| Credimus in unum verum Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia in caelo et in terra. Hunc: unum Deum et hanc unam esse divinae substantiae Trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse ipsum Filium, sed habere Filium qui Pater non sit. Filium non esse Patrem sed Filium Dei de Patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque Paraclitum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse nec Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus Pater, genitus Filius, non genitus Paraclitus sed a Patre Filioque procedens. Pater est cui vox haec est audita de caelis: Hic est Filius meus in quo bene conplacui; ipsum audite. Filius est qui ait: Ego a Patre exivi et a Deo veni in hunc mundum. Paraclitus Spiritus est de quo Filius ait: Nisi abiero ego ad Patrem, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos. Hanc Trinitatem personis distinctam, substantiam unitam virtute et potestate et maiestate indivisibilem, indeferentem. Praeter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam, vel angeli vel spiritus, vel virtutis alicuius quae Deus esse credatur. Hunc igitur Filium Dei Deum natum a Patre ante omne omnino principium sanctificasse uterum Mariae virginis, atque ex ea verum hominem sine virili generatum semine suscepisse, duabus dumtaxat naturis, id est deitatis et carnis, in unam convenientibus omnino personam, id est dominum nostrum lesum Christum; nec imaginarium corpus aut fantasmatis alicuius in eo fuisse, sed solidum atque verum; hunc et esurisse et sitisse et doluisse et flevisse et omnis corporis iniurias pertulisse. Postremo a iudaeis crucifixum et sepultum et tertia die resurrexisse. Conversatum postmodum cum discipulis suis quadragesima post resurrectionem die ad caelum ascendisse. Hunc filium hominis etiam Dei filium dici; filium autem Dei Deum hominis filium appellari. Resurrectionem vero futuram humanae credimus carni; animan autem hominis non divinam esse substantiam aut Dei partem, sed creaturam dicimus divina voluntate creatam. | Creemos en un solo Dios verdadero, Padre, Hijo y Espíritu Santo. Hacedor de todas las cosas visibles e invisibles, por quien fueron creadas todas las cosas en el cielo y en la tierra; este sólo Dios, y esta sola Trinidad son de sustancia divina, que el Padre no es el mismo Hijo, sino que tiene un Hijo que no es el Padre, que el Hijo no es Padre, sino que es Hijo de Dios de la naturaleza del Padre, que el Espíritu es el Paráclito, el cual ni es el Padre ni es el Hijo, sino que procede del Padre y del Hijo: El Padre, pues, es Ingénito, el Hijo engendrado, y el Paráclito no engendrado sino procedente del Padre y del Hijo. El Padre es aquel cuya voz fue oída entre los cielos: «Este es mi Hijo en quien me complací grandemente, oídle.» El Hijo es el que dijo: «Yo salí del Padre y vine desde Dios a este mundo»; y el Espíritu Paráclito es de quien el Hijo dijo: «Si no fuere yo al Padre, el Paráclito no vendrá a vosotros»; esta Trinidad es distinta en las personas y es una sola sustancia unida por la virtud e indivisible e indiferente por el poder de la majestad, y fuera de Ella no creemos en la divinidad de ninguna otra naturaleza, ni del ángel, ni del espíritu, ni de ningún poder que se crea ser Dios. Este Hijo de Dios, nacido Dios del Padre antes de todo principio, santificó el seno de la Virgen María, y se hizo de Ella verdadero hombre, engendrado sin semen viril, reuniéndose las dos naturalezas, esto es: la Divina y la carnal en una sola naturaleza, a saber: en nuestro Señor Jesucristo; ni tampoco su cuerpo fue imaginario o fantasmagórico, sino sólido y verdadero: comió, tuvo sed, sufrió el dolor, lloró y padeció todas las molestias del cuerpo. Últimamente fue crucificado por los judíos y, enterrado, resucitó al tercer día. Conversó después con sus discípulos y a los cuarenta días después de la resurrección subió a los cielos. Este Hijo del hombre se dice también Hijo de Dios; pero el Hijo de Dios es llamado también Dios Hijo del hombre. Creemos en la resurrección futura de la carne humana, y sostenemos que el alma del hombre no es una sustancia divina o parte de Dios sino una criatura criada por voluntad divina. |
| I. Si quis autem dixerit aut crediderit a Deo omnipotente mundum hunc factum non fuisse atque eius omnia instrumenta, anathema sit. II. Si quis dixerit atque crediderit Deum Patrem eumdem esse Filium vel Paraclitum, anathema sit. III. Si quis dixerit vel crediderit Dei Filium eumdem esse Patrem vel Paraclitum, anathema sit. IIII. Si quis dixerit vel crediderit Paraclitum vel Patrem esse vel Filium, anathema sit. ... XIIII. Si quis dixerit vel crediderit esse aliquid quod se extra divinam Trinitatem possit extendere, anathema sit. ... | I. Si alguno dijere o creyere que este mundo y todas sus cosas no fueron hechas por Dios Omnipotente, sea anatema. II. Si alguno dijere o creyere que Dios Padre es el mismo Hijo o el Paráclito, sea anatema. III. Si alguno dijere o creyere que Dios Hijo es el mismo Padre o el Paráclito, sea anatema. IV. Si alguno dijere o creyere que el Paráclito es el Padre o el Hijo, sea anatema. ... XIV. Si alguno dijere o creyere que hay alguna cosa que pueda extenderse más allá de la Trinidad divina, sea anatema. ... |
We believe in one true God Father Son and Holy Ghost, maker of visible and invisible things, by whom all is created in Heaven and on Earth. This one God and one Trinity is of divine substance. The Father is not the Son, but hath a Son who is not the Father. The Son is not the Father but the Son of God of the nature of the Father. There is also the Holy Ghost, who himself* is neither Father nor Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore is unborn the Father, born the Son, the Paraclete not born but proceeding from the Father and the Son. The Father is by whom this voice was heard from Heaven: This is my Son in whom I find good pleasure; hear him. The Son it is who said: I have gone out from the Father** and from God I came into this world. The Paraclete Spirit it is of whom the Son saieth: Unless I leave you for the Father, the Paraclete will not come to ye. This Trinity is of distinct persons, united in substance, indivisible, indifferenta in virtue and power and majesty. Beyond this we believe no nature to be divine, whether angels whether spirits, whether of some virtue*** that would be believed to be God. So this Son of God, God born nof the Father before any beginning sanctified the womb of the Virgin Mary, and from it he took on a true man generated without virile seed, only in two natures, that is that of deity and flesh, going together totally in one person, that is our lord Jesus Christ; neither was in him the body imaginary or of some ghost, but solid and true; this one was hungry and thirsty and in pain and weeping and bearing to the end the indignity**** of all flesh. Last he was crucified by the Jews and buried and rose the third day. Shortly after he conversed with his disciples and ascended to Heaven the fortieth day after his resurrection. This one is said Son of Man and also Son of God; and the Son of God is named God, Son of Man. We further believe the future resurrection of human flesh; but that man's soul is neither divine nor part of God, but we say it is a creature created by the will of God.
I. But if anyone should say or believe the world not made by God almighty with all "its instruments", may he be cursed.
II. If anyone should say and believe that God the Father be the Son himself or the Paraclete, may he be cursed.
III. If anyone should say or believe that the Son of God be the Father himself or the Paraclete, may he be cursed.
IIII. If anyone should say or believe that the Paraclete either be the Father or the Son, may he be cursed. ...
XIIII. If anyone should say or believe that there is anything that could extend itself outside the divine Trinity, may he be cursed. ...
Full Latin and Spanish text here***** and English, tentative translation mine own. Now look at this:
| Incipiunt regulae fidei catholicae contra omnes haereses et quam maxime contra Priscillianos, quam episcopi Terraconenses, Kartaginenses, Lusitani et Baetici fecerunt, et cum praecepto papae urbis Leonis ad Balconium episcopum Galliciae transmiserunt. Ipsi etiam et supra scribta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt in concilio Toletano. | Comienzan los artículos de la fe católica contra todas las herejías, y sobre todo contra los Priscilianos, que fueron redactados por los obispos Cartaginenses, Tarraconenses, Lusitanos y Béticos, y enviados con el precepto del papa romano León, a Balconio obispo de Galicia. Son también los mismos que redactaron los veinte cánones anteriores en el concilio Toledano |
| Begin the rules of the catholic faith against all heresies and especially against Priscillianism that the bishops of [the Hispanies] Tarraconense, Cartaginense, Baetica and Lusitania°° made and sent, by order of the Pope of the City°°° Leo°°° to bishop Balconius of Galicia. | |
A.D. 397 is the death of Sts Ambrosius and Martin of Tours, there is also the Council of Carthage that fixes the Bible canon and St Augustine is writing Confessiones.
The wording of the synopsis part is reminiscent of the Quicumque Vult by St Athanasius. Which brings us to when and how he wrote it, I give two quotes from wikipedia:
A medieval account credited Athanasius of Alexandria, the famous defender of Nicene theology, as the author of the Creed. According to this account, Athanasius composed it during his exile in Rome, and presented it to Pope Julius I as a witness to his orthodoxy.[1]
This I hold to be the truth. In the following quote, the arguments of Voss are enumerated. I will answer them in notes following same numbers:
This traditional attribution of the Creed to Athanasius was first called into question in 1642 by Dutch Protestant theologian G.J. Voss,[2] and it has since been widely accepted by modern scholars that the creed was not authored by Athanasius.[3] Athanasius' name seems to have become attached to the creed as a sign of its strong declaration of Trinitarian faith. The reasoning for rejecting Athanasius as the author usually relies on a combination of the following:
1) The creed originally was most likely written in Latin, while Athanasius composed in Greek.
2) Neither Athanasius nor his contemporaries ever mention the Creed.
3) It is not mentioned in any records of the ecumenical councils.
4) It appears to address theological concerns that developed after Athanasius died (including the filioque).
5) It was most widely circulated among Western Christians.[2][4]
5 b)The use of the Creed in a sermon by Caesarius of Arles, as well as a theological resemblance to works by Vincent of Lérins, point to Southern Gaul as its origin.[3]
1) I usually write in Swedish, English, French. But though less good at it, I do write pieces in Spanish too. So, if St Athanasius had about two years of exile in Trier, ending with a journey home over Rome, he had time enough to learn enough to write one piece, and do it in Latin to honour the language where Pope Julius lived.
2 and 5b) The man and his contemporaries do not so in their now extant writings. How much must a man mention each and every little work he does for an occasion in order to prove to Voss he actually wrote it? St Vincent of Lérins about a century later (as much as separates Synoptic Gospels from Papias or so) does mention it.
3) No, but it had no need to, since it was presented to a Pope as a personal mark of orthodoxy, not for public confession.
4) As with two, the type of argument has been used later to tear down orthodoxy altogether: we cannot have any clue permitting us to say something like:
"when Jesus rose or was seen as risen, the Christians had no idea of going out to all peoples, besides believed only in a spiritual resurrection, therefore the accounts must be later"
and similarily we have nothing permitting us to say filioque was only later than St Athanasius a theologoumenon. Indeed, here as with St Athanasius, we see it affirmed without any polemic necessity, just taken in a stride.
5 and 5b) Since St Athanasius was exiled in the West, if he wrote a work here and left it here, it would precisely be here that it was circulated. We see this was early enough the case. Early enough for a Christian who believes Gospels to be genuine, that is.
There are people whose stupidity of mistrust gets them saying "we cannot believe St Athanasius wrote Quicumque Vult, unless this is proven in itself by mentions all over the place and these mentions being preserved in plenty 1600 years later, and also proved in its credibility by there being already a debate like the one between the Franks and Photius" (a debate that indeed arose much later), as there are people ranging from Liberal "Christians" over Jews and Moslems to Atheists who will say: "we cannot believe direct disciples of Christ wrote two of the Gospels unless every author of the first C admits it explicitly and all of the 1st C historians must be preserved". And they also want a proof of its being plausible on top of this, by there being no Ebionites (which there were) who claim salvation is not for all peoples including Jews, by Christ. But in a debate between Christians, I think the latter kind of mistrust is to be not trusted, and I believe the former about St Athanasius' authorship of Quicumque Vult to be precisely as unscholarly (anywhere near ordinary scholarship, the ones who accept the works of Catullus as genuine "though" the earliest mention is by a IXth C possibly somewhat worldly bishop) as the second, and on top of it Voss is so to speak the root heresiarch for the Bultmann°°°° school and similar guys.
So, sorry Thomas Ross Valentine, your history of filioqueµ is simply not historical. It is even slandering the III Council of Toledo that you mention, by saying it "inserted" (there was no such conciliar decision) filioque into the Nicene Creed. It simply recited the Nicene Creed. See for yourself - go to http://shrt.st/16i0 and scroll (text of creed omitted, just the fact of its recital is noted).
You are very right to make the historic facts on "filioque" a decisive criterium for regarding it as orthodox or not. You are only wrong about the historic facts and therefore use the criterium the wrong way.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Beauvais
Michelmass of A.D. MMXI
*In Latin, Spiritus is masculine.
**Biblical proof that the eternal birth, being different from the temporal sending, can indeed be seen as a kind of procession.
a"indifferens" is not the text, but "indeferens", if anyone knows it to be the real word rather than a misspelling for indifferens, please tell me and tell the exact meaning too! I could get as far as "defero aliquid alicui" as in subject something to someone, so it could mean simply "without subjection between them".
***virtue=energeia? Was Gregory Palamas a Priscillianist in a way?
****or injury - injuria means more unjustness than hurt in etymology, but I do not know how far semantics had shifted by then.
***** Here:
Concilio de Toledo I, año 397-400
http://www.filosofia.org/cod/c0397t01.htm
°http://www.filosofia.org/cod/c0397t01.htm - full link for printout versions to be consultable!
°°of all Spain and Portugal
°°°Rome, thus papa urbis means Pope and Leo is Pope St Leo I - who also wrote "ab utroque procedens" and a condemnation of reducing the second and third persons to virtutes (or sephiroth) of the first in his letter to bishop Turribius of Astorga.
°°°°Fern Seeds and Elephants, an essay by C. S. Lewis, is a must read.
µ Full link: http://aggreen.net/filioque/filioque.html.
See also: Answering Steve Rudd
assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/p/answering-steve-rudd.html
