And I know there’s a lot more than that. :sleep:

I don’t generally like How-would-you-feel-if type posts … but, well, I’m going to try making one :blush:: What would you think if someone “schismed” (your word) from Catholicism to become Lutheran, and then said “I can’t believe Catholics and Lutherans are still arguing over justification”?

Peter, the problem there is that going from an Apostolic Church to Luterhanism is a step (or two, or more) beyond mere schism.

Comparisons are generally not perfect. However, I believe this one is, well, moderately good. Coptsoldier “schismed” from Orthodoxy, and now is remarking that he can’t believe Catholics and Orthodox are still arguing about the filioque. I present the comparison strictly FWIW. :slight_smile:

makes sense to me

I left orthodoxy because I dont have an issue with the latin church, including the filioque. I consider myself still 100 percent orthodox. The arguements over the filioque are semantics, ive held that for my 4 years as an orthodox. The arguements between catholics and lutherans are different, because lutherism is indeed heresy. Also when rome signed the justification papers with the lutherans that should of ended their rebellion. They are still heretical schismatics who refuse the authority of rome.

I think it would be helpful to people in the thread if you posted why you thought Catholics did not have the authority to say the Filioque in the creed they recite at mass.

Good point.

The Orthodox usually point out that the Council of Ephesos and the Council of Chalcedon prohibited any alteration of the Creed outside another Ecumenical Council. The Catholic answer is that there was never any alteration, but rather a clarification, originally med by a Synod in Spain and later (much later) also used in Rome.

With regards to Ephesus, I think you must have in mind Canon 7.

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.

Obviously, this is referring to the proper Nicene Creed (either to the text or the faith it expressed) rather than the creed we say in the liturgy (which is derived from the Creed of Constantinople), so however you want to interpret this canon, it doesn’t address the Filioque issue unless you say that the Filioque is heretical, in which case it would be illegitimate to add the Filioque regardless of the canon. Furthermore, our OP has said he wishes to set aside the theology of the Filioque, thereby allowing for the sake of discussion that it is not heretical, and considering only the historical and political aspects. Ephesus does not ever mention anything about ecumenical councils alone having the authority to compose creeds and I do not recall Chalcedon stating anything different on this matter. I think that OPs question stems from some assumption of the relative authority of popes and councils but I don’t think it can be anything explicit in the texts of the councils, which is why I asked him to clarify what would stand in the way of using the creed with the Filioque (if it expressed orthodox doctrine, which we can assume for the scope of this thread).

You make a lot of sense, and I also have not seen anything in any of the councils that actually forbid using the fililoque as it does seem to me that it only helps us to understand better our faith. I would also like to point out that there are no human words that can describe this mystery.

Of course it is not about the words, but rather about the meaning of the words. To the Orthodox, the “new Creed” - introduced by a local synod and later recognized by a Holy See (the Pope) changed the meaning. This would put him under anathema, if it is a new faith, especially if it is seen as doctrine. That is a part of the historical problem.

Also the context is complex. To me it is obvious that the Pope was under pressure when he introduced it. It is hard to see the theological/liturgical use of it in Rome in the 11th century.

I also still wonder why they did not introduce the filioque when they were fighting Arianism in the past? Any help here is appreciated.


The issues over which Constantinople removed the Pope from the diptychs since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 A.D., that I am aware of, have been: 879 Papal jurisdiction (opposed at the Orthodox recognized Fourth Council of Constantinople) (Pope John VIII)

903 anti-pope Christopher used the filioque

1006 Pope John XVIII (1003-9) used the filioque, then the next Pope added it in the creed (Pope Sergius IV 1009-12)

1054 Latin Church replacement of* artos* with azymes and removal of epiclesis (St. Pope Leo IX)
All of these things were not to be done (even in the Latin Church) according to the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

You are exactly right Nils. It isn’t so much the clause itself, but the theology that developed in the West in defense of it.

I think, though, that the insertion of the clause into the creed is also a big part of it.

Yes, I didn’t mean to gainsay that.

There is a relevant passage from the writings of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, on this discussion. In one of his Orations on Baptism, he touches on the Trinity and the relationship between the three persons. He says that the Holy Spirit doesn’t change into the other two by procession. Which seem to imply he believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from the other two! The reference is found on page 88 of Festal Orations by SVS Press, an Orthodox publisher! :wink:

Here is what St. Athenagoras said concerning the Trinity: For we acknowledge a God, and a Son His Logos, and a Holy Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom, of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire, so also we apprehend the existence of the other powers, which exercise dominion about matter and by means of it. (A plea for the Christians, Chpt. 24 MIG 6,945,ANF II,141)

Perhaps you could quote it? I somehow doubt that he is teaching double origin, which is what the RC teaching is about.

Where do I find this teaching in the Church, I’m interested in reading it?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit