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

[Justin Martyr]

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.

I'm very familiar with the writings of St. Cyril and the events surrounding Ephesus. He isn't saying here that the Son is a cause in the procession. He explicitly denies such a thing elsewhere in his corpus.

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?

Respectfully to St. Bellarmine, this response is attacking a strawman. The issue is making the son a cause of the procession, not the phrase Filioque in and of itself Patristic support for that is what remains demanded, and unanswered.

That's my whole difficulty, that is all I want explained. Do you get the point yet?

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?

This is false. The procession of faith from Nicaea II reads "through the Son", not "from the Son"

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.

Aside from being false (both sides made forgeries), unfortunately for St. Bellarmine the Letter to Marinus which was rejected at Florence as a forgery, is now known to be certainly the work of St. Maximus and has been for centuries.

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.

OK? What of it? He still lived way after the Filioque is claimed to have been dogmatically defined (CCC says St. Leo I defined it in Quam Laudibiliter). Either St. John Damascene is a heretic, or the Fathers at Florence were. These two are mutually exclusive and hold mutually exclusive understandings of the Dogma of the Procession.

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."

And this same argument would apply to Vatican II. The question is: are Councils above Sacred Tradition, or is Sacred Tradition above a Council?

[Justin Martyr]

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.

I'm very familiar with the writings of St. Cyril and the events surrounding Ephesus. He isn't saying here that the Son is a cause in the procession. He explicitly denies such a thing elsewhere in his corpus.

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?

Respectfully to St. Bellarmine, this response is attacking a strawman. The issue is making the son a cause of the procession, not the phrase Filioque in and of itself.

Patristic support for that is what remains demanded, and unanswered.

That's my whole difficulty, that is all I want explained. Do you get the point yet?

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?

This is false. The procession of faith from Nicaea II reads "through the Son", not "from the Son"

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.

Aside from being false (both sides made forgeries), unfortunately for St. Bellarmine the Letter to Marinus which was rejected at Florence as a forgery, is now known to be certainly the work of St. Maximus and has been for centuries.

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.

OK? What of it? He still lived way after the Filioque is claimed to have been dogmatically defined (CCC says St. Leo I defined it in Quam Laudibiliter). Either St. John Damascene is a heretic, or the Fathers at Florence were. These two are mutually exclusive and hold mutually exclusive understandings of the Dogma of the Procession.

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."

And this same argument would apply to Vatican II. The question is: are Councils above Sacred Tradition, or is Sacred Tradition above a Council?

[Xavier]

Hi, JM. Ok. Got a little polemical there. Let's try to discuss without that.

Now, firstly, regarding St. Cyril, the Councils forbade anyone from defending the anathemas of Nestorius against St. Cyril. One of those statements included the Photian opinion: "But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2701.htm This basically is what Photius revives, and that is why St. Thomas says the Nestorians were the first to invent the heresy that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son. St. Cyril's letter to Nestorius, approved by 5 General Councils is here, with the relevant excerpt: "For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father." https://www.uniontheology.org/resources/doctrine/jesus/third-letter-to-nestorius This is the true mind of the Church.

Next, regarding Cause, I already conceded that the Son is not the Cause, if by Cause we mean Principle without Principle, or Unoriginate Principle. This is what the Greek Fathers mean by the term. E.g. here is a Greek Father who teaches both that the Father is the only Cause (Principle without Principle), and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son: "It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?" https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2903.htm Florence uses cause in a different sense equivalent to principle.

Thirdly, let's look at another source you yourself cited. From Pope St. Leo I. The context was the error of the Sabellians who denied hypostatic difference. St. Leo's response shows the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is truly hypostatic: ""Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one who begat, another who is begotten, another who proceeds from both." (Ep. xv; PL 54, 680)." https://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/06/

The Greeks have historically held two false opinions. (1) First, that the procession is only temporal. This is clearly refuted by St. Augustine: "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" (2) The second opinion is a purely energetic procession, as though not the Holy Spirit Himself, but only the Grace of the Holy Spirit (which is identical with the Grace of the Father and the Son) were mediated through the Son. Both these opinions are false. The text of Pope St. Leo the Great above refutes it, for it shows that the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Hypostasis of the Son precisely because the Spirit proceeds from the Son, but not the Son from the Spirit. I answered energetic procession thus in the article: "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."

This argument is used by St. Thomas: "If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (I:28:44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a "principle," and of what is "from the principle." Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess ... Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son." https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article3

Also, all of the Council of Florence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and St. Thomas say both Per Filium and Filioque, from the Son and through the Son, are equivalent, and both acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Greeks, of the Eastern Catholic Churches, unlike the schismatic Greek and Russian Churches, accept the per Filium and the Filioque.

Finally, St. Isidore of Seville wrote: "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence." The Latin reads "Spiritus Sanctus ideo praedicatur Deus, quia ex Patre Filioque procedit, et substantiam eorum habet." The saint adds [PG 82:268C], "There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." The Latin reads, "Hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentum Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur; Spiritus Sanctus ex utroque procedit." All of this clearly pertains to hypostatic procession, not merely energetic mediation.

St. Isidore of Seville mastered all of Latin, Greek and Hebrew in a short time. In glowing terms, the later Councils of Toledo praised his learning and sanctity: "The extraordinary Doctor, the latest ornament of the Catholic Church, the most learned man of the latter ages, always to be named with reverence, Isidore" The Greek Church also venerates him as Saint and Father. Even outside the Councils, St. Isidore taught the Filioque openly and explicitly. St. Fulgentius also teaches hypostatic procession: "Believe most firmly , and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles" (De Fide 11, Patrologia Latina 65.695).

God Bless.

[Justin Martyr]

Hi, JM. Ok. Got a little polemical there. Let's try to discuss without that.

Now, firstly, regarding St. Cyril, the Councils forbade anyone from defending the anathemas of Nestorius against St. Cyril. One of those statements included the Photian opinion: "But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2701.htm This basically is what Photius revives, and that is why St. Thomas says the Nestorians were the first to invent the heresy that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son. St. Cyril's letter to Nestorius, approved by 5 General Councils is here, with the relevant excerpt: "For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father." https://www.uniontheology.org/resources/doctrine/jesus/third-letter-to-nestorius This is the true mind of the Church.

So not only are you implying that St. John Damascene, St. Maximus, and Anastasius the Librarian were all heretics, but if your understanding of Ephesus is correct then St. Cyril is too!

The Holy Spirit does not receive existence from or through the Son, but proceeds from the Father and is called the proprium of the Son because of his consubstantiality

Next, regarding Cause, I already conceded that the Son is not the Cause, if by Cause we mean Principle without Principle, or Unoriginate Principle. This is what the Greek Fathers mean by the term.

No, it isn't. ????? is not that exclusive. Aristotle, for example, uses it to refer to both secondary and primary causes. Even making the Son a principium cum principium rather than a principium sine principium doesn't reconcile Florence with what the Fathers appear to be saying, as a principium cum principium is still an ?????.

E.g. here is a Greek Father who teaches both that the Father is the only Cause (Principle without Principle), and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son: "It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?"

The Father is St. Gregory Nazianzen I believe. He is responding to the Pneumatomachians, who held that the ???????? of the Holy Spirit from/through the Son makes the Holy Ghost a creature. He isn't addressing the question of the ???????????? here, nor does he say the Son is an ????? of the ???????????? of the Holy Ghost.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2903.htm Florence uses cause in a different sense equivalent to principle.

I see it is St. Gregory of Nyssa, not Nazianzen. Ah well, he's still addressing the Pneumatomachians.

As for Florence, what is gratuitously asserted is gratuitously denied. Florence explicitly says the terms are equivalent in meaning in the context being defined.

Thirdly, let's look at another source you yourself cited. From Pope St. Leo I. The context was the error of the Sabellians who denied hypostatic difference. St. Leo's response shows the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is truly hypostatic: ""Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one who begat, another who is begotten, another who proceeds from both." (Ep. xv; PL 54, 680)." https://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/06/

Yes, I'm familiar with it. No where is the Son stated to be a cause in the procession, which is what I'm looking for. The mere phrase proceeds from both does not prove your point, as the question is not if the phrase is used but rather what it is meant to signify.

The Greeks have historically held two false opinions. (1) First, that the procession is only temporal. This is clearly refuted by St. Augustine: "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"

Yes, but notice St. Augustine only uses the generic and more broad processio here. When he deals with the causal person in the procession, he specifically uses procedere principaliter and notes how it has a different meaning from the generic procedere

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.

(2) The second opinion is a purely energetic procession, as though not the Holy Spirit Himself, but only the Grace of the Holy Spirit (which is identical with the Grace of the Father and the Son) were mediated through the Son. Both these opinions are false. The text of Pope St. Leo the Great above refutes it, for it shows that the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Hypostasis of the Son precisely because the Spirit proceeds from the Son, but not the Son from the Spirit. I answered energetic procession thus in the article: "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."

See above points I made, as well as my quotation from St. Cyril

This argument is used by St. Thomas: "If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (I:28:44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a "principle," and of what is "from the principle." Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess ... Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son." https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article3

Yes, he does say this. And this late Latin Triadology is entirely different from the Cappadocian Triadology of the Nicene Fathers - and under their paradigm not only is this argument false, but would make the Son and the Father indistinguishable.

And why should I listen to St. Thomas? He called St. John of Damascus of all people a Nestorian heretic. That is pure blasphemy.

Also, all of the Council of Florence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and St. Thomas say both Per Filium and Filioque, from the Son and through the Son, are equivalent, and both acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, they do. But they understand both terms in a way diametrically opposed to St. Maximus the Confessor, whom likewise states his understanding to be the understanding of the Latin Fathers. He was speaking on behalf of Pope. St. Martin I for goodness sake.

The Catholic Greeks, of the Eastern Catholic Churches, unlike the schismatic Greek and Russian Churches, accept the per Filium and the Filioque.

Yeah, and the FSSP accept Vatican II unlike the SSPX. So what? That's how uniatism works.

Finally, St. Isidore of Seville wrote: "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence." The Latin reads "Spiritus Sanctus ideo praedicatur Deus, quia ex Patre Filioque procedit, et substantiam eorum habet." The saint adds [PG 82:268C], "There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." The Latin reads, "Hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentum Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur; Spiritus Sanctus ex utroque procedit." All of this clearly pertains to hypostatic procession, not merely energetic mediation.

No where did he state that the Spirit proceeds from both as from a cause, which would be "Spiritus Sanctus ideo praedicatur Deus, quia ex Patre Filioque procedit principaliter, et substantiam eorum habet." This is what needs to be demonstrated.

Also, there are many forgeries made in the name of St. Isidore; so I'd like a source.

St. Isidore of Seville mastered all of Latin, Greek and Hebrew in a short time. In glowing terms, the later Councils of Toledo praised his learning and sanctity: "The extraordinary Doctor, the latest ornament of the Catholic Church, the most learned man of the latter ages, always to be named with reverence, Isidore" The Greek Church also venerates him as Saint and Father. Even outside the Councils, St. Isidore taught the Filioque openly and explicitly. St. Fulgentius also teaches hypostatic procession: "Believe most firmly , and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles" (De Fide 11, Patrologia Latina 65.695).

God Bless.

Again, the phrase Filioque is not the dispute but rather the meaning.

And St. Maximus has even greater credentials than that, and lived not long after St. Isidore. The understanding he gives for what St. Isidore means is not the understanding of Florence; rather the two understandings are mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed.

[Xavier]

Firstly, Saint Thomas never called Saint John of Damascus - or any other Saint, Doctor or Church Father, East or West - a heretic. It would be a blasphemy on your part to say so. St. Augustine made a mistake that unbaptized infants suffer hellfire, while St. Gregory of Nyssa made an opposite mistake that all ultimately would be saved through purgatorial fire, which is universalism. Nevertheless, both of these were most holy, godly and pious men, and to be revered by all; only their opinion here was mistaken.

Now, it was at the Second Council of Lyons that the Dogma was Formally Defined: "1. On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith{5} 1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum14.htm

And so, while indeed Lyons II defined the Dogma formally, and after that it would be objectively heretical to deny it, yet even it made due allowance for ignorance, and said those who made it were in error through ignorance, and did not call them heretics.

Secondly, if the Catholic Church is incorrect, then when Greeks and Latins professed the Filioque together, thrice in Greek and thrice in Latin, in the Creed, the entire Universal Church defected, and all of Christianity is a lie. As St. Robert said: "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". Hence, since it is impossible that the whole Church can defect, it follows that the whole Church was correct in defining this at Lyons II.

Thirdly, in many passages in his Mystagogy, Photius makes clear, he rejects the Filioque Dogma itself as blasphemous and heretical, thereby proving himself to be the heretic and schismatic. If Photius was correct, so could Arius have been.

Photius: "2...Would you propagate the fable that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? ... 5. Who of our sacred and renowned Fathers said the Spirit proceeds from the Son? Did any synod, acknowledged as ecumenical, proclaim it? Which assembly of priests and bishops, inspired of God, affirmed this understanding of the Holy Spirit? ..." See how he rejects the Filioque itself?

St. Ambrose had already pre-emptively refuted Photius' error on this subject, which also smacks of the Sola Scriptura error, and is an absurd argument from silence; yet, in spite of all that, it is clearly refuted, by the Holy Ghost Himself, in Revelation.

"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." https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/

[Justin Martyr]

Firstly, Saint Thomas never called Saint John of Damascus - or any other Saint, Doctor or Church Father, East or West - a heretic. It would be a blasphemy on your part to say so. St. Augustine made a mistake that unbaptized infants suffer hellfire, while St. Gregory of Nyssa made an opposite mistake that all ultimately would be saved through purgatorial fire, which is universalism. Nevertheless, both of these were most holy, godly and pious men, and to be revered by all; only their opinion here was mistaken.

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.

According to St. Thomas:
The error originated among the Nestorians.
Is a Heresy.
Was condemned at Ephesus.
Was embraced by St. John Damascene.

Now, if we say someone knowingly holds a heretical error which has already been condemned, what does that make them? Ah yes, a heretic.

Now, it was at the Second Council of Lyons that the Dogma was Formally Defined: "1. On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith{5} 1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum14.htm

And so, while indeed Lyons II defined the Dogma formally, and after that it would be objectively heretical to deny it, yet even it made due allowance for ignorance, and said those who made it were in error through ignorance, and did not call them heretics.

Secondly, if the Catholic Church is incorrect, then when Greeks and Latins professed the Filioque together, thrice in Greek and thrice in Latin, in the Creed, the entire Universal Church defected, and all of Christianity is a lie.

What? Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, Kiev, Jerusalem, Belgrade, Moscow, and the churches under each all refused to accept the Council once news reached them. You're really stretching here.

As St. Robert said: "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". Hence, since it is impossible that the whole Church can defect, it follows that the whole Church was correct in defining this at Lyons II.

St. Bellarmine clearly did not understand that 1. Eastern Ecclesiology is not the same as Papal Ecclesiology and 2. The Eastern Church isn't composed only of the Greek church.

Thirdly, in many passages in his Mystagogy, Photius makes clear, he rejects the Filioque Dogma itself as blasphemous and heretical, thereby proving himself to be the heretic and schismatic. If Photius was correct, so could Arius have been.

Photius: "2...Would you propagate the fable that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? ... 5. Who of our sacred and renowned Fathers said the Spirit proceeds from the Son? Did any synod, acknowledged as ecumenical, proclaim it? Which assembly of priests and bishops, inspired of God, affirmed this understanding of the Holy Spirit? ..." See how he rejects the Filioque itself?

Yeah yeah, now cite the full passage. These are egregiously ripped out of context. He's rejecting the phrase because it was being abused to teach an apparent heresy, namely that the Son is a cause in the procession of the Holy Ghost.

St. Ambrose had already pre-emptively refuted Photius' error on this subject, which also smacks of the Sola Scriptura error, and is an absurd argument from silence; yet, in spite of all that, it is clearly refuted, by the Holy Ghost Himself, in Revelation.

"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]

Xavier, this is plainly referring to temporal procession. The full context is even more clear.

[Xavier]

Justin, firstly, what is it that you believe? (1) Temporal procession/mission. (2) Energetic mediation, or (3) Hypostatic Procession.

Secondly, Saint Thomas doesn't say what you say at all. He merely says St. John Damascene was, according to some, in error on this point, and according to others, he was not even in error here. If he was, it is the same as the mistakes of St. Augustine or St. Gregory. The Council condemned only Nestorius, but no Council condemned St. John Damascene.

Thirdly, have you read this: "Damascene's views on the procession of the Holy Spirit are subtle, but it is clear from a number of places in On the Orthodox Faith that he understands the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father through the Son. Indeed, he says this explicitly. Of course, some people might interpret this procession through the Son as a merely "temporal" procession.

However, what is less often noted is Damascene's teaching in his somewhat less accessible work, On Heresies. If I recall correctly, it received no mention in Siecienski's book, but it is important for making clear that Damascene's procession through the Son is not merely in the temporal sphere. At the end of the work, he gives a creedal statement explicating the main dogmas of the orthodox faith. Here is the relevant passage:

Think of the Father as a spring of life begetting the Son like a river and the Holy Ghost like a sea, for the spring and the river and the sea are all one nature. Think of the Father as a root, and of the Son as a branch, and of the Spirit as a fruit, for the substance in these three is one. The Father is a sun with the Son as rays and the Holy Ghost as heat. (St. John of Damascus, On Heresies, 103)" http://analyticscholastic.blogspot.com/2020/09/st-john-of-damascus-and-filioque.html

Even Saint John Damascene, who is the sole and single Saint the Greeks could produce favoring their error, did not teach merely temporal procession.

One of the Greek Bishops at the Re-Union Councils said: "Everyone can see that the Latins have contended so beautifully for their Faith that no one with a sense of justice is able to reproach them for it". They said this when numerous texts proving Filioque from the Fathers were produced, too many to cite here.

And another, I believe it was Archbishop Bessarion, said: "We prefer to reconcile the one to the many rather than many to the one". The one being referred to here is Saint John Damascene. The consensus patrum is clearly eternal hypostatic procession.

God Bless.

[Xavier]

What a beautiful article from the analytics scholastic blog. He correctly uses the term Monopatrism to describe the heresy of Photius. As there were heretical Monophysites and heretical Monothelites, Photius above all was the Monopatrite Heresiarch.

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

"While this makes it clear how the procession is certainly through the Son, clearly, the river plays a role in the production of the sea, the branch plays a role in the production of the fruit, and the rays play a role in the production of the heat. In other words, the Son plays an intrinsic causal role in the production of the Spirit. On the other hand, from this analogy one can easily discern a sense in which only the Father is the cause of the Spirit.

This is the same as what Latin theology says, and in fact these analogies are almost identical to those given by the Latin writer Tertullian, who says explicitly that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son and is clearly referring to the eternal relations in the Trinity. (See Against Praxeas Chs. 4 and especially 8 for the analogies.) Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Damascene's original source for these images ultimately traces back to Tertullian.

The issue is that the Greek Fathers mean by "proceed" and "cause" to also include the fact that the Father is the Source of the entire Trinity, including of the procession which happens through the Son. Whereas the Latins have a more minimal conception when using the word "proceeds," and are merely signifying that both Father and Son play some sort of causal role in the production, even though the Son's role is secondary. The Latins, after all, affirm that the Spirit proceeds "principally from the Father," as St. Augustine says. For more on this, see here. That is how St. Maximus was able to defend the Latin filioque as orthodox.

The problem is that Easterners who agree with the commonly held monopatrist view of Photius cannot accommodate Augustine or the other Western Fathers and saints, since this theory holds that the only procession through the Son is in the temporal sphere, while in the Trinity itself the Son and Spirit are like two completely separate branches from the Father, without any ontological relation to each other. There's no way to accommodate that within the Western Fathers, who already teach the filioque early on. But clearly the catholic Church cannot anathematize half of the Church Fathers. Western theology, on the other the hand, can easily accommodate the teaching of the Eastern Fathers that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, and that the Father is the source of the entire Trinity. As a number of Orthodox scholars have recognized, properly interpreted, there is not a contradiction between the Western and Eastern Fathers' views on the Holy Spirit's procession."

[Justin Martyr]

Justin, firstly, what is it that you believe? (1) Temporal procession/mission. (2) Energetic mediation, or (3) Hypostatic Procession.

I believe all that the Catholic Church teaches, on the authority of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son equally in a single spiration, the former the principle/cause without a principle/cause, the latter the principle/cause with a principle/cause. I also believe 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.".

However, all the Fathers and Doctors prior to the IX century that I've read plainly do not understand per Filium and Filioque as defined by Florence. So there must be some somewhere I haven't seen yet. I want to see them. This whole thing is leaving my conscience in perplexity and makes the faith seem unreasonable (which we know is impossible).

Secondly, Saint Thomas doesn't say what you say at all. He merely says St. John Damascene was, according to some, in error on this point, and according to others, he was not even in error here. If he was, it is the same as the mistakes of St. Augustine or St. Gregory. The Council condemned only Nestorius, but no Council condemned St. John Damascene.

He said that others say Damscene was not in error. He states his opinion as Damascene did err. I don't really see how he isn't implying Damascene was a heretic, but I'll give St. Thomas the benefit of the doubt. It's immaterial to the main difficulty anyway.

Thirdly, have you read this: "Damascene's views on the procession of the Holy Spirit are subtle, but it is clear from a number of places in On the Orthodox Faith that he understands the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father through the Son. Indeed, he says this explicitly. Of course, some people might interpret this procession through the Son as a merely "temporal" procession.

He states the exact opposite, in multiple ways. I've read De Fide Orthodoxa many times.

(He also seems to teach a proto-EED, but that one is more tricky)

However, what is less often noted is Damascene's teaching in his somewhat less accessible work, On Heresies. If I recall correctly, it received no mention in Siecienski's book, but it is important for making clear that Damascene's procession through the Son is not merely in the temporal sphere. At the end of the work, he gives a creedal statement explicating the main dogmas of the orthodox faith. Here is the relevant passage:

Think of the Father as a spring of life begetting the Son like a river and the Holy Ghost like a sea, for the spring and the river and the sea are all one nature. Think of the Father as a root, and of the Son as a branch, and of the Spirit as a fruit, for the substance in these three is one. The Father is a sun with the Son as rays and the Holy Ghost as heat. (St. John of Damascus, On Heresies, 103)" http://analyticscholastic.blogspot.com/2020/09/st-john-of-damascus-and-filioque.html

This quote from St. John Damascene doesn't express the Filioque in any way, shape, or form.

Even Saint John Damascene, who is the sole and single Saint the Greeks could produce favoring their error, did not teach merely temporal procession.

One of the Greek Bishops at the Re-Union Councils said: "Everyone can see that the Latins have contended so beautifully for their Faith that no one with a sense of justice is able to reproach them for it".

That's nice, I'm sure the Emperor rewarded him handsomely.

They said this when numerous texts proving Filioque from the Fathers were produced, too many to cite here.

And another, I believe it was Archbishop Bessarion, said: "We prefer to reconcile the one to the many rather than many to the one". The one being referred to here is Saint John Damascene. The consensus patrum is clearly eternal hypostatic procession.

It has yet to be demonstrated that a single Father between 381-786 held that the Son is an ????? in the ???????????? of the Holy Ghost

God Bless

Dominus Vobiscum.

[Justin Martyr]

What a beautiful article from the analytics scholastic blog. He correctly uses the term Monopatrism to describe the heresy of Photius. As there were heretical Monophysites and heretical Monothelites, Photius above all was the Monopatrite Heresiarch.

I thought you said the polemics were over? Are you implying that the Holy See has formally approved the veneration of a heresiarch as a Saint? Who next, Luther?

I, for one, accept the Holy See's judgement.

St. Photius, pray for us!

As for your article, it's so poor I don't even know where to begin. Multiple quotes taken either out of context or interpreted to mean something the author expressly denies elsewhere in their corpus (such as Tertullian), it doesn't undetstand the terms very well, and it attacks a strawman of what St. Photius taught. Why don't you read what he himself has to say about St. Augustine and the venerable Latin fathers?

[Xavier]

Photius certainly was a heretic and a schismatic in the beginning. If in the end he was reconciled and died in Catholic Communion, it may be presumed he retracted his errors against the Papacy. At any rate, it is the Judgment of the Catholic Church on the Filioque Dogma that is to be dogmatically held, and certainly not the misguided errors of the objectively heretical Photius.

You attack the author of the analytics scholastic blog, despite the fact that he only disproves temporal procession. That shows you are still confused between the Catholic Truth of Eternal Hypostatic Procession and the schismatic error of a temporal procession.

Just like you were confused earlier about the so-called "holy quran" and almost apostatized; I see this often with some, temptation to lapse into atheism, Islamism, etc. I will pray Rosaries for you, but further discussion at this time will not be fruitful.

[Justin Martyr]

Photius certainly was a heretic and a schismatic in the beginning. If in the end he was reconciled and died in Catholic Communion, it may be presumed he retracted his errors against the Papacy.

He died in communion with Rome without having to retract anything.

At any rate, it is the Judgment of the Catholic Church on the Filioque Dogma that is to be dogmatically held, and certainly not the misguided errors of the objectively heretical Photius.

At present, yes. Between 880-1014, things are less clear; as I explained in my post about John VIII and the VIII Council.

You attack the author of the analytics scholastic blog, despite the fact that he only disproves temporal procession. That shows you are still confused between the Catholic Truth of Eternal Hypostatic Procession and the schismatic error of a temporal procession.

I'm attacking him because his arguments are weak, and they not only fail to refute St. Photius but make Catholics look foolish.

Just like you were confused earlier about the so-called "holy quran" and almost apostatized;

For the record, this is false. I had some nostalgia and minor temptations for Islam at one point for a brief span, but at no time during this span did I seriously consider leaving the Catholic Church or repudiating her Faith. That was something people assumed when I cheekily made Surah Al-Fatiha my signature. I just thought the prayer was beautiful and would be OK in a Catholic context with a few words changed. Thankfully, Vetus Ordo has explained why that perception was wrong, and others explained to me that it was scandalous regardless.

...further discussion at this time will not be fruitful.

I tend to agree.

[AlNg]

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.

St. Photius is a recognised as a Saint in the Eastern Catholic tradition.
https://prayerofsaintephrem.blog/2013/02/06/commemorating-st-photius/#:~:text=On%20February%206th%2C%20our%20Byzantine,Father%20Photius%2C%20Patriarch%20of%20Constantinople.
https://east2west.org/sp_faq/st-photius/

[Xavier]

This is a disciplinary issue, not doctrinal, that needs to be further studied. Some Catholic scholars like Fr. Francis Dvornik argue that Photius, despite his earlier mistakes, died a Catholic in full communion. "Francis Dvornik (14 August 1893, Chomýž – 4 November 1975, Chomýž), in Czech František Dvorník, was a Catholic priest and academic. He is considered one of the leading twentieth-century experts on Slavic and Byzantine history, and on relations between the churches of Rome and Constantinople." I am open to his thesis and don't rule it out entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Dvornik

At any rate, it needs to be made clear that Photius' earlier errors are grievous and schismatic, and cannot be safely held by anyone. In particular, those errors of his which were later dogmatically condemned by Ecumenical Councils of the Whole Church.

Lyons II explained that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and not in a kind of temporal mission only.

[Justin Martyr]

This is a disciplinary issue, not doctrinal, that needs to be further studied. Some Catholic scholars like Fr. Francis Dvornik argue that Photius, despite his earlier mistakes, died a Catholic in full communion. "Francis Dvornik (14 August 1893, Chomýž – 4 November 1975, Chomýž), in Czech František Dvorník, was a Catholic priest and academic. He is considered one of the leading twentieth-century experts on Slavic and Byzantine history, and on relations between the churches of Rome and Constantinople." I am open to his thesis and don't rule it out entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Dvornik

At any rate, it needs to be made clear that Photius' earlier errors are grievous and schismatic, and cannot be safely held by anyone. In particular, those errors of his which were later dogmatically condemned by Ecumenical Councils of the Whole Church.

Lyons II explained that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and not in a kind of temporal mission only.

You mean the "errors" that were affirmed at an Ecumenical Council approved by John VIII, and were also taught by John VIII?

@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"