II – Doctrinal errors of the Greek Schismatics
A – Negation of the Filioque
The Greek Schismatics do not accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son
Thus the Western and Latin ‘Filioque’ became, in the following centuries, an occasion for schism, already brought about by Focio (882) but consummated and extended throughout almost all of the Christian east by the year 1054. The Eastern churches, separated from Rome, today still profess, within their symbol of faith, ‘in the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father’ without mention of the ‘Filioque’, while in the West we expressly state that the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father and the Son.’ (John Paul II. General audience, no. 5, November 7, 1990)
Doctrinal clarification regarding the Filioque (= ‘and the Son’):
The Creed confesses the filioque to indicate that the Holy Spirit proceeds ‘from the Father and the Son’
The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). the Council of Florence in 1438 explains: ‘The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration… And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son’ (Council of Florence: DS 1300-1301). (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 246)
Following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, Pope Saint Leo I already confessed the filioque dogmatically in 447
The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope Saint Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 247)
About the Holy Spirit, it is legitimate to say that He comes forth ‘from the Father and the Son’ (Western tradition) or ‘from the Father through the Son’ (Eastern tradition); but heretical to say ‘from the Father alone’
At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he ‘who proceeds from the Father’, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son (AG 2). The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, ‘legitimately and with good reason’ (Council of Florence: DS 1302), for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as ‘the principle without principle’ (Council of Florence: DS 1331), is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds (cf. Council of Lyons II: DS 850). This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 248)
…but the Greek-schismatics affirm that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son
So, also, at the present time some are described as dissolving Christ by diminishing His dignity so far as this lies in their power. In saying that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, they lessen His dignity, since He together with the Father is the Spirator of the Holy Spirit. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Contra errores Graecorum, Part II, Proglogue)
If the Holy Ghost did not proceed also from the Son, then He would not be personally distinguished from Him: the Trinity would not exist, and there would be only two divine Persons
It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above (q. 28, a.3; q.30, a.2). For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I, q. 36, a.2 sol)
Proof of the filioque: The Son proceeds from the Father as His Word, and the Holy Ghost as Love: love must proceed from a word, for we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception
Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (q.28, a.44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a ‘principle’ and of what is ‘from the principle.’ Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess. Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (a.27, a.2,4; q.28, a.4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I, q. 36, a.2 sol)
It cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father so that neither of them proceeds from the other: unless we admit a material distinction between them, which is impossible in God
We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Fathr, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I, q. 36, a.2 sol)
The Greeks themselves are forced to recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son, but obstinately deny that He proceeds from Him
Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit ‘of the Son’; and that He is from the Father ‘through the Son.’ Some of them are said also to concede that ‘He is from the Son’; or that ‘He flows from the Son,’ but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I, q. 36, a.2 sol)
The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son
The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian […] (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I, q. 36, a.2 ad 3)
The error of those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff
In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, another council [Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus] assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I, q. 36, a.2)
It can also be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son; but never can it be denied that the father and the Son are one principle of the Spirit
Whenever one is said to act through another, this preposition ‘through’ points out, in what is covered by it, some cause or principle of that act. But since action is a mean between the agent and the thing done, sometimes that which is covered by the preposition ‘through’ is the cause of the action, as proceeding from the agent; and in that case it is the cause of why the agent acts, whether it be a final cause or a formal cause, whether it be effective or motive. It is a final cause when we say, for instance, that the artisan works through love of gain. It is a formal cause when we say that he works through his art. It is a motive cause when we say that he works through the command of another. Sometimes, however, that which is covered by this preposition ‘through’ is the cause of the action regarded as terminated in the thing done; as, for instance, when we say, the artisan acts through the mallet, for this does not mean that the mallet is the cause why the artisan acts, but that it is the cause why the thing made proceeds from the artisan, and that it has even this effect from the artisan. This is why it is sometimes said that this preposition ‘through’ sometimes denotes direct authority, as when we say, the king works through the bailiff; and sometimes indirect authority, as when we say, the bailiff works through the king. Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I, q. 36, a.3 sol)
As the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son
In every action two things are to be considered, the suppositum acting, and the power whereby it acts; as, for instance, fire heats through heat. So if we consider in the Father and the Son the power whereby they spirate the Holy Ghost, there is no mean, for this is one and the same power. But if we consider the persons themselves spirating, then, as the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son; and thus He is said to proceed from the Father through the Son. So also did Abel proceed immediately from Adam, inasmuch as Adam was his father; and mediately, as Eve was his mother, who proceeded from Adam; although, indeed, this example of a material procession is inept to signify the immaterial procession of the divine persons. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I, q. 36, a.3, ad 1)
They are heretics because they deny the truth of the faith, and schismatics, because they have strayed from the unity of the Church
The controversy [with the Greeks], however, comes from the profession of this article [of the faith]. But the profession of this article comes form the Latin Church of a triple cause, that is, from the truth of the faith, from the necessity of [protecting against] danger, and from the authority of the Church. The faith dictated this [article of the faith], and a dangerous necessity made it imminent to assure that it be not denied by anyone (as the Greeks who had fallen into this peril) and the authority of the Church is there too. And therefore it should have been expressed without hesitation.
The cause of the negation of this article [by the Greeks] comes from a triple cause, that is, through ignorance, through pride, and through obstination. From ignorance, because they neither understood Scripture, nor did they have congruent reason or clear revelation. From pride, for since they repute themselves smarter and were not called, they did not want to profess what was not invented by them. Through obstination [since] so that they not be convinced and seem to be moving irrationally, they invented for themselves reasons in opposition to truth; and thus they dared to defend their own opinion and to oppose the authority of the Roman Church; and therefore they are become heretics, because they deny the truth of the faith, and schismatics, because they have withdrawn from the unity of the Church. (Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio. Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Book 1, dist. 11, a. 1, q.1, concl. – Latin)
B – Negation of papal authority and of other Catholic teachings
They deny that there is one head of the Church and dissolve the unity of the Mystical Body
In denying, moreover, that there is one head of the Church, namely, the holy Roman Church, they clearly dissolve the unity of the Mystical Body; for there cannot be one body if there is not one head, nor one congregation if there is not one ruler. Hence, John 10:16 says: There will be one fold and one shepherd. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Contra errores Graecorum, Part II, Prologue)
They deny purgatory
In denying purgatory they also lessen the power of this sacrament which is offered in the Church both for the living and for the dead; for if purgatory does not exist, it avails the dead nothing; it cannot profit them if they are in hell, where there is no redemption; nor can it do them any good if they are in heaven, where they are in no need of our prayers. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Contra errores Graecorum, Part II, Prologue)
Note: Transcribed below are the words of a certain schismatic minister, in order to reveal what type of company Francis is keeping.
Obviously the theological ‘arguments’ of the schismatic on each topic are gravely flawed, and his citations of Scripture and the Fathers are incomplete and biased.
For example, on the Holy Spirit (below), the verse Jn 15:26 is cited, but other parts of the New Testament are not mentioned. The inspired writers of the New Testament refer to the third Person of the Trinity as the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4: 6), the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Mt 10: 20) and the Spirit of God (1Cor 2: 11). Besides, the sending of a Divine Person (mission) for the salvation of humanity corresponds to the origin of the same Person (procession) within the Trinity. So when Scripture states that the Son also sends the Holy Spirit (Lk 24: 49; Jn 15:26/ 16:7 /20:22; Acts 2:33; Tit 3: 6), just as the Father also sends the Holy Spirit (Jn 14: 26), this clearly reveals that He proceeds within the Trinity from both Persons. Besides, Jn 16: 13-15 also points to the filioque, since the absolute simplicity of God implies also that no divine Person can receive anything from another except by procession, whereby if the Holy Spirit receives anything from the Word, then He also comes forth from Him.
A – Negation of the right origin of the Holy Spirit
“The Lord said: ‘When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me’ (Jn 15:26). This Creed was confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils, which prohibited an addition or change. This Creed continues being respected by all the Eastern and Western Churches before the Schism and the entire Christian Doctrine is resumed in it. The Orthodox Church has conserved it without alteration. The Roman Church added the words ‘…and of the Son’ to the eighth article, so that this article ended up like this: ‘…who proceeds from the Father and the Son’. Therefore, the Filioque is an illegitimate interpolation, destroying the monarcy of the Father, relativizing the reality of the personal or hypostatic existence within the Trinity…The great patriarch Focio protested this addition.”
B – Negation of purgatory
“The Church of Rome believes that after death, souls go to a place called purgatory, where they are purified of their light sins by suffering some torments, and afterward enter into Paradise. The Greek Orthodox believe that after death, souls await the Final Judgement, in a place which is neither Paradise nor Hell. When the Good Thief said to Jesus on the Cross: ‘Remember me O Lord, when you come into your kingdom’, he heard Christ’s response: ‘Today you shall be with me in Paradise’; he did not say that today you will be in purgatory and after your purification you will to to Paradise.”
C – Negation of the Immaculate Conception
“The Church of Rome believes that Saint Ann conceived the Virgin without stain of sin. The Orthodox Church believes and teaches that her conception occurred in a natural way.”
D – Negation of ecclesiastical celibacy
“The Roman Church demands celibacy among its clergy. The Primitive Church never prohibited matrimony for its clergy. In the Orthodox Church, until today, the priests and deacons can marry.”
E – Negation of papal infallibility
“In the year 1870, Vatican Council I decided on a new dogma, which had no precedent in the entire history of the Church: ‘Papal infallibility’, which means that the Pope ‘does not err’ when speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals. This new dogma contradicts the teaching of the Gospel and the Tradition of the Church; even in the Western Church there were many protests, resulting in separations and schisms, which last until our days.”
F – For the schismatics, the maximum authority is that of the Ecumenical Council
“The Orthodox Church, after the authority of the Holy Trinity, that is, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, considers the Ecumenical Council as the Maximum authority of all of the Churches. The Roman Churches consider the Pope as the Maximum Authority of all of the Churches, ‘above the Ecumenical Councils’. The Orthodox Church, believes that when the Holy Apostles united in Jerusalem to treat of various divergences and topics, not one of the Apostles took unilateral decisions, but rather decisions were made collectively within the Council of Jerusalem.”
G – and they deny that the Church is built on Peter
“The Church of Rome, the Western Church, based the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in he who is the successor of Saint Peter and was the superior of the Apostles, based on Mt 16:13, 16-18. Saint Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians, affirms: ‘and the rock was the Christ’. Saint Augustine, a great Father of the Western Church, explained the ‘celebrated’ verse in his Article 270: ‘You are Peter and over this rock that is your confession, that Christ is the Son of the living God, I will build my Church.’ In his Article 76 he also says: ‘Those who build over humans say, I am of Paul, I am of Apolo, I am of Peter. But those who build over the confession of Peter and the Divinity of Christ, say. I am of Christ. Because the Church is built over Christ and not over Peter.’”
(source: Osios Ferrer. Differences between the Orthodox and Roman Churches, August 13, 2006)