|
0 members (),
89
guests, and
25
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 |
Yes, Charles, you can tell your friend he can have it all - even in the vernacular...  But can you get him to make the sign of the Cross a different way...  TG, I would place a slightly different weight on an Ecumenical Council presided over by numerous Saints of the Church, vs. a local council that decided unilaterally to violate the canons of an Ecumenical Council, in which our Catholic faith tells us the Holy Spirit is operative. Myles, perhaps we are more in agreement than not. I do think that a question of fidelity is part of this and I say that as a Catholic. Can we just dispense at whim for what turned out to be in the "big" picture of the Church just another bump in the road? And now we tenaciously hold to an aberration of the Creed and defend something clearly not in line with an Ecumenical Council presided over by Fathers of our Church. I do agree with St. Maximus, and I am a great fan of his writings. But, like him, the addition of that to the creed takes it to another level entirely. St. Maximus was quite clear and adamant about keeping that phrase out of the Creed. He did indeed take it upon himself to try and mediate between the Eastern and Western Romes. But had he thought it a worthy and orthodox addition, knowing him, his personality, what he endured in his life, surely he would have publicly stood for its unequivocal addition to the Creed, and he did nothing of the sort. And that phrase certainly was not added to the Creed in Rome during St. Maximus' lifetime. Later Latin scholastics even tried to discredit St. Maximus' mediations and clarifications as "tainted with Byzantinism" when they attempted to justify that phrase as a dogmatic addition to the Creed. I think part of this is also due to Carolingian fallout and influence. Everyone seems to have forgotten Smaragdus' account, approved by Leo III, of the conversation in 810 between Charlemagne's emissaries and Pope Leo III, who protested that he had given the Franks permission to sing the Creed during mass, but not to add the Filoque to it. Were that addition left outside of the Creed, in the realm of theologumena, as the Creed was originally placed on the tablets in Rome, I posit both churches would have been better off in the long run. May we keep running together (so as to win the race) towards the heartfelt desire of our Lord, that we may be one. You can't win by walking.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134 |
Originally posted by Diak:
TG, I would place a slightly different weight on an Ecumenical Council presided over by numerous Saints of the Church, vs. a local council that decided unilaterally to violate the canons of an Ecumenical Council, in which our Catholic faith tells us the Holy Spirit is operative.
Yes, and I'm sure it's my RC bias speaking. But I was always taught that as long as the decision was approved by the Pope, who is the ultimate Final Authority, that's all that matters. Maybe I'm wrong about that too, but you have to admit, it does simplify a lot of decision-making. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 |
As I told my kids this fall in my college class why we needed primacy, even as Eastern Catholics, I responded that every ball game has to have an umpire. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
Originally posted by Theist Gal:
And I'm not saying whether that translation change was right or wrong, either - that's another argument entirely. I'm just saying, never assume that "most RCs won't notice" something - trust me, enough of them will notice that it will become a major issue for blogs and chat rooms for generations to come. I really don't think those are the majority of "Rc's" but the loud and often strange inhabitabts of chat rooms on the net and they are a distinct minority!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
Originally posted by Theist Gal:
It's not Scripture. It's a man-made declaration of belief.
Well, in an Ecumenical Council inspired by the Holy Spirit. For Orthodox Christians that is NOT a just a "man-made declaration of belief" It is pretty basic to the Faith!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1 |
Diak,
Like that analogy with baseball, good even for a KC fan.
Hope I can remember it.
james
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
... a local council that decided unilaterally to violate the canons of an Ecumenical Council, in which our Catholic faith tells us the Holy Spirit is operative. Diak, you do have a reassonable point, but this remark stretches the point to unreasonableness. What local council decided to violate what canon on an Ecumenical Council? The declarations on the adherence to the faith of Nicea made at Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, quite explicit meant the faith inherent in it, not the merest formula of words. This link http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-83.htm#P4618_892010 gives a series of that show that the narrow interpretation is simply inconsistent with the actions of the councils. And the filioque didn't become a shibboleth until the fight over the Bulgarians. And the unilateral decision? ... there can be no doubt whatever that the Council of Toledo of [589] had no suspicion that the creed as they had it was not the creed exactly as adopted at Constantinople. This is capable of the most ample proof.
In the first place they declared, "Whosoever believes that there is any other Catholic faith and communion, besides that of the Universal Church, that Church which holds and honours the decrees of the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, I. Ephesus, and Chalcedon, let him be anathema." After some further anathemas in the same sense they repeat "the creed published at the council of Nice," and next, "The holy faith which the 150 fathers of the Council of Constantinople explained, consonant with the great Council of Nice." And then lastly, "The holy faith which the translators of the council of Chalcedon explained." The creed of Constantinople as recited contained the words "and from the Son." Now the fathers at Toledo were not ignorant of the decree of Ephesus forbidding the making of "another faith" (e9te/ran pi/stin) for they themselves cite it, as follows from the acts of Chalcedon; "The holy and universal Synod forbids to bring forward any other faith; or to write or believe or to teach other, or be otherwise minded. But whoso shall dare either to expound or produce or deliver any other faith to those who wish to be converted etc." They was no decision to violate a canon or the faith. Their words make it clear that they believed themselves to in fact to be scrupulously upholding it. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-56.htm#P3760_642888
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 |
djs, I disagree on all points. The argument is quite objective and reasonable.
From a basic empirical observation, the departure from that very formula which summarizes of the faith of the Ecumenical Councils by extension is itself a deviation from that faith. Do you disagree the Creed to be a statement of the Faith of the Fathers as advanced at the Councils? And how can it be otherwise, good intentions or bad?
And history does indeed reveal that the actions of the Carolingian hierarchy were indeed unilateral with Leo III advising otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
the departure from that very formula which summarizes of the faith of the Ecumenical Councils by extension is itself a deviation from that faith By this reasoning the formula of Constantiniople I is a different faith than that of Nicea - or at least it was until recognized at Chalcedon. Moreover, the key point was the use of "decided". Indeed at Toledo the statement was very clear that they professed to be upholding the faith and the canons of the Councils. Either they understood the canons differently than you do, or they were mistaken about the credal formula itself. The idea that they "decided" to change the creed, while saying what they said about holding fast to it implicitly asserts that they were just lying - an uncharitable assertion not required by the evident facts. The Carolignian council was over two centuries after the precedent of Toledo. Do you disagree the Creed to be a statement of the Faith of the Fathers as advanced at the Councils? A statement, yes. A unique statement, no. The Nicean formula was not etched in stone; the Constantinopolitan variation was in use already and not invented at the 2nd Council. The minicing of words began with the political struggles. A complete or sufficient statement, certainly not. This was the argument of the Orientals against Cyril: their faith was compatible with the Nicean Creed; that should suffice. The Church sided with Cyril against that argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear djs,
But which "Orientals?"
You mean the Nestorians? In that case, their faith in "two prosopa" in Christ was not contained in the Nicene Creed.
For example, when saying that "He was crucified for us," the Creed does not differentiate between our Lord's natures as if they represented two persons.
And in fact Theodore of Mopsuestia did insist on such a differentiation - in his scriptural commentary on Thomas' exclamation before the Risen Christ, "My Lord and my God!" Theodore of Mopsuestia actually says that Thomas looked up to heaven when he said that and not at Christ directly . . .
There really is no need to argue this point on the Nicene Creed.
Both RC and Orthodox theologians in ecumenical discussion agree that the Nicene Creed without the Filioque is the creed intended for the expression of the Christian faith for all Churches, East and West.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134 |
Originally posted by Brian: Originally posted by Theist Gal:
[b] It's not Scripture. It's a man-made declaration of belief.
Yes, indeed, it is basic to the Faith. But my point is, the Creed is SUBJECT to the decrees of the Church. It doesn't exist independently, on its own, subject to any or all interpretations. And unlike Scripture, it can be, and has been, changed, always assuming the final approval of the "umpire" ( tm Diak ). I think the issue of the Filioque is really an issue of Papal authority - it all boils down to whether or not you believe the Pope has the authority to change the Creed. If you don't think so, fine, you're definitely entitled to your opinion. But ask yourself this: If John Paul issued a decree tomorrow stating that the Filioque was to be officially removed from all versions of the Creed as used in all the Church's liturgical rites - would that end the schism? Would the Orthodox churches return to Rome? I seriously doubt it, but then I'm cynical.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Alex: From the link above... (E. B. Pusey, On the Clause "and the Son," p. 81.)
St. Cyril ought to understand the canon, which he probably himself framed, as presiding over the Council of Ephesus, as Archbishop of Alexandria and representative of Celestine, Bishop of Rome. His signature immediately succeeds the Canon. We can hardly think that we understand it better than he who probably framed it, nay who presided over the Council which passed it. He, however, explained that what was not against the Creed was not beside it. The Orientals had proposed to him, as terms of communion, that he should "do away with all he had written in epistles, tomes, or books, and agree with that only faith which had been defined by our holy Fathers at Nice." But, St. Cyril wrote back: "We all follow that exposition of faith which was defined by the holy fathers in the city of Nice, sapping absolutely nothing of the things contained in it. For they are all right and unexceptionable; and anything curious, after it, is not safe. But what I have rightly written against the blasphemies of Nestorius no words will persuade me to say that they were not done well:" and against the imputation that he "had received an exposition of faith or new Creed, as dishonouring that old and venerable Creed," he says:
"Neither have we demanded of any an exposition of faith, nor have we received one newly framed by others. For Divine Scripture suffices us, and the prudence of the holy fathers, and the symbol of faith, framed perfectly as to all right doctrine. But since the most holy Eastern Bishops differed from us as to that of Ephesus and were somehow suspected of being entangled in the meshes of Nestorius, therefore they very wisely made a defence, to free themselves from blame, and eager to satisfy the lovers of the blameless faith that they were minded to have no share in his impiety; and the thing is far from all note of blame. If Nestorius himself, when we all held out to him that he ought to condemn his own dogmas and choose the truth instead thereof, had made a written confession thereon, who would say that he framed for us a new exposition of faith? Why then do they calumniate the assent of the most holy Bishops of Phoenicia, calling it a new setting forth of the Creed, whereas they made it for a good and necessary end, to defend themselves and soothe those who thought that they followed the innovations of Nestorius? For the holy Ecumenical Synod gathered at Ephesus provided, of necessity, that no other exposition of faith besides that which existed, which the most blessed fathers, speaking in the Holy Ghost, defined, should be brought into the Churches of God. But they who at one time, I know not how, differed from it, and were suspected of not being right-minded, following the Apostolic and Evangelic doctrines, how should they free themselves from this ill-report? by silence? or rather by self-defence, and by manifesting the power of the faith which was in them? The divine disciple wrote, `be ready always to give an answer to every one who asketh you an account of the hope which is in you.' But he who willeth to do this, innovates in nothing, nor doth he frame any new exposition of faith, but rather maketh plain to those who ask him, what faith he hath concerning Christ."2
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 |
The idea that they "decided" to change the creed, while saying what they said about holding fast to it implicitly asserts that they were just lying - an uncharitable assertion not required by the evident facts. They (a local council) did unilaterally decide to change the Creed, which is in fact and deed what they did, good, bad or otherwise. I'm not really sure what you are implying in the subjective motivational or charcter implication at the end which does nothing but detract from an objective discussion. Whatever happened at Toledo, the Creed was not changed nor declared to be changed in Rome, nor was any change ratified by the Pope after that council, which was local. History is quite clear on that issue. It seems clear and reasonable from history this council was simply local and in no way spoke for the universal Church, nor had authority to change anything as profound as the very summary of our faith as received from an Ecumenical Council presided over by Fathers of the Church. No canons at Nicea concretized the Creed. I don't see the relevance of your point. Canon I of Constantinople specifically mentioned Nicea was not abrogated and was still in force. Is the Creed the summary of our apostolic faith as pronounced by the Church and the first two Ecumenical Councils? I say yes. Then any change to the Creed is a deviation from that which the Fathers canonized. "Deviation" is certainly not in definition, usual meaning, etymology, or usage equivalent to heretical. Toledo simply lacked the authority to regulate an immemorial Creed ratified by all the Patriarchs and convened by Church Fathers. And last I checked, (1) Pusey was not on the list of Fathers of the Church, and (2) Toledo was a local council, and (3) it being only a local council it had no right to deviate from that declared by the Fathers through the Ecumenical Councils recognized by all Catholics, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox. Precedents and antecedents notwithstanding, the opposition of Leo III speaks for itself, the See of Peter opposing the insertion of that phrase even after the local council convened in Toledo. I am in agreement with Bishop Kallistos on this issue, that while it may not be necessarily heretical de facto, its continued usage is unnecessary and promotes misunderstanding at best and unnecessary divisions at worst, as we have seen here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear djs, I don't want to say that Diak is correct so as to give you the impression that we're ganging up on you But how about the present? I admire people who love history, but we only need look as far as contemporary RC and Orthodox theologs engaging in debate on this matter to see that the Filioque isn't a point of contention and no one of note in the West is going to become a martyr for it. You seem to be more papal than the Pope on this matter! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134 |
Here's another point: My understanding is that most, if not all, of the Eastern Rites of the Church are not required to use the Filioque at all. It's only used in the Western Rites. (I could be wrong but I don't think so. But then I could be wrong about that too. ) So why is it still such a point of contention? Are any Eastern Christians TODAY being forced to add the words "and the son" to their recitation of the Creed? If not, why insist that it be removed altogether? Western Christians obviously do not impute the same theological spin from it as Eastern Christians do, so what exactly is the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
