Why do the Eastern Orthodox not fall under the condemnation of the Athanasian Creed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alabast
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alabast

Guest
So looking through the Athanasian Creed, one thing in particular that stands out is its strict condemnation of everyone who disagrees with the Creed. But I’ve seen no church that’s consistent on that. Specifically, it condemns the Eastern Orthodox, but I’ve never seen anyone just flat claim that the Orthodox are damned due to Trinitarian heresies, despite not agreeing with the Athanasian Creed. Specifically;

“The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”

“And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.”

Both of these clauses contradict Eastern Trinitarianism, which 1) Denies the Filioque. Saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is completely incorrect in their view. The Athanasian Creed explicitly includes this clause.

And 2) It takes a subordinationist view of the relationship between members of the Trinity, this being a natural extension of Platonist philosophy that is implicit in Eastern Theology. The Son is eternally subordinate to the Father (ESS).

“This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.”

Is there something in the creed I’m misinterpreting, or a specific reason the Eastern Orthodox don’t seem to fall under this condemnation?

Also, I’ve posted this answer in a Facebook group already and no one could give a conclusive answer on the matter.
 
Last edited:
All Creeds are inferior to the Creed of the Ecumenical Council and the very words of Lord Jesus Christ that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Canons excommunicate anyone who dares to change the Creed even with a single word. Of this was Rome aware and at the beginning of 9th century, saint Pope Leo III ingraved Creed without Filioque in Greek and Latin and displayed the silver tablets over the tomb of st. Peter, pope also signed the Tablets, saying that he puts those for his love and protection of the Orthodox Faith.
Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei" - “I, Leo, put these here for love and protection of orthodox faith”
Then in 1014, Pope was forced by the barbarian German king to introduce Filioque Creed in to the Roman Mass, during king’s coronation, as soon as Eastern Patriarchates heard of this, one by one seized commemorating pope’s name at the Liturgy. In 1054 it became official.

So we Orthodox ask you kindly to bring back the silver tablets. lol
 
Are you referring to the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed? I’m aware the Nicene Creed was changed and there are some different versions of that, but to my knowledge the Athanasian Creed has never been truly tampered with. I wouldn’t quote myself on that, though.
 
Church must have only One Creed. It is guardian of Her Orthodoxy and Unity.
 
Ah, got it. I was just wondering about how western churches regard the creed without condemning the Orthodox. The Nicene Creed and the validity of the Filioque is another conversation entirely, and I’d rather the thread not get off topic.
 
I don’t know much about the Athanasian Creed and looked it up on Wikipedia:


Did the Eastern Orthodox ever recognize and accept the Athanasian Creed? Do most of us in the RCC know much about this Creed? Isn’t its origin questionable?
 
It definitely wasn’t written by Athanasius, and makes no claims to be. It was likely written in Gaul in the sixth century or so, but it holds true to Athanasius’ beliefs, and has been universally accepted among Western churches. The Eastern church has never considered it valid, but I’m not really looking for the Eastern opinion on it, I’m just wondering how the West regards it in such a fashion that, while calling it accurate on the same level as the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, they still do not follow through on this and fail to place condemnation on the Eastern Orthodox in the same fashion as the creed states.
 
Alabast said:
Nicene Creeds, they still do not follow through on this and fail to place condemnation on the Eastern Orthodox in the same fashion as the creed states.
Click to expand...
The Church’s Magisterial and Living Authority outweighs the text of the Athanasian Creed, that’s why.

She in her infinite wisdom does not think it prudent to condemn Eastern Christians because of their not accepting the Athanasian Creed.

The reasoning for rejecting Athanasius as the author usually relies on a combination of the following:

The creed originally was most likely written in Latin, while Athanasius composed in Greek.
Neither Athanasius nor his contemporaries ever mention the Creed.
It is not mentioned in any records of the ecumenical councils.
It appears to address theological concerns that developed after Athanasius died (including the filioque).
It was most widely circulated among Western Christians.
 
Last edited:
Alabast said:
I’m just wondering how the West regards it in such a fashion that, while calling it accurate on the same level as the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, they still do not follow through on this and fail to place condemnation on the Eastern Orthodox in the same fashion as the creed states.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it’s because they would rather find ways to reconcile with the Eastern Churches rather than condemn them?
 
Well absolutely, and I don’t fault them for that. I wouldn’t say the EO aren’t saved. I’m asking because I have a friend who regards the Trinity in the same way as the Orthodox (though he is Protestant) and neither of us can fathom how Western churches don’t follow through on the final clause.

Alright, then let’s take a look at it from another perspective. The Athanasian Creed is one of the three Ecumenical Creeds contained in the Lutheran Confessions, the Book of Concord. Without the authority of the Mother Church to outweigh the Creed, how do Lutherans regard the creed without condemning the Orthodox?

I posted this question on a Lutheran Facebook group and the answers were mainly “The Orthodox don’t believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son???”
 
Could you clarify what you believe the relationship of the 3 persons of the Holy Trinity to be outside of the creation. For example why is the Father the Father and the Son Begotten? Do you think that the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Son similarly to how the Son is Begotten of the Father before all creation?
 
I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean. For all intents and purposes, I agree fully with the Athanasian Creed in the same vein of understanding as any other Western church.
 
How is there a Father in the Holy Trinity? How is there a Son? If you can believe these concepts that are unknowable to our minds that can only think in terms of time, then you can believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son before creation. We have only revelation from God that explains these relationships, so to add to them makes no sense. Only with regards to creation can one begin to speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. But this is entirely different from what is usually meant when speaking about the relationship of the persons of the Holy Trinity before creation.

Edit, and I’m pretty sure that the RCC agrees with this. So when they are saying the filioque, they are speaking with regards to creation.
 
Last edited:
Well technically they would and do fall under the anathema of the creed. The denial of the filioque has been identified as one of the errors of the Eastern Orthodox by the church on more than one occasion. However their condemnation is implied by their schism and the anathemas of the Council of Florence.

The Eastern Orthodox do not fall under the condemnation of those who say any is greater or lesser than The Father. For the creed seeks to deny the belief that any one of the person of the Holy Trinity is more divine than the other. The Eastern Orthodox teach the monarchy of The Father like us in that The Father is the source of the trinity. He is God in and of Himself. Jesus Himself testifies the Father is greater than Him. That’s why there is a divine order of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Never in any other order for that is their greatness in the sense of their origin. Nothing more. It does not mean any of them is more divine than the other.
 
Last edited:
Well tradition says it was penned by him when he was in Rome and submitted it to Pope Julius I as a witness to his orthodoxy.

Secular historians disputed this. Either way it’s an ancient western creed that demonstrates the ancient belief of the filioque held in the West. It was not just some random innovation as some EO would have you believe.

It’s a brilliant and thorough creed.
 
Last edited:
The EO Churches reject the Filioque as understood as indicating two principles and two spirations. But this is not what is meant when Catholics profess this in the Athanasian Creed–so the EOs are not rejecting what is in this Creed. This was confirmed by both sides at the Council of Florence:

Council of Florence:
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.
Click to expand...
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
 
Last edited:
Alabast said:
…

And 2) It takes a subordinationist view of the relationship between members of the Trinity, this being a natural extension of Platonist philosophy that is implicit in Eastern Theology. The Son is eternally subordinate to the Father (ESS).
…
Click to expand...
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity, on Greek and Latin traditions:
… the two traditions recognize that the “monarchy of the Father” implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or Principle (Principium) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

Catechism
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. 77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, 78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, 79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. 80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

77 Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.
78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302.
79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.
80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Now THIS is the type of answer I was looking for! Thanks for the Council quote!
 
This is the cause of many misunderstandings.

It must be pointed out that we no longer have a difference in interpretation when it comes to the Filioque clause. In Eastern Orthodox, it is understood that the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son. The Catholic interpretation of the Filioque clause is also in this way for everything that the Son have comes from the Father. Everything that the Father have has been given to the Son. The Son cannot give what has not been given by the Father.

It must be noted that the difference is mere semantics. The Council of Florence has already addressed this and we must proclaim this truth. In order to prevent any more misunderstandings between us and our Orthodox brethren, we must be faithful to what the Councils have taught that our interpretation of the Filioque clause is not different from the interpretation of our Orthodox brethren.

One of the great Eastern Orthodox Church theologian and Eastern Orthodox Bishop, Bishop Kallisos Ware sums it up clearly: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences.”

So let us proclaim the truth with our Orthodox and Catholic brethren that this issue has already been resolved so that we can step forward into unification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top