Did the Meaning of the Dogma of the Filioque Change in the Medieval Church?

[Justin Martyr]

Wanted to know what you guys thought about this.

Per the Council of Florence, the Father and the Son are both causes (?????/principium) of the procession of the Holy Ghost; the former without principle (uncaused), the latter being a principle with a principle (a cause with a cause). Likewise, at Lyons II the dogmatized understanding of the Filioque was that both the Father and the Son are the causes (?????) of the procession of the Holy Spirit, with the specific word for procession used at Lyons II being ???????????? (meaning procession as from an ultimate cause), and it was used in its literal sense as understood in greek (that the Father and Son together are ultimate cause of the Holy Ghost). Thus, the Dogma of the Filioque was clearly stated to mean that the Holy Ghost proceeds in eternity from single procession from both the Father and the Son together as ultimate cause.

However, St. Maximus the Confessor (the great defender of the Papacy during the Monothelite controversy), had this to say about the Latin understanding of the Filioque in his day when it came under scrutiny:

Those of the Queen of cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope [Martin I], not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them.  One relates to theology, because it says he says that 'the Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeusthai) also from the Son.'...With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John.  On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause (aitian) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession (ekporeusin); but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit's coming-forth (proienai) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence (ousias).

According the Maximus, the understanding of the Filioque as found in St. Cyril and all the Latin Fathers is not the Dogmatic understanding of the present day, but instead they understood the ???????????? of the Spirit from the Son in an analogical sense, the literal meaning intended being procession in the sense of ???????? (making the procession of the Spirit from the Father manifest, per Filium instead of Filoque) rather than a literal ???????????? from the Son in eternity as ?????.

What are we to make of this? Could the letter be a forgery? Or can the change in meaning somehow be understood as legitimate via the development of doctrine (which would seem contrary to Vatican I)?

Edit: for fuller context, here is the Dogmatic Definition from Florence:

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Compare that to the letter of St. Maximus, who explicitly states that the Fathers are not referring to the Son as cause in the sense the term is understood in Greek. These two are mutually exclusive: one says the Fathers understood the Filioque to mean that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as from a cause, the other explicitly states that the Fathers did not understand the Filioque to mean that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as from a cause.

Adding to the confusion, when the Greeks presented St. Maixmus' Letter to Marinus to the Council of Florence as an acceptable forumla for reunion, the Latin council fathers rejected it.

What in the world do we make of this?

[Justin Martyr]

I figured St. John Damascene (Doctor of the Church, his works were approved by Nicaea II) might help, since he wrote a whole book that was an exacting exposition (arguably one of the first catechisms) on what is the orthodox understanding of the Catholic Faith within living memory of the time of St. Maximus. Plus, St. Thomas used him alot!

Oh boy...

God then is called Mind and Reason and Spirit and Wisdom and Power, as the cause of these, and as immaterial, and maker of all, and omnipotent. And these names are common to the whole Godhead, whether affirmative or negative. And they are also used of each of the subsistences of the Holy Trinity in the very same and identical way and with their full significance. For when I think of one of the subsistences, I recognise it to be perfect God and perfect essence: but when I combine and reckon the three together, I know one perfect God. For the Godhead is not compound but in three perfect subsistences, one perfect indivisible and uncompound God. And when I think of the relation of the three subsistences to each other, I perceive that the Father is super-essential Sun, source of goodness, fathomless sea of essence, reason, wisdom, power, light, divinity: the generating and productive source of good hidden in it. He Himself then is mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit. And to put it shortly, the Father has no reason , wisdom, power, will , save the Son Who is the only power of the Father, the immediate cause of the creation of the universe: as perfect subsistence begotten of perfect subsistence in a manner known to Himself, Who is and is named the Son. And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation. Wherefore the Holy Spirit is the perfecter of the creation of the universe. All the terms, then, that are appropriate to the Father, as cause, source, begetter, are to be ascribed to the Father alone: while those that are appropriate to the caused, begotten Son, Word, immediate power, will, wisdom, are to be ascribed to the Son: and those that are appropriate to the caused, processional, manifesting, perfecting power, are to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit: Father of the Son alone and producer of the Holy Spirit. The Son is Son, Word, Wisdom, Power, Image, Effulgence, Impress of the Father and derived from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without Spirit. And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause (?????).

Did the Council of Florence condemn St. John Damacene's understanding of the Trinity as heretical? A Doctor of the Church holding to heresy?

And unlike St. Thomas with the Immaculate Conception, this was long after Trinitarian Theology had been well-defined.

I'm scratching my head really hoping someone has a good explanation for this.

[Justin Martyr]

I went to St. Augustine, the key Father for Latin Trinitarian Theology. In De Trinitate he talks about the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, but in many places it is unclear if he is referring to temporal or eternal procession (and in the places that would be most strongly in favor of Florence, the context is very clearly about the temporal procession).

However, this passage in particular caught my eye:

29. And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begat Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit?--namely, that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love.

St. Augustine draws a clear distinction between the procedere principaliter (procession in the sense of ultimate causation), which he attributes to the Father alone and would be rendered in Greek as ????????????, and the procedere of the Spirit from the Son. He underlines this, stating not to dwell on it in passing but to rather carefully consider the difference between procedere principaliter and procedere. If we were to translate this into Greek, we would say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father in the sense of ????????????, and from the Son in the sense of ???????? (indeed, though the Latin word processio/procedere can refer to both, Greek has specific words for different kinds of processions). This passage makes perfect sense if read in the light of what St. Maximus (who spoke both Latin and Greek and was erudite in regard to both set of Fathers) stated in his letter to Marinus as the proper meaning of the Filioque, but I'm having difficulty reading it in light of Florence.

Florence matches the language and analogies of St. Augustine fairly closely, but on the question of the procedere principaliter it attributes it to the Father and the Son equally (while drawing the distinction between the Father as Principium Sine Principium and the Son as Principium Cum Principium). But St. Augustine attributes the procedere principaliter to the Father alone and stresses the importance of this difference. So what gives?

Also, in regard to the last post, I was checking through St. Thomas and he specifically stated that St. John Damacene had a heretical (specifically Nestorian) understanding of the Trinity and "was not to be followed on this point".

OBJ 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
...
Reply OBJ 3: The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.

How can a Doctor of Church (declared as such by Pope Leo XIII), a man who's work was approved and recieved by Nicaea II, err in regard to something de fide on a matter that had already been defined (Procession of the Holy Ghost, Constantinople I)? Worse still, according to the creed Quicumque Vult, one who does not explicitly hold to the correct doctrine on the Trinity and the Incarnation can not be saved; and this is the common opinion of Theologians (one of whom was St. Thomas). None of this is making any sense.

Next stop, to find the creed Ephesus condemned that St. Thomas referred to!

[Prayerful]

Filoque was a Frankish development of doctrine that was accepted in Rome, and postdates this former fiscal official to the early Caliphs turned monk. Greek Rite and Eastern communities under the Pope can often say nothing and sometimes seem to contradict Latin explanations. I see it more as a differing understanding. St John Damascene was a great writer who was insightful on Islam as it was in his time, but he predates a later growth in understanding on the matter and it is anyhow not of the Latin tradition.

[Justin Martyr]

Edit: internet glitched, double post.

[Justin Martyr]

Searching through the Acta as well as the decrees of Ephesus yielded nothing. I'll try to see if I can find what St. Thomas was talking about, but right now it either looks like this portion is not extant or St. Thomas was dealing with a forgery (probably something interpolated into the Acta if this is the case).

Filoque was a Frankish development of doctrine that was accepted in Rome, and postdates this former fiscal official to the early Caliphs turned monk. Greek Rite and Eastern communities under the Pope can often say nothing and sometimes seem to contradict Latin explanations. I see it more as a differing understanding. St John Damascene was a great writer who was insightful on Islam as it was in his time, but he predates a later growth in understanding on the matter and it is anyhow not of the Latin tradition.

And what about St. Maximus who predates Damascene? He was very familiar with the Latin Fathers yet says they understood the filioque in a way that is mutually exclusive with Florence and the Frankish development. Do you know if there are any Latin Fathers that would help demonstrate St. Maximus to be in error (or anything that would demonstrate his letter to Marinus to be a forgery)?

Can a Dogma develop to the point it changes in meaning? I thought this was condemned by Vatican I, Lamentabili, and Pascendi? I'm not saying it has changed in meaning, but at present that's what it looks like (however, all appearances are irrelevant once Rome decrees something, so I obviously accept the teaching of Florence with absolute certainty).

[Justin Martyr]

Does anyone know of any Catholic commentators who have engaged St. Maximus' Letter to Marinus?

[Xavier]

Hi Justin. Please see this article on Filioque: https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/ It refutes the heresy of Photius.

"[1] Five Ecumenical Councils approved a letter of Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria that taught the Dogma of the Filioque!

Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine gives a manifest proof establishing the doctrine from the authority of five ecumenical councils:

Omitting these things, then, let us bring forward the Councils that testify the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. First the Council celebrated at Alexandria, from which Council Cyril writes a letter to Nestorius in which are these words, 'The Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is Truth, and so He proceeds from Him likewise as from the Father.' This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods. We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand?

Patriarch St. Cyril and the five ecumenical councils mentioned by Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine give us the patristic and Church-authorized interpretation of the Word of Christ in Sacred Scripture. As we will see subsequently, Bishops like St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine had already done this in the West in the 4th century.

[2] Greek Orthodox Bishops and Patriarchs, at Nicene Ecumenical Councils, confess doctrine practically equivalent to the Filioque.

As if that were not enough, we have the testimony of two Eastern saintly bishops, one of whom was patriarch of the Greek Church and made a dogmatic confession.

Bp. St. Leontius of Caesarea, at Nicaea I, testifies that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him" [3]. This is the Faith of the 318 fathers gathered at Nicaea. As Cardinal St. Robert writes, it was not explicitly defined in Nicaea, because the necessity had not yet arisen, as the ancient fathers testified, "I for my part cannot sufficiently wonder with what boldness Jeremias, who calls himself Ecumenical Patriarch, dared to write recently in his censure of the confession of the Lutherans that it was defined by the Synod of Nicaea and all subsequent general Councils that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone[.] ... Let us then consult the Nicene Creed, and let us see whether it teaches in very expressive words that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The whole Nicene Creed is cited by Cyril among the Greeks, by Ruffinus among the Latins, but nothing else is read in that Creed about the Holy Spirit than this opinion 'and [I believe] in the Holy Spirit.' Now Nazianzen testifies that the Nicene Synod did not hand on the perfect doctrine about the Holy Spirit for the reason that the question about the Holy Spirit had not arisen. Let Jeremias see in which Nicene Creed he has read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone."

Patriarch St. Tarasius of Constantinople, at Nicaea II, declared, in the Creed, "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father through the Son, and is acknowledged to be Himself God" [4]. Just as the 150 fathers at Constantinople I added to the Creed of Nicaea the words, "the Lord and Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father," etc., Patriarch St. Tarasius here adds the words "through the Son," etc. This shows the Faith of the Universal Church at Nicaea II.

[3] Great Latin bishops and fathers exegete and interpret the words of Sacred Scripture in favor of the Filioque doctrine.

Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers says it is one and the same thing to proceed from the Father, receive from Him and from His Son:

Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing. For our Lord Himself says, Because He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. That which He will receive — whether it will be power, or excellence, or teaching — the Son has said must be received from Him, and again He indicates that this same thing must be received from the Father. For when He says that all things whatsoever the Father has are His, and that for this cause He declared that it must be received from His own, He teaches also that what is received from the Father is yet received from Himself, because all things that the Father has are His. [5]

Our Lord Jesus teaches about this in detail in Gospel of St. John, chapters 14–16. The Lord Himself, the apostles, and the fathers, explain that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Bishop St. Ambrose says St. John was a witness even in Heaven that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son [6]:

53. And this, again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the throne of God. For you read the words of the Evangelist John to this purport: And He showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, and on either side, was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of all nations (Revelation 22:1–2). 154. This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says: If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that believes in Me, as says the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spoke He of the Spirit. (John 7:37-38) Therefore the river is the Spirit. [5]

Such an amazing testimony hidden in the Sacred Scriptures should fill us with amazement. It is the Holy Spirit Himself Who assures us whence He proceeds.

Bishop St. Augustine says Jesus breathed forth the Holy Spirit to show that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. St. Augustine has written much on the Filioque.

St. Augustine says Jesus bears witness to Filioque in countless ways:

And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself[.] ... Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any times therein which imply a sooner and a later; because these things are not there at all. How, then, would it not be most absurd to call Him the Son of both: when, just as generation from the Father, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, without beginning of time; so procession from both, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time? [7]

A testimony so clear as this should suffice to put an end to the later heresy of Photian Monopatrism once and for all.

[Xavier]

[4] Byzantine and Eastern fathers and monks testify that the spiration of the Spirit from the Father does not exclude but rather is mediated through the Son.

St. Basil the Great states that the Holy Spirit is united through the Word in the eternal unity of the Holy Trinity: "Through the Son, who is one, he is joined to the Father, who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" [8]. The Son is One, the Father is One, the Spirit is One united to the Father through the Son.

St. Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten" [9]. The Holy Spirit takes His being substantially from the Father through the Son, and this in such a way that the Father gave the Spirit to the Son in eternally begetting Him.

St. John Damascene is the sole saint cited as possibly denying the Filioque, yet even he does not deny that the Trinitarian Order has the Spirit always issuing from the Father through the Word: "I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him" [10].

We have seen that St. Tarasius dogmatized such a profession at the Second Nicene Council, the seventh ecumenical council. This is the true tradition of the fathers.

[5] The Latin fathers are absolutely unanimous in teaching the doctrine of the Filioque. Bishops and several councils do the same.

This is a fact so clear that it will hardly be doubted. It is explicitly stated by St. Maximus [11], and further evidence for the same can be read in Dr. Henry Barclay Swete's monumental work on the subject [12]. The evidence documented in point [3] already establishes this, and in St. Robert's treatise, the doctor explicitly cites much proof; but we will cite the Athanasian Creed, which even secular scholars do not doubt was the widely accepted faith of the Western Church by at least the 5th century.

As St. Robert adduces it, "Blessed Athanasius who says in his Creed, 'The Holy Spirit is not made nor created nor generated by the Father and the Son, but proceeds.'"

To this testimony an objection might be made — namely, that this creed is not really from Athanasius. This is easily refuted, both by Nazianzen, where he says in praise of Athanasius that he composed a most perfect confession of faith that the whole West and East venerate, and also from Augustine, who by name cites Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria and adduces a complete section of this creed, and he uses whole sentences from it, with the name of Athanasius, as if it were well known in the Church.

The Third Council of Toledo (589) is also evidence of the universal acceptance of this doctrine: "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit" (I believe in the Holy Spirit Who Proceeds from the Father and the Son). Both Archbishop St. Leander of Seville, who presided, and his brother, St. Isidore, teach the Filioque dogma.

[6] The Greek Fathers are unanimous in teaching the doctrine "per Filium" (through the Son). This fact has been found embarrassing by deniers of the Filioque.

Philip Schaff, in History of the Christian Church, says, "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father [13]. "The teachings of St. Basil and St. Maximus shown earlier, and especially the profession of St. Tarasius at Nicaea II, demonstrate that per Filium is dogma.

[7] The Roman pontiffs, the successors of St. Peter, have unanimously taught the Filioque explicitly for millennia. There is clear unbroken tradition present here.

Pope St. Damasus, quite likely in a synod before the year 380 A.D., used the Filioque in a response to the Macedonian heresy: "We believe ... in the Holy Spirit, not begotten nor unbegotten, not created nor made, but proceeding from the Father and the Son, always co-eternal with the Father and the Son" [14].

Note the special value of this ancient testimony of the 4th-century Roman Church, world-renowned for its Catholic orthodoxy and defense of St. Athanasius contra mundum under Pope St. Julius, et al. It is incidental and undesigned. It presupposes the dogmatic truth of the Filioque in a controversy against Macedonian heretics (who blasphemed against the Divinity of the Holy Spirit). And it shows that the dogma of the Holy Spirit's divinity is no less certain than the dogma of the Filioque.

Another 4th-century Roman synod states: "The Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of the Father, or not only the Spirit of the Son, but the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For it is written, 'If anyone loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him' (1 Jn. 2:15). Likewise, it is written, 'If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, He is none of His (Romans 8:9).' When the Father and the Son are mentioned in this way, the Holy Spirit is understood, of whom the Son Himself says in the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit 'proceedeth from the Father (John 15:26)' and 'He shall receive of mine and shall annuonce it to you (Jn. 16:14)'" [15].

Are there more such testimonies from the ancient orthodox Roman Church? Yes: Pope St. Leo the Great, in the 5th century, says, "And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and He who proceeded from both yet another" [16].

This letter of Pope St. Leo I is cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Is there another Pope, saint, and great who teaches Filioque? Yes: Pope St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century shows the dogmatic Roman and universal tradition when he confesses, "We can also understand His being sent in terms of His divine nature. The Son is said to be sent from the Father from the fact that He is begotten of the Father. The Son relates that He sends the Holy Spirit[.] ... The sending of the Spirit is that procession by which He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Accordingly, as the Spirit is said to be sent because it proceeds, so too it is not inappropriate to say that the Son is sent because He is begotten" [17].

This statement shows that, contra the Greeks, sending reveals hypostatic relation. That is why, throughout the Holy Scriptures, we never read that the Father is sent. The Father does not proceed from anyone. The Son proceeds from the Father alone, by generation, therefore He is said to be sent by the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, therefore the Son explicitly says many times, "But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you" (Jn. 16:7) that we may understand the eternal relation implied here

[Xavier]

3 Objections of the Greek Church and a brief response to them — is the Filioque doctrine true, certain, established from Scripture, fathers and the early councils?

Objection I: It seems the texts cited refer not to the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, but to His temporal mission — i.e., He is sent by the Son only in time.

This is an expected objection — one the texts themselves anticipate and answer. When the Fathers say (1) the Father gave it to the Son, in begetting Him, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, they show that the procession from the Father through the Son is eternal as the generation of the Son is eternal. (2) When the Fathers say He proceeds from the Father just as He proceeds from the Son, they show that just as the procession from the Father is eternal, so it is from the Son.

Objection II: Even if the Holy Spirit's eternal procession from the Father is mediated through the Son, it doesn't seem to follow that He proceeds through the Son. It could be that it is merely His energetic manifestation that happens through the Son, but not that His divine hypostasis receives essence from Father through Son.

There are only two processions in the Holy Trinity, using "procession" in a broad sense (as both St. Augustine and St. Cyril do) to explain it.

(1) The eternal procession specifically called generation, by which the Person of the Father is distinguished from the Person of the Son, so that He Who begat is one Person, and He Who is begotten is another. (This second objection is almost like someone saying the Son's hypostasis is not eternally begotten of the Father.)

(2) And the eternal procession specifically called spiration, by which the Person of the Holy Spirit is distinguished from both the Person of the Father and the Person of the Son. For He from Whom He proceeds is One Person, He through Whom He proceeds is the Second Person, and He Who proceeds is the Eternal Third Person.

This is the sense in which Pope St. Leo the Great explains it in the source cited above. Since the hypostases are distinguished, it is clearly hypostatic procession.

The answer to energetic procession is as follows: there is only One Grace and One Energy of the Three Divine Persons. For, e.g., the Grace of the Holy Spirit is not distinct from the Grace of the Son, but is identical to it. Therefore, when Son and Spirit are distinguished, as by St. Cyril, it must be Persons Who are spoken of.

Objection III: But the Greek Fathers say that the Father is the Sole Cause, the Unoriginate Source of the Triune Godhead, what the Latin Fathers call the Monarch of the Holy Trinity. It seems, then, either that this teaching of the Greek Fathers must be rejected in light of the dogmatic Tradition or the Tradition must be false.

No, not at all. Just as the Greek Fathers say the Eternal Father is the sole Unoriginate Source of the Godhead, the Latin Fathers say the Eternal Father is the Sole Principle without Principle in the Godhead. Thus St. Augustine, cited by St. Thomas: "The Father is the Principle of the Whole Deity." Texts from the Council of Florence and from the Catechism of the Catholic Church have explained this in more detail. The Father gives His Son His Spirit eternally, so the Holy Spirit is eternally the Spirit of both the Father and the Son, but the Father remains sole principle without principle, since the Son receives from the Father all that He has.

So the difficulties are resolved, and there is no need to reject any teaching of either the Greek or the Latin Fathers. The only thing necessary here for all who seriously and sincerely study the matter (besides to pray much to the Holy Trinity and especially ask the Holy Ghost for His Gifts to understand it) is to have the strong and unshakeable conviction of Catholic Faith: all the Latin Fathers, and all the Greek Fathers, no matter what, cannot collectively be mistaken. This should be a truth almost of faith for us, somewhat similar to how we would never admit the OT contradicts the NT, or the Gospels contradict the Epistles. There must, if an apparent discrepancy arises, be in fact a perfectly fine harmonization of the two apparently different approaches, which further prayer and study will indicate to us.

2 Final Objections from the disciplinary aspect are considered — even if the Filioque doctrine is true, is it good and acceptable to profess it in the Creed?

Objection IV: But the Council of Ephesus says we shouldn't add to the Creed. We even know that Patriarch St. Cyril professed the Creed of Nicaea during that Council.

Correct to the second part. And if the fathers at Ephesus meant that nobody should add any word to the Creed, even to more fully explain apostolic doctrine, then the 150 fathers of Constantinople would have been anathema, for, as seen above, they added the words "The Lord and Giver of Life," etc. — which is evidently absurd. The fact that the ancient Church received the Creed of Constantinople as complementary and as a beautiful exposition of doctrine already implied in the Nicene Creed shows that the mind of the early Church was not only not opposed to, but even welcomed such more explicit dogmatic definitions of Church doctrine. Moreover, Patriarch St. Tarasius adopted the Creed to profess more explicitly the dogma "per Filium" of the Greek Fathers in the Second Nicene Ecumenical Council. We have already seen also that, before Rome accepted the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Rome had already professed the dogma of the Filioque, confessing the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. Both Pope St. Damasus I and Pope St. Leo I, among several other Roman pontiffs, explicitly professed it. The Creed of St. Athanasius taught it. When Photius invented his Monopatrite theory, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father to the exclusion of the Son, it became necessary to profess the dogma more explicitly against that heresy. Later on, many Eastern churches professed the dogma and became Catholic but were not always required to profess it in the Creed.

Objection V: Granting that the Creed could be elaborated on to explain a dogma more deeply, shouldn't this be done at an ecumenical council of both Greeks and Latins?

Since the pope added it to the Latin Creed only, and since without doubt the pope is the patriarch of the Latin Church, it doesn't seem that there should have been an issue. But certainly, it could be done and has been done; that's why the dignitaries of both the Greek and Russian Churches, as well as of Syrian and Oriental Churches, and the Armenian Apostolic Church, were invited to the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence to come together with the Catholic Church and jointly accept the Profession of Faith of the Universal Church. But whatever the past may have been, Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew have invited all Christians to gather together in 2025 at Nicaea, to commemorate its 1,700th anniversary. Therefore, by God's Grace, Greek and Latin Churches can once more profess dogma together.

The solution adopted by Greek and Latin bishops and theologians from a few decades ago was this:

The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order. But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character.

And thus, the solution to both the dogmatic and disciplinary difficulties should be clear. The only question now is whether the will to reunite is present or not.

Conclusion - A call to our separated brethren in the Eastern Orthodox Churches to return soon to Holy Union with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church:

Dear Orthodox Christians: a word from our hearts to yours - if we wish Christianity to successfully combat and entirely overcome the new paganism of the culture of death, of abortionism, contraception, divorce, pornography and other forms of immorality and lawlessness, if we hope for the worldwide Church to receive more conversions from paganism and baptize more individuals into Christ and the Triune God, and make them members of the Church, the time to re-unite is now and quickly.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary, the First Defender of Christian Civilization, alone warned the world about the dangers and errors of Communism and the great persecutions threatening the Church and all Christendom. The history of the last century bears sad testimony to the Truth of Her Words and the Urgency of Her Calling. The time is ripe and the hour is now for the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches to profess the Filioque dogma and unite with the Catholic Church for the Glory of God.

On March 25th, 1984, Pope John Paul II, and many Catholic and even Orthodox Bishops Consecrated the World, and implicitly Russia in a partial Consecration, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It took scarcely 10 years for Communism to face one of the worst defeats it had ever known and today Russia's returned to her Orthodox Faith.

That is an example of divine Power, and a still greater outlet of divine Graces are going to be showered when the Complete Consecration of Russia has been performed. It will be so perfectly fitting if the Worldwide Episcopate, in a sign and as evidence of Unity of Faith and Communion with the Throne of St. Peter, deigns to join in.

The world cannot resist the power and grace of a re-united Christendom; victories in the pro-life movement, victories against Christian persecution, against Islamism, Communism, and Secularism await us. We have every reason to believe and hope Almighty God will Himself lead the effort to re-unite the Churches under the Catholic Church, and this His action will give the greatest impetus to world evangelism as has scarcely been seen since the first day of Pentecost. Deus Vult. God Wills it.

Also foretold in the Sacred Scriptures and soon to be expected is the return of the Jewish People to the Faith and to the Church of Jesus Christ. It is inconceivable that Christendom will not be visibly united by the time this happens, and that full re-union would be a glorious preparation for this glorious impending event.

We Catholic Christians know that the Prayer of Jesus Christ, already fulfilled in the Catholic Church, will be more completely fulfilled in the Coming Age of Mary.

That all Christians of East and West may no longer be divided along sectarian lines and national or other denominations, but become One in the Universal or Catholic Church. And this so that, as the Scripture says, the whole world may believe that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and has been sent by the Father for the salvation of us all. "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." [Jn 17:21]

It would be ideal for Popes and Patriarchs to meet often, and for Faithful Catholics and Lay Orthodox to petition them for re-union. This would bring peace to the world, unity to Christendom, and gladden the Heart of God so severely pierced. And thus we will welcome, with as minimal tribulation as reasonably possible, the Reign of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

[Justin Martyr]

Xavier, these are all prooftexts and don't address my particular difficulty. I've seen all of them before.

I'm inquiring about sources that address the meaning of the phrase Filioque, as the meaning and interpretation of the Latin Fathers given by St. Maximus (which is backed up by a careful reading of St. Augustine and St. John of Damascus in context) seems mutually exclusive with that of Florence and St. Thomas.

Specifically primary sources, with the full context given; not commentary or articles that reek of ecumenism and a poor understanding of patristics (though, to be fair, in my experience Catholics of all stripes read into the Fathers whatever Rome has happened to define, even when it is clear eisegesis such as with First Clement).

Show me a single source before the IX century that identifies the Son as a cause in the procession of the Spirit, rather than the medium by which the Spirit is manifested and in whom the spirit rests. I have yet to see a single Greek Father who says the Son is an ????? in the ???????????? of the Spirit, or a Latin Father who says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense of processio principalter (rather than a generic processio in the sense of manifesting the spirit, equivalent to the Greek ????????).

That said, thank you for providing input; I appreciate it a great deal.

[Justin Martyr]

I've been reading more about this, from Catholic sources. It raises yet more questions.

@Xavier

What also do you make of Constantinople IV (879-880), presided over by Photius and three Papal Legates, which appears to have been ratified and recieved as Ecumenical by John VIII and his successors until the 11th century? Here is the act of ratification for said council by the Legates:

I, Paul, unworthy bishop of the Holy Church of Ancona, legate of the Holy Apostolic See and of my master, Blessed John, the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church and oecumenical Pope, accept, in accordance with my mandate, order and consent of the very Holy, Apostolic and Oecumenical Pope John, and with the assent of the Church of Constantinople and of the legates of the three other Patriarchs and with the approval of the same Holy and Oecumenical Synod, this venerable Photius, legitimate and canonically elected Patriarch, to his patriarchal dignity, and I am in communion with him in accordance with the tenour and the terms of the Commonitorium. I repudiate and anathematize the synod that was summoned against him in this Holy Church of Constantinople. Whatever, in whatever manner, was done against him at the time of Hadrian, of pious memory, then Roman Pope, I declare abrogated, anathematized and rejected in accordance with the Commonitorium, and that assembly I in no way reckon among the sacred synods. Whoever shall attempt to divide the Holy Church of God and sever himself from his own supreme pastor and oecumenical Patriarch, the saintly Photius, must himself be severed from the Holy Church of God, and until he returns to her, communicates with the Holy and oecumenical Patriarch and submits to the judgement of the Holy See, must remain excommunicated. Moreover, to the holy and oecumenical synod which met for the second time in Nicaea on the subject of the sacred and venerable images, at the time of Hadrian I, Roman Pope of blessed memory, and of Tarasius, the very holy Patriarch of the Church of Constantinople, I give the name of Seventh Council and number it with the six holy synods. Signed with my own hand.

And by the Pope, John VIII:

It has always been the object of our endeavours, labours and wishes that for the maintenance of the orthodox faith and for the peace and welfare of all the Churches of God for whose care we are responsible, we should strive to reunite what is scattered, to preserve what is united and to watch over whatever is wrong or objectionable among the things which the providence of God has committed to us. For this purpose, true to apostolic custom and taking pity on the Church of Constantinople, we have decided that the advantage of one should not be the detriment of another; rather, that every one should be of spontaneous assistance to all.

After summoning our Church, urged by the necessity of the times, we have turned our attention to the Church of Constantinople in the exercise of our apostolic authority and power and instructed our legates to proceed cautiously. We rejoice at her unity of peace and concord and abundantly praise Almighty God and, though we cannot sufficiently thank One who has bestowed so many benefits on His servants, we bless Him and try to give Him unstinted glory. Glory, praise, and virtue be to Him by whose majesty and praiseworthy grace crooked things are made straight, evil is mended, obstinacy broken, humility exalted, dissension uprooted, goodness intensified and all scandals thrown aside. Let us therefore not glory in ourselves but in God, rejoice and exult in His mercy who says: 'Have confidence, for I overcame the world'; and elsewhere: 'You can do nothing without Me.' But though we have determined to deal with you in writing and speech with exceptional restraint, it is a wonder to us why so many things that we had decided should have been obviously altered, transformed and, we do not know through whose mistake or design, distorted.

Moreover, you have hinted in your letter that at your suggestion only those should ask for mercy who have done ill. We also charitably agree that we should thus deal with those who say they do not know God. Yet we do not wish to exaggerate what has been done, lest we should have to judge according to deserts. So, let such excuses be dropped, for fear they should come under the condemnation : ' It is you who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts ; for what is great in the sight of men is abominable in the eyes of God. '

Therefore, let your wonderful prudence, which is reputed to know humility, not take offence that you should have been asked to sue the Church of God for mercy, but rather to humble yourself that you may be exalted and that you may learn to give brotherly affection to one who showed mercy to you ; and if you try to increase in devotion and loyalty to the Holy Roman Church and to our insignificant person, we also embrace you as a brother and hold you as the closest friend.

We also approve what has been mercifully done in Constantinople by the synodal decree of your reinstatement...

So the facts thus far:

• St. Maximus and Anastasius the Librarian attest in explicit terms that the latin fathers, when using the phrase Filioque, did not understand it in the sense that the Son was a cause of the Holy Spirit. In the case of the latter, he states this was the understanding of John VIII as well, and there are extant letters from John VIII which affirm this and ordinarily would be considered magisterial
• The Council of Florence condemned this understanding, and explicitly asserts that the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit
• St. Thomas likewise understands it as Florence does, and on those grounds states plainly that St. John of Damascus had a heretical understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit
• The Filioque was added to the Creed in Rome in 1014, the same century that Constantinople IV 869-870 began to be considered Ecumenical instead of Constantinople IV 879-880
• John VIII on the other hand annulled Constantinople IV 869-870, and affirmed Constantinople IV 879-880
• Constantinople IV 879-880, presided over by Photius, explicitly condemns adding anything at all to the Creed, and contextually it is directing this toward the Filioque.
  

This adds another wrinkle. Which Popes and Councils do I obey - the ones who condemned adding adding anything to the Creed and understood the Filioque in the sense of St. Maximus, or the ones who added it to the creed and understood the Son to be a cause of the procession of the Holy Ghost? We're dealing with two mutually exclusive propositions:

"The Son is an ????? in the procession of the Holy Ghost" vs. "The Son is not an ????? in the procession of the Holy Ghost"

and

"The text of the Creed as established at Constantinople I is unchangeable and irreformable" vs. "The text of the Creed as established at Constantinople I is not unchangeable and irreformable"

I know how to get around Vatican II+ and its difficulties...but I have no clue what to do with this.

[Xavier]

Did you read this from St. Maximus and St. John Damascene cited above: "St. Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten" [9]. The Holy Spirit takes His being substantially from the Father through the Son, and this in such a way that the Father gave the Spirit to the Son in eternally begetting Him.

St. John Damascene is the sole saint cited as possibly denying the Filioque, yet even he does not deny that the Trinitarian Order has the Spirit always issuing from the Father through the Word: "I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him" [10]?

St. Maximus did not teach what you think. It's not even clear that St. John Damascene denied Filioque per se.

Also, did you see the part on the Per Filium, how the Intruder Photius the Great Schismatic found it embarrassing? "Philip Schaff, in History of the Christian Church, says, "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father [13]. "The teachings of St. Basil and St. Maximus shown earlier, and especially the profession of St. Tarasius at Nicaea II, demonstrate that per Filium is dogma."

It was the schismatic Photius, some 5 centuries after (1) St. Leontius had confessed dogma identical to Filioque at Nicaea I, (2) St. Athanasius had confessed the dogma in his Creed, and (3) Pope St. Damasus had confessed it in a Council in Rome at the same time as Constantinople I, who wickedly lied and deceived simple Christians saying Filioque was false.

In order to condemn the Great Heresiarch Photius, it became necessary to add the dogma in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, just as the Creed of Constantinople itself added to the Nicene Creed the part about the Holy Spirit, as shown earlier.

"Cause" and "Principle" is not the issue at all: these terms are used differently in East and West. The Father is Principle of the Whole Deity, i.e. of the Son and the Spirit. Already in St. Augustine, we find the Father and Son are One Principle of the Spirit.

The Greek Fathers, who emphasize the Monarchy of the Father, use Cause in the sense of "Principle without Principle". Hence, they teach that the Father alone is cause, for He alone is Principle without Principle. They do not teach temporal procession.

Photius was an insane madman and demented heretic. Don't follow him, and lose your soul. Quoting him in your signature is a sin, almost as bad as quoting the quran. Fr. Adrian Fortescue gives a good summary of his life, and I post parts from it below.

"That crisis is the story of the Great Schism (see GREEK CHURCH). The emperor was Michael III (842-67), son of the Theodora who had finally restored the holy images. When he succeeded his father Theophilus (829-842) he was only three years old; he grew to be the wretched boy known in Byzantine history as Michael the Drunkard (ho methystes). Theodora, at first regent, retired in 856, and her brother Bardas succeeded, with the title of Cæsar. Bardas lived in incest with his daughter-in-law Eudocia, wherefore the Patriarch Ignatius (846-57) refused him Holy Communion on the Epiphany of 857. Ignatius was deposed and banished (Nov. 23, 857), and the more pliant Photius was intruded into his place. He was hurried through Holy Orders in six days; on Christmas Day, 857, Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, himself excommunicate for insubordination by Ignatius, ordained Photius patriarch. By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained bishop without having kept the interstices, by an excommunicate consecrator, and to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an excommunicate person made him too excommunicate ipso facto ...

After vain attempts to make Ignatius resign his see, the emperor tried to obtain from Pope Nicholas I (858-67) recognition of Photius by a letter grossly misrepresenting the facts and asking for legates to come and decide the question in a synod. Photius also wrote, very respectfully, to the same purpose (Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 407-11). The pope sent two legates, Rodoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni, with cautious letters. The legates were to hear both sides and report to him. A synod was held in St. Sophia's (May, 861). The legates took heavy bribes and agreed to Ignatius's deposition and Photius's succession. They returned to Rome with further letters, and the emperor sent his Secretary of State, Leo, after them with more explanations (Hergenröther, op. cit., I, 439-460). In all these letters both the emperor and Photius emphatically acknowledge the Roman primacy and categorically invoke the pope's jurisdiction to confirm what has happened. Meanwhile Ignatius, in exile at the island Terebinth, sent his friend the Archimandrite Theognostus to Rome with an urgent letter setting forth his case (Hergenröther, I, 460-461). Theognostus did not arrive till 862. Nicholas, then, having heard both sides, decided for Ignatius, and answered the letters of Michael and Photius by insisting that Ignatius must be restored, that the usurpation of his see must cease (ibid, I, 511-16, 516-19). He also wrote in the same sense to the other Eastern patriarchs (510-11). From that attitude Rome never wavered: it was the immediate cause of the schism. In 863 the pope held a synod at the Lateran in which the two legates were tried, degraded, and excommunicated. The synod repeats Nicholas's decision, that Ignatius is lawful Patriarch of Constantinople; Photius is to be excommunicate unless he retires at once from his usurped place.

But Photius had the emperor and the Court on his side. Instead of obeying the pope, to whom he had appealed, he resolved to deny his authority altogether ...

the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius's deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. ..

The Catholic remembers this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for God. One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

"

[Justin Martyr]

Did you read this from St. Maximus and St. John Damascene cited above: "St. Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten" [9]. The Holy Spirit takes His being substantially from the Father through the Son, and this in such a way that the Father gave the Spirit to the Son in eternally begetting Him.

St. John Damascene is the sole saint cited as possibly denying the Filioque, yet even he does not deny that the Trinitarian Order has the Spirit always issuing from the Father through the Word: "I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him" [10]?

St. Maximus did not teach what you think. It's not even clear that St. John Damascene denied Filioque per se.

I'm familiar with both, and nothing you quote above says that the Son is a principium/????? in the Procession. In fact, both Fathers expressly deny this. Seriously, how do you understand the sentence "On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause (aitian) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession (ekporeusin); but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit's coming-forth (proienai) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence (ousias)."; or this one: "And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause (?????)."

The issue is one of meaning and sense, not verbiage.

Also, did you see the part on the Per Filium, how the Intruder Photius the Great Schismatic found it embarrassing? "Philip Schaff, in History of the Christian Church, says, "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father [13]. "The teachings of St. Basil and St. Maximus shown earlier, and especially the profession of St. Tarasius at Nicaea II, demonstrate that per Filium is dogma."

Yes, I saw your Protestant. I frankly don't care what a heretic has to say.

For the record though, Photius rejected the use of per Filium in the sense that the Franks were understanding it to mean, and recognized that it should cease to be used altogether so as to not make ambiguous the traditional understanding of the creed. He accepted it if understood in the sense of St. Maximus and the Damascene. Photius is pretty clear on this in his Mystagogy.

It was the schismatic Photius

Hey now, he died in communion with Rome under no censures. That's alot more than could be said for Lefebvre. The Eastern Rites are even allowed to venerate him as a Saint. Why are you insulting a revered Saint of our "separated bretheren" and "The other lung of the Church"?

some 5 centuries after (1) St. Leontius had confessed dogma identical to Filioque at Nicaea I, (2) St. Athanasius had confessed the dogma in his Creed, and (3) Pope St. Damasus had confessed it in a Council in Rome at the same time as Constantinople I, who wickedly lied and deceived simple Christians saying Filioque was false.

What is gratuitously asserted is gratuitously denied. Though, Pope St. John Paul II would be utterly ashamed of you for such language. How dare you insult our "separated bretheren"? Don't you know that "Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." So what are you protesting against?

In order to condemn the Great Heresiarch Photius,

Your own ecumenist Popes condemn you, as do the pre-Vatican II Popes who allowed the Eastern rites to venerate St. Photius.

it became necessary to add the dogma in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, just as the Creed of Constantinople itself added to the Nicene Creed the part about the Holy Spirit, as shown earlier.

So you admit that the phrase was added to the Creed, and that this dogma of the procession from the Son as cause was not present in the Creed until the Pope added it at the insistence of Emperor Henry II?

"Cause" and "Principle" is not the issue at all: these terms are used differently in East and West.

Not according to Florence: "We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father."

The Father is Principle of the Whole Deity, i.e. of the Son and the Spirit. Already in St. Augustine, we find the Father and Son are One Principle of the Spirit.

Show me a single place in St. Augustine where the Spirit is said to procedere principaliter from the Son. I've read him recently, and the only handful of times he makes the Son a principle of the Spirit's procession is when he is talking about the temporal procession.

The Greek Fathers, who emphasize the Monarchy of the Father, use Cause in the sense of "Principle without Principle". Hence, they teach that the Father alone is cause, for He alone is Principle without Principle. They do not teach temporal procession.

Yes, this is the modern line of the ecumenists. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The only role the greek fathers appear to assign the Son in the procession of the Spirit is an energetic role in eternity (manifesting the spirit and being the "resting place" of the Spirit who is caused by the Father alone), and a temporal role. Cite even a single Greek Father who says the Son has a role in the procession of the Spirit as ?????.

Photius was an insane madman and demented heretic.

Whew lad. If Pope Francis were here he'd excommunicate you on the spot for such proselytism and sins against ecumenism. Who is your ordinary? I wonder what he would think of such venom against "separated bretheren" and of an APPROVED SAINT.

Don't follow him, and lose your soul. Quoting him in your signature is a sin, almost as bad as quoting the quran. Fr. Adrian Fortescue gives a good summary of his life, and I post parts from it below.

Is there anything wrong with the content of the quote, the quote from an approved saint of the Church, venerated by the eastern rites?

"That crisis is the story of the Great Schism (see GREEK CHURCH). The emperor was Michael III (842-67), son of the Theodora who had finally restored the holy images. When he succeeded his father Theophilus (829-842) he was only three years old; he grew to be the wretched boy known in Byzantine history as Michael the Drunkard (ho methystes). Theodora, at first regent, retired in 856, and her brother Bardas succeeded, with the title of Cæsar. Bardas lived in incest with his daughter-in-law Eudocia, wherefore the Patriarch Ignatius (846-57) refused him Holy Communion on the Epiphany of 857. Ignatius was deposed and banished (Nov. 23, 857), and the more pliant Photius was intruded into his place. He was hurried through Holy Orders in six days; on Christmas Day, 857, Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, himself excommunicate for insubordination by Ignatius, ordained Photius patriarch. By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained bishop without having kept the interstices, by an excommunicate consecrator, and to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an excommunicate person made him too excommunicate ipso facto ...

After vain attempts to make Ignatius resign his see, the emperor tried to obtain from Pope Nicholas I (858-67) recognition of Photius by a letter grossly misrepresenting the facts and asking for legates to come and decide the question in a synod. Photius also wrote, very respectfully, to the same purpose (Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 407-11). The pope sent two legates, Rodoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni, with cautious letters. The legates were to hear both sides and report to him. A synod was held in St. Sophia's (May, 861). The legates took heavy bribes and agreed to Ignatius's deposition and Photius's succession. They returned to Rome with further letters, and the emperor sent his Secretary of State, Leo, after them with more explanations (Hergenröther, op. cit., I, 439-460). In all these letters both the emperor and Photius emphatically acknowledge the Roman primacy and categorically invoke the pope's jurisdiction to confirm what has happened. Meanwhile Ignatius, in exile at the island Terebinth, sent his friend the Archimandrite Theognostus to Rome with an urgent letter setting forth his case (Hergenröther, I, 460-461). Theognostus did not arrive till 862. Nicholas, then, having heard both sides, decided for Ignatius, and answered the letters of Michael and Photius by insisting that Ignatius must be restored, that the usurpation of his see must cease (ibid, I, 511-16, 516-19). He also wrote in the same sense to the other Eastern patriarchs (510-11). From that attitude Rome never wavered: it was the immediate cause of the schism. In 863 the pope held a synod at the Lateran in which the two legates were tried, degraded, and excommunicated. The synod repeats Nicholas's decision, that Ignatius is lawful Patriarch of Constantinople; Photius is to be excommunicate unless he retires at once from his usurped place.

But Photius had the emperor and the Court on his side. Instead of obeying the pope, to whom he had appealed, he resolved to deny his authority altogether ...

the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius's deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. ..

The Catholic remembers this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for God. One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

"

I've read this before, you know. Notice the absence of primary sources - Fr. Dvornik (a Catholic), on the other hand, cites them in spades.

I've yet to see a real response to the first post that tries to demonstrate how Maximus doesn't contradict Florence. Just some (albeit good) general commentary from prayerful along with lies, sophistry, and rhetoric from you. Is there anything of substance you can provide, like relevant primary sources?

[Xavier]

I'm on my phone right now and traveling, so I'll reply when I get back home. In the meanwhile, you can read this article from Master of Disputation Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, who thoroughly destroys the errors of the heresiarch Photius, the Successor of Arius in Heresy, impiety and iniquity. The Filioque was used in the West, by St. Isidore, in the Council of Toledo that I quoted, in order to defeat Arianism. Photius, by opposing it, shows himself a favorer of Arius.

The link is in my article, footnote 2.

"Omitting these things, then, let us bring forward the Councils that testify the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. First the Council celebrated at Alexandria, from

which Council Cyril writes a letter to Nestorius in which are these words, "The Spirit is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is truth, and so he proceeds from him likewise

as from the Father." This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods.

 

 

We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son

as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand? What is it that again in the seventh Council the Creed is read with this addition (and from the

Son), and yet the Council was for the most part of Greeks?

 

 

The Greeks indeed in the Council of Florence said that in their own codices it is not so contained, yet the Latins demanded the most ancient example and where

there was no trace of corruption, and they cited besides an old historical witness of this thing, and it is certain that it was never the custom of the Latins to corrupt

books but of the Greeks.

 

 

But you will object that, if in this Council the Creed had been received with this phrase (and from the Son), how St. John Damascene, who lived at the time of

this Council, would have so openly denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. I reply that it is probable Damascene died before the seventh Council, for he

flourished most in the time of Leo II, and the Synod was celebrated 48 years after the death of Leo. Hence he himself in his works does not cite the Councils save up to

the sixth. Next even if he did reach the time of the seventh Synod, yet without doubt he wrote about the Holy Spirit before then.

 

 

But besides these Greek Councils there are also extant very many Councils celebrated among the Latins. And first there was a Council celebrated at Bari by the

Greeks and the Latins together at the time of Urban II, a little after the schism began, in the year 1090, where Anselm convicted the Greeks with the most evident reasons.

 

Anselm himself records this council in his book on the Holy Spirit and the whole matter is more fully narrated by the author of Anselm's life.

 

 

The second is the Lateran Council under Innocent III in the year 1215, where also it is defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and there were Greeks at the Council and they consented.

 

 

The third is the Council of Lyons under Gregory X in 1273 where the Greeks were present and, with everyone agreeing, the Creed was sung with the addition

'and from the Son', thrice in Greek and thrice in Latin. The definition of this Council is extant.

 

The fourth is the Council of Florence, in the year 1438, where again the same thing was defined after very long disputations, with the Greeks and Latins agreeing.

 

Add the first, third, fourth, eighth, and ninth Councils of Toledo which were all celebrated before the separation of the Greeks, namely before the year 700. From

these is apparent not only the opinion of the Church but also the stubbornness and fickleness of the Greeks who, having been so often defeated in disputes, always returned to their vomit."