Why not remove the filioque?

[mardukm]

Which is not far from the teaching of Anselm and Aquinas on the issue.

Btw, brother Schism hater, there is definite difference between Anselm and Aquinas’ teaching. Aquinas specifically and explicitly affirmed that in the one principle, the Son is NOT the Causative power. From what you presented, it’s obvious that Anselm believed that the Son with the Father is the Causative power. The Catholic Church’s teaching aligns with Thomas, not Anselm.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[RyanBlack]

Dear brothe Ryan,

I am sure you have read all my posts and debates on this matter. The addition of the text is a wholly different issue than the theological matter of the case. We are talking about the mere addition of the text here. There are those Orthodox who insist, on the pretense that the addition of the text was wholly unjustified, that unity CANNOT be achieved until the Latins remove filioque. It is to these particular Orthodox that I claim are using hypocritical argumentation. Please be aware that I have consistently not made any generalizations about the Orthodox as a whole.

Blessings,
Marduk

No organization, including churches and communions of churches, is lacking in hypocrites, as I’m certain you are aware. On this particular matter, is it not possible for you to grant to those you so quickly accuse of hypocrisy the benefit of the doubt that the understand the Third Ecumenical Council to preclude the addition of text to the Creed apart from the actions of an Ecumenical Council, and not just substantive alterations to the substance of the Creed? I think you’re making an issue where none exists, because I’m fairly certain that those same Orthodox whom you are so eager to label as hypocrites also see the filioque as a change to the substance of the faith.

 

[patrick457]

Continuing where I left off:

The so-called Fides Damasi (Faith of Damasus), attributed pseudepigraphically to Pope St. Damasus or St. Jerome but now thought to have originated in Gaul towards the end of the 5th century to the beginning of the 6th, has the following:

Spiritum vero Sanctum non genitum, neque ingenitum, non creatum neque factum, sed de Patre Filioque procedentem, Patri et Filio coaeternum, coaequalem, cooperatorem, quia scriptum est: Verbo Domini coeli firmati sunt et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum, et alibi: Emittes spiritum tuum et creabuntur, et renovabis faciem terrae.

But the Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor unbegotten, neither created nor made, but proceeding from the Father and the Son, co-eternal and co-equal and the co-operator with the Father and the Son, for it is written, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established; and all the power of them by the spirit of his mouth,” and at another, “Thou shalt send forth thy spirit, and they shall be created: and thou shalt renew the face of the earth.”

As mentioned earlier, the Athanasian Creed, another Gallican product (this time attributed to St. Athanasius of Alexandria) composed at about the same time as the Fides Damasi says:

Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.

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

St. Isidore of Seville, in his [De Ecclesiasticis Officiis](http://www.kennydominican.joyeurs.com/Lat(name removed by moderator)atrology/IsidoreEcclesiasticisOfficiis.htm) (On Ecclesiastical Offices), 2.24, also has this to say:

Patrem quoque confiteri ingenitum, Filium genitum, Spiritum sanctum vero nec genitum, nec ingenitum, sed de Patre et Filio procedentem. Filium a Patre nascendo procedere, Spiritum vero sanctum procedendo non nasci.

The Father also we confess to be unbegotten, the Son begotten, but the Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor unbegotten but proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Son proceeds from the Father by being born; the Holy Spirit, although proceeding, is not born.

The next time the Creed is quoted in the acts of a Toledan synod (the eighth, in 653), it now carries the clause within the text itself:

Credimus in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem cęli et terrę, visibilium omnium et invisibilium Conditorem.
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, ex Patre natum ante omnia secula. Deum ex Deo, lumen ex lumine, Deum verum ex Deo vero. Natum non factum, homousion Patri, hoc est, eiusdem cum Patre substantiae. Per ipsum omnia facta sunt, quae in cęlo et quae in terra. Qui propter nos et propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto, et Maria virgine. Homo factus et passus sub Pontio Pilato, ac sepultus, et tertia die resurrexit. Ascendit in cęlos, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Inde venturus in gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis.
Credimus et in Spiritum Sanctum et Vivificatorem, ex Patre et Filio procedentem, cum Patre et Filio adorandum et glorificandum, qui locutus est per prophetas.
Et unam, catholicam, atque apostolicam ecclesiam. Confitemur unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum, expectamus resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam futuri sęculi. Amen.

The eleventh Council of Toledo (675) contained a lengthy confession of faith at its preamble. It says the following concerning the Holy Spirit:

Spiritum quoque Sanctum qui est tertia in Trinitate persona, unum atque aequalem cum Deo, Patre et Filio credimus esse deum, unius substantiae, unius quoque esse nature, non tamen genitum, vel creatum, sed ab utrisque procedentem amborum esse Spiritum. Hic etiam Spiritus Sanctus nec ingenitus nec genitus creditur, ne aut si ingenitum dixerimus duos Patres dicamus, aut si genitum duos Filios predicare monstremur. Qui tamen nec Patris tantum, nec Filii tantum, sed simul Patris et Filii, Spiritus dicitur, nec enim de Patre procedit in Filium, vel de Filio procedit ad sanctificandam creaturam, sed simul ab utrisque processisse monstratur, quia caritas sive sanctitas amborum esse agnoscitur. Hic igitur Spiritus Sanctus missus ab utrisque sicut Filius creditur, sed minor Patre et Filio non habetur, sicut filius propter adsumptam carnem minorem se Patre et Spiritu Sancto esse testatur.

We also believe that the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, is God, one and equal with God the Father and the Son, of one substance and of one nature, not, however, begotten nor created but proceeding from both, and that He is the Spirit of both. Of this Holy Spirit, we also believe that He is neither unbegotten nor begotten, for if we called Him unbegotten we would assert two Fathers, or if begotten, we would appear to preach two Sons. Yet He is called the Spirit not of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both Father and Son. For He does not proceed from the Father to the Son, nor from the Son to sanctify creatures, but He is shown to have proceeded from both at once, because He is known as the love or the sanctity of both. Hence we believe that the Holy Spirit is sent by both, as the Son is sent by the Father. But He is not less than the Father and the Son, in the way in which the Son, on account of the body which He has assumed, testifies that He is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[patrick457]

Finally, a section in Rabanus Maurus’ De Clericorum Institutione (2.57) about the rule of faith shares almost exactly the same language as Isidore’s.

Patrem quoque confiteri ingenitum, Filium genitum, Spiritum autem Sanctum nec genitum nec ingenitum, sed ex Patre et Filio procedentem. Filium a Patre nascendo procedere, Spiritum vero sanctum procedendo non nasci.

The Father also we confess to be unbegotten, the Son begotten, while the Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor unbegotten, but proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Son proceeds from the Father by being born; the Holy Spirit, although proceeding, is not born.

You would notice a trend running here: our very first attestations of the Filioque/et Filio mostly come from Spain or Gaul (France) - in Rabanus’ case, Germany - coincidentally the very first places in the West where the Creed was adopted in the liturgy, as is noted earlier.

 

[patrick457]

In Rome, meanwhile, there was no custom of reciting the Creed within the context of the liturgy for a long time. Instead, the confession of faith was mostly used in the context of Baptism, either in an interrogatory or a declaratory form. (As everyone knows, this practice still survives today.) Based on the testimony of John the Deacon’s letter to Senarius, we know that in 6th century Rome, the Symbol given to catechumens before baptism in Rome was the ‘Apostles’ Creed’.

And so by the efforts of himself and others the man who recently had received exsufflation and had renounced the toils and the pomps of the devil is next permitted to receive the words of the Creed (symbolum) which was handed down by the Apostles: so that he who a short time before was called simply a catechumen may now be called a competent, or elect. For he was conceived in the womb of Mother Church and now he begins to live, even though the time of the sacred birth is not yet fulfilled.

Note, however, that the form of the Apostles’ Creed as we know it today is first explicitly attested only in 8th-century Spain/Gaul (there it is again!), to be more specific, in St. Pirmin’s De singulis libris canonicis scarapsus (found in Patrologia Latina, vol. 89, col. 1034), where he repeats the ancient legend that the Apostles’ Creed were just that, composed by the apostles themselves. In Rome, it seems that a prototype of this creed, the so-called Old Roman Creed or another similar formula, had earlier been in use.

Rufinus of Aquileia in the late 4th-early 5th century, in his Commentarius in Symbolum Apostolorum, provides us with a variant confession of faith used in Aquileia.

Credo in Deo Patre omnipotente, invisibili et impassibili; et in Christo Iesu, unico Filio eius, Domino nostro, qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria virgine, crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus, descendit ad inferna, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in caelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris, inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos; et in Spiritu Sancto, sanctam Ecclesiam, remissionem peccatorum, huius carnis resurrectionem.

I believe in God the Father almighty, invisible and impassible; and in Christ Jesus, His only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary; was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, descended to hell, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to the heavens, sits at the right hand of the Father, from there to come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of this flesh.

Rufinus also notes in the same work:

I believe in God the Father almighty. But before I begin to discuss the meaning of the words, I think it well to mention that in different Churches some additions are found in this article. This is not the case, however, in the Church of the city of Rome; the reason being, as I suppose, that, on the one hand, no heresy has had its origin there, and, on the other, that the ancient custom is there kept up, that those who are going to be baptized should rehearse the Creed publicly, that is, in the audience of the people; the consequence of which is that the ears of those who are already believers will not admit the addition of a single word. But in other places, as I understand, additions appear to have been made, on account of certain heretics, by means of which it was hoped that novelty in doctrine would be excluded. We, however, follow that order which we received when we were baptized in the Church of Aquileia.

Sure enough, he notes within the same work which phrases could be found only in the Aquileian version of the Creed. To give one example, he says that invisibili et impassibili was added to combat Patripassianism. Rufinus shows some knowledge of the Eastern Creed, but only alludes to it to compare with the wording of his version. Now Rufinus’ Symbol minus the Aquileian additions is almost exactly the same as the one (this time in Greek) given by Marcellus of Ancyra to Pope Julius I, quoted in St. Epiphanius of Salamis’ Panarion (72.3), save for minor details.

Πιστεύω οὖν εἰς Θεόν Παντοκράτορα· καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν, τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα, καὶ ταφέντα, καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα ἀναστάντα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾳ τοῦ Πατρός, ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· καὶ εἰς τò Άγιον Πνεύμα, ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν, ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

I believe in God almighty, and in Christ Jesus, His only Son, our Lord, who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary; was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, and on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to the heavens, sits at the right hand of the Father, from there to come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, the life everlasting.

 

[patrick457]

St. Augustine, meanwhile, alludes to a version of the Symbol in his sermons (212-214), perhaps close to the one he may have heard at Milan. It could be reconstructed as follows:

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem; et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto et virgine Maria, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus et sepultus, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris, inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos; et in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem.

I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, from there to come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh.

It would seem that, as this article notes, while the Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople was indeed proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council, originally did not have much too much of a preeminence in many areas of the West that it had in the East, excepting those areas which were eager to emulate Eastern customs (like Spain). Rufinus for example only quotes short snippets of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (“I believe in one God the Father almighty…and in one Lord Jesus Christ, His only Son”) but only to compare its choice of words with the Aquilean Symbol; Augustine apparently knew of it but rarely mentioned it (Contra Maximinum Arianum 2.14.3 is the exception).

The interesting thing is, that Spain and Gaul were at the time dealing with the same problem that the East was suffering from: Arians in the form of Germanic ‘barbarians’ such as the Vandals, the Suebi and the Visigoths. Apparently, the Church in Spain emphasized the divinity of Christ by proclaiming that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son: from the Western perspective, if the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone, it would imply that the Son did not have everything that the Father had, which would imply that the Son is a subordinate, inferior being to the Father, which would contradict the statement that the Son is homoousios with the Father. (Note that the Spanish translation of the Creed chose to retain the term, providing it with a explanatory clause, rather than translate it as consubstantialem as in the later Roman version.)

 

[patrick457]

Anyways, to get back to the main topic. While John the Deacon says that the profession of faith given to catechumens before baptism in Rome was the “Symbol which was handed down by the Apostles” (which as we saw above was perhaps an earlier version of the one we call the “Apostles’ Creed” today), by the time of the Gelasian Sacramentary (a Gallican-Roman work ca. 8th century), things have begun to change.

Post haec accipiens acolytus unum ex ipsis infantibus masculum, tenens eum in sinistro brachio, ponens manum super caput eius. Et interrogat ei presbyter: Qua lingua confitentur Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum? R. Graece. Iterum dicit presbyter: Adnuntia fidem ipsorum qualiter credunt. Et dicit acolytus Symbolum Graece decantando, tenens manum super caput infantis, in his verbis:

*Pisteuo his ena Theon Pathera panhocratoran pyetin uranu kae gis oraton kae panton kae auraton Kae his ena Kyrion Ihm Xpm tonion tu theu ton monogenin ton ec tu patros genitenta pro panton ton eonon fos ec fotos theon alithin ec theu alithinu genithenta upyithenta omoysion tu patri diutapanta egenonton ton di himas tus antrophus kae dia tin himeteran soterian kateltonta ec ton uranon kae sarcotenta ecpneuma tos agiu kae Marias tis par tenu kae inantropisanta staurothenta de yper imon epi pontio pilatu kae pathonta kae tapenta kae anastenta trititi himera kata tas graphas kae anelthonta his tus uranus kae katezomeno en dexia tu patros kae palin ercomenon meta doxis crine zontas kae necrus vtis basilias vc estin thelos kae histo pneuma to agion ton kyrion kae zoopyon ton ec tu patros emporegomenon ton syn patri kae yion synpros kynumenon kae syn doxazomen tolalesas dia ton prophiton his mian agian catholicin kae apostolicin eclesian omologo en baptisma his apesin amartion prosdogo anastas sin necron kae zoin tumellos tos aeonas Amin. *

Fili carissimi: audistis symbolum Graece, audi et Latine. Et dicis: Qua lingua confitentur Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum? Resp. Latine. Adnuntia fidem ipsorum qualiter credunt. Ponens manum acolytus super caput infantis, et dicit Symbolum decantando, his verbis:

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium. Et in unum dominum Iesum Christum, filium Dei unigenitum, de Patre natum ante omnia saecula; lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, natum non factum, consubstantialem Patris, per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem, descendentem de caelis, et incarnatum de Spiritu Sancto et Maria virgine et humanatum, crucifixum etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato et passum et sepultum, et tesurgentem tertia die secundum scripturas, et ascendentem in caelis, et sedentem ad dexteram Patris, et iterum venturum cum gloria iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritu Sancto, dominum et vivificatorem, ex Patre procedentem, qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratum et conglorificatum, qui locutus est per prophetas. In unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Spero resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam futuri saeculi. Amen.

===

After this, taking a male child from these children and holding it on his left arm, the acolyte places his hand above it. And the presbyter asks him: “In what language do they confess our Lord Jesus Christ?” The acolyte responds: “In Greek.” The priest speaks again: “Proclaim their faith, just as they believe.” And the acolyte recites the Symbol, singing in Greek, placing his right hand above the head of the child, in these words: Pisteuō eis ena Theon, Patera, pantokratora…

(The presbyter will then say: ) “Beloved brethren; you have heard the Symbol in Greek, hear it also in Latin.” And he will say: “In what language do they confess our Lord Jesus Christ?” The acolyte responds: “In Latin.” (Presbyter: ) “Proclaim their faith, just as they believe.” The acolyte, placing his hand above the head of the child, says the Symbol, singing it in these words: Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium…​

Note here how the Creed (this time the Niceno-Constantinopolitan) is given first in Greek, and then in Latin. Also note the Latin translation, which is different from the one in use today in the Roman liturgy (and, being an word-for-word translation of the Greek, lacks the Filioque). It seems to reflect the period after Justinian I’s conquest of the Italian peninsula (Rome included) during the Gothic War of 535–554, during the period of the Byzantine Papacy, which also led the Roman Church at the time to be bilingual for the biblical lections (a custom which was preserved in the Papal Mass).

 

[patrick457]

In 808, some Frankish monks on the Mount of Olives were criticized by Greek monks for reciting the Creed with Filioque in it. The monks wrote to Leo III, asking him to settle the matter, telling him that they heard Filioque recited in Charlemagne’s chapel in Aachen. Leo merely referred the case to the Franks. Charles sought and received the views of several of his theological advisers such as Theodulf, Arn of Salzburg, Adalwin of Regensburg, Heito of Basel and Smaragdus of St. Mihiel. Charlemagne’s advisers submitted written reports on the procession of the Holy Spirit and these were discussed at court in November of 809. A Libellus was then prepared by this council (Ad Leonem Papam de processione Spiritus Sancti, Patrologia Latina vol. 98, cols. 923-929) and sent to Leo by Bernhard of Worms, Jesse of Amiens and Adalhard of Corbie. Based on the discussion between the pope and the envoys (a transcript of which is still extant), while the Franks and Leo agreed on the fundamental point of the double procession of the Holy Spirit, they disagreed on whether the Creed could be, or had been, changed. In conclusion, Leo declined to adopt Filioque and the matter was allowed to rest there. According to a tradition found in the Liber Pontificalis (vol. 2, 26.18-20):

Hic vero pro amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei, fecit ubi supra scutos ex argentos duos, scriptos utrosque symbolo, unum quidem litteris Graecis et alium Latinis, sedentes dextera laevaque super ingressum corporis, pensantes argenti libras nonaginta quatuor, et uncias sex.

But he (Leo), for the love of and of care for the orthodox faith, fixed above [the basilica of St. Peter] two shields of silver, on each of which the Symbol was written, one in Greek letters and the other in Latin, on the right and the left above the entrance to the body (i.e. the tomb of St. Peter), weighing 94 1/2 libras.

(Note: This piece is often quoted under the form Haec Leo pro amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei… “I Leo, for the love of and care for the orthodox faith…” which transforms the narrative of the original into a part of the inscription!)

The Roman adoption of the Creed within the context of the Eucharist came only afterwards. According to a contemporary account (by Berno of Reichenau, Libellus de quibusdam rebus ad missae officium spectantibus), the Holy Roman Emperor Henry II (1004-1024) was astonished to learn that Roman custom excluded the chanting of the Creed in the Mass. Although it was explained to him that since the Roman Church had not been infected by any taint of heresy there was no reason to recite it, the emperor did not desist until he had obtained the consent of the pope to have the Creed sung at public Mass. Benedict VIII (1012-1024) was an able warrior (for instance, he allied himself with the Normans who settled in Italy and orchestrated the defeat of the invading Saracens in Sardinia), but he was not much interested in ecclesiastical affairs. He was in debt to Henry, who helped restore Benedict to his see when the latter was opposed by an antipope, Gregory VI (1012), and thus paid lip service to reform to gain imperial favor. Even so, the account continues, “but whether they still keep up this custom we cannot affirm, because we are not sure.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ryan,

No organization, including churches and communions of churches, is lacking in hypocrites, as I’m certain you are aware.

True, and we should do our best to clear ourselves of that sin, especially given our Lord’s constant commands against it.

On this particular matter, is it not possible for you to grant to those you so quickly accuse of hypocrisy the benefit of the doubt that the understand the Third Ecumenical Council to preclude the addition of text to the Creed apart from the actions of an Ecumenical Council,

That’s the point. If they feel it is precluded, why don’t we ever hear of any recriminations of the Council of Antioch , which did not have a text of the Creed that matched the Creed of Nicea, just 10 years after the 3rd Ecum (supposedly) commanded the text could not be changed.

and not just substantive alterations to the substance of the Creed? I think you’re making an issue where none exists, because I’m fairly certain that those same Orthodox whom you are so eager to label as hypocrites also see the filioque as a change to the substance of the faith.

I guess I am not expressing myself too clearly. If they see filioque as a change to the substance of the faith, and they want it removed thereby, then there is no hypocrisy. But I find it exceedingly hard to believe (though it is possible) that you have not read or heard non-Latins (both Orthodox and Catholic) who find filioque to be theologically acceptable, yet insist that Latins must of necessity remove filioque for unity to occur with the rationale that “a local Church cannot change the text of the universal Creed.” Guess what – that’s exactly what WE non-Latins did. So it is an argument of hypocrisy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[RyanBlack]

Can you please direct me to some information about a Council of Antioch that occurred after the Council of Ephesus? I’m aware of one in A.D. 341, ninety years prior to the Council of Ephesus, but I’m not aware of one after the Council of Ephesus.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ryan,

Can you please direct me to some information about a Council of Antioch that occurred after the Council of Ephesus? I’m aware of one in A.D. 341, ninety years prior to the Council of Ephesus, but I’m not aware of one after the Council of Ephesus.

OOPS! My fault for trying to work off of just my memory. There were two Councils of Antioch after Ephesus and before Chalcedon - 432 and 447. Must have mixed up the numbers in my memory.

It should be noted that the OO Churches, while accepting Ephesus, but not Chalcedon, profess the expanded Creed of Constantinople, not the shorter Creed of Nicea (notwithstanding that the Armenians have an even more expansive Creed).

Of course, the reason that the OO do not consider profession of the Creed of Constantinople to be contrary to Ephesus’ prescription to not change the Creed of Nicea is because both Creeds constain the same DOCTRINAL faith (again, not to mention the even more expansive Creed of the Armenians).

If is OK to suggest to Latins that removing filioque will help the ecumenical effort, but to use the rationale that it is wrong for a local Latin Council to change the universal expression of the Creed is an argument of hypocrisy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Faithdancer]

The filioque is a theologically important clause, does have ramifications for Arianism, and I don’t believe it should be tampered with. Nor should the Roman Catholic Church amend its own theology or liturgy for the sake of ecumenism. We have all seen the results of allowing “Protestant-y” practices to creep into the Catholic Mass.

 

[RyanBlack]

The filioque is a theologically important clause, does have ramifications for Arianism, and I don’t believe it should be tampered with. Nor should the Roman Catholic Church amend its own theology or liturgy for the sake of ecumenism. We have all seen the results of allowing “Protestant-y” practices to creep into the Catholic Mass.

The first two sentences of this post have merit, and deserve consideration, the last not so much. If the Roman Catholic Church were to drop the filioque for the sake of ecumenism, it would not be in any way a “Protestant-y” practice, since it would be done for the sake of facilitating restoration of communion with the Orthodox, and would have nothing whatsoever to do with Protestantism. Protestants who recite the Creed typically include the filioque.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The filioque is a theologically important clause, does have ramifications for Arianism, and I don’t believe it should be tampered with. Nor should the Roman Catholic Church amend its own theology or liturgy for the sake of ecumenism. We have all seen the results of allowing “Protestant-y” practices to creep into the Catholic Mass.

The presence of the Filioque is tampering by itself. That is why it needs to be removed. The Roman Catholic Church herself condemned the insertion of the Filioque prior to re-inserting it (it was condemned because it was inserted a first time), and the Roman Catholic Church professed the Creed sans Filioque at the beginning.

 

[patrick457]

The presence of the Filioque is tampering by itself. That is why it needs to be removed. The Roman Catholic Church herself condemned the insertion of the Filioque prior to re-inserting it (it was condemned because it was inserted a first time), and the Roman Catholic Church professed the Creed sans Filioque at the beginning.

You meant this (which also serves as a summary of what I wrote): “the Churches of the West originally had a plurarlity of Creeds. Spain and Gaul adopted the Creed of Constantinople for the Liturgy, adding to it et Filio/Filioque and other clauses to combat Arianism. Rome adopted the Constantinopolitan Creed for baptism (thereby displacing the ‘Apostles’ Creed’/Old Roman Symbol) perhaps during the period of the Byzantine papacy. When the Franks sent envoys to Leo III concerning the matter, Leo agreed on the fundamental point but rejected the addition of the clause in the Creed. Much later, Henry II pressured Benedict VIII to have the Creed with Filioque recited in the Roman Liturgy just as it is done in his court.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

You meant this (which also serves as a summary of what I wrote): “the Churches of the West originally had a plurarlity of Creeds. Spain and Gaul adopted the Creed of Constantinople for the Liturgy, adding to it et Filio/Filioque and other clauses to combat Arianism. Rome adopted the Constantinopolitan Creed for baptism (thereby displacing the ‘Apostles’ Creed’/Old Roman Symbol) perhaps during the period of the Byzantine papacy. When the Franks sent envoys to Leo III concerning the matter, Leo agreed on the fundamental point but rejected the addition of the clause in the Creed. Much later, Henry II pressured Benedict VIII to have the Creed with Filioque recited in the Roman Liturgy just as it is done in his court.”

Also the fact that there was a concilar decision that the Creed cannot be altered except by another general council of the Church.

 

[mardukm]

Also the fact that there was a concilar decision that the Creed cannot be altered except by another general council of the Church.

Can you please give a quote from an Ecumenical Council for this? I asked this previously, but there was no response. Maybe you can do so now?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Jerry-Jet]

God is ONE. Since the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Father and Son are one He–the Holy Spirit BY DEFINITION and LOGIC HAD to proceed from the Son.

How is the Roman Catholic Church wrong in this?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jerry-Jet,

God is ONE. Since the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Father and Son are one He–the Holy Spirit BY DEFINITION and LOGIC HAD to proceed from the Son.

How is the Roman Catholic Church wrong in this?

What you stated is not actually the Catholic teaching according to Florence, or the Official Clarification. The explanation you provide is the language of St. Anselm of Canterbury, but it is not what was dogmatized by the Catholic Church.

In any case, the statement provided is prone to at least one logical error - i.e., the Holy Spirit is also one with the Father and the Son. If you are basing the “logic” of procession on the oneness of Father and Son, then the argument either excludes the HS from divinity, or causes the HS to proceed from Himself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Schism_hater]

God is ONE. Since the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Father and Son are one He–the Holy Spirit BY DEFINITION and LOGIC HAD to proceed from the Son.

How is the Roman Catholic Church wrong in this?

By your reasoning-
Since the Son is begotten by the Father and the Father and the Holy Spirit are one, the Son BY DEFINITION and LOGIC HAS to be begotten from the Holy Spirit too.

See the trouble you’ve gotten yourself in? First principle- the Persons of the Trinity are never divided two against one.