The Rev. Dr. Hall writes: “State whether the Holy Spirit is acknowledged to proceed in any external sense from the Son, provided that it be acknowledged that the ultimate source of Divine processions is the Father.” I hope I will be pardoned if I bring into the consideration of this question any private view, or any expression of surprise, or the least involuntary tone of condemnation. I do not dare to question Dr. Hall’s wisdom nor his motives in putting this most important question at the end of his list of desired explanations. Fully one-half of what has been said in the six points that I have been considering, might be classed as questions of secondary importance. Now, finally, we come to the essential of questions which are of vital importance. This is a question of Creed.
What is the Creed? It is the Christian’s confession of faith in the one God—who is in three Divine Persons. This is the sum of the Nicæo-Constantinopolitan Symbol. This is the substance of all Christian Creeds.
But should I take the question as a general one, as something affecting the Christian Creed itself? or should I specifically treat the question with regard to the dogma of the Holy Ghost alone, as might be inferred from Dr. Hall’s words? Certainly as a whole, and only thus, for how can I speak of the Holy Ghost without touching upon the relations to the Father, who co-eternally also begets the Son? As we see, this question affects our Creed, which comes to us from Divine Revelation, and when we rightly and thoroughly examine the same it becomes clear that two opinions exist, one founded on knowledge and faith, which finds its equivalent in Orthodox Christianity, and another founded on speculation and ambition, which finds its equivalent in heresy and anarchy.
I fear to undertake to say or to write the least on this most grave question of the mysteries of our religion, but, with God’s help, I will endeavor to contribute my mite in this field of thought, which many have worked, and into which many more are called to labor.
The Church Catholic, i.e., the Church of the Apostles, of the martyrs, the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, of the Holy Fathers, of all the local councils, with one or two exceptions, the Orthodox Eastern Church of to-day, declares in the words of Jesus Christ that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and only from the Father. Should the Holy Ghost proceed in any eternal sense from the Son, then the Western innovation of the clause Filioque, wrongly and sacrilegiously added to the unblamable Creed, might be justified. But we declare the Filioque to be an innovation. There are no words in Holy Scripture to prove that the Holy Ghost eternally proceeds from the Son. While on the other hand our Lord Himself explains most clearly in these words: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall bear witness of Me (1 John, xv. 26). Here our Lord says that He will send the Spirit from the Father, and not that He Himself will pour the Spirit out upon the Apostles. Again our Lord says that He will send the Spirit which proceeds from the Father. If He, who commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, was an eternal source of the procession of the Spirit, would He not say “I send unto you the Spirit,” instead of I will send the Spirit from the Father, which implies a reward for His merits after His work is completed and He is ascended unto the Father?
Surely the Son, who is begotten, cannot substantially bring forth (spirate) God the Holy Ghost, no more than He can beget Himself! There is but one source (monarchia) of the Godhead in the Blessed Trinity. The idea “that the Spirit may in some eternal sense proceed from the Son, while the ultimate source of Divine processions is the Father,” borders dangerously near on to the heresy of the Sabellians.
The clause Filioque was first introduced into the Creed in Spain during the fifth century. It was either a private opinion of some theologian (or a provincial Synod), or it may have found its way into the Creed through ignorance and mistakes of copyists, which is more likely the truth. Unfortunately this mistake was not detected in time, and gradually it spread until finally in the ninth century it became known as a religious innovation that had taken root in the empire of Charlemagne. The latter, who was more a soldier and a politician than a Christian, much less so a theologian, he, the Emperor, upheld (with as much influence as he could command) this false doctrine, which his ecclesiastics favored. But the Primate of the West, the Pope Leo III., strenuously opposed this addition to the Creed of the Holy Catholic Church.
If we look into the histories of the Western Empire, the Middle Ages, and the Scholastic polemics, we shall find that it was in the time when certain secular rulers in the West were gaining unquestionable sway over the destinies of Europe, and at the same time when controversy was at its height between Rome and Constantinople, that the Pope yielded the truth, out of love for the Western idea of Imperial solidity and power on the one hand, and on the other—out of spiritual pride over his weakened opponents in the East (who were in danger of troubling the still living conscience of Roman ambition), and gave his consent to read the Creed with the addition at public Divine Service; which was in the eleventh century.
One might go on and compile a whole volume on this profound subject. Though the literature of both sides be sufficient, still I am not expected (I hope) to treat the subject in detail, which is beyond my competency. However, both my personal inclination and my public office obligations compel me to take note of the question, and to proceed with a few brief explanations, and, may I hope, with profitable suggestions.
Indeed, the methods of the middle dark ages were sacrilegious as much as they were scholastic. Let us take for instance the Athanasian Creed. The original Athanasian Creed is orthodox. In the Middle Ages it was almost impossible to find a copy of this creed without the additional doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost also from the Son. But the West rebukes itself, and we find that there were a few honest writers, who tell of this later addition to the earlier creed, and they are Hundlingi in Eustratii Zialowsky, Brev. delineat. eccles. Graecae, Norimb. 1681; Monfokoni in Opp. Athanasii, Vol. II., p. 728; Bingham, Orig. eccles., lib. X., cap. 4, § 18 et Theol. Curs. Compl. Vol. VI., p. 423-425, Paris 1841; Hist. Hierosolym. cap. 74, in Hist. Oriental, T. 1, p. 1090, ed. Hannon 1611.
In opposing the Greeks the Latins never referred anyone to the Athanasian Creed earlier than the fourteenth century! Furthermore, the so-called Athanasian Creed came into use no earlier than the last part of the fifth or the first part of the sixth century, therefore this creed cannot be classed with the forms of confession of faith that were liturgically used in the ancient Church.
And what more? There was an attempt on the part of some Latins to accuse even Photius of acquiescing to the “Filioque” in the Creed, and Photius was notably their keenest opponent and the most enlightened champion of Orthodoxy in the ninth century!
In this age of scientific opportunities, the old adage of a well-known class of men, that “the end justifies the means,” is more and more giving place to the truly religious idea that “the light of Christ enlighteneth all.” While living in Christian hope; still we cannot but ponder over the examples we have, in which both ignorance and malice have apparently triumphed over truth and light. We think that society and the Churches should be wiser for the experience! But are they? History discloses the fact that the Roman See was a time server, and apparently worshipped human devices in order to be able some day to declare before an over-awed world her Divine Right (of which she is deprived through heresy) as the sole Judge.
How careful we should be, lest we be deceived by externalities! Satan himself becomes as if transformed into an angel of light. There are conditions in both individual and Church life, when even the Apostolic succession is of no avail. In connection with this, I wish to quote the words of a well-known, Orthodox layman in the city of Cardiff. In his letter he writes about a certain author, and says: “He is not a Romanizer, but follows the old Tractarians (of whom I knew several), and appeals to primitive (and therefore, Orthodox) practice. The new school of Ritualists seem to hanker after all modern developments of Rome, and are devoid of the robust, cultured tone of the old Oxford men, who would scorn to consult a petty tract culled from different sources for a guide, but insisted upon studying the Fathers.”
We certainly agree with such fearless and robust sense. We now know how untrustworthy are most of the documents of the middle ages. A phrase or a page culled here and there from an unauthorized edition of some Father is not a proof of genuineness nor of learning. History, the acts of the Councils, and the writings of the ancient and holy Fathers, should not be read alone in Latin, but should be compared with the Greek. Scholars will examine even the Greek documents to be assured that they are not some spurious Western edition.
I do not abandon my subject in following this line of thought, as there is no other greater than this question of the Three in One, and the One in Three, which calls for the most accurate interpretation of its original expounders. It is dangerous to deal with the Filioque question, though one might quote a string of Fathers apparently supporting it, unless these different opinions of some Fathers are not accepted in the complete context of their writings. The circumstances of each case must be brought forth, and each one’s relations to one or another council must be explained, etc.
Before I close my remarks on this subject, I will quote another writer, one who is a layman, and although in the field of secular occupation, he has become renowned during the last decade for his theological attainments and for his efforts to unite the Old Catholics with the Eastern Church. It is General Alexander Kireef who writes:
“The most serious misfortune that has befallen the Christian world since the beginning of our era, is undoubtedly the great schism between Rome on the one hand, and the Churches of the East on the other, and no greater blessing can be conceived than the reconciliation of these Churches after their long separation.
“During the period of disunion, how much energy has been wasted in controversy, energy that might have been devoted to the service of mankind! How much blood has been shed in the name of eternal goodness! How many tears have flowed! What follies have been perpetrated in the name of eternal wisdom! All of which might have been avoided.
“Is it surprising then that earnest and sincere Christians should have been constantly devoting themselves to the solution of the great problem of the reunion of the Churches? Since the very commencement of that important and inauspicious rupture, men on both sides have tried to come to an understanding. At first, it was not an impossibility; the questions of doctrine and ritual that divided the churches were not of real importance; and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was accepted without protest. Unhappily, however, a serious difficulty presented itself at the very outset of the negotiations: The West had transformed a local opinion into a Dogma of the Church as a whole. I refer to the ‘Filioque.’ The ensuing subsequent difficulties were great. Dogma being the very essence of revealed truth, it could neither be modified nor accepted with reservations, It is absolute truth, and as such, admits of no variation. Unity of doctrine is, a conditio sine qua non of the Unity of the Church, and consequently also of intercommunion ‘in sacris.’ Wherever there is contradictory dogmatic teaching, there must also be separate Churches, which cannot be united. Churches may be altogether self-governed, may have different rites, different liturgies; independent hierarchies, and yet form but one Catholic Church, providing that as to dogma they are the same. Such was the position of the Churches of the West (Africa, France, England) during the first centuries of our era, such, too, is still the relation to each other of the Churches of the East. Dogma must be the same in every Church. Whatever latitude may be granted to freedom of thought, it must never be permitted to transgress these limits; to do so, would not be charity towards each other, but unfaithfulness to one’s Church, yea, to the eternal truth which she represents.
“The simple elementary truths which were so much to the fore in the attempts at reconciliation in the ninth century, were thrust at a later day into the background, by considerations of an altogether secondary nature. The only point which should have been discussed at the commencement of the difficulties between Rome and the East, was the ‘Filioque’; that dogma was the only thing that separated us. Instead of which, time was spent on other subjects, and meanwhile the quarrel grew hotter.
“At a later period, the negotiations between Rome and the East assumed a less Christian character. The results of the Councils of Lyons or Florence were, above all, political treaties, designed and indeed almost undisguisedly to promote purely’ utilitarian interests. But the Greek people, more honest than their representatives, rejected all such overtures. Notwithstanding the growing danger of an Ottoman invasion, they never sanctioned the concessions of their leaders, preferred the enslavement of their political country, to that of their moral country (i.e., their Church). Accordingly we now witness its revival.
“After the fall of Constantinople, Moscow’s turn came. It was to Russia that Rome began to turn her thoughts, but with still less success. To what shall we attribute this failure? What was its chief reason, and what can be done to remedy the mischief? It is impossible to answer these grave questions in a few short pages, but, as I have already said, the parties concerned should think only of serving the interests of religion and of God, ignoring everything else. As there is an individual egoism which is opposed to charity, so there is a national and ecclesiastical egoism, which, though nobler in form, nonetheless impedes the progress of truth. One must forget one’s self and remember that truth must never be sacrificed. Only questions of dogma, upon which an understanding is essential and compromise inadmissable should be discussed; all other matters should be left aside. But if we compare this method of procedure with that which has been followed down to the present day, we shall easily understand why the efforts put forth at Lyons or Florence only resulted in widening the gulf of separation. Not till the Congress held by the Old Catholics were rules observed on both sides, which were fitted to bring about a union of the Churches. The grand idea of the restoration of religious unity will never be abandoned by the Christian world; it will not disappear as long as the sentiment lives in the human heart.
“I have often been told; ‘You, like many, are busy with this great work of bringing about a union of the Churches; your end is good but your means are defective; you have chosen the wrong road. Instead of appealing to the Pope, you appeal to the old Catholics. Compared with the pulsillus grex of the Old Catholics, the Pope is an enormous force.’ The answer is easy: To unite with the Pope is to submit, body and soul, to a Master who has set himself above law, both human and divine. The Old Catholics stretch out a brotherly hand: the Pope offers his slipper. To submit to the Pope would doubtless be to yield to a great power; but it would also mean to identify one’s self with a great error. As far as power is concerned, we are, thank God, satisfied with what we possess already. What we seek is not power, but truth; and the truth is with the Old Catholics.”
This is a digital edition of Beacon from the Bay: The Collected Works of Saint Sebastian Dabovich of Jackson and San Francisco, a several-month-long project to catalogue the out-of-print works of Saint Sebastian Dabovich, the first American-born Orthodox priest.
If you would like to purchase print copies of Beacon from the Bay for a personal or church library or bookstore, you may do so from Amazon. All support is greatly appreciated for this labor of love.