Filioque??

[Hesychios]

Cardinal Humbert wrote up the declaration himself, and it contains all kinds of silly things.

I don’t think the claim that the Bull was faked by Cardinals Humbert and Frederic was presented until modern times, none of the contemporaries seem to have thought so.

Basically what you are accusing the man (and his accomplice) of is forgery. If he wrote it himself, it would not have had a Bulla, or Papal seal attached.

So they would not only have faked the Pope’s signature, but reproduced a fake seal right there in Constantinople. I don’t know if they were aware that the Supreme Pontiff was dead when they made their infamous move, but it would have been quite a bold and dangerous piece of larceny to fake a Papal Bull. The Pope or his successor or the other Cardinals during the interregnum would find out about it eventually, so they would have to be doubly sure the Pope or his successor would be comfortable with their bold independent actions. I would be interested to see evidence either way.

What we do know is that Humberts’ companion and fellow Legate of the Holy Pontiff, Cardinal Frederic, did nothing to stop him or even expose the charade. Neither did he ever give any indication that he thought the Bull had no effect.

Not even when he became Pope Stephen. He never repudiated the Bull or disowned it. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about Cardinal Frederic, a man of noble ancestry and upbringing…

**As he advanced in years he became as distinguished for character and learning as he was for his birth. **

Yet this man of character did nothing to expose what is claimed today by Catholic apologists as an embarassing fraud. And further, he confirmed the Bull as Pope by allowing this supposedly invalid and false document to stand. Pope Stepehen never did one thing to correct the error.

What’s more, Frederic, (now Pope Stephen) reappointed Humbert to the Cardinalate (apparently the office was not always as it is today, more or less a lifetime honor). Apparently he saw this man as one he could rely upon.

Frankly, it looks to me as though the man Humbert did not write this document himself as is sometimes claimed, but brought it from Rome with him. The only alternatives I can think of are worse to contemplate…

 

[Hesychios]

So they aren’t the one’s Pope Leo III put there? Neither the Latin or the Greek had the filioque by Pope Leo III. That means someone changed the Latin one… why?

I am not exactly certain that this is what Ghosty means.

He does state that the plaques remain as they were. But I always thought that they were originally posted in the Lateran Cathedral.

It’s anyone’s guess where they are now. Hopefully they are still visible someplace.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

The excommunication of 1054 was not over the filioque. Michael I does not cite it as a reason for the excommunication of the Pope. The reason for the excommunication of Michael I was over Michael I’s encorachment into sicily and in particular, forcing sicilians to abandon the western flatbread wafer. Michael I went so far as to deem the unleavened bread heretical.

You seem to always post the most amazing things.

May I quote you on this later?

 

[Aramis]

Michael:
It’s entirely possible the bulla was issued blank but sealed.

 

[Hesychios]

Michael:
It’s entirely possible the bulla was issued blank but sealed.

Would they break the seal to write on it? I find that a rather surprising suggestion. Perhaps I am misunderstanding how these seals are used. Do they not protect the contents from tampering?

Or are you suggesting the Pope would send off blank documents like that with his name on them, with extra seals to be applied as needed?

What you seem to be suggesting is that the Pope had delegated or granted the Cardinals plenipotentiary powers to speak in the name of the church.

An interesting way to look at it. If so, the Pope would still have to accept ownership of the Bull and it stands as a legitimate document, whatever it may say.

Another possibility is the Cardinals stole the documents and seals before they left. I rather doubt that.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Can I ask if this assumption is right?

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son
2. The Father and the Son are One. John 10:30
   So, Statement 1 and ‘The Holy Spirit proceeds from teh Father and the Son’ are both true.
   Am I correct?
   Pax

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I think you are avoiding the issue once again. My point was that there were different creeds that expressed the SAME FAITH. Your bringing up issues of original language doesn’t address the issue. The Latins may have translated ekproeusai wrongly into procedit, but that does not mean that the Latins and Greeks are professing DIFFERENT FAITHS when they add filioque to procedit but refuse to add it to ekporeusai.

Blessings,
Marduk

There’s a reason why the ECUMENICAL (that is, world wide) Council worded the Creed for a reason. This is not a different Creed, or so the West claims. The canon of Toledo specifically states:

Pro reverentia sanctissimę fidei, et propter corroborandas hominum invalidas mentes consulto piissimi et gloriosissimi Recaredi regis constituit synodus, ut per omnes ecclesias Spaniae et Galliae vel Gallitiae secundum formam orientalium ecclesiarum, concilii Constantinopolitani, hoc est centum quinquaginta episcoporum symbolum fidei recitetur. Et priusquam dominica dicatur oratio, voce clara populo predicetur. Quo et fides vera manifesta sit et testimonium habeat et ad Christi corpus et sanguinem pręlibandum pectora populorum fide purificata accedant.

Here “the most Faithful and Glorios King Reccared” orders that “every church recite the symbol of Faith ACCORDING TO THE FORM OF THE EASTERN CHURCH OF THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, THAT IS OF THE 150 BISHOPS.”

benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

The Creed with the filioque IS NOT THAT SYMBOL OF FAITH.

Accept no substition.

The problem I would say became more exaserbated by the polemics in defense of the addition, on several levels.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello

Uh, you mean if the Westerners had left well enough alone, and stayed home.

What occasioned his going to Constantinople? Did he just willy-nilly decide to make trouble in Constantinople one day?

Basically, yes.

Where is that?
Oh so the Western Christians had no right to visit holy places in the Orient. Gotcha!

At customs they don’t let you take in contraband. There’s no right to spread heresy. Egeria managed to come without a problem. So too St. Jerome, despite goofy ideas.

They were invited there by the Bulgarian king. And they did not impose it, but the Greeks that were there complained about it.

As this was coming on the heels of the suppression of the Apostolate to the Slaves of SS Cyril and Methodius, not imposed? The khan thought otherwise, and comparing what happened in Bulgaria versus Moravia, he was right.

Yes, I know that the EO believe that the Church has boundaries. CATHOLICS don’t believe in that innovation.

You mean the Vatican? Yes, I admit it knows no bounds.

As for the particular Churches within the Church, consult canons 6-7 of Nicea I. And the idea that one bishop shouldn’t be interferring in the diocese of another, unless compelled by canon and defense of the Faith.

I’m talking about doctrinal issues between Easterns and Westerns, and you’re talking about geographical boundaries.

That’s the boundaries that the canons set. And it just so happens that the filioque only spread in the West. Despite numerous attempts to bring it East, it has only appeared in Latinizations.

Now, on a TOTALLY different topic.

In Coptic, what is the baptismal formula? I’ve often wondered because the others in the East as far as I know is in the passive, "is baptized in the Name of the Father, etc.). Since Coptic doesn’t have a passive, I’ve often wondered what was the formula.

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t think the claim that the Bull was faked by Cardinals Humbert and Frederic was presented until modern times, none of the contemporaries seem to have thought so.

Basically what you are accusing the man (and his accomplice) of is forgery. If he wrote it himself, it would not have had a Bulla, or Papal seal attached.

So they would not only have faked the Pope’s signature, but reproduced a fake seal right there in Constantinople. I don’t know if they were aware that the Supreme Pontiff was dead when they made their infamous move, but it would have been quite a bold and dangerous piece of larceny to fake a Papal Bull. The Pope or his successor or the other Cardinals during the interregnum would find out about it eventually, so they would have to be doubly sure the Pope or his successor would be comfortable with their bold independent actions. I would be interested to see evidence either way.

What we do know is that Humberts’ companion and fellow Legate of the Holy Pontiff, Cardinal Frederic, did nothing to stop him or even expose the charade. Neither did he ever give any indication that he thought the Bull had no effect.

Not even when he became Pope Stephen. He never repudiated the Bull or disowned it. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about Cardinal Frederic, a man of noble ancestry and upbringing…

As he advanced in years he became as distinguished for character and learning as he was for his birth.

Yet this man of character did nothing to expose what is claimed today by Catholic apologists as an embarassing fraud. And further, he confirmed the Bull as Pope by allowing this supposedly invalid and false document to stand. Pope Stepehen never did one thing to correct the error.

What’s more, Frederic, (now Pope Stephen) reappointed Humbert to the Cardinalate (apparently the office was not always as it is today, more or less a lifetime honor). Apparently he saw this man as one he could rely upon.

Frankly, it looks to me as though the man Humbert did not write this document himself as is sometimes claimed, but brought it from Rome with him. The only alternatives I can think of are worse to contemplate…

If it was written in Rome, we would need to account for how it contained anathemas based on events that occured while Humbert was in Constantinople.

I don’t think he forged it, I think he wrote it out on Papal authority (or at least the presumed standing authority, since there was no Pope during most of the time he was in Constantinople, nor when he delivered the document).

I’ve certainly never heard for certain that it was sealed with the Papal bulla, and I’ve never heard that it was signed by the Pope. Does the document still exist, so we can settle that much? I know that the New Catholic Encyclopedia specifically says the letter was composed by Humbert, which would make sense since it contains matters that occured after the Pope’s death. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia says that the group composed the Bull:

newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm

The legates then prepared the Bull of excommunication against him, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents, which they laid on the altar of Sancta Sophia on 16 July, 1054.

I don’t recall any accounts from the time calling it a Papal Bull, incidently. So what we have is an “unofficial” Papal Bull at best, a bull written under Papal authority (they were sent by the Pope to excommunicate if talks didn’t work out), but not something penned by the Pope, and certainly not a forgery (I don’t think it was ever claimed to have been written by the Pope). If you have any proof otherwise, please share it. I’m interested in knowing what the facts are.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Can I ask if this assumption is right?

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son
2. The Father and the Son are One. John 10:30
   So, Statement 1 and ‘The Holy Spirit proceeds from teh Father and the Son’ are both true.
   Am I correct?
   Pax

That is the Latin understanding, yes. “From” and “through” are synonymous, though expressing different perspectives of the same reality.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I am not exactly certain that this is what Ghosty means.

He does state that the plaques remain as they were. But I always thought that they were originally posted in the Lateran Cathedral.

It’s anyone’s guess where they are now. Hopefully they are still visible someplace.

Michael

You’re correct in what I meant. I honestly don’t know where the famous plates are; I’ve never really bothered to look it up.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The BULGARIAN king invited the Latins.

Acutally, big bad Photios had already baptized Khan Boris, now Michael, who didn’t get the immediate independence he wanted, and then went for a better deal with Pope Nicolas, i.e. he went jurisdiction shopping, a canonical no-no. At the time leading up to the baptism, the Germans had invaded Bulgaria because of his alliance with Moravia (where the Orthodox, with the blessings of Rome, were evangelizing, but the Germans were suppressing, also imposing the filioque, btw). Boris was planning to invade the Roman Empire at the time, but the Germans distracted him and the Romans counterpunched. Once Boris realized what siding with the Latins and Germans meant, he went with New Rome. The Bulgarian Church became autonomous, evern after New Rome handed it over to Old Rome, and it became independent in 912.

And yes the Crusaders were actually invited to Constatinople by a GREEK claimant to the throne.

If he was a claimant to the throne, he had to be Roman.

And said claimant also put the Orthodox Church up for sale, actually destroying icons to melt down for the gold and silver. The Romans said no sale, the Crusaders demanded their 20 pieces of silver, and the fight was on.

And your point was?

Nothing I guess.

 

[Aramis]

Would they break the seal to write on it? I find that a rather surprising suggestion. Perhaps I am misunderstanding how these seals are used. Do they not protect the contents from tampering?

Or are you suggesting the Pope would send off blank documents like that with his name on them, with extra seals to be applied as needed?

No. The seals do not always close a document. They are attached in lieu of signature, via ribbon.

asv.vatican.va/en/dipl/seals.htm has a nice illo of actual vatican seals.

There were about 5 types of “seal” possible on a document:
1: pendant seal of signature
2: pendant seal of closure
3: stamp seal of signature
4: stamp seal of closure
5: Embossed or ink-stamped seal of signature.

The pendant seal of signature is made by taking a ribbon, putting it through slits at the bottom of the document, then passing through a cup’s sides, filling with wax (or lead), and pressing the seal into the wax. The ribbon is then bonded with the wax.

The pendant closure usually is run through the top, since once opened, it can not be reclosed. THe document has the slits cut in the top, and is rolled such that the top is outermost, the ribbon run through the slits, and around the roll, and then sealed such that it can’t be unrolled using the same process as above. The ribbon is cut to open it.

The stamp seal is on the bottom, where we would put a signature. It’s a blob of wax which has had the seal pressed in to authenticate it. Sometimes, a ribbon will be passed through the document and bonded with the wax so that the seal will remain if the wax breaks off the paper.

The stamp seal of closure was little used until envelopes became common. Close the document, and over the lip, pour wax, and press your seal into it.

The embossed or ink-stamped is a “Poor Man’s” method. It’s actually relatively modern, tho some leather stamps from the renaissance are known. It’s used by most modern notaries.

 

[Ignatios]

Can I ask if this assumption is right?

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son
2. The Father and the Son are One. John 10:30
   So, Statement 1 and ‘The Holy Spirit proceeds from teh Father and the Son’ are both true.
   Am I correct?
   Pax

That is the Latin understanding, yes. “From” and “through” are synonymous, though expressing different perspectives of the same reality.

Peace and God bless!

John 15:26
26But 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 testify of me:

This is where this statement comes from, The Holy Bible the Word of GOD, that was spoken right out of the Lips of our Saver and Lord JESUS the CHRIST. And when they put those words in the Creed, they took them right out of the Holy Gospel of John, Under strict order from Saint Constantine the Great, for his orders was, To extract from the Holy Scriptures only, and therfore we can only find verses or biblical sentences from the Holy Bible in the N.Creed.
So, If CHRIST said that the Holy Spirit Proceed from the FATHER , Then HE is from the Father and .(“Period”)
So to say that the Holy Spirit proceed from the “Father and the Son”( filioque), that would mean you are disagreeing with CHRIST according to the Bible, in another word you are going “against” what CHRIST had said and taught, therfore that would make you an antichrist.

But if you think it is the way you want it to be, then GO WRITE YOUR OWN BIBLE, THUS THE BIBLE SAID, THUS CHRIST TAUGHT AND THUS WE THE TRUE CHURCH LIVE BY AND DIE BY.

 

[Hesychios]

(I don’t think it was ever claimed to have been written by the Pope). If you have any proof otherwise, please share it. I’m interested in knowing what the facts are.

Peace and God bless!

Oh no, I don’t.

I just don’t understand how it came to be called a Bull.

The whole subject is baffling. The terminology associated with this story is inconsistent with what we might use today.

You mentioned that it included details about things which happened in Constantinople after the Pope died. Do you know what those things were?

Thanks,
Michael

 

[Ghosty]

Oh no, I don’t.

I just don’t understand how it came to be called a Bull.

The whole subject is baffling. The terminology associated with this story is inconsistent with what we might use today.

You mentioned that it included details about things which happened in Constantinople after the Pope died. Do you know what those things were?

Thanks,
Michael

The term “bulla” refers to any sealed document of the time, since “bulla” refers to the seal. Kings and other secular leaders also used bullas, and I’m sure the Cardinal sealed their document as well. Today we think of “Bulls” as being a type of Papal letter, when the term actually comes from the way in which such letters were sealed.

I’m not sure that this is the reason it came to be called a bulla, but I am fairly certain that the Pope had nothing directly to do with it; even the strongly anti-Orthodox Old Catholic Encyclopedia says that the letter was composed by the Cardinals, and I see no reason why that encyclopedia would try and sugar-coat such an event to make it seem like the Pope hadn’t anathemized the Patriarch of Constantinople directly (in other places it falsely states that the Pope during Photius’ time anathemized him after he had been re-elected Patriarch, a claim that has no basis in history).

As for the details, after my post I tried to look up the old page that recounted Humbert’s testimony on the event, in which the details of the bull are listed, but I can’t find it anymore. It came up in the old forum during a discussion on 1054, and I always used that post as the reference to the link.

At any rate, I seem to recall that the document mentions the Patriarch’s obstinancy in “refusing” to deal with the Cardinals, along with other details of the trip. Unfortunately I don’t have the link anymore, and I can’t find the page, so my statements carry only as much weight as people will give my faulty recollection.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

Oh no, I don’t.

I just don’t understand how it came to be called a Bull.

The whole subject is baffling. The terminology associated with this story is inconsistent with what we might use today.

You mentioned that it included details about things which happened in Constantinople after the Pope died. Do you know what those things were?

Thanks,
Michael

Because the signatory pendant seal is a “Bulla” in Latin.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

No. The seals do not always close a document. They are attached in lieu of signature, via ribbon.

asv.vatican.va/en/dipl/seals.htm has a nice illo of actual vatican seals.

There were about 5 types of “seal” possible on a document:
1: pendant seal of signature
2: pendant seal of closure
3: stamp seal of signature
4: stamp seal of closure
5: Embossed or ink-stamped seal of signature.

The pendant seal of signature is made by taking a ribbon, putting it through slits at the bottom of the document, then passing through a cup’s sides, filling with wax (or lead), and pressing the seal into the wax. The ribbon is then bonded with the wax.

The pendant closure usually is run through the top, since once opened, it can not be reclosed. THe document has the slits cut in the top, and is rolled such that the top is outermost, the ribbon run through the slits, and around the roll, and then sealed such that it can’t be unrolled using the same process as above. The ribbon is cut to open it.

The stamp seal is on the bottom, where we would put a signature. It’s a blob of wax which has had the seal pressed in to authenticate it. Sometimes, a ribbon will be passed through the document and bonded with the wax so that the seal will remain if the wax breaks off the paper.

The stamp seal of closure was little used until envelopes became common. Close the document, and over the lip, pour wax, and press your seal into it.

The embossed or ink-stamped is a “Poor Man’s” method. It’s actually relatively modern, tho some leather stamps from the renaissance are known. It’s used by most modern notaries.

Thank you so much for providing this information. I think there is good reason to believe that the form of the seal was #3.

The Pope sent the Cardinals to Constantinople on a mission of peace. He did not know what the outcome would be, so he sent a blank document with his seal, and expected the cardinals to fill in the document according to the result of the consultations with the Patriarch.

Obviously, the meeting did not go well, and Cardinal Humbert (rashly) inscribed his feelings on the document and affixed his signature to it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

You mentioned that it included details about things which happened in Constantinople after the Pope died. Do you know what those things were?
Michael

The Excommunication with which Michael Kerularios and his Followers
were wounded
Humbert, cardinal bishop of the holy Roman Church by the grace of God; Peter,
archbishop of Amalfi; and Frederick, deacon and chancellor, to all the children of the catholic
Church.
The holy, primary, and apostolic see of Rome, to which the care of all the churches most
especially pertains as if to a head, deigned to make us its ambassadors to this royal city for the
sake of the peace and utility of the Church so that, in accordance with what has been written, we
might descend and see whether the complaint which rises to its ears without ceasing from this
great city, is realized in fact or to know if it is not like this. Let the glorious emperors, clergy,
senate, and people of this city of Constantinople as well as the entire catholic Church therefore
know that we have sensed here both a great good, whence we greatly rejoice in the Lord, and the
greatest evil, whence we lament in misery. For as far as the columns of the imperial power and
its honored and wise citizens go, this city is most Christian and orthodox. But as far as Michael,
who is called patriarch through an abuse of the term, and the backers of his foolishness are
concerned, innumerable tares of heresies are daily sown in its midst. Because like Simoniacs,
they sell the gift of God; like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to
the clergy but to the episcopacy; like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of
the holy Trinity, and especially Latins; like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the
Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world; like Nicolaitists,
they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar; like Severians,
they say that the law of Moses is accursed; like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; like the Manichaeans among others, they state that
leave is ensouled (animatum); like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews
to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and, in
refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized
if they are pagan; and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive
in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice
(institutio) of the Roman Church. For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael
himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to
repent. Furthermore, when we, the Pope’s ambassabors, wanted to eliminate the causes of such
great evils in a reasonable way, he denied us his presence and conversation, forbid churches to
celebrate Mass, just as he had earlier closed the churches of the Latins and, calling them
“azymites,” had persecuted the Latins everywhere in word and deed. Indeed, so much [did he
persecute them] that among his own children, he had anathematized the apostolic see and against
it he still writes that he is the ecumenical patriarch. Therefore, because we did not tolerate this
unheard of outrage and injury of the first, holy, and apostolic see and were concerned that the
catholic faith would be undermined in many ways, by the authority of the holy and individuated
Trinity and the apostolic see, whose embassy we are performing, and of all the orthodox fathers
from the seven councils and of the entire catholic Church, we thus subscribe to the following
anathema which the most reverend pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers unless
they should repent.
Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office (abusivus), who took on the monastic habit
out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo
called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of
the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of
presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians,
Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the
heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN,
AMEN.

Translated from the Latin by W. L. North from the edition of C. Will, Acta et Scripta Quae de
Controversiis Ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae Saeculo Undecimo Composita Extant, Leipzig &
Marburg 1861, Documents VIII-X, pp. 150-4.

www.myriobiblios.gr, the online library of the Greek Church cites C. Will as a primary source for the documents of this period.

Note that the text itself claims to have been written by Humbert and the legates.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother Aramis,

Thank you so much for providing this information. I think there is good reason to believe that the form of the seal was #3.

The Pope sent the Cardinals to Constantinople on a mission of peace. He did not know what the outcome would be, so he sent a blank document with his seal, and expected the cardinals to fill in the document according to the result of the consultations with the Patriarch.

Obviously, the meeting did not go well, and Cardinal Humbert (rashly) inscribed his feelings on the document and affixed his signature to it.

Blessings,
Marduk

Unlikely; #1 is most likely, as the latin for such pendants-signatory is “Bulla”… they are still used, by the way, by the British College of Heralds as formal seals on patents of nobility and other formal documents. Likewise, the Vatican’s office of Heraldry also uses wax seals on heraldric documents.

For more information on the modern use of seals and bullas, I recommend Sir Arthur Fox-Davies, The Art of Heraldry. (Big book, if unabridged… 15 to 20 pounds… and yes, I own a copy!)