Saturday, December 25, 2010

Merry Christmas 2010!

Merry Christmas 2010! God bless you and your loved ones. Christ is born! Praise to You, Lord Jesus Christ. Dear readers, pray for me, a sinner. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

On the day of 25 December

In the countless ages that have passed since the beginning of the world when God created Heaven and earth and formed man in His own image and likeness; also in the very many ages since the Most High placed an arc in the clouds following the flood, the sign of the Covenant and of peace; since the migration of Abraham, our father in faith, from Ur of the Chaldeans in the twenty-first century; since the Exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt under the leadership of Moses in the thirteenth century; since the anointing of David as king around the year one thousand; in the sixty-fifth week, according to the prophet Daniel; in the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiade; in the seven hundred fifty-second year since the foundation of the City [of Rome]; in the forty-second year of the emperor Octavian Caesar Augustus, when the whole world lay at rest in peace, Jesus Christ, eternal God and Son of the eternal Father, desiring to consecrate the world through His most merciful coming, was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and nine months having passed since His conception, was born in Bethlehem of Judea having become man from the Virgin Mary: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. -- USCCB website

Friday, December 17, 2010

What the Catholic Church Does for Women (Intro)

For my Church in Controversy final, due today. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Amen.

"But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy everyone that asks you a reason of that hope which is in you" [1 Pt 3:15].

What the Catholic Church Does for Women
1. What does history indicate? Is the Catholic Church woman’s best friend or her terrible foe? The answer depends on whose standards we follow. Those of us who are called—I do not presume we are also chosen (cf. Mt 22:14)—understand by faith that "we ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Which God? The triune God (1 Jn 5:7), "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Ex 3:6). Christ our God (Titus 2:13), Who founded the Church upon St. Peter (Mt 16:18-19) and "purchased [it] with His own Blood" (Jn 20:28), told His disciples, "if [a man] will not hear the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and publican" (Mt 18:17). We must "obey [our] prelates and be subject to them" (Heb 13:17), since "he that hears [them] hears [Christ], and he that despises [them] despises Christ" (Lk 10:16). Therefore our standards of what is good for the dignity and flourishing of women shall be those taught by the magisterium of "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

False Ecumenism

Mirror link

One of the members of the ByzCath forums said to me concerning my response on veneration of post-schism Orthodox saints,
In spite of Dr. Ludwig Ott, I think you will find on this Forum precious little sympathy (and absolutely none from me personally) for the idea that the Orthodox are schismatics or that it is impossible for the Orthodox to achieve sainthood or that the Orthodox Church is a less certain path to salvation than is the Catholic Church.
Why become Catholic instead of Orthodox, then? Dogmatic differences simply do not matter in this nonsensical worldview! Let us, following the canon law of the Church, call a spade a spade. CIC 751 (1983): "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; ... schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." Orthodox Christians who consciously reject Catholic dogmas (papal primacy, Filioque, etc.) and shun communion with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI of Rome are objectively guilty of formal heresy and formal schism and cannot be saved if they die in these dispositions. This is necessary to confess in light of Pope Eugene IV of Rome (1431-1447) on 2/4/1440, Bull "Cantate Domino" at 17th Ecumenical Council (of Florence) [D714].
Ecumenism does not mean denying the dogma of no salvation outside the Church just because that might hurt someone's feelings! It is heresy to deny that Orthodox Christians must become Catholic or explicitly desire to become Catholic in order to be saved. Another forum member said, in defense of my post, that "the position espoused by Raphael does reflect the beliefs of many pious and well-intentioned Catholics." However, it is the dogmatic position of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the members of which are in communion with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI of Rome, not just a theologumenon of many Catholic faithful! That is precisely why I cited dogmatic statements that are found in Denzinger, with which the Vatican II statements that some ByzCath members harp on are in perfect continuity! Some of the items cited in Denzinger are even to be found in footnotes of the Vatican II decrees.

A moderator said, "while we believe that the visible outlines of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church subsist in the Catholic Church there are others who can make the same claim and we are not to deny their claim." Yes we are (with charity, of course)! That is why in n. 56 of the Declaration Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, says,
The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. "The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one 'subsistence' of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book "Church: Charism and Power" by Father Leonardo Boff: AAS 77 [1985], 756-762).
Here is what I posted:
The issue [re:veneration of post-schism Orthodox saints] is the doubt as to whether many of these men on the calendars were Catholic, since, as Dr. Ludwig Ott says, the proposition "Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation" is De fide (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1957 edition, p. 310), that is, necessary to believe with divine and Catholic faith under pain of automatic excommunication (CIC 751; 1364 §1). If someone were to knowingly and deliberately refuse to become Catholic before death, he would die a formal schismatic who is not a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church either "in re" or even "in voto" via explicit desire. If the Church is able to come to a moral certainty (not necessarily a scientific certainty) that the person in question died a fully incorporated member of the Catholic Church (CCC 837) or died desiring to become Catholic (even after a long period of anti-Catholicism), she can approve veneration of such saints.

For more info on this dogma of the Church, consult the following magisterial pronouncements:
*Pope Pelagius II of Rome (579-590) in 585, Letter 4 "Dilectionis vestrae" to the schismatic bishops of Istria in PL 72:710D-715B [D247]
*Pope Innocent III of Rome (1198-1216) on 12/18/1208, Profession of Faith Prescribed for Durand of Osca and his Waldensian Companions, from the letter "Fitts exemplo" to the Archbishop of Terraco [D423]
*Twelfth Ecumenical Council (Lateran IV in 1215 under Pope Innocent III), Definition directed against the Albigensians and other heretics [D430]
*Pope Boniface VIII of Rome (1294-1303) on 11/18/1302, Bull "Unam Sanctam" [D468-469]
*Pope Clement VI of Rome (1342-1352) on 9/20/1351, Letter "Super quibusdam" to the Consolator, the Armenian Catholicos Mekhitar I of Cilicia (1341-1355) [D570B]
*Pope Eugene IV of Rome (1431-1447) on 2/4/1440, Bull "Cantate Domino" at 17th Ecumenical Council (of Florence) [D714]
*18th Ecumenical Council (of Trent, 1545-1563) under Pope Paul III of Rome (1534-1549) on 1/13/1547, Decree of Justification chapters 4-5, 8, 14 [D796-797, 801, 807]
*Pope Benedict XIV of Rome (1740-1758) on 3/16/1743, Profession of Faith prescribed for the Maronites [D1473]
*Bl. Pope Pius IX of Rome (1846-1878) on 12/9/1854, Allocution "Singulari Quadem" [D1647-1648]
*Idem. on 8/10/1863, Encyclical Letter "Quanto conficiamur moerore" to the bishops of Italy [D1677-1678]
*Pope Leo XIII of Rome (1878-1903) on 6/29/1896, Encyclical letter "Satis cognitum" [D1955]
*Ven. Pope Pius XII of Rome (1939-1958) on 6/29/1943, Encyclical letter "Mystici Corporis Christi" 22, 56-57 [D2286, 2288]


=====

My dear readers, pray for us sinners, especially the wretched author of this blog!

Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception

The solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, truly full of grace and blessed among women, preserved at very first moment of her conception from the stain of original sin through the foreseen appearance and saving death of the Son of God by a singular privilege of God, which was solemnly defined on this very day by Pope Pius IX as a fixed dogma handed down in truth from ancient times. -- USCCB website

Holy Immaculate Mary, Thrice-Blessed Ever-Virgin Mother of God, pray for us wretches!!!

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Friday, November 19, 2010

EENS in Denzinger

Denzinger 247: Pope Pelagius II of Rome (579-590) in 585, Letter 4 "Dilectionis vestrae" to the schismatic bishops of Istria in PL 72:710D-715B: Do not (therefore) because of a love of ostentation, which is always next to pride, remain in the vice of obstinacy; since in the day of judgment no one can excuse himself. ...

For although it is evident from the word of the Lord Himself in the Sacred Gospel [cf. Mt 16:18] where the Church is established, let us hear nevertheless what the Blessed Augustine, mindful of the opinion of the same Lord, has explained. For he says that the Church of God is established among those who are known to preside over the apostolic sees through the succession of those in charge, and whoever separates himself from the communion or authority of these sees, is shown to be in schism. And following additional remarks (he says): "If you are put outside, for the Name of Christ you will also die. Suffer for Christ among the members of Christ; clinging to the body, fight for the Head." But the Blessed Cyprian ... among other things, says the following: "The beginning starts from unity, and the primacy is given to PETER, so that the Church and the chair of Christ may be shown (to be) one: and they are all shepherds, but the flock, which is fed by the Apostles in unanimous agreement, is shown to be one." And after a few (remarks he adds): "Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church believe that he has the faith? Does he who deserts and resists the chair of PETER, on which the Church was founded, have confidence that he is in the Church?" Likewise after other remarks (he asserts): "They cannot arrive at the reward of peace, because they disrupt the peace of the Lord by the fury of discord. ... Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God; although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be [for them] that crown of faith, but the punishment of faithlessness, not a glorious result (of religious virtue), but the ruin of despair. Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. ... For the crime of schism is worse than that which they [commit] who have offered sacrifice, who, nevertheless, having been disposed to penance for their sins prayed to God with the fullest satisfaction. In this case the Church is sought and solicited; in the other the Church is opposed. So in this case he who has fallen, has injured only himself; in the other, who attempts to cause a schism deceives many by dragging (them) with himself. In this case there is the loss of one soul; in the other there is danger to many. Certainly the one knows that he has sinned and laments and bewails (it); the other puffed up with pride in his sin and pluming himself on the sins themselves, separates sons from their mother, seduces the sheep from the shepherds, disturbs the Sacraments of God, and, whereas the former having stumbled sinned once, the latter sins daily. Lastly although the lapsed, if afterwards he acquired martyrdom, is able to secure the promises of the Kingdom; if the other is slain outside of the Church, he cannot attain to the rewards of the Church."
Denzinger 423: Pope Innocent III of Rome (1198-1216) on 12/18/1208, Profession of Faith Prescribed for Durand of Osca and his Waldensian Companions, from the letter "Fitts exemplo" to the Archbishop of Terraco: "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved."
Denzinger 430: Twelfth Ecumenical Council (Lateran IV in 1215 under Pope Innocent III), Definition directed against the Albigensians and other heretics: One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, Whose Body and Blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His Body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the Blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours. And surely no one can accomplish this sacrament except a priest who has been rightly ordained according to the keys of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself conceded to the Apostles and to their successors. But the sacrament of Baptism (which at the invocation of God and the indivisible Trinity, namely, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is solemnized in water) rightly conferred by anyone in the form of the Church is useful unto salvation for little ones and for adults. And if, after the reception of Baptism, anyone shall have lapsed into sin, through true penance he can always be restored. Moreover, not only virgins and the continent but also married persons pleasing to God through right faith and good work merit to arrive at a blessed eternity.

Denzinger 468-469: Pope Boniface VIII of Rome (1294-1303) on 11/18/1302, Bull "Unam Sanctam":
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: "One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her," and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: "Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog" [Ps 21:20]. He has prayed for His Soul, that is for Himself, Heart and Body; and this Body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the Sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one Body and one Head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: "Feed My sheep" [Jn 21:17], meaning, My sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John "there is one sheepfold and one shepherd." ... Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Denzinger 570B: Pope Clement VI of Rome (1342-1352) on 9/20/1351, Letter "Super quibusdam" to the Consolator, the Armenian Catholicos Mekhitar I of Cilicia (1341-1355): "In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved."
Denzinger 714: Pope Eugene IV of Rome (1431-1447) on 2/4/1440, Bull "Cantate Domino" at 17th Ecumenical Council (Florence): The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
Denzinger 1473: Pope Benedict XIV of Rome (1740-1758) on 3/16/1743, Profession of Faith prescribed for the Maronites: Likewise, all other things I accept and profess, which the Holy Roman Church accepts and professes, and I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize, at the same time all contrary things, both schisms and heresies, which have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the same Church. In addition, I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles and the vicar of Jesus Christ. And that this faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, etc...
Denzinger 1647-1648: Bl. Pope Pius IX of Rome (1846-1878) on 12/9/1854, Allocution "Singulari Quadem": For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 Jn 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one Baptism" [Eph 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry. ... But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, "for the hand of the Lord is not shortened" [Is 9:1] and the gifts of Heavenly grace will not be wanting those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light. Truths of this sort should be deeply fixed in the minds of the faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines, whose object is to foster an indifference toward religion, which we see spreading widely and growing strong for the destruction of souls.

Denzinger 1677-1678: Bl. Pope Pius IX of Rome (1846-1878) on 8/10/1863, Encyclical Letter "Quanto conficiamur moerore" to the bishops of Italy:

Denzinger 1955: Pope Leo XIII of Rome (1878-1903) on 6/29/1896, Encyclical letter "Satis cognitum" 4-5: Now, if we look at what was done, Jesus Christ did not arrange and organize such a Church as would embrace several communities similar in kind, but distinct, and not bound together by those bonds that make the Church indivisible and unique after that manner clearly in which we profess in the Symbol of Faith, "I believe in one Church." ... Now, Jesus Christ when He was speaking of such a mystical edifice, spoke only of one Church which He called His own: "I will build My Church" [Mt 16:18]. Whatever other church is under consideration than this one, since it was not founded by Jesus Christ, cannot be the true Church of Christ. ... And so the Church is bound to spread among all men the salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ, and all the blessings that proceed therefrom, and to propagate them through the ages. Therefore, according to the will of its Author the Church must be alone in all lands in the perpetuity of time. ... The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition.


Denzinger 2286: Ven. Pope Pius XII of Rome (1939-1958) on 6/29/1943, Encyclical letter "Mystici Corporis Christi" 22: Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority. "For in one Spirit," says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" [1 Cor 12:13]. So, just as in the true community of the faithful of Christ there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith [cf. Eph 4:5]; and so he who refuses to hear the Church, as the Lord bids "let him be as the heathen and publican" [cf. Mt 18:17]. Therefore, those who are divided from one another in faith or in government cannot live in the unity of such a body, and in its one Divine Spirit.

Denzinger 2288: Ibid. 56-57: If we closely examine this divine principle of life and virtue given by Christ, insofar as He established it as the source of every gift and created grace, we easily understand that this is nothing else than the Paraclete, the Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and Who in a special manner is called "the Spirit of Christ," or "the Spirit of the Son" [Rom 8:9; 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 4:6]. For by this Breath of grace and truth did the Son of God anoint His soul in the uncontaminated womb of the Virgin; this Spirit holds it a delight to dwell in the beloved soul of the Redeemer as in His most beloved temple; this Spirit, Christ by shedding His own Blood merited for us on the Cross; this Spirit, finally, when He breathed upon the Apostles, He bestowed on the Church for the remission of sins [cf. Jn 20:22]; and, while Christ alone received this Spirit according to no measure [cf. Jn 3:34], yet to the members of the mystical body He is imparted only according to the measure of the giving of Christ, out of Christ's own fullness [cf. Eph 1:8; 4:7]. And after Christ was glorified on the Cross, His Spirit is communicated to the Church in the richest effusion, that she and her individual members may more and more daily become like our Savior. It is the Spirit of Christ that has made us God's adopted sons [cf. Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7], that someday "we all beholding the glory of God with open face may be transformed into the the same image from glory to glory" [2 Cor 3:18].

Moreover, to this Spirit of Christ as to no visible principle is this also to be attributed, that all parts of the Body are joined to one another as they are with their exalted Head; for He is entire in the Head, entire in the Body, entire in the individual members, and with these He is present, and these He assists in various ways, according to their various duties and offices, according to the greater or less degree of spiritual health which they enjoy. He is the one Who by His Heavenly grace is to be held as the principle of every vital and in fact every salutary act in all the parts of any body. He is the one Who, although He Himself is present of Himself in all members, and is divinely active in the same, yet in the inferior members also operates through the ministry of the higher members; finally, He is the one Who, while He always day by day produces the growth of the Church by imparting grace, yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in members wholly cut off from the Body. Indeed, the presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ are succinctly and vigorously expressed by Our most wise predecessor, Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, "Divinum illud," in these words: "Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her Soul."

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Council of Florence Debate: Closing Argument

This is my closing argument for a December 4th debate in my Byzantine Christianity class about whether the Byzantines were wrong to reject the Council of Florence. I'll post the section on the papacy when I finish it.

The Byzantines were wrong to reject the Council of Florence.

The Bible does not teach Filioque formally, but materially,{1} according to the unanimous interpretation of the Latin Fathers from the time of St. Hilary of Poitiers,{2} and the clear statements of many Greek Fathers.{3} The Fathers believe that John 16:14, "He shall receive of Mine," indicates that the Holy Spirit, from eternity, receives the divine substance from the Son.{4} They also said that the Son's sending the Holy Spirit in time points to the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic procession from the Son in the Immanent Trinity.{5}

In the 18th session of the Council, John of Montenero said, "According to both the Latin and the Greek doctors, it is relation alone that multiplies the divine [hypostases] in the divine productions, and this relation is the relation of origin."{6} Neither Mark of Ephesus nor any Greek cleric objected.{7} The order of Names entails that there is a relation of origin between the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and not only from the Father.{8} Filioque is thus necessary to distinguish the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit.{9}

Filioque does not negate the monarchy of the Father. The three incommunicable hypostatic properties are generation, filiation, and passive spiration.{10} Active spiration is not a hypostatic property of the Father, but a notional act common to the Father and the Son, since it is not relatively opposed to generation or filiation.{11} Thus we say, in an analogical sense, that the Father and the Son are notionally one principle of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.{12} The Father and the Son are two spirating because they are two hypostases, but They are one spirator or principle because They are one form, God.{13}

Think about the Name "Father." Fatherhood consists in being the sole begetter of the Son, not in being the sole spirator of the Holy Spirit.{14} The Son has everything from the Father except being Father, so He has it from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him.{15} The Father remains the primordial source of the Godhead.

All the clerics at the Council agreed to the principle of the harmony of the Church Fathers: the saints generally agree on matters of faith even if they appear to disagree at first.{16} Thus the Greek and Latin Fathers agree about the procession of the Holy Spirit. If the Latin Fathers clearly teach that the Holy Spirit, as hypostasis, proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, the writings of the Greek saints must not be understood as denying this doctrine.{17} Even Mark of Ephesus admitted that the passages of the Latin Fathers the Catholics cited in favor of Filioque taught a hypostatic, and not merely energetic or temporal, procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son; his only way out of accepting the union was to maintain the absurd hypothesis that all these passages were spurious.{18}

Although Pope Benedict VIII (1012-1024) authorized the addition to the Creed{19} by virtue of his plenary power of binding and loosing, whereas previous popes refused to add the words to the Creed,{20} no pope ever denied the Filioque doctrine.{21} Sts. Damasus I (366-384),{22} Leo I the Great (440-461),{23} Hormisdas (514-523),{24} Gregory I the Great (590-604),{25} and Martin I the Martyr (649-655){25} confessed it. Canon seven of Ephesus only prohibits heterodox additions to the Creed, not orthodox additions.{26} The Second Council did not define Filioque. Since the Macedonians denied that the Son is consubstantial with God the Father, the Council would not achieve its goal of proving the Holy Spirit is ὁμοούσιος with God the Father by defining that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.{27} The later ecumenical Councils, which hailed many Filioquist Fathers as illustrious teachers of orthodoxy,{28} had no need to define Filioque because there was no widespread denial of the doctrine in those times.{29}


Notes & References
{1} "But although we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense of Scripture..." -- St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelic Doctor), Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 2, ad 1.
{2} Gill, Fr. Joseph, S.J., and B. L. Marthaler "Filioque." New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. p. 720. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.
{3}
{4}
{5}
{6} In Mansi XXXI-1:738DE; qtd. in Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., The Trinity and God the Creator, chapter 10.
{7} Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., loc. cit. See Mansi XXXI-1:739A-744D.
{8}
There cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (Question 28, Article 4). 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.
-- Aquinas, ST I, q. 36, art. 2, corp.
{9} Ibid.
{10} Bermejo, A. M. "Properties, Divine Personal." New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 11, 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. p. 755. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.
{11}
The Father and the Son, unity of essence considered, do not differ save in this: He is the Father and He is the Son. So, anything other than this is common to the Father and the Son. But to be the principle of the Holy Spirit is not included in the notion of paternity and of sonship, for it is one relation by which the Father is Father, and another by which He is the principle of the Holy Spirit, as was said above. Therefore, to be the principle of the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son.
-- Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles IV, ch. 24, §14.
{12} "The name for a principium, said essentially and notionally, is accepted neither univocally nor equivocally, but analogically." -- St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (Seraphic Doctor), Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard b. I, d. 29, art. 1, q. 2.
{13} Aquinas, ST I, q. 36, art. 4, ad 7.
{14} Cf. Bermejo, loc. cit, and St. Maximus the Confessor [Ambigua 26 in PG 91:1265CD; qtd. in Fr. Congar, III:82]: "The Name 'Father' is neither a Name of essence nor a Name of energy. It is a Name of a relationship and it tells us how the Father is with regard to the Son and how the Son is with regard to the Father."
{15} "One power belongs to the Father and the Son; and ... whatever is from the Father must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father." -- Aquinas, ST I, q. 36, art. 2, ad 6.
{16}
{17}
{18}
{19}
{20}
{21} Scourtis, C. "Eastern Schism." New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. p. 24. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 12 Feb. 2009.
{22}
{23}
{24}
{25} The holy pontiff states the following: "it is certain that the comforting Spirit always proceeds from the Father and the Son" [Dialogues 2:38 in PL 76:204; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 219]; "the Spirit, even in substance, flows from the Son" [Morals 2:92 in PL 75 ; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 218 & Siecienski, p. 70]; "The Spirit of the Father and the Son Who issues from both … proceeds ever from the Father" [Morals 30:17 in PL 76:534; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 218 & Siecienski, p. 70]; and that the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son in time corresponds to His eternal hypostatic procession from the Father and the Son [Homily 28 on John 20:21; qtd. in Siecienski, p. 70].
{26}
{27}
{28}
{29}
{30}

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Post-Schism Russian Orthodox Saints (Fr. Joseph Schweigl)

Mirror link

I found the following information in Fr. Joseph Schweigl, "Menologio graeco-slavico post annum 1054," Periodica de re morali, canonica, liturgica 3 (Rome 1941): 221-228.

Russia (Kievan Rus') was a Catholic nation from the conversion of Grand Prince St. Vladimir I Sviatoslavich the Great (r. 980-1015), the Equal to the Apostles (July 15) in 988 until 1104.{1} Russia was mostly in schism from the Catholic Church from 1104 to 1461.{2} Fr. Schweigl of pious memory says that all 11th century Russian metropolitans were Catholic, some 12th century metropolitans were Catholic, all 13th century metropolitans were of suspect faith, no 14th century metropolitan was certainly Catholic, and around the time of the Council of Florence, Russia was split into a Catholic part and an Orthodox part, with the Catholic part lasting as late as 1520.{3}

When there is nothing against dogma,{4} the Church can make prudent decisions to include post-schism saints in the martyrology without reaching strictly scientific certainty as to the Catholic faith of the people in question,{5} but based on a moral certainty.{6}

According to Fr. Alphonse Raes, S.J. of happy memory, the first edition of the Russian Catholic liturgy of St. John Chrysostom approved by the Vatican and published in Rome, Typographie de Grottaferrata 1940, In-8º, 112 pages,{7} omits Peter of Moscow (1308-1326), Alexis of Moscow (1354-1378), Jonah of Moscow (1448-1461), and Philip II of Moscow (1566-1568) because the first two were consciously dependent on the Constantinople Patriarch when he was clearly in formal schism from Rome, and the latter two knowingly and deliberately rejected the Ecumenical Council of Florence.{8}

All you great Russian saints, pray for the conversion of Russia to the one true faith! Pray for me, the worst of sinners. Amen.
Notes & References
{1} Fr. Schweigl, p. 522.
{2} Ibid.
{3} Ibid. pp. 522-223, citing "PELESCH, Geschichte der Union der ruthenischen Kirche mit Rom (1888) vol. I 169 ss, 418 ss, 571 ss; cf. LEIB, Rome, Kiev et Byzance a la fin du XI siècle (1088-1099), 1924."
{4} Ibid. p. 524.
{5} The following saints appear in the list of saints of the Roman calendar that the Servant of God Pope Paul VI approved in 1969:
1. St. Sava of Serbia (January 14) [1174-1237]
Note: For proof that St. Sava of Serbia was Catholic, see Donald Attwater, Saints of the East (####: P. J. Kennedy, 1963), 143-144 and Butler's Lives of the Saints, Thurston & Attwater Edition, vol. I, January-March (1981), 86-87. I will expand on this ih a later post that also takes into account primary sources and the writings of Fr. Martin Jugie, Fr. John Meyendorff, V. J. Popishil, and Horace Mann.
2. St. Nicetas of Novgorod (January 31) [†1108]
3. St. John the Martyr of Vilnius (April 14) [†1342]
4. St. Anthony the Martyr of Vilnius (April 14) [†1342]
5. St. Eustace the Martyr of Vilnius (April 14) [†1342]
6. St. Stephen the Enlightener of Perm (April 26) [1340-1396]
7. St. Stephen Pechersky (April 27) [†1094]
8. St. Cyril of Turov (April 28) [1130-1182]
9. St. Ignatius of Rostov (April 28) [†1288]
Note: According to Butler's Lives of the Saints, Thurston & Attwater Edition, vol. II, April-June (1981), 413, Ignatius was present at the 1274 Synod of Vladimir. This Synod was under the presidency of Metropolitan Cyril III of Kiev (1247-1281), who was certainly Orthodox and consciously anti-Catholic <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2011/02/metropolitans-of-kiev.html>.
10. St. Isaiah the Wonderworker of Rostov (May 15) [†1090]
11. St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk (May 23) [†1173]
12. St. Leontius of Rostov (May 23) [†1077]
13. St. Nicetas the Wonderworker of Pereaslavl (May 24) [†1186]
14. St. German of Valaam (June 28) [†?]
15. St. Sergius of Valaam (June 28) [†?]
16. St. Anthony of the Kiev Caves (July 10) [983-1073]
17. St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves (July 10)
18. St. Theodore the Black of Yaroslavl (September 19) [†1299]
19. St. David of Yaroslavl (September 19) [†1299]
20. St. Constantine of Yaroslavl (September 19) [†1299]
21. St. Michael the Martyr, Wonderworker of Chernigov (September 21) [†1246]
Note: St. Michael accompanied the Catholic Metropolitan Peter Akerovych of Kiev (1241-1246) to the 13th Ecumenical Council of Lyons in 1245 <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2011/02/metropolitans-of-kiev.html>.
22. St. Theodore the Martyr, Wonderworker of Chernigov (September 21) [†1246]
23. St. Sergius the Wonderworker of Radonezh (September 25) [1314-1392]
Note: According to Fr. John Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia (), St. Sergius was in communion with the following Orthodox prelates: Alexis of Moscow (1354-1378) and Cyprian of Kiev (1381-1382; 1390-1406). I have demonstrated that these prelates were consciously anti-Catholic in <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2011/02/metropolitans-of-kiev.html>. I will expand on this in a later post.
24. St. Abraham the Wonderworker of Rostov (October 29) [†1073]
25. St. Barlaam of Khutyn (November 6) [†1193]
The following saints appear on the Ruthenian calendar of "the Byzantine Ruthenian Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh":
26. St. Gregory Palamas the Wonderworker of Thessalonica (Second Sunday of Great Lent) [1296-1359]
Note:
27. St. Parasceva Petca the New of Tarnovo (October 14) [†1201?]
Note: The date's given for St. Parasceva's life are varied. The Ruthenian source above lists 1201; contrast with the following sources:
a) 11th century, with no explicit reference to substantiate <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parascheva_of_the_Balkans>
I'll check the Orthodox hagiographies in the endnotes at Wikipedia and <http://vremuritulburi.com/2015/10/13/viata-sfintei-cuvioase-parascheva/>:, particularly <http://www.libris.ro/viata-si-minunile-cuvioasei-maicii-noastre-ADR978-606-8271-66-8--p848606.html>
b) 11th century, with no reference to substantiate for 10/27/2015
c) no date <http://www.roca.org/OA/53-54/53k.htm>
d) no date <http://oca.org/saints/lives/2015/10/14/102968-venerable-parasceva-petka-of-serbia>
{6} Fr. Schweigl, p. 528.
{7} Fr. Alphonse Raes, S.J. "La première édition romaine de la liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome en staroslave," Orientalia christiana periodica 7 (1941): 518.
{8} Op. cit., p. 521.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Emperor John VI Cantacuzene (1347-1354) & Papal Primacy

Mirror link

Update 10/14/2016: Hoping to post the primary source (bulls of Gregory XI in Aloysius Tautu) before 2017.

1. From Rev. Fr. Joseph M. Gill, S.J. of happy memory (1901-2006), Byzantium and the Papacy, 1198-1400 (Rutgers University Press, 1979), pp. 205-206:
Cantacuzenus told them that he had already, with the assent of the co-Emperor, subscribed a formal chrysobull giving the Pope his title and recognizing the primacy and universality of the Roman Church. He was ready to show the same obedience to the Pope as did the King of France and to unite the Empire with them, and that not just nominally but really.
 
2. From p. 226:
The letter [of Pope Gregory XI] to Cantacuzenus was occasioned by a report of the Bishop John. He had told Gregory that, during a public debate held in the previous October between a group of Dominicans on their way to Armenia and Cantacuzenus with some other Greeks, Cantacuzenus had declared that "he believed and held that the holy Roman Church … possessed the primacy over all the Churches of the world and that he would willingly suffer death in defense of that truth, if it would help." The Pope urged him to use his erudition and influence to promote union and to protect Greek Catholics from molestation.90

90 [Aloysius L.] Tautu, Gregory XI, nn. 136, 134, 135.
3. Siméon Vailhé in "Constantinople, Église de" in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (Paris 1907), 3.2:1399 (page 93 of 214 at hyperlink) says, "Néanmoins, il donnait lieu à de belles espérances, car cet exemple fut suivi de plusieurs autres et l'ex-empereur Jean Cantacuzène lui-même serait venu à Rome en habit de moine, pour abjurer ses erreurs et retourner ensuite a son convent." This means, "Nevertheless, [the personal submission of Emperor John V Palaeologus] gave rise to great hopes, because this example was followed by several others and the ex-Emperor John Cantacuzene himself would come to Rome dressed as a monk, to abjure his errors and then return to his convent." Unless I am misunderstanding the French, the sense is that John Cantacuzene did in fact come to Rome to renounce the schism. Emperor John V Palaeologus became Catholic in Rome in 1369, and concerning John V's relations with the popes, Vailhé, loc. cit., refers the reader to Augustin Theiner and Franc Miklošič, Monumenta spectantia ad unionem Ecclesiarum Graecae et Romanae (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1872), 29-46. Vailhé does not give a date or a primary source for Joasaph's (John Cantacuzenus's) journey to Rome, but it must have been between 1377 (Pope Gregory XI's return to Rome) and the death of the ex-emperor in 1383 (during the reign of Pope Urban VI).

4. In the Synodikon of Orthodoxy the Eastern Orthodox Christians say, "To John Cantacuzenos, who is at rest with the pious, our ever-memorable, most pious and Christ-loving emperor, who by the divine and angelic Habit was renamed Ioasaph, Eternal Memory, Eternal Memory, Eternal Memory!"

Friday, October 22, 2010

St. John of Damascus and Filioque

Mirror link

East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption) (676-749; December 4)
*An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12 in PG 94:849B: "And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause."
Editor: It is one thing to say that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from the Son simply and absolutely, and another to say that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from the Son as from the προκαταρτικὴν αἰτία/αἰτίας ἀχρόνως/principium primordiale/principium originale/principium primum (Fr. Jugie, p. 190). A priori, it is highly likely that St. John writes in the latter sense, or else he would be at odds with the consensus of the saintly Fathers before him.

*An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12 in PG 94:848D: The Father "is, ... through the Word, the Producer of the revealing Spirit."
Editor: What does this formula mean? Three of the saint's other statements indicate that the Holy Spirit, qua hypostasis, indeed proceeds from the Son:

(1) An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:13 in PG 94:856B: "The Son is the Father's Image, and the Spirit the Son's, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after His own Image."
Editor: There is a relationship of origin between an image and its prototype; see St. John of Damascus, Dialectics 6 in PG 94:548C; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 189.

(2) On Heresies in PG 94:780B; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 125: "The Father is the root, the Son is the branch, the Spirit is the fruit."

(3) An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:13 in PG 94:856B: "The Holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son."

*An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:8 in PG 94:832B: "And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son."
Editor: Thus when St. John of Damascus says that the Spirit does not proceed ἐκ (from) the Son, the great defender of icons is not rejecting Filioque, because εκπόρευσις (ekporeusis) is sometimes [cf. Rev 22:1] taken to characterize only the relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Holy Trinity, viz., the Father. The Son is not the αἰτία because He receives His fecundity from the Father, to paraphrase Fr. Congar, p. 136. explanation is that of the most learned theologians and historians of dogma regarding St. John's statements like "non tamen ex ipso existentiam habens" from his Homily on Holy Saturday [Greek in PG 96:605B]. See Fr. Dionysius Petavius, S.J. Dogmata theologica, vol. II: De Trinitate, Book VII, Chapter 17, §8, p. 763 and Fr. Jugie, De Processione, p. 190. Basilios Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472) says the following in his Refutation of the Syllogistic Chapters of Mark of Ephesus, Chapter 37 [PG 161:240AB], qtd. in A. Edward Siecienski, Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, p. 164: "That the Son is not the cause of the Spirit we can also say, for we understand the meaning of cause in the strictest sense, as used in the Greek idiom, whereby cause always is understood as the primordial first cause." In other words, several Eastern Fathers rightly say that the Son is not the cause because they use "cause" in the sense of προκαταρτικὴν αἰτία or αἰτίας ἀχρόνως, which can only be the Father; cf. Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 148.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

The 879-880 Council Is Not the Eighth Council

Mirror link

1. The Eighth Ecumenical Council is the Council of 869-870, not the Council of 879-880. The Eighth Council was the one under the following five patriarchs:
1. Pope Adrian II of Rome (867-872)
2. St. Ignatius of Constantinople (847-858, 867-877)
3. Michael I of Alexandria (860-870) - represented by Deacon Joseph [Mansi XVI:190B]
4. Nicholas II of Antioch (860-879) - represented by Metropolitan Thomas of Tyre [ibid.]
5. Theodosius of Jerusalem (862-878) - represented by Presbyter Elijah the syncellus [ibid.]
2. The following 26 Eastern metropolitan bishops signed the Acts [Mansi XVI:190C-191D]: Thomas of Tyre, Basil of Chalcedon, Nicephorus of Amasya, Basil of Gangra, Nicephorus of Nicaea, Cyprian of Claudiopolis, John of Perga, Stylianos of Neocaesarea, Theodore of Thessalonica, Nicholas of Myra, Sisinnius of Laodicea, Nicetas of Athens, Nicholas of Synnada, Stylianos (a.k.a. Theophylactus) of Iconium, Hilary of Corinth, Michael of Rhodes, Ignatius of Hierapolis, Euthymius of Larissa, and Metrophanes of Smyrna.

3. Pope John VIII of Rome of pious memory (872-882) did not annul the Council of 869-870. Daniel Stiernon [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 180] points out that nowhere does Pope John VIII, in his genuine (i.e., unmodified) letters, abrogate the 869-870 Council, and he cites [n. 148] Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A., "Les lettres de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius," in Echos d'Orient, XXXIX (1940), 138-156. Stiernon also stresses [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 176] that in the pope's genuine letter to Byzantine Emperor Basil I the Macedonian [MGH, Epist., VII, 169), Pope John VIII cites canon 68 of the 419 local Council of Carthage [Mansi III:771E], which reads:
not that the Council which met about this matter in foreign parts should be done away, but that it may remain in force with regard to those who so will to come over to the Catholic Church that there be procured by them no breaking of unity... there shall not be objected to them the decree contrary to their honor adopted by a foreign council, for salvation is shut off to no one, that is to say, that those ordained by the Donatist party, if having been corrected they have been willing to return to the Catholic Church, are not to be received in their grades, according to the foreign council; but they are to be excepted through whom they received the advice to return to Catholic unity."
4. Moreover, the letter of Pope Stephen V of pious memory (885-891) to Emperor Basil I in 885 or 886 proves that no pope annulled the 869-870 Council, since Photius, who nonetheless died in the odor of sanctity, was still, at the time, trying to have the former council abrogated. See Fr. Grumel's "La Lettre du Pape Étienne V a l'empereur Basile Ier" on pp. 129-136 of the 1953 edition of Revue de etudes byzantines; the letter, according to p. 137, is from the manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 1117, 326v-328v. Fr. Dvornik of pious memory did not address this even in the 1970 edition of his monumental work, The Photian Schism.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Favorite Works by Author

St. Thomas Aquinas, O.P. (Angelic Doctor; 1225-1274)
*Compendium of Theology
*Summa Contra Gentiles (Unabridged)
*Summa Theologica

Otto Bardenhewer (1851-1935)
*Patrology: The Lives and Works of the Fathers of the Church. Translated by Thomas Joseph Shahan, D.D. (B. Herder: St. Louis, 1908)

Rev. Fr. Paul Bottalla, S.J. (1823-1896)
*The Pope and the Church Considered in their Mutual Relations, Part 1 - The Supreme Authority of the Pope (1868)
*The Pope and the Church Considered in their Mutual Relations, Part 2 - The Infallibility of the Pope (1870)
*Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History (1868)

Dom John Chapman, O.S.B. (1865-1933)
*Bishop Gore and the Catholic Claims (1905)
*The Condemnation of Pope Honorius (1907)
Editor: This is my favorite defense of papal infallibility vis-à-vis the Sixth and Seventh Councils' condemnation of Pope Honorius I of Rome (625-638) as a heretic. Fr. Chapman of happy memory is careful not to go too far in defending Honorius.

Yves Cardinal Congar, O.P. (1904-1995)
*"A propos des saints canonisés dans les Eglises orthodoxes," Revue des sciences religieuses, 22 (1948): 240-259
*I Believe in the Holy Spirit
Fr. Joseph-Epiphane Darras (1825-1878)
*A General History of the Catholic Church, vol. II (New York: P. O'Shea, 1865)
*A General History of the Catholic Church, vol. III (New York: P. O'Shea, 1865)

Fr. Heinrich Joseph Denzinger (1819-1883)
*Sources of Catholic Dogma

Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J. (1918-2008)
*Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith (2007)

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (1877-1964)
*Christ the Savior (1945)
*Grace (1947)
*Providence (1932)
*The Trinity and God the Creator

Rev. Fr. Joseph M. Gill, S.J. (1901-2006)
*Byzantium and the Papacy, 1198-1400 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979)
*The Council of Florence (1959)
*Personalities of the Council of Florence, and Other Essays (1964)

Rev. Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A. (-)
*"La Lettre du Pape Étienne V a l'empereur Basile Ier," Revue de etudes byzantines (1953), 129-137

Rev. Fr. Lucas Herbert, S.J. (1854-?)
*Fra Girolamo Savonarola: A Biographical Study, 2nd ed. (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1906)

Joseph Cardinal Hergenröther (1824-1890)
*Anti-Janus (1870)

Very Rev. Fr. Franz Hettinger (1819-1890)
*The Supremacy of the Apostolic See in the Church

St. John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption; 676-749)
*An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

Fr. Martin Jugie, A.A. (1878-1954)
*De processione spiritus sancti ex fontibus revelationis et secundum orientales dissidentes (Rome: Istituto Grafico Tiberino, 1936)
*L'Immaculée Conception dans l'Écriture sainte et dans la tradition orientale (Rome: Academia Mariana, 1952)

Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick of Baltimore (1796-1863)
*The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated, 7th ed. (Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1875)

Luigi Cardinal Lambruschini (1776-1854)
*A Polemical Treatise on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin (New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co., 1855)

Colin Lindsay (1819-1882)
*The Evidence for the Papacy: as Derived from the Holy Scriptures and from Primitive Antiquity, with an Introductory Epistle (1870)

Rev. Fr. Horace Kinder Mann (1859-1928)
*The Lives of the Popes In The Early Middle Ages, vol. IV (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., Ltd., 1910)

Fr. Gian Domenico Mansi, M.C.I. (1692-1769)
*Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Amplissima Collectio, 31 vols.

Archbishop Raphael Merry del Val of Nicaea (1865-1930)
*The Truth of Papal Claims (St. Louis, Missouri: B. Herder, 1904)

Rev. Fr. Michael Muller, C.S.S.R. (1825-1899)
*Triumph of the Blessed Sacrament, or History of Nicola Aubry (1877)

Rev. Fr. James Louis O'Neil, O.P. (?)
*Was Savonarola Really Excommunicated? An Inquiry (Boston: Marlier, Callahan, & Co., 1900)

Fr. Dionysius Petavius, S.J. (1582-1653)
*Dogmata theologica, vol. II: De Trinitate

Rev. Fr. Luke Rivington (1838-1899)
*The Primitive Church and the See of Peter (1894)

Archbishop William Bernard Ullathorne of Birmingham (1806-1889)
*The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God: An Exposition (London: Richardson & Son, 1855)

Fr. William A. Wallace, O.P. (b. 1908)
*The Elements of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers and Theologians (1977)

Rev. Fr. Francis Xavier Weninger, S.J. (1805-1888)
*On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope, When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, 2nd ed. (New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co., 1869)

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Papal Primacy & the Fifth Council

Mirror link

From Rev. Fr. Paul Bottala, S.J. of happy memory, The Pope and the Church Considered in their Mutual Relations, Part 2 - The Infallibility of the Pope, pp. 243-246:
We say, then, that the Fifth Synod professed adherence in principle as well as in fact to the judgments of the Apostolic See, although its Decree did not properly regard doctrines of faith. … When Justinian forced the Patriarchs and Bishops of the East to sign his edict of condemnation against the Three Chapters, Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople [536-552], openly declared that he could not sign it without the consent of the Apostolic See,602 and when forced to subscribe, he submitted on the condition that his act of adhesion should be returned to him in case the Pope refused to ratify it.603 Zoilus, Patriarch of Alexandria [541-551], went to meet Pope Vigilius in Sicily in order to justify his conduct in yielding to violence and signing the imperial edict.604 Facundus Hermianensis testifies the same of the other Oriental Bishops who had been compelled to put their signature to the edict of the Prince [Ephraim of Antioch (526-546) and Peter of Jerusalem (524-552)].605 When the Synod met in Constantinople, the Fathers were most anxious that the Pope should pronounce his judgment on the subject of the Three Chapters; and Vigilius referred to the right of his See to be the first to give sentence.606

602 Facundus Herm., De Tribus Capitulis, l. iv, cap. iv (Gallandi, t. xi, p. 708).
603 Ibid., l. c.
604 Ibid., l. c.
605 Ibid., l. c.
606 In Constituto (Labbe, t. v., p. 1320).

Pope Vigilius, therefore, after a lapse of six months from the end of the Synod, addressed a Letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, in which he condemned the works and the name of Theodorus, as well as those writings of Theodoret and Ibas which favored Nestorius.610 But in this document, as well as in the new Constitutum, which was perhaps addressed to the Eastern Bishops,611 he made no mention whatever of the Fifth Council; and the purpose of this omission was to show that other considerations, and not the authority of a Synod which was yet unrecognized, had brought him to this new resolution. Then, and only then, the Synod of Constantinople began to have authority in the Church, and to be ranked among the Ecumenical Councils.

610 Epist. Decretalis Vigilii Papae ad Eutychium (Labbe, t. vi, p. 239, seq. In Migne, t. lxix, PP. LL., p. 121, seq.).
611 Constitutum Vigilii Papae pro damnatione Trium Capitulorum (Labbe, t. vi, p. 281, seq. In Migne, l. c., p. 143, seq.).

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Old Rome vs. New Rome 2: Filioque

2. Filioque: The Procession of the Holy Spirit
A. Meaning of the Dogma
1. The Catholic dogma of Filioque ("and the Son") means that in the ontological Trinity, the hypostasis of the Father, through and with the hypostasis of the Son, eternally spirates the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit in one spiration as from one principle (cf. Denzinger 460, 463, 691, 1084). The Orthodox, at the very most, will grant, following Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot of Constantinople (1283-1289; †1290) [PG 142:1233-1245], who was a fervent unionist until the accession of the anti-Catholic emperor Andronicus II Palaeologus (1282-1328; †1332),{1} that the Holy Spirit, "not as hypostasis but as inhypostatizing the energy" of the Godhead, is eternally manifested through the hypostasis of the Son.{2}

B. Patristic Consensus
2. Many Eastern Church Fathers and all the Latin Church Fathers since Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers explicitly teach that the Father and the Son both spirate the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.{3} Since the Greek and Latin Fathers did not disagree in matters of faith, they taught the same truth about the procession of the Holy Spirit; when Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus (1392-1445) was faced with the Patristic evidence at the Ecumenical Council of Florence, his only way out of submitting to Catholic teaching was to make the absurd proposal that the writings of the Latin Fathers were corrupt and interpolated.{4} How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints? That is why Mark's appeals to Sts. Dionysius the Areopagite,{5} Justin Martyr,{6} Athanasius the Great,{7} Gregory the Theologian,{8} and John of Damascus{9} are misplaced. The teaching of Catholic Church, unlike that of the Eastern Orthodox Church, does justice to the Greek and Latin Fathers.

St. Basil the Great (329-379)
3. Let us look at the witness of the Cappadocians first. Even though Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea emphasizes that the hypostatic properties are unique and incommunicable,{10} he expressly teaches that the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit in Against Eunomius 3:1;{11} the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is no prejudice to the clear distinction of the hypostatic properties. Strong internal and external evidence shows the disputed passage to be genuine.{12}

St. Gregory the Theologian (329-390)
4. Although Archbishop St. Gregory the Theologian of Constantinople puts great emphasis on the monarchy of the Father,{13} his vague allusion to the Holy Spirit's dependence on the Son in the Trinitarian τάξις,{14} his analogy of the Trinity as sun-ray-light,{15} and his teaching that the Holy Spirit is the mean between the Father and Son{16} all imply not merely that the Holy Spirit is eternally energetically manifested through the Son, but that He has His being from the Father and the Son. Filioque becomes necessary to distinguish the hypostases of the Holy Spirit and the Son when we give just consideration to the holy archbishop's axiom that the hypostases are distinguished from each other in their relations of origin to one another.{17} His teaching that the Father is ἅναρχος, the Son is ἀρχὴ, and the Holy Spirit is τὸ µετὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, implies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.{18} Finally, his statement that the Holy Spirit is "composed of both" the Father and the Son means that the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit.{19}

St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-394)
5. Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa expressly teaches that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son on the level of hypostasis.{20} For the holy bishop, existing in an ungenerated way does not include the idea of being the sole spirator of the Holy Spirit. The Son's mediation in the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the hypostasis of the Son,{21} consists in, as the saint's analogy to the flame and torches reveals,{22} the Son cooperating with the Father in spirating the Holy Spirit as from one principle.

Other Eastern Fathers
6. Archbishop St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (Doctor) (295-373) teaches the Catholic doctrine when he says that the Father and the Son are, together, the source of the Holy Spirit;{23} that the Holy Spirit is the drink flowing from the Father as fountain and the Son as river;{24} that the Spirit has everything He has from the Son;{25} and that the Holy Spirit has the same relation to the Son as the Son has to the Father;{26} i.e., a relationship of origin. He furthermore says that the Holy Spirit is in God the Father through the Son{27} and that the Holy Spirit is the Image of the Son{28} and "the sweet savor and the form of the Son."{29}

7. His episcopal predecessor, Archbishop St. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (190-265), likewise supports the Catholic view when he says that the Father is the primordial source "whence" the Holy Spirit proceeds, and that the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit occurs "through" the Son.{30} His expression that the Holy Spirit is in the hands of the Father and the Son signifies that the Father and the Son are one principle of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.{31}

8. Bishop St. Epiphanius of Salamis (Syro-Malabar Doctor){32} (320-403) distinguishes the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who share the two-hypostasis description "from the Father," by adding that the Son is from the Father alone, whereas the Holy Spirit is not another Son because He proceeds hypostatically from the Father and the Son.{33} He describes the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit as ekporeusis from the Father and receiving from the Son,{34} because while the Father is the "principium originale," the Son is "principium ex principio."{35} The saint states that "the Holy Spirit is the fount from the fount, from the Father and the Only-Begotten Son;"{36} that "the Father always existed... [and] the Holy Spirit always breathes forth from the Father and the Son;"{37} the Holy Spirit "subsists from the Father through the Son;"{38} and that the Holy Spirit is "the middle between the Father and the Son, proceeding from the Father and the Son, and named third," which facts are predicates of the Holy Spirit qua hypostasis.{39}

9. Archbishop St. Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation) (378-444) is no less explicit. He says that the Holy Spirit is "poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son;"{40} that the Spirit is naturally "proper to," in, "and from" the Son and not only the Father;{41} and that "the Spirit exists from [the Son] and in Him by nature."{42} St. Cyril did not cease to teach this with these formulas, even after his controversy with Bl. Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457).{43} While many learned authors think that Bl. Theodoret positively erred in this matter,{44} others argue that his expression in his counter-anathema to St. Cyril's ninth anathema "probably intend[s] to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son," against the Macedonians.{45}

Later Eastern Fathers
10. Monk St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (580-662) says
{46}{47}{48}{49}{50}

11. Eastern Orthodox polemicists quote Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption) (676-479) as expressly denying the Catholic dogma.{9} It is one thing to say that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from the Son simply and absolutely, and another to say that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from the Son as from the προκαταρτικὴν αἰτία/αἰτίας ἀχρόνως/principium primordiale/principium originale/principium primum. A priori, it is highly likely that St. John writes in the latter sense, or else he would be at odds with the consensus of the saintly Fathers before him. The saint testifies that the Father "is, ... through the Word, the Producer of the revealing Spirit."{51} Three of his other statements indicate that the Holy Spirit, qua hypostasis, indeed proceeds from the Son: the Holy Spirit, qua hypostasis, is (1) the Image of the Son{52} (there is a relationship of origin between an image and its prototype{53}); (2) the fruit of the Son, Who is the branch from the root (the Father){54}; and (3) "God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son."{55}


The Latin Fathers
12.

The Popes Prior to and Right After the Photian Schism
13. He asks [Mystagogy §89 in PG 102:381A,383A], "Which of these bishops of [Old] Rome, by life, thought or teaching, altered the profession of immortal life by saying the heretical and diseased word [Filioque]?" Several popes prior to the Photian schism openly professed the Catholic dogma, and even if they did not add the syllables to the Creed, "no pope ever objected to the doctrine that it taught" [C. Scourtis, "Eastern Schism" in NCE 5:24]. Among these men were Popes St. Damasus I (366-384), St. Leo I the Great (Doctor) (440-461), St. Hormisdas (514-523), St. Gregory I the Great (Doctor) (590-604), St. Martin I the Martyr (649-655), Adrian I (772-795), and St. Leo III (795-816).

Mystagogy §84 in PG 102:368B,369B: "Gregory [the Dialogist] and Zacharias, bishops of [Old] Rome ... openly and clearly taught that the All-Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [i.e., alone]. … They added the following words a little later: 'The Paraclete--the Spirit--proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son,' Gregory in Latin and Zacharias by correct translation into Greek."

Pope St. Gregory the Great, however, affirms what St. Photius categorically denied. The holy pontiff states the following: "it is certain that the comforting Spirit always proceeds from the Father and the Son" [Dialogues 2:38 in PL 76:204; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 219]; "the Spirit, even in substance, flows from the Son" [Morals 2:92 in PL 75 ; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 218 & Siecienski, p. 70]; "The Spirit of the Father and the Son Who issues from both … proceeds ever from the Father" [Morals 30:17 in PL 76:534; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 218 & Siecienski, p. 70]; and that the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son in time corresponds to His eternal hypostatic procession from the Father and the Son [Homily 28 on John 20:21; qtd. in Siecienski, p. 70].

14. I pray that what I have written so far is a sufficient answer to the query of Gregory of Cyprus: "Where have the God-bearing Fathers said that God the Father is, through the Son, the cause of the Spirit? Where do they say that the Paraclete has its existence from the Son and through the Son? Again, where do they say that the same Paraclete has its existence from the Father and from the Son?"

C. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Addition to the Creed

15.

D. Scriptural Justification
Since the Son sends the Holy Spirit [Jn 15:26], He must have some authority over the Holy Spirit. But it cannot be authority of dominion (e.g., King St. Vladimir I the Great rules Russia), superiority (e.g., John is holier than Jack), or seniority (e.g., a general is ranked higher than a colonel) [SCG 4:24]. Therefore the authority must be one of origin, so that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

St. Photius said that "ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται" ("He shall receive of Mine") in Jn 16:14 does not mean that the Holy Spirit receives the divine substance from the Son [Mystagogy §29 in PG 102:309C], but that the Holy Spirit receives the divine substance from the Father alone (from Him that is Mine) [Mystagogy §22 in PG 102:301B]. See how this is contrary to the statements of Sts. Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor), Athanasius the Great (Doctor),{25} Basil the Great (Doctor),{11} Cyril of Jerusalem (Doctor), Ambrose the Great (Doctor), Epiphanius of Salamis (Syro-Malabar Doctor),{34} Augustine the Great (Doctor of Grace), and Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation).

Mystagogy §22 in PG 102:301B: The Savior did not say, "He will receive from Me," rather, "He will receive from all that which is Mine." ... What other hypostasis, from Whom the Spirit is said to receive, could be meant other than the Father? Because it cannot be—-as has been recently contended against God--that He receives from the Son, and it certainly cannot be from the Spirit Who Himself does the receiving! ... even schoolboys who have just begun attending school know the expression "from me" indicates him who speaks, whilst the phrase "from that which is mine" means another hypostasis, bound intimately in union to the speaker, but doubtless a different hypostasis than the one speaking.
Mystagogy §29: not in order to say that the Spirit will proceed from Himself, nor does He do so that the divine substance may be understood. ... the "Mine" to which He refers is the Father because the things that are Mine are in the Father. ... the Spirit receives from the Father because that which is from the Father is "that which is Mine." So I say that whenever "that which is Mine" is said, it is necessary for us to raise our thoughts to that which is the Son's, that is, the Father, and not to turn them to any other hypostasis.

E. Theological Justification

Mystagogy §7: But concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Son, who formerly received it? For the procession of the Spirit from the Son is not contained in the procession from the Father. If we say this, then what does the Spirit gain which He did not already possess in His procession from the Father?

F. St. Photius and the Beginning of Bitter Controversy over the Monarchy of the Father and Incommunicable Hypostatic Properties
Mystagogy §4: since it is claimed that He proceeds from two hypostases, the Spirit is brought to a double cause, thereby obscuring the simplicity of the Most High. Does it not follow from this that the Spirit is therefore composite? How then is the Trinity simple? But, on the other hand, how shall the Spirit not be blasphemed if, proceeding from the Son, He in turn has no equality by causing the Son? O impiously bold tongue, corrupting the Spirit's own proper dignity!

When Catholics say one principle of the Holy Spirit, they use "principle" indeterminately. See Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 4, ad 4. The term "principle" of the Holy Spirit is a substantive name (a form with an accompanying suppositum), so even though the Father and the Son are two supposita spirating, They are not two principles because They are one form, God. See ibid., ad 7.

Mystagogy §19: In general, aside from the properties characteristic of a specific hypostasis, whenever some property is truly possessed by any hypostasis other than the one first possessing it, the property shared by those hypostases belongs to the essence in order to not join that property to a specific hypostasis.

G. The Ecumenical Council of Florence

And so I pray, brothers and sisters, that this post will suffice to answer the threefold question of St. Photius the Great [Mystagogy §5 in PG 102:284AB,285A], who died a Catholic: "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?" Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us poor sinners. Amen.

Notes to Section 2
{1} "Under the Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus (1259-82), [Gregory of Cyprus] strongly supported the movement for reunion with Rome. However, in 1283 he changed his position; he supported the Emperor Andronicus II, took part in the synod that condemned John Beccos, and wrote against Beccos." Chiovaro, F. "Gregory II Cyprius, Patriach of Constantinople." New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 6, 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. p. 478. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 2 Sept. 2010.
{2} a. Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. III, p. 63. The statement of St. Gregory Palamas illustrates well the Eastern Orthodox "dogma": "When you hear him (that is, Cyril of Alexandria) say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the two, because He comes essentially from the Father through the Son, you should understand his teaching in this sense: it is the powers and essential energies of God which pour out, not the divine hypostasis of the Spirit." -- St. Gregory Palamas, Apodictic Treatises 2:20, qtd. in Fr. Congar, pp. 63-64.
b. On Palamas' recognition as a saint by some Catyholics despite his reputation as a fierce anti-Catholic, see "The Catholic Cult of Gregory Palamas: Answer to a Friend." The Banana Republican. 18 Jun. 2010. 16 Sept. 2010 <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2010/06/catholic-cult-of-st-gregory-palamas.html>.
{3} Gill, Fr. Joseph, and B. L. Marthaler "Filioque." New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. p. 720. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 2 Sept. 2010.
{4}
{5} a. "The Father is sole Fountain of the superessential Deity, since the Father is not Son, nor the Son, Father; since the hymns reverently guard their own characteristics for each of the supremely Divine Hypostases." -- St. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 2:5 in PG 3:641D. The Father and the Son sharing in the active spiration of the Holy Spirit is no prejudice to the Father being the only Unbegotten source of divinity, as explained throughout this article, especially section F. Active spiration is not a hypostatic property of God the Father.
b. Regarding the genuineness of the writings attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite (†96), see "The Writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite." The Banana Republican. 22 Mar. 2010. 24 Sept. 2010 <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2010/03/writings-of-st-dionysius-areopagite.html>.
{6} Mark of Ephesus, in his July 1440 "Encyclical Letter to All the Orthodox," quotes St. Justin Martyr as stating, "As the Son is from the Father, so is the Spirit from the Father." Mark chides the Greek Catholics for saying that the Son proceeds from the Father immediately, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father mediately, which he contrasts with the position of St. Justin Martyr. We rightly confess with reference to "the persons themselves spirating" that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son," and that, with reference to "the spirative power," the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son immediately; see St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 3, ad 1.
{7} The Father is "the sole unbegotten and sole fount of divinity" = "μόνος ἀγέννητος, καὶ μόνος πηγὴ θεότητος." -- St. Athanasius the Great, On the Eternal Divine Existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit and Against the Sabellians 2 in PG 28:97BC. See n. 4a above.
{8} a. In Oration 31:8, St. Gregory points out that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father," as "our Savior Himself" declares. Here St. Gregory does not say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, because εκπόρευσις has always been used, even by the Eastern Fathers after the Cappadocians who expressly taught the idea of Filioque, to indicate the relationship of origin of the Holy Spirit to the sole ἀρχὴ-ἄναρχος and πηγή of the Godhead, the Father. εκπόρευσις cannot be used in connection with the Son, because the Son is not unoriginate, but rather is begotten from the Father. Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. "The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions." Catholic Culture. <http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176>.
b. Mark of Ephesus, in his July 1440 "Encyclical Letter to All the Orthodox" quotes one of St. Gregory's statements on the monarchy (see n. 13 below) to show that the Son does not spirate the Holy Spirit. If the Father is the only cause, Mark argues, the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. However, St. Gregory uses "cause" in a narrower sense than proponents of Filioque do when they say that the Father and the Son are one "principle" of the Holy Spirit, and he does not teach that the Son does not participate in the spiration of the third hypostasis of the Trinity. See Fr. Martin Jugie, A.A. (†1954), De processione spiritus sancti ex fontibus revelationis et secundum orientales dissidentes (Rome: Istituto Grafico Tiberino, 1936), p. 165.
c. St. Gregory the Theologian means that the Father is the only hypostasis of the Trinity Who does not take His origin from another; this hypostatic property of being the ungenerated generator does not include the notion of being the sole spirator of the Holy Spirit, as St. Gregory's other statements show; see Fr. Jugie, De Processione, p. 165. Several codices of Oration 34 have "ingenerateness" instead of causality; the two words are synonyms for St. Gregory; see ibid. Moreover, in Oration 41:9 in PG 36:441C, he says, "All that the Father has the Son has also, except being Unbegotten;" qtd. by Fr. Jugie in ibid.
{9} a. St. John of Damascus says in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:8 [PG 94:832B] "And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son." In 1:12 of the same work [PG 94:849B], St. John adds, "And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause."
b. When St. John of Damascus says that the Spirit does not proceed ἐκ (from) the Son, the great defender of icons is not rejecting Filioque. The Son is not the αἰτία in the sense of προκαταρτικὴν αἰτία/αἰτίας ἀχρόνως/principium primordiale/principium originale/principium primum (Fr. Jugie, p. 190) because He receives His fecundity from the Father, to paraphrase Fr. Congar, p. 136.
c. The above explanation is that of the most learned theologians and historians of dogma regarding St. John's statements like "non tamen ex ipso existentiam habens" from his Homily on Holy Saturday [Greek in PG 96:605B]. See Fr. Dionysius Petavius, S.J. Dogmata theologica, vol. II: De Trinitate, Book VII, Chapter 17, §8, p. 763 and Fr. Jugie, De Processione, p. 190. Basilios Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472) says the following in his Refutation of the Syllogistic Chapters of Mark of Ephesus, Chapter 37 [PG 161:240AB], qtd. in A. Edward Siecienski, Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, p. 164: "That the Son is not the cause of the Spirit we can also say, for we understand the meaning of cause in the strictest sense, as used in the Greek idiom, whereby cause always is understood as the primordial first cause." In other words, several Eastern Fathers rightly say that the Son is not the cause because they use "cause" in the sense of προκαταρτικὴν αἰτία or αἰτίας ἀχρόνως, which can only be the Father; cf. Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 148.
{10} "In God, whatever appertains to nature is common … but the Hypostasis is known by the character of paternity, or filiation, or sanctifying power." St. Basil the Great, Epistle 214:4 in PG 32:789. Sts. Gregory the Wonderworker of Neocaesarea, Athanasius the Great of Alexander (Doctor), Gregory the Theologian, Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation), Eulogius, and John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption) teach the same truth. Bermejo, A. M. "Properties, Divine Personal." New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 11, 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. p. 755. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 3 Sept. 2010.
{11}
Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said.
St. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius 3:1 in PG 29B:655A,C.
{12} See the documentation in the footnotes of "The Cappadocian Fathers and Filioque" nn. 13-25. The Banana Republican. 6 Jan. 2010. 2 Sept. 2010 <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2010/01/cappadocian-fathers-and-filioque.html>.
{13} "All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." -- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 34:10 in PG 36:252A.
{14} "If ever there was a time when the Father was not, there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not." -- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31:4 in PG 36:137A. See Fr. Jugie, De processione pp. 162-163.
{15} St. Gregory compares the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to "the sun and a ray and a light" in Oration 31:32 in PG 36:169B. The analogy St. Gregory uses implies that the Father and the Son act together to give existence to the Holy Spirit, because the globe of the sun is the unbegotten source, which, through and with the ray, produces the light; see Fr. Jugie, De Processione, p. 161.
{16} The Holy Spirit "is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten". -- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31:8. See Fr. Jugie, De Processione, p. 162.
{17} "The difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather of Their mutual relations one to another, has caused the difference of Their Names." -- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31:9 in PG 36:141C. The relations of which St. Gregory speaks are clearly relations of origin; see Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 163. For St. Gregory to be consistent with his own maxim and be able to distinguish the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit, there must be, besides the relation between the Father and the Son and the relation between the Father and the Holy Spirit, a relation of origin between the Son and the Holy Spirit. The order of names tells us that the Son does not proceed from the Holy Spirit, so it must be the case that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; see ibid.
{18} St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 42:15 in PG 36:476AB. See Fr. Jugie, De Processione, p. 161.
{19} In Oration 31:2 in PG 36:136A, St. Gregory the Theologian expressly states that the Holy Spirit is "ἐξ μφοῖν συνημμένον." According to patrologist Dr. Otto Bardenhewer (†1935), the sense of the Theologian's words is that the Father and the Son both compose, so to speak, the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Father and the Son both produce or spirate the Holy Spirit. See Otto Bardenhewer, D.D., Ph.D. Patrology: The Lives and Works of the Fathers of the Church. Translated by Thomas J. Shahan, D.D. (B. Herder: St. Louis, 1908), p. 292, <http://www.archive.org/details/patrologyliveswo00bardrich>.
{20}
as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit's subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 1:22 in PG 45:464BC. See Fr. Jugie, De processione p. 158.
{21} a.
While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Hypostasis is distinguished from another; — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another through that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the mediation of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, "To Ablabius on Not Three Gods" in PG 45:133BC.
b.
For both the Son came forth from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father. But just as being without cause pertains to the Father alone, and cannot be made to agree with the Son and the Spirit, so also, conversely, being from a cause, which is peculiar to the Son and the Spirit, is not of such a nature as to be contemplated in the Father. Now, as it is common to the Son and the Spirit to exist in a not-ungenerated way, in order that no confusion arise as to the underlying subject, one must again seek out the unconfused difference in their properties, so that both what is common may be preserved, and what is proper to each may not be confused. For the one is called by Holy Scripture "the Only-Begotten Son of the Father," and the word leaves His property at that; but the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" [Romans 8:9]. Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be "of the Spirit," nor does this relative order become reversed.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon 3 on the Lord's Prayer in Johannes F. Callahan, ed. Gregorii Nysseni De oratione dominica; De beatitudinibus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p. 42. The best manuscripts say "from the Son" and not "of the Son;" e.g., the seventh century Vatican 2066 discovered by Cardinal Angelo Mai (†1854); see Fr. Jugie, De processione, pp. 160-161.
{22}
Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution, or any variation with respect to nature. It is as if a man were to see a divided flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the cause of the third light is the first flame, kindling the end torch by transmission through the middle one), 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?
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against the Macedonians on the Holy Spirit 6 in PG 45:1308AB. See Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 155.
{23} "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the Font of Life;' because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit." = "Πατρὶ ὄντα τὸυ Υιὸν τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ ἀγίου Πνεὐματος." -- St. Athanasius the Great, On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A.
{24} a. "As the Father is the fountain and the Son is called river, we are said to drink of the Spirit." -- St. Athanasius the Great, Letter 1:19 to Serapion (Shapland 111) in PG 26:573CD. See Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 126.
b. Lest anyone object that this temporal mission has nothing to do with the eternal procession, I quote St. Athanasius as implying that the economy points to the inner life of the Trinity: the Holy Spirit "is said to proceed from the Father, because it is from the Word, Who is confessed to be from the Father, that it shines forth and is sent and is given" [Letter to Serapion 1:20 (Shapland 117) in PG 26:580A]. We do not understand the Holy Spirit's eternal ekporeusis from the Father except in light of the temporal mission from the Son (Shapland p. 117 n. 16), and the other texts cited show that St. Athanasius has in mind also that the Father and the Son both eternally give existence to the Holy Spirit; see Fr. Jugie, p. 73.
{25} "For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word" = "Αὐτὸς γἀρ, ὥσπερ εἵρηται, τῷ Πνεύματι δίδωσι, καὶ ὄσα ἓχει τὸ Πνεῦμα παρἀ τοῦ Λόγου ὲχει." -- St. Athanasius the Great, Orations Against the Arians 3:25:24 in PG 26:376A. What else does God the Holy Spirit, being simple, have besides His perfect existence? This Athanasian statement means that the Spirit has His existence from the Word; see Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 82. This means that, pace Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot of Constantinople, we say of the Holy Spirit not only "a Filio existere," but "a Filio existentiam habere," to use the words of Fr. Jugie, p. 195.
{26} "The Spirit has to the Son the same proper relationship as we have known the Son to have to the Father. And as the Son says, 'All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine' [Jn 16:15] so we shall find that through the Son all these things are in the Spirit also." -- St. Athanasius the Great, Letter 3:1 to Serapion (Shapland 170) in PG 26:625B. The Holy Spirit, therefore, has His divine existence, i.e., "all things," from the Father through the Son; see Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 136.
{27} "The Spirit is not outside the Word, but being in the Word, through Him is in God." = "Οὐ γἁρ ἐκτὀσ ἐστι τοῦ Λὀγου τὁ Πνεῦμα, ἀλλἁ, ἐν τῷ Λόγω ὄν, ἐν τῷ Θεῷ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν." -- St. Athanasius the Great, Letter 3:5 to Serapion (Shapland 175) in PG 26:633A. See Fr. Jugie, ibid.
{28} "As the Son is in the Spirit as in His own image, so also the Father is in the Son." -- St. Athanasius the Great, Letter 1:20 to Serapion (Shapland 115) in PG 26:577B. See Fr. Jugie, ibid.
{29} "This unction [the Holy Spirit] is a breath of the Son, so that he who has the Spirit says, 'We are a sweet savor of Christ' [2 Cor 2:15]. … But if the Spirit is the sweet savor and the form of the Son, it is clear that the Spirit cannot be a creature; for the Son also, 'being in the form' [Phil 2:6] of the Father, is not a creature." -- St. Athanasius the Great, Letter 3:3 to Serapion (Shapland 172) in PG 26:628D-629A.
{30} "I added the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I further added both whence and through Whom He proceeded." -- St. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria, qtd. in St. Athanasius the Great, On the Opinion of Dionysius 17 in PG 25B:504C. See Fr. Jugie, p. 102.
{31} "But in their hands is the Spirit, Who cannot be parted either from Him that sent or from Him that conveyed Him..." -- St. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria, qtd. in St. Athanasius the Great, On the Opinion of Dionysius 17 in PG 25B:505A. See Fr. Jugie, ibid.: "Haec locutio significat communitatem possessionis et unitatem principii relate ad Spiritum Sanctum."
{32} The Greek Orthodox Kontakion in Tone Four says that Sts. Epiphanius and Germanus "burned the tongues of the godless with the sacred teachings which they most wisely expounded to all those who in Orthodox belief;" see http://www.oca.org/FStropars.asp?SID=13&ID=101356.
{33}
But someone will say, "Therefore we are saying that there are two Sons. And how then is He the Only-begotten?" Well then. "Who art thou that repliest against God?" [Rom 9:20]. For if he calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from both [παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων] the Holy Spirit, which things we understand by faith alone, from the saints—-full of light, givers of light, they have their operation full of light…
St. Epiphanius of Salamis, The Well-Anchored Man 71 in PG 43:148B.
{34}
For just as "No one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father" [Mt 11:27], so I dare to say that no one knows the Spirit except the Father and the Son, that is, the one from Whom He proceeds and the one from Whom He receives, and that no one knows the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, He Who truly glorifies, Who teaches all things, Who is from the Father and the Son.
St. Epiphanius of Salamis, The Well-Anchored Man 73 in PG 43:153A.
{35} See Fr. Jugie, p. 183, where the holy theologian discusses the Letter of St. Maximus the Confessor to Marinus the Presbyter of Cyprus.
{36} "τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ πηγὴν ἐκ πηγῆς, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον." -- St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 69:54 in PG 42:285D; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 145. Notice that since St. Epiphanius says "fount" in the singular, the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit; see ibid.
{37} "Τοίνυν Πατὴρ ἦν ἀεὶ, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἰοῦ πνέει." -- St. Epiphanius, The Well-Anchored Man 75 in PG 43:157A; qtd. in ibid.
{38} "τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον … ἐκ Πατρὸς δι᾽ Υἱοῦ ὑφεστῶτα." -- St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 73:16 in PG 42:433AB; qtd. in ibid., p. 144.
{39} St. Epiphanius, The Well-Anchored Man 8 in PG 43:29C-32A; qtd. in ibid., p. 145.
{40} "τὸ οὐσιωδῶς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἤγοθν ἐκ Πατρὸς δι᾽ Υἱοῦ προχεόμενον Πνεῦμα." -- St. Cyril of Alexandria, On Worship in Spirit and Truth 1 in PG 68:148A. Qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 140.
{41}
For, in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Prophet Joel 35 in PG 71:377D. Qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 140.
{42} "Thus, Paul knows no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but because the Spirit exists from Him and in Him by nature, He calls Him by the Name of Lordship." = "Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Παύλοθ φωνὴν, Κύριον δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα καλεἴ, οὐδεμίαν ἄρα φύσεως οἷδε διαφορὰν τοῦ Υἰοῦ καὶ Πνεύματος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ φυσικῶς ὑπάρχον τῷ τῆς κυριότητος ὀνόματι καλεἳ." -- St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus 34 in PG 75:576B. Cf. Thesaurus 34 in PG 75:600D: "Therefore, when Christ lays down the law, He lays it down that His Spirit naturally exists in Him and from Him." = "Νομοθετοῦντος τοιγαροῦν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὠς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ὲξ αὐτοῦ φυσιχῶς ὐπἀρχον τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτὸ νομοθετεῖ."
{43} a. Although he inferred that St. Cyril's statements were of a "quite" different meaning that those of St. Augustine, the Orthodox Fr. John Meyendorff (1926-1922) admitted that "after that incident, which took place about 430, Cyril did not give up either his theology or his vocabulary." "La Procession du Saint-Esprit chez les péres orientaux," Russie et Chrétienté (1950), p. 165; qtd. in Fr. Congar, p. 36.
b. On the sanctity of Bl. Theodoret and his status as a Church Father, see "Bl. Theodoret Is a Church Father." The Banana Republican. 25 Aug. 2009. 2 Oct. 2010 <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2009/08/bl-theodoret-is-church-father.html>.
{44} Fr. Jugie, pp. 171-172 lists Cardinal Hugo Etherianis (1115-1182), Manuel Calecas (†1410), Cardinal Basilios Bessarion (1403-1472), Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (Doctor) (1542-1621), Fr. Dionysius Petavius, S.J. (1583-1652), Leo Allatius (1586-1669), Fr. John Garnerius, and Cardinal Joseph Hergenröther (1824-1890).
{45} a. Maas, Anthony. "Filioque." The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 6. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 3 Oct. 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm>.
b. Fr. Jugie, p. 171, lists Monk Michel Le Quien, O.S.B. (1661-1733), Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin, S.J. (1816-1886), and Fr. Theodore De Régnon, S.J. (1831-1893).
{46}
{47}
{48}
{49}
{50}
{51} An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12 in PG 94:848D.
{52} "The Son is the Father's Image, and the Spirit the Son's, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after His own Image." -- St. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:13 in PG 94:856B.
{53} Dialectics 6 in PG 94:548C; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 189.
{54} "The Father is the root, the Son is the branch, the Spirit is the fruit." -- St. John of Damascus, On Heresies in PG 94:780B; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 125.
{55} An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:13 in PG 94:856B.
{56}