|
Forums26
Topics35,521
Posts417,615
Members6,171
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 50
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 50 |
Hey all,
It's been a while since I have posted on the Forum, but I do have a question for which I've never been able to find an answer. One day at liturgy I noticed that besides the Filoque there was another difference between the Eastern and Western Creed. The Western Creed reads, "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God". The Eastern Creed reads "begotten of the Father before all ages: Light of Light, true God of true God". My question is where did the "God from God" come from in the Western Creed?
Thanks for your help.
Terry
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
Hi, One day at liturgy I noticed that besides the Filoque there was another difference between the Eastern and Western Creed. The Western Creed reads, "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God". The Eastern Creed reads "begotten of the Father before all ages: Light of Light, true God of true God". My question is where did the "God from God" come from in the Western Creed? The words "God from God" come from the original version approved by the Council of Nicea I. Only subsequent developments at Constantinople I and Chalcedon removed those words. But the very fact that they were removed, proves that although the doctrine set forth by the Creeds is regarded as divinely revealed, the form of the Creeds is not. If by adding the Filioque, we are not inventing a novel doctrine, contrary to the faith of the Apostles, the mere addition of the word cannot be considered heresy. At least, not any more than the removal of "God from God". Shalom, Memo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780 |
Just to add to Memo's post, here's the text of the Creed as recorded by the Church Fathers at the Council of Nicea: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (gennhthe'nta), not made, being of one substance(homoou'sion, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (h'n pote ho'te ouk h^n), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion--all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them. and here's the Creed as recorded at the First Council of Constantinople (which is identical to that found in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon): We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit [Pneuma to 'Agion], the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. Edward, deacon and sinner
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Memo,
No, Sir, you are wrong!
Those changes were made by subsequent Councils and they reflected what can only be called grammatical or textual changes that affect not one iota the doctrine of the Trinity or Triadology.
The Filioque was added outside any Council and unilaterally to a Creed meant to convey the faith of the universal Church.
Its addition is therefore a canonical faux pas - and the theology behind it is questionable at best.
It should be removed by the West - the sooner the better.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915 |
Them's fightin' words, Doktor.  The word "Filioque" expresses the Faith of the Catholic Church regarding the Holy Trinity, in a clarified form. The history of its addition to the Creed begins with a council--that of Toledo in the seventh century (correct me if I'm wrong). It was only because of politics that the Eastern patriarchs started having a problem with it--your man Photios put the Filioque on his list of western "errors", along with clerical celibacy, unleavened bread, and fasting on Saturdays, in the course of his polemical attacks on the Roman Church. In Christ, Lt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
Hi, Of course, Alex, and about many things, but I just do not happen to believe this to be one of them. Those changes were made by subsequent Councils and they reflected what can only be called grammatical or textual changes that affect not one iota the doctrine of the Trinity or Triadology.
The Filioque was added outside any Council and unilaterally to a Creed meant to convey the faith of the universal Church. Either way. If the Creed is to be considered a divinely revealed truth, then neither the Pope, nor an Ecumenical Council would have had the authority to revise it. In this case, Constantinople I's revision would be just as unacceptable as the Filioque. Now, if the Creed is just the canonically approved expression of divinely revealed truths, then both the Pope and the Ecumencial Council have the authority to revise it. In this case, the Filioque would be just as acceptable as Constantinople I's revision. It should be removed by the West - the sooner the better. Yes, of course, but not because it is wrong. Shalom, Memo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780 |
Okay, I'm gonna put my foot in this one. 'Course, I'm not sure which one since I have a foot in both camps.
The filioque was added to the Creed in Spain in 587 to combat Arianism. While the goal was admirable, the methodology was condemned by Rome at the time, and rightly so. Within the Latin Church the Ecumenical Council is the second highest form of teaching with only the exceptional case of an ex cathedra statement having higher weight. This means that within the theology of the Latin Church only another Council could have legitimatly modified Conciliar teaching.
And, rather than providing "clarification" on the nature of the Trinity it introduces an ambiguity with regard to the role of the Father and the Son. If, as both East and West hold, the Father is the origin of all things, then the filioque causes an ambiguity in that it seems to make the Son a source of the Holy Spirit. The underlying theology of the West is that the Holy Spirit is "spirated" -- and that requires a single source. To explain this apparent contradiction the West has traditionally used the explanation that the Holy Spirit is the "essence of love between the Father and the Son" -- but that sill requires a source and response.
It would have been better to have never introduced this ambiguity.
Edward, deacon and sinner
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Bless Father Deacon Edward! You tell 'em! One could say that before papal triumphalism took hold of the West (  ), the Ecumenical Council was THE highest authority on deciding matters of doctrine. Doctrinal conflicts/issues were ONLY decided by such Councils wherein the Pope of Rome had the primacy of honour. And the point is that Ecumenical Councils were there own highest authority over each other. The Nicene Creed as we know it was developed over two Councils. The Council was an Ecumenical/Universal expression of the faith of the entire Church and so no head of any particular Church, including the Pope of Rome, could tamper with, say, the Creed. Indeed, one such Ecumenical Council actually censured the Church of Rome and its Bishop for moving the Wednesday fast day to Saturday. Ultimately, what divided East from West in terms of authority was the tension between Papal and Conciliar authority. The Filioque is a point of contention between East and West NOT ONLY because of its theology. It is also a point of contention on canonical grounds ie. the right of any patriarch, including the Patriarch of the West, to unilaterally change a Creed approved by the Councils for the Universal Church. Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
The filioque was added to the Creed in Spain in 587 to combat Arianism. While the goal was admirable, the methodology was condemned by Rome at the time, and rightly so. Is there documentation available on this condemnation "by Rome at that time"? It is also a point of contention on canonical grounds ie. the right of any patriarch, including the Patriarch of the West, to unilaterally change a Creed approved by the Councils for the Universal Church. As you well know, most bishops of the west had accepted the filioque in the recitation of the long before the Bishop of Rome. It's a big spin to consider what happened as a unilateral change by the Pope. You also put a big spin on the contribution of the second ecumenical council. This council was local and could not have viewed itself as ecumennical, nevertheless it tampered with the creed. Its additions were not recognized at the next ecumenical council, but only at the one after that. And if you like to promote the great authority of the councils, then why do you persist in promoting a Paschal date that manifestly violates the prescriptions of the first council.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915 |
Fr. Dcn. Edward:
I don't believe that the Filioque was "condemned" by Rome in 587. Far from it. Even my ROCOR friends admit that the bishops of Spain were not asked to remove the Filioque from their local creed. If there is any evidence to the contrary, I will freely admit it, but I haven't seen any.
Moreover, the theology of the Filioque is not ambiguous or flawed. I challenge any man living today to read Summa Theologiae I.38.2-4 and then tell me that the theology of the Filioque is "ambiguous".
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son "as from a single source and from a single spiration." Jesus Himself declares that EVERYTHING the Father has, he has given to the Son. The is no more "contradiction" or "ambiguity" in saying that the Father and Son are a single source than there is in saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a single God.
I know that we Westerners are often encouraged to familiarize ourselves with the theology and praxis of the Christian East. This is good. However, I think that both Easterners and Westerners, myself included, would do well to familiarize themselves more thoroughly with the theology and praxis of the Christian West. The reconciliation between the Filioque and the "oneness" of the Source was accomplished magnificently, 8 centuries ago by St. Thomas Aquinas. It presents no difficulty for our understanding of the Filioque today.
In Christ,
LatinTrad
|
|
|
|
|
