the problem.
Because we see there was never an uproar about “Deum de Deum” (God from God) clause in Latin Creed. That was part of Nicea Creed, not Constantinople Creed.
There was no uproar also regarding, say, Armenian Creed:

Amen

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Beng,

The Council of Florence DID discuss about the lawfulness of adding filioque. You can read it from this excerpt of Fr Gill’s book (don’t miss two other excerpts from the book). Can’t really be call “excerpt” btw, it’s rather long.

I have the book and read it and it’s nowhere written that the Latin fathers used the argument (as I’ve presented in my initial post). I’m wondering why…

The argument of the Easterns, form St. Photius down to Mark of Ephesus has always been exactly that - It is not lawful to alter the FAITH of the Church that was established by the Ecumenical Councils. There was never the MODERN idea about the lawfulness of altering the MERE TEXT of the Creed.

Thus, at Florence, it was necessary to assert that that the FAITH of East and West was the same, and therefor, it was LAWFUL (i.e. LICIT) to make the change to address a local need.

So there was no reason for the Latin Fathers to use that Canon against the Easterns. The Westerns and Easterns were BOTH working off of the same assumption from that Canon - namely, that it was referring to the FAITH of the Creed, not the TEXT of the Creed.

Dear brother Alfonsus,

Your citation of the Deum de Deum is precisely to the point. The Easterns in those days had no problem with THAT addition of text because they perfectly understood it did not contradict the FAITH of the Church. As noted, the focus of the Fathers down to Mark of Ephesus has always been the alteration of FAITH, not the alteration of the MERE TEXT.

However, I should point out that citing the Armenian Creed is probably not relevant as far as a discussion with Easterns are concerned. The Armenians were/are of the Oriental Orthodox communion - non-Chalcedonians - who were separated from the Chalcedonians at the time. It does demonstrate that the phrenoma of the Oriental Tradition has likewise never been to focus on the MERE TEXT of the Creed. Regardless of how TEXTUALLY different the Armenian Creed was/is, it still reflects the constant FAITH of the Church, which is what counts.

A better example would be to cite the Creed professed at the Council of Chalcedon, which was likewise TEXTUALLY different from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Council of Chalcedon fully accepted that Canon of the 3rd Ecum, but obviously did not understand it to be referring to the mere TEXT of the Creed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dmar198]

The Council of Florence DID discuss about the lawfulness of adding filioque. You can read it from this excerpt of Fr Gill’s book (don’t miss two other excerpts from the book). Can’t really be call “excerpt” btw, it’s rather long.

I have the book and read it and it’s nowhere written that the Latin fathers used the argument (as I’ve presented in my initial post). I’m wondering why…

From reading that excerpt, it looks like Andrew Rhodes brought up your points: … he demonstrated by examples to show that the faith of Nicaea was an amplification of the New Testament and that later Councils had clarified Nicaea, not least the Council of Constantinople whose Creed, as Eugenicus admitted, differed from the Nicene Creed, yet was accepted by the Council of Ephesus and posterity as its equivalent. None of these could have added to the faith of the New Testament; so developments were not additions. … Andrew’s second point was that development is not forbidden, either by the New Testament or the Fathers or the Councils, for there had been innumerable developments and their authors were not held to be censured. The Apostles’ Creed was a development of the New Testament; the Nicene of the Apostles’ Creed, that of Constantinople of the Creed of Nicaea. … Rome acted when necessity arose, but not against a decision of a Council, because the ‘another faith’ of the prohibition means not another formulation of the same faith, but a formulation of another, diverse faith. That was the sense of the first prohibition, and the Fathers and Councils that followed must be interpreted by that.

 

[Formosus]

Dear brother Formosus,

I have read St. Photius’ treatise on the matter. He felt the Pope had no authority to add filioque because he thought filioque was heretical - i.e., a Pope cannot add to the Creed something that is heretical. He did not argue against it merely because a piece of text was added.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well I’ll take your word on it. I haven’t read the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit in a few years so I was probably wrong.

Either way, I am not sure that just because such a criticism did not exist in earlier times, automatically means that only polemicists and apologists have issues with it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

Either way, I am not sure that just because such a criticism did not exist in earlier times, automatically means that only polemicists and apologists have issues with it.

Oh I’m certain that the opinion is not limited to professional polemicists and apologists. I’ve found it a lot on the I-net and in discussion with EO in real life.

I’m just saying that we should stick to the issue that was of concern to the Fathers, instead of creating new issues that might separate.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

If that is the case then there are many issues that RC apologists and polemicists like to bring up (marriage and divorce for instance) that were never an issue during the medieval debates. I would like to just say “let’s stick to what the father’s debated on” but neither the RC communion or the EO (or the OO for that matter) are static realities. If we really want a reunited Church, then we all (EO, OO, RC, EC, EO etc etc) need to be able to discuss these sorts of things, even if the fathers did not mention them before…

With that said, I do think it is a fair point to say that the Fathers were not interested in debating differences such as adding to the text of the Creed, or ecclesiastical divorce and that those points should be important in why both sides should resolve hang ups related to those issues.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

This is a wonderful point you bring up, and I thoroughly agree. All our discussions should be mitigated by the standard of the early Church, whether it be regarding the filioque, or other modern problems such as marriage and divorce. At the same time, we should be aware of and respect the developments that have gone on in each Tradition. A balance must be struck.

I would like to point out, however, that it is the EO who are always clamoring for this supposed “return to the early Fathers” standard. I am just pointing out the (usual) inconsistency of their arguments. It appears to be an empty platitude to EO polemicists, who like to parade that standard against the Catholic Church, but in their polemic rhetoric against the CC, they easily manage to contradict that very same standard quite consistently.

Blessings,
Marduk

If that is the case then there are many issues that RC apologists and polemicists like to bring up (marriage and divorce for instance) that were never an issue during the medieval debates. I would like to just say “let’s stick to what the father’s debated on” but neither the RC communion or the EO (or the OO for that matter) are static realities. If we really want a reunited Church, then we all (EO, OO, RC, EC, EO etc etc) need to be able to discuss these sorts of things, even if the fathers did not mention them before…

With that said, I do think it is a fair point to say that the Fathers were not interested in debating differences such as adding to the text of the Creed, or ecclesiastical divorce and that those points should be important in why both sides should resolve hang ups related to those issues.

 

[beng]

Dear brother Beng,

The argument of the Easterns, form St. Photius down to Mark of Ephesus has always been exactly that - It is not lawful to alter the FAITH of the Church that was established by the Ecumenical Councils. There was never the MODERN idea about the lawfulness of altering the MERE TEXT of the Creed.

Check the excerpt. Mark of Ephesus did feel that any textual addition to the creed is breaking Ephesus’ canon. Mark even mentioned about “syllable.” That is, one should not add another syllable to the creed.

 

[mardukm]

Check the excerpt. Mark of Ephesus did feel that any textual addition to the creed is breaking Ephesus’ canon. Mark even mentioned about “syllable.” That is, one should not add another syllable to the creed.

If adding even one syllable violates the FAITH. It was all about the Faith, brother, not about the mere text. Mark of Ephesus’ exhortation exactly mirrors the ancient contention about not adding on iota to the Creed. Of course, they were referring to the difference between homoousion and homoiousion. Adding that one little text (the iota) changed the entire MEANING, and hence the FAITH. It is and always has been about the FAITH ITSELF, not the mere text.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[beng]

From reading that excerpt, it looks like Andrew Rhodes brought up your points: … he demonstrated by examples to show that the faith of Nicaea was an amplification of the New Testament and that later Councils had clarified Nicaea, not least the Council of Constantinople whose Creed, as Eugenicus admitted, differed from the Nicene Creed, yet was accepted by the Council of Ephesus and posterity as its equivalent. None of these could have added to the faith of the New Testament; so developments were not additions. … Andrew’s second point was that development is not forbidden, either by the New Testament or the Fathers or the Councils, for there had been innumerable developments and their authors were not held to be censured. The Apostles’ Creed was a development of the New Testament; the Nicene of the Apostles’ Creed, that of Constantinople of the Creed of Nicaea. … Rome acted when necessity arose, but not against a decision of a Council, because the ‘another faith’ of the prohibition means not another formulation of the same faith, but a formulation of another, diverse faith. That was the sense of the first prohibition, and the Fathers and Councils that followed must be interpreted by that.

Look at how Bessarion (Greek side) replied to that argument:

Andrew’s second point had been: Development is not forbidden. Bessarion agreed. Development is not forbidden, but it is forbidden to add to the Creed. Even that was allowed till the Council of Ephesus, but Ephesus forbade another profession of the same faith, not merely a profession of another faith, which was always in the nature of things forbidden. And Ephesus was the first Council to obey its own injunction, for it refrained from inserting Theotokos into the Creed, though it was contained in principle in the Symbol of Nicaea and it would have been eminently useful to have added it. The subsequent Councils likewise observed the prohibition. Quotations from the Fathers do not help here. Can the Latins show any Council that added to the Creed? They cannot, because the Councils found another way – to leave the Creed inviolate and to add outside of it definitions to meet the situation of the moment.

Reading from Bessarion it seems that Andrew of Rhodes had a different argument than the one I presented in the initial post of this thread. Andrew’s argument seems to be that, simply, adding filioque is lawful because it clarifies the Nicea creed just as Constantinople I clarified Nicea. If Constantinople clarification was allowed, why not the filioque?

While my argument is that: Ephesus forbid any addition to Nicea. But Nicea was added by Constantinople I creed (keep in mind that during Ephesus it was the Nicean Creed that was read, but during Chalcedon it was Nicea-Constantinople creed). Therefore Canon 7 of Ephesus does not mean any addition, but addition that alter the faith of the creed.

Even Mark Bonocore wrote, after using the same argument as the one I presented (but way better than mine):

Indeed, the fathers at Ferrara-Florence were not even in a position to appreciate the authentic, 5th Century perspective of St. Cyril and the Council he led. If the Romans at Ferrara-Florence were fully aware of the A.D. 431 distinction between what was then seen as the Ecumenical Creed of Nicaea (325) vs. the merely regional Creed of Constantinople I (381), their argument against Mark of Ephesus would have been far more powerful.

 

[beng]

If adding even one syllable violates the FAITH. It was all about the Faith, brother, not about the mere text. Mark of Ephesus’ exhortation exactly mirrors the ancient contention about not adding on iota to the Creed. Of course, they were referring to the difference between homoousion and homoiousion. Adding that one little text (the iota) changed the entire MEANING, and hence the FAITH. It is and always has been about the FAITH ITSELF, not the mere text.

Blessings,
Marduk

It’s about the text itself. Read the link, don’t monitor the forum.