So, I was reading an Article on Catholic Answers
(Original is here: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-do-we-counter-the-charge-that-the-addition-of-filioque-was-an-illicit-alteration)
the other day on the catholic response to the accusation of Filioque as
Heresy. It blew me away, not because it was profound, intellectually
stimulating or even correct but the pure fact that it lacked historical
foundation, any concept the Church History and also goes completely
against the commandment "You shall not bear false witness against your
neighbor" since it is quite simply full of innacuracies designed to make
an unjustifiable point.
The question asked is asking how Roman
Christians should reply to accusations of heresy over the Filioque, and
answer should of course be "Ignore it, we are not part of their Church"
since Rome was part of the Mutual excommunication of 1054. The person
answering the question instead decides to manipulate history, which I see as quite
shocking and somewhat inappropriate, especially for a man of the cloth.
He quotes Ephesus and the
condemnation of all that change the Creed and the acceptence of the
post-Nicean changes through the discussions at The Council of Chalcedon
in 451 (Seen by Oriental Orthodox as the Last Ecumenical Council.) This
is all fine in my books, they have explained that at an Ecumenical
Council the Creed can be changed, since the Council works in the Spirit
and if God wishes the Creed Changed, we do not argue. With this in mind,
the writer tries to justify Filioque by saying "it was formed at an
Ecumenical Council... in florence, 400 years after the Schism!" Then,
BOOM! All forms of issue emerge.
Quote "The Council of Florence could add "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession."Point 1)Filioque
did not enter the Creed through Florence, it was entered into the Latin
version of the Creed, since they had decided to change it for
themselves only, at the Council of Toledo in 589. This is when when the
Western Churches had a Non-Ecumenical Council to discuss not Ecumenical
matters rather than big deals LIKE CREEDS. They decided at this point to
add 'Filioque' without any discussion with the other Apostolic
Patriarchs. Such a thing was seen at the time as completely unacceptable
as Rome Demonstrated by labelling the Second council of Ephesus, to
which the Bishop of Rome was not invited, as "A council of Robbers". 100
Years before the Council of Toledo, during the Rule of Leo I of Rome,
he denounced the filioque and conmemned anyone using this heretical
Christology in the Creed. Even at that point Rome saw changing the Creed
without proper Ecumenical discussion as heresy.
400 years after
Rome had added this to the Creed in the West, Leo III, Pope of Rome
showed a great stance against it. He condenmed the Franks from reciting
this addition to the Creed and Ordered the Orthodox Creed to be written
on silver tablets in their Churches so that they could not change it
after his rule, saying "I, Leo, put here for love and protection of
orthodox faith." This demonstraction shows that even 400 years after
Toledo, Rome condemned anyone from adding this due to it not being seen
as 'Orthodox' (In this context meaning 'Correct belief') Church
practice.
Well before the Council in Florence there was upheaval
against the use of Filioque in the West, it was not discussed
Ecumenically at a council and was only adopted in the West amongst some
groups. This change was never given to anywhere outside of the Roman See
since it was not seen as valid, since this new heretical claim (The
Spirit coming from the Son as well as the father) had not been cleared
with the rest of the Church outside of Barbarian Spain and France. This
is the reason for the controversy above all, since Rome had shocked the
Church and claimed it could make changes to the Theological views of the
Church without debating this with Eastern Bishops who, at the time,
were renowned for their Theological knowledge far more than any 6th
Century Western Scholar. They had effectively claimed supremacy and the
right to change doctrine, which to a Modern Roman Christian is not
something strange but was a shocking thing to suggest in the Pre-Schism
Church.
Point 2) Was Florence an Ecumenical Council?This
is an interesting point, argued that Filioque was OK since it was
accepted 1000 years later and under heavy pressure by Rome. The article
fails to mention the reason for the Eastrn Bishops attending. They had
made a deal with Rome for Military assistance in exchance for accepting
Roman Rule. Yes, that is right.. Blackmail. Rome had long decided to let
Constantinople fall if they did not come under Rome's rule and because
of their eventual decision not to cave in, it did fall to the Muslims.
Under
various bleeding messages and political threats by the Byzantine
Emperor, many of the Greeks accepted to give Rome rule over their
Churches. it was only Only St. Mark of Ephesus that rejected the union
for the Greek party. The Russians, after discovering that the Byzantine
Emperor and Rome were seeking this for purely political reasons, angrily
rejected the union and removed any Bishops in their See that accepted
it.
Florence is not seen in the East as an Ecumenical Council
since it was purely political. The only reason for Orthodox Bishops
attending was to kneel to Rome so that they would give the Emperor
enough Soldiers to save the City. The article says that "The Eastern
Orthodox originally accepted the authority of the Council of Florence,
but later rejected it." This is a very simplistic analysis, the reality
of it is that Rome arrogantly told them to accept heretical Changes (As
mentioned in point 1, these were not Ecumenical) in exchange for their
survival much as the Arabs told Christians in the middle ages to convert
to Islam or die. I am sorry for that bluntness but that is the extent
and historical matter of it. Political threats and blackmail under pain
of Death do not equate to an Ecumenical Council in my books and should
not in the mind of any Christian.
Conclusion.In
Conclusion, the Filioque has never been accepted as a Church teaching in
the East and, as I have shown, was not added in the same manner as any
Credal or Doctrinal point accepted by the Church before the 1054 schism.
The Orthodox Church sees it as heretical since it was added without the
authority of the Whole Church and made unheard of changes the doctine
of the trinity without any prior discussion in an Ecumenical setting. To
lie and simplify the history of this in order to claim that it was not a
point of issue in the west or seen as scandal in the Early Church then
deny any pressure during florence, is extremely offensive to anyone with
basil knowledge of history.
Could you imagine if a Muslim
scholar wrote that "Many Christian knights freely converted to Islam in
the Crusades, then changed their mind"? Roman Catholics would be up in
arms and pointing out the warping of History. Please think about the
implications of the lies spread by articles such as these, since
historical knowledge is the key to understanding historical issues.
Lying to justify something considered questionable for 1500 years does
not show anything but lack of knowledge and will to decieve.
