The Filioque: Answering Canonical
Objections
The
Eastern Orthodox church considers the insertion of the Filioque clause to be
canonically improper. They argue that its addition violates several decrees and
canons of various ecumenical councils which expressly prohibit changes to
the Nicene Creed. The arguments against the addition of the filioque clause
from a canonical perspective can be summarized in four points:
First Objection: The 7th canon of
Ephesus prohibits anyone from formulating new creeds
Second Objection: The Council of Chalcedon
anathematized anyone who composed a different creed other than the one
established at Nicaea
Third Objection: The Seventh Ecumenical
Council (otherwise known as the Second Council of Nicaea) prohibited
alterations to the Creed.
Fourth Objection: Only an Ecumenical Council
can make changes to an “ecumenical creed”
First Objection:
On
July 22nd of 431 AD, during the first session of Ephesus I, the
council Fathers decreed:
“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; and that as regards
those who dare to compose another creed, or produce or present it to those who
wish to turn to the knowledge of the truth whether from paganism or Judaism or
any form of heresy, they, if they are bishops or clerics, are to be expelled,
the bishops from episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy, while if they are
laymen they are to be anathematized.”[1]
Mark
of Ephesus argued during the Council of Florence (16 October 1438) that “the Fathers of Ephesus received both Creeds
as one”[2]
(i.e., the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds). Hence, any additions to the Creed are strictly forbidden.
Reply to the First Objection:
Mark’s
statement falsely assumes that the Council of Ephesus included the
Constantinopolitan Creed in its prohibition. However, there isn’t the slightest
trace of evidence to suggest this; since neither the Council of Constantinople
nor its supposed creed was ever mentioned during the entire Council of Ephesus.[3] 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.”[4] [emphasis mine]
Consequently,
the prohibition applies only to the original Nicene Creed, which reads:
“We believe in one God, Father,
Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus
Christ the Son of God, begotten from the Father as only-begotten, that is, from
the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true
God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things
came into being, both those on heaven and those on earth, who for us men and
for our salvation came down, was enfleshed and became man, suffered, and rose on
the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the
dead; and in the Holy Spirit. Those who say, ‘There was when he was not’, and
‘Before being begotten he was not’, and that he came into being from things
that are not, or assert that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or
substance or is changeable or alterable, these the catholic and apostolic
church anathematizes.”[5]
The
events which prompted the issuing of canon 7 (technically, a horos or definition) is aptly elucidated
by Richard Price:
“The session held on 22 July
deserves special mention, since its declaration would prove crucial to
Dioscorus’ strategy in 449 and the reading of its acts would feature
prominently at both Ephesus II and Chalcedon. According to a report presented
by the presbyter Charisius, certain clerics linked to Nestorius had supervised
the readmission to communion of former Quartodecimans. The statement of faith
to which the repentant ex-heretics were asked to subscribe was not the Nicene
Creed, but rather another formulation that contained unacceptably ‘Antiochene’
language on the relation between the divine and human in Christ. In response
the bishops adopted a resolution commanding that, upon pain of deposition and
excommunication, no one might propose or compose a definition of faith that
differed from the one set out at Nicaea. This
far-reaching measure, counted as Ephesus’ seventh canon, would be understood by
later churchmen with varying degrees of rigour. Was it acceptable, they
wondered, to add further elaborations or explanations to deal with questions
that had not been anticipated by Nicaea? Nevertheless, all future doctrinal
discussions would be conducted under the shadow of a canon that many believed
made a crime of innovation and originality beyond what had been established at
Nicaea.”[6] [emphasis mine]
He
writes elsewhere,
“At the first session of
Ephesus II were read the minutes of a session of Ephesus I which condemned
Nestorius for requiring repentant heretics to subscribe to an expanded creed.
This provided a precedent for condemning the Home Synod of 448 for the doctrinal
demands it made on Eutyches.”[7]
During
the first session of Ephesus, Nestorius was condemned for imposing a novel
creed on converts. Many had added to the Nicene Creed before him, but Nestorius
was the only one condemned for doing so. This brings up two important
questions:
(1) Was the Council of Ephesus
applying canon 7 retrospectively; and
(2) Was it applied to Nestorius selectively?
It
defies logic for any council to condemn someone for infringing a rule that did
not exist at the time. It reasons therefore, that the rule against formulating
new creeds must have already existed. This rule must have been implicit, since
we find no explicit prohibition against formulating new creeds during the
Council of Nicaea. The rule itself could not have prohibited minor changes since
we find many bishops and councils adding to the creed after the Nicene Council.
What is prohibited by way of the decree is the composition of radically
different creeds used in the reception of converts.
In
his article, “The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Ephesus,” Thomas
Graumann affirms 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.”[8] [emphasis mine]
Second Objection:
On
22 October 451, during the Fifth Session of Chalcedon, the council Fathers
decreed,
“For which reason this holy,
great and ecumenical council now present, wishing to close off for them every
device against the truth and expound the firmness of the proclamation from of
old, has decreed first and foremost that the
creed of the 318 holy fathers is to remain inviolate. Furthermore, it
confirms the teaching on the essence of the Holy Spirit that was handed down at
a later date by the 150 fathers who assembled in the imperial city because of
those who were making war on the Holy Spirit; this teaching they made known to
all, not as though they were inserting some-thing omitted by their
predecessors, but rather making clear by written testimony their conception of
the Holy Spirit against those who were trying to deny his sovereignty.”[9] [emphasis mine]
Furthermore,
the fifth session of Chalcedon concludes with these words:
“Now that these matters have
been formulated by us with all possible care and precision, the holy and
ecumenical council has decreed that no one is allowed to produce or compose or
construct another creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who
presume either to construct another creed or to publish or teach or deliver
another symbol to those wishing to convert to the knowledge of the truth from
paganism or Judaism or from any heresy whatsoever, the council decrees that, if
they are bishops or clerics, they are to be deposed, bishops from the
episcopate and clerics from the clerical state, while, if they are monks or
laymen, they are to be anathematized.”[10]
In what sense is the original
Nicene Creed to remain inviolate? Surely, the council doesn’t mean that the
precise wording of the creed is unalterable, since the Constantinopolitan Creed
makes substantial additions to it. So, we must interpret the decree to mean
that the Nicene Creed is to remain the symbol of orthodoxy by which all must
subscribe to. The primary concern is the content of the faith, not so much the
formal wording of the creed.
The decree promulgated by Chalcedon is merely a
reissuing of the Ephesine ban. Since Chalcedon adopted a greatly expanded
version of the creed, there can be no doubt concerning the sense in which the
Fathers interpreted the Ephesine ban. However, some might argue that although
the Council of Chalcedon interpreted canon 7 in a loose sense, the council
itself took it a step further by banning all changes to the creed. Against this
view, I cite the opposition of the Alexandrian bishops who cited canon 7 during
the council’s proceedings. It makes no sense for the Fathers of Chalcedon to interpret
the Ephesine ban in a loose sense, and then do an about-face by re-issuing the
same ban in a completely different sense.
Third Objection:
The
Second Council of Nicaea (787) states,
“Therefore, with all diligence,
making a thorough examination and analysis, and following the trend of the
truth, we diminish nought, we add nought, but we preserve unchanged all things
which pertain to the Catholic Church.”[11]
Reply to the Third Objection:
This
is merely a general statement about traditionalism in all matters of faith and
practice. It does not address the question regarding the wording of the creed.
This is obvious when read in the context of the entire decree.
Fourth Objection:
Eastern
“Orthodox” bishop, Timothy Ware, writes,
“The creed is the common
possession of the whole church; if any change is to be made in it, it must be
made by the whole church at an ecumenical council. The West, in altering the
Creed without consulting the East, is guilty (as Khomiakov put it) of “moral fratricide,” of a sin
against the unity of the church.”[12]
Reply
to the Fourth Objection:
Fr.
Richard Price notes,
“There was no sense in the
church of the fourth and fifth centuries that the wording of the creed was
sacrosanct and could only be changed by conciliar degree. The creed we all use
– the so-called Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed – was almost certainly not
issued by the second ecumenical council. This has often been argued; see for
example Ritter’s discussion in Conciliorumoecumenicoumgeneraliumquedecreta,
vol. 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006). Variant versions of the Nicene Creed that
preserved the key clauses about Christ’s divinity and consubstantiality with
the Father were accepted without any need for conciliar approval. See J. Lebon,
‘Les ancienssymbolesdans la définition de Chalcédoine’, Revue
d’HistoireEcclésiastique 32 (1936), 809-76. The canon of Ephesus insisting on
the original Nicene Creed is constantly cited by the Eastern Orthodox, but it
doesn’t help their case. If it bans the addition of the Filioque, it also bans
the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. In fact, it was not with the exact wording
of the creed, but with the impropriety of using a wholly different formula in
the reception of converts.”
In
any event, did Constantinople consult Rome or any of the other Apostolic Sees
when it decided to elevate its own See to second in honor during the Council of
Constantinople? Did it consult Rome when it decided to sanction adultery during
the Council in Trullo (cf. canon 87), as well as an incontinent clergy (cf.
canon 13)? It is clear from these few examples, that the East has a long track
record of doing things without the consultation of Rome. So any claim about a
lack of cooperation on their part is hypocritical to say the least.
[1] Richard Price & Michael Gaddis, “Acts of
Chalcedon,” First Session of Ephesus, (Liverpool University Press 2005), 323.
[2] Ivan N. Ostroumov, “The History of the Council
of Florence” Translated by Basil Popof (London: Joseph Masters and Company 1
January 1861), 67-68.
[3] Richard Price & Michael Gaddis, “Acts of
Chalcedon,” First Session of Ephesus (Liverpool University Press 2005), 300.
[4] Richard Price & Mary Whitby, “Chalcedon in
Context,” The Definition
of Christian Tradition (Liverpool
University Press 2009), 12.
[5] Richard Price & Michael Gaddis, “Acts of
Chalcedon,” First Session of Ephesus (Liverpool University Press 2005), 300.
[6] Richard Price & Michael Gaddis, “Acts of
Chalcedon,” Introduction (Liverpool University Press 2005), 21-22.
[7] ibid., First Session of Chalcedon, note 10, 117.
[8] Justin Mihoc & Leonard Aldea, “A
Celebration of Living Theology: A Festschrift in Honour of Andrew Louth,” (Bloomsbury
Publishing, 13 March 2014) 32-33.
[9] Richard Price & Michael Gaddis, “Acts of
Chalcedon,” Fifth
Session of Chalcedon
(Liverpool University Press 2005), 203.
[11]
Philippe Labbe & Gabriel Cossart, “Sacrosancta Concilia,” Tomus septimus (1
January 1731), 554.
[12] Timothy
Ware, “The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity,” (Penguin
UK, 29 April 1993), 51.
No comments:
Post a Comment