Thursday, July 18, 2024

The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father

These are my personal conclusions.  I have no authority to teach, but I do have an obligation to correct my former errors, defend the Orthodox teaching, and warn readers that Rome apostatized in the 11th century by adding to the Creed.

This is a critique of the book The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and from the Son (Richard Ibranyi, 2024). 

Ibranyi attempts to defend Rome’s addition of “Filioque” to the Creed, which, regarding the Trinity, means the Holy Spirit proceeds (has His existence) "from the Son", as well as from the Father.  The book's aim is to show the Church always believed in “Filioque”, and that it simply wasn’t stated in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed put forth by the Second Ecumenical Council.

Here is the heart of Ibranyi's definition concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit:

(Ibranyi, p. 2) Comprehensive Definition of the Dogmas on the Processions of the Holy Spirit

"The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally and simultaneously from the Father and from the Son. Hence the Holy Spirit has two eternal origins, the Father and the Son. But he has only one beginning because he proceeds eternally and simultaneously from the Father and the Son...without the Father’s begetting of the Son, there would be no Holy Spirit to proceed from the Son. Hence it is through the Father’s begetting of the Son that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and thus proceeds from the Father and from the Son that the Holy’s Spirit has “one eternal birth, with two origins..."  

This concept is usually stated as 'the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Cause) and the Son (caused Cause) as one principle.  

Ibranyi appeals to "the ordinary magisterium's" interpretation of scripture, the consensus of the Church Fathers, and the “solemn magisterium” to uphold the Filioque addition to the Creed by the 11th century popes.  Appealing to papal supremacy; he concludes that anyone who does not accept this authority, or the Filioque, is a heretic.

I do not believe this book defends the teaching of the Church for the following reasons:

  1. The writings of the Fathers on the procession of the Holy Spirit were falsified in order to justify apostate Rome’s addition of Filioque to the Creed.
  2. Filioque, as defined by this book, is not the unanimous teaching of the Fathers.
  3. The addition of Filioque to the Creed constitutes a different Faith. 
  4. There is no solemn decree favoring the Filioque. 
  5. The Councils and Popes forbid any change, not only in the Faith, but also in the wording of the Creed.
  6. Councils are infallible.


1.  Falsified Writings
  • The Latin texts of the Fathers were falsified.
As my previous post shows, several early writings on the procession of the Holy Spirit were falsified in order to justify apostate Rome’s addition of Filioque to the Creed.  Zoernikav exposed dozens of forgeries back in the 17th century:  
“43 Filioque Forgeries”
So many documents were falsified by apostate Rome et al in order to justify the new Creed (imposed to assert secular power), that it renders the entire body of Latin translations dubious, in my opinion.  This is not to say that Filioque was never taught, but as St. Maximus the Confessor explains, it was not necessarily understood in the same way as apostate Rome.  (Ibranyi tries to discredit St. Maximus, which is addressed below.)  Theologically, there is a crucial difference between "from" and "of".  "The Spirit of the Son" does not mean the Son causes the Spirit.  If Filioque was the constant, universal teaching of the Fathers, there would have been no need to commit the sinful crime of forgery to defend it.  

I'll use St. Hilary of Poitiers as an example that shows writings have been tampered with.  First, here is Ibranyi's quote from St. Hilary:
(Ibranyi, p. 18) “The Holy Spirit has two principles (authors), from the Father and from the Son, and this is dogma:"  
St. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 33: “The Holy Spirit exists. Concerning the Holy Spirit, however, it is neither proper to remain silent nor necessary to speak: but we cannot be silent, for the sake of those who do not know. Yet it is not necessary to speak of him, who must be confessed with the Father and the Son as authors.” [20]
footnote [20]  St. Hillary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Bk. 2, Ch. 29:  “Concerning the Holy Spirit…,we are bound to confess him proceeding, as he does, from Father and Son, His Authors.”
Next, here is Zoernikav’s refutation:
On the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father Alone, Adam Zoernikav, 1682, Tractate 3 – Which treats the corruptions perpetrated by the Latins...  Corruption II:  Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, according to all the editions of his works that I have seen, says in Bk. 2 of On the Trinity: "It is not necessary to speak about the Holy Spirit, because one must confess him from the Father and the Son, his authors."  Here, surely, it would not be necessary to adduce manuscripts or other editions, in order to accuse these words of falsity, for the fact itself tells that they have been offered in bad faith.  Would, after all, so great a Father have taught that there were more authors than one, and therefore also two principles, two causes of the Holy Spirit?
This, surely, not even the Latins themselves will admit concerning so great a Father. For the entire catholic Church has always condemned with every anathema those who introduce two causes, two principles in divine things.  Indeed, that “author,” “cause,” and “principle” are the same in significance is acknowledged among all.  And hence the Latins allow that there are two who produce the Holy Spirit, but not two producers and authors.  And never, if Hilary had astrued two authors or two causes and principles of the Holy Spirit, would he have been worthy to have been numbered by the holy fifth ecumenical Synod in its third conference... among those Fathers whom that holy Synod bears witness that it followed and from whom it took all the things which they expounded concerning the correct faith and the  condemnation of heretics.
Furthermore, Hilary himself knows only one author of the Holy Spirit elsewhere in the same Bk. 2 of On the Trinity, according to all the editions of his works.  For his words run thus: (The heretics) do not know the Holy Spirit, since they are ignorant both of his benefit and his author.  [De trinitate 2.4 (CCSL 62: 40), Spiritum sanctum nesciendo, dum et usum et auctorem eius ignorant!]  Here he knows only one author of the Holy Spirit.  How, therefore, could the number of producers of the Holy Spirit have enlarged, a few words later, for Hilary?  Hence it is, therefore, clear of its own accord that those words of Hilary were corrupted, in fact by those of the Latins who openly confessed, by the vilest heresy and damnable error, that they established two authors of the Holy Spirit; inasmuch as they believed that he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Here is Zoernikav’s quote in greater context:
St. Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate, Bk II, # 4 (p. 54):
https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecurs197unkngoog/page/n28/mode/2up?view=theater

4. ...Jam vero quid mirum, ut de Spiritu sancto diversa sentiant, qui in largitore ejus creando, et demutando, et abolendo tam temerarli sint auctores?  atque ita dissolvant perfecti hujus sacramenti veritatem, dum substantias diversitatum in rebus tam communibus moliuntur: Patrem negando, dum Filio quod est filius adimunt; Spiritum sanctum negando [nesciendo], dum et usum et auctorem ejus ignorant.  
4. ...What wonder, then, that they should feel differently about the Holy Spirit, who are the authors of such recklessness in creating, and demolishing, and abolishing his benefactor? and in this way they dissolve the truth of the perfect sacrament, while they plan the substance of diversities in things so common:  denying the Father, while they take away from the Son what is a son; denying [not knowing] the Holy Spirit, while they are ignorant of His use and His author.

2. Not the Unanimous Teaching
  • St. Maximus the Confessor is exonerated.
  • Doctors of the Church, including the president of the Second Ecumenical Council, rejected Filioque.  
Ibranyi attempts to show Filioque was universally taught by the Church Fathers, claiming the only exceptions were St. John of Damascus, who Ibranyi dismisses as a heretic, and St. Maximus the Confessor, who he also discredits and condemns as a heretic:  
(Ibranyi, p. 22) “The Heretic Maximus the Confessor’s Letter to Marinus”, p. 22:  Whatever the case may be, the testimony of this one man cannot overthrow the testimony of the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers (the ordinary magisterium) and infallible papal decrees (solemn magisterium).
He makes much of his opinion that St. Maximus was a heretic for believing in universal salvation.  But he was not condemned by the Church.  Since St. Maximus was a Latin author residing in Rome, I trust the popes and bishops were not unaware of his writings; they were not as ignorant as Ibranyi presumes.  With a little more study, we see that St. Maximus did not believe in universal salvation:
On Universalism and St. Maximus the Confessor, Brian E. Daley, S.J., 2016
When [Maximus] speaks of the condition of the sinner after Christ’s Judgment, on the other hand, [he] stresses in a number of places that change, repentance and forgiveness will then no longer be possible. In contrast to this present life, the coming age is one:  “in which one may not expect any forgiveness of sins, but only the recompense of a fitting reward for the way one has lived, appropriate for each person” (Amb. Io. 53: PG91, 1376B10-13. Cf. Ep.1: PG 91, 381 D11-384A7).  [And:]  "...To put it concisely, (they move) in accordance with their possession or their lack of the power they have naturally, to share in Him who exists completely imparticipable in nature, and who simply offers Himself in his totality, by grace, to all – worthy and unworthy – in his unlimited goodness, and who endows each with the permanence of eternal being, corresponding to the way that each disposes himself and is.  And for those who share or do not share, proportionately, in Him who in the truest sense is and is well and is forever, there is an intensification and increase of punishment [after the Last Judgment] for those who cannot share, and of enjoyment for those who can share" (Amb. 10.42:PG 91, 1329 A1-B7).
St. Maximus' defense of Rome's understanding of Filioque shouldn't be dismissed, however, even by Ibranyi.  In his book, Ibranyi uses many quotes from those he holds as heretics, in order to justify his claim that Filioque was unanimously taught.  Though he purports to be unsure of the meaning of the text, St. Maximus' letter is plain.  Filioque was not understood by pre-apostate Rome to represent causation:
(Ibranyi, p. 23) St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, 650: “Adducing the testimony of the Roman Fathers and of Cyril of Alexandria (from his exposition on the Gospel of St. John), the Romans do not affirm that the son is the cause of the Spirit, for they know that the cause of the Son and of the Spirit is the Father of one by birth, and of the other by procession; but only show that the Spirit is sent through the Son, and thereby express the affinity and the indifference of their essence. For the Holy Spirit, just as he belongs to the nature of God the Father according to his essence so he also belongs to the nature of the Son according to his essence, since he proceeds inexpressibly from the Father through his begotten Son.’”
In spite of making use of "heretics" when convenient, Ibranyi fails to disclose the teachings of the very Fathers who formulated the Creed at the Second Ecumenical Council!  St. Meletus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and especially St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus).  Known for his Trinitarian theology, and his success in refuting Arianism, he was asked by the Emperor to preside over the Council. 

St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa, who is misquoted by Ibranyi on p. 7, with a text not found in his Third Homily:
...are well-known for having the same teaching on the Trinity and procession of the Holy Spirit.  St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Basil the Great are Doctors of the Church, as well.  Why then, has Ibranyi not included them in the "unanimous teaching of the Fathers"?  It is because their teaching contradicts his claim.
St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 34:  "Everything the Father has belongs to the Son with the exception of causality." 

3. Filioque is a Different Faith
  • St. Gregory the Theologian's theology was foundational at the Second Council; the exclusion of Filioque is intentional.
  • St. Gregory's theology was universally known and accepted. 
  • Filioque is not taught in the Scriptures. 
  • Filioque is not the Tradition of the Church. 
St. Gregory the Theologian and the Second Ecumenical Council

This short historical summary is gleaned from various articles on Orthowiki and other sites:

Since the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicaea had not been explicit regarding the Holy Spirit, the Macedonians came to deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit...By 379, when St. Gregory the Theologian came to Constantinople, the Arians had taken all the churches. He was forced to serve in a house chapel dedicated to St. Anastasia the Martyr.  From there he began to preach his famous five sermons on the Trinity, called the Triadica. When he left Constantinople two years later, the Arians did not have one church left to them in the city...He is remembered as the Trinitarian Theologian.  In what was to become the Second Ecumenical Council, Emperor Theodosius, upon the death of St. Meletius, asked St. Gregory to take over the presidency.  It was St. Gregory who helped form the wording of the Creed, with the help of St. Gregory of Nyssa, according to St. Nicephorus' Ecclesiastical History.  Toward the Council's end, his enemies arrived, and (falsely) accused him of changing Sees contrary to the canons. The Saint decided to resign his office for the sake of peace in the Church.  Even so, St. Gregory was asked to return to the Council to deliver a parting oration (42).  

So, regarding the wording of the Creed, the primary influential Father was St. Gregory the Theologian!  His was the theology that was universally accepted through the Council, and thus held as infallible.  Moreover, his writings were translated into Latin by Rufinus around the year 400.  So there can be not doubt that Rome was aware of his well-known Orations, at least by that time.  But, it is more likely that the earliest popes read Greek, and were already familiar with St. Gregory's theology.  Here are some excerpts:
St. Gregory the Theologian, Theological Orations 
Oration 3, On the Son I (p. 47) 
2 ...The Father begets and produces – to be sure, without passion, and without reference to time, and not in a physical manner. The Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit is produced -- I do not know how to express this in terms which exclude all reference to things that can be seen... Therefore let us abide within our own bounds and speak of “the one who is unbegotten,” “the one who is begotten,” and “the one who proceeds from the Father,” as God the Word says [John 15:26]. 
Oration 5, On the Holy Spirit, #7-9 (p. 101-104)   
7. ...Either [the Holy Spirit] is altogether Unbegotten, you say, or else He is Begotten. If He is Unbegotten, there are two who are without origin. If he is Begotten, you must make a further subdivision: He comes either from the Father or from the Son. If He comes from the Father, there are two Sons – and they are Brothers! ...if He comes from the Son, we catch a glimpse of God the Grandson! Could anything be more absurd?  Such is the word-play of those who are skilled in doing evil...For my part, if I saw the necessity of the distinction, I should have acknowledged the facts without fear of the names. For the Son is “Son” according to an exalted kind of relation, since there is no other way in which we can state that He is from God and of one being [homoousion]. It does not follow from this, that we should consider it necessary to apply, in a metaphorical sense, the terms of this lower world, especially those which have to do with our familial relationships, to the divinity...  
8. But since we do not admit your first distinction, which declares that there is no intermediary between the Begotten and the Unbegotten, poof! along with your famous distinction, away go your Brothers and your Grandsons, in the same way as an intricate chain falls apart when the first link is broken, so are your fantasies broken, the whole lot of them, and disappear from theology.  For, tell me, what position in your distinction will you assign to that which proceeds? It appears as an intermediate term, and it is introduced by a better theologian than you – our Saviour Himself. Or perhaps to suit your Third Testament you have removed these words from your Gospels: The Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father? [John 15:26]  Inasmuch as the Spirit proceeds from that Source, He is no creature; inasmuch as He is not Begotten, He is not Son; and inasmuch as He is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten, He is God. Thus does He escape the webs of your syllogisms and manifest Himself as God, stronger than your distinctions. What then is this “procession”?  You tell me what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the natural history of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession. Then both of us will be raving mad for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things? – we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of eternity, much less enter into the depths of God and provide an account of that nature which is so unspeakable and so utterly above our reason?
9. “What does the Spirit lack,” say they, “which prevents His being a Son? For if there were not something lacking, He would be a Son, wouldn’t He?” We assert that there is nothing lacking, for God does not “lack” anything. But the difference of way in which Each is manifested – if I may so express myself – or rather, the difference of their mutual relations to each other, has caused the difference of their names. For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents His being Father – Sonship, after all, is not a deficiency – and yet He is not Father. Otherwise, there is some deficiency in the Father, with respect to His not being Son, for the Father is not Son. And yet these terms do not either a deficiency or a subordination with respect to the divine essence. On the contrary, the expressions “being Unbegotten” or “being Begotten” or “Proceeding” have given the name of Father to the first, the name of Son to the second, and the name of Holy Spirit to the third, of whom we are speaking here, of the Holy Ghost. Thus is the distinction of the Three hypostases may be preserved in the one nature and one dignity of the divinity. For neither is the Son the Father, for there is only one Father, but the Son is what the Father is. Nor is the Spirit the Son because He comes from God, for there is only one Son, the Only-begotten; but the Spirit is what the Son is. The Three are One with respect to the divinity, and the One is Three with respect to the properties....

Scripture

Regarding the Holy Spirit, the only place the word "proceeds" is found in the scriptures is:

John 15:26  But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. 

A good example that the west, having adopted a new theology, rejects any notion of a difference between causation (from) and sending (of; through), is found in the Douay-Rheims Bible Challoner footnote:

Douay-Rheims Bible Online, John 15:26, Footnote
https://drbo.org/chapter/50015.htm 
[26] "Whom I will send": This proves, against the modern Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, as well as from the Father: otherwise he could not be sent by the Son.

This proves nothing but the blind arrogance of the apostate west.  Let's read St. Gregory's teaching again:

St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 5

8  ...For, tell me, what position in your distinction will you assign to that which proceeds? It appears as an intermediate term, and it is introduced by a better theologian than you – our Saviour Himself. Or perhaps to suit your Third Testament you have removed these words from your Gospels: The Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father? Inasmuch as the Spirit proceeds from that Source, He is no creature; inasmuch as He is not Begotten, He is not Son; and inasmuch as He is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten, He is God.

St. Gregory is teaching that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father to the Son, and through the Son.  The Father does not give His Personal characteristic of Causation or "Source", to the Son.

St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 34:  "Everything the Father has belongs to the Son with the exception of causality." 

Tradition

The commonly held tradition of the Church - what has always been understood and practiced - is clearly present in its symbols.  The first triangle below is traditional, the second, presented in Ibranyi's book, is heretical.  It makes Father and Son both Causes of the Spirit. Two Persons then share a quality the Third does not, which is heretical.  The true catholic teaching is actually the "Orthodox" triangle. The Father is Cause; He begets the Son and is the Source of the Holy Spirit; and the Spirit eternally proceeds to, and through, the Son:

The up-side down theology was not depicted until after Rome's apostasy:

Knight's Bouche Shield, 12th c;  Jerónimo Cósida (1570), The Holy Trinity

The traditionally known and used representations of the Trinity are:

"5 Ancient Symbols of the Trinity", Raphael Benedict, 2020


4. No Solemn Filioque Decree
  • Ruling of Pope St. Damasus
  • Athanasian Creed
  • Council of Ephesus
In his book, Ibranyi presents three sources of "solemn magisterial" teaching:  a decree of Pope St. Damasus, 382; the Athanasian Creed; and a phrase from the Council of Ephesus, 351.

Decree of Damasus
(Ibranyi, pp. 15-16):  "Just because the dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is not mentioned in this creed does not mean the Holy Spirit doe not also proceed from the Son. In fact, shortly after this creed some were denying the dogma that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. Hence about one year later in 382, Pope St. Damasus I infallibly defined that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son in the Council of Rome:
Pope St. Damasus, Council of Rome, 382: “For the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of the Father or not only the Spirit of the Son, but the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. For it is written: If anyone love the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him (1 Jn. 2:15). Likewise it is written: Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Rom. 8:9). When the Father and the Son are mentioned in this way, the Holy Spirit is understood, of whom the Son himself says in the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father (Jn. 15:26), and he shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you. (Jn. 16:14)” (D. 83)

"After this decree, some added to the Nicene Creed the dogma that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son:

Denzinger, Footnote on above quote: “The addition ‘and the Son’ [to the Nicene Creed] was first made in Spain. From here this custom passed over into Gaul, then into Germany, as is clear from the Gallican liturgy of Moneius at the beginning of the fifth century, from the Synod of the Forum Julii 791, of Frankfurt 794, of Aquisgranum (Aachen), 809.”  
"And it eventually found its way into the creed that is said during the Holy Mass, which some incorrectly call the Nicene Creed or the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, but it actually is an Amended Nicene-Constantinople Creed."
If you read the words of Pope St. Damasus again, you'll notice that he teaches the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son.  Then he says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.  He does not teach Filioque here, but at some point in this synodal decree, most likely within the "anathemas", Filioque was included.

Ibranyi quotes Denzinger # 83 as the source for Pope St. Damasus' decree, using the numbering for the 1950's edition of Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma.  But the original Denzinger book purposely excludes this papal teaching because, as he explains, soon after the pope's death, the Synodal decree was rescinded in order to end the Antiochene (Meletian) Schism:
Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, Denzinger, 1856
(p. 7)  VI. Anathemas of Damasus pp. in the fourth Roman synod of 398 or 399, sent to oppose the Lacedonians, the Apollonarists and all the heretics, and to reconcile the Antiochene schism:  ...After the Council of Nicaea, [a synod] assembled in the city of Rome, the Catholic bishops added the Sanctus Spirit. And because afterwards this error arose, so that some with blasphemous lips dared to say that the Holy Spirit was made by the Son [the decree was amended]:  Anathemas of Damasus. #16. If anyone does not say that the Holy Spirit is truly and properly from the Father, just as the Son is from the divine substance and the true God, Anathema Sunt.
So, soon after the death of Pope St. Damasus (305-386), his Anathemas were amended and sent east to resolve the Meletian Schism.  And with the end of this schism, the Council of Constantinople was accepted as ecumenical by Pope Siricius.  (In doing so, Rome tacitly admits the Holy Spirit works infallibly within Councils, that are in schism with Rome, without the direct participation of the pope.)  Patriarch Meletius of Antioch was also accepted as a Saint in the west, due to his suffering under the Arians.

The 382 Synod under Pope Damasus was a local Synod, and as such, was not infallible.  If it had been, its decrees would not have changed.  Pope St. Damasus (305-384) never promulgated a universal decree.  There are no infallible universal papal decrees in the first millennium outside of what is accepted at Ecumenical Councils.  Not even Vatican I dared to assert that non-universal papal teachings are infallible!  History proves otherwise.

Athanasian Creed

On page 7, The Athanasian Creed is presented as another solemn magisterial teaching, having been accepted by popes and the Church.  But the Athanasian Creed is another forgery.  It uses the prestige of St. Athanasius to justify the Augustinian "experimental" concept of Absolute Divine Simplicity, and the Filioque addition in the west.

Regarding the Athanasian Creed, Denzinger states:
Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, Denzinger, 1856
Athanasian Creed (p. 41):  This profession is indeed not the work of Athanasius...Mention of this symbol does not occur before the 7th century. or at the most 6th; if we look at the Eutychian heresy, it seems to have been written at the end of the fifth century. The Latin author was indeed an uncertain writer...

The 19th century Protestant historian Phillip Schaff gives more detailed information:

Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 1, Schaff
The Athanasian Creed is also called Symbolum Quicunque, from the first word, 'Quicunque vult salvus esse.'

I. Its origin is involved in obscurity...It furnishes one of the most remarkable examples of the extraordinary influence which works of unknown or doubtful authorship have exerted. Since the ninth century it has been ascribed to Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the chief defender of the divinity of Christ and the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (d. 373). The great name of 'the father of orthodoxy' secured for it an almost œcumenical authority, notwithstanding the solemn prohibition of the third and fourth œcumenical Councils to compose or publish any other creed than the Nicene.

Since the middle of the seventeenth century the Athanasian authorship has been abandoned by learned Catholics as well as Protestants. The evidence against it is conclusive. The Symbol is nowhere found in the genuine writings of Athanasius or his contemporaries and eulogists. The General Synods of Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) make no allusion to it whatever. It seems to presuppose the doctrinal controversies of the fifth century concerning the constitution of Christ's person; at least it teaches substantially the Chalcedonian Christology. And, lastly, it makes its first appearance in the Latin Churches of Gaul, North Africa, and Spain: while the Greeks did not know it till the eleventh century, and afterwards rejected or modified it on account of the Occidental clause on the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son...

The pseudo-Athanasian Creed originated in the Latin Church from the school of St. Augustine, probably in Gaul or North Africa. It borrows a number of passages from Augustine and other Latin fathers. It appears first in its full form towards the close of the eighth or the beginning of the ninth century. Its structure and the repetition of the damnatory clause in the middle and at the close indicate that it consists of two distinct parts, which may have been composed by two authors, and afterwards welded together by a third hand. The first part, containing the Augustinian doctrine of the Trinity, is fuller and more metaphysical. The second part, containing a summary of the Chalcedonian Christology, has been found separately, as a fragment of a sermon on the Incarnation, at Treves, in a MS. from the middle of the eighth century. The fact that Athanasius spent some time in exile at Treves may possibly have given rise to the tradition that the great champion of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity composed the whole.

II. Character and Contents.  The Symbolum Quicunque is a remarkably clear and precise summary of the doctrinal decisions of the first four œcumenical Councils (from A.D. 325 to A.D. 451), and the Augustinian speculations on the Trinity and the Incarnation. Its brief sentences are artistically arranged and rhythmically expressed. It is a musical creed or dogmatic psalm...its harmony is disturbed by a threefold anathema.  It consists of two parts:

The first part (ver. 3–28) sets forth the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity, not in the less definite Athanasian or Nicæno-Constantinopolitan, but in its strictest Augustinian form, to the exclusion of every kind of subordination of essence...

The second part (ver. 29–44) contains a succinct statement of the orthodox doctrine concerning the person of Christ, as settled by the general Councils of Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451...

III. The Damnatory Clauses.  The Athanasian Creed, in strong contrast with the uncontroversial and peaceful tone of the Apostles' Creed, begins and ends with the solemn declaration that the catholic faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation herein set forth is the indispensable condition of salvation, and that those who reject it will be lost forever...

IV. Introduction and Use.  The Athanasian Creed acquired great authority in the Latin Church, and during the Middle Ages it was almost daily used in the morning devotions...In the Greek Church it never obtained general currency or formal ecclesiastical sanction, and is only used for private devotion, with the omission of the clause on the double procession of the Spirit.

Zoernikav exposes an additional falsified text in the writings of St. Athanasius:
On the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father Alone, Zoernikav, 1682, Tractate 3, Corruption XXIV:  How the Latins were accustomed to corrupt the writings of the Fathers is clear from the diversity of readings of that passage in [St. Athanasius'] Bk. 8 of On the United Deity of the Trinity.  I believe (ego credo) the Son in the Father, etc. — The spokesmen sent from the Synod of Aachen, 809, in the pamphlet On the procession of the Holy Spirit that they offered to Leo III, and Damian in the Oration on the catholic faith, Ch. 10 (in vol. 3 of his works, p. 9) and the opuscule On the procession of the Holy Spirit (vol. 3 of his works, p. 288), read the passage thus: I believe (credo) the Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son, also the Spirit, the Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father, that he is of both the Son and the Father; because he proceeds from the Son also, just as it is written in the Gospel, because he gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles through his insufflation, saying, Receive the Holy Spirit. But according to the editions of Athanasius’s works, the passage reads thus: I believe (ego credo) the Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son, also the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, that he is also of the Father, because he also proceeds from the Son, just as it is also written in the Gospel.

The diversity of readings is indeed clear to anyone. But what does it mean to say, That the Spirit is also of the Father, because he also proceeds from the Son? Of its own accord, at any rate, it is clear here, that though the words of the author ran, 'Because he proceeds from the Father, and that he is of the Son and of the Father', as the quoted Spokesmen and Peter Damian read it, the later Latins turned the word, “of the Son,” into the word, “from the Son,” so that it now reads in the published works of Athanasius, 'Who proceeds from the Father and the Son, that he is also of the Father'. And those words are then added according to each reading...
The only things the Athanasian Creed confirms are that Augustinian errors (not actually held by St. Augustine!) became widespread in the west, largely due to the inability of popes to understand Greek, and that the popes as private teachers are fallible. 

In his actual writings, St. Athanasius teaches the Holy Spirit comes to us [creation] from the Father through the Son:
The Letters of Saint Athanasius, Concerning the Holy Spirit: (p. 188)  “...the Holy Spirit is always Holy Spirit, whom we have believed to be of God and to be given [to us] from the Father through the Son.”
This does not signify causation, but that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son.  A real creed written by St. Athanasius was approved by St. Gregory the Theologian in his Oration 21, proving that both Saints held the same theology regarding the Holy Spirit:
St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 21
1. In praising Athanasius, I shall be praising virtue... 
33.  ...Then another king arose, not shameless in countenance like the former...In order to lay the best of foundations for his empire, and begin, as is right, by an act of justice, he recalled from exile all the Bishops, but in the first place him who stood first in virtue and had conspicuously championed the cause of piety. Further, he inquired into the truth of our faith which had been torn asunder, confused, and parceled out into various opinions and portions by many...Here too was shown in a very high degree the simple-mindedness of Athanasius, and the steadfastness of his faith in Christ. For, when all the rest who sympathized with us were divided into three parties, and many were faltering in their conception of the Son, and still more in that of the Holy Ghost...and few indeed were sound upon both points, he was the first and only one, or with the concurrence of but a few, to venture to confess in writing, with entire clearness and distinctness, the Unity of Godhead and Essence of the Three Persons, and thus to attain in later days, under the influence of inspiration, to the same faith in regard to the Holy Ghost, as had been bestowed at an earlier time on most of the Fathers in regard to the Son. This confession, a truly royal and magnificent gift, he presented to the Emperor, opposing to the unwritten innovation, a written account the orthodox faith, so that an emperor might be overcome by an emperor, reason by reason, treatise by treatise.
Council of Ephesus

For his third "solemn dogma" proof text, Ibranyi quotes St. Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius, promulgated at the Third Ecumenical Council:  
(Ibranyi, p. 7) Council of Ephesus, St Cyril of Jerusalem’s Third Letter to Nestorius, 4th Century:  “For even though the Spirit exists in his own person, …as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is he not therefore alien from him; for he is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the truth, and he proceedeth from him, just as from God the Father.”
This is a faulty translation into Latin, and then the same error into English.  The highlighted word should be precedes, not proceeds (proceedeth).  So it doesn't refer to the Holy Spirit's origin, but that He is sent forth ahead of the Son.  The correct wording, of the Greek, is found here:
The three epistles of S. Cyril, Pusey, 1872, "St. Cyril's Third Letter to Nestorius"
...εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἔστιν ἐν ὑποστασει τὸ Πνεῦμα ἰδικῇ, ὶ δὴ καὶ νοεῖται καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ, καθὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστι καὶ οὐχ Yios ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ἐστιν οὐκ ἀλλότριον αὐτοῦ’ πνεῦμα yap ἀληθείας ὠνομασται, καὶ ἔστε Χριστὸς ἡ ἀλήθεια:  καὶ προχειται παρ αυτου, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός.
Correct Latin Translation:
...Si enim spiritus sui est, non est intelligendus in se, sicut Spiritus est et non Iesus, sed non est alius ab illo, dictus est spiritus veritatis, et Christus est veritas. et praecedit, quia negligit et a Deo et patre.
English Translation (from a variety of translations, edited by H. R. Percival)

...For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of him by himself, as he is the Spirit and not the Son; but he is not different from him; for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the Truth, and he is sent by him, just as, moreover, he is from God and the Father. 

And here is the passage within greater context, showing St. Cyril's intention is to show how the Holy Spirit is sent forth to proclaim the truth of the Son's divinity: 

Elpenor, Home of the Greek Word, Council of Ephesus, Percival ed.
https://www.elpenor.org/ecumenical-councils/third.asp?pg=17
St Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius  "For when as God He speaks about himself: "He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father," and "I and My Father are one," we consider His ineffable divine nature according to which He is One with His Father through the identity of essence--"The image and impress and brightness of His glory." But when not scorning the measure of His humanity, He said to the Jews: "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth." Again no less than before we recognize that He is the Word of God from His identity and likeness to the Father and from the circumstances of His humanity...But when He spoke about the Spirit, He said: "He shall glorify me." If we think rightly, we do not say that the One Christ and Son as needing glory from another received glory from the Holy Spirit; for neither greater than He nor above Him is His Spirit, but because He used the Holy Spirit to show forth His own divinity in His mighty works, therefore He is said to have been glorified by Him just as if any one of us should say concerning his inherent strength for example, or his knowledge of anything, "They glorified me." For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of Him by Himself, as He is the Spirit and not the Son; but He is not different from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the Truth, and He is sent by Him, just as, moreover, He is from God and the Father.  When then the Spirit worked miracles through the hands of the holy apostles after the Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven, He glorified Him. For it is believed that He who works through His own Spirit is God according to nature. Therefore He said: "He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." But we do not say this as if the Spirit is wise and powerful through some sharing with another; for He is all perfect and in need of no good thing...
If St. Cyril had taught a dual procession of the Holy Spirit, the Eastern Orthodox would certainly have known about it, and it would have produced a great controversy.

Therefore, Ibranyi's triple claim to solemn magisterial teaching: Pope St. Damasus' decree, the Athanasian Creed, and the Letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius, has fallen off the theological grid.



5.  Any Addition to the Creed is Forbidden
  • Ecumenical Councils forbid any change in the wording of the Creed.
  • Popes Agatho, Leo III and Leo IV specifically forbade any change.
  • The Eighth Ecumenical Council of 880 re-confirmed the original Creed. 

Ibranyi tries to show that a change in the wording of the Creed is allowed, as long as its meaning remains the same:

(Ibranyi, p. 15) Universal creeds (that is creeds imposed upon all Catholics by a pope) are infallible. A creed cannot possibly cover all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Dogmas are added to creeds when they are being denied or doubted by many. Additions to creeds do not undermine what is already contained in other creeds and thus do not contradict dogmas that have been defined in other universal creeds. 

(Ibranyi, p. 17) On the Council of Ephesus:  ...beware of the heretics who mistranslate the Council of Ephesus...following decree in Session 6. They substitute the word “creed” for the word “faith.”

...The false translation:

English: “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 false translation does not make sense because the Nicene Creed it refers to would be invalid because it produced another creed other than the Apostles’ Creed that came before it. And it would disallow any future creeds. If the word were “creed,” then it would have to be interpreted as meaning faith. Hence no one can produce another creed that would contradict the faith contained in the Nicene Creed.

The first error:  Creeds are universal and infallible when imposed by a pope.  The Creed (there is only one) is universal and infallible because it is confirmed by a universal Council, not because a pope approved by himself. 

The second error:  Additions to creeds do not undermine what is already contained in other creeds.  Subsequent Councils did forbid and anathematize any who would alter the Faith or the Symbol (exact wording) of the Creed.  It was decided that Councils address particular heresies, and the Creed of the first two Councils must remain as it is, since it is complete and perfect, because inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The third error:  Heretics mistranslate the Council of Ephesus.  It is true that the correct translation is "faith", rather than "creed".  But it has already been shown that adding Filioque changes the faith.  And it will be shown below that the intention of the Third Council was made more explicit at the Fourth, Sixth and Eighth Councils: that no additions or subtractions are to be made to the wording of the Creed, precisely to preserve its meaning.  Yes, do beware of those heretics who misinterpret the Council of Ephesus!

Ecumenical Councils

The Fourth Council specifies more emphatically than the Third, that one may not change the Faith or the Symbol of the Creed.  And this is echoed by the Sixth Council.  The profession of the First and Second Councils are treated as one:

The Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon), Ses. 5, Definition of Faith:  [After the Creed of the First and Second Councils was read] "This wise and salutary formula of divine grace sufficed for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of religion; for it teaches the perfect [doctrine] concerning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and sets forth the Incarnation of the Lord to them that faithfully receive it...And on account of them that contend against the Holy Ghost, it confirms the doctrine afterwards delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who assembled in the imperial City; which doctrine they declared unto all men, not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors, but in order to explain through written documents their faith concerning the Holy Ghost against those who were seeking to destroy his sovereignty...  

These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith (heteran pistin), nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others. But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed (heteron symbolon) to as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, Ses. 18, Definition of Faith:  2...this our holy and Ecumenical Synod inspired of God has set its seal to the Creed which was put forth by the 318 Fathers, and again religiously confirmed by the 150, which also the other holy synods cordially received and ratified for the taking away of every soul-destroying heresy...

3 The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith...

7 These things, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized.

The Rudder, an Orthodox catalog and guide to Church canons, explains that St. Cyril of Alexandria, who presided over the Third Council, understood the very teaching he promulgated in union with the pope and all bishops:

The Rudder, Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus), Canon VII Footnote 1 (pp. 230-231):  The reason why the [Third] Council anathematized those who should undertake to compose another Creed (called in Greek "Symbol of Faith') is as follows: St Marcus of Ephesus in the fifth Act of the Council held in Florence says that heretics had composed more than thirty creeds against the doctrine of Coessentiality (or homoousianity).  One of them, recusant Nestorius took the opportune occasion to compose a creed of his own, and he was wont to hand it to the Greeks who were joining the Orthodox faith, and to the Jews and heretics who were doing likewise, as is explained in the present Canon.  So this Third Council, foreseeing the possibility that this liberty of writing creeds might result in the introduction of some innovation into Orthodoxy, decided to forbid the writing of creeds henceforth other than that of the First and that of hte Second Ecumenical Council together (for these two creeds are regarded as one) and their delivery to the public. But it did not forbid the writing of a different creed in general, or, more explicitly speaking, of one that is avowedly heretical.  For this had always been forbidden even before the Third Ecumenical Council was held...But as for the Orthodox Christians, and not this one or that one, but all of them in general, councils as well as everyone else in general, "to no one:" it says, "is this permissible." etc.  The phrase "no one", which. is one word as written in Greek, is a general and universal adjunct (or amplifier).  On this point see also the explanation of the Creed of this Council which divine Cyril [who presided over the Council] makes in his letter to Acacius.  But, with an eye to brevity, the Council did not explicitly say: "to no one let it be permissible to compose any other exposition of faith."  Yet, that which in its Canon it neglected to say totidem verbis, this its exarch, which is the same as saying the council itself, divine Cyril, I mean, in his letter to the Bishop of Melitine elucidates precisely, by saying: "The holy and Ecumenical Council assembled in the city of Ephesus provided that it was necessary to decree that the Church assembled in the city of Ephesus provided that it was necessary to decree that the Church of God must not approve the admission of any expostion of faith other and different than the one really and actually adopted by the thrice-blissful Fathers speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit."  This passage means that not only must no none compose any other [official] Creed than the one of the Nicene Council, but that it is not even at all permissible to offer the same Orthodox Creed itself differently worded or paraphrased, a point which was gallantly admitted and pointed out by divine Marcus of Ephesus and by Bessarion of Nicaea at the Council oheld in Florence...[Cyril] in writing to John of Antiocheia says verbatim:  "We will under no conditions and by no means tolerate the making of the least change by anyone in faith defined, or, in other words, the Symbol of Faith of our holy Fathers who convened in Nicaea, composed at various times.  In fact, we will not allow ourselves or others to change a word in the text of it, or even to transgress a single syllable of it."

The Rudder goes on to point out how the Sixth and Seventh Councils further emphasized that no change should be made, even to the Creed's wording:

(The Rudder, p. 231)  ...That is why Pope Agatho at the time of the Sixth Ec. C. in writing to the Emperors of Rome said: "One thing and a fine thing too we prayerfully wish and believe to have a right to expect, and that is that nothing shall be determined of all that has been canonically defined. nor any change made therein, nor any thing added thereto, but on the contrary, that these same (dogmas) shall be preserved intact both in word and in thought."  

The Seventh Ecumenical Council says: "'We preserve intact the decrees of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add (anything to) or remove (any thing) from the Church." And can it be said that they said one thing and did another in point of reality?  No...they actually confirmed their own words by what they did, and none of the Ecumenical Councils following the Third added anything to or removed anything from the common Creed, notwithstanding that they were hard pressed to do so...   But the Westerners argue captiously that  just as the Second Ec. C. did not sin by adding to the Creed of the First, so must it be admitted that neither did the Church of the Westerners sin by permitting this addition.  But it must be said that the likeness or similarity they allege to exist here is altogether imaginary.  For the Second Ec. C. , possessing the same official status as the First, added, as a matter of fact for the real and main reason that it had not been prohibited or debarred by any previous Council for anyone to add anything to the Creed...

...In addition, St. Gregory the Theologian's letter to Cledonius says: "We have never at any time preferred anything to the Nicene faith, but, on the contrary. we ourselves are of that faith, with the help of God, and we shall continue to be of that same faith, adding merely the article deficiently expressed therein concerning the Holy Spirit." 

...even Peter of Antioch, too, called the [Filioque] addition the worst of all evils. It was 0n account of that addition, moreover, which is wrongly chanted along with the Creed in the Church of the Romans and has to be corrected, that Sergius of Constantinople omitted Pope Sergius IV from the commemoration, and thereupon arose he great chasm between us and the Westerners.

The Popes

Before Pope John VIII reconfirmed, in 880, the original Creed according to all the previous Councils (which will be addressed below), The Rudder mentions, "the Third Council of Toledo, 589,  commanded the Creed to be read without the addition in Spain and France, in precisely the same manner as Emperor Justinian I ordered to be done in all the churches of the East in the year 545." 

When Charlemagne asked Pope Leo III (750-816), what he thought about the Filioque addition, not only did he denounce it, but he had the original Creed engraved on two silver plaques, one in Latin and one in Greek, to be displayed at St. Peter's tomb, placing an anathema upon anyone who would alter it.

According to Andrea Sterk's research, Pope Leo III had silver plaques made and posted prominently, in defense of the Creed:
"The Silver Shields of Pope Leo III: A Reassessment of the Evidence", Sterk, 1988
"The earliest and most reliable account of Pope Leo is recorded in his vita in the Liber Pontificalis...  'Leo III, "for love and protection of the orthodox faith" had two shields engraved with the text of the Creed one in Latin and one in Greek.  These shields, weighing ninety-four pounds, six ounces each, were placed on either side "over the entrance to the body" in the Basilica of St. Peter.'  In the next paragraph of the Liber Pontificalis, however, we find that this same Pope Leo had a single silver shield, weighing thirty-two pounds, engraved with the words of the Creed and likewise place "over the entrance to the body" in the Basilica of St. Paul."
Sterk further explains how Pope Leo IV upheld the stance:
(Sterk, 1988) "Photios adds more details in later writings.  He explains that because of the poverty of the Latin language which has led to imprecise formulations and subsequent heretical divergences from the faith, Pope Leo "commanded that the Romans also recite the Creed of Faith in Greek."  Moreover, Photius expressly states that the shields were inscribed with the Creed "in Greek letters and words," and that Leo had them read in the presence of the Roman people and exposed for all to see.  To further substantiate this account, he adds that many of those who at that time saw and read them are still among the living."  It also becomes clear that Photius was not referring to Leo III at all, but rather Leo IV [847-855], for he names Benedict III [855-858] as his successor...  This was not confusion, rather, Photios was referring to an entirely different historical moment: when Pope Leo IV had the already existing shields removed from their hidden location in the treasuries of the apostles Peter and Paul, and publicly read and displayed before the people of Rome... 
For information on what became of these plaques, see:  
"Three Shields"

The 880 Ecumenical Council

Most Catholics are unaware that Pope John VIII ratified an Ecumenical Council in 880, which forbade anyone "to add, or to subtract or to name a term. or to make an addition. or a subtraction. in this Creed".  They are also unaware that Pope John annulled the original Eighth Ecumenical Council of 870.   Session IV of the 870 council, accessed in the link below, shows that it wasn't doctrinal, but entirely about deposing Photios, who had been appointed Patriarch of Constantinople by Emperor Michael III.  (Reading it again, after being more aware of historical events, I see now that this 870 council is full of falsehoods.)  Pope John VIII rightly declared it null, giving the following reasons:  regarding depositions, he has the authority to loose what previous bishops have bound; the council did not uphold the ancient canons; and Pope Hadrian II had never actually ratified the council.  

Because much later, apostate Rome reversed the decree of Pope John VIII, and reverted to the annulled council, documents concerning the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 880 are difficult to find on-line.  An English translation can be purchased here:  

The Acts of the Eighth Œcumenical Council, Uncut Mountain Press, 2024
https://uncutmountainpress.com/shop/product/the-acts-of-the-eighth-oecumenical-council/
The heretical EWTN website includes an informative historical note in their introduction to the annulled 870 council.  It shows:  that the 880 Council was accepted by all until the "Gregorian Reforms"; that the 870 council did not include all the bishops of the Church, but only those who agreed to first sign a decree from Pope Hadrian II; and that the 870 council was completely annulled by Pope John VIII:

Historical Introduction:  This council, designated as the eighth ecumenical council by western canonists, is not found in any canonical collections of the Byzantines; its acts and canons are completely ignored by them. Modern scholars have shown that it was included in the [Roman] list of ecumenical councils only later, that is, after the eleventh century...

[In 869] Emperor Basil I and the patriarch Ignatius, after being restored to his see of Constantinople, asked Pope Nicholas I to call a council to decide about the bishops and priests who had been ordained by Photius. It was held at Constantinople after the arrival of legates from Pope Hadrian II, who had meanwhile succeeded Nicholas. These legates were Donatus, Stephen and Marinus and they presided at the council. It began in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia on 5 October 869. The tenth and last session was held on 28 February 870, when 27 canons were read out and approved by the council. All who were willing to sign the Liber satisfactionis, which had been sent by Pope Hadrian II, were admitted to the council. The account made by Anastasius contains the authentic list of those who signed the acts of the council. Emperor Basil I and his sons, Constantine and Leo, signed the acts after the patriarchs and in the same year they promulgated the council's decisions, after drawing up a decree for this purpose.

As regards the canonical authority of these deliberations, various facts regarding the council held in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia in November 879, so that Photius might be restored to the see of Constantinople, should be remembered. Peter, a Roman cardinal, presided at this council. It took account of a letter of Pope John VIII, which had been sent to the emperor and translated into Greek. This reads (chapter 4): "We declare that the synod held at Rome against the most holy patriarch Photius in the time of the most blessed pope Hadrian, as well as the holy synod of Constantinople attacking the same most holy Photius (i.e., in 869-870), are totally condemned and abrogated and must in no way be invoked or named as synods. Let this not happen". Some people have thought that this text had been altered by Photius; but in the so-called "unaltered" text of the letter this passage is replaced by dots (. . .), and the following passage reads: "For the see of blessed Peter, the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom, has the power to dissolve, after suitable appraisal, any bonds imposed by bishops. This is so because it is agreed that already many patriarchs, for example Athanasius .. .. after having been condemned by a synod, have been, after formal acquittal by the apostolic see, promptly reinstated". Ivo of Chartres explicitly affirms: "The synod of Constantinople which was held against Photius must not be recognized. John VIII wrote to the patriarch Photius (in 879): We make void that synod which was held against Photius at Constantinople and we have completely blotted it out for various reasons as well as for the fact that Pope Hadrian did not sign its acts". Ivo adds from the instructions that John VIII gave to his legates for the council in 879: "You will say that, as regards the synods which were held against Photius under Pope Hadrian at Rome or Constantinople, we annul them and wholly exclude them from the number of the holy synods". For these reasons there is no ground for thinking that the text was altered by Photius...

The 880 Council was truly Ecumenical, having been called by the Emperor, with all Patriarchates and Bishops represented, including papal legates.  It repaired the Photian Schism (it's a historical fact that Photios was reinstated and accepted as Patriarch), and was accepted by all as the genuine Eighth Ecumenical Council.  Two hundred years later, when Roman theologians wanted to use a canon from the annulled council to justify Antipope Gregory VII's Reforms (1050-1080), the switch was made.  The apostate church pretended "the Greeks" were lying about Pope John's ratification of the 880 Council, claiming he only agreed to recognize Photios!  Here is an extract from Pope John's subsequent letter to Photios, confirming that the Creed had not been changed in Rome, according to the decision of the 880 Council:

(p. 942)  CCL To Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (879-882)
[On the procession of the Holy Spirit]
Bishop John, servant of the servants of God, to the most reverend and Catholic brother of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, grant grace from above for saving works.
We are not ignorant of the fact that some of those who are with you, little interested in peace, speak ill of our Church and of ourselves, ignoring the truth. And things have progressed to such an extent that your fraternity is not far from feeling bad about us and about those who are subject to us. And indeed they have had an opportunity, as I myself would affirm, quite suitable for such a purpose, yet the truth itself, as it is, is in no way adulterated or tainted, so that proceeding with the speech he will make the matter clear, and God himself will confirm this to us by his testimony from above.  But they, like those who mix wine with water and become adulterated, use some falsehoods of their own making and inventing... 
I, on the other hand, directing my eyes rather to God, the author and the bountiful, who gave enmity even to death on the cross, I strive to stop the mouths of those men who delight in evil. And for this reason, even before your fraternity means anything to me, I have decided to make these things clear to you, so that, having been sufficiently educated about our affairs, you may give less ear to those who seek to contend and be offended; but rather reject and reject them; moreover, you must ensure that others do not put faith in their words.
Your fraternity also knows that when recently he who was sent by you came to us and consulted us about the holy symbol, how he found us to preserve it unshaken, as it was handed down to us from the beginning, and did not add or subtract anything, since we know rightly that those who they dare to do such things, a heavy condemnation awaits them. Therefore we signal your reverence again, that we satisfy you about this addition in the Symbol (from the Son, of course), that not only do we not say this, but also that those who dared to say this in their madness at the beginning, we condemn as transgressors of the divine word, as the theology of Christ the Lord overthrowers, and of the holy Fathers who delivered the holy Symbol to us in a synodical meeting, and we place them together with Judas, because they were not afraid to commit the same things that he did; not because they delivered the Lord's body to death, but because the faithful of God, who are his members, separated and divided each other by schism, and thus throwing them headlong into the eternal fire, and much more suffocating themselves, as the aforesaid Judas did, the unworthy disciple of Christ.
But we think that we know your reverence rightly, since you are wise and endowed with learning, that while we strive with all our strength, that the rest of our bishops may feel the same with us, it does not cause us any moderate trouble. And indeed, no one could do it to change so grave a matter so soon, although it had arisen in a short time, and had not been established for many years. And for this reason we have thought it fit for reason, that no one should be forcibly forced by you to release that addition, which he knows himself to have added by the Symbol, but rather to admonish such men with some meekness, and gradually call them back from blasphemy: Feed, says the chief of the apostles Peter, who you are the flock of God, providing for them not under compulsion, but spontaneously, nor as dominating the clergy, but in the form of the flock (1 Pet. 5). Those, therefore, who accuse us in such a way as if we felt such evils, do not accuse us justly.  It behooves your fraternity, therefore, not to suffer any offense against us, nor to be separated from the rest of the body of the Church, but rather to endure the trials of faith with us with prudence and long-suffering. and to recall others who have deviated from the truth to embrace it, so that for these you may receive the same reward with us. Farewell in the Lord, most reverently and Catholic brother.

Later, Rome even accused Photios of fabricating this letter:  

(Ibid. p. 942) Footnote: Photius...fabricated this letter under the name of Pope John VIII to himself...about the procession of the Holy Spirit...For in these times it was accepted in the Roman Church without any ambiguity that the practice of saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son...

But we know Filioque was not added to the Creed in Rome until 1009 (Sergius IV), so the accusation is false.   Pope John VIII's letter also shows, however, that while he approved the 880 decree, he did not want to impose it throughout the Latin west, under a pretext of the benevolent, fatherly meekness of I Peter 5.  My opinion is that Pope John himself believed Filioque was de fide, and it was only 'adding to the original Creed' that was the sin in his eyes, especially since it led to schism.  Also, I believe the pope didn't want to upset the secular powers in the west.  Hard-pressed, he was relying upon them to defeat and expel the Saracens.  These things together account for his reluctance.

I do not own  a copy of the English translation of the 880 Council, but The Rudder provides an excerpt of the decree approved by Pope John VIII:

(Rudder, p. 233)  ...Even John himself the Pope 0f Rome; who was also present by his legates Pearus, Paul and Eugcnius at the Council held during the reign of Emperor Macedon, in the year 879/880, accepted that Council's definition, which runs as follows: "'If anyone in defiance of this sacred Creed dare to set forth any other, or to add, or to subtract or to name a term. or to make an addition. or a subtraction. in this Creed which has been handed down to us. he is condemnable and an alien to even Christian confession. For to subtract, or to add, is to render the confession of ours imperfect which has been looking from above down upon The Holy Trinity to this very day."

The decree may or may not contain specific anathemas.  Either way, the previous Councils already contain anathemas against those who alter the Creed.  According to the wording above, though, those who would change the wording of the Creed are only liable to condemnation.  Was it this carefully selected wording that Pope John assented to, in order to justify his refusal to condemn those in the Frankish and Spanish regions who did not remove the Filioque?  The pope could not foresee that his laxity in  imposing this decree did cause anathemas to be incurred throughout the west, eventually leading to a thousand year East-West Schism, and the total apostasy of Rome!  Denial of the faith removes the protecting hand of God, fueling the power of the enemy, not over the body so much as over the soul.

Psalm 88:21-24  I have found David my servant: with my holy oil I have anointed him.  For my hand shall help him: and my arm shall strengthen him.  The enemy shall have no advantage over him: nor the son of iniquity have power to hurt him. And I will cut down his enemies before his face; and them that hate him I will put to flight. 


6. The Church's Infallibility

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox rejection of Filioque stemming from its denial of papal infallibility, Ibranyi writes:
(Ibranyi, p. 22) "But the most damning thing about the Eastern Un-Orthodox Schismatics is they have no way to know the truth for certain because they deny the dogma that God’s Church can teach infallibly.  Hence, even if they win a debate regarding a doctrine, they actually lose because they cannot know for sure if they won, if their position is true or not, because their Church and no one in it even claims to be infallible. [57]  Consequently, a member of their Church can come along and deny one of their tenets and the debate starts all over again. Their Churches are ships without rudders, foundations on sand, and as solid as ice cream in summer heat.

Footnote 57: The irony is that the Eastern Un-Orthodox Schismatics believe that the first seven ecumenical councils were infallible. If so, then what made them infallible if God’s Church and no one in it can be infallible? And what is even worse is that these very councils teach the dogma that the Catholic Church is infallible. They teach the dogma of papal infallibility (the solemn magisterium) and the dogma of the infallibility of the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers of faith and morals (the ordinary magisterium). Hence these very councils that they rightly believe are infallible condemn them as heretics for not believing these very things that these councils infallibly defined. And that is beside the fact that all those who authoritatively attended these seven councils where submissive and obedient to the pope as the only visible head of the Catholic Church and thus believed in papal supremacy. Hence anyone who believed as the Eastern Un-Orthodox Schismatic do would have been not only banned from any authoritative position in these councils but would have been condemned by them."

To summarize, these are Ibranyi's main points:
  • "They deny the dogma that God’s Church can teach infallibly."
  • "Ironically, they believe the first seven Ecumenical Councils were infallible...Then what made them infallible?"
  • "The Councils teach the dogma of papal infallibility."
  • "All bishops who attended the Councils were submissive and obedient to the pope as the only visible head of the Church, thus believing in papal supremacy."
The Orthodox do not deny the Church teaches infallibly.  They hold that Ecumenical Councils are infallible because they are guided by the Holy Spirit under the following conditions:  the council upholds the same teaching as the Apostles, and the scriptures as taught by the Church Fathers; and they are ratified by the Pope (the first ranking Bishop) and all the other Patriarchs, along with the overwhelming majority of Bishops present.  

It is false, though, to conclude that, because the See of Rome was the First See, the Pope is infallible and supreme.  All the Apostles were given the fullness of the Faith, as well as the authority to bind and loose [Matt. 18:18].  St. Peter was the representative Apostle, not the father of Apostles, but the eldest brother.  No Ecumenical Council teaches papal infallibility or absolute supremacy.  They tacitly teach that popes are fallible [Liberius, Zosimus, Vigilius, Honorius], subject to established canons, and answerable to Councils.   Popes were rightly given the honor of St. Peter, but they were respected, and held as a principle of unity, only as long as they upheld the Faith of Peter.  Papal documents, such as the Tome of Leo, were accepted because they were found to agree with previous apostolic teaching, not because they were sent from Rome.  More and more, popes began to be influenced by false decretals which said the Pope himself is indefectible and infallible, and as such, can be judged by no one.  See:
"Papal Forgeries: A Road to Schism, Pt. 1", Ubi Petrus
Having the necessary power and finances, the Emperor called the Councils.  The pope called none of the Seven (or Eight) Councils, nor was he present in person at any of them.  The Second was held in schism with Rome; and the Fifth condemned Pope Vigilius as a heretic. It was six months after the Council concluded that Pope Vigilius admitted he taught heresy, "being inspired by the devil".  He was then reinstated.  Papal ratification made a council universal, though not without the consent of all the Bishops.  If the pope was known to be the supreme and infallible oracle of God, there would have been no need for Councils to be held in the first place.  They were long, expensive ordeals, and traveling was treacherous.  But they were held because the Church has always been conciliar.  This is the Church's formula for unity:
Apostolic Canon 34:  The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.
Jesus gave all the Apostles authority to bind and loose:
Matt. 18:16-20  ...in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.  And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.  Amen I say to you [plural], whatsover you  [plural] shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you [plural] shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.   Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.  For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.  
John 16:13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you [plural] all truth.
Deut. 1:15 And I took out of your tribes men wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers, tribunes, and centurions, and officers over fifties, and over tens, who might teach you all things.
What, then, is the role of the first-ranking Bishop?  In my opinion, the Pope was called to be a guardian of the faith, a protector of the flock, and a  principle of unity.  Pope St. Celestine and Pope St. Gregory the Great give us the correct understanding of infallibility and supremacy.  First, Pope St. Coelestine's letter below was accepted as dogmatic by the Third Council.  It teaches:  the Holy Spirit guides Councils; all things should be done in unity; and all bishops are successors of the Apostles, called to be guardians of the one divine deposit of Faith, given by Christ to all the Apostles.
Letter of Pope Coelestine to the Synod of Ephesus, 431:  Coelestine the bishop to the holy Synod assembled at Ephesus, brethren beloved and most longed for, greeting in the Lord:
A Synod of priests gives witness to the presence of the Holy Spirit. For true is that which we read, since the Truth cannot lie, to wit, the promise of the Gospel; "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." And since this is so, if the Holy Spirit is not absent from so small a number how much more may we believe he is present when so great a multitude of holy ones are assembled together! Every council is holy on account of a peculiar veneration which is its due; for in every such council the reverence which should be paid to that most famous council of the Apostles of which we read is to be had regard to. Never was the Master, whom they had received to preach, lacking to this, but ever was present as Lord and Master; and never were those who taught deserted by their teacher. For he that had sent them was their teacher; he who had commanded what was to be taught, was their teacher; he who affirms that he himself is heard in his Apostles, was their teacher. This duty of preaching has been entrusted to all the Lord's priests in common, for by right of inheritance we are bound to undertake this solicitude, whoever of us preach the name of the Lord in divers lands in their stead for he said to them, "Go, teach all nations." You, dear brethren, should observe that we have received a general command: for he wills that all of us should perform that office, which he thus entrusted in common to all the Apostles. We must needs follow our predecessors. Let us all, then, undertake their labors, since we are the successors in their honour. And we shew forth our diligence in preaching the same doctrines that they taught, beside which, according to the admonition of the Apostle, we are forbidden to add aught. For the office of keeping what is committed to our trust is no less dignified than that of handing it down.

They sowed the seed of the faith. This shall be our care that the coming of our great father of the family, to whom alone assuredly this fulness of the Apostles is assigned, may find fruit uncorrupt and many fold. For the vase of election tells us that it is not sufficient to plant and to water unless God gives the increase. We must strive therefore in common to keep the faith which has come down to us today, through the Apostolic Succession. For we are expected to walk according to the Apostle...Now the Blessed Apostle Paul admonishes that all should remain in that place in which he bid Timothy remain. The same place therefore, the same cause, lays upon us the same duty. Let us now also do and study that which he then commanded him to do. And let no one think otherwise, and let no one pay heed to over strange fables, as he himself ordered. Let us be unanimous, thinking the same thing, for this is expedient: let us do nothing out of contention, nothing out of vain glory: let us be in all things of one mind, of one heart, when the faith which is one, is attacked. Let the whole body grieve and mourn in common with us. He who is to judge the world is called into judgment; he who is to criticize all, is himself made the object of criticism, he who redeemed us is made to suffer calumny. Dear Brethren, gird ye with the armor of God. Ye know what helmet must protect our head, what breast-plate our breast. For this is not the first time the ecclesiastical camps have received you as their rulers. Let no one doubt that by the favor of the Lord who maketh twain to be one, there will be peace, and that arms will be laid aside since the very cause defends itself.

Let us look once again at these words of our Doctor, which he uses with express reference to bishops, saying, "Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, over which the Holy Ghost has placed you as bishop, that ye rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his blood."

...Let there be announced by you what things have been preserved intact from the Apostles; for the words of tyrannical opposition are never admitted against the King of Kings, nor can the business of truth be oppressed by falsehood.

I exhort you, most blessed brethren, that love alone be regarded in which we ought to remain, according to the voice of John the Apostle whose relics we venerate in this city. Let common prayer be offered to the Lord. For we can form some idea of what will be the power of the divine presence at the united intercession of such a multitude of priests, by considering how the very place was moved where, as we read, the Twelve made together their supplication. And what was the purport of that prayer of the Apostles? It was that they might receive grace to speak the word of God with confidence, and to act through its power, both of which they received by the favor of Christ our God. And now what else is to be asked for by your holy council, except that ye may speak the Word of the Lord with confidence? What else than that he would give you grace to preserve that which he has given you to preach? that being filled with the Holy Ghost, as it is written, ye may set forth that one truth which the Spirit himself has taught you, although with divers voices..."
Pope St. Gregory the Great also writes concerning the infallible authority of the Ecumenical Councils, likening them to the Gospels:
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Epistle 25
Gregory, to John of Constantinople, Eulogius of Alexandria, Gregory of Antioch, John of Jerusalem, and Anastasias, Ex-Patriarch of Antioch. A paribus  [to equals]
Par. 10:  Besides, since with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, I confess that I receive and revere, as the four books of the Gospel so also the four Councils: to wit, the Nicene, in which the perverse doctrine of Arius is overthrown; the Constantinopolitan also, in which the error of Eunomius and Macedonius is refuted; further, the first Ephesine, in which the impiety of Nestorius is condemned; and the Chalcedonian, in which the pravity of Eutyches and Dioscorus is reprobated. These with full devotion I embrace, and adhere to with most entire approval; since on them, as on a four-square stone, rises the structure of the holy faith; and whosoever, of whatever life and behavior he may be, holds not fast to their solidity, even though he is seen to be a stone, yet he lies outside the building. The fifth council also I equally venerate...But all persons whom the aforesaid venerable Councils repudiate I repudiate; those whom they venerate I embrace; since, they having been constituted by universal consent, he overthrows not them but himself, whosoever presumes either to loose those whom they bind, or to bind those whom they loose. Whosoever, therefore, thinks otherwise, let him be anathema. But whosoever holds the faith of the aforesaid synods, peace be to him...

Next, Pope Gregory received a few letters from Patriarch John of Constantinople, who titled himself Universal Patriarch.  The Pope reproved John for using the title, not because he, Gregory, considered himself Universal Patriarch, but as he says, because Jesus Christ is Head of the Church.  Thus Pope St. Gregory teaches a primacy of rank and honor among the Patriarchal Sees, with Rome being first, but not papal supremacy: 

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Epistle XVIII To John, Bishop (Schaff, p. 166) 
...Certainly the apostle Paul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ (i Cor. i. 13), regarded with the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord's body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul (ib.)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of Universal ? 

...Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, — what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy. 

Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See [Rome - the First See], which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon? But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren. 

...What, then, can we bishops say for ourselves, who have received a place of honour from the humility of our Redeemer, and yet imitate the pride of the enemy himself?
Throughout his epistle, St. Gregory warns Patriarch John against using the proud title of Universal Patriarch, out of a sincere concern for his soul. Wasn't Pope Gregory obligated to speak the truth regarding 'papal supremacy' if it was a Catholic dogma?  Some contend that he was writing with humility, but if this is true, it would have been a false humility, which is really veiled pride. That cannot be the case.  Pope Gregory continues:
"...what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all His members under thyself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all? Who even said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High (lsai. xiv. 13)."
Pope St. Gregory concludes, then, that whoever takes for himself the title Universal is imitating Lucifer!   In response to such pride, the Pope  adopted the title "Servant of the Servants of God". 
Matt. 20:25-28  But Jesus called them to him, and said: You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that are the greater, exercise power upon them.  It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister.  And he that will be first among you, shall be your servant.  Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister...
By the 15th century, the antipopes began to use the title "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church".  With popes no longer being inclined to wash their brothers' feet, at the Council of Florence, Antipope Eugene IV tried to insist on having the eastern Bishops kiss his shoe!  Pope St. Gregory's Letter 33 has turned out to be prophetic:
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Letter 33, to Mauricius Augustus
"...Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. "

Conclusion

Filioque is not taught in the Scriptures; it was not taught by the Apostles or the Fathers; it was not taught authoritatively through the Councils.  So, it is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.  The Orthodox are correct: it is an innovation; a new faith.  Moreover, any addition to the Creed was forbidden by Councils and by Popes.  Instead of holding a Council to discuss its theology, 'Filioque' was used as a weapon.  It was added to the Creed to assert the secular power of the western Roman Emperors, as well as a false, absolute papal supremacy.  All of this was at the expense of Church unity; the unity Christ prayed for. 

Therefore, I think the book The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and from the Son is filled with errors.  Regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, I do not think this book represents the Catholic, Apostolic Faith, but ironically, the new scholastic religion of the second millennium that Ibranyi intends to oppose.  It is based on forgeries, and the same arrogant presumption that brought about the downfall of apostate Rome.
“The Filioque is Only a Few Words; Why Does it Matter So Much?”, Fr. Peter Heers (Schismatic)
It is a few words, but a totally different meaning.  We have the teaching from the beginning, particularly from the Second Ecumenical Council:  The Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father.  OK.  So, that’s what the Lord said.  It’s quoting the scriptures.  The Creed says “proceeds from the Father.”  The only place in scripture where the word “proceeds” is found, regarding the Holy Spirit, is in John 15:26.
John 15:26 But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He shall give testimony of me.
We’re talking about eternal procession, in relationship to the Holy Trinity.  It says He proceeds from the Father.  That’s what’s in the Creed.  That’s what the Fathers [teach]...St. Gregory the Theologian, one of the Doctors of the Church, who presided over the Second Ecumenical Council.  Those Fathers:  St. Meletius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who wrote The Great Catechism; they gave us that teaching.  They quoted the Lord: “The Holy Spirit Who proceeds from the Father”...Ecumenical Councils are infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. 
 And we had that [same teaching] in Rome; all the churches agreed for over 600 years; it was the Roman Creed until 1009, after 150 years of utter corruption in the papacy - go read the history; they call it ‘pornocracy”, for about a hundred years.  At this time we had utter corruption in the Roman See, unfortunately.  And, you have basically, willy-nilly a departing from the Nicene Creed; and not only the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils, but the 3rd, 4th, and so on forbid any change in the Creed.  And, the [true] 8th Ecumenical Council (880) stated you absolutely, cannot make any change in the Creed.  
Even if we don’t get into the theology, the pope of the time, walked away from 600 years of universal Orthodox Christian practice in Rome, walked away from the Eighth Ecumenical Council, where his predecessor [John VIII] agreed that there should be no addition to the Creed [the issue at hand being Filioque]; walked away from the counciliar mind, which is infallible - the infallibile the Ecumenical Councils, and added the Filioque to the Creed.  And then, included it in the Divine Liturgy in 1014, and doubled down in 1054.  And then, 50 years later, the pope turned his back, and said, “We don’t even recognize the 8th Ecumencal Council anymore” [ though it had been papally ratified, and accepted for over 200 years!] 
So historically, this is clearly not a way to introduce a teaching into the Church.  Clearly [it’s] a distortion, and not the universal mind of the Church.  So, before we even get to what is the Filioque, obviously this is not blest.With regard to the theology... [Filioque] distorts the Trinitarian theology given to us by the Fathers.  It takes the monarchy of the Father, and gives two sources for the procession, and then there’s no equilibrium in the Trinity.  Before there was balance, now you have two Persons, Father and Son, that have something the Holy Spirit does not. 
And this relationship is the relationship toward creation.  So now you’ve taken the Holy Spirit, where each Person had something unique to it, and things in common, right?  There was a balance and unity; now you have that which is lacking to the Holy Spirit, and only given to Father and Son.  Even though they try to correct that and say, will it’s only one Source, but through the Son.  But that’s not Trinitarian theology according to the Fathers.  And now you have Him [Holy Spirit] in a position which is the position of creation.  In other words, Father creates through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, the created; so now He [Holy Spirit] resembles something created.  So, the distortion is great.  It’s not what the Fathers taught, and we end up having a Trinity that we’ve never believed in for a thousand years.  We never talked about it this way; the Fathers didn’t write about it in this way.  And it’s a total innovation it’s not the patristic consensus; it’s not the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils.  Is there any other discussion?  Do we need to go on? 
To double down and try to reconcile this is the height of pride and arrogance, and it’s just more of the same from this “infallible supreme pontiff” who doesn’t listen to the Church in Council, that his predecessors accepted.
The truth of the Faith is not that which one or two Fathers taught.  It’s not that which one or two churches taught.  It’s what the Church always taught, from the beginning; confessed from the beginning; and in Council accepted, again, and again, and again.  That’s the faith of the Fathers...That’s what the Councils begin with:  “Following the holy Fathers...”    The Pope no longer followed the holy Fathers; there’s no way around it...What they want to say is, “Okay, but, it’s still the same.”  No.  It doesn’t matter.  You think it is the same [faith], but the Fathers didn’t say that.   The Fathers didn’t teach that; the Councils didn’t say that.  They’re trying to justify their innovation, and the assertion of their own authority over the Ecumenical Councils.  That’s not the way it works.  

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)