Are Eastern Catholics and traditional Catholics Orthodox in denial [CONTROVERSIAL]

[JSRG]

Pope John VIII (I think) condemned it as heretical in a letter and called a local council to excommunicate anyone who used it in the Creed.

I looked into this. There is a letter attributed to Pope John VIII to Photius which has often been interpreted as being a statement that the filioque is heretical. However, this is disputed on two grounds.

The first is the question of whether it actually condemns the filioque heretical at all. The key statement seems to be this one:

"But, I think your wise Holiness well knows how difficult it is to change immediately a custom, which has been entrenched for so many years. Therefore, we believe the best policy is not to force anyone to abandon that addition to the Creed. But rather we must act with wisdom and moderation, urging them little by little to give up that blasphemy."

The usage of "blasphemy" is the key point here. However, is it saying that the filioque--the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son--is blasphemy, or it is saying (with perhaps some rhetorical flourish) that the changing of the Creed is blasphemy?

The other question is whether this letter is authentic to begin with, as it has been questioned. For example, Francis Dvornik discusses it in his 1948 work "The Photian Schism" (pages 197-198) and notes "the fact that the existence of this letter was never referred to either by Photius or by any of the Greek polemists before the fourteenth century" and that it uses phrases that would have been extremely odd for John VIII to use ("the particular passage in which the writer compares the initiators of the innovation to Judas certainly did not issue from the Pontifical Chancellery"). In some fairness he gives possible reasons for them to not use the letter during that time period even if they knew of it, but still ultimately concludes the letter is either completely fictitious or heavily altered.

On the other hand, Richard Haugh in his work "Photius and the Carolingians" (1975) discusses the matter on pages 128-130 (the translation I offered is taken from that work) and, while not apparently concluding for certain the letter is real, asserts some things in it would be very odd for a later forger to invent and that it is largely consistent with what we know of the situation. It does, however, seem to take the interpretation that the "blasphemy" was changing the Creed, not the theology behind the filioque, as it asserts "Pope John's position is the same as that of Pope Leo III" (see below for Leo III).

So I can't really weigh in on the subject of whether it's real or not; there's too much stuff I'd need to do a lot more research on to try to have an informed opinion. But there are definitely some questions on whether it's real and, if real, whether it was saying the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son was in itself heretical or whether it was just objecting to the Creed adjustment. To try to see what the most recent scholarship states I looked at "The filioque: history of a doctrinal controversy" from 2010, but it didn't mention the letter at all.

another Pope put up the Creed in silver in the Vatican in Latin and Greek without the filioque to show it’s heretical.

You don't specify which pope is in view here, but @CantorSeraphim helpfully mentioned it's Pope Leo III. It is true that Leo III put up the Creed in silver in the Vatican in Latin and Greek without the filioque. However, it's certain he didn't do so to show it's heretical, because he agreed with the filioque in terms of theology.

In a letter to the Eastern churches, he says "we are sending you this Creed of the Orthodox Faith so that you and everyone may hold the correct and inviolate faith according to the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church." He then goes on to say "The Holy Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son and is consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. The Father is fully God in himself, the Son born of the Father is fully God. The Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is fully God..." (translation from Haugh's book noted above on page 68, it's also quoted in "The filioque: history of a doctrinal controversy" (2010) by Anthony Siecienski on page 97)

It is fairly obvious that Leo III was not condemning as heretical a belief he declared to be "the correct and inviolate faith according to the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church"! Now, Leo III does appear to have been opposed to changing the Nicene Creed to include the filioque (at least when read in churches). But this opposition clearly didn't come from any belief it was heretical.

 

[Lukaris]

Fine. But you seem to imply that God is in one direction while "us" in the other.

It is just a matter of posture for everyone facing God the same way as we worship Him. We have houses of worship going back to Solomon who built the temple fulfilling the wishes of his father David. In 1 Kings 8:1-66 we have our liturgical worship inside a fixed structure. The previous tabernacle worship was liturgically the same but the tabernacle was portable ( Exodus 25:8-14 etc.). Solomon, of course, was not trying to “contain” God in any sense as per 1 Kings 8:27 etc.

Again, I just want to mention it is how I understand why we do what we do. If the average layperson is basically informed & engaged of this, the clergy of us but also in humility linking us, then our worship thrives.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The usage of "blasphemy" is the key point here. However, is it saying that the filioque--the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son--is blasphemy, or it is saying (with perhaps some rhetorical flourish) that the changing of the Creed is blasphemy?

either way, the Creed with the filioque is in error.

In a letter to the Eastern churches, he says "we are sending you this Creed of the Orthodox Faith so that you and everyone may hold the correct and inviolate faith according to the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church." He then goes on to say "The Holy Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son and is consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. The Father is fully God in himself, the Son born of the Father is fully God. The Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is fully God..." (translation from Haugh's book noted above on page 68, it's also quoted in "The filioque: history of a doctrinal controversy" (2010) by Anthony Siecienski on page 97)

It is fairly obvious that Leo III was not condemning as heretical a belief he declared to be "the correct and inviolate faith according to the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church"! Now, Leo III does appear to have been opposed to changing the Nicene Creed to include the filioque (at least when read in churches). But this opposition clearly didn't come from any belief it was heretical

I’ll give you that, and I sit corrected.

that does not change, however, that Rome agreed with our Constantinople IV which condemned the filioque as heresy.

 

[JSRG]

that does not change, however, that Rome agreed with our Constantinople IV which condemned the filioque as heresy.

I didn't comment on this originally because I don't know the history enough to really opine on how much Rome "agreed" with it. While the papal legates sent there accepted it, there is some dispute as to how much the pope agreed with Constantinople IV after they returned. There are various assertions, such as he approved of it entirely, or he gave only a qualified approval (i.e. partially), or he initially accepted it but after discovering he was misled or misunderstood it, rejected it (at least partially). I don't have the historical knowledge to really judge which is the correct interpretation.

However, regardless of whether Rome agreed with the council or not, I don't see any indication that Constantinople IV declared the filioque--as in the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son--as heresy. Now, it did have some negative things to say about changes to the Nicene Creed:

"In the Horos of the council, the Creed (without the filioque) was read out and a condemnation pronounced against those who "impose on it their own invented phrases and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy and display the audacity to falsify completely the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos [Rule] with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions."
("The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy" (page 104). I cut out some bracketed Greek text; the "[Rule]" is in the translation offered)

But this is simply a statement against unauthorized changes to the Creed. The filioque may have been what was primarily in mind as the "invented phrases", but it never calls it out (or says anything about the doctrine as far as I can tell), nor does it say that "invented phrases" are inherently heretical, just that they shouldn't be added to the Nicene Creed. Now, I'm sure at least some of the Greeks did believe it was heretical (Photius certainly did in his writings against it several years after the council), but in terms of what the Council actually said, I don't see anything saying the doctrine of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son is heretical. It limits itself to a criticism of changes to the Nicene Creed, which implicitly includes the filioque as a phrase in the Nicene Creed, but not as a doctrine.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I didn't comment on this originally because I don't know the history enough to really opine on how much Rome "agreed" with it. While the papal legates sent there accepted it, there is some dispute as to how much the pope agreed with Constantinople IV after they returned. There are various assertions, such as he approved of it entirely, or he gave only a qualified approval (i.e. partially), or he initially accepted it but after discovering he was misled or misunderstood it, rejected it (at least partially). I don't have the historical knowledge to really judge which is the correct interpretation.

However, regardless of whether Rome agreed with the council or not, I don't see any indication that Constantinople IV declared the filioque--as in the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son--as heresy. Now, it did have some negative things to say about changes to the Nicene Creed:

"In the Horos of the council, the Creed (without the filioque) was read out and a condemnation pronounced against those who "impose on it their own invented phrases and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy and display the audacity to falsify completely the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos [Rule] with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions."
("The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy" (page 104). I cut out some bracketed Greek text; the "[Rule]" is in the translation offered)

But this is simply a statement against unauthorized changes to the Creed. The filioque may have been what was primarily in mind as the "invented phrases", but it never calls it out (or says anything about the doctrine as far as I can tell), nor does it say that "invented phrases" are inherently heretical, just that they shouldn't be added to the Nicene Creed. Now, I'm sure at least some of the Greeks did believe it was heretical (Photius certainly did in his writings against it several years after the council), but in terms of what the Council actually said, I don't see anything saying the doctrine of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son is heretical. It limits itself to a criticism of changes to the Nicene Creed, which implicitly includes the filioque as a phrase in the Nicene Creed, but not as a doctrine.

it’s pretty odd to say that the theology of the Spirit can change, but the articulation cannot. plus, it wouldn’t have taken over a century for Rome to officially change her view.

plus, no other council is open to that level of ambiguity of who believed exactly what about it in its aftermath.

 

[prodromos]

I didn't comment on this originally because I don't know the history enough to really opine on how much Rome "agreed" with it. While the papal legates sent there accepted it, there is some dispute as to how much the pope agreed with Constantinople IV after they returned. There are various assertions, such as he approved of it entirely, or he gave only a qualified approval (i.e. partially), or he initially accepted it but after discovering he was misled or misunderstood it, rejected it (at least partially). I don't have the historical knowledge to really judge which is the correct interpretation.

However, regardless of whether Rome agreed with the council or not, I don't see any indication that Constantinople IV declared the filioque--as in the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son--as heresy. Now, it did have some negative things to say about changes to the Nicene Creed:

"In the Horos of the council, the Creed (without the filioque) was read out and a condemnation pronounced against those who "impose on it their own invented phrases and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy and display the audacity to falsify completely the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos [Rule] with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions."
("The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy" (page 104). I cut out some bracketed Greek text; the "[Rule]" is in the translation offered)

But this is simply a statement against unauthorized changes to the Creed. The filioque may have been what was primarily in mind as the "invented phrases", but it never calls it out (or says anything about the doctrine as far as I can tell), nor does it say that "invented phrases" are inherently heretical, just that they shouldn't be added to the Nicene Creed. Now, I'm sure at least some of the Greeks did believe it was heretical (Photius certainly did in his writings against it several years after the council), but in terms of what the Council actually said, I don't see anything saying the doctrine of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son is heretical. It limits itself to a criticism of changes to the Nicene Creed, which implicitly includes the filioque as a phrase in the Nicene Creed, but not as a doctrine.

I don't know how to phrase this as I don't have a gift for writing, but I believe the Council was being generous in its statement to allow the venerable See of Rome a non humiliating way out of the controversy.

 

[Lukaris]

From what understand, the Filioque was at best tolerated in the Eastern Churches. In 1054, it seems like Latin Cardinal Humbert used the Filioque ( among many other things) in his false excommunication of the Orthodox. From this, theological breakdown was complete.

While I believe what I posted is true in a simple context, there was an avalanche of tensions surrounding this before & after on a grand scale. There were the atrocities of western crusaders, there were tensions within Italian merchant communities in Constantinople, tensions with the more native Greek communities, tensions leading up to the massacre of Latins in Constantinople, the Latin sacking of Constantinople etc etc. Basically Romans 3:23 applies here & a careful reading of Isaiah 64:1-12 on a grand scale apply here in contrast to certain tendencies to automatically prejudge every individual.

Basically no good guys on any side but probably lots of innocent people everywhere ending up victims.

 

[RileyG]

From what understand, the Filioque was at best tolerated in the Eastern Churches. In 1054, it seems like Latin Cardinal Humbert used the Filioque ( among many other things) in his false excommunication of the Orthodox. From this, theological breakdown was complete.

While I believe what I posted is true in a simple context, there was an avalanche of tensions surrounding this before & after on a grand scale. There were the atrocities of western crusaders, there were tensions within Italian merchant communities in Constantinople, tensions with the more native Greek communities, tensions leading up to the massacre of Latins in Constantinople, the Latin sacking of Constantinople etc etc. Basically Romans 3:23 applies here & a careful reading of Isaiah 64:1-12 on a grand scale apply here in contrast to certain tendencies to automatically prejudge every individual.

Basically no good guys on any side but probably lots of innocent people everywhere ending up victims.

From my understanding, the Filioque was one of the main reasons why the two Churches separated, but someone can kindly correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Lukaris]

From my understanding, the Filioque was one of the main reasons why the two Churches separated, but someone can kindly correct me if I'm wrong.

It is and I believe Cardinal Humbert trying to force Orthodox conformity to it was the final straw. There were generations of tension prior to this. There were a lot of political and economic issues of social conflict also between East and West also.

A main thing I consider is that there were dirty deeds done all around so I view Rome and Constantinople as roughly equal as being saints or sinners. We were just correct on this matter of theology. Still, personally, I believe we have both been given enough Gospel truth the Lord will hold us accountable for.

 

[RileyG]

It is and I believe Cardinal Humbert trying to force Orthodox conformity to it was the final straw. There were generations of tension prior to this. There were a lot of political and economic issues of social conflict also between East and West also.

A main thing I consider is that there were dirty deeds done all around so I view Rome and Constantinople as roughly equal as being saints or sinners. We were just correct on this matter of theology. Still, personally, I believe we have both been given enough Gospel truth the Lord will hold us accountable for.

Thanks for the response, it’s appreciated.

 

[ArmyMatt]

From my understanding, the Filioque was one of the main reasons why the two Churches separated, but someone can kindly correct me if I'm wrong.

yep, although that could have been worked out probably had Rome not insisted on an authority they never had.

 

[Lukaris]

While what I am about to post may seem unusual, it seems that there could be an astronomical influence affecting the situation in Constantinople in 1054. That being the sight of the Crab Nebula over the skies. Such matters often influenced how people reacted in or interpreted tense situations.

There is an article in the JTSOR digital library about the Crab Nebula in 1054 with reference to the situation in Constantinople among others.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/316401?seq=1

Then compare the influence of Halley’s Comet in relation to it’s depiction in the Bayeux Tapestry in relation to the 1066 Battle of Hastings.

955 Years Ago: Halley’s Comet and the Battle of Hastings - NASA

Through the ages, people have attributed meaning to unusual celestial apparitions such as comets. Such is the case for perhaps the most famous comet, the one

www.nasa.gov

 

[cradleGO]

I was talking to a traditional Catholic and they recognize the errors of Vatican 2. Byzantine / Eastern Catholics also see the error of Rome such as the filoque. Most of it seems to be over the simplifification of the liturgy by Rome. While l I do NOT harbor any animosity towards Catholics I just seems like Byzantine Catholics and traditional Catholics would be better off converting with Orthodox instead of continuing the facade of being in communion with the Roman Church which over time has seriously degraded. George Joseph and Carl have really sacrificed the faith to modernity(colloqually known as wokeness) in a futile attempt to seem relevant. Perhaps we could use a form of ecumenicalism as a form to convert them to our side. Perhaps if needed we could convert entire parishes to Orthodoxy. I encourage Christians of all denominations to return to traditionalism.IF THIS BREAKS ANY GUIDELINES I APOLOGIZE

This is an effort to return to the OP, above. Makes no difference to me what your prior church/Church taught. The only important thing is that one joining Orthodoxy accepts Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox dogma, Orthodox rituals - the whole Orthodox kit and the whole Orthodox caboodle ("the whole kit and caboodle" is an expression meaning 'everything'). Otherwise, they should stay where they are or seek some other church/Church to their satisfaction.

A point I made earlier, perhaps page 1, is that Orthodoxy would be wise to have formulaic, but not rigid, approaches for the various "seekers" it will encounter. So, on the one hand I am excited to see that others see Orthodoxy as being where they want to be, but on the other hand, I am worried that in the blush of being 'popular', Orthodoxy loses sight that It is the measure that must prevail.

I am not in favor of an outreach but rather openness. Do the work and be accepted wholeheartedly.

Orthodoxy has issues. We have plenty. We don't need to add to our troubles with folks who want to make Orthodoxy in their image. Mostly said this before. I believe the best approach is openness to converts, but our expectations are that there is effort on the part of seekers to learn about us, and have suggested that some study as to why others want to become part of us would be useful.