Why the Second Ecumenical Council doesn’t prove it’s acceptable to change the Creed.
“The Creed was changed at Constantinople I, so it wasn’t wrong to add the filioque to the Creed as long as it taught the truth.” Have you ever heard this before? It’s a common reply from papists concerning the supposed legality of the papal addition of the filioque into the Symbol of Faith. It’s hideously wrong, and I will show why it is impermissible to change even one syllable from the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople.
The most important thing to note concerning the Creed is that changing it is forbidden without qualification. They do not say “the Symbol must not be changed except with a correct belief.” Nor do they say “The Symbol must not be changed except by common consent.” No, they forbid all situations wherein the Creed is changed. Let us see Canon 7 of The Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.
Council of Ephesus (431), Canon 7
“the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different 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.”
Ephesus clearly identifies the Creed of Nicaea as being the only Creed acceptable to Christians. If some other Creed were presented, it would not be that of Nicaea, but that of something else. And this belief was common before and after the composition of the canon.
Pope Leo III (816)
“ For the Fathers made no such distinction as this in their decree: nor did they allow the well-intentioned, and forbid only the ill-intentioned to do this; but simply and absolutely forbade, that any should do it.”
Again he lays out that the Creed absolutely must not change, even the well-intentioned (or the pious) are forbidden from adding to it.
Council of the Holy Wisdom (879)
But if anyone, departing from this sacred symbol handed down from our blessed and holy fathers until our time, should dare to write and designate a creed, attempting to diminish the authority of the confession of those divine men and to include it within their own fabricated doctrines, presenting this common teaching to the faithful or even to those who are returning from some heresy, and thereby adulterating or falsifying the antiquity of this sacred and venerable standard, let them be boldly condemned in accordance with the already pronounced verdict of the holy ecumenical councils before us.
The Council of the Holy Wisdom was confirmed by all the Ancient Patriarchates, including Rome (this being the only Ecumenical Council the Pope was physically present for). Before this passage, they had reiterated the Creed which did not have the addition of the filioque, identifying the Creed without the filioque to be the “Sacred Symbol” from which any departure was presumed a “fabricated doctrine.” The context for the calling of this council was Frankish missionaries entering into Bulgaria with the filioque.
Pope John VIII (882)
“If anyone in defiance of this holy Creed dare to set forth any other, or to add or subtract from this Creed which has been handed down to us, he is condemnable and an alien to every Christian confession.”
What is important to observe in the quote of Pope John VIII is that Rome themselves did not use the filioque. He said this in 879 in order to acknowledge the Universal Creed as that of the Universal Church.
We can see clearly here that there was an expectation that not one jot or tittle was to be changed about the Creed of Nicaea, and this would naturally exclude the filioque even if the addition were true.
Didn’t Constantinople I change the Creed?
Some people take the belief that the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I did not change the Creed, but simply elaborated on it. I, however, do not take this view. In the first place, many would argue that the filioque does not change the Creed, but simply elaborates on it. My second point will be elaborated here: Constantinople’s change to the Creed was completely legal.
How could it be legal when I just covered our Church’s rejection to any and all changes to the Creed, even if the change be pious? The circumstance is as such, the elaboration on the Creed at Constantinople I and the prohibition on changing the Creed at Ephesus were both adopted as universal rules of the Church simultaneously at the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. What do I mean?
It is wrong to think of the Ecumenical Councils in a purely linear way. If you have an idea that each Council immediately became universal law the moment it ended, you are wrong. Every Council had to be declared Ecumenical at a subsequent Council, and not every Council was universally acknowledged until long after its conclusion. The Council of Nicaea was immediately declared Ecumenical both at Cnople I and Ephesus, however, Ephesus, despite being the third council, did not acknowledge Cnople I at all, and so did not accept the Cosntantinopolitan Creed. The fathers of Ephesus were of the belief that Nicaea was the ONLY Ecumenical Council at that time, even though Cnople I had been convoked 50 years earlier. So, Cnople I was not Ecumenical by the time of Ephesus.
When Ephesus prohibited changes to the Creed, they prohibited changes only to the Creed of Nicaea, which would have naturally excluded the Consantinopolitan Creed except for the fact that Ephesus wasn’t considered Ecumenical yet. It wasn’t until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 that both Cnople I and Ephesus were acknowledged as Ecumenical, thus universally legalizing the decrees of both of them simultaneously. As a result of this, the canon of Ephesus prohibiting changes to the Creed were now applying to the Creed of Constantinople.
And since Cnople I was convoked before it was illegal to change the Creed, it therefore legally changed the Creed. Any additions after Chalcedon were absolutely forbidden, down to the jot and tittle, as they say themselves:
Council of Chalcedon (451), Session 5
(after having read the Niceno-Constantinople Creed)
“These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith, nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others. But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed to as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized.”
And again, that this Creed not be changed by anyone, the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III says:
Council of Constantinople III (681), Definition of Faith
(after having read the Niceno-Constantinople Creed)
“we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized.”
No one was to change the Creed in any capacity after this point, not one jot or tittle. To do so was to compose an entirely different Creed which is not that of the Holy and Ecumenical Church, for which cause many Orthodox Popes persecuted those who uttered the filioque during the mass. The first Pope to sing the filioque was Pope Benedict VIII in 1014. All the other Popes followed the mind of the Universal Church acknowledging that an addition to the Creed would be a new creed and a new faith which was not that of the Great Church of Christ.
So when papal apologists attempt to excuse the filioque as being permissible to add, we know they are depending on their false belief in the super-power of the Pope, and not in the Church’s actual rule concerning the Creed. Furthermore, they must necessarily observe that their traditions are contrary to the Great Church of Christ which they were once part of. They deem the Pope as an autocrat who can cut and add where he pleases, and unilaterally undo any canon of any Ecumenical Council, even though these Councils outrank him in everything.
