The debate over the liceity of the Filioque addition during the Council of Florence

The debate over the liceity the Filioque addition during the Council of Florence

The debate over the liceity of the Filioque addition during the Florentine Council, hinged upon the correct interpretation of canon 7 of Ephesus. Mark of Ephesus took issue with the clause because he believed it violated the decree of the Council of Ephesus. In fact, he went so far as to claim that its addition was the original cause of the schism between the Byzantine and Latin churches. He states, “We shall speak about the addition made in the Creed that it was not rightfully made and ought never to have been made, for it was the original reason for the schism.” (Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, p. 145).

Ivan N. Ostroumov narrates:

“Mark of Ephesus broached the chief subject of the Council discussions. “Love was bequeathed by our Lord Jesus Christ,” he said, “to His disciples, and His peace He left them: but the Church of Rome began to neglect the commandment of love, and broke the peace. At present that same Church, by assembling this Council, evinces a desire of reinstating the peace, but this she can only accomplish by rejecting the opinion which has been and is the cause of disagreement between the Churches; and the present Council will then meet with success when it agrees with the Canons of the former Ecumenical Councils.” With this object in view, Mark then demanded, that the Canons of those Councils touching the subjects of the present disputes should be read in the Council before anything else.”

….

“On the appointed day (16th of October) the books containing the acts of the (Ecumenical Councils were brought into the Council. The referendarius under Mark’s guidance read one by one the definitions of the Councils and Fathers on the Symbol of Faith. Nicholas Secundini translated them into Latin. Mark of Ephesus now and then interrupted the readings by his remarks.

''Let us begin,” said Mark, "with the acts of the Third (Ecumenical Council, so famed for its symbol of the Nicene Fathers, and by the Canon of the Ephesine Fathers themselves on the preservation of the Symbol in its original condition.” Thus, the seventh Canon of the Council of Ephesus and the exposition of faith drawn up at the First Ecumenical Council were read, showing that the Church strictly prohibited the use of any other creeds, after the Nicene, threatening in case of disobedience — Bishops with being deposed, and the laity with excommunication. When these Canons were read, Mark said: "The Fathers of the Council having passed this Canon, have by their own example shown a great respect for the Nicene Creed, for they would not allow the addition of Theotokos, a name so necessary in the economy of our salvation. In the Canon of the Council of Ephesus, plain reference is made to the Nicene, and now the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, in which the dogma of the procession of the Holy Ghost is more developed. To explain this, Mark said, that the Fathers of Ephesus received both Creeds as one, and called it the Nicene Creed from respect to the Council which gave rise to it, just in the same manner as the following Councils also called it the Nicene Creed. Lastly, to explain the Ephesine Canon, and confirm all in the conviction, that this Canon prohibits not only the drawing up of any other Creeds, but also any explanation whatever of the Nicene Creed by means of any addition, Mark quoted the words of S. Cyril of Alexandria, who presided over the Council of Ephesus, contained in his epistle to John of Antioch. In this epistle S. Cyril forbids any change whatsoever in the Symbol, be it even in a word, or syllable. This epistle, Mark continued, was read with many other epistles at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which received and confirmed it.

Then was read the decree of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (in the 5th act), commanding all to receive the Nicene Creed and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creeds as one. "For the Fathers of this Council," added Mark, "on reading both these Creeds, said: This holy Creed is sufficient for the full knowledge of the truth, for it contains in itself the full doctrine on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” (The History of the Council of Florence, translated from the Russian by Basil Popoff, pp. 65 – 68)

To argue against the addition of the Filioque clause, Mark of Ephesus relied on the false premise that “the Fathers of Ephesus received both Creeds as one” (that is, the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds). His statement presumes that the Council of Ephesus adopted both creeds into the liturgical life of the Church. However, there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence to confirm this. This fact is proven by two points. (1) The Constantinopolitan Creed was neither mentioned nor alluded to throughout the entire council. And (2) the only creed recited was the Nicene. (cf. Acts of Chalcedon, First Session of Ephesus, p. 300) David Gwynn affirms:

"Having thus proclaimed both the authority of the Nicene Creed and its correct interpretation by Cyril and the other approved Fathers, the council of 431 then proceeded to pass what has become known as canon 7 of Ephesus. 'The holy council laid down that no one is allowed to produce or write or compose another creed beside the one laid down with the aid of the Holy Spirit by the holy fathers who assembled at Nicaea' (quoted in Acts of Chalcedon 1.943). By Nicaea the bishops in 431 meant the creed of 325, for there is no mention of the Council of Constantinople in 381 or its creed in the Acts of Ephesus I or in the writings of Cyril, and this canon was to exert an important influence on subsequent debates. (Chalcedon in Context, The Definition of Christian Tradition, p. 12)

Although the Latin bishops did not argue from this basis, they nonetheless insisted that canon 7 only prohibited ‘changes to the faith’ of the creed, and not the formal wording. Aloysius de Pirano, bishop of Forli, argued,

“There was a gradual evolution in the faith. The Old Testament led to the New; the New Testament led to the Creeds. The Apostles' Creed reads; 'I believe in the Holy Ghost'; Nicaea and Constantinople wrote: 'who proceeds from the Father'; that in turn led to the 'and from the Son', which is therefore not an addition. Nor is it forbidden. Though the Greeks say that till the Council of Ephesus the Fathers could add to the Creed, that must be modified to mean that the Fathers in a General Council could do so, but not individuals. But to get to the roots of the question we must investigate the intention of the framers of the prohibition. What they proposed was to check false faiths. Such power can never be denied to the whole Church or to its head, ‘with whom lies all the power and right over the universal Church’, to confront heresy. Such was not the intention of the framers of the law, as the action of the Council in regard to Nestorius and the letters both of Celestine and Cyril show. That prohibition was not new. That had been applied to the Apostle’s Creed, yet the later Creeds did add. So what is forbidden is, not to clarify the traditional faith, but to produce a different one – that was why Nestorius was condemned.” (Joseph Gill, Council of Florence, pp. 155-156)

Fr. Richard Price writes:

“Nestorius was condemned for heresy at Session I of Ephesus. This condemnation was supplemented at a later session, where Nestorius was condemned (implicitly, not by a formal decree) for imposing a novel creed on converts. This rule was presented as a traditional one. The new canon did not intend to set up a new rule, but to reinforce a traditional one. So Nestorius was not condemned for infringing a rule that did not at the time exist.

This canon did indeed not exclude minor additions to the Nicene Creed. But it did exclude using a radically new formula when receiving converts. Chalcedon did indeed not breach this.”

In his article, “The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Ephesus,” Thomas Graumann confirms this view:

"What is prohibited in this way by the horos, is in a narrow and specific sense the usage of another declaration, such as the incriminated ekthesis, for the conversion of pagans, Jews and heretics or schismatics. The horos declares the condemnation of a distinct practice, it does not prescribe, however, the closure of all further dogmatic discussion or declaration; nor does it stipulate adherence to the precise wording of the Creed of 325. Rather, the very start of the minutes from which the horos is taken acknowledges the continual difficulty and necessity of the Creed’s interpretation and recognizes the need for authenticating this process. While it makes no mention of the earlier approbation of Cyril’s letter, this very process could be seen to illustrate the way in which the Creed’s effective canonization left open – even more, demanded – its continuous re-thinking and interpretative appropriation after the model of the Fathers. Indeed, it was this practice that alone was able to guard it against abuse and error. Once separated from this context, the Canon could be read in a much more restrictive vein as potentially precluding any additional statements from the delineation of orthodoxy – as is already the case in the second council of Ephesus.” (A Celebration of Living Theology: A Festschrift in Honour of Andrew Louth, pp. 32-33)

Despite hearing the sound arguments of the Latins, Mark of Ephesus remained unpersuaded by them.  In early June of 1439, he wrote:

... since I hold that the holy Symbol of the faith must be preserved intact as it was issued ... never will I admit to communion those who have presumed to add in the Symbol the innovation about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, so long as they stand fast by such an innovation.... All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils, and all the divine Scriptures warn us to flee the heterodox and to hold ourselves aloof from their communion. Shall I, therefore, in despite of these, follow those who bid us unite behind the facade of a fictitious union, who have adulterated the holy and divine Symbol and brought in the Son as a second cause of the Holy Spirit? (The Council of Florence, p. 166)

Although it could be argued that Mark of Ephesus was wrong to assume that the insertion of the Filioque clause was the original cause of the schism (a position which I am in agreement with), it still remains that several leading figures did consider it sufficient reason to remain out of communion with the Latin Church. In fact, there are still many Eastern Orthodox bishops who insist that the Filioque clause should be removed from the Creed, on the basis that it violates canon 7. Such misguided suggestions will never bring about unity, especially when based on erroneous reasoning.