The Filioque

The Holy Trinity icon by Rublev

This has been one of the sources of disunity between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. But when we examine it closely, it's all really insignificant.

Now, let us examine the Filioque based on the Catechism.

Catechism of Catholic Church, 247:

"The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches." 

Catechism of Catholic Church, 2789:

"When we pray to "our" Father, we personally address the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. By doing so we do not divide the Godhead, since the Father is its "source and origin," but rather confess that the Son is eternally begotten by him and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. We are not confusing the persons, for we confess that our communion is with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, in their one Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity is consubstantial and indivisible. When we pray to the Father, we adore and glorify him together with the Son and the Holy Spirit." 

Catechism of Catholic Church, 248:

"At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason", for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed."

Since the Filioque has been explained, I wonder why it's such a big deal.

We have to take into consideration the Eastern formula (... through the son ...) and the Western formula (... and the son ... filioque ...) The former asserts the Monarchy of the father, whereas the latter asserts Consubstantiality. But all the way, both are professing the same faith.

Here, we read the Eastern formula, affirmed by the Church Fathers:

"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [ca. A.D. 220]). - Tertullian 

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (The Holy Spirit 18:47 [A.D. 375]). - Basil 

"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [ca. A.D. 405]). - Augustine 

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit' [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 417]). - Augustine 

"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: `The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life' [John 6:64]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]). - Ambrose 

"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 380]). - Gregory of Nyssa

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).  - Council of Nicaea II 

"We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible . . . The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son" - Council of Toledo

Kallistos Ware himself stated:

 "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43). 

And St. Maximus the Confessor, an Anatolian saint, clearly understood what is being asserted by the filioque:

"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. They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."

We have to understand that the issue not only lies within filioque but the Latin phrase procedit.

The Second Ecumenical Council’s reason for adding the text “Who proceeds from the Father” to the Nicene Creed was to defend the Spirit's divinity. In other words, the phrase at issue, in the mind of the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, was an assertion on the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Simple.

The addition of the filioque does not contradict with the Second Ecumenical Council’s decision and it does not entail the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

When St. Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, in John 15:26 from the Greek, he used the word “procedit” to translate the word “ekporeusai”. It was the closest Latin word that could be used. However, it was not a transliteration; both can be translated as “go forth” or “progress” or “proceed,” but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not; and such is the notion of origination.

When the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 formulated and ratified the new Creed for a more compelling defense of the Spirit’s divinity, they based the phrase at issue on John 15:26. During the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451, Pope St. Leo requested the Creed of Constantinople to be translated into Latin. Based on Scripture, “ekporeusai” was again translated to “procedit”.

From there, it spread to Western Christendom. Everyone knew that the intent of the addition to the phrase at issue (“proceeds from the Father”) was to defend the Spirit's divinity. But the difference in language resulted in different meanings of the phrase. Hence, the controversy.

To the Greeks who used the term “ekporeusai” with its inherent reference to origination, the phrase defended the Spirit’s divinity by asserting its origin from the Father. To the Latins who used the term “procedit” which only referred to a progression or going forth, the phrase defended the Spirit’s divinity by asserting His consubstantial Divinity with the Father.  When Arianism came along, they added “and the Son” (filioque) to the phrase at issue to ensure the orthodox teaching of the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  So what we have here is not two different Faiths, but two traditions expressing the same Faith (belief in the Spirit's divinity) in different, equally orthodox, ways.

Does that explain things now?

To clarify: To the Greeks, "procession" refers to the origination of hypostasis. To the Latins, "procession" refers to the sharing of the Divine Essence. Simple as that. No heretical beliefs, non whatsoever.

"... and the son ..." and "... through the son ..." are logically the same although the first asserts consubstantiality and the second asserts origination. If the first were used in the Greek version of the Creed, it would be considered heretical. But we're using the Latin version, so what gives?

But then, a particular argument recently came up to me, quoting CCC 246, which says:

The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

Again, we look at Section 248 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason", for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed." (CCC 248)

Do you see now how it actually says, "first consubstantial communion between Father and Son" and not the "eternal origin of the spirit" (as in the Eastern tradition)? 

In CCC 246 (which others would try to use against Catholicism), we read, "And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father". This explains once again the consubstantial communion of Father and Son, and not the origin of the spirit. CCC 248 explains this.

To those who are oblivious, let's define "Consubstantiality".

"Consubstantiality" describes the relationship among the Divine persons of the Christian Trinity and connotes that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are "of one being" in that the Son is "generated" ("born" or "begotten") "before all ages" or "eternally" of the Father's own being, from which the Spirit also eternally "proceeds."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality

The Eastern Orthodox Churches believe in Consubstantiality:

All three persons are consubstantial with each other, that is, they are of one essence (homoousios) and coeternal. There never was a time when any of the persons of the Trinity did not exist.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Introduction_to_Orthodox_Christianity

The addition of the "filioque" therefore was to explain the Consubstanitality of the Trinity, as explained in CCC 248.

CCC 248 makes itself clear when it says, "for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", is the first origin of the spirit," I could use that as my only argument, but I wouldn't be addressing why CCC 246 states such things.

Again, what we have are two different traditions professing the same faith. It is therefore ridiculous to assert that we are expressing different faiths.

We have to remember that each section of the Catechism should not be taken as being able to stand alone. If others are basing their arguments on CCC 246, then they should also look at 247 and 248.

And the truth about CCC 246 is that it states in the beginning, "The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses..." Look carefully at its context. It means, it describes only what the Latin Tradition of the Creed confesses merely as what is heard. CCC 246 does not go deeper than that, such is why CCC 247 and 248 exist after 246 to elaborate further.

Today, many EO Churches are now putting aside their prejudices and are acknowledging that there need be no hindrance to unity on this issue. But some are still hardening their hearts and still asserting that what they believe in is true.

We also have to remember that the purpose for the formulation of the Nicene Creed was to combat heresies. And such is what the Western Church did when they/we "tampered" with the creed.

Originally posted by Jared Dale Combista in Verum Nocet on 10/30/10

Read more...

FILIOQUE CLAUSE: proceeds from the Father or proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son???

‎"When we pray to "our" Father, we personally address the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. By doing so we do not divide the Godhead, since the Father is its "source and origin," but rather confess that the Son is eternally begotten by him and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. We are not confusing the persons, for we confess that our communion is with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, in their one Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity is consubstantial and indivisible. When we pray to the Father, we adore and glorify him together with the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2789)


Indeed it has been said right!!!!! both of the formula are indeed valid at all. There is no such as Double Procession but a Single one, knowing that the Father and the Son are indeed one cause they are only separated as Persons with the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity, but One God, as it was expressed to the Athanasian Creed, in the Union of Brest in 1595 it is also accepted that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, though they do not use "Filioque" in the Liturgies, but they accept not only in the Liturgy but as a Dogmatic teaching from the Catholic Church.

Read more...

To be a Patriarchate or To remain a Major Archiepiscopate??!!!

Actually not just His Beatitude Sviatoslav, but His Predecessor beginning to His Beatitude Cardinal Josyf Slipyj who insist of elevating it to one, but the Popes beginning to Blessed Pope John XXIII to Pope Benedict XVI refused to do so, creating this Structure of Major Archbishopric being first in the Catholic Church Hierarchy and until today it is still petitioned of being elevated in such!!!!!!

Everyone knows, Kyiv is the original seat of Rusyn Christendom, extending not just to the Rusyn and Ukrainians but the Russians as wells.

To be honest, out of some Bribery done in the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1589 they just granted Moscow as a separate Autonomous Patriarchate in Eastern Orthodox, and it is the reason why in 1595 the Union of Brest came to finality, making Ukrainian Hierachs lead by Mikhail Rogoza united once more and in Communion with the Catholic Church, and the birth of the modern day Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

Yes it is right and just to say, He is the True and Only Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, with or without the approval of Rome itself, Everyone knows there is a Patriarchate existing and it is not recognized cause of some "Ecumenical Tactics!!!"

Everything will be heated up soon i have my commentaries here Hehehehe regarding this issue, i am just warming up ^_^

Read more...

THE PAPAL BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION TO PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE MICHAEL CERULARIUS IN 1054

Humbert, cardinal bishop of the holy Roman Church by the grace of God; Peter, archbishop of Amalfi; and Frederick, deacon and chancellor, to all the children of the catholic Church.

The holy, primary, and apostolic see of Rome, to which the care of all the churches most especially pertains as if to a head, deigned to make us its ambassadors to this royal city for the sake of the peace and utility of the Church so that, in accordance with what has been written, we might descend and see whether the complaint which rises to its ears without ceasing from this great city, is realized in fact or to know if it is not like this.

Let the glorious emperors, clergy, senate, and people of this city of Constantinople as well as the entire catholic Church therefore know that we have sensed here both a great good, whence we greatly rejoice in the Lord, and the greatest evil, whence we lament in misery. For as far as the columns of the imperial power and its honored and wise citizens go, this city is most Christian and orthodox.

But as far as Michael, who is called patriarch through an abuse of the term, and the backers of his foolishness are concerned, innumerable tares of heresies are daily sown in its midst.

Because like Simoniacs, they sell the gift of God;
Like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy;
Like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, and especially Latins;
Like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world;
Like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar;
Like Severians, they say that the law of Moses is accursed;
Like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;
Like the Manichaeans among others, they state that leave is ensouled (animatum);
Like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and, in refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan;
And because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church.

For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to repent.

Furthermore, when we, the Pope's ambassadors, wanted to eliminate the causes of such great evils in a reasonable way, he denied us his presence and conversation, forbid churches to celebrate Mass, just as he had earlier closed the churches of the Latins and, calling them "azymites," had persecuted the Latins everywhere in word and deed. Indeed, so much [did he persecute them] that among his own children, he had anathematized the apostolic see and against it he still writes that he is the ecumenical patriarch.

Therefore, because we did not tolerate this unheard of outrage and injury of the first, holy, and apostolic see and were concerned that the catholic faith would be undermined in many ways, by the authority of the holy and individuated Trinity and the apostolic see, whose embassy we are performing, and of all the orthodox fathers from the seven councils and of the entire catholic Church, we thus subscribe to the following anathema which the most reverend pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers unless they should repent.

Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office, who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.

Read more...

1054 AD: A Turning Point for the Universal Church

Michael Cerularius I

It was there that the influence of the Western Church grew, ever since the Franks were Christianized, and the Normans in Italy were becoming powerful. The Byzantines noticed this.

The Normans in Italy were said to have been forcing the use of Latin in the liturgies of the Greeks. And it was then that the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius I forced the use of Greek in the liturgies of the Latins in the city.

A very significant fact, however, was Cerularius’s attack on the Latins’ use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, considering it to be a heresy.[1] Cerularius considered the use of unleavened bread to be Judaic, and symbolizes death rather than life. He also stated that it contradicts what is written in the synoptics, as Jesus said to have used bread, despite the fact that the Last Supper was a paschal meal. It is in the Jewish law that during Passover, unleavened bread or azyme was to be used. Cerularius’s opinions also do not even have any clear foundations at all.[2]

During that time, Byzantine bishops were in control of the Church in Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. Since this is the case, Constantinople most likely had power over them.

Cerularius then declared war on the Western Church. His chancellor Nicephorus burst open the Latin tabernacles and trampled on the Eucharists, declaring them invalid, as they were consecrated in azyme. Cerularius himself threw the Eucharist on the streets. This was blasphemy—and the Latin Church had to deal with this sacrilege.

Although Cerularius was excommunicated for a different reason where he struck the name of the Pope from his diptychs, the excommunication was justifiable. No man is to desecrate the Eucharist. The hostility between the Latins and the Byzantines made matters worse.

It was then that the bull was laid down on Hagia Sophia’s altar on the 16^th of July, 1054 by Cardinal Humbert, who issued the bull himself as the Pope he answered to was dead—this act of his was justifiable. The Roman [Holy] See had the power and the duty to excommunicate heretics and desecrators.[3] The Byzantine legates excommunicated Rome in return—invalidly.

This was the beginning of the schism.  The Byzantine bishops in the other three Churches followed the lead of Michael I, resulting in the split of the Eastern Churches from the Western Church; the Holy See, which had the power over the other bishops.

And until now, the East and the West are still trying to reconcile their differences.

But one thing is for sure. Michael Cerularius did not only die a sinner. He founded the schismatic Byzantine Church.


by Jared Dale Combista, contributor

---

[1] The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware

[2] Byzantine Theology by John Meyendorff

[3] "If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church.  I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox.  For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world."  (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Read more...