More Than Our Father [The Creed]

CatholicExchange.com ^ | 01-04-06 | Mark Shea

[TexConfederate1861]

Now, just as soon as you take out "Filioque" you will have the REAL creed!

[TexConfederate1861]

Sounds really pretty, EXCEPT for "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" That part split the Church in two.

Once the RC's drop it, things will be headed in the right direction.

[AlaninSA]

Agreed...amazing...agreement on FR!

[joseph20]

Why would the Holy Spirit proceed only from the Father?

[TexConfederate1861]

Because it does. And because 3 Ecumenical Councils said it does, Read the Gospel of John.

[joseph20]

...because 3 Ecumenical Councils said it does, Read the Gospel of John.

Would you (or anyone else) mind providing a reference to these councils? Also, which passage from the Gospel of John is pertinent to your position? Thanks.

[TexConfederate1861]

Here are more concrete answers: The Holy Scriptures state that the Spirit
proceeds from the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night before
He suffered, said to His apostles (John 15:26 RSV):

+ But when the Counsellor comes,
+ whom I shall send to you from the Father,
+ even the Spirit of truth,
+ who proceeds from the Father,
+ he will bear witness to me.

The Filioque undermines the very foundations of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity,
in that it denies the nature of the Father, Whose nature it is to be the sole source from which all else is derived. Although all Three
Persons of the Trinity are co-eternal and co-equal, nevertheless the
Son is derived of the Father, and not the Father of the Son. When we
call the First Person of the Trinity the Father, we are affirming
that He imparts life and existence to others, for this is what it
means to be a father. It is NOT what it means to be a Son, and
therefore it is wrong to suppose that the being of the Spirit is
derived from the Son as well as from the Father.

[joseph20]

John 15:26:
But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me."

John 16:7:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

John 20:22:
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

John 16:15:
All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine. Therefore I said that he shall receive of me and show it to you.

[TexConfederate1861]

You should read the scripture: "whom I shall send to you FROM THE FATHER, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds FROM THE FATHER, he shall bear witness to me"

And then there is that other small matter of the anethemas placed on anyone who adds or takes away from the Creed, placed by the Ecumenical Councils.......Even a joint Orthodox-Catholic Committee has ruled that the filioque should not be in the creed. When the Ecumenical Patriarch & Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass, the Filioque was not used. Read the Creed on the doors of St. Peter's Basilica, NO filioque there either.

[AnalogReigns]

I think its fair to say the filoque was used as an excuse for the Great Schism of 1054, while the underlying causes were political and professional rivalries. True there is a difference but the Trinity of God remains with either understanding.

[Cronos]

Sounds really pretty, EXCEPT for "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" That part split the Church in two. Once the RC's drop it, things will be headed in the right direction.

Tex, I'm guessing you're a recent EO convert as you've marked the part wrongly. The only issue is with the word Filioque. The other part is acceptable to the EO and translates as "who proceeds from the Father (and the Son)". You DO believe that the Spiritu Sanctum proceeds from the Father, correct?

Furthermore, do read up a bit more on the Filioque controversy. It's a question of language. Both Latins and Greeks believed that the Father is the originator of the Holy Spirit AND that the Son, along with the Spirit are of one substance with the Father. Leaving out Filioque to the Latins seemed (and to some extent) seems Arian, but that is NOT how the Orthodox see it. The Orthodox belief about the procession of the FAther, Son and Holy Spirit is of the same essence as the Latin belief, the words divide us.

[Cronos]

Furthermore to that, do note that the Filioque is not used in the Eastern Catholic Churchs (like the Syro-Malabarese, the Maronite etc.) or, strangely enough, in the Vatican itself. Could that mean that it is for a clearer understanding of the Church meaning to a Frankish mind? Perhaps. The Greek nuances don't translate exactly into Latin (and vice-versa).

[Cronos]

Furthermore to that, do note that the Filioque is not used in the Eastern Catholic Churchs (like the Syro-Malabarese, the Maronite etc.) or, strangely enough, in the Vatican itself. Could that mean that it is for a clearer understanding of the Church meaning to a Frankish mind? Perhaps. The Greek nuances don't translate exactly into Latin (and vice-versa).

How do you think we had the Coptic and Chaldean Churchs leave the Catholic-Orthodox Church when they thought we were Nestorians?

[Cronos]

I think its fair to say the filoque was used as an excuse for the Great Schism of 1054, while the underlying causes were political and professional rivalries. True there is a difference but the Trinity of God remains with either understanding.

Quite correct. I don't see the point of raising it as a bashing point to separate the Orthodox and Catholics. If you want me to remove the Filioque, fine, as Analog says, the understanding of the TRinitarian nature of God remains the same.

CREDO IN unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terrae, visibilium omnium, et invisibilium.

Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum. Et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero. Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri: per quem omnia facta sunt.

Qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit de coelis. Et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine: et homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis, sub Pontio Pilato passus, et sepultus est.

Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. Et ascendit in coelum: sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, judicare vivos et mortuos: cujus regni non erit finis.

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem: qui ex Patre procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per prophetas.

Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.

Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.

Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum. + Et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

[Cronos]

okie -- I didn't understand either of your posts!!!

[TexConfederate1861]

NO...born Orthodox

[TexConfederate1861]

I do understand TODAY, at the theologian level Roman Catholics have that understanding about the procession of the Holy Spirit. The lower clergy and laity still stubbornly cling to the delusion that the Frankish version of the Creed is correct. The bigger issue of the Creed to me, and to many Orthodox is the idea that the filioque is a
symbol of the issue of Papal Authority vs. Ecumenical Council. The Council pronounced anethema on anyone or anybody that changed the Creed. The Popes ignored this.

[joseph20]

You should read the scripture: "whom I shall send to you FROM THE FATHER, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds FROM THE FATHER, he shall bear witness to me"

How should this mean only "from the Father", when the preceding clause makes the statement that Jesus shall send the Holy Spirit?

Read the "WHOM I SHALL SEND TO YOU" clause. How can your position be upheld, when this line clearly states that the Holy Spirit is being sent by Jesus (as well as from the Father obviously)?

On another point, why did focus only on John 15:26? Did you ignore the other scripture readings (John 16:7, John 20:22, and John 16:15) that support the position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?

[joseph20]

And then there is that other small matter of the anethemas (sic) placed on anyone who adds or takes away from the Creed, placed by the Ecumenical Councils

The Council of Ephesus (held in 431) was held for the reason of dealing with Nestorius--the heretic Bishop of Constantinople (and his followers).

The sixth session of the Council (in which the anathema decision was made) dealt only with the matter of two Nestorianizing priests. This anathema ruling is contained in a letter from Cyril to Nestorius and therefore must be interpreted in the context of dealing with Nestorius and his followers.

Your position on this matter improperly interprets this decree as meant to be taken far too literally. For if you take it in absolute literal form, then any deviation from the original Greek version of the Creed (approved at Ephesus and including the anathema) would be cause for excommunication:

Πιστεύομεν εις ένα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητήν ουρανού και γης, ορατόν τε πάντων και αοράτων. Και εις ένα Κύριον Ιησούν Χριστόν, τον Υιόν του Θεου τον μονογενή, τον εκ του Πατρός γεννηθέντα προ πάντων τον αιώνων· φως εκ φωτός, Θεόν αληθινόν εκ Θεου αληθινού, γεννηθέντα οι ποιηθέντα, ομοούσιον το Πατρί, δι' ου το πάντα εγένετο. Τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα. Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα. Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς. Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός. Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν. Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν. Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Ἀμήν. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι. ἢ κτιστόν, τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

Do you recite your creed in Greek? Or, if you dare to translate it into your native language (I presume English), do you recite the anathema that comes at the end of the Creed? See below for the anathema:

But those that say, There was a time when he was not, and, before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made of that which previously was not, or that he was of some other substance or essence; and that the Son of God was capable of change or alteration; those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

If your argument is followed out, then every Roman Catholic priest should be excommunicated and every Roman Catholic layman should be anathemized. Such a position is entirely untenable.

[TexConfederate1861]

I tire of this debate. Read The Creed on the doors of St.Peter's Basilica. YOUR OWN POPE, Gregory the Great supported the argument AGAINST the filioque. Your OWN theologians have already said that it should be removed. Why do you defend an erroneous practice which is not even supported by your own church?