'and' in the Nicene Creed

[Philip_B]

1 We believe in one God,
2 the Father, the Almighty,
3 maker of heaven and earth,
4 of all that is, seen and unseen.

5 We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
6 the only Son of God,
7 eternally begotten of the Father,
8 God from God, Light from Light,
9 true God from true God,
10 begotten, not made,
11 of one Being with the Father;
12 through him all things were made.
13 For us and for our salvation
14 he came down from heaven,
15 was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
16 and became truly human.
17 For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
18 he suffered death and was buried.
19 On the third day he rose again
20 in accordance with the Scriptures;
21 he ascended into heaven
22 and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
23 He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
24 and his kingdom will have no end.

25 We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
26 who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
27 who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
28 who has spoken through the prophets.

29 We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
30 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
31 We look for the resurrection of the dead,
32 and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The word ‘and’ occurs 12 or 13 times in the ELLC text of the Nicene Creed.

As a word and can be a little nuanced, because ‘and’ can be used in the sense of ‘and/or’, or in the sense of ‘and also’. Increasingly in this digital age we use ‘and’ in the and/or sense, however for the most part in the Nicene Creed The meaning is an inclusive and also.

3 maker of heaven and earth,
4 of all that is, seen and unseen.
15 was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
16 and became truly human.
18 he suffered death and was buried.
22 and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
23 He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
24 and his kingdom will have no end.
27 who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
29 We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
32 and the life of the world to come. Amen.

In all these instances the context requires us to understand the ‘and’ in the sense of ‘and also’.

The odd one out of course is the ‘and’ of the filioque

26 who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],

It is a difficult reading to read this ‘and’ in the sense of and/also as that would require us to believe that every Procession of the Holy Spirit would be required to be from the Father and/also the Son. That become a difficult reading in a number of passages in Scripture.

• The Genesis 1 account of Creation the sense is that the Spirit of God hovered/moved/brooded over the waters at creation. Lines 1 to 4 of the Creed would have us understand this in terms of God the Father.
• The conception narrative in Luke 1 would make for a odd reading if we were to understand that the Spirit proceeded from Jesus, and clearly the intent is that we understand that the Spirit has proceeded from the Father.
• The synoptic accounts of the Baptism of Jesus the clear imagery is of the Spirit Proceeding from the Father to the Son. Indeed in this case to suggest the Spirit proceeding from the Son would be to bob the passage of the message of the authentication of Jesus ministry by the Father through the Spirit.

There are also of course some clear examples when one may speak sensibly of the Spirit Proceeding from the Son

• John 20:22 being the most obvious and conclusive proof text for the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.

That would seem to suggest that this is the one place in the Nicene Creed where and is used in the sense of and/or. Of course this reading is not without some difficulty due to the other Johannine material

• John 14:26 strongly suggests that the Spirit Proceeds from the Father, and those of us who have looked at this will be aware that this is a crucial text for the argument from the Eastern Churches.
• John 15:26 suggests that the Son might send the Spirit from the Father, and again the East will be quick to point this out.

These texts are not contradictory, and we should not seek to expound one part of scripture in a manner that is repugnant to another. We can speak of ‘Processing from’ either in the sense of ultimate origen, or in the sense of point of departure. Very much in the same line as we know oil comes from the refinery but you get it from the petrol (gas) station.

The East sometimes speaks of the monarchical integrity of the Father which might be somewhat akin to the language of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin when he spoke of God the Father as the alpha point of existence and also as the omega point of all existence. This is in lines with the opening lines of the Nicene Creed.

This means our understanding should be that where the Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Spirit has in the first instance proceeded from the Father. This point is entirely consistent with Augustine, Aquinas, and of course Holy Scripture.

My understanding is that in Greek the sense of ‘processing from’ has a much stronger overtone of ultimate source of origin than it does for us in English. So much so that when the Western Rite is celebrated in Greek the filioque is omitted not simply for politeness but because it really does not make correct sense in greek.

My view is that the Filioque should be omitted because:

• It wasn’t part of the Creed as agreed and confirmed by the Councils
• It would be better if all the Church spoke one Creed
• It adds little and confuses much.

 

[Radagast]

None of that made any sense to me at all, I'm afraid.

 

[Philip_B]

None of that made any sense to me at all, I'm afraid.

That is OK. I don't know where you stand on the Filioque. For me, as one who has explored it and concluded that it does not belong in the Nicene Creed, I became aware the other day as we were reciting it in Church (and the congregation went on with the Filioque which I omit) that the sense of the 'and' in it is quite different to the sense of every other and in the Nicene Creed. Maybe that isn't surprising given that it was not part of the original.

One day you might look at it, and then maybe it might have greater meaning for you. It is part of what keeps West from East.

 

[Knee V]

1 We believe in one God,
2 the Father, the Almighty,
3 maker of heaven and earth,
4 of all that is, seen and unseen.

5 We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
6 the only Son of God,
7 eternally begotten of the Father,
8 God from God, Light from Light,
9 true God from true God,
10 begotten, not made,
11 of one Being with the Father;
12 through him all things were made.
13 For us and for our salvation
14 he came down from heaven,
15 was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
16 and became truly human.
17 For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
18 he suffered death and was buried.
19 On the third day he rose again
20 in accordance with the Scriptures;
21 he ascended into heaven
22 and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
23 He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
24 and his kingdom will have no end.

25 We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
26 who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
27 who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
28 who has spoken through the prophets.

29 We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
30 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
31 We look for the resurrection of the dead,
32 and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The word ‘and’ occurs 12 or 13 times in the ELLC text of the Nicene Creed.

As a word and can be a little nuanced, because ‘and’ can be used in the sense of ‘and/or’, or in the sense of ‘and also’. Increasingly in this digital age we use ‘and’ in the and/or sense, however for the most part in the Nicene Creed The meaning is an inclusive and also.

3 maker of heaven and earth,
4 of all that is, seen and unseen.
15 was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
16 and became truly human.
18 he suffered death and was buried.
22 and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
23 He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
24 and his kingdom will have no end.
27 who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
29 We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
32 and the life of the world to come. Amen.

In all these instances the context requires us to understand the ‘and’ in the sense of ‘and also’.

The odd one out of course is the ‘and’ of the filioque

26 who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],

It is a difficult reading to read this ‘and’ in the sense of and/also as that would require us to believe that every Procession of the Holy Spirit would be required to be from the Father and/also the Son. That become a difficult reading in a number of passages in Scripture.

• The Genesis 1 account of Creation the sense is that the Spirit of God hovered/moved/brooded over the waters at creation. Lines 1 to 4 of the Creed would have us understand this in terms of God the Father.
• The conception narrative in Luke 1 would make for a odd reading if we were to understand that the Spirit proceeded from Jesus, and clearly the intent is that we understand that the Spirit has proceeded from the Father.
• The synoptic accounts of the Baptism of Jesus the clear imagery is of the Spirit Proceeding from the Father to the Son. Indeed in this case to suggest the Spirit proceeding from the Son would be to bob the passage of the message of the authentication of Jesus ministry by the Father through the Spirit.

There are also of course some clear examples when one may speak sensibly of the Spirit Proceeding from the Son

• John 20:22 being the most obvious and conclusive proof text for the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.

That would seem to suggest that this is the one place in the Nicene Creed where and is used in the sense of and/or. Of course this reading is not without some difficulty due to the other Johannine material

• John 14:26 strongly suggests that the Spirit Proceeds from the Father, and those of us who have looked at this will be aware that this is a crucial text for the argument from the Eastern Churches.
• John 15:26 suggests that the Son might send the Spirit from the Father, and again the East will be quick to point this out.

These texts are not contradictory, and we should not seek to expound one part of scripture in a manner that is repugnant to another. We can speak of ‘Processing from’ either in the sense of ultimate origen, or in the sense of point of departure. Very much in the same line as we know oil comes from the refinery but you get it from the petrol (gas) station.

The East sometimes speaks of the monarchical integrity of the Father which might be somewhat akin to the language of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin when he spoke of God the Father as the alpha point of existence and also as the omega point of all existence. This is in lines with the opening lines of the Nicene Creed.

This means our understanding should be that where the Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Spirit has in the first instance proceeded from the Father. This point is entirely consistent with Augustine, Aquinas, and of course Holy Scripture.

My understanding is that in Greek the sense of ‘processing from’ has a much stronger overtone of ultimate source of origin than it does for us in English. So much so that when the Western Rite is celebrated in Greek the filioque is omitted not simply for politeness but because it really does not make correct sense in greek.

My view is that the Filioque should be omitted because:

• It wasn’t part of the Creed as agreed and confirmed by the Councils
• It would be better if all the Church spoke one Creed
• It adds little and confuses much.

We in "the East" (although I am certainly not geographically "eastern" by any means, as an English-speaking American Midwesterner of northern and western European descent) would largely agree with this assessment.

 

[dzheremi]

Yep...the filioque is wrong. If they had intended to say "through the Son", and hence make it amenable to others' preexisting interpretation, they could've said per filium instead. Granted, this is one of the more obscure controversies (in terms of its ultimate point of origin, and moreover just...its point more generally), as there is evidence from the preserved versions of the acts of the Toledan council that the bits dealing with the filioque are probably later interpolations, and that those present at the council may not have in any case understood what they were affirming to be in any sense contrary to what they had received at Constantinople. (Read: They didn't just think that this 'new' version with the filioque was in line with what had been proclaimed before; they may have thought that it belonged to the original text that was affirmed in the Latin version of what was received at Constantinople.) Siecienski's 2010 book on the matter, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy goes into all this in considerable depth, and is well worth reading if this particular period in western church history interests you.

Not to take away too much focus from your very good analysis of the matter, Philip_B. I largely agree with your thoughts (as you might imagine, this particular matter is too late in the chronology of the Church's life for Coptic people to care about it, or even to be expected to know about it but in perhaps very general terms), but I am less in the "the Filioque should be omitted" camp, and more in the "this didn't need to be in the first place" camp. (And it still doesn't...it could be taken away forever tomorrow and it would only be a good thing, from my viewpoint.)

 

[Philip_B]

as there is evidence from the preserved versions of the acts of the Toledan council that the bits dealing with the filioque are probably later interpolations,

The Third Council of Toledo (589) is thought by many to be where this was introduced. The scanned (OCR) version of the council record from the Third Council of Toledo tells a different story.

Synodus Toletana tertia

In the record, despite the dual procession theology expressed in the preface, the Creed of the Council of Constantinople appears twice, once generally and once in the Confession of Recared and both times it appears without the insertion of the Filioque. If you look at the record on the link above, you can use [CTRL] + [F] to do searches for the text and this is a handy search "Ex patre procedentem".

Pusey argued that the insertion was a copying error - what we might call a typo - which would be even sadder, given where it led to in 1054.