Monday, October 24, 2022

Filioque: The Error Of Eastern Schismatics Explained

 

To My Readers: I am once more indebted to Lee for providing another outstanding post to be published while I catch up on my work and personal life. Please feel free to comment as usual. Any comments or questions specifically directed to me will always be answered as usual, but it might take me a bit longer to respond this week.

God Bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: I was asked by Mr. Kevin Davis of Catholic Family Podcast to do a series of podcasts on the occult, as I have researched the topic for years, and have written many posts warning of the "Occult Revival" since Vatican II. I told him it would be my honor to get the word out in another excellent form of media. Look for the first podcast to come out later this week.---Introibo

Update 10/25/22: Here is the podcast link 


Qui ex patre FILIOQUE procedit

By Lee

With many people beginning to visualize the problems in the Conciliar religion, it oftentimes will happen that some inadvertently escape a false religion to join another false religion. Some of these people are searching for the truth as they church hop, while others get deceived into thinking that a particular religion is really the true one, when it is in fact not. One religion in particular is the Eastern Orthodox religion. Unfortunately, there is nothing Orthodox (right in its teaching) about it, nor can it claim to have been faithful to the early Church for 900 years prior to its founding by Photius (more on that later).

The Orthodox are most notably known for their schism with Rome because of their refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff (the pope) as the final authority over the entire Church but what they are not rebuked enough for is the dogmas they deny. One in particular is known as the filioque which was added to the Nicene Creed by the Church.

Who was Photius?

To better understand why Photius held to certain beliefs during the Photian Schism, it's best to read about his background. Fr. John Laux's book Church History gives a very detailed description. He says the following:

In the middle of the ninth century a patriarch of Constantinople made the first deliberate attempt to sever the Greek Church from the West by appealing to the national pride of his countrymen. This man was Photius.

We saw above the St. Theodora re-established the Catholic faith in the East in 842. All went well until her son Michael, known in history as "the Drunkard," came of age and began to reign. This sensual prince fell entirely under the influence of his uncle Bardas, a profligate of the most despicable character, who lived in sin with one of his near relatives. On the feast day of the Epiphany, 857, St. Ignatius, who had succeeded St. Methodius as patriarch of Constantinople in 846, refused to give Bardas Holy Communion. Ignatius was arrested and imprisoned, and upon refusing to resign his office was illegally deposed, while Photius, a layman, was installed as patriarch in his place.

Photius was easily the most learned man of his time, as his monumental work, the Bibliotheca, which consists of abridgments of and extracts from 280 volumes of classical authors amply testifies. But even his greatest admirers admit that he was worldly, crafty, ambitious, and unscrupulous. When he saw that his usurpation caused discontent among the clergy and the people, he persuaded the Emperor to send ambassadors with costly presents to Pope St. Nicholas I in order to secure his approbation. In spite of false statements made by the ambassadors-they said that Ignatius has resigned his see because of his advanced age, and voluntarily retired into a monastery-the Pope refused to decide until he had investigated the matter. The legates whom he sent to Constantinople for this purpose, yielding to threats of bribery, acknowledged Photius as lawful patriarch. But Nicholas saw through their deceit, and in a letter to the Eastern bishops condemned and deposed Photius. 

The rage of the proud intruder knew no bounds. In a letter addressed to all the patriarchs and bishops of the East he railed against all claim to spiritual authority on the part of the Holy See, declaring it intolerable, above all, since the imperial crown of the West had been set by Leo III on the head of Charlemagne, a barbarian Frank. He accused the Latin Church of heresy for adding the word "Filioque" (and from the Son) to the Nicene Creed, and attacked the discipline and the usage of the Latins, particularly their practice of fasting on Saturday, their use of milk and cheese on fast days, and the enforced celibacy of the clergy. His hatred of Rome at last led him to do what none of his predecessors had dared to do: he excommunicated the whole Latin world and pronounced sentence of deposition against Pope Nicholas (867).

The triumph of the arrogant patriarch was short-lived. The drunken and vicious Emperor over whom he had held sway so long was murdered in 867. Basil, his murderer and successor, cast Photius into prison and reinstated Ignatius. A Council-the Eight Ecumenical-which assembled at Constantinople in 869 condemned Photius and his sacrilegious acts, and restored union under the authority of the Apostolic See. After the death of Ignatius in 877, Photius again ascended the patriarchal throne and in order to be approved by Pope John VIII professed in express terms to acknowledge the Roman Primacy. He soon broke his word and was excommunicated once more. He ended ingloriously. In 886 the Emperor Leo the Philosopher deprived him of his office and banished him to a monastery in Armenia. After this, we hear no more of him.

So what is the big deal about Filioque?
Filioque means "and from the son." The Orthodox believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds ONLY from the Father and NOT the Son, whereas Catholics believe the Holy Ghost proceeds from BOTH the Father and the Son.

The Orthodox consider the filioque as heretical because they believe that by adding "and from the son" changes the uniqueness of the hypostasis (of being) in Jesus Christ and conclude that Christ would be giving to the Holy Ghost an origin or being that was both God the Father (Uncreated) and Man (createdness).

The Catholic understanding of the filioque is that the Father, as the "principle without principle," is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that he, as Father of the only Son, is with the Son the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds. It rejects the notion that the Holy Ghost proceeds jointly and equally from two principles (Father and Son) and teaches dogmatically that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle. Therefore, it would heresy to deny this dogma as the Church teaches it.

Below is the list of quotes from the Councils/Creeds as well as Eastern Fathers which an Eastern Orthodox priest deleted on his video on the filioque in the comment section on YouTube when I posted them. Presumably he did so because it shows where the early church fathers from the East believed the dogma prior to when it was added to the Nicene Creed many centuries later.

The Athanasius Creed

“[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400])

The Second Council of Nicaea

“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]).

St. Basil the Great

“Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).
“[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” (Ibid., 18:47).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

St.Gregory of Nyssa

“[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. 382]).

St. Cyril of Alexandria

“Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

“[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son” (Ibid.).

"Recognize and Resist" (R&R)
There are many parallels between the Orthodox religion and those who call themselves traditional Catholic but who in turn reject their own pope (R&R / Recognize and Resist). It's one thing to believe that bishops who profess the faith can carry on the mission of the Church without a head until a pope is elected, even if for a very long period, but it's quite another to believe that bishops have the power to depose a pope, as if to say the body of bishops (how many is anyone's guess) have equal authority in the church as the pope. This along with calling the man one believes to be pope a heretic is all out blasphemy and heretical itself which many these days fall for. Hence they become the pope's pope. We could say that the SSPX/Resistance PROCEEDS from BOTH the Orthodox and the Gallicans.
The repercussion of not acknowledging the head of the Church as the final authority only creates more damage. Pope Pius XII made it clear:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit... For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Mystici Corporis Christi, para.  #22 and 23

It is the Magisterium which makes the final say on matters of faith, morality, discipline, and liturgy. As St. Robert Bellarmine put it:

The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.

Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.

On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err. (De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3)

In Volume 1, Fathers Rumbles and Carty gave some of the best answers from Radio Replies. They demonstrated why it is necessary to believe in dogmas of the Church, this is what they had to say:

599. Dogma will not save a single soul.
Alone it will not. But since the Catholic Church is the true Church which Christ commands us to hear, the conscious and deliberate rejection of her dogmas can forfeit salvation.

604. Do you think that your old-fashioned dogmas have any appeal?
The dogmas of the Catholic Church clearly express the exact teaching of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If they seem old-fashioned to some men, these men have simply out-grown the truth to their own detriment.

608. But by the mere fact of accepting the teachings of the Church, Catholics are accepting other men's reasonings.

They are not. Where other men's reasonings are concerned, Catholics should test them for themselves, and if they prove faulty, should reject them. But the Catholic Church says that when God has revealed a truth it is no longer a question of men's reasonings, and that we are not morally free to assert the opposite. We are obliged to accept doctrines revealed by God, because we know that God cannot be mistaken. But of course we make sure that God did say the things we accept on His authority.

307. How does the Greek Church differ from the Catholic Church?
The Greek Churches are both schismatical and heretical. They are separated from the obedience due to the authority of Christ in His true Church. They acknowledge no infallible head. They may retain valid orders and the Mass—things which Protestantism lost—but they have fallen into errors concerning the Holy Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and various other points of Christian doctrine.

Conclusion
In these times of apostasy, one must be very mindful of whom they receive sacraments from when exiting from the new Conciliar religion. Only in danger of death are Catholics permitted to receive the sacrament of Penance from an Orthodox priest provided there is no scandal. However, to receive Holy Communion or even attempt to attend their liturgy is to profess externally that it doesn't matter which religion one belongs to. This is forbidden. St. Hermenegild whose feast is celebrated on April 13th reminds us of why he was such a great saint and martyr. As it says in the Roman Missal he refused to receive Holy Communion from an Arian bishop. Pope St. Agatho said "He who prays with heretics, is a heretic."

To believe in the filioque, one must first believe in the Magisterium. This is where Photius failed and why all Protestantism is futile. In present circumstances Catholics are forced to take the sedevacantist position when the impostors of Catholicism join Protestantism through joint declarations and other official documents approving of heresy, schism, and apostasy. It's impossible because Jesus said "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." (St. Luke 22: 31-32). 

53 comments:

  1. Thanks for this post Lee ! Eastern “Orthodox” sects are attractive with their liturgy (I have listened to some Eastern liturgical chants which are very beautiful) but this is a trap, as are “Traditionalist” R&R. The true position to hold in this age of apostasy is sedevacantism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right on Simon. Many fall for this trap for various reasons. Let's pray that they receive the graces to see the trap and be of good will to join the true church, even if its inconvenient.

      Lee

      Delete
  2. But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.
    John 15:26

    Not sure how Eastern heretics explain this away. But then, with heretics, anything is possible ... save for the unadulterated Truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeremias,

      I couldn't have said it much better.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. How Orthodox explain this? Just re-read John 15:26: "who proceedeth from the Father". It does NOT say "and the Son." right? The first clause is referencing something different than the second and scripture does not err. The early ecumenical councils also did not err. The filioque is an addition that changes the Trinity. I realize Jay Dyer receives a lot of hate from trad caths but his article here is good. https://orthochristian.com/104360.html. God Bless all

      Delete
    3. Anon. 2:31

      If you read the article, I quoted the early Church fathers who all say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.

      As for John 15:26, it says:

      But when the Paraclete cometh, WHOM I WILL SEND YOU from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

      Who is sending the Paraclete through the Father? It's Jesus the Son because he can't come unless Jesus sends him. Therefore, the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son or else there would be no point for Jesus to say that he will send the Paraclete. You can't get any more basic.

      Jay Dyer is not the final authority, nor is his heretical Orthodox bishops. It's Christ's Church.

      Lee

      Delete
    4. Lee, you need to brush up on this subject and I encourage you to read Orthodox material on it because you clearly don't grasp it. The spirit does not proceed eternally from the Son, which would throw the entire Blessed Trinity out of order. Read Dyer's paper and the links he references. As for the fathers, I'd have to look at these quotes individually and from original sources to get the context. There were also a lot of papist forgeries that were made to support the claims of the papacy. That is undeniable.

      Delete
    5. Anon 6:58,

      You clearly didn't read my article and you deny our Lord's words in John 15:26. I told you in the article what the Orthodox believe. The early Church (as in those in the East) such as Sts. Basil the Great, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria all believe in the filioque as quoted from above.

      What authority does Jay Dyer or any Orthodox have over the early Church fathers and Councils? Their opinions are heretical and useless.

      Lee

      Delete
    6. Lee, which Ecumenical Councils approved of the filioque pre-schism? If you're talking about the controversial 8th council then it depends on which council you consider the valid one since Rome was on both sides of the fence. Officially, the doctrine without the filioque was settled already settled in 381 in constantinople. The addition wasn't even settled in Rome until the post-schism era in 1215 at the 4th lateran council I believe

      Delete
    7. Anon 12:02

      The Second Council of Nicea

      “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]).

      The Athanasius Creed

      “[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400])

      Lee

      Delete
    8. The second council of Nicea does not contain the filioque. "proceeding from the Father through the Son" is not the filioque Lee. That is orthodox. If this said proceeding from the father and the son, it would have been rejected. Notice the difference? There is a difference in saying the Spirit is sent by the Son (temporally) and that the spirit proceeds from the son eternally. I am not sure about the Athanasius Creed statement which must be a forgery. No way Athanasius defended the filioque. If I can find anything on that I'll post it here

      Delete
    9. Anon. 4:13

      Okay, we agree that there is a distinction and I have no problem with that. However here are the Early Fathers both East and West that say AND the son below:

      Eastern Fathers:

      St. Cyril of Alexandria
      “Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father AND Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

      Epiphanius of Salamis
      “The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father AND the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

      John Damascene
      “Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father AND communicated through the Son” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).

      Western Fathers:

      St. Ambrose of Milan
      “The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father AND the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (ibid., 1:2:120).

      Hilary of Poitiers
      “Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father AND the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

      St. Augustine
      “[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed ALSO FROM the Son” (ibid., 15:17:29).

      Now what's your issue? None of these are "forged"

      Lee

      Delete
    10. Thanks Lee. These quotes would have to be taken individually. They are not what you think they are and lots of ink and exegeses have been done on these passages. Take just one from Augustine for example. He wrote:
      Filius autem de Patre natus est: et Spiritus sanctus de Patre principaliter, et ipso sine ullo temporis intervallo dante, communiter de utroque procedit.
      Translated: And the Son is begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally (principaliter), and without giving any interval of time, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both communitively (communiter).
      This is just one example of how translations play into "quote mining" for gotchas. But what does this mean? I am going to borrow a great explanation from Shameless Orthodoxy on this subject:
      "What the Son has, according to Augustine, is not the Father’s ability to cause the divine person of the Holy Spirit. That property belongs to the Father alone, hence Augustine uses the adverb principaliter in conjunction with the verb procedere. What the Son actually has, according to John 16:15 is an eternal relationship with the Holy Spirit – a pouring forth if you will, which the Father also has (hence the adverb communiter in conjunction with the verb procedere). To use an analogy, as imperfect as they may be, like a spring with a stream, water can be said to flow forth from both the spring and the stream (communiter). However, water cannot be said to have its cause from both the the spring and the stream. Rather, only the spring can be said to be the cause of the water (principaliter)."

      Augustine's quote, as with all the others, must be understood correctly and this cannot be done in a short blog spot. God Bless!

      Delete
    11. Anon. 10:40

      I don't know what else you want me to demonstrate. If quoting the Fathers is a gotcha thing, then I gotcha I guess because if a majority of them said AND the Son, then the Orthodox have a problem because they are not following the Fathers including a few of them from the East. This demonstrates how Photius is the real heretic and inventor of new doctrines, not the Church.

      Remember this article is not just about filioque but submitting obedience to the papacy.

      The Jay Dyer types accuse Sedevacantist of judging the Holy See which is forbidden by Vatican I but we are not judging the Holy See because a manifest heretic cannot be a member of the Holy See which automatically separates himself from the Church. We are Sedevacantist precisely because of this fact and hence obey and give assent as Catholics always did up until Pope Pius XII.

      Lee

      Delete
    12. Lee, did you not read my explanation for your St. Augustine quote? I am sure I could do the same thing to each and every quote you produced and demonstrate why quote mining is not always the way to discern the truth. In that quote, Augustine did not teach a double procession of the spirit and what you have demonstrated the most is that you do not quite understand why the Orthodox reject it. In your mind, if the papacy declares it, it is true. So even a contradiction such as a double procession is fine as long as a pope says so. That is the whole problem with papism in a nutshell. And now look at the problem you are in after Vatican II. Now you are forced to declare all recent popes heretics and become a schismatic splinter church. I am sorry for you. Truly I am.

      I am not sure what a dyer type means and I probably am not interested in your definition of it anyways, especially if it's derogatory. God bless!

      Delete
    13. Anon. 5:12

      Your remarks are pretty derogatory and belittling also. Of course I read your explanation of St. Augustine. What's your explanation for the other five fathers I quoted especially from the East such as St. Cyril and St. John Damascene?

      Don't say "I am sure I could do the same thing to each and every quote you produced and demonstrate why quote mining is not always the way to discern the truth." Instead DO IT!

      Also the Church is the final authority as it always has been. You do what every Protestant does with quotes; that is, interpret in such a way as to make it fit your theology. I quote from real sources and you make a stupid claim that they are forged with no support to back it up.

      Here is another Council from the fifth Century which supporting the Filioque:

      Council of Toledo:
      “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 [A.D. 447]).

      You see everybody believed in the Filioque until Photius denied it. Go keep following Dyer and the heretic founder Photius though. You'll regret it when this life is up. I'll leave you with this:

      Fourth Council of Constantinople:
      "Therefore, as regards the man (Photius) who has acted in this way and has disturbed and shaken the whole holy, catholic and apostolic church with so many brazen attacks of this kind, has utterly refused to be converted and repent, and has refused to submit to the decrees and judgment of the holy patriarchal sees, just as long ago the most blessed pope Nicholas and then his successor, the most holy pope Hadrian, anathematized him, so too this holy and universal synod has reproved him and put him under an ever severer anathema while addressing to him, in the person of all God’s people, the words of the prophet Isaiah: Just as a garment soiled in blood will not be clean, so you will not be clean, for you have defiled the church of Christ and have been a source of scandal and destruction to the people of God on many counts and in many ways. We command that those who do not share this view, but give Photius their willing support, if they are bishops or clerics, must be deposed for ever; we anathematize monks or lay people, until such time as they are converted from their false ways and wickedness."

      Lee

      Delete
    14. @anon5:12
      In the New Testament the Holy Ghost is represented not only as "the Spirit of the Father" but also as the "Spirit of the Son" (Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9). Yet the Holy Ghost is also called "Spirit of the Father" (St. Matthew 10:20).

      The schismatics object that the Scriptural term "Spirit of the Son" has its justification in the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, from Whom alone, they claim, the Holy Ghost proceeds. But this is a mere evasion. Is not the Holy Ghost, too, consubstantial with the Father, from Whom alone proceeds the Son? Yet we could not without heresy call Christ "the Son of the Holy Ghost" because the Son does not proceed from the Holy Ghost. Hence, the inevitable conclusion that the Holy Ghost is "the Spirit of the Son" only because He proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father.

      (See theologian Pohle, "Dogmatic Theology," [1915], 2:173-175)

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    15. Lee, I don't have time to refute every quote you produce.  I demonstrated that you were in error on one which is enough. 

      The council of Toledo was a local council of Spain, not ecumenical.  Factions of the Latins were attempting to add the filioque for centuries and this wasn't even accomplished until the 12th century.  I should point out that even popes rejected it, so this idea that "everyone accepted it" is complete bunk.  In fact, your quote from the so-called Fourth Council of Constantinople with 8 bishops in attendance (8th Ecumenical Council) was overturned by the real 8th Ecumenical council ten years later (879) which saw Photius rehabilitated.  This council was accepted by Rome as Ecumenical for the next 200 years.  So much for infallibility.  Anyhow, I am not sure where you think I insulted you personally but if I did so I apologize.    

      Delete
    16. Anon 8:40.

      You say, "Lee, I don't have time to refute every quote you produce." You do when you say "I am sure I could do the same thing to each and every quote you produced and demonstrate why quote mining is not always the way to discern the truth." In other words you can't because you can't twist them to mean your what you want.

      I was not in error regarding St. Augustine. I quoted him and that's it. Your bias won't allow you to believe otherwise.

      The Council of Toledo was an example of what was believed prior to Photius. I never said it was an Ecumenical Council and why would you care if it is an Ecumenical Council when you have no central authority unless it's yourself or a bishop who agrees with you?

      I bet you can't cite one pope as you have claimed who rejected the filioque.

      Your claim that eight bishops attended the 4th Council of Constantinople is factually incorrect as well. In the first session out of ten sessions there were 12 but in the sessions proceeding it had up to 103. Doesn't matter how many were there. The pope had the authority to condemn Photius and it is accepted by the Church as a General Council today.

      Lee

      Delete
    17. Pope John VIII. Again, Rome accepted the condemnation of the filioque from 879-880 until it retracted it in the 11 century. So for 200 years popes considered the council ecumenical that condemned the filioque. That alone makes dozens of popes. That's just from 879. And also, if it was as accepted as you claim then why did it take until the 11th Century to accept it officially as Catholic doctrine? I'll tell you why, because it was extremely contested and controversial.
      And to prove the error of your statement again, the filioque caused the schism with ALL of the patriarchates of the East. So, obviously your statement that it was accepted by "all the church" is false.

      Delete
    18. To Anon @1:23 PM on 10-27-2022,

      It is a matter of historical dispute that Pope John VIII accepted all (or **any**) of the acts of the 879 Photian synod; in fact, per the historian Phillip Schaff, this is how he describes it (https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4/hcc4.i.v.iv.html):

      ----

      Photius was restored to the patriarchal see three days after the death of Ignatius, with whom he had been reconciled. He convened a council in November, 879, which lasted till March, 880, and is acknowledged by the Orientals as the Eighth Oecumenical Council, but denounced by the Latins as the Pseudo-Synodus Photiana. It was three times as large as the Council of Ignatius, and held with great pomp in St. Sophia under the presidency of Photius. It annulled the Council of 869 as a fraud; it readopted the Nicene Creed with an anathema against the Filioque, and all other changes by addition or omission, and it closed with a eulogy on the unrivalled virtues and learning of Photius. To the Greek acts was afterwards added a **(pretended)** letter of Pope John VIII. to Photius, declaring the Filioque to be an addition which is rejected by the church of Rome, and a blasphemy which must be abolished calmly and by, degrees. The papal legates assented to all, and so deceived their master by false accounts of the surrender of Bulgaria that he thanked the emperor for the service he had done to the Church by this synod.

      But when the pope’s eyes were opened, he sent the bishop Marinus to Constantinople to declare invalid what the legates had done contrary to his instructions. For this Marinus was shut up in prison for thirty days. After his return Pope John VIII. solemnly pronounced the anathema on Photius, who had dared to deceive and degrade the holy see, and had added new frauds to the old. Marinus renewed the anathema after he was elected pope (882). Photius denied the validity of his election, and developed an extraordinary, literary activity.

      ----

      In other words, contrary to what you say, it is certainly not a given that Rome "accepted the condemnation of the filioque", nor that they recognized the Photian synod of 879 as legitimate. (Not that this stops Orthodox apologists from claiming those pretended letters of Pope John VIII to be authentic, because it naturally bolsters their position.)

      Notwithstanding John VIII's acknowledgement of Photius's claim to the see (which was truly empty after Ignatius's death, and after which the pro-Photius sentiment was such that still denying him the patriarchate would have likely provoked schism anew...even though Photius ended up provoking it anyway) the content of these alleged letters must be considered spurious in light of how, immediately after the Acts of the 879 council were brought to his attention, John VIII anathematized and excommunicated Photius (contrary to the intentions indicated by the letters read at the 879 council, hence the historical position that these letters were not legitimate).

      Next, you state "the filioque caused the schism with ALL of the patriarchates of the East" This is certainly not the case **in principle**; rather, it was Photius — animated by animosity for Rome, who had excommunicated him after he had usurped the Constantinopolitan seat from the lawful patriarch Ignatius (who at the time had been banished from his see by Bardas), and ordained by the excommunicate Gregory Asbestas — who inflamed the filioque controversy into a weapon against the Latins, further inflaming a divide that had been growing politically and economically ever since the Roman Empire's seat of governing authority had moved eastward to Constantinople (hence why Charlemagne's claim that he was the renewer of the Roman Empire grated so significantly against the Byzantines in the political realm).

      What may have been reconciled as a difference in terminology without a true difference in meaning, was instead the implement — sharpened to a fine point by Photius's noteworthy intellect — by which the East was severed and cut away into an anti-Roman abyss.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    19. Anon. 1:23

      You are full of it. Again cite specifically where Pope John VIII and Rome officially said the filioque was heretical.

      The filioque didn't cause the schism. The heretic deceiving Photius caused the schism by his unlawful intrusion of a See and his questioning of doctrines.

      Lee

      Delete
    20. A Simple Man,
      So wonderful to see you commenting here again, my friend! It's been a long time, and your comments are always most erudite! Maybe you can guest post again sometime. I hope to see more of your comments.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    21. Hello Introibo,

      I'm still lurking and reading in the time I have, but that one particular comment couldn't go unanswered without further elaboration (because, sad as it is to say, the divides between the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire — between the Latins and the Greeks — were as much driven by cultural, political, and economic issues as they were religious ones; one example of this is the Muslim invasions of southern Italy, prompting him to try and gain military support from Italian nobles, the Carolingians, and the Byzantines to reinforce Rome; however, attempts at currying support from one party irritated the others to various degrees, who were all antagonistic towards each other for one reason or another).

      Delete
    22. Hello, this should be my last post. I think the arguments posted here by Lee and Simple Man are satisfactorily refuted by one of the greatest Catholic historians, Francis Dvornic. Without posting a wall of text, here is a summary of his findings pertaining to the Council of 879:
      "Dvornic's pioneering work has restored the basic facts.10 Meijer in 1975,11 Phidas in 199412 and Siamakis in 199513 have refined these facts. There is no doubt to anyone who surveys this literature that the Roman Catholic position is untenable. The Photian Council of 879/880 is that which: i) annulled the Ignatian one (869/70), ii) enumerated the Seventh (787) adding it to the previous Six, iii) restored unity to the Church of Constantinople itself and to the Churches of Old and New Rome, which had been shattered by the arbitrary interference of the popes of Rome in the life of the Eastern Church especially through the Ignatian Council, and iv) laid down the canonical and theological basis of the union of the Church in East and West through its Horos."

      These facts are only contested with revisionist history. Again, this council was in fact considered the Eight Ecumenical Council for 200 years. Obviously, the filioque was refuted along with the Ignatian council of 869. Good day and God Bless!

      Delete
    23. To Anon at 10-28-2022 at 6:44 PM,

      Reverse Googling your quote, I notice that the source article's footnotes keep referencing the same letters of John VIII that were read aloud at the Photian synod, apparently signalling Rome's agreement to condemn the Filioque.

      Again, this runs into a very inconvenient problem: if those letters were indeed accurate, and echoed John VIII's true intentions:

      - Why then do other historians attest that the papal legates who represented John VIII at the council of 879 disobeyed his instructions?

      - Why then were anathemas apparently reinstated against Photius by John VIII and his successor Marinus?

      There is a great degree of historical dispute amongst which letters of those times are legitimate or not.

      But in order of fact and in time, Fr. Francis Dvornic (born 1893 and died in 1975, promoted to monsignor by Paul VI, and was likewise apparently an Advisor for History and Ecumenism at Vatican 2) and those you cite would technically be the revisionists, since they attest to revise previously accepted history.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    24. Anon 6:44

      Which book did that come from and why is it written about Dvornik's findings and not by him? Probably written by an Eastern Orthodox (Heterodox) heretic, for all we know.

      Plus I've already showed you where the fathers in the East and West said AND the Son to make you happy. You still have not dealt with that and it's because you cannot. What they say is what matters even over Dvornik if he even supposedly said things in favor of the Schism.

      Just like Feeneyites, Orthodox have a true sickness of the soul.

      Lee

      Delete
    25. Lee,

      The source article that the anonymous poster pulled his quote from is this one: https://sangiulio.org/holy-canons/the-8th-ecumenical-council-constantinople-iv-879-880-and-the-condemnation-of-the-filioque-addition-and-doctrine/

      The article's author is Reverend George Dion. Dragas, who according to online resources is an Orthodox priest and theologian.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
  3. The few more honest of the Heterodox recognize that the Fathers, particularly those revered in the East, spoke about the procession either "from the Father AND the Son" or "from the Father THROUGH the Son." There has actually been a lot of discussion regarding "per filio," which is as far as many of them will go. It seems the moderator of that YouTube video was one of the less than honest. It is true that the Heterodox have a decidedly Protestant streak among them, ignoring the inconvenient and maligning and impugning the character of that which is otherwise not so easy to ignore, see St. Francis of Assisi. In my dealings with the Heterodox, the Filioque is one thing on a very long list of grievances with the West whose importance is only relative to how long one has been from their conversion and catechumenate. The young bucks think it's the end all, whereas the older and wiser don't really give it much thought.

    There is, of course, much more that could be said about the dispute from a theological basis and I'm sure that there'll be at least one or two that'll show up here with a minor treatise about how the filioque is an absolute horrific scandal and that the Fathers really weren't in agreement about it or whatever.

    Ultimately, the East values brevity; the Fathers understood that the Father and the Son were the same and OF COURSE the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. "Why do you have to say it?" Whereas the West tends to prefer specificity; "We HAVE to say it, otherwise, the heretics won't get it. Ergo, stubbornness and ignorance ended up winning out.

    Of course, we in the Catholic East have resolved this problem quite some time ago. The dual procession is understood for proper reasons, and we may choose to explicitly state as such as we see fit, with no consequence to our communion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gjerj Kastrioti,

      Your comment is much appreciated. I take it you live in Eastern Europe. Other than Fr. Valerii Kudryavtsev are there any other sedevacantist Eastern rite priests?

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Thank you, Lee. No, I'm in the United States. I have not been able to find any sedevacantist clergy in the Eastern rites, and not for lack of trying.

      Fr. Valerii's recent incident with Mr. Heaseman and the fantastic Mr. Davis has broken my heart; I'm honestly not sure what to make of him.

      Delete
    3. Gjerj,

      Same here. Have you ever heard of Patriarch Elijah of the Byzantine Church who back in 2011 declared that Benedict XVI and John Paul II were not popes? Link here: https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1694/byzantine-patriarch-declared-state-sedevaca

      I'm not familiar with Fr. Valerii's recent incident with Mr. Heaseman.

      Lee

      Delete
    4. Gjerj Kastrioti,
      could you please tell us what happened in Ireland. Fr. Valerii indeed came to Ireland a few months ago. I read there was some trouble with that priest in Poland a few years ago.
      If the information at the CMRI website is up-to-date, the Irish have at least one priest, Fr. Thomas Le Gal. My heart goes out to these poor Irish souls, my countrymen suffer from the lack of priests too.

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    5. What happened between Fr.Valerii and Kevin Davis/Mr.Heasemen?
      Is Fr.Valerii still in living as an exile in England?

      -Andrew

      Delete
    6. I remember seeing Patriarch Elijah on YouTube yrs ago. Where do those Eastern Rite Ukrainians receive Holy Orders? Looked online and was not able to find their Bishop.

      -Andrew

      Delete
    7. Lee, I had seen that thread on the TradCath board. It seemed too good to be true, and of course, it was. A good rule of thumb is if catholic-hierarchy.org can't establish someone's apostolic provenance, you're wise to stay away.

      Fr. Valerii was taken in by Heasman in Ireland after the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine earlier this year.
      The arrangement apparently went very south, which it turns out is apparently par for the course where Fr. Valerii is concerned. Poor Kevin Davis got pulled in and his name slightly dragged through the mud for trying to be charitable. Almost all of the details have been scrubbed. Fr. Valerii seems to have earned himself a rather poor reputation and whose credentials appear to be overstated. The whole situation was a shame.

      Delete
    8. I'm sorry to read this. I cannot give you details, but what you wrote is one hand view and is far from reality. Actually, it was about the difference between my and CMRI's position on the Sacrament of Matrimony. If you call "earned himself a rather poor reputation" my refusal to recognize so-called invalidity of 100% valid marriage, then I'm ready to earn it once again. God bless you.

      Delete
  4. Lee,
    Excellent blog post. Apologetics of the dogmas of true religion is extremely important today, given the Vatican II revolution.
    My cousin is a big fan of the Eastern schismatic "Orthodox" Church. In fact, the eternally true orthodox Church is only the Roman Church. I will try to introduce him to this blog post. He believes that "Orthodox are Catholics too," even though they refuse to submit to the Roman Pope - he always says: "You also refuse to submit to Francis therefore you are not a Roman Catholic". He is a big fan of Eastern liturgical rites, which is why he wants to go to the Mass of the Eastern schismatics.
    I hope your blog post will convince him.

    God Bless,
    Paweł

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pawel,

      It will take a lot for a member of the Orthodox religion to change their ways. Photius founded it on his pride and his followers have a lot of the same problem.

      They simply do not believe in the authority of St. Peter and his successors whom Jesus commissioned to feed His sheep. In other words, they do not believe in the authority of Christ or His Church but claim to be Christian who hold the "true" Orthodox teachings.

      I'm glad you like the blog post, and I'm glad you will share it with your relative. God Bless.

      Lee

      Delete
  5. Great work, Lee!

    This argument by Eastern Schismatics that God the Holy Ghost allegedly cannot proceed from God the Son because of Our Lord's two natures (the divine and the human) being joined in the hypostatic union is extremely weak. God the Father has no beginning and has existed for all eternity, God the Son is generated by the Father before the beginning of time (ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula) that is before the Incarnation took place in time. Now, God the Holy Ghost has spoken through prophets already under the Old Covenant, well before the Incarnation so it should be obvious that He proceeds from God the Father as well as God the Son who are One (with God the Holy Ghost) in their divine nature, regardless of the Word being made Flesh later in the history of Redemption.
    Far from pretending to be an expert in dogmatic theology, that's just my try at proving the self-appointed Orthodox wrong.
    What do you think?

    God Bless,
    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanna S.

      Not sure if this helps but in the book "History of Heresies & Their Refutation" St. Alphonsus Liguori addresses the following:

      "When these letters were read, George Acropolita, the great Logothete, or High Chancellor, the Emperor’s Ambassador, renounced the schism in his name, professed the Faith of the Roman Church, and recognized the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff; he also took an oath, promising that the Emperor never would depart from his Faith and obedience. The Legates of the Greek Bishops did the same, and now the Council having approved and accepted the profession of Faith, the Synodical Constitution was promulgated: "We confess, said the Fathers, with a faithful and devout profession, that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but, as from one principle, not from two spirations, but one spiration. The Holy Roman Church, the Father and Mistress of all Churches, has always professed, and firmly holds and teaches this Doctrine, and, this is also the true and unchangeable opinion of the orthodox Fathers and Doctors, both of the Latin and Greek Churches. But as some, on account of not knowing this undoubted truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to prevent any from going the same false way in future, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, condemn and hand over to reprobation, all who presume to deny, that the Holy Ghost eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, or who dare to assert that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles, and not from one."

      Lee

      Delete
  6. Lee, thanks for your post. I found it educational and interesting. God bless.
    -Seeking Truth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seeking Truth,

      It's a topic that gets overlooked. Sadly many "Trad Catholics," especially R&R types, will convert to that religion or if not at least receive sacraments from them. Orthodoxy is not the way to salvation and it's name should be heterodoxy.

      Lee

      Delete
  7. I am close to some who are practicing members of Eastern Churches in union with Rome. Talking with them about ecclesiology is not much different than talking with those in the SSPX. They acknowledge Frankie as Pope, but that is about it as far as submission actually goes. They regard “tradition” as their rule of faith and of course that means they get to define “tradition” according to their own interpretation and not according to the so called Vicar of Christ’s interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Sadly, that is the case with with the Eastern Rites.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. This is basically why there is no need of sedevacantism in the Eastern Rites. Between the actual schismatics and those in “union” with Rome, they have been practicing a form of Gallicanism for over 1000 years. Their rule of faith is their notion of “orthodoxy,” whereas the R&R crowd look to “tradition.” Either way you slice it, the Papacy is not really that important except as some sort of visible head to settle canonical disputes.

      Delete
    3. Tom A.

      He is like a referee, a baby sitter, and presider to them. When Christ made St. Peter head of the Church, it's not like he gave him the keys to exercise his authority and rule over the whole Church. It's not like Jesus prayed for St. Peter that Satan wouldn't sift him as wheat so that way once he was converted that he would confirm his brethren. It's not like Our Lord said to St. Peter feed my sheep. It's not like Our Lord said to St. Peter alone that he was the Rock upon which he was to build His Church and that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever he would lose upon earth shall be lost in heaven. It's not like St. Peter's name being mentioned 196 times in scripture compared St. John's name being mentioned 29 times (the 2nd most mentioned Apostle) really has any significance as far as the importance of the Apostles. It's not like the word pope (papa) really means he is the father of faith, Vicar of Christ's Church on earth, and is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error to the entire flock.

      Who needs a pope when you can have a right to believe however you like Tom A as Vatican II teaches. [Sarcasm] for those who are new to this site.

      Lee

      Delete
  8. Are Catholics allowed to receive Eastern Orthodox form of Extreme Unction on top of Confession during an emergency?

    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      As all their sacraments are valid, Extreme Unction may e received (a) in danger of death (b) if no Traditionalist priest is available (c) if it can be done without scandal, and (d) the priest is willing to do so without having the person in danger of death subscribe to the Eastern Schism/heresy.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo:
      I was told by a CSPV priest that the validity of ordinations of the Eastern schismatic clergy (in so much as they are vested with Orders, and not Jurisdiction) must be evaluated on a case-to-case basis since apparently many of them have had their own Vatican IIs so to speak and have changed the form of ordination. So I would add that a conferral of one of the sacraments in extraordinary cases by an Orthodox priest would be dependent on the validity of the priest-in-question’s ordination (specifically whether they were ordained according to the infallible form of Holy Orders).

      Delete
    3. I'm referring to Eastern Orthodox Clerics not Eastern Rite Catholic clerics. Yes I've read the exact same thing about Eastern Rite Catholic clerics.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    4. @anon11:34
      Sadly, there has been some tampering with EO sacraments to bring them in line with the World Council of Churches (ecumenical). Someone I know who is EO said to ask if they are "New Calendar" or "Old Calendar." Those who follow the so-called "Old Calendar" retain all the old rites. One should definitely ask about their Orders. If still unsure, as long as they are not certainly invalid, you may receive their sacraments in danger of death, when all other requirements above obtain.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Thank you for answering.
      -Andrew

      Delete