Rorate Caeli

Good news in Catholic-Orthodox talks? Not exactly....


This has been known for a few days, but more details are reported by Marco Politi in today's issue of La Repubblica:

The Pope is the 'first among the Patriarchs', Rome is the 'first See', the Church of Rome 'presides in charity'. A joint document of the Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Churches explicitly acknowledges definitively and in an unequivocal way the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, easing the way for the reunification of Catholics and Orthodox, divided by the schism of 1054.

The reserved document is the result of the October meeting at Ravenna, where a Catholic delegation presided by Cardinal Kasper and a pan-Orthodox delegation, guided by Metropolitan Zizioulas, of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, established the bases for a deepening of the questions left to be resolved in order to reestablish unity.
Good. But the representatives of the largest Eastern Church not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome left the discussions in Ravenna. A representative of the Moscow Patriarchate, Bishop Hilarion, explained the problems to Interfax:

Metropolitan John [Zizioulas] of Pergamon [of the Constantinople Patriarchate] as co-president of the joint commission for Orthodox-Catholic dialogue is responsible for derailing the dialogue. His comments and the final text of the document work on which has finished in Ravenna without the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate may produce the impression that the Constantinople Patriarchate deliberately pushed the Moscow Patriarchate to withdraw from the dialogue so that decisions should be passed that would have been impossible with the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate. ...

The Patriarchy of Constantinople is extremely interested to discuss the issue of primacy in the Universal Church, because in this Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, it hopes to force Local Churches to interpret the primacy in a way that could extend its historical rights. Until now, Orthodox Churches have acknowledged only priority of honour of the Patriarchy of Constantinople. However, Metropolitan John expresses in his interviews the view point which is inconsistent with the notion of “priority of honour” in the Orthodox canons.

"Constantinople wants to force on us a model of church organization that has never existed in Orthodox tradition and that is closer to the centralized model existing in the Roman Catholic Church. In that model, the patriarch of Constantinople would have the role of the 'Eastern pope.'"

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

La Repubblica doesn't know their catechism nor their history.

The "Orthodox" never denied the primacy of Rome, they denied the orthodoxy and supremacy and infallibility of Rome.

come on, Rorare caeli! With you its always an attempt to windowdress!

A Christian must face reality.

Ad Orientem said...

I think one should be cautious about reading too much into this. This is more a reflection of the current strained relations between Moscow and Constantinople than a serious discussion of the primacy issue dividing the Latins from Orthodoxy. What we are reading about here is really an intra-Orthodox squabble over Constantinople's meddling in the canonical territory of other churches.

ICXC
John

Josephus Flavius said...

This has been discussed quite a bit in the Byzantine Forum. Moscow and Constantinople are at odds about some issues and it shows during these sorts of meetings. It has also been commented by the Orthodox themselves that just because Moscow decides to leave a meeting does not nullify its merit. One can't ignore their departure, but one can't consider the meetings a failure if one church leaves (especially as they left about an issue not related to the talks themselves, but of a church autonomy issue). What some see as the devolution of the Moscow patriarchate after the fall of the Soviet Union is causing problems in intra-Orthodox collegiality and it is made very visible at important moments such as these.

Anonymous said...

This is simply a case of the Patriachate of Constantinople trying to bolster its own authority. Rather like the nineteeth century in the Italian States when Pius IX inflated the papal claims as he was losing temporal authority so with Constantinople. If any any Orthodox Patriarchate should have a primacy it is Moscow being by far the largest Church.

Anonymous said...

"...If any any Orthodox Patriarchate should have a primacy it is Moscow being by far the largest Church."

Dosen't Constantinople (ahem, Istambul) have primacy from a historical perspective? It was Byzantium that brought Orthodoxy to the Rus; no?

Not looking for flames, just asking, that's all.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 14 November, 2007 20:26

You are a heretic and blasphemer.

The Roman Pontiff has always held from Christ the primacy of honor among other bishops, and the supremacy of authority.

The system of patriarchies is a human invention; don't be like the pharasees of old and put that before Christ's statements to Peter,that is, if you are a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Ad Orientem said...

To the various anonymouses,
The pecking order in primacy is laid out in the canons of the oecumenical councils. Old Rome came first before she separated from The Church. After which New Rome. While I agree that Moscow holds a unique position as the patriarchate of the largest by far Orthodox church, Constantinople's place is laid down in the canons of the church.

To the last anonymous,
In response to your accusations of heresy I would respectfully point out that the Orthodox have added nothing to the deposit of the faith, unlike the Latin Church. Consider that it is not we who keep inventing novel doctrines to prop up a one bishop church. To accuse Orthodox Christians of heresy is to also accuse the Roman Church since we hold nothing as revealed truth which you do not also claim to hold, even if I doubt in some cases you all really believe the same things anymore.

ICXC NIKA
John

Doctor Asinorum said...

" To accuse Orthodox Christians of heresy is to also accuse the Roman Church since we hold nothing as revealed truth which you do not also claim to hold, even if I doubt in some cases you all really believe the same things anymore.

Come now, that's straightforwardly silly. If I say that X, Y, & Z are certainly true and you say that X & Y are true, but Z is false, we're clearly disagreeing. Even if you say X & Y are true, but Z is doubtful we are disagreeing. So your claim simply makes no sense, as we Catholics hold as "revealed truth" certain propositions that the Orthodox (as a whole) reject (e.g. the Immaculate Conception of the BVM and her Assumption, body and soul, into heaven). It's obviously just as possible to be heretic by refusing to believe true propositions as it is by believing false ones.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 21:14

I thank God that I am not a Roman Catholic heretic.

The modern idea of the 'Roman Pontiff' is the greatest triumph Satan has made yet against true Christianity.

Anonymous said...

If the evaluation of patriarchates were to be done historically, would this also lead to questions about Kiev vs. Moscow?

Ad Orientem said...

DA,
You make a valid point in your line of reasoning. It is certainly correct that virtually all Orthodox consider the dogmas of the First Vatican Council to be unadulterated heresy and completely incompatible with the consensus patris.

However I do wish to point out that most Orthodox do in fact subscribe to the assumption of the Holy Theotokis. While it is not a defined dogma but it is a theologuman so widely held that it carries great weight in The Church. The differences with regards the IC revolve around the bizarre western approach to original sin and sin in general. Blessed Augustine's views in this respect never gained much acceptance outside of the Western Church.

ICXC NIKA
John

Br. Anthony said...

Ad Orientem,

Sure the Orthodox sect is the true Church......Yeah right!

There are several Orthodox sects that don't even agree with each other. After your schism from the true Church (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic), you broke into fragments that can only be put together by returning to the Roman Catholic Church founded by Christ.

Please come home.

Athanasius said...

One of the problems I have with Orthodoxy is the premise that the creed can not be changed. Believe me, with all the problems in the Roman Church I have thought more than once about Eastern Orthodoxy, but I can not reconcile with the theology. The creed in and of itself is a product of development against heresy. The creed was not complete until the 1st Council of Constantinople which was not even accepted as an official council by the faithful until many years after its decrees were promulgated. to suggest that the creed can never be added to is as absurd as claiming it should always be added to and changed. Certainly it would have been more prudent not to change it for the sake of east-west unity, but it happened. However it was not the first time it happened. The first Council of Constantinople revised a 60 year old creed from the Council of Nicea because the Arian heretics were perverting its meaning. Therefore the issue is not that a change was made to the creed, but what kind of change was made, and by whom. The revision by the Council of Constantinople of the creed of Nicea demonstrates that the Church's magisterium can revise the creed. Consider John XV:26: "But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me." How can the Son send the Paraclete if the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father? And again:

"Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear." (Acts II:33) How can Jesus pour forth the power of the Holy Ghost, as St. Peter told the crowds at Pentecost, if the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father and not the Son? I think there is a strong argument scripturally speaking in favor of an addition to the creed of a legitimate point of doctrine which was approved by the magisterium of the Church.

In my mind, what the problem pre-1054 comes down to was a matter of culture. The barbarians took over the western empire, and the Church transformed it and them into Christendom, but it had lost the polished feel of Ancient Rome in some respects. The Eastern Empire on the other hand maintained all of the level of culture and learning, technology present to the Romans of old, and rightly revered their lineage. The disputes come down to culture, one was a Latinized barbarian, the other the high learning of Greco-Roman culture. Yet St. Peter went to Rome. The difficulties arose with Popes who were French and German and were ignorant of history, unlike Italian Popes who had a better understanding of the development of doctrine. On account of this these Popes did not always act prudently toward the East. Let's not mix the facts, the real hatred was found in the Fourth Crusade. Prior to that infamous event (brought about by a Greek rival claimant to the throne of Constantine I might add) there was not that much animosity between the West and East apart from these cultural points.
As the statement says, the Orthodox agree that Peter and his successors have a sort of primacy, but not in his infallibility. If the keys of the kingdom (Matt. XVI:18) do not grant full authority to St. Peter over the other apostles, why in the world should Jesus single him out in retrospect to the other apostles? How can you be in charge and yet not in charge?

Cosmos said...

This may sound extremely dumb, but I am being serious.
- As Athanasius said, the creeds developed throughout history in response to particular theological issues.
- The Orthodox should not believe that it would be impossible to add to the Creed (why couldn't the Church add something about the divine authorship/inspiration of Scripture, for example), rather, they likely believe that only a true Ecumenical council can add to the creeds.
- If they believe that only Councils can teach absolutely binding truth on this level, how do they know with certainty that the Pope is not infallible? No early council or creed addressed this question directly one way or another.Where does the absolutely binding nature of this doctrine come from within Orthodoxy?
- Sripture certainly singles out Peter in a way that makes infallibility a reasonable or possible, if not neceessary, deduction. History presents its own suggestive argument.
- Shouldn't the Orthodox approach this issue more like the Assumption issue- something they are very confident about but have no definitive way of answering?
- Why is "NOT INFALLIBLE" treated like an infallible dogma?
- Is the answer obvious?

Ad Orientem said...

Athanasius and Cosmos,
I fear you are both under a misapprehension. The Orthodox Church has not dogmatically anathematized Vatican I. Such is unnecessary since the issue is not controversial within Orthodoxy. There is simply no one who accepts Vat-I. We don't call councils to address non controversial subjects. It would be rather akin to summoning a council to proclaim that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

With respects to the Creed I refer you to the canons of the eighth oecumenical council (Constantinople V 879-880) which expressly condemn any alteration to the Creed with what is an obvious and clear reference to the filioque to wit:

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."

This council was held in the presence of the papal legates who approved its proceedings and was later confirmed by Pope John VIII along with the patriarchates of New Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch as also the Roman Emperor Basil I. (Some Roman Catholic historians have attempted to portray that approval as having been secured by nefarious means on the part of the Pope's own legates but the eminent Catholic historian Francis Dvornick among others has debunked such claims.) It would not be until the eleventh century that the Roman Church would repudiate what had for almost two centuries been accepted in both East and West as an ecumenical council. It is worth noting that the Popes before the Frankish takeover were pillars of Orthodoxy on the subject of the filioque and heroically condemned it at every opportunity as heresy.

ICXC NIKA
John

Athanasius said...

It is worth noting that the Popes before the Frankish takeover were pillars of Orthodoxy on the subject of the filioque and heroically condemned it at every opportunity as heresy

Please, cite one Pope who declared it a heresy. Pope John VIII merely prevented its addition to the creed, because he did not want to alter it. It was simply prudent not to do it.

However, your claim is entirely specious. No Pope ever condemned the filioque. If such were the case Vatican I could never have formulated its decree.

Ad Orientem said...

Athanasius,
The Western Church repudiated the filioque not only at the 8th oecumenical council which expressly forbade any additions to the creed, but also at the council of Gentilly (767) and again at the council of Aix-la-Chapelle (809). It was at the latter council that Pope St. Leo III expressly condemned the filioque and later went so far as to have the Creed (less the offending phrase) inscribed on two silver tablets, one in Latin and one in Greek, which he had placed at the tomb of St. Peter in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome as a permanent repudiation of the heretical addition to the symbol of the faith. On the tablets he had inscribed the words “HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI” ("I, Leo, placed these tablets out of love for the Orthodox faith and to safeguard it.")

In addition to the above Pope Zacharias expressly affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but resides in the Son. And Pope Hadrian I (772-795) in correspondence with Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople flatly stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone. Pope Hadrian III made similar statements.

ICXC NIKA
John

Ad Orientem said...

Athanasius,
With respect to your observation about the necessary contradiction between a papal condemnation of the filioque and Vatican I, you hit that nail on the head.

ICXC NIKA
John

Anonymous said...

Come on, guys, this kind of stuff has to cease. The same old polemics about the filioque, the same old misapprehensions about each other's beliefs..

Going around calling each other heretics and sect members - it's not going to get us anywhere. It's going to make the breach deeper and wider. Unity will never come about if there is no charity.

We must of course defend our positions but we must do it extremely thoughtfully and extremely charitably.

Now let's stop arguing for a moment and and say a prayer for unity.

beng said...

Anathema to Orthodoxs. Either they accept Vatican I with its Pastor Aeternus wholeheartedly without a flinch or cast out from the Body of Christ.

Note: the first one to call the Pope an anti-christ is not Jack Chick nor Ellen G. White nor any Protestant. It was an Orthodox.

prof. basto said...

Beng naied it.

Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican Council I:

"So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."

Anonymous said...

Unity will never comes about by charity, it comes about through the erring side(s) repenting, which is a work of the Holy Spirit.

Regarding the confession of disagreeemnt, any rational Christian must hold that in matters of doctrine, if there is a disagrement, someone or both are wrong, and he who is wrong has the duty to study the Faith and confess his error, and then accept the Truth.

Before the schims of 1054 all the doctrines which the Roman Church teaches were taught in East and West.

After 1054 all the doctrines which the Orthodox denied were never universally denied in East and West before 1054.

Ergo, and James Likoudis points out in his masterful historical study, "Healing the Greek Schism", the polemicists of the Greek Church are the ones at fault, because in their desire to prove vindicate their own position, they falsified the facts of history and imposed upon the Eastern Churches a deep seated bigotry to their own religious traditions.

This was not the first time: since the time of Arius theologians in the East had had no qualms about falsifying historical and ecclesiastical documents to rewrite history. Even prior to 1054, there were only a few monasteries in the East which preserved the archives of the past unstained by this sort of tampering.

With the fall of Constantinople (betrayed to the Turks by the Greek whom they made Patriarch afterwards) the great libraries of the East were either destroyed or transferred to Italy.

Some of the greatests scholars of that day, along with the entire Imperial Family, came to the West, kept the Catholic Faith, and died in the Faith.

If you argue with a bad willed Greek today, he will take you around in circles until you get dizzy, arguing like a protestant who will never admit the slightest venial sin, and denying everything he believes in, if that is what it takes to prove himself sinless.

Every doctrine which the Roman Church holds, which the "so called Orthodox Churches" reject or do not accept, is not an addition to the Faith, but is part and parcel of the Faith, of what was always believed, and of what the Saints of East and West confessed sometimes in the same terminology, sometimes in differing terminology.

But when you put the historical evidence to a Greek, will he accept it.

Also, nota bene: most of those who claim to be Orthodox on the Net are ex-protestants; and they'll utter any lie to defend their ongoing rejection of Rome.

True disciple of St. Andrew.

Anonymous said...

Unity will never comes about by charity, it comes about through the erring side(s) repenting, which is a work of the Holy Spirit.

That's probably the dumbest thing I've read in a while. Latin theology holds that the relational definition of the Holy Spirit is "the love between the Father and Son" (of course, the Spirit's essence is simply God.) Further, all grace, created and uncreated, is rooted in love--"God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us." (Romans 5:3-5) Every grace is caritas, every grace is a manifestation either of the substance of God's charity or love, or it is a preparation to recieve that love.

So, yes, in fact, unity is precisely the work of charity. Charity, love, "rejoices in truth," as St. Paul says, and so charity does not contravene truth. Love, St. Paul also says, is patient, kind, not arogant, and many other things that don't describe this thread as a whole! (1 Cor 3:14-16).

Sandals

Ad Orientem said...

Sandals,
Amen.

gallicman1 said...

Novus Ordo Cardinal Kaspar stated in the original document:

"The next time," added the president of the pontifical council, "we will have to return to the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church during the first millennium. Then we must also talk of the second millennium, of Vatican Councils I and II, and this will not be easy; the road is very long and difficult."

Now the questions is will the Orthodox ever accept Vatican I, which they should?

Will the Orthodox accept Vatican II? Yes, if the become as liberal as the Novus Ordo.
And three:
Will the Orthodox agree that the Novus Ordo has valid Episcopal and priestly consecrations?

If you thought that the traditionalists were critical just wait until the Orthodox are asking the questions.

Anonymous said...

Sandals,

You comment is the dumbest thing I have read.

I did not write "Charity", rather "charity".

One who has lost charity, i. e. a schismatic, cannot recover charity by being charitable, he needs first to repent. Charity is not a work which we can practice in defiance of the Holy Spirit who is the spirit of Truth.

You confound God as Charity, with a work of charity, and omit the consideration of the virtue of charity, which is an infused virtue, and a gift. Once you throw the gift away you cannot have charity, let alone understand or accept or accomplish spiritually a work of charity, unless you repent of being uncharitable; which repentence is not a work of charity, but of pentitence, or justice. See St. Thomas.

Thus, I beg to point out in charity, you are wrong, And Ad Orientem, is also wrong in his "Amen".

But this is a common problem when speaking with Protestants and Schismatics and Modernists, because having lost charity they cannot accept or understand what a Catholic says in the same sense he says it; that is why they are always twisting the words of others to prove and point and thus show that they are of themselves incapable of repentence.

Let us Catholics pray for their conversion, remembering all of us, the words of Jesus Christ to St. Bridget of Sweden: "those Greeks who hold to the schism I will surely damn to everylasting torment, but those who do not, I will have mercy upon them".

a true disciple of St. Andrew

P.S. I anticipate the objection, that I am not being charitable, by saying that the first work of charity is to correct an erring brother.

Jordan Potter said...

Old Rome came first before she separated from The Church.

Since it is impossible for "Old Rome" to separate from the Church, that means Old Rome still comes first.

But the historical record amply documents that Old Rome had more than a mere primacy of honor during the first millennium. Just look at the Acacian Schism and how it was resolved -- the Eastern Orthodox take on things just can't be crammed to fit what happened there (not without disrespect for language and for our historical sources, that is). And that's just one example of many.

gawayn said...

Ad orientem:

Pope Leo III assented to adding filioque as doctrine, yet still wanted to preserve unity and hence the shields.

It seems a far cry from saying that the Pope condemned "filioque" as heresy, much less ex cathedra.

-Gawayn

Anonymous said...

You confound God as Charity, with a work of charity, and omit the consideration of the virtue of charity, which is an infused virtue, and a gift.

Actually, I didn't, since the infused (created) habitas of charity, which is to say, the foundation of the Christian life, is formed by the works of charity which are individually inspired by God's Spirit--whatever you do for the least of these, etc.

So I think you theology of grace is a little weak. But, since neither of us are on the bilateral commission, neither of our opinions matter! Anyone who disagrees with their results will be free to walk, and the rest will be united in the Church.

Ad Orientem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ad Orientem said...

Gawayn,
Of course St. Leo III did not make an ex cathedra declaration. He did not have or claim such authority. This is reflected in the fact that despite his personal theologuman in favor of the filioque he respected the limits of his office. +Leo was a bishop, one of many although first in honor. He did not perceive any authority to arbitrarily add to the symbol of faith without the consent of the whole church. The issue was later discussed at the eighth council which affirmed the creed as written and condemned arbitrary additions to it. Rome’s later addition to the creed violates the canons of that council and is at the least illicit. No less a figure than the current Pope has publicly acknowledged that the means by which the filioque was entered into the Western version of the creed were improper (although like +Leo he has not rejected its theological validity).

It is also interesting to note that most Roman Catholic theologians today have adopted a highly contorted (dare I say “byzantine?”) explanation which attempts to frame the Western understanding of the filioque in terms acceptable to Orthodoxy and preserving the monarchy of the Father. I am greatly simplifying this for the sake of brevity, but my understanding is that despite the professed double procession found in the literal meaning of the word which subverts the aforementioned monarchy, the current RC understanding is that the filioque really means the Spirit proceeds FROM the Father and THROUGH the Son. If you want a more detailed and probably better explanation of this I refer you to the excellent blog of Dr. Michael Liccione (a co-religionist of yours and extremely able apologist).

http://mliccione.blogspot.com/

He is a champion of Doctrinal Development and has posted extensively on what he believes is the erroneous understanding of the filioque. Of course even if he is correct, the problem remains that 99% of Roman Catholics do not grasp the current Roman Catholic interpretation of filioque and still adhere to the double procession which anyone who reads either Latin or English would reasonably conclude from the use of that term.

ICXC NIKA
John

Anonymous said...

Anonymous writes:

"Actually, I didn't, since the infused (created) habitas of charity, which is to say, the foundation of the Christian life, is formed by the works of charity which are individually inspired by God's Spirit--whatever you do for the least of these, etc."

Ho ho ho, here you go spinning a novel theology. The infused virtue of charity is not formed by works of charity, it is created by the Holy Spirit in the soul directly, without the intermediary formal causality of any creature. Once again you confound the works with the working with the infused virtue.


"So I think you theology of grace is a little weak. But, since neither of us are on the bilateral commission, neither of our opinions matter! Anyone who disagrees with their results will be free to walk, and the rest will be united in the Church."

Your really do not understand the nature of authority in the Church, as the bilateral commission HAS NO DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER EITHER FROM CHRIST OR FROM THE ROMAN PONTIFF OR OVER ANYONE. It is merely a diplomatically accorded exchange of theologian views by the theologians who participate. To say it has any more status than that would be more absurd than the "Orthodoxès" rejection of Christ's words.

Dear John, who signs his name Christ conqueres, but himself rebells against Christ:

No where in the 8th Council does it forbid forever additions to the creed or forbid any future council from making additions, or even the pope for that matter. And if the 8th Council is ecumenical, then you are a heretic and schismatic for rejecting all the other 20+ ecumenical councils. So you are inconsistent and condemn yourself. Whereas the Second Council of Lyon and the Council of Pisa approved the words filoque, which have nothing to do with a denial of the Father as the origin without origin in the Trinity, but everything to do about the confession of the equality of the Son with the Father, as the Eternal and Perfect Image of the Father.

Note, the Orthodox deny this perfect equality, because they confess an Image unable to spirate the livegiving Spirit. Yet, as I said before, even Eastern Saints confessed this prior to 1054.

They shall condemn your schismatical churches, and your twisting of words and facts, and absurd theses and false accusations against the Churches of the Truth, united with Rome.

Read one of the fathers of the Second Council of Lyon, St. Bonaventure, on what is meant by the Filioque, before you attempt to so proudly teach us Romans what it means. Once again, charity does not impose your meanings upon others, it lets others speak in their own terms.

Show that you at least do the works of charity, and stop playing these games.