Posted on 07/29/2004 1:06:48 PM PDT by gobucks
This implies that all the Western Fathers, who unanimously accepted the filioque, were all heretics.
How dare - to the Orthodox - the Pope alter what the ecumenical councils said can not be altered!
Ephesus said that it was okay to add explanations to the Creed.
It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it.
After the creed was established - yes they were - the Orthodox recognize and honor all Western Pope's and saints up until the schism - after that they are outside the one true church.
St. Epiphanius of Salamis produced an expanded version of the Nicene Creed in 374 AD. It says "we believe in the Holy Spirit ... uncreated, proceeding from the Father and receiving of the Son". If Catholics were to sing this Creed at Mass, would we still be heretics?
The Council of Toledo produced in 447 AD a Creed which contains the filioque. This Creed was approved by St. Leo the Great. Perhaps he was a heretic too?
St. Leo I accepted a version of the Creed with the filioque. Was he out of the one true church? Here is the Creed:
Here begin the rules of the Catholic faith against all heresies, and especially indeed against the Priscillianists, which the bishops of Tarraco, Carthage, Lusitania, and Baetica have composed and with a command of Pope Leo of the City transmitted to Balconis, bishop of Gallicia ... The Spirit ... is himself neither the Father, nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Explain the creed all you want - but you can't alter it. It is set in stone - or in silver as Pope Leo III did.
The Nicene Creed is the definitive statement of Christian orthodoxy.
Origins of the Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed was formulated at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in AD 325 to combat Arianism, and it was expanded at the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in AD 381 to balance its coverage of the Trinity by including the Holy Spirit. It is the only creed that was promulgated by any of the seven ecumenical councils and thus it is the only creed that is truly ecumenical and universal. In the Orthodox Church, it is the only creed.
The New Testament and the Nicene Creed are deeply entangled with each other. The wording and the concepts in the Nicene Creed come from the New Testament—in fact, one of the most important debates at the Council of Nicea concerned whether it is proper to include a word in the Nicene Creed that does not occur in the New Testament. On the other hand, at the time that the Church issued the official canon of the New Testament, it customarily compared writings to the Nicene Creed to determine if they were orthodox. So you are correct if you say that the Nicene Creed proceeds from the New Testament, and you are correct if you say that the New Testament is certified by the Nicene Creed.
To put it more precisely, the Nicene Creed and the canon of the New Testament were formed together as part of the same process.
The Nicene Council and the Trinity
The Nicene Council did not invent the Trinity, as some people imagine. A full century before the Nicene Council, Tertullian wrote a voluminous explanation and defense of the Trinity and was viewed by his contemporaries as defending the orthodox Christian faith to nonbelievers. A couple of decades before Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, bishops at opposite ends of the Mediterranean basin, both taught the Trinity. A half century or more before Irenaeus and Clement, we find Trinitarian teachings in the authentic works of Justin Martyr, who died in 157. At the very beginning of the second century, St. Ignatius, a respected bishop, was martyred in his old age. On his way to his martyrdom, he wrote epistles to the churches along the way, making theological statements that are best understood in the context of Trinitarian theology. Finally, the Didache, an ancient manual of church discipline that could possibly date from the middle of the first century, quotes the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19 in its instructions for baptism.
We can trace the dogma of the Trinity straight back to apostolic times. We have it from the pens of bishops and theologians who were charged with preserving and passing on the faith and who lived all over the Mediterranean basin. From this we can only conclude that mainstream theology in the ancient church before the Council of Nicea was Trinitarian.
The filioque Clause
In AD 589, a church council in Toledo, Spain, modified the Nicene Creed so that the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and the Son. (In Latin, and the Son is filioque, so this is known as the filioque clause.) There may not have been any particular motive for this change, because it looks like something a scribe would do to mend the text. It is also possible that the change was intended to strengthen the defense of the Trinity. The filioque clause spread through the western part of the church. In 796, Paulinus of Aquileia defended the filioque clause at the Synod of Friuli, which indicates that it was opposed, and after about 800 it crept into the liturgy in the Frankish Empire. Some Frankish monks used the filioque clause in their monastery in Jerusalem in 807, but eastern monks disputed it as improper. Because the Frankish monks were from the west, the matter was escalated to the bishop of Rome (Pope Leo III). He approved of the sentiment, but he opposed the change in the wording. Leo arranged for the creed in its original form (without the filioque clause) to be engraved on silver tablets and he had them placed at St. Peter’s tomb. After the split between Rome and Constantinople, the filioque clause became part of the Nicene Creed in the Roman Catholic Church. This happened at the Council of Lyons, in France, in 1274.
In 1439, at the Roman Catholic Council of Florence, the Roman Catholic Church invited the Eastern Orthodox Churches and attempted a reunion. The issues were the papacy and the filioque clause. The proposed compromise was that the Roman Catholic Church would reform the papacy so that the Bishop of Rome would be the ‘first among equals’ among the bishops, and the Eastern Orthodox Church would consent to the filioque clause. The Eastern Orthodox reasoned that if the Council of Florence in 1439 had succeeded, it would have been a true Ecumenical Council, and that would have given it the power to amend Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus, which had made the Nicene Creed inalterable. So the Eastern Orthodox were willing to compromise on the filioque clause. However, the Roman Catholics did not compromise on the papacy, so the reunion failed.
Protestants inherited the filioque clause from the Roman Catholic Church, but the Orthodox never accepted this change for scriptural, theological, and procedural reasons. Since Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in AD 431 is still in effect, the Nicene Creed can only be changed by a true Ecumenical Council. After recent consultations with the Orthodox, the US Episcopal Church agreed to drop the filioque clause from the Nicene Creed in their next version of the Book of Common Prayer.
The Importance of the Nicene Creed Today
The Church formulated the Nicene Creed before it selected certain apostolic writings, called them the New Testament, and declared them to be Holy Scripture. Another way of looking at it is that God chose the people who were bound by the Nicene Creed to affirm the contents of the New Testament, thereby endorsing the theology of the creed. The Nicene Creed is therefore a reliable test of our interpretation of the New Testament. If we are at variance with the Nicene Creed, we are in error. So whoever denies the Trinity must also deny the New Testament, and whoever upholds the New Testament as Holy Scripture must also affirm the Trinity.
In the beginning, the Church did not have a formal creed, nor did it have a formal list of the books in the New Testament. Then it formulated the Nicene Creed to express its doctrines and to serve as a test of orthodox teaching. So for a while there was a Church with the Nicene Creed but, even though it used the books of the New Testament as Holy Scripture, it had no official statement saying that they were. After the Church was bound by the Nicene Creed, it made a formal list of the books in the New Testament. Therefore, whoever attempts to reconstruct the ancient Church with an official list of New Testament books but without the Nicene Creed is reconstructing an imaginary church that never existed. This doesn’t mean their church is invalid, it just means that it isn’t a historic reconstruction, because in any part of Church history in which there was an official list of New Testament books, the Nicene Creed was the official expression of faith and the final test of orthodoxy.
The Nicene Creed in Worship
Traditional liturgical worship always includes the Nicene Creed whenever there is Communion. It is a corporate proclamation that corresponds to the Schema (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one” ) in the synagogue liturgy.
For More Insight…
The Nicene Creed was specifically designed to combat Arianism, Manicheanism, Apollinarianism, and Monarchianism (and its variants, Modalism, Patripassianism, and Sabellianism). You can get greater insight into the Nicene Creed by understanding the heresies it was meant to combat. You can also read a timeline comparing the formation of the New Testament canon with the history of the Nicene Creed.
Note that in the creed, the word ‘catholic’ has its dictionary meaning of ‘universal.’
The Text of the Nicene Creed
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered death and was buried. On the third day He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.* With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
*Roman Catholics and Protestants add ‘and the Son’ at this point.
---------------------------------------------------
The ecumenical councils are like the ammendment process to the American constitution. Let's say a President one day decided to alter the constitution to make it more "accurate" without going through the ammendment process. That is what the Pope did - he ignored procedure and willed change on teh ecumenical council - when only the ecumenical councils can will change. Why for some reason do Catholics not confront this fact? They brink up this father or that father but ignore the ecumenical councils and their importance. If the Pope can change the ecumenical council's words at will - why can't a protestant do the same? The Catholics opened pandora's box of protestantisim.
St. Leo I is explaining the clause - he is not treating these words as part of the clause. Don't turn to sophistry when trying to justify the unjustifiable.
In Jerusalem, western monks use the filioque clause in their worship. Eastern monks accuse them of irregularities. The dispute is escalated to the western monks’ patriarch, Bishop Leo of Rome [Pope Leo III]. Leo approves of the sentiment, but not the change in the creed. Leo has the original creed engraved on silver tablets and places them in Peter’s tomb.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both 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 of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made; consubstantial with the Father; through whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth, both visible and invisible; who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, was made man, that is, He received perfect man, soul and body and mind and all that man is, except sin, not from the seed of man nor as is usual with men, but He reshaped flesh into Himself, into one holy unity; not in the way that He inspired the prophets, and both spoke and acted in them, but He was made Man perfectly; for "the Word was made flesh (John 1:14)," not undergoing change, nor converting His own divinity into humanity; -- joined together into the one holy perfection and divinity of Himself; -- for the Lord Jesus Christ is one and not two, the same God, the same Lord, the same King; and He suffered in the flesh, and rose again and ascended into heaven in the same body, and sits in glory on the right of the Father, about to come in the same body in glory to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom will have no end; and we believe in the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the Law and proclaimed in the Prophets and descended at the Jordan, speaking in the Apostles and dwelling in the saints; thus do we believe in Him: that the Spirit is Holy, Spirit of God, Spirit perfect, Spirit Paraclete, increate, and is believed to proceed from the Father and to receive from the Son.We believe in one Catholic and Apostolic Church, and in one Baptism of repentance, and in the resurrection of the dead and the just judgement of souls and bodies, and in the kingdom of heaven, and in eternal life.
But those who say that there was a time when the Son or the Holy Spirit was not, or was made out of nothing or of another substance or essence, who say the Son of God or the Holy Spirit is liable to change or to becoming different, these people the Catholic and Apostolic Church, your Mother and ours, anathematizes; and again we anathematize those who do not confess the resurrection of the dead, and all heresies which are not consistent with this, the true faith.
St. Epiphanius of Salamis produced this modified Nicene Creed in 374 AD. Why didn't he know that it wasn't permitted to add orthodox truth to the Creed?
As for St. Leo, the Creed of Toledo was certainly a statement of faith (rather long, too - don't really want to type it all up here!) differing from the Nicene in words, although not in faith. The decree of Ephesus stated:
It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
Now, the Creed of Toledo was certainly not word-for-word identical to that of Nicaea, although the same faith is there (and this is the sense of the similar canon of Chalcedon). The true interpretation of the Ephesine decree is that it prohibits creeds which have a different faith from that of Nicaea. Otherwise it would prohibit the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 now wrongly known as the Nicene Creed, and also prohibit the Creed of Toledo approved by St. Leo (the widespread use of the Apostles' Creed in the West could also be cited - it didn't reach its final form until some time after Ephesus).
That the Catholics supposedly need to add all those extras to explain the faith as compsed perfectly in the final Creed is sad. Maybe they don't get lots of things?
That the Catholics supposedly need to add all those extras to explain the faith as compsed perfectly in the final Creed is sad.
One might as well say that all Councils after Nicaea were unnecessary. After all:
The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, Consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit. And those who say "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. (Council of Ephesus, Session 6)
I understand that you have been told all of these things and believe them. Christianity is not about picking apart each word ever said and the fathers are not be read for that purpose. You are lawyers and we are mystics. And that is why true discussion between us will never bear fruit.
It is the reason I posted the writing.
This is a better wording of what I meant to say above.
The Orthodox position is based on John 15:26, where Christ says: ‘When the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father — the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father — he will bear witness to me.’ Christ sends the Spirit, but the Spirit proceeds from the Father: so the Bible teaches, and so Orthodoxy believes. What Orthodoxy does not teach, and what the Bible never says, is that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
Why not the Apostle's Creed from which the Nicene Creed sprang?
The Nicene Creed was formulated at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in AD 325 to combat Arianism, ....
And Arianism is to be understood as the last of all heresies?
Do the Orthodox believe in speaking in tongues?
Another way of saying this is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Christ (i.e. the Son!).
The Spirit proceeds form the Father - as stated in the Biblical pericope - but also from the "I" Who sends Him, namely Christ, Eternal Son of the Father, as also stated in the same passage of Scripture.
One who is "sent", "proceeds" from the One who sends.
The problem with a statement like this is that you are trying to pigeonhole two "groups" in nice little packages that divide them - even where a division doesn't exist.
Do you really believe that contemplative prayer has been lacking in Western Christianity. This does absolutely no justice to the many mystics in the West.
Besides, St. Thomas Aquinas was in fact a greater mystic than Schoolman, though he is more well known for his Summa.
It really doesn't matter what its about.
You need us much more than we need you.
And if you fall by the wayside...no sweat here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.