The Filioque in Eastern Orthodox Saints of the West (350-680 A.D.)



St. Hilary of Poitiers (+350, Feast Day Jan. 13th) writes:
“Nor will I infringe upon any one’s liberty of thought in this matter, whether they may regard the Paraclete Spirit as coming from the Father or from the Son [utrum ex Patre an ex Filio Spiritum paracletum putent esse]. The Lord has left nothing uncertain…Consequently, He receives [accipit] from the Son who has been sent by Him and proceeds from the Father [A Filio igitur accipit qui et ab eo mittitur et a Patre procedit]….The Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father, but He is sent by the son from the Father [A Patre enim procedit Spiritus veritatis, sed a Filio a Patre mittitur]” (De Trinitate 8.20). Now, some readers might immediately say that the sending of the Spirit from the Son is an economic procession in the world towards creation. Not only is this fine distinction not present in the quote just provided, but serious reasons exist to not even both speculating. In the very same Book and Chapter of the above citation, St. Hilary says that the procession of the Spirit from the Father is the same as proceeding from the Son. He writes: “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”. (On the Holy Spirit 8.20, [PL 10:250C-251A])

Pope St. Damasus I (+384 – Feast Day Dec. 11th): The text to be cited is probably from the word of a Roman synod anywhere within the years 377 to 380. Some scholars attribute it directly to Pope Damasus. Other scholars have said it was the word of a Synod, though accepted by Pope Damasus. In either case, it means the same for the purpose here. The Synod, or, if it was solely Damasus, then it was Damasus, was responding to the heresy which said the Spirit Himself was a creature. It states: “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” (The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, A. Edward Siecienski, pp. 56-57). Now, in the Synod of Rome 382, which issued either the whole or the first three chapters of a text often referred to as the Decretum Gelasianum (Explanatio Fidei), a clear testimony to the Filioque doctrine is found. Now, if we ascribe it to St. Damasus or to St. Gelasius, it is to no less a venerated Saint in the contemporary Eastern Orthodox community. The text says: “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 John 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 (John 16:14)'” (Patrologia Latina 13.374)

St. Augustine of Hippo (+354-430, Feast Day June 18th ): “If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

St. Leo the Great (+450, Feast Day Feb 18th) : “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”” (Letter XV, section II)

St. Eucherios of Lyons (+AD 454 – Feast Day Nov. 16) , writes: “The Holy Spirit is neither begotten or unbegotten, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say, of Both” (Spiritus Sanctus nece genitus nec ingentius …. sed potius qui ex Patre et Filio procedat, velut quaedam patris filioque concordia). Migne 1.774

St. Faustus, Bishop of Riez (+485 – Feast Day September 28), writes:
“The fact that he has a name to Him proves that he is the Third Person, beside the two Firsts ; their unity of majesty shows that it proceeds from God and that ” third ” in the enumeration does not mean an inferiority of rank. Indeed, proceeding from the inmost of God is to be of its substance, not its creature. Do not try to penetrate how he is God, the one of whom it is manifest that he is God. Here the reason is silent, the truth is manifested. Why ask how is the union and equality between the King and the one of which it is proven that it is of royal nature and honored as such? It is superfluous to seek out the name when there is no doubt of its Greatness. Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, according to these words:Who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him ( Ro 8: 9). And these: He breathed on them and said to them: ” Receive the Holy Spirit ( Jn 20:22 )……..If you want to know what is the difference between the one born and the one that proceeds, it naturally depends on the first being the only Son (of the Father) while the second derives its origin from the Father and the Son” (A Book “From the Holy Spirit” which is in french at this link, but can be translated. Author of translation approved the text – On the Holy Spirit)

St. Gennadius of Massilius (+495) writes:
““We believe that there is One God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost: Father, because He hath a Son; Son, because He hath a Father; Holy Ghost, because He is from [ex] the Father and the Son. The Father then is the Beginning [Principium] of Deity, Who as He never was not God, so also was He
never not Father: from Whom the Son was Begotten; from [a] Whom the Holy Ghost was not Begotten, because He is not Son; nor Unbegotten, because He is not Father; nor made, because He is not from [ex] nothing, but from [ex] God the Father and God the Son God proceeding” (Migne 58, 980)

St. Julianus Pomerius, presbyter of Arles (+498, influenced by St. Diadochos of Photiki) writes:
“..the faithful committed to our charge ought to be taught concerning the Holy Spirit that He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and therefore cannot be said to be either generate or ingenerate” (Patrologia Latina 59. 432)

St. Avitus of Vienne (+523 – Feast Day Feb 5th), writes:
“We for our part affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the is the property of the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son” (Migne 59.385-6)

St. Boethius (+524, Feast Day Oct. 23) writes:
“We shall admit that God the Son proceeded from God the Father and the Holy Ghost from both [et ex utrisque Spiritum Sanctum]…But since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and since there are in God no points of difference distinguishing Him from God, He differs from none of the others” (De Trinitate 5; Eng. Trans.: Boethius, The Theological Tractates, trans. H.F. Stewart and E.K. Rand, Loeb Classical Library [New York: Putnam and Sons, 1926], 27,29)

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+526 – Feast Day Jan. 3rd) writes:
“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). And : “The Father is begotten of none; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” (De Trinitate 2, Migne 499). And: “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son, and abides wholly in the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide” (Epistle 14, Migne 418)

St. Isidore of Seville (+600 – Feast Day April 4th) writes:
“The Holy Spirit is called God because He prpoceeds from the Father and the Son and has their essence…There is, however, this difference between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from both” (Patrologia Latina 82.268)

Pope St. Gregory Dialogus (+604, Feast Day March 12) writes:
“We can also understand His [i.e. the Son’s] 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 it 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” (Homiliarium in Evangelia Libri Duo 2.26 (Eng. Trans. Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, trans. Dom David Hurst [Kalamazoo, Mich.:Cistercian Publications, 1990], page 202)).

St. Maximos the Confessor, +650 AD) “Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope 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 the theology of the Trinity and, according to them, says: ‘The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son’. The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shwon that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) — but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence…. ” (Letter to Marinus – PG 91, 136)

St. Theodore of Canterbury (+A.D. 680) : “‘And we glorify our Lord Jesus Christ as they glorified Him, adding nothing, taking away nothing: and we anathematize in heart and word whom they anathematized: we receive whom they received: glorifying God the Father without beginning, and His Only-begotten Son, Begotten of the Father before all ages: and the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, ineffably; as those holy Apostles, and prophets, and doctors, whom we above commemorated, have preached‘” (Council of Hatfield, 680 AD).

35 thoughts on “The Filioque in Eastern Orthodox Saints of the West (350-680 A.D.)

  1. Saint Maximus the Confessor is often misrepresented as believing in an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the son, when in fact he was trying to avoid polemics in an irenic spirit and was clarifying that the Spirit comes from Father and Son in temporal mission in time, in a mutual sending of the Holy Spirit from the Father by both the Father and the Son together, temporal sending, mission, not the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit beyond time from the hypostasis of the Father.

    • Either the Eastern church is wrong now, or the people it venerates as saints are wrong. The latin fathers have a consensus on the Filioque.

      • Either Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII are wrong for forbidding the Filioque to be said in Catholic mass, or Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are wrong for saying Filioque in Catholic mass. You have Popes of Rome having contrary actions and traditions in this matter.

      • They both agree in the West’s belief of Filioque. Don’t misinterpret western disciplinary actions.

      • Someone who has personally met John Smith in Pittsburgh, as Abraham had met the three men (angels) by the Oaks of Mamre, does not require Greek philosophical epistemological and logical metaphysical arguments for the existence of John Smith or Pittsburgh. He knows the truth personally and by personal experience.
        It is illogical to have a systematic faith (without proof or evidence) in logic as the best method of knowing something (or all things) with certainty. It is an axiom that is unprovable by logic.
        It is illogical for Aquinas to use Aristotle and his system as an apologetic method for defending faith in the Christian God. Aristotle did not know the Christian God, and his doctrines do not provide assuring evidence for the truths of the Christian Bible. Just as Augustine of Hippo’s system of philosophy do not provide proof for a theology of Filioque. Filioque is pagan philosophy, not Christian theology, and is not based upon John 15:26 and Acts 2:33, or any other Greek New Testament verse. It is simply a psychological idea in the speculative and irrational fallen (sinful) mind of blessed Saint Augustine of Hippo, who had a Christian experience with Christ, but in this matter of Filioque and attempting the “explain” the Holy Trinity, Augustine, as a mere man, was in heresy. The Church Fathers, most of them had a valid experience of God in the Holy Spirit, except for Origen, who was a heretic, unlike Augustine, and not a Church Father. Augustine was a valid Church Father with some ideas that later developed into full-blown heresies which Augustine himself did not believe or develop. The Church Fathers were capable of error, but, by and large, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, God in the Orthodox Church preserved them from serious theological error. Filioque however is serious non-theological error.

      • Either Augustine of Hippo is right, or the Second Ecumenical Council, 381 AD, is right. Both cannot be right. The earlier earliest Popes of Rome all endorsed the Second Ecumenical Council. Maybe Augustine of Hippo did not know or accept the doctrine of the Ecumenical Council. If it was the final authority for him, he would not have written to speculate Filioque, which contradicts Constantinople I. To try to endorse both the 2nd Ecumenical Council and Augustine’s De Trinitate as dogma is impossble. But the West has tried to do just that, and thus the theological schizophrenia of papism in its Augustinianism and the papist Augustinianism which produced the Protestant Reformation. Pope Nicholas I was the first Protestant and the first Martin Luther. Augustine of Hippo is the father of Papism and Protestantism and psychological individualism, and in schism from the authority of the 2nd ecumenical council without Filioque.

      • Erick Ybarra/Tomas Palamas:
        Why do you believe Maximus the Confessor did not make a clear distinction between an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit in eternity from the Person of the Father alone, and an economic temporal mission/commission, “sending” (‘procession” in time) from/by both the Father and the Son together in time? Where is your evidence that Maximus did not make such a clear distinction? Quotes from Maximus the Confessor on this, please!
        Scott R. Harrington

      • Simple, because I haven’t read that distinction in his writings. This may be due for two reasons; I haven’t read all of his writings and so you may know something that I don’t or I probably missed it in one of his texts. But I don’t have to prove anything because I haven’t claimed anything.
        I simply asked a question and if I recall correctly, Dr. Peter on his blog asked you the same question but you didn’t respond. Can you please provide us citations of where St. Maximus makes such distinction?

        Since you wanted a quote:
        “For just as the Holy Spirit by nature and according to essence exists of God the Father, so too by nature and according to essence is the Spirit of the Son, insofar as the Spirit proceeds essentially from the Father ineffably through the begotten Son…” (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, 63.7)
        He doesn’t make any of the distinctions you make.

    • Your knowledge of the history of the Filioque amounts to ZERO.

      Pope Leo III did not forbid the addition of the filioque clause in the creed. The letters are forgeries by Ademar of Chabannes, the notorious medieval forger. You can read Daniel F. Callahan, “The Problem of the ‘Filioque’ and the Letter from the Pilgrim Monks of the Mount of Olives to Pope Leo III and Charlemagne. Is the Letter another Forgery by Adémar of Chabannes?”

      • So you believe the letters of Pope Leo III are forgeries, but you do not believe the Donation of Constantine supporting universal papal kingship monarchy lordship sovereignty and jurisdiction over everyone on all of the earth are forgeries, and the belief of Vatican I was right there in the early Church, 30-70 AD,and Saint Paul rebuking Saint Peter for doctrinal error is a forgery too? If the popes of Rome are infallible and cannot teach any doctrinal error of faith, and they all come from blessed Saint Peter, how is it that Saint Peter himself did not share in this papal infallibility as the first Pope of Rome, but was rebuked for doctrinal error by Saint Paul?

      • How do you know Daniel F. Callahan is not a forger and lying about Ademar of Chabannes being a forger? What evidence is there that Pope John VIII did not endorse Saint Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, and did not forbid Filioque at the Fourth Council of Constantinople, 879-880 AD? Which is the Eighth Ecumenical Council of the Church. See: Meijer, Johan A. (1975). A Successful Council of Union. Thessalonica: Analekta Vlatadon.

      • Zero knowledge? That is slander and YOU cannot possibly know what another person does or does NOT know, nor can you, unless you have ALL knowledge of another person, know that some other person’s knowledge of the history of Filioque is ZERO. A little more evidence and humility and less arrogant statements like that and a little more circumspect saying on what YOU know on the history of Filioque, and a little less ad hominem invective against other’s alleged unfamiliarity with the history of Filioque controversy. The fact is we are all just beginning, all of us, every one of us to the last man, beginning to learn how very much there is to the history of Filioque, which no one given individual knows absolutely every possible last detail about Filioque’s vast history of controversy between West and East. I suspect many people have not read Photios’ Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit in the Azkoul and Farrell English translations, which is while they are still lost in the abyss Charlemagne’s evil botomless pit of hyper-Augustinian Filioquism, and they ignore the pertinent words of the fair-minded (albeit liberal) theologian of the West, Hans Kung, who in spite of some of his political ecumenist excesses and liberalism, is objective about many things. See: Augustine’s model of the Trinity, the Trinity Reinterpreted, In Hans Kung: The Catholic Church: A Short History, New York, Modern Library, 2001.

      • The letters above both by Gregory I aNd Damasus are forgeries. One can simply read the work of Gregory in Migne and see them italicized because the source that has it is spurious and other sources have no such sentence. There is a manuscript with the Filioque written above the original a patre as clear as day. The same is found in the French manuscript musesum of Damasus, where it is written in as clear as day, only to be added in future translations and copies as if it had always been there. If this kind of chicanery is present in these examples, why would other works be trusted? This was precisely the point of Eugenicus then, and it is even more obvious today. What a joke.

      • Dear E.T. Ybarra.
        Thanks for the link to the Facebook group. How do I access it? Just click the link?
        I suggest this.
        Obtain for yourself the following books and read them. Then discuss them from whatever point of view of theology you want to confess.
        Siecienski, A. Edward. (2010). The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.
        Ostroumoff, Ivan N. (1971). The History of the Council of Florence. Basil Popoff, trans. Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery.
        Azkoul, Rev. Fr. Dr. Michael, Ph.D, trans. & Holy Transfiguation Monastery. (1982). Saint Photius. On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, Boston, MASS: Studion Publishers.
        Farrell, Dr. Joseph P., Ph.D., trans. (1987). Saint Photios. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Brookline, MASS: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
        Holy Apostles Convent. (1990). The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy: Saint Photios, Saint Gregory Palamas, Saint Mark of Ephesus. Buena Vista, CO: Holy Apostles Convent.
        Western view: Likoudis, James. (1992). Ending the Byzantine-Greek Schism: The APOLOGIA of Demetrius Cydones for UNITY WITH ROME/ St. Thomas Aquinas, CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM. New Rochelle, NY: Catholics United For the Faith, Inc.
        Anselm of Canterbury. On the Procession of the Holy Spirit. in Anselm of Canterbury, Works. New York: Oxford University Press.
        Lombard, Peter. The Sentences: Book I: On the Holy Trinity. Toronto, ON, Canada: PIMS Pontifical Instiute For Mediaeval Studies.
        Eastern view: Romanides, John S. (1982). Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Coctrine: An Interplay of Theology and Society. Brookline, MASS: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.

      • I am only a novice and a layman in theology, and have not-as-yet thought-out, or read about, all aspects of the Filioque debate between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But I feel the three major players in this are Photius on the Orthodox side, and Anselm, Lombard, and Aquinas. I feel Aquinas is the most partisan, Lombard is the weakest link and less well-thought out, he seems to say some things I will not speak of now since I need further reading of his work to see whether or not I actually detect any error in him (I am not sure: what he seems to be saying on the Holy Spirit and temporality seems a bit odd); but the best work on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Western Filioque view seems to be Anselm on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Erick, if you can read Photius On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, Boston, Studion Publishers, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, and Anselm, on the procession of the Holy Spirit, in Davies, Anselm, Works, Oxford University Press, please read and refer to Anselm and Photius and see what you can make of them between now and 2020, take some time, and get back to me and see what they say and what you make on Photius and Anselm, and how the square with Scripture and the Greek and Latin Church Fathers. God bless take care. Merry Christmas 2018.

      • Scott,

        No problem. We could use any food for thought. The Filioque group is a mixture of Orthodox and Catholic guys, all speaking in good faith.

      • Dear E.T. Ybarra.
        1) Have you read Pope Leo III’s defense of Filioque as a doctrine, and, if so, where is this? Is it available in English? Or in any other language, especially Spanish, since I can read both English and Spanish?
        2) Please consider reading the following Greek Father. John of Damascus, page 537, Note number 297, Commentary on John 15:26: The Orthodox New Testament. Volume I: The Holy Gospels. Evangelistarion.Copyright 2000, Holy Apostles Convent, P.O. Box 3118, Buena Vista, CO 81211 … See also: Volume 2, Praxapostolos, Orthodox New Testament, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation.

  2. The Greek Fathers have consensus against the Filioque. Pope Leo III had two silver plaques in Greek and Latin without the Filioque additions placed on the walls of the Vatican. Why have the current popes removed and taken away these plaques, they are contradicting the action and tradition of Pope Leo III.

    • You display complete ignorance regarding the history of the filioque, which I happen to specialize in.

      I would go through it with you, but I have better things to do with my time.

      • There is no need for rudeness. God bless you.
        In your claim to understand all on the history of Filioque, do you fail to heed the Scriptures, “Let another man praise you, and not [you praise] yourself”.
        Why do you call Christ Jesus “LORD, LORD”, and do not believe the words “Who proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26 NKJV), if you do not believe Christ’s Words in John 15:26, why then do you say Filioque? “Love and compassion are dead in you. You’re nothing but intellect” (Star Trek: Classic. “The Empath” 1968-1969 (Knowing everything about the history of Filioque, but not believing Christ in John 15:26). You seem to care nothing for not insulting others, and violate the rules of logic against ad hominem statements. If you know everything about the history of Filioque, you would know Photius speaks the truth about Filioque, and that Filioque is a heresy.
        Azkoul, Rev. Fr. Dr. Michael, Ph.D., & Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. (1983). Saint Photios. On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers.
        Farrell, Dr. Joseph P., Ph.D. (1987). Saint Photios. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
        Auer, Rev. Fr. Marc. (1990). The Myth of Papal Infallibility. Buffalo, NY: The Cenacle/ Liberty, TN: The St. John of Kronstadt Press.
        Holy Apostles Convent. (1990). The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy: Saint Photius, Saint Gregory Palamas, Saint Mark of Ephesus.
        Ostroumoff, Ivan N. (1971). The History of the Council of Florence. Translated from the Russian by Basil Popoff. Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery.
        Meijer, Johan A., S.J. (1975). A Successful Council of Union: The Eighth Ecumenical Council 879-880 AD of blessed Good Pope Saint John VIII. Thessalonica, Greece: Analekta Vlatadon.
        Blessed Pope Saint John VIII, pray to God for us, for our health and salvation, and the Reunion of Papal Rome with the Church, the Orthodox Church. God bless you, Mr. Cool!

      • No need to lose your cool, Mr. Cool. You exaggerate and slander.
        The words you say mean very little. Why ignore “who proceeds from the Father”, if you know all on the history of Filioque, why does Christ not say “Filioque” in John 15:26? The Orthodox Church rightly rejects Florence and Lyons and all the other false councils in schism from the Eighth Ecumenical Council of Pope Saint John VIII and Constantinople IV, 879-880 AD Rome and Constantinople in Perfect Union.

  3. Scott,

    Pope Leo III wrote a massive defense for the orthodoxy of the filioque after he charged that the insertion of Filioque into the creed should not be done. And he sent that defense as a letter to all the churches of the East in 808 AD.

    • If he believed the Filioque was Orthodox yet forbad it to be added to the Nicene Creed, Pope Leo III was a double-minded man, and the Bible says that a “double-minded man is unstable in all his ways”. This certainly goes against the papist Latin dogma of Vatican I of papal infallibility and authority. Pope Leo III was therefore half-correct; he was following the authority of the Second Ecumenical Council which alone is the authority for the Catholic Church which did not have the Filioque dogma and which is the final authority for all true Christians of all places of all times and all ages unto the ages of ages: LORD Jesus Christ, Son of God, remember us when Thou comest in Thy Kingdom; Amen.

    • There is a difference between somebody’s opinion, and what they hold to be dogma. Pope Leo III would not make the filioque dogma because that would be officially breaking communion with the bishops of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. Peace!

    • E.T. Ybarra: How do you know what Pope Leo III wrote on the alleged orthodoxy of Filioque? Which Filioque? The Orthodox Filioque, which all in East and West confessed as one, From the Father through the Son (from the Father and the Son Filioque in a temporal procession, sending in time, from the Father and Son together)? Or an eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son in eternity, from the Person of the Son (along with a Father) as a Cause of the Spirit? That Filioque view is heresy. It would endanger the human nature of the Son and put a rift in the Incarnation, for if Christ was fully human, the Holy Spirit could not proceed from His humanity as a cause of the being (existence) of the Holy Spirit. And if the Holy Spirit rests in Christ, the Son, the Spirit cannot proceed from Christ in eternity.

    • If it is true Pope Leo III believed in the Orthodoxy of the Filioque, you need to prove your source of his writing is not a forgery, and he was heterodox therefore. If he had the Creed without Filioque placed in St. Peter’s, he is a Pope against himself. You need to explain why you believe Filioque when Christ said “who proceeds from the Father” John 15:26. And the Father and Christ are not one principle; they are not the same Person. Florence and Lyons therefore are heterodox and contradict Christ in John 15:26.

  4. St Hilary of Poitiers doesn’t teach the Filioque: “to receive from” is distinct from “to proceed from” and has an economic signification. Even a catholic theologian like P. Th. Camelot admitted it (“La Tradition latine sur la procession du Saint-Esprit a filio ou ab utroque”, p. 183). Just after the text quoted, Hilary, to explain it, adds: “a Patre enim procedit Spiritus veritatis, sed a Filio a Patre mittitur”. What the Son receives from the Father, and the Sprit from the Son, are the divine goods belonging to the commune divine nature that are manifested as energies or activities and are given as gifts to the creation (FROM the Father THROUGH the Son IN the Holy Spirit).

    Today we know that in saint Damasus’ confession the “et filio” has been added later (see Jean-Claude Larchet, “Maxime le Confesseur, médiateur entre l’Orient et l’Occident”, p. 17)

    Augustine is the real inventor of the filioquist heresy. Sadly, the Latin Church has given him too much authority.

    • You have asserted your interpretation of St. hilary, which is far from convincing. And I have seen m ore than one passage that Larchet has tried to show is unrealiable or a forgery, and there have always been historians who argue contrary.

  5. “My” interpretation of Hilary, especially when you read the rest of the text, is obvious for anyone without confessional prejudice.
    The case of the so-called “Damasus’ confession” is well established.
    The only text I know that Larchet thinks is a forgery (basing himself on Kunstle and Palmieri) but that may be genuine is Leo’s letter to Turribus of Astorga.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s