Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Early Eastern and Western creeds: the subtle, yet deeply profound differences


While rereading J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Creeds, something 'caught my eye' which did not make much of an impact during my earlier readings. On page 194, Kelly penned:

It has become, for example, common place to say that Eastern creeds differ from Western in being "more theological".

He then reflects on a few of those differences; but on the next page, he gets to the real 'meat' of the issue, writing:

But the differences between Western and Eastern formularies can be catalogued more precisely. So far as the first article is concerned [i.e. God the Father], R [the Old Roman Creed] stands apart from later creeds because of its failure to emphasize the oneness of God the Father...Almost without exception the Eastern practice is to assert belief in ONE GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, and to describe Him as MAKER OF ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE or something of the kind. (Page 195)

Moving on, the later, so-called Apostles Creed (which most patristic scholars believe to be an expansion/revision of the Old Roman Creed) also fails "to emphasize the oneness of God the Father".

Continuing this 'tradition', Pope Damasus I (366-384), in what has been termed the Tome of Damasus (a collection of 24 canons composed at a council held at Rome in 382 A.D.), anathematized those who, believed in the Father as the "one God".*

Now, it sure seems to me that this contradicts the Nicene Creed (both 325 and 381) which clearly states that, "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty".

Perhaps I have missed something; if I have, I sincerely hope that our Catholic brothers in Christ (and anyone who thinks I have misread the data at hand) will offer their thoughts on this issue.


*Online resources concerning the Tome of Damasus:

English translation from Theodoret's, Ecclesiatical History, in - The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,  Second Series - volume III (pages 139-141)

Greek and Latin texts from Theodoret's, Ecclesiatical History, in - Migne's Patrologia Graeca, volume 82
(pages 1221-1226)

Denzinger's English translation, in - The Sources of Catholic Dogma (pages 30-32)

Denzinger's Latin text, in - Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum Et De Rebus Fidei Et Morum (pages 32-34)

Turner's critical Greek and Latin edition, in - Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima, volume I (pages 281-294)


Grace and peace,

David

13 comments:

Nick said...

I don't see which of those links provides context for where Damasus said this. If he did though, I don't see why the East never noticed it. As a Catholic, I deny Ecclesial Deism, in which some major Christianity-destroying heresy enters the early church and nobody notice it until the late middle ages.

Also, in a past thread you made, I did not see Augustine's or Aquinas' commentary on the Apostles' Creed deny the "One God" mentioned at the start refers to The Father.

David Waltz said...

Hi Nick,

Thanks much for taking the time to respond; you posted:

== I don't see which of those links provides context for where Damasus said this. If he did though, I don't see why the East never noticed it. As a Catholic, I deny Ecclesial Deism, in which some major Christianity-destroying heresy enters the early church and nobody notice it until the late middle ages.==


From the first link, page 140:

"If any one shall think aright about the Father and the Son but does not hold aright about the Holy Ghost, anathema, because he is a heretic, for all the heretics who do not think aright about God the Son and about the Holy Ghost are convicted of being involved in the unbelief of the Jews and the heathen ; and if any one shall divide Godhead, saying that the Father is God apart and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and should persist that they are called Gods and not God, on account of the one Godhead and sovereignty which we believe and know there to be of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost — one God in three essences, — or withdrawing the Son and the Holy Ghost so as to suggest that the Father alone is called God and believed in as one God, let him be anathema."

And then:

== Also, in a past thread you made, I did not see Augustine's or Aquinas' commentary on the Apostles' Creed deny the "One God" mentioned at the start refers to The Father.==

I think you are referring to the Nicene Creed and not the Apostles Creed; from the AC we read:

"I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth..."

The phrase "One God" is not in the AC.


Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

Dave,

Pope Damasus is condemning anyone who, because of their belief in the Father as one God, in the biblical sense, the Fountain of divinity, would go so far as to deny that the Son and the Holy Ghost could be also identified as God.

Do you believe in three essences? Anathema. Do you insist that the Son and Spirit should be considered Gods? Anathema. Do you disallow that any of the other Persons of the Trinity except the Father may be correctly called God? Anathema.

I can see how you would be sensitive to the question of whether there is a proper usage of the term One God, as applied to the Father by St. Paul, and as recited in the Creeds. Do you doubt that Pope Damasus was familiar with this proper usage? It seems more likely to me, and certainly compatible with the text from Theodoret, that Damasus was attacking any heresy which exaggerated the biblical doctrine or the creedal formula so as to in some manner ontologically diminish the divinity of the Son and Spirit.

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thank you so much for your insightful reflections. I sincerely believe that there is considerable amount of merit and truth to your assessments.

Two questions though come to mind: first, why is it that Damasus does not mention and/or touch on the teaching, "that unto us, there is but one God, the Father"; and second, how do you reconcile the Father being the "one God" with the teaching of the 4th Lateran Council?


God bless,

David

Rory said...

Dave Hi.

There are two truths to maintain. One is about the essential ontology, the other is about the unequal relationship. Pope Damasus avoided speaking to the latter truth. I don't think he was but it is possible he was a material heretic. But there is nothing in my opinion which he taught that is incompatible with the truth which allows us to see why St. Paul affirms the monarchy of the Father in a way denied to the Second and Third Persons of the Blessed Trinity. It would see impossible to convict him of formal heresy on the basis of this text.

Catholic Tradition refers to the Son and Spirit as Second and Third. Why? Is it completely meaningless. No it reflects the same teaching about relational inequality that is necessary to balance the ontological equality.

Rory

Strider said...

I am confident that Pope Damasus' anathema of those who believed in the Father as the one God is referring to Eunomius and his fellow Heterousians, who had just been condemned by the 381 Council of Constantinople. For Eunomius there is one monadic deity. "Father" is simply a synonym for "unbegotten."

See my short recent blog piece on Eunomius.

Justin said...

Thanks for that link, Strider. I enjoyed the comment by mike liccione on relative/absolute aseity. I was coming to similiar conclusions, but he expressed it succinctly.

Strider said...

I appear to have lost my copy of Kelly's book on the creeds; but he appears to be making too much of not much. The 2nd century Roman creed is a primitive baptismal creed. Yes, it does not explicitly affirm the Father as "the one God." It doesn't need to, as it explicitly affirms the Father as God and does not explicitly name either the Son or Spirit as God. It would be interesting to take a look at the liturgical prayers of this period (if such are available). My guess is that the overwhelming majority are addressed to "God," i.e., God the Father, which has remained the normative pattern of liturgical prayer in the West. I really don't think there is substantive difference between East and West on this fine point at this time in history. A lot of theological reflection and speculation is going to have to happen before one can speak of a difference.

David Waltz said...

Hi Strider/Father Kimel,

Last night, you posted:

==I am confident that Pope Damasus' anathema of those who believed in the Father as the one God is referring to Eunomius and his fellow Heterousians, who had just been condemned by the 381 Council of Constantinople. For Eunomius there is one monadic deity. "Father" is simply a synonym for "unbegotten."==

I think that this understanding is a valid reading, which means that it is an expansion of Damasus' earlier condemnation of, "Arius and Eunomius who with equal impiety, though with differences of phrase, maintain the Son and the Holy Spirit to be a creature".


Grace and peace,

David


P.S. In combox dialogue, do you prefer Strider or Father Kimel?

David Waltz said...

Hello again Strider,

Earlier today, you wrote:

==I appear to have lost my copy of Kelly's book on the creeds; but he appears to be making too much of not much. The 2nd century Roman creed is a primitive baptismal creed. Yes, it does not explicitly affirm the Father as "the one God." It doesn't need to, as it explicitly affirms the Father as God and does not explicitly name either the Son or Spirit as God.==

Me: Good point. Any thoughts as to why the Nicene Creed adds "one" ?

==It would be interesting to take a look at the liturgical prayers of this period (if such are available). My guess is that the overwhelming majority are addressed to "God," i.e., God the Father, which has remained the normative pattern of liturgical prayer in the West. I really don't think there is substantive difference between East and West on this fine point at this time in history. A lot of theological reflection and speculation is going to have to happen before one can speak of a difference.==

Me: First, you might want to check out Hammond's, Liturgies Eastern and Western

Second, do you think that a "substantive difference between East and West on this fine point" arises later on; if so, when (and perhaps why).


Grace and peace,

David

Strider said...

Hi, David. Fr Kimel would be fine.

You ask, "Any thoughts as to why the Nicene Creed adds 'one' ?"

Most likely it doesn't "add" anything, as it wasn't using the Apostles' Creed as its basis. I don't have any scholarly support to invoke, but my guess is that the Nicene Fathers, most of whom are Eastern, are simply following traditional usage.

I honestly do not see any issue here between East and West. Did any Eastern bishops in the first millennium ever object to the Apostles' Creed? Has it ever been a matter of dispute?

The clincher, though, I think is this: the Nicene Creed was quickly embraced by the Latin Church. As far as I know, no Latin objected to the opening clause "We believe in one God."

Strider said...

Subscribe. Sorry, I forgot to subscribe earlier.

The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvka said...

325, the year of the Council which defended the dogma of the Holy TRINITY, is also the first number that can be written as the sum of two squares in THREE different ways... Coincidence ? I don't think so... :-)