Augustine and the Holy Trinity

[ArmyMatt]

In my post I meant that the Creed was hammered out there. The anathemas were later, you’re right. I made it sound like a packaged deal. Poor communication on my part.

only thing, is that the Spirit was hammered out at Constantinople, not Nicaea.

sorry for being a bugger.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Nicean Creed, as I understand it, was written at Nicaea. The stuff about the Holy Spirit was later, but essentially the Nicene Creed originally began st the First Great Council. There were anathemas tied to the Creed then also. Later, at Constantinople the Holy Spirit portion was added with more anathemas?

Am I getting this wrong? I must be talking past you or very off...

only thing, is that the Spirit was hammered out at Constantinople, not Nicaea.

sorry for being a bugger.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

The Nicean Creed, as I understand it, was written at Nicaea. The stuff about the Holy Spirit was later, but essentially the Nicene Creed originally began st the First Great Council. There were anathemas tied to the Creed then also. Later, at Constantinople the Holy Spirit portion was added with more anathemas?

Am I getting this wrong? I must be talking past you or very off...

The skeleton of the creed was finished at niccea, but the creed as we know it today was finished at Constantinople.
If you wiki it you'll see the differences in language and nuances.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Nicean Creed, as I understand it, was written at Nicaea. The stuff about the Holy Spirit was later, but essentially the Nicene Creed originally began st the First Great Council. There were anathemas tied to the Creed then also. Later, at Constantinople the Holy Spirit portion was added with more anathemas?

Am I getting this wrong? I must be talking past you or very off...

everything after "I believe in the Holy Spirit" was at Constantinople, to include His procession from the Father. the only anathemas at Nicaea delt with the Son.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Against the arians If I remember it correctly it was a revalidation of Nicea first and foremost.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Against the arians If I remember it correctly it was a revalidation of Nicea first and foremost.

yes, against the Arians who stayed strong among the Goths.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Right.

everything after "I believe in the Holy Spirit" was at Constantinople, to include His procession from the Father. the only anathemas at Nicaea delt with the Son.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That’s what I thought Ive said? I must be losing it lol.

The skeleton of the creed was finished at niccea, but the creed as we know it today was finished at Constantinople.
If you wiki it you'll see the differences in language and nuances.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In addition, the entire Holy Orthodox Church agreed on the Creed. Nicaea decided that Creed and anathemas were attached to anyone adding or deleting a word of it. Whether Augustine “got it” or not, that Creed was not to be touched.

That’s what I thought Ive said? I must be losing it lol.

Nicaea didn't decide that no one can alter the Creed, especially not concerning the Spirit since the Creed didn't deal with the Spirit. Ephesus and Chalcedon did.

unless I misread something (which is entirely possible)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I said a couple of times that there were “anathemas tied to the Creed” Nicaea. You’re telling me the anathema against Arius wasn’t there???

I’m getting really confused?

I already said later councils added the prohibitions against alterations.

I’m bowing out. I’m getting a migraine. Lol

Nicaea didn't decide that no one can alter the Creed, especially not concerning the Spirit since the Creed didn't deal with the Spirit. Ephesus and Chalcedon did.

unless I misread something (which is entirely possible)

 

[ArmyMatt]

I said a couple of times that there were “anathemas tied to the Creed” Nicaea. You’re telling me the anathema against Arius wasn’t there???

I’m getting really confused?

I already said later councils added the prohibitions against alterations.

I’m bowing out. I’m getting a migraine. Lol

no, that's true. it just sounded like you said Nicaea proclaimed the Creed was unalterable. maybe I read it wrong.

sorry if I gave you a headache! take a Tylenol!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As you know, my life is in total upheaval, on a serious note, and it’s terrifying right now. Please pray for me, Father.

no, that's true. it just sounded like you said Nicaea proclaimed the Creed was unalterable. maybe I read it wrong.

sorry if I gave you a headache! take a Tylenol!

 

[ArmyMatt]

As you know, my life is in total upheaval, on a serious note, and it’s terrifying right now. Please pray for me, Father.

you got it.

pm me if you need to.

 

[TheLostCoin]

In addition, the entire Holy Orthodox Church agreed on the Creed. Nicaea decided that Creed and anathemas were attached to anyone adding or deleting a word of it. Whether Augustine “got it” or not, that Creed was not to be touched.

I don’t buy this argument for the sole fact that the Orthodox Church DID change the Creed - the original creed was in first person plural, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches use the first person singular, and the fact that nobody seems to care that the Latins changed “essence” to “substance” or added “God from God,” or how the Coptics added “Yes” before the “We believe in the Holy Spirit,”

It seems to me that the proper reading of Nicaea is that the Faith of the Creed cannot be changed - and in my humble opinion, I don’t think the Filioque insertion was heretical until Charlemagne declared in a local council that the Byzantines removed the Filioque from the Creed and have deviated from the Faith - an absolute lie, of course, but it would be repeated by Cardinal Humbert when he excommunicated Michael Celuarius.

I’m personally siding with Saint Maximos the Confessor, who said this:

“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….
The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (viz., Monothelitism), they have, to date, made no self-defense, because neither have they gotten rid of the things introduced by them.
But, in accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. One should also keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.”

Unfortunately Florence declared this very thing, that the Son is the Cause of the Spirit, and that they believe the Spirit proceeds from the Son identically to how it does from the Father.

I don’t mind correction, but based on me studying it, those are my two cents.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

As you know, my life is in total upheaval, on a serious note, and it’s terrifying right now. Please pray for me, Father.

Prayers brother, I hope things get sorted out for you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don’t buy this argument for the sole fact that the Orthodox Church DID change the Creed - the original creed was in first person plural, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches use the first person singular, and the fact that nobody seems to care that the Latins changed “essence” to “substance” or added “God from God,” or how the Coptics added “Yes” before the “We believe in the Holy Spirit,”

It seems to me that the proper reading of Nicaea is that the Faith of the Creed cannot be changed - and in my humble opinion, I don’t think the Filioque insertion was heretical until Charlemagne declared in a local council that the Byzantines removed the Filioque from the Creed and have deviated from the Faith - an absolute lie, of course, but it would be repeated by Cardinal Humbert when he excommunicated Michael Celuarius.

I’m personally siding with Saint Maximos the Confessor, who said this:

“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….
The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (viz., Monothelitism), they have, to date, made no self-defense, because neither have they gotten rid of the things introduced by them.
But, in accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. One should also keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.”

Unfortunately Florence declared this very thing, that the Son is the Cause of the Spirit, and that they believe the Spirit proceeds from the Son identically to how it does from the Father.

I don’t mind correction, but based on me studying it, those are my two cents.

the problem with the St Maximos quote (although we agree with him and his definition was repeated by St John of Damascus), is that is not how St Augustine understood it. and his understanding was what Rome based theirs on.

 

[Lukaris]

I cited a work of St. Augustine that showed he affirmed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father from the Apostles’ Creed. The Apostles’ Creed, presently known, is sound but does not address the procession of the Spirit from the Father. In addition, I looked at the index to a complete edition of: The City of God & he rather briefly discusses the Persons of the Trinity there & the filioque tendency seems absent.

I think his association with the filioque is misconceived & overblown.

 

[Markie Boy]

As you know, my life is in total upheaval, on a serious note, and it’s terrifying right now. Please pray for me, Father.

Yes - prayers for you today.

 

[~Anastasia~]

As you know, my life is in total upheaval, on a serious note, and it’s terrifying right now. Please pray for me, Father.

Yes - prayers for you today.

And continued prayers!!!