Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?

[Ghosty]

The above passage seems to place this limitation on it. It does not say that the Spirit recieves His subsistence from the Father through the Son but simply that He has it from the Father. It says that He proceeds from the Father through the Son but that doesn’t necessarily indicate the same thing.

It’s not a limitation because it doesn’t say “from the Father alone”, or even imply it. It simply says that the subsistence is from the Father (which is also said in Latin filioquist theology, such as St. Thomas Aquinas’ various works). Also, the “proceeds through the Son” is quite significant, especially if the original word used was ekporousis (I don’t know what word was actually used by St. Basil in this passage); the context at least implies that the original term used was ekporousis, since it’s speaking of the procession from the Father, but I don’t know for sure since I don’t have access to the Greek text.

Can you supply this passage you are refering to for St. Gregory?

Sorry, I figured most people here were pretty familiar with it, since it comes up in every filioque discussion here.

The passage in question is from “Not Three Gods”, and is:

…while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another;— by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

This passage explicitley places the Son within the Personal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, and even states that this is required in order to preserve the Son’s “only-Begotteness”. He’s clearly not speaking of manifestation, because he states right out that this is regarding the origin of Persons, and that this is how the Persons are distinguished. If it were merely a matter of manifestation, this would not be a manner of distinguishing Divine Persons from the common Divine Nature, since manifestation is “after” (not in time, but logically speaking) such a distinction, and St. Gregory makes it clear that he’s talking about the distinction of Persons themselves.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

The reason you can’t support Jimmy’s statement is because theologically, Eastern Churchs share the same faith as the Latin Church. If something is true for them, theologically or dogmatically, its true for us. Truth is not rite/church based that sounds like a form of theological relativism to me; its revealed from Heaven by the Church.

No, it’s because I don’t have the patience to sit down and cite it all, nor do I have the references that would be acceptable to those who feel it’s the universal. I can, however, point to the differences in theologumenia, which are many, small, and yet important, like the difference in the understandings of Purgatory and Purgation. Byzantine theology has no indulgences system; The CCC does.

For the Byzantines, at least, the issue of Purgatory is specifically doctrinal: for Rome, the Doctrine is different than for the Byzantines, even tho the underlying dogmatic definition is different. This difference in Doctrine is maintained in the funerary liturgies and praxises.

 

[Ghosty]

I wanted to add the following quote to my previous post, but I couldn’t locate it in time. The quote is from Bishop John Bessarion of Nicaea, monk and theologian, who ultimately favored reunion with the Latin Church at the Council of Florence (and eventually fled to Italy, after the Council, became a Cardinal, and almost became Pope). When speaking about the anti-filioquist responses to Latin proofs at the Council, he said:

 "They [the Latins]     brought forward passages not only of the western teachers but     quite as many of the eastern... to which we had no reply     whatsoever to make except that they were corrupt and     corrupted by the Latins. They brought forward our own     Epiphanius as in many places clearly declaring that the     Spirit is from the Father and the Son: corrupt we said they     were. They read the text mentioned earlier in Basil's work     against Eunomius: in our judgment it was interpolated. They     adduced the words of the Saints of the West: the whole of our     answer was 'corrupt' and nothing more. We consider and     consult among ourselves for several days as to what answer we     shall make, but find no other defense at all but that     …We had no books that would prove the Latin texts to be     corrupt, no Saints who spoke differently from those put     forward. We found ourselves deprived of a just case in every     direction. So we kept silent '.

Bishop John Bessarion was the foremost classical Greek scholar of his day, and was well studied in theology and philosophy; he was hardly a slouch when it came to linguistic and theological understanding. I often find myself thinking of his particular response to Byzantine anti-filioque arguments in these discussions, and I find his sentiment mirrors my own.

He in no way felt the Byzantine tradition inferior; in fact he was instrumental in bringing Greek thought, both philosophical and theological, to the West as he translated it into Latin and taught Byzantine thought in Western schools of his day. It was just that in this particular case he felt that the Latins were indeed properly representing Greek Fathers in defence of Latin theology, and found the Byzantine anti-filioque responses to be (to put it nicely) inadequate in addressing the breadth and depth of the Latin defense. While he viewed the filioque as a particularily Latin theological approach, he found its support in Greek Fathers and theologians and said as much.

Personally, I find myself very sympathetic to Bishop Bessarion in these discussions, and that’s why I bring up this passage.

Peace and God bless!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I would like to point out that the CCC is not a universal catechism.

Errrrr…that’s incorrect according to the Pope, who described the Catechism as responding to the needs of “the universal Church and of the particular Churches” (John Paul II, Fidei Depostium), and promulgated it as such.

According to, Cardinal Ratzinger:

“We took care to maintain a balance between witnesses from East and West in order to underlie the true catholic character of the Catechism.” [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, *Gospel, Catechism, Catechesis

, (Ignatius Press, 1997), pg. 20].

“The bishops present at the 1985 Synod called for a universal catechism of the whole Church…this is the purpose of the Catechism.” (idib., pg. 24)

It is not looked to by Eastern Catholics as the authority on doctrine.

While some Eastern Catholics may not be aware of it, the Catechism was promulgated as authoritative magisterial text by the Roman Pontiff to the universal Church, and is an Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the doctrine within is binding upon even Eastern Rite Catholics.

Canon law for Eastern Catholics (c. 599) requires submission of intellect and will to the teaching of the Roman Pontiff. That some do not obey, is not surprising. We have the same dissent in the Latin Rite. However, according to the Cardinal Ratzinger:

…public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called “dissent”… [which] cannot but seriously trouble the People of God and lead to contempt for true authority… Not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith… Magisterial interventions serve to guarantee the Church’s unity in the truth of the Lord. They aid her to “abide in the truth” in face of the arbitrary character of changeable opinions and are an expression of obedience to the Word of God. Even when it might seem that they limit the freedom of theologians, these actions, by their fidelity to the faith which has been handed on, establish a deeper freedom which can only come from unity in truth. ***The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent… ***Moreover, the theologian who is not disposed to think with the Church (“sentire cum Ecclesia”) contradicts the commitment he freely and knowingly accepted to teach in the name of the Church.

[Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Instruction *Donum Veritatis

]

Accordingly, John Paul II affirmed in Ad Tuendam Fidem:

The third paragraph [of *The Profession of Faith

] states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.” This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law and canon 599 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

 

[Amadeus]

Thank you, Dave!

In other words, each of the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris may come out with her own particular catechism but always in accordance with the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Such particular catechism cannot abrogate, amend, or negate the provisions of the CCC as promulgated by the Pope, the Supreme Authority of the Catholic Church, but should expound on them as far as they are pertinent to that particular Church’s ritual patrimony and liturgical tradition.

I think the UGCC and the Byzantine Catholic Church in America (Ruthenians) have come up with their particular catechisms with Rome’s prior approval.

 

[jimmy]

While some Eastern Catholics may not be aware of it, the Catechism was promulgated as authoritative magisterial text by the Roman Pontiff to the universal Church, and is an Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the doctrine within is binding upon even Eastern Rite Catholics.

I am sorry but you are going to have to support this statement with some evidence. Simply quoting Cardinal Ratzinger on the authority of magisterial documents does not answer the question. The fact is that the Vatican II council declared in the decree on the Eastern Churches that the eastern Churches can and ought to hold to their traditions and that any changes are only to forward their own organic development. The fact is that the Trinitarian theology of the Catechism is not that of the Eastern Churches and no matter how hard you try to make it so it will never be so. It offers the Trinitarian theology of St. Augustine and later western theologians. So the question is are we to abandon our tradition for the western Latin tradition? If that is the case then the CCC has nothing to do with Greek Christians or the Syriac Christians.

Your supposed unity will be the cause for disunity because your type of unity is a false unity.

 

[Aramis]

I am sorry but you are going to have to support this statement with some evidence. Simply quoting Cardinal Ratzinger on the authority of magisterial documents does not answer the question. The fact is that the Vatican II council declared in the decree on the Eastern Churches that the eastern Churches can and ought to hold to their traditions and that any changes are only to forward their own organic development. The fact is that the Trinitarian theology of the Catechism is not that of the Eastern Churches and no matter how hard you try to make it so it will never be so. It offers the Trinitarian theology of St. Augustine and later western theologians. So the question is are we to abandon our tradition for the western Latin tradition? If that is the case then the CCC has nothing to do with Greek Christians or the Syriac Christians.

Your supposed unity will be the cause for disunity because your type of unity is a false unity.

It is rare that I find myself in agreement with Jimmy, but in this case, Well said!

The CCC is particularly western in tone and theology, and imposition would break the Union accord treaties with the Ruthenian, Melkite, and Ukrainian Churches, and violate the conciliar and post-conciliar decrees of the Vatican II council and its work groups.

 

[Ungcsertez]

It is rare that I find myself in agreement with Jimmy, but in this case, Well said!

The CCC is particularly western in tone and theology, and imposition would break the Union accord treaties with the Ruthenian, Melkite, and Ukrainian Churches, and violate the conciliar and post-conciliar decrees of the Vatican II council and its work groups.

Yes indeed, well said! I concur!

U-C

 

[Matariel]

I am misrepresenting nothing. I am stating what is clearly stated in the definitions of Lyons and Florence. I know full well that the Catholic Church NOW teaches both “Father AND the Son” and “Father THROUGH the Son” and claims these are equivalent expressions, but claiming doesn’t make it so. I am reading nothing into the councils other than what is there. As to Ghosty, I have dialogued with him several times on the issue, and still have recent posts unanswered by him. The fact is that the Orthodox Church strongly believes that “and the Son” and “through the Son” are not equivalent expressions, and that “and the Son” is not the teaching of the Fathers. Since the original poster came from an Orthodox background, I thought that might be something he had thought about.

“Father and the Son” is less specific than “Father through the Son” but that is what Catholic Christians believe, and you would do well to realize that. The best thing to say is the Spirit spirates from the Father throught the Son.

 

[George14]

I don’t see a conflict: spiration is mutual, and the Holy Spirit is the embodiment of the spiration: Love proceeds from each of Father and Son. Are we really to know how?

Dunno about you. I have a limited brame: unnerstanding level somewhere in the lowest of the species–enuf to function.

It’s interesting to speculate, yes.

Too bad it’s a sticking point, this unknowable.

 

[Matariel]

I don’t see a conflict: spiration is mutual, and the Holy Spirit is the embodiment of the spiration: Love proceeds from each of Father and Son. Are we really to know how?

Dunno about you. I have a limited brame: unnerstanding level somewhere in the lowest of the species–enuf to function.

It’s interesting to speculate, yes.

Too bad it’s a sticking point, this unknowable.

I really do not know why some of the Orthos really make a big to-do over nothing. Rome has gone out of its way to oblige them… but to what avail? Not counting Patriarch Bartholomew, he’s an awesome Orthodox!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am sorry but you are going to have to support this statement with some evidence.

I did. I quoted the Apostolic Constitution by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism, addressed to the whole Church, offered to the “whole Church” for the needs of the “universal Church,” your denial, notwithstanding.

Simply quoting Cardinal Ratzinger on the authority of magisterial documents does not answer the question.

I quoted Cardinal Ratzinger who affirmed (as did John Paul II) that that the Catechism is a “universal” Catechism. This is precisely what you denied. You claimed that it was not a “universal Catechism.” Yet the pope who promulgated it, in the very Apostolic Constitution of his says othewise, as well as the Cardinal responsible for leading the development of the Catechism, who is also the current pope. Your continued denial is absurd.

John Paul II stated explicitly,

Following the renewal of the Liturgy and the new codification of the canon law of the Latin Church and that of the Oriental Catholic Churches, this catechism will make a very important contribution to that work of ***renewing the whole life of the Church ***[Apostolic Constitution *Fidei Depositum

]

The pope’s intent, according his Apostolic Constitution to the “whole Church” is for this catechism to contribute to the renewal of the life of the Latin and Oriental Catholic Churches.

The fact is that the Vatican II council declared in the decree on the Eastern Churches that the eastern Churches can and ought to hold to their traditions

Catholics can and do hold to a plurality of theologies, and a plurality of customs. Catholicism rejects a plurality of doctrines. If any theology or tradition is contrary to Catholic doctrine, than it is not Catholic.

The fact is that the Trinitarian theology of the Catechism is not that of the Eastern Churches and no matter how hard you try to make it so it will never be so.

It’s not up to me. It is certain teaching (doctrine) according to the authentic magisterium, specifically promulgated by the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

Your supposed unity …

It’s not my unity. You are the one claiming to be in union with the Roman Pontiff, yet denying his doctrine. I agree, to do so is indeed a false unity.

I for one affirm my unity with the Chair of Peter, as Professio Dei states: "I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”

For instance, when the pope declared in his Aposotlic Constitution Fidei Depositum:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith … the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See

I say, AMEN!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Eastern Catholic (Melkite) bishop John Elya also contends that the Catechism of the Catholic Church was promulgated as a universal Catechism for Eastern and Western Catholics. He states, specifically regarding the Catholic doctrine of indulgences:

The Church, as the living, mystical Body of Christ, dispenses the mercy of God in many ways. We find that the doctrine of indulgences is a beautiful expression of the Church’s role in bringing salvation and healing to both the living and the dead. Feel secure in the teachings of the Church. I suggest that you read No. 1471 of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church that Pope John Paul II addressed to all Venerable Cardinals, Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests and to all faithful [of the East and West.] This is a jubilee year of abundant graces and many indulgences. We do well to take advantage of its many blessings. source]

 

[Ungcsertez]

Eastern Catholic (Melkite) bishop John Elya also contends that the Catechism of the Catholic Church was promulgated as a universal Catechism for Eastern and Western Catholics. He states, specifically regarding the Catholic doctrine of indulgences:

I think to get a true answer to this question, all of the Metropolitans, Chor Bishops and Patriarchs of the numerous Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches in Communion with the Roman Catholic Church would have to be asked. I would bet that many wouldn’t want to be asked or give their opinion for fear of offending the Pope, Cardinals and Roman Catholic Bishops.

Certainly Bishop Elya has his opinion on this subject, but I do not believe this is true in every Partriarchal and “Sui Juris” Eastern and Oriental Particular Church.

U-C

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think to get a true answer to this question, all of the Metropolitans, Chor Bishops and Patriarchs of the numerous Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches in Communion with the Roman Catholic Church would have to be asked…

I think the pope’s answer is the only authoritative response. He said it was a universal Catechism. I brought Bishop Elya’s view to the discussion so that this was not viewed as only justdave’s opinon of what the pope said. Regardless of the various opinions, the only answer that matters is the intention of the Roman Pontiff when he promulgated the Catechism to all the particular Churches in union with him. He said it was a Catechism for the “universal Church”, all views to the contrary notwithstanding. The Catechism is indeed "***a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine…*a sure norm for teaching the faith…***to all the particular Churches" *[John Paul II]

 

[Ungcsertez]

I think the pope’s answer is the only authoritative response. He said it was a universal Catechism. I brought Bishop Elya’s view to the discussion so that this was not viewed as only justdave’s opinon of what the pope said. Regardless of the various opinions, the only answer that matters is the intention of the Roman Pontiff when he promulgated the Catechism to all the particular Churches in union with him. He said it was a Catechism for the “universal Church”, all views to the contrary notwithstanding. The Catechism is indeed "***a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine…***a sure norm for teaching the faith…to all the particular Churches" [John Paul II]

Does that mean that all of leaders of the Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches in union w/Rome had to sign an agreement clause? The filioque issue is a major dispute that continues to seperate the Roman Catholic Church from her sister Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. I do not believe the Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches in union w/Rome have specifically agreed to accept everything printed in the Catechist. It would not help the current ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.

U-C

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Does that mean that all of leaders of the Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches in union w/Rome had to sign an agreement clause? …

According to canon law (c. 187.2, CCEO), all bishops must make an oath of fidelity according to the 1998 Professio Fidei, which states:

I, N., with firm faith believe and profess everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith: namely:

   I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.  I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.  For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became     incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.  On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.  I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, ***who proceeds from the Father and the Son.***  With the Father and the Son he is     worshiped and glorified.  He has spoken through the Prophets.  I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.  I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.  Amen.

   With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in     the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the     Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal     Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

     Moreover, I adhere with religious       submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not       intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

[L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
15 July 1998, page 3, http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFOATH.HTM”]source]

For Eastern Catholics, the filioque may be omitted, *under the condition that they accept this doctrine *according to the Council of Florence (cf. Nov 1961 letter from the hiearchy of the Melkite Greek Church to Pope John XXIII, source).

According to Pope Benedict XIV:

The first question

is **whether the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is a dogma of the Faith. This question has always been firmly answered that there is no room for doubting that this procession is a dogma of the Faith and that every true Catholic accepts and professes this. …

…the second question is whether it is permissible to add the phrase “and from the Son” to the Creed in the Mass even though this phrase was not used at the Council of Nicea or the Council of Constantinople…it is indeed lawful and very appropriate to make this addition to the Nicene Creed. The Council of Ephesus forbade only additions which are contrary to the Faith, presumptuous, and at variance with general practice, but not those additions which are orthodox and express more plainly some point of faith implied in that Creed.

On the assumption that the first two answers are accepted, the third and final question is whether Orientals and Greeks can be allowed to say the Creed in the way they used to before the Schism, that is to say, without the phrase “and from the Son.” On this final point, the practice of the Apostolic See has varied. Sometimes it allowed the Orientals and Greeks to say the Creed without this addition…

**Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence allowed the Orientals to say the Creed without the addition. **

(Benedict XIV, Encyclical Allatae Sunt, July 26, 1755)

Consequently, the hierarchy of the Melkite Greek Church in a letter to Pope John XXIII, Nov 1961, affirm they profess this doctrine however, according to what was allowed by the Council of Florence, they are permitted to say the Creed and the Profession Fidei without the filioque.

This practice can in no way be construed as though this doctrine is not binding upon Eastern Catholics. To claim that this dogma is not dogma is to cling to a false union, contrary to the integrity of the oath of fidelity canonically required of each bishop.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… It would not help the current ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.

The Catholic Church cannot teach contrary to her doctrine in order to create a false ecumenism between churches.

What is the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the filioque? It was expressed by the Council of Florence, which is binding upon Eastern Catholics in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

According to Melkite Bishop John Elya:

While the first seven ecumenical councils enjoy a place of prominence, especially in the East, both the Churches of the East and West have experienced local councils and synods throughout their rich histories. The early ecumenical councils met to resolve and articulate important Christological doctrines. The Melkite Church participated fully in Vatican I and Patriarch Gregory spoke clearly to his affirmation of the fullness of power enjoyed by the Petrine Office. The Patriarch was very concerned that the exercise of papal powers be “in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees.” The second Vatican Council is seen to have completed the unfinished business of Vatican I with its special emphasis on ecclesiology, specifically on the nature of the Church.

Recent theological speculation has developed the concept of “communion of churches” with promising results for ecumenism and rapprochement with the Orthodox. It would be a simple rekindling of the old controversy of conciliarism to suggest that some councils are less ecumenical than others. With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent. (source)

                                                    ***As Catholics, we are bound to all of the decrees of the councils that have been promulgated by the Holy Father. ***([source](http://www.melkite.org/Questions/T-3.htm))

Does Bishop Elya speak for all Eastern Catholic Churches? No. However, neither does any lay Eastern Catholic who offers their opinion on this forum. Has anybody else quoted an Eastern Catholic Bishop on this issue? By what authority do Eastern Catholics claiming full communion with the Roman Pontiff reject what is considered Catholic dogma by Roman Pontiffs?

Ironically, there are bishops that are NOT in communion with the Roman Pontiff who state the filioque is a legitimate but different way of expressing the SAME Catholic faith, presumably in acceptance of the authority of St. Maximos of Constantinople, who defended the Latin use of the filioque well before the Photian schism.

 

[Ungcsertez]

According to canon law (c. 187.2, CCEO), all bishops must make an oath of fidelity according to the 1998 Professio Fidei, which states:

For Eastern Catholics, the filioque may be omitted, *under the condition that they accept this doctrine *according to the Council of Florence (cf. Nov 1961 letter from the hiearchy of the Melkite Greek Church to Pope John XXIII, source).

According to Pope Benedict XIV:

Consequently, the hierarchy of the Melkite Greek Church in a letter to Pope John XXIII, Nov 1961, affirm they profess this doctrine however, according to what was allowed by the Council of Florence, they are permitted to say the Creed and the Profession Fidei without the filioque.

This practice can in no way be construed as though this doctrine is not binding upon Eastern Catholics. To claim that this dogma is not dogma is to cling to a false union, contrary to the integrity of the oath of fidelity canonically required of each bishop.

So Eastern Catholics are to believe in the filioque doctrine, but are not required to actually recite the filioque clause in their Nicene Creed?

U-C

 

[Diak]

The CCEO predated this 1998 document. The CCEO says nothing about some specific Professio Fidei. The CCEO only states:

Canonical provision is necessary for anyone to be promoted to the episcopate, by which the person is constituted the eparchial bishop of a determined eparchy or by which another determined function in the Church is committed to him. 2. Prior to
episcopal ordination the candidate is to make a profession of
faith and a promise of obedience to the Roman Pontiff and, in
patriarchal Churches, also a promise of obedience to the patriarch in those matters in which he is subject to the patriarch
according to the norm of law.

Nothing about Florence is mentioned at all. When my bishop made his profession of faith (I was a subdeacon and was present) he ommitted the Filioque and made none of the clarifications you claim are necessary. The Pro-Nuncio was present as was Patriarch Lubomyr.
FDRLB