[rhadsen]

It seems to me that the Nicene Creed belongs to the entire church and shouldn't be changed unless the entire church agrees to it. Therefore, I'm skeptical about whether the Filoque clause should have been added. However, I'm hoping that someone can present the other point of view. I'm looking forward to seeing what you have to say, and perhaps learning.

Rob

[RickJ]

A very good question... but a part of the question must be defined before answering it: Who is "the entire Church"?

[rhadsen]

I guess I'm mostly asking if it should have been changed without the approval of the Eastern Churches. I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't have been, but I'd like to hear the RC view.

Rob

[ScottRC]

I guess I'm mostly asking if it should have been changed without the approval of the Eastern Churches. I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't have been, but I'd like to hear the RC view.

Was the Creed actually replaced, or should/could it be considered a later creed totally separate from the N-C Creed?

What leads you to believe the Creed can not be "changed" since the evidence (the change from Nicea to Constantanople) shows that it was changed at least once?

Does the RCC actually need the approval of the EO to do anything?

[Fr_Chuck]

The issue is that the idea of the Church Council was to include the complete church, that included the church of the East and West, since they were the original church, For the Orthodox, none of the councils held without them can not be considered a true council, since it did not include the entire church and all of its Bishops.

[RickJ]

I'm believe that we RC's should do all reasonably possible to return to unity with the Eastern Churches... and am thankful that this realization goes all the way "to the top"... From Vatican II to the latest Catechism - and many other fantastic ecumenical efforts.

[ScottRC]

The issue is that the idea of the Church Council was to include the complete church, that included the church of the East and West,

I don't think that is the issue at all...

History shows that there were regional councils and that these were used by BOTH the east and west for administration... so certainly not EVERY Council was intended to be an Ecumenical Council which had authority over the entire Church.

The Council of Toledo did not bind ROME and the filioque was not accepted in Rome for almost 500 years, so the objection is theological (mainly) and not simply a matter of ecclesiastical authority.

As an aside, watching the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch recite the Creed in Greek (without the filioque) shows what is possible in the future.

[rhadsen]

I don't think that is the issue at all...

History shows that there were regional councils and that these were used by BOTH the east and west for administration... so certainly not EVERY Council was intended to be an Ecumenical Council which had authority over the entire Church.

The Council of Toledo did not bind ROME and the filioque was not accepted in Rome for almost 500 years, so the objection is theological (mainly) and not simply a matter of ecclesiastical authority.

As an aside, watching the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch recite the Creed in Greek (without the filioque) shows what is possible in the future.

Scott,

That's what I was looking for - a RC perspective. Can you cite some examples of regional councils? Do you feel that the Western church could modify the creed as it wishes for use in the West even though originally it was a creed for the Eastern and Western churches? How would you feel about the East modifying the creed? Should a non Ecumenical Council be modifying a creed that was born in an Ecumenical council? A lot of questions I know, but I'm trying to get a feel for what your thoughts are on this topic.

Rob

[ScottRC]

Can you cite some examples of regional councils?

I would say that the debate over the Canon of Scripture led to several Church Councils or Synods, which were convened to deal with the matter: notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419.

NONE of these were Ecumenical Councils and did not speak for the entire Church.

You can see the development of these local "synods" as early as Nicea:
"Accordingly, in order that there may be proper opportunity for inquiry into the matter, it is agreed that it would be well for synods to be held each year in each province twice a year, so that these inquiries may be conducted by all the bishops of the province assembled together..."
Canon #5

And further developed at Constantanople I:
"If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with the custom in force at the time of the fathers."
Canon #2

Notice the appeal to Nicea and "the fathers"... beautiful stuff.

Do you feel that the Western church could modify the creed as it wishes for use in the West even though originally it was a creed for the Eastern and Western churches?

I don't think they can modify the NC Creed... that can not be changed.

But I certainly think a NEW and developed Creed can be formulated and expressed by the east or west whenever they so choose. (like the Athanasian Creed)

The Creed is a profession of faith... and our faith grows and develops over time, and so should the Creeds.

How would you feel about the East modifying the creed?

As long as their reasoning was orthodox, I couldn't care less... their difference in Sacraments and Liturgy are certainly no less important, but we don't seem to mind those differences.

Should a non Ecumenical Council be modifying a creed that was born in an Ecumenical council?

Just as long as they don't believe the local council has AUTHORITY over the EC, then I think they can do as they please... the Bishops of a particular area are the legitimate pastors of that community and should be able to do as they please provided their actions are not CONTRARY to scripture and tradition.

A lot of questions I know, but I'm trying to get a feel for what your thoughts are on this topic.

I enjoy this a lot... hope I'm helping you understand the RC perspective (or at least my own as a RC) on this issue.

[rhadsen]

I don't think they can modify the NC Creed... that can not be changed.

What leads you to believe the Creed can not be "changed" since the evidence (the change from Nicea to Constantanople) shows that it was changed at least once?

Scott, These two quotes appear to be at odds with each other. Did your view change, or is there some way that you can merge these two ideas?

In my opinion, you could modify the Nicene creed, but then it would have to be renamed since it would no longer be the creed of Nicea. Does that make sense?

I enjoy this a lot.... hope I'm helping you understand the RC perspective (or at least my own as a RC) on this issue.

And likewise.

Rob

[ScottRC]

Scott, These two quotes appear to be at odds with each other. Did your view change, or is there some way that you can merge these two ideas?

In my opinion, you could modify the Nicene creed, but then it would have to be renamed since it would no longer be the creed of Nicea. Does that make sense?

Yes it makes sense...

It all boils down to these two questions:

1. Is it true that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son?
2. Is it lawful to insert an affirmation of this into the Creed, without a consultation with the entire Church, East and West alike, perhaps in the form of a Council like those of Nicea and Constantinople in ancient times?

"Let it be granted that the insertion of the FILIOQUE by the West, without due consultation with the East, was a grievous offense. The question still remains: is the doctrine true. And we here urge our Eastern brethren to consider the doctrine on its own merits, not permitting their judgement as to its truth to be swayed by their indignation at the manner of its proposal."
- by: James E. Kiefer, CHRISTIA File Archives

My take:

It is true... but should NOT be in the Creed.

What about you?

[RickJ]

I think I'm with you, Scott. Frankly I do not understand the theological significance of "who" the Spirit proceeds from - as long as we affirm the Trinity: ONE God in 3 "persons".

... so I can recognize the value of not defining this particular thing in the Creed itself.

... Pardon me in advance if there is some important theological thing that I am not recognizing.

[ScottRC]

...Pardon me in advance if there is some important theological thing that I am not recognizing.

Most of this is way beyond my personal level of understanding... I prefer to love God and serve Him... and while I respect those who ponder these "details", they don't do much to add to my personal faith.

If you are interested, here are a few good compare/contrast writings on the filioque:

THE FILIOQUE CLAUSE

The Filioque

Peace be with you my friend.

[RickJ]

Your Ecumenical attitude is to be commended. It is indeed sad that our faith is so divided over things that may or may not be as significant as people make them.

[ScottRC]

Your Ecumenical attitude is to be commended. It is indeed sad that our faith is so divided over things that may or may not be as significant as people make them.

Thank you my friend... I appreciate that.

I wonder if we might start a thread some time about what are the "basics" of the Christian faith... I would love to see the day where we can agree on a set of principles (well, like a Creed) that we could gather around but respect others diversity in beliefs beyond that... it would certainly be a way for us to finally become one Church like the Lord commanded.

Would you be interested in participating in a thread like that?