tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post968968149131502901..comments2024-03-24T05:54:23.612-05:00Comments on Weedon's Blog: And speaking of Pr. Webber...William Weedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-46964571858296390012011-05-23T15:54:16.856-05:002011-05-23T15:54:16.856-05:00They recognized in it the faith of Athanasius just...<i>They recognized in it the faith of Athanasius just like we can recognize the faith of the Apostles in the Creed by that name.</i><br /><br />Can the same be said of wrongly attributed books of the Bible or other "Pseudo-" authors in the patristic corpus?123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-79904929886251610832011-05-23T15:52:26.654-05:002011-05-23T15:52:26.654-05:00Au contraire, the Church was ecumenical when it wa...Au contraire, the Church was ecumenical when it was alone in the Upper Room. Geographical extent is no proof of Orthodoxy. Again, a dangerous argument for a Lutheran minority within a Lutheran minority within a Christian minority to ascribe to.<br /><br />Besides, you are correct. There are Orthodox churches on every continent - including two on Antarctica. (There is a church of the Church of Norway in South Georgia in the South Atlantic, which is near Antarctica.)<br /><br />I never knew the SA by heart.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-25589309568552875252011-05-23T15:50:34.609-05:002011-05-23T15:50:34.609-05:00I would think that the name Athanasius came to be ...I would think that the name Athanasius came to be connected with the Creed because Christians recognized in it a strong anti-Arian stance and his is the name most closely associated with that battle. They recognized in it the faith of Athanasius just like we can recognize the faith of the Apostles in the Creed by that name. But be that as it may - I'm not going to spend more time arguing with you. It's not spiritually healthy for you or for me. As ever, I wish you well and commend you to the mercy of God.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-43970781626965582402011-05-23T15:45:18.238-05:002011-05-23T15:45:18.238-05:00The fact those who purposefully or ignorantly attr...The fact those who purposefully or ignorantly attributed the name of Athanasius to the Quicumque vult did so because of "the creed's Trinitarian orthodoxy" is quite beside the point. Once the attribution stuck, its trinitarian and patristic authority was dramatically heightened "because Athanasius's name was attached to it." Over time, not originally, "the creed's Trinitarian orthodoxy <b>was</b> discerned because Athanasius's name was attached to it" - and unquestionably so. This is simply part of the nature of reception over time.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-75569104488139471372011-05-23T15:44:45.518-05:002011-05-23T15:44:45.518-05:00Review the beginning of the SA, my friend. You us...Review the beginning of the SA, my friend. You used to know them by heart. These are the sublime articles of the divine majesty about which we have no quarrel with Rome. The faith expressed in the Quinqunque Vult is "ecumenical" in the sense that it is held by Christians around the world, no? I know it is not accepted in the East; I know you think the Church is limited to the East (even though you will profess not to know where it isn't); but the numbers here matter because the name "ecumenical" simply means "world wide." And sure enough, what do we find? Christians around the world confess this Creed. It is confessed on every inhabited continent; and it is confessed by the overwhelming majority of Christians given its use by Rome, the Anglican communion, and its symbolic authority for Lutherans.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-70144083519968764392011-05-23T15:40:44.086-05:002011-05-23T15:40:44.086-05:00The Local Creed of Lérin just doesn't carry th...The Local Creed of Lérin just doesn't carry the same weight as The Athanasian Creed. It's easy to see why people have been attracted to it, quite in addition to its actual content. The personal testament of St. Athanasius!<br /><br />I would admit holding it in much higher esteem were its author definitively shown to be St. Vincent of Lérin. However, it would still simply be another local creed, just like the various and sundry local baptismal creeds of the various apostolic foundations and Church centers in the East.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-83146143512593439782011-05-23T15:36:14.662-05:002011-05-23T15:36:14.662-05:00...are you telling me you believe the canon of Scr...<i>...are you telling me you believe the canon of Scripture than Athanasius provided in his Easter letter is ecumenical???</i><br /><br />The point was that "The great name of 'the father of orthodoxy' secured for it an <b>almost</b> œcumenical authority." Next to Scripture, universal tradition, and a decree from an EC, authorship by an undisputed champion of Orthodoxy such as Athanasius would grant "<b>almost</b> œcumenical authority". Of course, the precedence noted there would overrule Athanasius should another EC define the canon of Scripture somewhat differently - as one did.<br /><br /><i>It's called ecumenical because it was AND IS accepted by the overwhelming majority of the Church as a Creed of the Church.</i><br /><br />For most of the Church's history, including when this creed was first written by whomever and then attributed to Athanasisus, the West was a decided minority in the Church. It is still a minority of apostolic foundations (cf. Irenaeus).<br /><br />Be careful of picking up the nearest argument at hand to win a fight. Arguing for anything because it is "accepted by the overwhelming majority of the Church" is an ironic argument for a minority voice in the LCMS, which is a minority voice within Lutheranism, which is a minority voice within Christendom. Then again, if Church is only defined as those who agree (even secretly, without knowing it) with me, then I guess the numbers game works out as "proof".123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-3654291055976869072011-05-23T15:28:07.397-05:002011-05-23T15:28:07.397-05:00That would be the same Gibbon who openly mocked th...<i>That would be the same Gibbon who openly mocked the whole structure of the faith, no?</i><br /><br />Thus proving the credibility and reliability of the author - whether purported or not - are important factors in assessing testimony. Be that pastor, historian or saint.<br /><br />I agree that most who refer to the Athanasian Creed as a "forgery" are anti-religious voices in the West where the standing of the Athanasian Creed is high. As one in the East, the standing of the Creed is not such that I feel the need to tap dance around the fact that its authority as Athanasian is false thus demoting it to just another local creed speaking in a local voice, regardless of its import in the local Western church. I would still argue that the import of the three ecumenical creeds in the West - especially among Popes and Anti-Popes - is based on their authorship: Apostolic, Nicene (conciliar), Athanasian (patristic).123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-49399099976520650272011-05-23T15:08:30.755-05:002011-05-23T15:08:30.755-05:00I've actually never heard anyone call the Quic...I've actually never heard anyone call the Quicunque vult a forgery. I find the very notion ridiculous, in view of the fact that the document internally does not claim to be anything other than what it obviously is: a confession of the Trinity and of the incarnation (stated in Latin/Gallic categories).<br /><br />I agree as a matter of history that the term "ecumenical creed" most properly belongs only to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol. But the Quicunque vult does have general authority in the west because of its general ecclesial acceptance in the west. The west knew of many writings of Athanasius, but those writings were not all declared to be ecumenical creeds. So, if it were learned that Athanasius did not actually write the Quicunque vult, I doubt that all of a sudden the western church would have repudiated it as an ecumenical creed. It was and remains an authoritive creed fundamentally because of its content. One writer has commented that "Athanasius' name seems to have become attached to the creed as a sign of its strong declaration of Trinitarian faith." In other words, the name of Athanasius came to be associated with the creed because of the creed's Trinitarian orthodoxy. The creed's Trinitarian orthodoxy was not discerned because Athanasius's name was attached to it. <br /><br />In the common piety and faith of western European Christians, over the centuries, it became axiomatic that there were three creeds that expressed everyone's catholic faith. During the time of th "great schism" in the west, when no one really knew who the pope was or even if there was a legitimate pope, everyone's sense of their still being a part of catholic Christendom was sustained in part by these three creeds, which were <i>over</i> the papacy in authority, and which gave the people of western Europe the feeling that the church was still there even when the papacy was effectively not.David Jay Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14275320725049132734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-12309867978936676552011-05-23T15:07:59.731-05:002011-05-23T15:07:59.731-05:00That would be the same Gibbon who openly mocked th...That would be the same Gibbon who openly mocked the whole structure of the faith, no? Calling it "Athanasian" doesn't make it ecumenical. Shoot, are you telling me you believe the canon of Scripture than Athanasius provided in his Easter letter is ecumenical??? It's called ecumenical because it was AND IS accepted by the overwhelming majority of the Church as a Creed of the Church.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-80309053580726496172011-05-23T14:48:12.786-05:002011-05-23T14:48:12.786-05:00Gibbon, for instance, notes that the Athanasian cr...Gibbon, for instance, notes that the Athanasian creed, a forgery dated a century after the death of Athanasius, so astounded Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, that he dismissed it as the work of a drunk.<br /><br />Using the term 'forgery' may be imprecise, but so too is the insistent use of the terms 'Athanasian' and 'ecumenical'. I admit all sides to be in error and will gladly refer to it only ever as 'misattributed' if you agree to never refer to it as 'Athanasian' or 'ecumenical'. perhaps a note to CPH regarding the error in their editions of the Book of Concord would be called for. <br /><br />How are such things handled by a quia subscription, BTW, does one only need to be such on matters of doctrine or those areas where the Bible speaks? :)123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-16822341940401242092011-05-23T14:37:56.068-05:002011-05-23T14:37:56.068-05:00OK, then stop using it as an ecumenical creed. Us...OK, then stop using it as an ecumenical creed. Use it alongside any other the other ancient baptismal creeds as nothing more than a good summary of Christian faith. You can't have it Athanasian and not a forgery at the same time. At a certain point, the forgery is the insistence in calling it Athanasian or ecumenical.<br /><br />This creed is often described as a forgery. I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you. Would a more nuanced adjective be better, sure. The point in any term you might prefer, though, is to note that this Creed does not have the authority it was once assumed to have given its authorship. It may still be a good summary of trinitarian faith from southern Gaul.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-14015818704264632302011-05-23T14:30:20.389-05:002011-05-23T14:30:20.389-05:00The Donation of Constantine internally claims to h...The Donation of Constantine internally claims to have come from Constantine. But it didn't. Therefore it is a forgery. The Quicunque vult does not claim internally to have come from St. Athanasius. Therefore it is not a forgery. If I now erroneously state that Barack Obama actually wrote everything that "melxiopp" has posted online for the past two years, does that make all your online posts forgeries? You are operating with an odd definition of "forgery" that I have never heard of before, if an otherwise innocent document, centuries after it is written, can all of a sudden become a "forgery" just because someone mistakenly begins to say that it was written by a person other than the person who actrually did write it.David Jay Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14275320725049132734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-82528128162619718042011-05-23T14:26:04.307-05:002011-05-23T14:26:04.307-05:00I'm not arguing that the Quicunque vult had no...I'm not arguing that the Quicunque vult had no authority in the West prior to Athanasius' name being attributed to it. It's just that "The great name of 'the father of orthodoxy' secured for it an almost œcumenical authority" - and that is the basis for its more widespread authority in the West up to the Reformation (and until its authorship was demonstrated to be other than Athanasius).<br /><br />In fact, the use of it at the beginning of the Book of Concord is meant to underline the "ecumenical" pedigree of the Lutheran teaching. Were it not, a word other than ecumenical would have been used - or would be used now since learning it is in fact not an ecumenical or Athanasian creed. The value of "The great name of 'the father of orthodoxy'" and the "almost œcumenical authority" his name grants is too much to part from, however.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-43440601592690274702011-05-23T14:09:18.402-05:002011-05-23T14:09:18.402-05:00Well, I may be quite off in my history here, but i...Well, I may be quite off in my history here, but it is my understanding that the name of Athanasius was first attached to the Creed in the medieval period, and that this was several centuries after it had already secured widespread liturgical use in the West as the Quinqunque Vult. I believe that it is quite parallel to the Te Deum as the "Symbol of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine" - a medieval title that was affixed to Te Deum Laudamus long after it was in regular use.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-14658322984542830122011-05-23T14:02:46.885-05:002011-05-23T14:02:46.885-05:00"The great name of 'the father of orthodo..."The great name of 'the father of orthodoxy' secured for it an almost œcumenical authority." (In <i>The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes</i> by Philip Schaeff, http://fwd4.me/026h).<br /><br />I should think this goes without saying, otherwise a far less esteemed name would have been attached, e.g., the name of the author. The thing about expert forgers is that they and their works are as good as the original artist's on their own merits - except that their work is simply not by the "original artist" named.<br /><br />Like I said, as the Quicunque vult alone, as a local creed of Southern Gaul and the West, it is not a forgery. As the Athanasian Creed by St. Athanasius 'the father of orthodoxy' and an oecumenical, catholic touchstone it is a forgery for it is being passed off as the work of one who did not write it. Perhaps, the Creed "in the style of" or "inspired by" Athanasius would be better more fitting names.<br /><br />But that wouldn't give it the same kind of authority, which is why everyone still calls it The Athanasian Creed.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-24710034690130554372011-05-23T13:42:19.039-05:002011-05-23T13:42:19.039-05:00Can you demonstrate from the historical documents ...Can you demonstrate from the historical documents that the reason the Qv won acceptance and universal use in the West as a Creed was because of its attribution to St. Athanasius rather than because it was held to express exactly the Scriptural faith regarding the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of our Lord?William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-41026789263169815772011-05-23T13:38:36.447-05:002011-05-23T13:38:36.447-05:00Forgery is not only "the act of reproducing s...Forgery is not only "the act of reproducing something for a deceitful or fraudulent purpose", a forgery is also "something forged, such as a work of art or an antique". That is, intent is not the only sense of the word "forgery".<br /><br />I am sure we cannot know for certain who wrote the Quicunque vult for certain; we can also likely not ascertain for certain who attributed the Quicunque vult to Athanasius as its literal author (rather than it simply being "Athanasian" in doctrine). If intent alone is the determiner, then we cannot say the Quicunque vult is a forgery. However, as it has come down to us, it can definitely be referred to as a forgery in that its attribution is forged. At the least its authorship is spurious.<br /><br />However, the primary reason it was deemed authoritative was not that it was Athanasian in doctrine, but that it was by Athanasius himself.<br /><br />An interesting question is whether such care is also taken when discussing the Donation of Constantine and the Isidorian Decretals. Can we be sure the author's intent was to create a forgery, or did he merely misattribute these documents. This is where context and motivation rightly play a part. Cui bono?<br /><br />The more important point is that the Quicunque vult is not "ecumenical", it is the definition of a local creed. Again, doesn't mean it is wrong, but at a certain point the errors surrounding its reception and import would seem to set it to the side.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-86534809329263893812011-05-23T13:24:15.602-05:002011-05-23T13:24:15.602-05:00As simply the Quicunque vult, it is not a forgery;...As simply the Quicunque vult, it is not a forgery; as the Quicunque vult by St. Athanasius or as the Athanasian Creed, it is a forgery. That isn't to say it is not thus wrong, but it is not by the author it has always been reputed to have been written by - and whose authority the Quicunque vult was based on.<br /><br />Yes, it sounds like the cartoon version of Orthodox lex orandi will fit in nicely with your presentation. <br /><br />As you are well aware, any practice or teaching with provenance pre-1054 in the Church is not automatically Orthodox. Iconoclasm was widely accepted prior to the iconoclastic controversy, but it wasn't condemned until it became a controversy in the Church. Same with Arianism and semi-Arianism, pneomatomachism, adoptionism, modalism, chiliasm, Donatism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, etc. They were deemed heretical fully and finally only when the Church declared regarding them. In the words, "conceded as late as 380", of Nazianzus regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit: "To be only slightly in error was to be orthodox." (Quoted in Pelikan, <i>The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition</i>, p. 213). Not every error that arose needed to be anathematized; they simply went away on their own in due time or the truth came out. The Quicunque vult cannot be defended as Athanasian on the basis the Church did not universally proclaim it to be otherwise. The Ecumenical Councils hadn't gotten around to saying anything about papal claims, for instance, because those claims hadn't yet become hardened or well-known outside of the West - the claims were still wrong, even though they were part of the Western tradition. Similarly, not all eastern practices were accepted, even though they were a part of the venerable lex orandi in one part of the East, e.g., Protopaschites (and the West, i.e., the Celtic Church).123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-36462583827928211872011-05-23T13:06:28.526-05:002011-05-23T13:06:28.526-05:00Even if someone deliberately misattributed the Qui...Even if someone deliberately misattributed the Quicunque vult to St. Athanasius at some point after it had been written, knowing that he did not write it, that wouldn't make it a forgery. It would be a forgery only if the person who actually <i>wrote</i> it intended from the beginning to deceive people into thinking that St. Athanasius had written it.David Jay Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14275320725049132734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-80070283528162229792011-05-23T13:03:47.223-05:002011-05-23T13:03:47.223-05:00Well, one doesn't HAVE to remain anything. Si...Well, one doesn't HAVE to remain anything. Simply making a decision at one point in time does not mean a different decision will not be made later. <br /><br />As I have discussed with others lately, while it may not be clear which church is the "true church" in perfect continuity with the apostles and fathers, it is clear which churches are not: the Protestant churches. to see their teachings in Church History is just so quaint, and odd. It's like the father in <i>My Big Fat Greek Wedding</i> proving the Greek derivation of any word. <br /><br />The other option is to accept the Anglican branch theory (inherited from the Orient, really, mixed with realpolitik) whereby all denominations and faiths are the same or complementary. Then what the Fathers said doesn't really matter and there is no such thing as continuity and no need to prove one's biblical or patristic pedigree.<br /><br />Come on, simple allusions like this are nothing compared to what Lutherans harangued you with prior to your decision - or with what the same did to those who left. Let's no pretend one side is "nice" and the other not. All involved are correct to question motivation, their own and others, and whether they chose correctly for reasons good or ill. Choosing correctly for the wrong reasons is better than choosing badly for the right reasons.<br /><br />I'm a fan of Kierkegaard.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-28272535923963467412011-05-23T12:53:39.912-05:002011-05-23T12:53:39.912-05:00Hey, speaking of Quinqunque - I'm going to be ...Hey, speaking of Quinqunque - I'm going to be doing a four part series on that in honor of the Feast of the Holy Trinity for Issues, Etc. To call it a forgery is a hoot - that just made it into the show!!! By the way, since it was part of the Lex Orandi of the West prior to the schism (Prime on Sundays)... what's your beef with it? Or don't you believe in the inviolable lex orandi after all???William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-21692900305789646142011-05-23T12:52:31.913-05:002011-05-23T12:52:31.913-05:00You are correct that Luther, the Book of Concord a...You are correct that Luther, the Book of Concord and many Western Christians prior mistakenly attributed the Quicunque vult to Athanasius. However, it was purposefully and mistakenly attributed to Athanasius by someone. Whether its misattribution was purposeful or not, it is nonetheless a forgery.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-67853666903902766992011-05-23T12:48:07.703-05:002011-05-23T12:48:07.703-05:00that was supposed to be botherthat was supposed to be botherWilliam Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-50974895486352271492011-05-23T12:46:58.664-05:002011-05-23T12:46:58.664-05:00As I said, you HAVE to take that line. It makes s...As I said, you HAVE to take that line. It makes sense from the perspective you've chosen by an exercise of your personal judgment regarding where truth is to be found. And I commend you for any suffering you have endured for the sake of what you hold to be truth - it is a noble thing, whether or not you chose rightly or wrongly. <br /><br />My own choice is my own and I am not ashamed of it one bit. Whether it was an easier or more difficult path is not for anyone to know but the one who walked it. But neither will I defend myself against your not so subtle accusations. It makes me always glad when I read such that I did NOT take the path you trod. <br /><br />But laying aside the personal swipe and back to the matter at hand, you provide a prime example of what I am referring to when you discount the witness of both Eusebius and Jerome (and let's throw in the canon witnessed by Nazanzus!) - and, pity sake, did not the Glossa Ordinaria teach the distinction prior to the Reformation itself, so that the Reformers learned it from their teachers in the faith? At least I believe that is so. <br /><br />One final thing: why do you both with a pseudonym?William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.com