The Athanasian Creed is significant because it is used to make the claim that "Filioque" ("and the Son") was a doctrine believed from the early years of the Church, and therefore should be added to the Creed. But the Athanasian Creed was not written by St. Athanasius (293-373)! Why historians agree on this is explained by the 19th century Protestant historian Phillip Schaff:
Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 1, Schaff
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.iv.v.html
The Athanasian Creed is also called Symbolum Quicunque, from the first word, 'Quicunque vult salvus esse.'
I. Its origin is involved in obscurity, like that of the Apostles' Creed, the Gloria in Excelsis, and the Te Deum. It furnishes one of the most remarkable examples of the extraordinary influence which works of unknown or doubtful authorship have exerted. Since the ninth century it has been ascribed to Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the chief defender of the divinity of Christ and the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (d. 373). The great name of 'the father of orthodoxy' secured for it an almost œcumenical authority, notwithstanding the solemn prohibition of the third and fourth œcumenical Councils to compose or publish any other creed than the Nicene.
Since the middle of the seventeenth century the Athanasian authorship has been abandoned by learned Catholics as well as Protestants. The evidence against it is conclusive. The Symbol is nowhere found in the genuine writings of Athanasius or his contemporaries and eulogists. The General Synods of Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) make no allusion to it whatever. It seems to presuppose the doctrinal controversies of the fifth century concerning the constitution of Christ's person; at least it teaches substantially the Chalcedonian Christology. And, lastly, it makes its first appearance in the Latin Churches of Gaul, North Africa, and Spain: while the Greeks did not know it till the eleventh century, and afterwards rejected or modified it on account of the Occidental clause on the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. The Greek texts, moreover, differ widely, and betray, by strange words and constructions, the hands of unskilled translators.
The pseudo-Athanasian Creed originated in the Latin Church from the school of St. Augustine, probably in Gaul or North Africa. It borrows a number of passages from Augustine and other Latin fathers. It appears first in its full form towards the close of the eighth or the beginning of the ninth century. Its structure and the repetition of the damnatory clause in the middle and at the close indicate that it consists of two distinct parts, which may have been composed by two authors, and afterwards welded together by a third hand. The first part, containing the Augustinian doctrine of the Trinity, is fuller and more metaphysical. The second part, containing a summary of the Chalcedonian Christology, has been found separately, as a fragment of a sermon on the Incarnation, at Treves, in a MS. from the middle of the eighth century. The fact that Athanasius spent some time in exile at Treves may possibly have given rise to the tradition that the great champion of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity composed the whole.
II. Character and Contents.—The Symbolum Quicunque is a remarkably clear and precise summary of the doctrinal decisions of the first four œcumenical Councils (from A.D. 325 to A.D. 451), and the Augustinian speculations on the Trinity and the Incarnation. Its brief sentences are artistically arranged and rhythmically expressed. It is a musical creed or dogmatic psalm. Dean Stanley calls it 'a triumphant pæan' of the orthodox faith. It resembles, in this respect, the older Te Deum, but it is much more metaphysical and abstruse, and its harmony is disturbed by a threefold anathema.
It consists of two parts.
The first part (ver. 3–28) sets forth the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity, not in the less definite Athanasian or Nicæno-Constantinopolitan, but in its strictest Augustinian form, to the exclusion of every kind of subordination of essence. It is therefore an advance both on the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed; for these do not state the doctrine of the Trinity in form, but only indirectly by teaching the Deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and leave room for a certain subordination of the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. The post-Athanasian formula states clearly and unmistakably both the absolute unity of the divine being or essence, and the tri-personality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God is one in three persons or hypostases, each person expressing the whole fullness of the Godhead, with all his attributes. The term persona is taken neither in the old sense of a mere personation or form of manifestation (πρόσωπον, face, mask), nor in the modern sense of an independent, separate being or individual, but in a sense which lies between these two conceptions, and thus avoids Sabellianism on the one hand, and Tritheism on the other. The divine persons are in one another, and form a perpetual intercommunication and motion within the divine essence. Each person has all the divine attributes which are inherent in the divine essence, but each has also a characteristic individuality or property, which is peculiar to the person, and can not be communicated; the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Holy Ghost is proceeding. In this Trinity there is no priority or posteriority of time, no superiority or inferiority of rank, but the three persons are coeternal and coequal.
If the mystery of the Trinity can be logically defined, it is done here. But this is just the difficulty: the infinite truth of the Godhead lies far beyond the boundaries of logic, which deals only with finite truths and categories. It is well always to remember the saying of Augustine: 'God is greater and truer in our thoughts than in our words; he is greater and truer in reality than in our thoughts.'
The second part (ver. 29–44) contains a succinct statement of the orthodox doctrine concerning the person of Christ, as settled by the general Councils of Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451, and in this respect it is a valuable supplement to the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. It asserts that Christ had a rational soul (νοῦς, νεῦμα), in opposition to the Apollinarian heresy, which limited the extent of his humanity to a mere body with an animal soul inhabited by the divine Logos. It also teaches the proper relation between the divine and human nature of Christ, and excludes the Nestorian and Eutychian or Monophysite heresies, in essential agreement with the Chalcedonian Symbol.
III. The Damnatory Clauses.—The Athanasian Creed, in strong contrast with the uncontroversial and peaceful tone of the Apostles' Creed, begins and ends with the solemn declaration that the catholic faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation herein set forth is the indispensable condition of salvation, and that those who reject it will be lost forever. The same damnatory clause is also wedged in at the close of the first and at the beginning of the second part. This threefold anathema...requires every one who would be saved to believe in the only true and living God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in essence, three in persons, and in one Jesus Christ, very God and very Man in one person...
IV. Introduction and Use.—The Athanasian Creed acquired great authority in the Latin Church, and during the Middle Ages it was almost daily used in the morning devotions...
In the Greek Church it never obtained general currency or formal ecclesiastical sanction, and is only used for private devotion, with the omission of the clause on the double procession of the Spirit.
~~~
The most important reason, however, that we know this Creed was not from St. Athanasius is because his theology opposed the reasoning behind Filioque. The Filioque heresy supposes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Divine Will, or the mutual love between the Father and Son. When the heretic Arius claimed the Son was willed by the Father, and therefore created, St. Athanasius refuted him. He taught that the Son was not willed into being, but is from the Person of the Father according to nature. This necessarily applies to the Holy Spirit, as well, since all three Persons are eternal and uncreated.
St. Athanasius, 3rd Discourse against the Arians: "A man by counsel builds a house, but by nature he begets a son; and what is in building began to come into being at will, and is external to the maker; but the son is proper offspring of the father's nature, and is not external to him; wherefore neither does he counsel concerning him, lest he appear to counsel about himself. As far then as the Son transcends the creature, by so much does what is by nature transcend the will. And they, on hearing of Him, ought not to measure by will what is by nature; forgetting, however that they are hearing about God's Son, they dare to apply human contrarieties in the instance of God."
Catechism of the (False) Council of Trent: "The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Divine Will, inflamed, as it were, with love." (Arian heresy)
Early Latins understood that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son. He is therefore called in scripture the Spirit of the Son, and He proceeds to us, as well:
St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus: With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through Him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.
St. John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge: We do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son, but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son...And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son, for "He breathed," it says, "and He said to His disciples: Receive ye the Holy Spirit" (Jn. 10:12). It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance); it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself which enlightens us and in which we participate.
St. Photios the Great, "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit", Parts 1-6
No comments:
Post a Comment