Nicene Creed

josephlee24 · Jul 12, 2004

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son."
I have become aware of the fact that "and the Son" is not part of the original Nicene Creed but was something added on sometime around 1000AD. Can anyone justify this addition?

Cjwinnit · Jul 12, 2004

The original Nicene Creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 ended just before the words, "We believe in the Holy Spirit..." The Third Ecumenical Council reaffirmed the creed in this form and explicitly forbade making additional revisions to it.

All Eastern Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches omit the words "and the Son" (the filioque clause), from the description of the Holy Spirit, in keeping with the first seven Ecumenical Councils. Those words were not included by the Council of Nicaea or of Constantinople, but were added later by Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox churches consider their inclusion to be a heresy. The Anglican Communion is generally sympathetic to the Orthodox position, and both versions are authorised, but inertia leads most churches to continue to include the Filioque except during ecumenical services.

The phrase "and the son" (filioque in Latin) was first used in Toledo, Spain in 587, and was acknowledged as early as 447 at Rome by Pope Leo I without the consultation or agreement of the other four patriarchs of the Church at that time. The purpose of its addition in Spain was to counter a heresy that was local to that region. The practice spread then to France where it was repudiated at the Gentilly Council in 767. Emperor Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope Leo III forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets so that his conclusion may not be overturned in the future.

PaladinValer · Jul 12, 2004

I believe the next edition of the Book of Common Prayer in my ECUSA will omit or put in brackets the filioque clause. I don't say it anyway when we recite the Nicene Creed anyhow

SolomonVII · Jul 12, 2004

How does the filioque clause change the understanding of Christianity? In a practical sense, what would be different between those that believe state the filioque clause in their Creed each week, and those that don't?

josephlee24 · Jul 12, 2004

Jesus said that blastphemy against the Holy Spirit is something that will not be forgiven.
Could the phrase "and the Son" be blastphemy against the Holy Spirit? Can it be backed Biblically?

PaladinValer · Jul 12, 2004

The problem with the filioque clause was that it was added in the Western portion of the Church without consultation of all Christians (mainly from the Eastern portion). I don't say "Vatican Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" since it occurred before the Great Schism.

The Second Ecumenical Council declared that the Nicene Creed was fixed after they added the portion about the Holy Spirit. In that portion, it reads "who proceeds from the Father." It has no mention of the Sun.

In order for that to change, there had to be another Ecumenical Council, but with the Church as fractured as it is, this will prove difficult. As such, The Orthodox Churches as well as many Anglicans/Episcopalians like myself among others recite the Creed without the filioque clause out of respect for the Second Ecumenical Council's decision.

If there were to be an Eighth Ecumenical Council and in it, the filioque clause was included into the Creed, then I would have no problem reciting it. Until then, IMO, Holy Tradition demands me not to include it in my reciting of the Nicene Creed.

SolomonVII · Jul 12, 2004

.....

PaladinValer · Jul 12, 2004

solomon said:
Out of respect for Tradition, this is understandable. But as your comments about otherwise having no problem with it imply, it does not change any essential meaning of Christianity.

You lost me.

For something to be considered heretic, does this not imply that following such a belief will lead people away from a belief in the salvation of Christ, or lead to intolerable societal conditions. Gnosticism for example, could lead to the body either being denigrated through wanton sexual practices, or conversely to a society that thinks sex so inherently evil that they cease to procreate. Other heretic beliefs that posit Yaweh as evil lead to a position where the levitican context of Jesus' sacrifice is lost for all time.

Hold on a second! I never said or implied anything about heresy; please do not put things in my mouth that I never said. I do not believe those who include or recite the filioque clause as part of the Nicene Creed are heretics. Far, far from it.

The context of the addition of the filioque clause, as stated in threads above, was to battle heresy in Spain. How it was to do this was not stated, but need this particular difference between the different branches of Christianity need necessarily be a cause for continuing Schism? My own opinion would be that it is mainly a red herring.

I do not doubt the noble intention of the filioque clause. What I doubt was its formal inclusion within the Creed. If a person wishes to use it to combat heresies, by all means use it! But for actual recitation as per a liturgy, then I don't believe it belongs in the Nicene Creed.

SolomonVII · Jul 12, 2004

.....

SolomonVII · Jul 12, 2004

josephlee24 said:
Jesus said that blastphemy against the Holy Spirit is something that will not be forgiven.
Could the phrase "and the Son" be blastphemy against the Holy Spirit? Can it be backed Biblically?

I do think it can be backed biblically by Jesus' something ot the effect that he must leave in order for us to recieve the paraclete to help us after his worldy stay was over. (I'll try to look this up when I have a moment, and amend this post accordingly).
Honestly, I can see of no way that this would be a blaspheny against the Spirit though. Jesus is God too!

edit to include from Gospel of John, bold print most relevant)
The Work of the Holy Spirit

5"Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' 6Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. 7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt[1] in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
16"In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me."

Oblio · Jul 12, 2004

The filioque diminishes the relationship of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity and thus changes the foundational relationship of Christianity.

PaladinValer · Jul 12, 2004

solomon said:
Me said:

the filioque clause was included into the Creed, then I would have no problem reciting it

Click to expand...

Would not this imply that you do not have a problem with the clause per se? If the clause changed something essential to doctrine, how could you not have a problem reciting it under any circumstances.

Would you like to look at that sentence closer? Please do not quote me out of context like this again. For one its rude and for two, its prohibited in CF rules.

From (not your post) Post # 2
and the Eastern Orthodox churches consider their inclusion to be a heresy.

I know that you are not the Anglican making this claim about EO. Sometimes, out of laziness, I refer to what has already been referred to yet not sufficiently discussed. This particular claim does seem worthwhile discussing though, by anyone interested, if not by you yourself.

Then why are you quoting me before the text in red? What does what I have to say have to do with your rebuttal against an entirely different person?

My questions are more to do with what does this phrase change in a practical sense, and if indeed such a oft-quoted phrase is sufficient reason for continuing schism.

It is because only an Ecumenical Council could change the Creed.

katherine2001 · Jul 12, 2004

Oblio, what's the name of your cat? I may vote for him/her as President. You could be First Father!

Momzilla · Jul 12, 2004

I would not go so far as to brand those who recite the filioque as heretics (such judgments are not mine to make anyway). I agree with Oblio, however, that the insertion of the filioque into the Creed is theologically incorrect in that it creates a misunderstanding of the nature of the Godhead. Jesus said that he and the Father are one but that the Father is greater than Jesus, indicating that God the Father is the wellspring of divinity. Ergo, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but not from the Son, as Jesus himself indicates in the passages already quoted.

josephlee24 · Jul 12, 2004

I would like to thank the ppl who addressed my questions. Try not argue and fight too much. Good Luck and God Bless.

djns9437 · Jul 13, 2004

Bardas was denied the regent's crown because of a pesky little problem with incest.Bardas did what a Byzantine emperor always did when confronted with this problem.He deposed and exiled the patriarch (Ignatius) and had him replaced.Enter Photius,whom the Pope refused to recognize(excommunicated him).After a decade of futile negotiations,Photius retaliated by calling a synod at Constantinople in 867,at which he declared he was excommunicating the Pope and the Western Church.He cited the tired old grounds of the West's fasting on Saturday,dating Lent differently,encouraging a celibate priesthood,reserving the power of confermation to bishops rather than priests,and for holding to the idea that the Holy Spirit was transmitted by both the Father and the Son. This last point would be known as the filioque controversy and was to provide the most important theological split between the East and West.What is particularly odd about the filioque is the nature of the dispute.That the Holy Spirit came from both the Father and the Son was traditional Christian belief,a part of Trinitarian orthodoxy upheld against every Eastern variation of the heretical Monophysites.What mad it controversial was its insertion by the Roman Church into the Nicene Creed in order to make this point clear to the newly converted tribes of the West,some of whom had been Arians and unsteady in their own understanding of the Trinity.Even in Rome,this insertion was controversial,as it meant a change in the established formula.It was accepted,however,because it clarified Church doctrine,rather than altered it.
But Photius used the insertion of the filioque as an unlikely stick with which to beat an unlikely source,Rome and the Western church,with an unlikely crime:heresy.Rousing Byzantine nationalism against Rome suddenly made the filioque a national and imperial cause in the East.Eastern bishops had been trained for centuries in affirming heretical innovations.This time they condemed Rome for changing the Creed,but on grounds that shaded Eastern theology to Monophysitical and Arian views of Jesus-heresies,of course,that many Eastern clerics had eagerly embraced before.Bizarrely,it is this issue-as well as the denial of papal supremacy and other minor addenda-propounded by Photius,an illegally appointed patriarch defending an incestuous emperor,that divides the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches to this day. Taken from the book TRIUMPH by H.W. Crocker III

prodromos · Jul 13, 2004

Oblio said:
The filioque diminishes the relationship of the Son in the Holy Trinity and thus changes the foundational relationship of Christianity.

I think you meant to say it diminishes the relationship of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity

prodromos · Jul 13, 2004

djns9437 said:
Taken from the book TRIUMPH by H.W. Crocker III

If the text you quoted is indicative of the quality and scholarship of the rest of the book, I don't think I will bother reading it. There are more than a couple of factual errors in that excerpt alone.

John.

Iacobus · Jul 13, 2004

djns9437 said:
Bardas was denied the regent's crown because of a pesky little problem with incest.Bardas did what a Byzantine emperor always did when confronted with this problem.He deposed and exiled the patriarch (Ignatius) and had him replaced.Enter Photius,whom the Pope refused to recognize(excommunicated him).After a decade of futile negotiations,Photius retaliated by calling a synod at Constantinople in 867,at which he declared he was excommunicating the Pope and the Western Church.He cited the tired old grounds of the West's fasting on Saturday,dating Lent differently,encouraging a celibate priesthood,reserving the power of confermation to bishops rather than priests,and for holding to the idea that the Holy Spirit was transmitted by both the Father and the Son. This last point would be known as the filioque controversy and was to provide the most important theological split between the East and West.What is particularly odd about the filioque is the nature of the dispute.That the Holy Spirit came from both the Father and the Son was traditional Christian belief,a part of Trinitarian orthodoxy upheld against every Eastern variation of the heretical Monophysites.What mad it controversial was its insertion by the Roman Church into the Nicene Creed in order to make this point clear to the newly converted tribes of the West,some of whom had been Arians and unsteady in their own understanding of the Trinity.Even in Rome,this insertion was controversial,as it meant a change in the established formula.It was accepted,however,because it clarified Church doctrine,rather than altered it.
But Photius used the insertion of the filioque as an unlikely stick with which to beat an unlikely source,Rome and the Western church,with an unlikely crime:heresy.Rousing Byzantine nationalism against Rome suddenly made the filioque a national and imperial cause in the East.Eastern bishops had been trained for centuries in affirming heretical innovations.This time they condemed Rome for changing the Creed,but on grounds that shaded Eastern theology to Monophysitical and Arian views of Jesus-heresies,of course,that many Eastern clerics had eagerly embraced before.Bizarrely,it is this issue-as well as the denial of papal supremacy and other minor addenda-propounded by Photius,an illegally appointed patriarch defending an incestuous emperor,that divides the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches to this day. Taken from the book TRIUMPH by H.W. Crocker III

Good heavens, the National Enquirer of history books! I'm thinking we'll see Connie Selleca when the Lifetime Network makes this into the inevitable movie.

Pardon the pun, but this is a crock.

James

prodromos · Jul 13, 2004

For a more scholarly approach to the period in question I recommend you read "The Photian schism: history and legend" by Catholic historian Francis Dvornik.

Its in the Catholic Central Library

John.

Nicene Creed

josephlee24

Guest

Advocatus Diaboli (Retired)

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

josephlee24

Guest

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Creed or Chaos

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Veteran

Gettin' that old time religion!

josephlee24

Guest

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency