|
0 members (),
289
guests, and
119
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,542
Posts417,786
Members6,198
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2025
Posts: 42 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2025
Posts: 42 Likes: 3 |
I argue that dropping for us men makes it a completely different creed as it is not the creed delivered to us from the Fathers. It is a grave error that needs to be corrected. I plan to bring it up to Bishop Artur when he comes to our parish picnic in October. I'll fill you in on how the conversation goes then.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 20 Likes: 6
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 20 Likes: 6 |
Dropping "men" from the creed is a major theological issue that has been brought up many times before in both East and West. I myself cannot bring myself to say the creed during the Liturgy without add "men."
I think the greater problem has to do with governance because it was a major upheaval to switch the new translation, and it would be a major upheaval to change again. No individual bishop in the Ruthenian church is going to scrap the Teal Terror without support and consent from all the others. Even Bishop Kurt, who reportedly does not like the translation and tolerates the use of older language ("mankind" vs "us all", etc.) has never advocated publicly for replacement or to use the older translations, as far as I am aware.
Maybe the best solution is a grassroots effort. At this point, if a parish used exclusively the older translations, I wonder whether they would be disciplined.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104 |
Christ is in our midst!!
EMagnus,
I have read that the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council attached severe anathemas to the Creed so that anyone who ADDED to or SUBTRACTED from it would be condemned forever. How that works out now is above my pay grade, but it calls into question who keeps the Faith passed to us and who does not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 20 Likes: 6
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 20 Likes: 6 |
That is also my understanding. What bothers me the most is that there is no theological justification given for removing the word. If you're going to be altering the traditional language of the creed, I think you ought to have some burden to prove that it is theologically necessary to better convey some truth in the original.
Regardless of where you come out on the Filioque, there is at least some theological reasoning given for its addition, not simply stating that it sounds better.
Last edited by EMagnus; 03/22/25 08:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104 |
Christ is in our midst!!
I believe this is NO theological justification for adding to the Creed after its final version was made those many centuries ago. Let everyone modify it as he wills and we no longer have a common statement of what we believe today or how we are related to those who have gone before.
My father, no theologian, once told me that "a man is a success if he can face the Lord and confess that he received the Faith, lived it, and passed it along WITHOUT adding to it or subtracting from it."
BTW, the filioque is not the only addition of Charlemagne's theologians. "God from God" in the early sentences about Christ are also their work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 21 Likes: 2
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 21 Likes: 2 |
The Filioque was added to the Latin creed by the Third Council of Toledo led by Saint Leander in 589 in Spain, and was later adopted in Gaul during the reign of Saint Clovis and in Britain at the Council of Hatfield in 680 led by Saint Theodore. Personally, I believe that the best thing to do is for us Latins to pray as our Greek and Eastern brothers do, as we have received from our Doctors, without arguing over the other's usage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104 |
Apparently the local Western Councils did not get the memo about the anathemas attached to the Creed so that anyone adding to it was excommunicated.
|
|
1 member likes this:
EasternChristian19 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2025
Posts: 42 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2025
Posts: 42 Likes: 3 |
Regardless of its orthodoxy or heterodoxy the Latin Church did not have the authority to unilaterally alter the creed and Rome MUST return to the actual creed. It is rightly called the Symbol of Faith in the Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic tradition. How can we say we have the same faith when we don't even recite the same creed?
This is double for me as a Ruthenian since our church continues to use an adulterated creed that was altered to appease feminists. Getting rid of "For us men and for our salvation" changed to "For us and for our salvation" all to appease feminists who were triggered that the word "men" was used and it excluded women. Lord have mercy!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 21 Likes: 2
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 21 Likes: 2 |
"God from God" was in the Nicaean creed but not in the later Constantinopolitan creed. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Nicene-Constantinopolitan_Creed.There are many liturgical creeds used by different churches over the years for different circumstances. Why do they all have to be the same? If the Armenians want to express this in their liturgy, for example: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the substance of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father; by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, became human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance. He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father. He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the uncreate and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, the prophets, and the Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints. We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism with repentance for the remission and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, in the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life. why is it wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104 |
Christ is in our midst!!
Many creeds? The idea for the Nicene Creed was to put everyone on the same page. Different Creed? Different Faith. In that instance, all the fights over Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism were wastes of time. Everyone can have a Christ of his own making. But wait, that's what happened in the West beginning in 1517.
That also applies to Communion. The Creed is recited before sharing in the Holy Mysteries. Communion means we are of one heart and one mind--in agreement on all points of doctrine--which is why all the Churches of Apostolic origin do not practice open communion. Open communion means that everyone brings his own interpretation to what is happening at the Liturgy and no one is compelled to believe the same as his neighbor.
So one person believes that this is the Body and Blood of Christ. The next that Christ is mixed in with the bread. The third says that this is all a symbol and Christ is not truly present. It means that Christ is divided and His Prayer "that all may be one" doesn't happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 21 Likes: 2
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 21 Likes: 2 |
My brother, you must have heard about ritualistic development. If the ritual of the Mass, which is the most sacred thing we have, has become something so distinct over time in different languages and cultures, what can we say about the creed, which has been translated and proclaimed for the entire Catholic Church. We Latins have the Apostles' Creed, which our Doctors and Fathers say we received from the Apostles, and the Orientals do not recite it. The Armenian Creed is also somewhat distinct from the Greek Creed, and yet they are exactly the same creed. Personally, I believe that the creed is immutable in the substance of its content, not necessarily in the form it is recited, because then we get into questions of linguistics and also of culture. Adding or removing the phrase "Filioque" does not alter, adulterate or corrupt the Creed, so much so that Saint Hilary, Saint Ephrem, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, Saint Leo the Great, Saint Epiphanius, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint Maximus (who dealt with both the Latin and Greek usages), Saint Faustus, Saint Gennadius, Saint Isidore, Saint Fulgentius, Saint Leander, Saint Theodore, Saint Paulinus, Saint Tarasius, Saint John of Damascus, Saint Gregory Palamas and many other Saints have always reaffirmed the orthodoxy of proclaiming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and the legitimacy of both the Latin and Greek usages. After so many centuries, it is useless to discuss whether such usage is heterodox among the Latins.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2025
Posts: 42 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2025
Posts: 42 Likes: 3 |
I intend on asking Bishop Artur about it in October when he visits our parish for our parish festival. Maybe he can speak with Bishop Kurt on it and they can work together to start pushing for the restoration of the authentic Liturgy for the Ruthenian Church again, sans these weak reforms.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2021
Posts: 48 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2021
Posts: 48 Likes: 3 |
Explain to us the actual differences in the lived Christian life between someone who is Catholic and believes in the filioque and someone who is Orthodox and does not. And not from some abstract theological level, but in actual day to day life in trying to live out the commandments and teachings as taught by Christ. Point us to the passages in the Gospels where Jesus taught that one must get all of the theological minutiae exactly right in order to get into heaven. We'll wait.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,406 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,406 Likes: 33 |
Apparently the local Western Councils did not get the memo about the anathemas attached to the Creed so that anyone adding to it was excommunicated. Perhaps this needs to be looked at in more detail. Using an AI summary as a foil: AI Overview
The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which formulated the Nicene Creed, included anathemas
Specifically, the original Nicene Creed, after affirming belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, concluded with anathemas against those who held Arian beliefs, which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. These anathemas condemned claims such as:
That there was a time when the Son was not.
That before being born He was not.
That He came into existence out of nothing.
Or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance.
Or that the Son of God is created, or is subject to alteration or change.
The Council decreed that anyone who refused to adhere to this Creed would be exiled, which was effectively a civil judgment respecting the Church's excommunication of those who held Arian doctrines.
It's important to note that these anathemas were added to the Nicene Creed to clarify and defend the Church's understanding of the Trinity, particularly against Arianism. The anathema was a formal condemnation of specific beliefs deemed heretical, and in this context, it was used to clearly distinguish orthodox Christian faith from false doctrines.
Therefore, the Creed itself did not say that anyone adding to it was excommunicated, but rather that those who did not accept the defined doctrines of the Creed, and the condemnation of Arianism, were subject to condemnation and excommunication. The intent was to safeguard the core beliefs of Christianity and ensure unity within the Church.
The Creed of Constantinople (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) does not, in its original form from 381 AD, contain anathemas directed at those who might add to it. In fact, it's notable for omitting the anathemas that were part of the earlier Nicene Creed of 325 AD.
However, it is true that later Church councils issued anathemas related to matters addressed by the Creed, and altering the Creed itself would fall under these anathemas. For example:
The Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD) condemned various theological errors with anathemas, emphasizing the unity of Christ's person and the two natures (divine and human). The council also declared that anyone who attempted to teach or hand on anything contrary to its regulations, including altering the Creed, would be subject to anathema.
A council held in 879-880 AD specifically anathematized those who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which has been seen as a condemnation of the "Filioque" addition (the phrase "and the Son") that was added to the Creed in the West.
Therefore, while the Creed of Constantinople itself doesn't have anathemas on additions, later councils built upon its theological foundation and condemned those who would add to or alter the established doctrines, including through modifications of the Creed.
Anathema, in this context, refers to a formal declaration of condemnation, often accompanied by excommunication. Excommunication means being excluded from the community and sacraments of the Church.
|
|
|
|
|
