Formatting notes: This is the format for quotations.
— Endnotes/footnotes appear in this format. — More information.
Note: Your browser must have access to a Unicode font for the polytonic (non-Demotic) Greek to be rendered properly.
Greek Orthodox Brotherhood of St. Poimen
Agreed Statementon Filioque
We have read the Agreed Statement on Filioque
(as adopted by the North American Orthodox-Catholic consultation) and were appalled by how easily the Orthodox representatives of this consultation accepted a watered-down (at its best) and a sell-out (at its worst) of the 1,200-year old Orthodox position on Filioque. The obvious question is why? Why now? Why in North America? Is it possible that the powers behind union with the Latins at any cost are wishing to accelerate and intensify their agenda and have selected our Continent as the testing ground? Is there no fear of the spiritual repercussions of such a compromise? Is there no concern about the antithesis that is being created with our 2,000-year old History and Holy Tradition? Do they consider the Orthodox positions on Filioque, as established by St. Photios the Great and St. Mark Evgenikos of Ephesus, St. Gregory Palamas and many other Church Fathers, as invalid or perhaps outdated and out of sync with today's realities? Do they not recall what we find in Hebrews 13:8: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
?
The subject 17-page document is busy reading
yet devoid of any spiritual merit or value. One quickly observes that its historical presentation is (intentionally) avoiding the unchristian active roles which the Latins and the Pope played during the sack on Constantinople by the Crusaders and during her fall in 1453. We could certainly point out what else was left out as well as the true differences between Latins and Orthodox. This, however, would require an equally lengthy document and it would serve little or no purpose in changing the minds of those who composed it. We would rather focus on some of its conclusive points, as presented within the last section of this document. Our comments (in bold red) follow the agreed statement's conclusive points (in blue italics):
commit to a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit, looking for constructive ways of expressing what is central to our faith on this difficult issue;
It was St. Photios the Great, who said the following on the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit: That, even as the Son is proclaimed by the Sacred Oracles to be begotten of the Father alone, so also is the Holy Spirit proclaimed by theology to proceed from this same and only cause. He is, however, said to be of the Son, since he is of one essence with Him and is sent through Him.
Which part of this is so hard to understand that we now have to re-examine the origin and the person of the Holy Spirit? To change the dogma of the Holy Spirit's procession would almost certainly invalidate not just St. Photios, but many other Church Fathers, some of whom we venerate as the Pillars of Orthodoxy. Is that what our representatives are willing to do?
all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God;
This is exactly why the Holy Orthodox Church has given Her children hundreds of theologians and the Holy Fathers to address these many limitations of today's dialogue participants. May I politely suggest that said participants take some refresher courses on the Holy Fathers and (most important) Orthodox Dogma and Teachings prior to engaging in representing American Orthodoxy (and enabling the resulting dogmatic compromises)? There exists an overabundance of Orthodox texts providing clear and concise positions on these issues
. They are, of course, authored by non-western theologians; the Mother Church's saints wrote them.
in the future Orthodox refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;
Our Creed comprises a dogmatic expression of some of our most fundamental beliefs. Conclusively, the procession of the Holy Spirit is indeed a Church dogma. In accordance with Orthodox (as well as Latin) dictionaries, the term heresy denotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen. Furthermore, heresy is defined as a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas.
Elsewhere we read that the right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics.
Since we are clearly dealing with the dogmatic corruption of the Holy Spirit's procession (and as such the very origin and nature of the Holy Spirit), the Latins (or any other groups which have adopted the Filioque) are clearly heretical.
Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;
There is no confusion on either the identity or the origin of the Holy Spirit when one studies the Holy Fathers. Are we reading this statement correctly in that there is now an effort to re-define the Holy Trinity? The needed ecumenical resolution only exists in the minds of those Orthodox theologians who wish to either appease their Latin counterparts or compromise the teachings of the Holy Fathers. For any Orthodox theologian to pursue new definition(s) would most likely lead them into the heresy of the Latins.
those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together;
This completely compromises one of the most significant aspects of the heresy in question. Although not brought forth within the historical analysis of the subject document, Church History teaches us that, since St. Photios' time, the gradual introduction of the Filioque and the insistence of the Latins on this heresy was directly intertwined with their will (one could say 1,400-year dream) of subduing Orthodoxy via the Pope's primacy. It is a great error to separate the primacy and Filioque issues. The official insertion of the Filioque was by papal decree. It is impossible to separate them, and in trying to do so is to attempt to force the Orthodox to accept it in seemingly-acceptable pieces. One cannot possibly resolve one without the other. Once again, this is a gigantic setback for the Orthodox cause and the Orthodox position.
the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
Why should we Orthodox, whose Holy Tradition has passed on to us vaults full of spiritual treasures, be in need of looking into the spiritually bankrupt meetings of the Latins? What exactly is there to be gained by us? May I also point out that the Seven Ecumenical Councils were not generally received as Ecumenical, they were Ecumenical!
the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
This is a statement of little or no relevance to us Orthodox. It has the appearance of a smokescreen. One can neither understand the purpose nor the intended outcome of this peculiar conclusive point
. Do the Latins plan to recite the Creed correctly during their mass
? Do they also plan to teach it correctly to their faithful? Or perhaps they only plan to tell their followers that this is the way it was originally written but now the infallible Pope said that The Church Fathers were wrong and so he changed it??? If the Latins consider the 381 Creed irrevocable (and unalterable?), then there is no need for either the subject document or the continuing Filioque dialogues. The Latins simply need to have their Pope sign a statement revoking the Filioque, and stating 100% acceptance of the Orthodox position.
the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son
is no longer applicable.
Again, this is another smokescreen statement that has zero impact on either the correctness of the Orthodox position or the heresy of Filioque.
There exist a couple more points within the recommendations that are quite alarming. First, they recommend that any future resolution of the disagreement between East and West on the origin of the Holy Spirit must involve all those communities
— communities being many Protestant churches
. One must surely wonder what other dogmatic values within the Creed are our representatives ready to compromise to these many Protestant churches when so much has already been given up just to the Latins.
Second, within the ending paragraph, the agreement specifies that our traditions' different ways of understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit need no longer divide us.
What? Are we reading this correctly? Are they implying that the whole Filioque issue be completely sidestepped for the sake of re-unification? Do they not understand the theological implications of a union (non-division) with a group that dogmatically views the Holy Spirit (and in turn, the Holy Trinity) in a wrongful manner, thus opposing the Holy Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Synods?
Having presented the above points, we believe that we are fully justified in posing some questions that demand replies.
Our Orthodox faithful need to be reminded that the importance of the Creed, as it was given to us by the Holy Fathers in 381 AD (without the Filioque heresy), is repeatedly emphasized during every single Liturgy within an Orthodox Church; it is not by chance that St. John Chrysostom inserted the following words following the recitation of the Creed: …let us stand well, let us stand in awe / fear (of God)
. This is said at a point in the Liturgy when the sacrifice (and miracle) of the Eucharist will shortly be taking place. The Holy Spirit, The One that proceeds from the Father (not the Son) will be turning the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. The Creed represents our dogmatic confession towards our Faith. Its correct recitation allows us, as Orthodox Christians, to be present during and participate in this mystery, not as spectators only, but also as active participants, for the sacrifice and confession of faith comes from all of us. As the renowned Panagopoulos says, we stand in awe and in fear not only for the miracle that is about to take place, but also because of the absolute need for all of us to guard and protect these dogmatic beliefs, with all our might, even with our life, and never deviate from them or we are in danger of falling into heresy and thus into the arms of humanity’s enemy. Let us all remember that these same words (let us stand well, let us stand in awe
) were the words that Archangel Michael (the first to rise up against Lucifer) announced, when, with his sword drawn, stopped the falling of God’s angels who were following the Eosforos (Lucifer) into the abyss. There is an Orthodox icon which depicts this scene, and all of us Orthodox Christians (especially our interfaith dialogue representatives) must vividly keep in mind every single time we find Orthodox dogmas at the risk of compromise.
A true union with the Latins, or the Protestants (or any other non-Orthodox group) would be a blessing for humanity (and Orthodoxy) and for the Glory of our Trinitarian God only if we do not compromise our 2,000-year old theology, dogmas, teachings of the Holy Fathers and Holy Traditions. For the first 1,000 years, we all shared the same religion. If we do not share it today, it is because they abandoned the True Church. For the Orthodox to commit the errors of the 1054 AD Latins would be a greater travesty than the one committed by them. Should any group wish to re-unify with the Orthodox, all they have to do is abandon the heresies and return to the Mother Church. She has been awaiting their return with open arms for 1,000 years. This must be the one and only criterion for any union with any non-Orthodox Christian group. To do anything else is to betray our ancestors whose blood has spilled as great rivers, in many parts of this world, to defend this Faith, the Faith that some Orthodox representatives wish to now give away.
We are fully aware that our position may not be the popular one with the Church’s current establishment. We do believe, however, that we are simply not the only ones who hold devotion to His Bride! We know that there exist many more that are equally disturbed but remain silent. It is perhaps time that this silence be broken and the people, whose ancestors rose against the establishment during the attempted false union of the 1439 pseudo-Synod of Florence, start voicing their objection on the course of current events. We may not have St. Mark Evgenikos of Ephesus to lead us into this effort, but we have complete faith that our Savior will not abandon us. As He said, and lo, I will be with you always, even to the end of the age.
[Matthew 28:20]
In a final note, this is not the oecumenism* we desire but rather another sign of the 20th century heresy of ecumenism. Adoption of the agreed upon statement by the Orthodox members of the consultation group constitutes betrayal of our Faith; those that are the key players (silent or otherwise) will have to answer one day to The Judge of all.
George Karras, Orthodox Heritage
Greek Orthodox Brotherhood of St. POIMEN
* Constantine Cavarnos has made the wise suggestion to spell Ecumenical as Oecumenical
when referring to Church synods or the Church Oecumenical, in order to distinguish them from the ecumenical movement. The change is thus expanded to also distinguish between Oecumenism and the heresy of Ecumenism.
Validated as Strict HTML 4.01 — before Geocities got hold of it!