Posted on 06/19/2005 9:36:03 PM PDT by Agrarian
The First Answer of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople,
Concerning the Augsburg Confession, Sent to Tubingen [May 15] 1576
We received the letters which your love sent us and the booklet which contains the articles of your faith. We accept your love, and in compliance with your request we shall endeavor to clear the issues in which we agree and those in which we disagree. The expression of love is the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets [cf. Rom 13:10]. Indeed, it is fulfilled, we may say, not only by mere words, but proven by the very facts themselves and by deeds. Even as the most precious stones that need no words of praise, yet they are looked upon with admiration because of their own intrinsic worth by those who know their value. You have displayed such a love, most wise German men, bereft of pride in those matters which you have communicated to us.
In responding, then, we shall say nothing originating of ourselves, but (what is pertinent) from the holy seven Ecumenical Synods with which, as you write, you acquiesce and you accept. We shall further speak in accordance with the opinion of the divine teachers and exegetes of the divinely inspired Scripture, whom the catholic Church of Christ has received in common accord, for their words and miracles illuminated the universe like another sun [cf. Mt 13:43]. Because the Holy Spirit breathed on them and spoke through them. Indeed, their statements shall remain unshaken forever because they are founded on the Word of the Lord.
The Church of Christ, according to Saint Paul, is the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" [I Tim 3:15]. And according to the divine promise of the Lord, the gates of Hades "shall not prevail against it" [Mt 16:18]. And although some are carried away by portentous thoughts nevertheless, this Church stands secure and steadfast, solidly supported on the rock and on those other teachings on which the truth has been established [cf. Eph 2:20]. For those who are of the Church of Christ, are wholly of the truth; but those who are not wholly of the truth, are also not of the Church of Christ. Therefore, we follow in the path of truth and offer the sound word for the upbuilding of the true faith. And with this we beseech the prayers of those who love the Lord, so that our mind may be guided by His divine grace in the path of peace [cf. Lk 1:79]...
[29. An Invitation To Follow the Holy Synods, pp. 102-3] All these things which we have spoken, beloved, are founded, as you very well know, upon the inspired Scriptures, according to the interpretation and the sound teaching and explanation of our wise and holy theologians [the Fathers of the Church]. For we may not rely upon our own interpretation and understand and interpret any of the words of the inspired Scripture except in accord with the theologizing Fathers who have been approved by the Holy Synods, [inspired] by the Holy Spirit for a pious purpose, lest our thought, like that of Proteus move around here and there, deviating from the correct evangelical teaching, from true wisdom and from prudence. But someone will say, how can these things be corrected? In this way: with the help of God.
Let no one undertake or think anything contrary to the decisions of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Synods. He who uprightly keeps this principle will be a partner with us in our rejoicing, a member of our community and one who holds the same faith. But what communion would one have with us, who rejects the aforementioned canons and opposes the Apostles and shamelessly turns himself against the Holy Apostles? What part could he have with us? Somewhere one of the teachers [of the Church] says to those who strive to be pious: "One who speaks contrary to the things which have been decided—even though he is trustworthy [cf. l Cor 4:2; 9:1], lives as a virgin, does wonders, and prophesies—is a wolf in sheep's clothing, who causes the ruin of the sheep." Another teacher says: "It shakes loose something that seemed good to the God-bearing Fathers, that cannot be called administration, but violation and betrayal of the dogma." Still another teacher [Saint Basil] says:
One who has the judgment of Christ before his eyes, who has seen the great danger that threatens those who dare to subtract from or add to those things which have been handed down by the Spirit, must not be ambitious to innovate, but must content himself with those things which have been proclaimed by the saints. [Against Eunomius 2, PG 29.573-652]
Therefore, since so many and such important of our theologizing Fathers forbid thinking otherwise, there is only one correction: conform to the Holy Synod and follow the canons of the Apostles and, thus, follow Christ in all things.
[30. Closing Salutations] O most wise German men and beloved children of our humble self, since, as sensible men, you wish with your whole heart to enter our most Holy Church, we, as affectionate fathers, willingly accept your love and friendliness, if you will follow the Apostolic and Synodal decrees in harmony with us and will submit to them. For then you will indeed be in communion with us, and having openly submitted to our holy and catholic church of Christ, you will be praised by all prudent men. ln this way the two churches will become one by the grace of God, we shall live together hereafter and we will exist together in a God-pleasing way until we attain the heavenly kingdom. May all of us attain it in Christ Jesus, to whom belongs glory unto the ages. Amen.
Written with the help of God, in Constantinople, in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 1576, 15 May, at the venerable Patriarchal Monastery of the Pammakaristos [All-Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary].
Jeremiah, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch
The Second Answer of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople to Tubingen, 1579, Sent to the Most Wise Theologians, Residents of the Famous City of Tubingen [pp. 151-4] Jeremiah, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch. Our Humble Self received your sagacious second letters which you have sent concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit and other theological questions. We might have answered earlier had we not been traveling in the West and the Peloponnesos. We, therefore, thank God, the giver of all good things, and rejoice over the many other benefits, not the least of which is that you, for the most part, agree with our Church. So may it be also in the matters in which we disagree, that we may piously agree, by the will of God, who perfects all things for what is most beneficial.
Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit The first matter, then, in which we disagree is the procession of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, my beloved [spiritual] sons, although this matter was brought to the fore many times, and accurately examined by every related canon of the Church, and by every spiritual Lydian stone, it was obviously analyzed and clarified so much so that it has no further need of research.
And yet, even though we are preoccupied with many and continuing responsibilities, we are condescending to you in [Christian] love, no less than a father would, and abundantly as in the myth of [armed] Athena, who will deliberate still further with you for your edification, supporting our position with holy testimonies as the God-inspired Fathers received them.
For it is a stipulation of the holy and Sixth Ecumenical Synod directing that the Holy Scriptures be understood as the tried and proved teachers of the Church have interpreted them and not as those who, by their own sophistry, wish to interpret such matters superfluously. Read also the stipulation of the 19th canon:
And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the luminaries and doctors of the Church have expounded it. And in these let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads lest, through their lack of skill, they may depart from what is fitting.
[1. Distinction between Procession and Sending] Let us hearken, I entreat you, to what will be said with good will and in the fear of God. The procession of the Holy Spirit is one thing, while the sending is another. For on the one hand, the procession is the natural existence of the Holy Spirit, directly alone from the Father, who is the cause. On the other hand, the sending is a sending forth on a mission in time in which the Son also sends the Spirit, as is the case here, and the Spirit also sends the Son, as it is said, "the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor" [Is 61:1; cf. Lk 4:181. How then and why do you innovate and say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the son? If the Spirit did not proceed from the Father alone, then the Lord would have said concerning the Paraclete, whom I and the Father sent forth just as He frequently said "whom I shall send" [Jn 15:26]. To begin with, then, the undeceiving mouth of Christ declares that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [cf. Jn 15:26]. Second, even Paul himself in the Epistle to Titus reiterates: "Not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" [3:5-6]. What is more explicit than this? The Lord has said, "Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you" [Lk 24:49; cf. Acts 2:14; Jn 14:26; 20:21-23]. Paul subsequently asserts: "which he poured out upon us richly" [Tit 3:6]...
[4. Difference between ‘Ek’ and ‘Dia’] ... Moreover, we have previously mentioned that here is a very great difference between the sending to the created world and the procession which is timeless and eternal, in which He alone directly proceeds from the Father, as we said, and as we will more fully explain with the help of God in the course of our exposition. Consequently, the great Athanasios, whom you presented as your advocate, does not help you. Instead, he argues against you for he allies himself with the Lord and with all the God-filled and wise theologians of the Church. Therefore, he ridicules those of contrary opinion, that is, against these pneumatomachs [adverseries of the Spirit], by directing this jest at them: "If the Holy Spirit is not a creature, then He is a son; thus, there will be found to be two sons and brothers, or rather, the Logos will be a son, the Spirit will be a grandson, and the Father will be a grandfather." These are their nonsensical prattlings, and that is why he ridicules them.
[5. The Interpretation by the Theologians of 'Ek' and 'Dia' Is Incorrect] In spite of these things, our humble self is greatly astonished at your sagacity. When you write in your second reply, and we quote: "If there is one who believes that the Holy Spirit alone is from the Father, and through the Son, but does not proceed from the Son, let him know that he believes the impossible; for these are contradictory to each other, and cancel one the other." However, those things which we profess are not impossible, nor do they contradict each other, nor do they cancel one the other, as you say. For the truth never conflicts with the truth. And although not fully treated, this much is sufficient for the present concerning these matters. However, I diligently researched the matter and found but two main differences between us on the subject. First, that you understand the sending and the procession to be one and the same things. And for this reason you say incorrectly: "If the Spirit is sent by the Son, then it follows that He also proceeds from him." ...
[13. Irrational Results from the Filioque, pp. 162-4] See how many absurd conclusions from every side trail those who say that the Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son! Do not desire to think incorrectly concerning the Lord. For if the Latins, that is, the Church of Rome, and others can produce witnesses who are acceptable such as Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, and some others, we also can produce many more and even more trustworthy Fathers to speak up for the truth. Who are they? They are the God-bearing Fathers who distinguished themselves in the holy Synods, who deified the earth, and who through miracles and good works shined brighter than the sun and declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. They ordered heavy penalties against those who might think otherwise following the anathema of the Apostle Paul who explicitly declared: "If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" [Gal 1:9].
[14. The Ecumenical Synods Would Not Remain Silent] If the Son was the emitter and the cause of the Spirit, how could the Ecumenical Synods have remained silent concerning such a most necessary dogma? It is very clear, therefore, from this that some persons gave way to their own wills and affixed this addition after the holy synods had made their definition. For if this had not happened, there would not have been a consensus of all present, since the most reverend primates of Rome were present in the seven holy Synods.
[15. Scriptural Proofs and Not Human Wisdom] Even though those who spoke before us had devised some manner in which to overthrow sophisms, as we said, by resounding a wooden peg on wooden pegs, nevertheless, we cannot order our own thinking by persuasion of human wisdom. But rather we would hold to the consistency of scriptural proofs. For Paul says: "Let no one make a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit" [Col 2:8]. From this truly divine saying we are taught that true philosophy never contradicts theology. For truth can never contradict truth. This is obvious from the following: "and empty deceit" [Col 2:8]. Consequently, the wisdom which is not empty serves, rather than opposes, theology. And you, then, O my beloved children in Christ, by the grace of God, having no empty wisdom, are constrained to advocate a theology whose leader is not an angel nor a man but totally the Lord himself. And, as a consequence, [leaders are] the divine shepherds and teachers of the Church who are in agreement with Him [the Lord]. Of these [Fathers], among others, the Fathers, also, of the holy Seventh Ecumenical Synod have declared this, too: "we anathematize those who add or eliminate anything."'
Again, neither should this be overlooked, beloved, that from the time of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod seventy-five years had passed when, during the sovereignty of Basil the Macedonian, a local synod had convened in Constantinople. The reason this holy synod was summoned at that particular time was, for which everything was wrought by the will of the pope and the urging of the emperor: [1] to install the most holy Photios on the throne of the Queen City [of Constantinople], and [2] to banish those who under some kind of guile dared to claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, also. At least, then, in this synod the most holy Pope John, through a bishop and cardinal named Peter, and also Paul and Eugene, his bishops and locum tenens [authorized representatives mutually agreed and pronounced anathema on those who would dare in the future to add to or delete [anything from the Creed]. But further, this same Pope John, following this, sent a letter to Photios himself saying:
Again I make this clear to Your Reverence in reference to this article, concerning which the scandals took place among the churches of Christ; be on notice from us that we do not simply say this, but we also say that those who originally took courage by their own folly to do this, we pronounce as being transgressors of the divine words and perverters of the theology of the Master Christ and of the Holy Fathers, and we rank them together with Judas."
Furthermore, we are reassured by the fact that from that time up to the time of Christopher, 130 years have passed during which all the most reverend primates of Rome have agreed with us.
[16. The Utterances of the Ecumenical Synods] But why would anyone repeat these things if the concept of the truth which is sought concerning the Spirit is made admirably clearer: [1] by the utterances of the holy Seven Ecumenical Synods in which the Holy Fathers, who numbered about two thousand, struggled which is more than sufficient evidence; and [2] by the utterances of the Lord himself. Indeed, it is right to respect the doctrines and the laws of those saints, to marvel at and cleave unto them. For no less were they [the Fathers] renowned for their illustrious lives or the power of their preaching than as shining stars who enkindled the piety not only of one nation, but, indeed, of as many nations as the visible sun entirely illuminates... .
[37. Filioque Not Decreed by Synods, pp. 172-4] This, however, is a fact, as we have said, that the two thousand participants of the seven [Ecumenical] Synods did not formulate the opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, also. Among these, indeed, were the primates and luminaries of the Roman Church, who without contradiction voted in support of the definition of the faith [i.e., that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone]. And I believe that the three, whom we mentioned above, had also truly acquiesced. But also, a mutual doctrinaire agreement was adopted by them to neither eliminate from the definitions of the faith, nor, indeed, to add to them And this definition, that is, the Creed proclaims: [I believe] "and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father," etc.
[38. Pope Gregory the Great Author of the Dialogues as Pope (A.D. 590-604)] Also, Saint Gregory [the Great], the Dialogos [A.D. 590-604], who lived not long after the Sixth [Ecumenical] Synod, theologized in the Latin language and in writings that the Holy Spirit proceeds alone from the Father.
[39. Pope Zacharias (A.D. 741-752) Stressed the Procession from the Father] Also, Pope Zacharias one hundred fifteen years later, translating this Gregory's writings into the Greek language, says: "the Paraclete Spirit proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son," having learned this from [John] the Forerunner, who [at the time of our Lord's baptism] saw the Spirit descend as a dove and rest on Him.
[40. Popes Leo III (A.D. 795-816) and Benedict III (A.D. 855-858) Decreed That Creed Should Be Recited in Greek—without the Filioque] Moreover, Leo and Benedict, who later became great hierarchs of Rome, decreed that the Symbol of Faith should be recited in Greek during the Divine Liturgy in Rome and in other churches under their jurisdiction, so that the limitations of dialect, as it is claimed, furnishes no pretext for error. Indeed, it was the creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod [A.D. 381] in which this belief was clarified by the Holy Fathers:
And [I believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets; in one holy catholic and apostolic Church;... I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the ages to come. Amen.
Moreover, this same [Pope] Leo opened the treasury of the apostolic church of the Romans and drew forth two plaques which were stored in the treasury together with the sacred "treasures. These plaques have inscribed on them the holy edition of faith [Creed] in Greek letters and words. Pope Leo sanctioned them to be recited before the Roman multitude.
[41. Newly Elected Popes Reaffirm Creed without Filioque] Moreover, up to the time of the pious Sergios I, Patriarch of Constantinople [A.D. 610-638], the hierarchs of Rome, upon assuming their hierarchical ministry when they sent forth enthronement letters of introduction expressing their own religious beliefs to all the patriarchs, also included in them the Symbol of Faith [Creed] without any change in its original form. Is it necessary to further say more?
The Son and Master, Christ, rules and mystically ordains that the Holy Spirit will proceed from the Father, but absolutely not from himself [Son]. I deem it worthy that no one, then will seek another more excellent teacher unless he desires to offend and to pursue the argument to no useful purpose; for he will never come to a definite conclusion even if he will invent many other subtleties expressing, perhaps, these and similar sayings from the Holy Gospels, such as: "but when the Counselor comes" [Jn l5:26], "he will take what is mine" [Jn 16:14]; "He breathed on them, and said to them" [Jn 20:22]; "God has sent the Spirit of his Son" [Gal 4:6]; and "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me" [Lk 4:18]. For they are far from attaining such an aim, having been interpreted differently by the great and divine Ecumenical Teachers, as we have witnesses and have been informed. And all these, to state it briefly, express association and relationships, but are not manifestations of procession. Therefore, it follows that the unity and the equality among the three hypostases is proven.
[42. Plea to Theologians To Keep the Truths of the Creed Undefiled] Therefore, for the sake of God let it be; cease to utter words about that which are remote from the truth, and accept the holy doctrine, as we have made clear knowing full well that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. And, thus, concerning this subject, let us continue to be friends and brothers in Christ, abiding in Orthodoxy together, keeping the Confession of Faith unfragmented, unshakable, and steadfast, respecting the Holy Fathers and [keeping] in respectful awe of Christ himself, who has, thus, specifically dogmatized concerning the Holy Spirit, as we have said. Do not, for the sake of human glory, perhaps as pious persons, betray piety and your salvation after being taught by the preaching of so many and great saints concerning the truth of this doctrine. Indeed, we have reminded your esteemed selves of these matters not in the spirit of argument and not with ambiguity, but in a devout manner with the help of God. Indeed, may the Paraclete himself, the Spirit who proceeds from the Father, strengthen the thoughts according to His will in hope and in faith for the fulfillment of the commandments of Christ, and lead us to think correctly about this matter of procession of the Holy Spirit and about all other matters. Thus, by pleasing the Trinity, the cause of all things, through upright thinking and good deeds, you may achieve the blessedness which is reserved for the Orthodox faithful by the grace of Christ to whom belong all glory, power and majesty forever and ever, amen.
[E, 14. Hold the Traditions of the Church, pp. 197-8] Therefore, brethren, let us stand on the rock of faith and on the tradition of the Church, and not remove the boundaries which our Holy Fathers have set. Thus, we will not give the opportunity to those who wish to innovate and destroy the edifice of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God. For if permission is granted to everyone who wants it, little by little the whole body of the Church will be destroyed. Do not, brethren, do not, oh Christ-loving children of the Church of God; rather let us worship and adore the founder and creator, God, who due to His nature alone is to be worshipped. Let us venerate the Holy Theotokos not as God, but as the Mother of God, according to the flesh. And let us also venerate the saints as the chosen friends of God who have greater access to Him [God]. For if men venerate mortal kinds who frequently are impious as well as sinners, also rulers and others, and according to the Divine Apostle: "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" [Tit 3:1], "pay all of them their dues," etc. [Rom 13:7], how much more is it necessary to worship the King of Kings who alone is master over nature and also over the passions of His servants and kings? David, also, in Ps 44 says: "Thou didst make [me] them head of nations" [17:43; cf. Ps 18:43 RSV]. They [the saints] were given power over demons and sicknesses, and they shall reign together with Christ. Even their shadow alone drove away demons and sicknesses [cf. Acts 5:l5-16]. Therefore, we should not consider the icon weaker and less honored than the shadow. For [the icon] truly is a sketch of the original. Brethren, the Christian is a person of faith. He who comes in faith gains much. But he who separates himself [from faith] is like a raging sea churned by the wind and blown about and who will receive nothing. All the saints by faith have pleased God: they who confirm it [faith] and prove it to everyone by good works.
[15. Accept Traditions of Church with Sincerity of Heart] Let us accept, then, the tradition of the Church with a sincere heart and not a multitude of rationalizations. For God created man to be [morally] upright; instead they [humans] sought after diverse ways of rationalizing. Let us not allow ourselves to learn a new kind of faith which is condemned by the tradition of the Holy Fathers. For the Divine Apostle says, "if anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" [Gal 1:9].
[G. CONCLUSION: 1. Invitation to Accept Orthodox Faith without Innovations, p. 210] Finally, having understood [Greek] Orthodoxy from the Holy Scriptures, come enter into it with all your souls, O wise and sagacious men, and put far away from you every irrational innovation, which the host of Ecumenical Teachers and of the Church has not accepted. For thus, both you and we will be worthy of blessings. You, as obeying your leaders and submitting to them [cf. Heb 13:17] and not "disputing about words which does no good" [2 Tim 2:14]. And we, as having spoken in the ears of those who have listened and sowing in the good soil [cf. Lk 8:8]. And since we have agreed on almost all of the main subjects, it is not necessary for you to interpret and understand some of the passages of the Scripture in any other way than that in which the luminaries of the Church and Ecumenical Teachers have interpreted. They themselves interpreted Scripture according to Christ our God, who is truth itself. And we, that is, our Church, keep these truths and uphold them. For nothing else is the cause of dissension than this and only this, which when you correct it, we will be, with the grace of God, in agreement; and we will become one in the Faith, the glory of God. For having researched diligently some of the passages of Holy Scripture, which you referred to in your first and second letters which you sent to us, we saw clearly that you had misinterpreted them, perhaps in following your new teachers. For this reason we again entreat you to understand the passages as the Ecumenical Teachers of the Church have interpreted them and which interpretations the seven ecumenical synods and the other regional ones have ratified. For as we have already said, it is not necessary to rise up and remove everlasting boundaries which the Fathers have established, so that we will not violate the definition which was mentioned at the beginning of the Sixth Synod and be subject to penalties. Therefore, if up to the present something has been violated, you who are prudent may correct it from now, and you will be worthy of praise by God, as well as by men and by us. For to err is human, but the correction is angelic and salvific. May you take care of this, also, so that the grace and the mercy of God be with you.
In the month of May, Indiction 7, 1579.
Jeremiah [Archbishop of Constantinople]
The Third Answer of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople to Tubingen, 1581 Jeremiah, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch...
[pp. 289-90] 0 most wise German men, the book you sent to us has arrived. In it you again set forth supposedly plausible reasons and evidence, saying that you have not completely received satisfaction from our answers sent in response to your previous letters. You also say that somehow not even your thinking has been set straight not only from Holy Scripture, but neither from the Holy Fathers of the Church each after having been taught the truer and the better.
[A. CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT] But after saying this you bring in Saint Augustine in book 2, On the Trinity, and you strongly maintain that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son himself. And you decide that the Holy Greek Fathers agree with you in the matter of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, even though they differ in literal expressions. They are Athanasios in his treatise, The Incarnation of the Word; Cyril [of Alexandria] in his First Treatise to Palladios, Epiphanios in the Homily Ancoratos; Basil the Great in his fifteenth epistle Against Eunomios, who agrees with them; [Gregory] Nazianzos in the Fourth Theological Oration, which is the Second Concerning the Son; Cyril [of Alexandria] again in Thesaurus, and Athanasios again in his Letters to Serapion. We wonder, then, if indeed by abandoning the obvious and explicit passages of Scripture and the Fathers, which distinctly state and submit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, which may have another meaning and have been understood by them [the Fathers] in another way, you might have changed to serve your own purpose! Accordingly, indeed, is also the matter of sending forth, which according to Augustine, as well as to the truth of the matter, has nothing in common with the procession. And the same is true concerning the many other passages which these Fathers have of necessity and fittingly used in speaking against those who alienated the Spirit from the essence of the Son. They surely did not use them with the intention of showing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. For this reason we had purposed to remain absolutely silent in response to your replies and give no answer to you. For you have quite plainly altered Holy Scripture as well as the interpretation of the above-mentioned holy men according to your own will. We have Paul to exhort us: "a man who is factitious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him" [Titus 3:10]. However, since by silence it might appear that we agree with you and that perhaps you correctly hold and understand these matters, we run the risk of having it thought that Holy Scripture and these holy men [Fathers] agree with you on this subject. By defending them we reiterate these matters again, although we have been well informed by your letters that you will never be able to agree with us or rather, we should say, with the truth... .
[C. CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS, pp. 305-6] But since you are content with some of the sacraments, even though you have dangerously distorted and changed the written teachings of the Old and New [Testament] to your own purpose, you further say that some of them are not sacraments, but only traditions, not having been established in Holy [scriptural] Texts. But you oppose them in every way, just as chrismation, which was accepted even by Saint John Chrysostom. Some others you drag along as does a torrent. And then you call yourself theologians!
[D. CONCERNING THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS] [Confession and the Monastic Life]
You reckon the invocation of the saints, their icons, and their sacred relics as futile. You reject their veneration, taking as a pretext the Hebrew source. Moreover, you also reject confession to one another. In addition, you reject the angelic, monastic life. And about these matters we say that the Holy [Scripture] passages concerning them have not been interpreted by such theologians as you are, for neither Saint Chrysostom nor any other of the blessed and true theologians interpreted as if they were dragged along by a torrent. But, indeed, he [Chrysostom] and the holy man after him, being full of the Holy Spirit who performed supernatural miracles while they were living and after they died, interpreted [the Holy Scriptures] as they did; and they received such traditions, and they handed them down successively and gave them to us as indispensable and pious [sacraments]. Some of these even Old Rome also keeps and acquiesces with us. From whence have you reckoned better than Old and New Rome? Indeed, have you forsaken the interpretations of the true theologians and considered your own as more preferable? From the source of the Hebrew tradition we learn from history that contempt for the holy icons and sacred relics had its origin from the Hebrews. The schisms of the Lutherans there, which are many and various, were indeed caused and spread by some Hebrews, as it has been broached abroad feigning piety. And already, as you see, they have taken root and have opened the way for more evil as day by day they grow worse. Being completely not in communion with them [the Hebrews], we covet and, indeed, unshakably, the sacraments of our Church. We closely adhere to the teachings which have been uttered by the successors of the God-preaching Holy Apostles. We consider their interpretations as more precious than all the gold and gems. Indeed, we invoke the all-holy saints not as saviors and redeemers, God forbid, for only One is the Savior and Redeemer, the Christ; but we who are sinners and in the midst of evils hold them forth as intermediaries who have completed the journey of life in a holy and satisfactory manner and have departed to God, and who richly intercede for us. And of course, we are not committing sin by continually pursuing this aim. For by venerating their holy icons and their relics which cause thousands of healings to those who on occasion approach in faith, we reap extraordinary beneficences from them, and we are illumined in soul and body. We confess also to one another, according to the Holy Scriptures. We revere the monastic and angelic life. We pray that those who lift up these burdens do not turn back at all, if indeed they would choose to be properly prepared for the kingdom of heaven.
[E. EPILOGUE] Therefore, we request that from henceforth you do not cause us more grief, nor write to us on the same subject if you should wish to treat these luminaries and theologians of the Church in a different manner. You honor and exalt them in words, but you reject them in deeds. For you try to prove our weapons which are their holy and divine discourses as unsuitable. And it is with these documents that we would have to write and contradict you. Thus, as for you, please release us from these cares. Therefore, going about your own ways, write no longer concerning dogmas; but if you do, write only for friendship's sake. Farewell.
Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople Issued in the year 1581, June 6 Protonotarios Theodosios
This is actually the 6th statement listed, since it was the next one down the list that I could easily find on-line.
This exchange was the result of the first theological contacts between the Greek-speaking Orthodox Church and the new Protestant movement. It is not so much polemical or argumentative as it is a clear statement of Orthodox belief -- and as such is a good example of traditional Orthodox dialogue.
Please see the opening post in this series, Bp. Kallistos' chapter on Tradition in "The Orthodox Church, and the first posted statement, that of St. Photius the Great.
Ping for any who are interested.
From a historical perspective, the charge that the filoque suggested dual cause and source of the Spirit is glimpsed from various forms of the Creed that existed in the Roman Church at different times:
"We also believe that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity is God, and that he [sic] is one and equal with God the Father and God the Son, of one substance as well as of one nature. However, he [sic] is not begotten nor created, but he [sic]proceeds from both and is the Spirit of both." [The 11th Council of Toledo, 675]
A few centuries later...
"The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally." [The 4th Lateran Council, 1215, A definition against the Albigenses and other heretics]
It gets better...quite a change!
"...we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one." [The 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274, Constitution on the Procession of the Holy Spirit]
The word "eternaly" fluctuates in different Creeds up to the present day...appearing and disappearing in some.
At the same time the RCC still subscribes to the Ecumenical Councils which expressly prohibit any addition, subtraction of change of the original.
Interesting that the Protestants were concerned with the Filioque also.
I'll link this to the Filioque thread; this is the clearest objection to the double procession doctrine I've come across so far.
Do you have a good link on the "monarchy of the Father"?
Good thread! We Lutherans often forget the letters to the Patriarch.
Glad you're enjoying the thread. The Tubingen theologians and the Eastern Patriarchs never came to any kind of agreement, but the dialogue produced what is still today a classic statement of Orthodox belief.
I also think that while neither side was completely free of testiness, the exchange was a cordial one. It is worth getting the book, and reading both sides of the exchange.
The Lutherans were so caught up in the polemics of the struggle with Roman Catholicism and the dialectic of those oppositional debates that they clearly were not in a position to be able to do the kind of "outside the scholastic box" thinking that would have been necessary to understand what the Orthodox were saying to them.
We Orthodox think that the Reformers contacted the Orthodox too late in the process, but of course we *would* think that! :-)
Let me give that one some thought. The Orthodox mind has always considered that the first principle of theology is "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty..."
We see the unity of the Trinity resting in the Father, who is unbegotten, and the source of the begetting and procession of the Son and Spirit respectively. The unity of the Trinity rests first and foremost in a person, and not just in a unity of an amorphous Divine Essence or Godhead.
Our services are filled with examples of how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, and are equal in essence, nature, dominion, and eternal existence.
I'm not sure how extensively it has been written on as a separate topic, but monarchia is certainly a theme in Orthodox explanations for our rejection of the filioque.
The "monarchia" of the Father is a principle that cannot be understood by applying human examples of monarchy, but rather deeply understanding the monarchy of the Father is necessary in understanding how this principle can be recapitulated in the life in the body of Christ.
This is the same as the "Fatherhood" of the Father -- we don't look to human fathers to understand what "Fatherhood" is, but rather we look to His Fatherhood in order to enlighten what the possibilities are for fatherhood (of many kinds -- biological, spiritual, etc...) in our lives.
All the Monarchia of the Father is summed up in His title, "Father".
If He did not hold the Monarchia, He would not be the Father.
Because He is Father, He is the eternal source, cause, and principle of the Son and the Holy Spirit alone, the first by begetting, the second by procession. The distinction between the two processes is what makes the Son, and Son of the Father, and the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Father and the Son.
The dispute between Catholicism and Orthodoxy on the filioque has to do with the exact nature of the procession, and the extent of the involvement of the Son in the cause of the person of the Holy Spirit.
It seems to me that there is some agreement in our day on possible resolution of this dispute in understanding that while the Father is source and cause of the Spirit, the Son is involved in His receiving the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, eternally manifesting Spirit and participating jointly in the communication of the consubstantial essence and the pouring out of the divine energy, and that this involvement of the Son is what makes the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit instead of another Son.
That never had anything to do with a "dual cause and source". We have always confessed one cause and source.
If, therefore, that also which is given has him for a beginning by whom it is given, since it has received from no other source that which proceeds from him; it must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a Beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings; but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Beginning relatively to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God. (St. Augustine, De Trinitate, V, 14:15)
Lyons II used 'eternally' to make it clear what was being talked about, so that the Greeks wouldn't understand it as temporal procession.
expressly prohibit any addition, subtraction of change of the original
Yes, of the original Creed of Nicaea, as declared by the Council of Ephesus. When you stop using the 381 Creed composed by a council at Constantinople, then maybe you could use this argument with some semblance of reason.
The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, Consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit. And those that say 'There was when he was not,' and, 'Before he was begotten he was not,' and that, 'He came into being from what-is-not,' or those that allege, that the son of God is 'Of another substance or essence' or 'created,' or 'changeable' or 'alterable,' these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.
When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.
1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
The "dispute" is not all that easy to characterize. The filioque both represented and created a way of thinking about the Trinity that affects theology in a broader sense. We Orthodox often have a difficult time explaining this in terms that our Latin friends can understand, but we see and feel the differences rather acutely.
As to possible resolution, it is not a matter of technical language and hammering out wording that is sufficiently nuanced and ambiguous to be acceptable to everyone's blind eye. It is a matter of actually believing exactly the same thing. Perhaps that will someday be true.
Until that time, we can enjoy doing a little hashing out of things on places like FR.
Thank you for your contribution dear Hermann -- especially touching upon why the Holy Spirit is not in some sense not another Son (or as some Episcopalians now say 'a daughter'). This is an area of great interest to me. And I wonder if "filioque" must be addressed and settled with regard to the saying of the Nicene(-Constantinopolitan) Creed. Or is it possible to propose a new credal statement in advance of a Holy Synod of the East and West which all parties could debate and then sign -- a statement addressing the heresies that surround us on everyside. I don't have time to explore this more in this post, but perhaps just a bit of touching on it gives you an idea of what I am considering and pondering...
Any Holy Synod worthy of the name will not propose a new Creed. Instead, it will restate the Creed of 325 and 381 and declare:
"This wise and saving creed, the gift of divine grace, was sufficient for a perfect understanding and establishment of religion. For its teaching about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is complete, and it sets out the Lord's becoming human to those who faithfully accept it."
It will then make whatever definitions are necessary to further clarify this creed against its misinterpretation or twisting to heresy.
Or is it possible to propose a new credal statement in advance of a Holy Synod of the East and West which all parties could debate and then sign -- a statement addressing the heresies that surround us on everyside.
The faith is not a subject of debate, and an Ecumenical Council is not a debating society. If we are in discord, as brothers, we must come and reason together to determine the source of our discord and eliminate it. Only then can we come together in Council.
If the source of discord cannot be eliminated, then we are not truly brothers.
It seems to me that the most fruitful thing any Catholic could do to engender this union is to read up on the Photian Councils of 861 and 879, the Tomus of 1285 concerning the Filioque and the Palamite Councils of 1341-1351 concerning the Divine Energies. I won't presume to speak for the Orthodox as to what might be best for them to better understand us, but everything we need to digest regarding our division from Orthodoxy as Catholics is to be found in those three episodes.
Ecumenical Councils have been the very center of debate prompted by heresies and heretics like Nestorius, Arius or others have driven the need for debate, clarity, and the ultimate need for the statement of definitions, canons, and Creeds as expressions of the ongoing victory of Christian orthodoxy.
One of the few councils that acted like a debating society, the Council of Florence, was also the greatest ecumenical failure.
You will find that the only debate that went on at most councils was attempts by the Orthodox Catholics to persuade those still partial to heresy to rejoin full communion, i.e. John of Antioch at Ephesus. The views of Nestorius, since you use him as an example, were not debated at Ephesus. Rather, following the lead of Pope St. Celestine and Patriarch St. Cyril, Nestorius was urged to make a confession of the well known tenents of the Catholics faith they had expressed in their letters, and when he did not, he was judged and cast out by the Council.
The debates you may be thinking of, such as occurred at Nicaea, were not over the faith itself, but how best to express and phrase the common faith against those who all agreed were heretics, such as Arius and all his followers in error, so that there could be no doubt on anyone's part what the Catholic Church believed, and to give those in error and chance to repent and rejoin communion. Nicaea did not debate the divinity of the Lord Jesus with Arius. It debated how best to state the nature of that divinity to confute him and express the faith.
Catholics and Orthodox today can debate in a future Council how best to phrase their common faith so as to avoid further seperation. But first they need to come to a common agreement on their points of distinction.
I second your reading list (the Photian Councils of 861 and 879, the Tomus of 1285 concerning the Filioque and the Palamite Councils of 1341-1351 concerning the Divine Energies) and commend it to all both Orthodox and Latin.
The Tomus of 1285, which touchs particularly on the filioque, and gives the nearest approach to the Latin position ever endorsed by an Orthodox synod (though still distinct enough to the Orthodox mind that it includes an explicit condemnation of Lyons), admitting a 'eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son', while maintaining the eternal procession (which is ontological) is from the Father alone. (As distinct from the position of St. Photius the Great that the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son is economical only.)
Aristedes Papadakis has argued that the Tomus was influential in St. Gregory Palamas's formulation of the Orthodox understanding of Grace as a participation in the Uncreated Energies of God.
Frankly, this is a totally unexplored field for Western Theology. St. Gregory Palamas and Patriarch Gregory II both considered that they were applying the teaching of the Lateran Council of 649 and the 6th Ecumenical Council regarding the energia or operations of Christ to the rest of the Trinity, and then from there to the relation of the Trinity with mankind in grace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.