My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy

[Livenotonevil]

This will be my last post, and then I'll be quiet, but I thought of it fitting because these are the points I want to hear Catholic arguments against.


In my research between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, I got to this point where several different facts have basically been nailed into the floor in my mind which makes me believe in Orthodoxy.

1. The fact that Pope Leo III abhorred the filioque addition, and went so far to carve in silver shields in Saint Peter's square the Creed without the filioque in Greek and in Latin, and stated that he does not authorize any change to the Creed.

2. The fact that Pope John VIII approved of the the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 879 and called anybody who added the Filioque "in the same class as Judas," as well as the fact that Saint Photius died in communion with Rome according to the work of several historians. This council completely abrogated the Roman Catholic 8th Ecumenical Council.

3. Pope Saint Gregory the Great calling anybody who used the term "Universal Bishop" as a forerunner of the Antichrist, and said that if that one bishop fell into heresy, the entire Church would fall into heresy. He also called Peter "simply a leader of a local community under the Head of Christ."
http://www.roca.org/OA/126-127/126e.htm

4. The fact that Saint Meletius, who wasn't in communion with Rome, became recognized as the True Patriarch of Antioch and not Paulinus II, who was in communion with Rome, and presided over the 2nd Ecumenical Council - and even the Melkite Catholic Church as well as the Maronite Catholic Church traces its Patriarch to Saint Meletius. Paulinus was also basically called a heretic by Saint Basil the Great. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202263.htm

5. The fact that Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the Fifth Ecumenical Council for teaching heresy, and the fact that Pope Honorius after his death was excommunicated as were his works for publicly teaching heresy.

6. The fact that Saint Cyprian led a synod condemning Pope Saint Stephen for not allowing the re-baptism of heretics, and even accused Pope Saint Stephen of being "a tyrant, setting himself up as bishop of bishops."

7. The fact that Pope Adrian I approved the Quinisext Council, which is seen as a robber council today by the Roman Catholic Church (as it forbids the use of lamb imagery in new Churches being built - this is because the Church Fathers didn't want people kissing images of a lamb).

8. The fact that Saint Paul appointed Linus as the Bishop of Rome while Saint Peter was alive, and Saint Peter appointed Clement as the Bishop of Rome while he was alive. Not to mention that Saint Peter also founded the Church of Antioch (as in the New Testament) as well as the Church of Carthage, and according to Saint Gregory the Great, Alexandria was also set up by Peter through his disciple Mark.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

9. The fact that Pope Victor was censured by the entirety of the Church for attempting to excommunicate Polycrates.

10. The fact that the Church Fathers, in their commentary of Matthew 16:18, overwhelmingly do not connect the person of Peter to the Rock, but connect it to Christ, and connect the passages to both the Parable of the House built on the Rock and Saint Paul talking about laying a foundation on Christ, and Augustine goes so far as to condemn anybody who says the rock is the person of Peter.
http://www.uaocamerica.org/sources-of-orthodox-teachin/the-church-fathers-interpre.html

11. The fact that there is extant evidence which suggests that the Roman Church did in fact use leavened bread.

From Father Joseph Jungman:

"In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on, all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural considerations -- all favored this development."
"Still, the new custom did not come into exclusive vogue until the middle of the eleventh century. Particularly in Rome it was not universally accepted till after the general infiltration of various usages from the North"
"Now, the fact that the West changed its practice and began using unleavened bread in the 8th and 9th century -- instead of the traditional leavened bread -- is confirmed by the research of Fr. William O'Shea, who noted that along with various other innovative practices from Northern Europe, the use of unleavened bread began to infiltrate into the Roman liturgy at the end of the first millennium, because as he put it, "Another change introduced into the Roman Rite in France and Germany at the time [i.e., 8th - 9th century] was the use of unleavened bread and of thin white wafers or hosts instead of the loaves of leavened bread used hitherto."

"Moreover, this change in Western liturgical practice was also noted by Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus in his book, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, because as he said: "The Eucharistic bread has been unleavened in the Latin rite since the 8th century -- that is, it is prepared simply from flour and water, without the addition of leaven or yeast. . . . in the first millennium of the Church's history, both in East and West, the bread normally used for the Eucharist was ordinary 'daily bread,' that is, leavened bread, and the Eastern Church uses it still today; for the most part, they strictly forbid the use of unleavened bread. The Latin Church, by contrast, has not considered this question very important."
"Thus, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the use of leavened bread by the Eastern Churches represents the ancient practice of the undivided Church, while the use of unleavened bread by the Western Church was an innovation introduced near the end of the first millennium."

George Galavaris:
"The same baking method and ovens were used by the Christians for both their daily bread and that which was to be used in worship. It must be made clear that (contrary to practices today in the West) in the Early Christian centuries and in all eastern rites through the ages, except in the Armenian church, the bread used for the Church did not differ from ordinary bread in substance. From the beginning leavened bread was used. Even the Armenians before the seventh century and the Maronites before their union with Rome in the twelfth century used leavened bread. The practice of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist was introduced to the West much later. Among the earliest written accounts is that given by Alcuin (A.D. 798) and his disciple Rabanus Maurus. After this the altar bread took the light, wafer like form, achieved with pressing irons, so common today."

12. The fact that it is a historical fact that forgeries were used to extend the claims of the Papacy, primarily via the Pseudo-Isidore Decretals, Gratiam's Decretum, and the Donation of Constantine - which even (although innocently) Thomas Aquinas used to in his document "Against the Errors of the Greeks."
https://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

13. The fact that the Oriental Orthodox Church exists, and they didn't feel the necessity of being in communion with Rome when they broke, and hold the same Ecclesiology as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The same with the Assyrian Church of the East, a Nestorian church.

14. Vatican II.

(For example, most infamously:

Council of Florence:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Vatican II:
"It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

These are both "infallible declarations" (although the former is much in line with Orthodox Tradition and what the Church Fathers have stated about heretics).

Anybody who accepts Vatican II must accept the contradictions between Church Tradition as well as the novelties in Vatican II, and anybody who rejects Vatican II must reject the Nicene Creed ("I believe in ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL), AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.")

15. The fact that the Third Ecumenical Council was held months after Pope Celestine had already excommunicated Nestorius - and the Council treated Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople in good standing.

16. The argument that the Sacred Heart devotion is Nestorian because it only portrays the humanity of Christ.

17. Arguments against the Roman understanding of Original Sin; that if Original Sin is connected to inherited guilt, and if Christ didn't have Original Sin, then Christ couldn't have died. Also, it makes little sense that the Virgin Mary could instantaneously by God's Will be born without Original Sin, and not have to be redeemed by Christ (rendering the Great and Noble Sacrifice on the Cross pointless).


I encourage everyone to Google these facts and research them. Please, and look at both sides - the Roman Catholic and Orthodox side of each of these issues.

With all of these facts, I have come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church - as much as I don't want it to be true, especially considering my Western Liturgical heritage that is a part of my soul - is not the Church of Christ, but rather it is the Holy Orthodox Church, which has kept the Faith unsullied and pure, without any change to the Faith expressed.

I thank the Lord that Western Rite Orthodoxy is a thing that exists, in which the Tridentine Mass is modified as to be Orthodox in content under the name the "Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great," as well as some forms of the Anglican liturgy (under the name of the "Liturgy of Saint Peter" and the "Liturgy of Saint Tikhon"; the changes including adding Eucharistic prayers, removing Filioque, and adding prayers to the Saints).


However, there are no Western Rite Orthodox Churches accessible to where I am. I love the Eastern Tradition nonetheless.


To these accusations, I want to dedicate this thread to answering these objections which have given me a firmer conviction of Orthodoxy.

[St.Justin]

Facts?????????????
I love it.

[Kephapaulos]

There is a good book I know of by a Fr. Adrian Fortescue called The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 that was written in 1920. He wrote a lot about the Eastern rites too.

[Livenotonevil]

There is a good book I know of by a Fr. Adrian Fortescue called The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 that was written in 1920. He wrote a lot about the Eastern rites too.

Maybe I'll take a look.

Just don't get me something that is too focused on using Sola Scriptura like "Peter, the Papacy, and the Keys," which was a terrible book for defending the Catholic perspective in my humble opinion, in comparison to Michael Whelton whom my Orthodox priest recommended me reading.

[Livenotonevil]

I'm really trying to not be an "Orthodox Crusader" by such a posting;
I just want to know Truth.

[ÆneasQuébécois]

Interesting. The "Donation" of Constantine has always given me pause, I must admit. You argue persuasively, Livenotonevil. I'll grant you that much.

[Kirin]

Interesting. The "Donation" of Constantine has always given me pause, I must admit. You argue persuasively, Livenotonevil. I'll grant you that much.

Generally in Catholic apologetic it tends to fall into the "No True Scotsman/ The Church is made of sinners" defense; it's members might be corrupt cheaters but that doesn't make it's claim and right to absolute power any less true. I.e: That power may have been obtained in unscrupulous ways but it doesn't matter because the Church deserved/needed/wanted it and has a right to claim it.

And back then it was absolute power, take Innocent III for instance made his claim to total absolute power in both the realms of Spirituality and Temporal power in this world quite clear...

"Every Cleric must obey the Pope, even if he commands evil for no-one may disobey the Pope"
"It is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal customs of the Church"
"It is the business of the pope to look after the interests of the Roman empire, since the empire derives its origin and its final authority from the papacy; its origin, because it was originally transferred from Greece by and for the sake of the papacy...its final authority, because the emperor is raised to his position by the pope who blesses him"

Charming fellow, these are some of his more tame quotes.

Just a brief outline of his influence: https://blogs.uoregon.edu/rel322w16drreis/2016/02/11/234/

[Lumen Christi]

To address the Filioque controversy:

"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])." - Epiphanius of Salamis

"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 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381])."

"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)." - St. Ambrose of Milan

"[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])."

"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 [A.D. 408]).

"[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)." - St. Augustine

""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])." - St. Cyril of Alexandria

https://www.catholic.com/tract/filioque

[Livenotonevil]

To address the Filioque controversy:

"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])." - Epiphanius of Salamis

"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 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381])."

"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)." - St. Ambrose of Milan

"[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])."

"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 [A.D. 408]).

"[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)." - St. Augustine

""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])." - St. Cyril of Alexandria

https://www.catholic.com/tract/filioque

From William Webster:
"In addition to the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled Against the Errors of the Greeks. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. Under the names of the eminent Greek fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbott, a Latin forger had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged which was subsequently submitted to Pope Urban IV. This work became known as the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum. In addition the Latin author also included spurious canons from early Ecumenical Councils. Pope Urban in turn submitted the work to Thomas Aquinas who used many of the forged passages in his work Against the Errors of the Greeks mistakenly thinking they were genuine. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries."



Your going to show me the source I can find "ibid," as you didn't quote the original source here or what work of "The Trinity" its from - or fight against the accusation that Aquinas used forgeries or Rome used forgeries. Most definitely a couple of these quotes (in particularly the Ephinasius quote sticks out) is taken from Aquinas's "Against the Errors of the Greeks," as well as the lattermost Cyril of Alexandria quote.

Also, the Athanasian Creed is most likely not from Athanasius of Alexandria, and was never widespread in the Orthodox Church.

From Wikipedia:

"It has since been widely accepted by modern scholars that the creed was not authored by Athanasius, that it was not originally called a creed at all, nor was Athanasius' name originally attached to it. Athanasius' name seems to have become attached to the creed as a sign of its strong declaration of Trinitarian faith. The reasoning for rejecting Athanasius as the author usually relies on a combination of the following:

The creed originally was most likely written in Latin, while Athanasius composed in Greek.
Neither Athanasius nor his contemporaries ever mention the Creed.
It is not mentioned in any records of the ecumenical councils.
It appears to address theological concerns that developed after Athanasius died (including the filioque).
It was most widely circulated among Western Christians.
The use of the creed in a sermon by Caesarius of Arles, as well as a theological resemblance to works by Vincent of Lérins, point to Southern Gaul as its origin. The most likely time frame is in the late fifth or early sixth century AD – at least 100 years after Athanasius. The theology of the creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition, using exact terminology of Augustine's On the Trinity (published 415 AD). In the late 19th century, there was a great deal of speculation about who might have authored the creed, with suggestions including Ambrose of Milan, Venantius Fortunatus, and Hilary of Poitiers, among others.

The 1940 discovery of a lost work by Vincent of Lérins, which bears a striking similarity to much of the language of the Athanasian Creed, have led many to conclude that the creed originated either with Vincent or with his students. For example, in the authoritative modern monograph about the creed, J. N. D. Kelly asserts that Vincent of Lérins was not its author, but that it may have come from the same milieu, namely the area of Lérins in southern Gaul. The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Athanasian Creed date from the late 8th century."

[Lumen Christi]

"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)"

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num44.htm

Can you still be confident that you are in the Church? You left the Catholic Church. You deserted the chair of Peter. How does this not apply to you?

[Vetus Ordo]

A summary from the CE on the subject of the Filioque:

Filioque is a theological formula of great dogmatic and historical importance. On the one hand, it expresses the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son as one Principle; on the other, it was the occasion of the Greek schism. Both aspects of the expression need further explanation.

Dogmatic meaning of Filioque

The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, if the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.

The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it does not seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites.

In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of nineth century, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half the same century, Photius, the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople (858), denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan creed. The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by the Patriarch Michael Caerularius, who renewed and completed the Greek schism.

The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father.

Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son.

Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition. Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:

• the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Epistle 15 (447);
• the so-called Athanasian Creed;
• several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI);
• the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521);
• St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655;
• Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795;
• the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680);
• the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem;
• the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii;
• the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054);
• the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215;
• the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the
• Council of Florence, 1439.

Some of the foregoing conciliar documents may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq. Bessarion, speaking in the Council of Florence, inferred the tradition of the Greek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the ninth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

• First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father [St. Basil, Epistle 38; Against Eunomius I.20 and III, sub init.]
• Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athanasius, Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; On the Incarnation 9; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, Against Eunomius V; cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43, no. 9).
• Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Gregory Thaumaturgus, "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufinus, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii, 4; Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", as. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.

The only Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John 15:26, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The ambiguous expressions found in some of the early writers of authority are explained by the principles which apply to the language of the early Fathers generally.

Historical importance of the Filioque

It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589. It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it.

The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. Scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15).

The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day.

It is a matter for surprise that so abstract a subject as the doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost should have appealed to the imagination of the multitude. But their national feelings had been aroused by the desire of liberation from the rule of the ancient rival of Constantinople; the occasion of lawfully obtaining their desire appeared to present itself in the addition of Filioque to the Creed of Constantinople. Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)?

It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

[Vetus Ordo]

3. Pope Saint Gregory the Great calling anybody who used the term "Universal Bishop" as a forerunner of the Antichrist, and said that if that one bishop fell into heresy, the entire Church would fall into heresy. He also called Peter "simply a leader of a local community under the Head of Christ."
http://www.roca.org/OA/126-127/126e.htm

The very same Pope St. Gregory in a letter to John, Bishop of Syracuse, plainly states:

"For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

As for his quarrel with Patriarch John IV of Constantinople, the CE does a decent job of summing up the whole episode:

But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards Constantinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests accused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of oecumenical patriarch "in almost every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii, in P.L., LXXVII, 738).

Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspondence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Constantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon), to assume such a title as this. It further argues independence of any superior; whereas, says Gregory, "who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?" (Epp., IX, xii, ibid., 957); and again: "I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See" (ibid.).

The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.). This idea rests on a misconception (Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles", II, Paris, 1908, pp. 834-5), but his reason for resenting the title in any bishop is obvious throughout his letters. "He understood it as an exclusion of all the others [privative quoad omnes alios] so that he who calls himself oecumenic, that is, universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor of the inhabited earth" (so Horace Giustiniani at the Council of Florence; Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 184).

For this reason Gregory does not spare his language in denouncing it. It is "diabolical arrogance" (Epp., V, xx, in P.L., XXVII, 746, xxi, 750, etc.); he who so calls himself is antichrist. Opposed to it Gregory assumed the title borne ever since by his successors. "He refuted the name 'universal' and first of all began to write himself 'servant of the servants of God' at the beginning of his letters, with sufficient humility, leaving to all his successors this hereditary evidence of his meekness" (Johannes Diaconus, "Vita S. Gregorii", II, i, in P.L., LXV, 87). Nevertheless the patriarchs of Constantinople kept their "oecumenical" title till it became part of their official style. The Orthodox patriarch subscribes himself still "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Œcumenical Patriarch". But it is noticeable that even Photius (d. 891) never dared use the word when writing to Rome. The Catholic Church has never admitted it. It became a symbol of Byzantine arrogance and the Byzantine schism. In 1024 the Emperor Basil II (963-1025) tried to persuade Pope John XIX (1024-1033) to acknowledge it. The pope seems to have been ready to do so, but an outburst of indignation throughout the West and a stern letter from Abbot William of Dijon made him think better of it (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 167). Later again, at the time of the final schism, Pope Leo IX writes to Michael Cærularius of Constantinople (in 1053): "How lamentable and detestable is the sacrilegious usurpation by which you everywhere boast yourself to be the Universal Patriarch" (op. cit., p. 182). No Catholic bishop since then has ever dared assume this title.

With regard to the issue, one should note first that Gregory knew no Greek. He saw the words only in a Latin version: Patriarcha universalis, in which they certainly sound more scandalous than in Greek. How he understood them is plain from his letters. They seem to mean that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bishops are only his vicars and delegates. Catholic theology does not affirm this of the pope or anyone. Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See. It is the whole difference between diocesan ordinaries and vicars Apostolic. All bishops are not Apostolic vicars of the pope. Nor has any pope ever assumed the title "universal bishop", though occasionally they have been so called in complimentary addresses from other persons. The accusation, then, that Gregory's successors have usurped the title that he so resented is false.

Whether John IV or other patriarchs of Constantinople really meant to advance so arrogant a claim is another question. Oikoumenikòs patriárches in Greek is susceptible of a milder interpretation. He Oikoumènes chóra was long a name for the civilized, cultivated land of the Greeks, as opposed to the wild country of the barbarians. It was then often used for the Roman Empire. It is at least probable that the clause hupèr tês oikouménes in the Greek Intercession of the Byzantine Liturgy means the "empire" (Fortescue, "Liturgy of St. Chrysostom", London, 1908, p. 106). It may be, then that oikoumenikòs patriárches meant no more than "imperial patriarch", as the Greeks of Constantinople told Anastasius Bibliothecarius of the time of Photius (see his statement in Gelzer, op. cit., p. 572). Kattenbusch (Konfessionskunde, I, 116) thinks it should be translated Reichspatriarch. Even so it is still false. The Patriarch of Constantinople had no sort of claim over the whole empire. The most that can be allowed is that if "ecumenical" means only "imperial", and if "imperial" means only "of the imperial court", the title (in this case equal to "court patriarch") is no worse than a foolish example of vanity. But even in Greek this interpretation is by no means obvious. In Greek, too, an "oecumenical synod" is one that has authority for the whole Church; the "oecumenic doctors" (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom) are those whose teaching must be followed by all. Pichler's comparison with the form "catholic bishop" ("Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung", II, Munich, 1865, pp. 647 sq.) is absurd. The humblest member of the Church is (in any language) a Catholic; in no language could he be called oecumenical.

[St.Justin]

Livenotonevil, I suggest you read this: https://www.theopedia.com/great-schism . You will find that there has been schism aftr schism between the East and the West. Mainly over heresies which the East seem to love, Arianism, monophysites, Miaphysitism, Montanism, etc. Guess which church had to correct all of them?

[Tales]

Sir,

Shall we create a historical list of Orthodox dirty laundry to air out as well?  Will doing so prove anything?  No.

Jesus is the Pope of the Church.  The bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ for the Church Militant until He returns.  The keys to heaven were given to one man, not to a council.  God did not send his sons but just one Son - nor did He send His Son + some saints (patriarchs) that were mysteriously of equal footing with Jesus - one man was sent, Jesus.  There is one head to the Church (Jesus) just as there is one head of the Church militant (the bishop of Rome).  The Church is not a democracy as that is not how Jesus established it.  Pejoratively referring to this as Protestant sola scriptura justification could equally unjustly be turned against the Orthodox justification through tradition by pejoratively calling it Pharisaical.

The very sad reality is that this is a long run battle for authority, not theology - people do not want to submit themselves to authority.  The Protestants do not.  The Orthodox do not.  The modern world does not.  Is anyone really losing sleep over the filioque?  Or is this just bitter enmity between old Rome and new Rome (Constantinople) dragged out for a thousand years?  Do you notice how for all of history East and West have been divided?  Do you really think this division is from a couple theological disagreements, or from the fact that these groups of people have been enemies since ancient history?  It is a sad state of affairs that this cultural division keeps good faithful Christians apart.

If in an alternate universe the Pope gave up his authority to the Orthodox system of patriarchs, then what would happen?  All of the Catholic bishops would vote for the filioque and the Orthodox against it.  Catholics vastly outnumber Orthodox.  So now what, will each call each other heretics just like before?  The Catholics will say this is a new truthful understanding of doctrine, whereas the Orthodox will say it has already been decided.  Orthodox will say the tradition does not support it, the Catholics will say the tradition did not have the trinity, so would you like to exclude that as well?

This is all just Protestant squabbling - a rejection of a living authority leads to these intractable battles.  That is why Jesus, in his infinite divine wisdom, established the Church not on the King James Bible, nor on the Byzantine traditions of the Eastern Church, but on the living man St. Peter the Apostle.  The singular living vicar of Christ can personally correct errors in ways that no Bible can, and in ways that no historical analysis of tradition can.  The living vicar of Christ will take into account sacred scripture, tradition, and the advice of all bishops, and in conjunction with the Holy Ghost, proceed with his authoritative ruling.

The division between Orthodox and Catholics is shameful.

[Xavier]

My friend, I really and warmly recommend you resolve to set aside at least 3 hours for prayer and say 3 Rosaries daily to ask Jesus and Mary for light and grace, for at least the next few months before rushing into a rash decision to leave the Catholic Church for the Greek schism. Almost all these points are disingenuous (did you know Pope St. Leo III dogmatically confessed the doctrine of the Filioque, did the article/book which gave you partial information also tell you that?) but because it is not impossible that you may have been ensnared in good faith, I'm going to add a brief response to what others have already said.

1. Filioque: "West: Pope St. Leo III of Rome (June 12)
58. Eastern Orthodox apologists make much of the fact that Pope St. Leo III opposed the edition of Filioque to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 and had it engraved in its original form in Greek and Latin on two silver shields in front of St. Peter's,{1} but that is where the usefulness of their polemical weapon ceases. St. Leo III told Bl. Charlemagne (January 28) that he agreed with the doctrine of Filioque.{2} But Pope St. Leo III--who omitted Filioque from the Creed for the sake of Church unity{3} and was aware of the sensitivity of the Greeks about their Creed{4} and the nuances of ????????????? vs. ????????{5}--openly confessed, in letter to all the Eastern Churches, his belief in "the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..."{6} http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.in/2009/08/filioque.html?m=1

Please slowly and completely read through all the citations in the link including from St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Pope St. Leo the Great, Pope St. Gregory the Great, St. Maximus of Constantinople etc before you post again. If you are really in good faith, you will clearly see the Filioque is the unanimous consent especially of the Latin Fathers (the Greek Fathers preferring to express the same mystery as "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" as Patriarch St. Tarasius did at Nicaea II, which expresses the same doctrine in different words) as St. Maximus specifically told some schismatics already in his day who were using it as a pretext to separate from Catholic unity into schism (which St. Maximus of Constantinople refused to do, instead condemning the schismatic Greeks of his day, remaining united to Rome, and telling the schismatic Patriarch to go to Rome and be received by the Pope). Show us any texts that support the heresy of Mark of Ephesus who claimed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father alone, just as the Son is begotten of the Father alone. This heresy was pre emptively refuted by St. Isidore of Seville, "there is this difference between the generation of the Son and the spiration of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One while the Spirit proceeds from Both." The identical doctrine is taught by St. Leo, St. Hormisdas and several other Popes, Saints, Doctors and Patriarchs.