Remove ecumene content

2024-01-23 22:04:47 -08:00 · 2024-01-23 22:04:47 -08:00 · 54a0009e62
parent 85116d2e31
commit 54a0009e62
59 changed files with 0 additions and 5613 deletions
--- a/src/page/ecumen/bolotov-filioque.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/bolotov-filioque.md
@ -1,393 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Theses on the "Filioque" by a Russian theologian
 author: Vasilii Vasilievich Bolotov
 date: 1898
 source: https://bekkos.wordpress.com/bolotov-theses-on-the-filioque-1898/
 source: https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=ikz-001:1898:6#705
 source: http://www.odinblago.ru/filioque/
 comment: I have copied the English translation from bekkos.wordpress.com; the link thereto says that the English was translated from the also-linked German with help from the DeepL machine translator. The bekkos.wordpress.com post links to another blog whence the link to the German text was taken. This post provides the link to the article in Russian at www.odinblago.ru, but since I could do no better than leaning on a machine translator, I have opted to keep the German rather than translate the Russian. [A biography on the website of Saint Petersburg State University](https://relstud-hist.spbu.ru/en/articles/bolotov-vasily) says that he read in more than 30 languages, so I suspect that he wrote the German himself, and therefore the text here is still one degree of translation and not two from his own words anyway.
 comment: As bekkos.wordpress.com says, the context of this article is the dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Catholics.
 ---
 # [Foreword](#foreword) {#foreword}
 The following lines contain only the private opinion of a single theologian who submits them to the readers’ benevolent judgment; they are the translation of a Russian manuscript, which was *not* intended for printing and, if I am not mistaken, was known to only three Russian theologians. These sketches, with the exception of a few pages which have been reworked "ad hoc", appear in the same form as they were written a few years ago. At that time the content of the resolutions reached by the Petersburg Commission (of 1893) could not be known to me, consequently I could not think of getting into any polemic with the Rotterdam Commission (of 1896), and if my sketch contains a kind of answer to some lines of the report of the same, it is quite unintentional.
 In the interest of clarifying our mutual position I will take the liberty of discussing a few points in more detail.
 The Rotterdam Commission finds that the Petersburg Commission does not seem to "distinguish dogma from theological opinion sharply enough." If this remark were addressed to all Russian theologians, I too (as such) would have the right to join in, and would have said that this accusation is hardly a fair one. The Old Catholics strictly distinguish between: a) dogma and b) theological opinion; I personally[^1] distinguish: a) dogma, b) _theologoumenon_ and c) theological opinion, and hope that other Russian theologians, when these lines from the _Revue Internationale de Théologie_ will be known to them, will also have no principled reason to disagree with my opinion.
 [^1]: The one who is familiar with the ordinary life of the Russian theologian will easily understand why, under the pen of each one of us, it is only in extremely rare cases that an "I" can turn into a "we" with a certain authority. We do not have separate theological schools, in the sense of consistently carried out approaches; this is so, not only in matters of principle, but also in individual theses. Actually, each Russian theologian represents only his own private opinion.
 A. On the question of what is dogma, there exists no disagreement between us and the Old Catholics, and none _must_ exist.
 B. I may be asked what I mean by _theologoumenon_? By its nature it is also a theological opinion, but an opinion of those who mean more to every "Catholic" than ordinary theologians; they are the theological opinions of the holy fathers of the one undivided Church; they are the opinions of men, among whom are also those rightly called οἱ διδάσκαλοι τῆς οἰκουμένης[^2].
 [^2]: A title which, on the whole and essentially, is analogous to the western "Doctores Ecclesiae".
 I place _theologoumena_ very high, but without overestimating their importance; also, I think I distinguish them sharply enough from dogma.
 The content of dogma is the _true_, the content of the _theologoumenon_ is only the _probable_. In the realm of dogma are the _necessaria_, in the realm of the _theologoumenon_ are the _dubia_: _In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas!_
 No expert has the right to forbid me to adhere to a _theologoumenon_ (as to my private opinion), if this _theologoumenon_ has been pronounced even by a single church father (if, of course, it has not been proven that the competent ecclesiastical judgment has declared this view to be erroneous).[^3]
 [^3]: But if it _is_ proven, then _ipso facto_ this view ceases to be valid as a _theologoumenon_ for me.
 On the other hand, no expert will ask me to accept as my private theological opinion a _theologoumenon_ which, although established by some Fathers of the Church, neither captivates me by its sublime theological beauty nor convinces me by its sovereign power accessible to my reason. One thing is clear for me in the given case: even if I do not myself confess the aforementioned _theologoumenon_, I nevertheless also do not have the right to condemn those theologians who do confess it; and if it is necessary for me to discuss this _theologoumenon_, then, even in that case, I should treat it reverently and with the respect due to the reputation of the church fathers.
 Whether only one church father or several[^4] accepted the given _theologoumenon_ is a question that can have no essential meaning; each of the holy church fathers had the moral right to say with Paul: "But I think also that I have the Spirit of God" (I Cor. 7, 40), and if a whole crowd of such bearers of the high religious spirit accepts this _theologoumenon_, then my subjective conviction is confirmed that I also stand on solid ground, that this probability is most probable, that it is very close to a certainty. However, even a very common _theologoumenon_ is not yet a dogma.
 [^4]: In its opinion the Rotterdam Commission notes that not only "some" church teachers taught the immanent procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, but that this was the common teaching of the East, and draws up a list of nine Greek church teachers. Didymus probably should not be on this list. In my opinion, his views were of a very peculiar nature; moreover, after the Fifth Ecumenical Council, his name was not in the best reputation among Orthodox theologians. (Cf. the _Synodica_ of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem and the _Definitio_ of the Sixth Ecumenial Synod.) It is hardly expedient to invoke his authority in theological disputes. Moreover, every Russian will notice that in this list the name of St. Chrysostom is "conspicuous by its absence," of St. Chrysostom, one of the three hierarchs extolled by our Church, τρεῖς ἱεράρχαι, καὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης διδάσκαλοι, and this omission explains the whole state of affairs: Chrysostom is the representative of the Antiochene theological school, as is Theodoret of Cyrus. Certainly Theodoret was not an angel, but he was a man of honor; from the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria ἴδιον αὐτοῦ (τοῦ Υἱοῦ) πνεῦμα, " the Son’s own Spirit," Theodoret drew the following conclusion: εἰ δὲ [ἴδιον τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἔφη] ὡς ἐξ Υἱοῦ, ἢ δι’ Υἱοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, ὡς βλάσφημον τοῦτο καὶ ὡς δυσσεβὲς ἀπορρίψομεν: "But if He called the Spirit ἴδιον τοῦ Υἱοῦ in the sense that He has being from the Son or through the Son, we reject this view as blasphemous and impious." Without further ado, an Arian sense is imputed to the expression δι’ Υἱοῦ. Theodoret would certainly not have acted in this way if the _theologoumenon_ δι’ Υἱοῦ, "through the Son," had also been common in the area of influence of the Antiochene school. All the nine names mentioned in the report belong to representatives of the Alexandrian theological perspective. The _theologoumenon_ of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father _through the Son_ would might therefore be called Alexandrian rather than generally eastern.
 C. From _theologoumena_ I distinguish sharply enough, perhaps even too sharply, theological opinions. The main characteristic of these latter is that they have no authority. They are merely private opinions of those who in my eyes are only theologians, nothing more. But the theologians — since I too am one, _licet indignus_ — I must in principle regard as my _pares_. If I accept the theological opinions of a Thomas Aquinas, of a Petavius, of a Perrone as mine, I do it just for the same reason why I also assume that 2 x 2 makes 4. For me the circumstance has no importance at all that the great Pythagoras thought in the same way. I myself think that 2 x 2 equals 4, and could not even think differently; and just this subjective moment has a decisive meaning for me. If, however, the reasons given for a theological opinion are not convincing for me, then I quite simply reject this opinion and, if the circumstances demand it, I will attack it pitilessly, even ruthlessly, if only I possess the critical acumen necessary for this.
 More important is the other side of the matter. In the choice of my theological private opinions I am free, but not unconditionally so. The limit of my freedom consists in the obligatory requirement that these private opinions must not contradict dogma. If I choose my private opinions among the _theologoumena_ of the church fathers, I _ipso facto_ place myself above any suspicion of contradiction with dogma. No expert will demand proofs from me for it. A _theologoumenon_ of a church father contradicting a dogma sounds to the ear of a Catholic like a most screaming _contradictio in adjecto_, like dark light. If, on the other hand, I choose my private opinions among the theological opinions, then I am responsible for them, as for my own speculations, and have to take upon myself the _onus probandi_ that, οὕτως φρονῶν, by thinking so, I do not contradict dogma.
 This is the reason why it is so desirable that, in judging the trinitarian mystery, theologians do not leave the relatively firm basis of the patristic _theologoumena_ to enter the shaky ground of theological opinions, that they hold to the patristic expressions[^5] themselves as formulas.
 [^5]: To explain this sentence I would like to give only one example: In I. 2. of the _Opinion_ we read that "not a few Doctors of the Church" have taught _the immanent procession_ of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, thus acknowledging the Son as its "secondary cause," but … in one breath is pronounced both the quite indisputable statement of the fact (…"the immanent" etc…) as well as the daring conclusion (…"thus acknowledging the Son as its secondary cause"…) whose _onus probandi_, in my opinion, is as heavy as the globe itself; indeed, even the screamingly unpatristic designation "secondary cause" is presented as the only correct one! For an examination of this, see my _Thesis_ 8.
 It is not easy to believe that a perfecting of the patristic heritage, even if this is undeniably possible in theory and in principle, can be realized in practice. Where are our sources of help for such a perfecting?
 How, in what way I understand the content of the _theologoumenon_ of the church fathers concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, δι’ Υἱοῦ, is presented in my first remark (which is to be considered as an introduction to my theses). _In nuce_ my view is laid out at length _sub versu_ pag. 693; and, to clarify my point of view towards viable western _terminis technicis,_ I remark that it is the cause alone that is effective, a condition is not something productive.
 Theological opinions as well as _theologoumena_ are actually luxury articles, are not an inevitable necessity. If the life of the human soul consisted only of processes of logical thinking, dogma by itself would satisfy us completely. For us it would be enough to know the true, on its own; we could easily do without the probable. Sometimes, however, man prefers the less exact but aesthetically well-ordered idea of the thing to its absolutely exact concept. Mathematicians have a sufficiently exact conception of the geometrical π, as an empirically recognizable quantity. They can quite well designate this π by a twenty-digit number or by a twenty-digit logarithm; nevertheless, the history of mathematics reveres the names of a Wallis, a Leibniz, a Machin, who have proposed formulas for the calculation of approximate quantities of π. We observe the same thing in the history of astronomy: one is not content with a sufficiently exact knowledge of the distance of the planets from the sun; a Titius, a Wurm, invent simple rules for the calculation of these distances, which set up series of numbers, which are quite inaccurate, but indicate the progression of these distances more simply, more descriptively, even more elegantly from an aesthetic point of view. No wonder if also theology, alongside dogma, still sets up _theologoumena_ and theological opinions. Simple natures are content with dogma, with a simple knowledge of the basic facts of faith, but deeper investigating spirits would like to approach at least a probable clarification of the "_Quomodo_" of these facts.
 So far, we are separated from the Old Catholics by a potentiality, a possible, rather than an already existing difference in our relations with the _theologoumena_. We and the Old Catholics are on different levels of culture. Among us Russians very few yet feel the need to have _theologoumena_ and private opinions alongside dogma, whereas among Old Catholics theological opinions are already elaborated. This potential difference can turn into a real one, if we Russians in the future (as it is to be hoped) remain worthy of our past, faithful to our cultural, historical principles; then our theological science will also elaborate its specific theological opinions, which will be based on the _theologoumena_ of the fathers of the **Eastern** Church.
 The basis of the theological opinions discussed at present lies in the purely **western** _theologoumenon_ of St. Augustine. Therein lies the difficulty of the situation; what outcome is at hand? Perhaps I should be content now with the saying _religiosum est divinari!_
 But in any case, wrong steps are to be avoided. Perhaps even the friendly "schiedlich friedlich" (agreeing to disagree) would not be the worst _modus agendi_ to avoid such steps. In the not long history of our relations with the Old Catholics, a miserable word has already been pronounced, which is very regrettable: _concessio_, "to yield." But the one who is expected to make a _concessio_ (in this matter) has no right to make one. Excessive demands must not be made. Only what is absolutely necessary! A trade is not permissible here. Certainly also _Topica_, commonplace sayings, which obscure the truth, are to be avoided. Also no distortions of opinion!
 Not much good could be expected from the negotiations if the Russians wanted to try to find in Augustine only the _theologoumenon_ of the eastern church fathers; but I also doubt the scientific right of any theologian to describe the eastern fathers only as predecessors of Augustine, as if _in Augustino patet, quod in Orientalibus latet!_ Russian theologians, I believe, will never be able to admit that Augustine’s teaching is the completion, the crowning of the construction of the _theologoumenon_ of the Fathers of the Eastern Church. But is this opinion still accepted by many in the West? It cannot be denied that Augustine was not a connoisseur of the doctrine of the eastern fathers[^6]. He may have been a deep thinker, but does he not stand there as an isolated figure? And even the Augustinian _theologoumenon_, is it not more like a _philosophoumenon_?
 [^6]: A. Harnack, _Lehrbuch der Dogmen-Geschichte_ (Freiburg im Breisgau 1888), II. 296, 297: "His (H. Reuter’s) thesis, ‘he (Augustine) made very little use in trinitarian discussions, not only of Greek, but also of Latin authors’, is to be agreed with absolutely." Cf. II. 292, note 2: "But the cause of the Spirit is the Father alone. This doctrinal concept remained dominant, and it does not detract from this that, in Epiphanius and Cyril, one passage has been demonstrated for each of them according to which the Spirit is ἐξ ἀμφοῖν."
 The basic terms of the eastern _theologoumenon_: **Πατὴρ, Υἱὸς – Λόγος, Πνεῦμα** are taken textually from sacred Scripture; can the same be said of the Augustinian _Mens ipsa, notitia mentis, amor – memoria, intelligentia, voluntas?_
 The Greek church fathers and Augustine went their independent ways in theology and arrived at two not at all identical _theologoumena_. There is no question of an Augustinian hegemony in trinitarian speculation.
 One more word at the end: because of my 26th thesis I may be asked: What was the cause of the separation, the rupture of communion of the one Catholic Church? I answer frankly: the communion has been sundered by the Roman papacy, the old hereditary enemy of the Catholic Church, which will probably cease to exist only when the last enemy — death — is also abolished.
 # [Introduction to the subjoined theses](#introduction) {#introduction}
 ## [I.](#introduction.I) {#introduction.I}
 In the following lines I will take the liberty to present my idea of the various images with the help of which the church fathers wanted to bring the mystery of the existence of the Holy Spirit closer to human understanding.
 First of all, two general preliminary remarks:
 1\. Τhe hypostases of the Holy Trinity differ only τῷ τρόπῳ τῆς ὑπάρξεως, by their relations of causality, as αἴτιον – αἰτιατά.
 The relation of the cause, τὸ αἴτιον, to the caused, τὸ αἰτιατόν, is a logical relation; in our thought the cause precedes, is a "_prius,_" of the caused. But man cannot in any way free himself from the conditions of space and time. Consequently, the logical _prius_ becomes the chronological one. Man thinks first (earlier in time) of the cause and only then of the caused. Consequently, the metaphysical quality of the divine being, the extra-temporality (the eternity), is absolutely inconceivable for man; we can think this quality only by defacing it: the divine "from eternity" is for us a momentary act that happened in the most remote corner created by our imagination. The divine "always" is for our imagination an incessantly lasting process consisting of tercias, seconds, minutes, hours. The divine "out of space" is something quite unrealizable for our imagination; the best we can do to grasp the out of space is to impute to this "out of space" the smallest conceivable space, the so-called mathematical point. The divine "everywhere"‘ is given to us in our imagination with the character of spatial extension.
 If the mathematician has to calculate the fraction ⅒ with logarithms, he takes it for a whole number 1,000,000,000 and gets for it the logarithm 9,000 0000. However, he adds to this logarithm a corrective by writing behind the mantissa 9,000 0000 still the negative characteristic -10; but this negative characteristic is applied only at the sum; in the process of the logarithmic calculation, however, the ten pennies continue to figure in the shape of a billion marks. What for the mathematician is the negative index -10, is for the theologian the reservation θεοπρεπῶς, worthy of God. Powerless to wrestle with the deformities which our thinking introduces into the dogma, we deny them, and make protest against them, asserting: may it stand with our thinking in reality, be it so, we, when we speak of Always and Everywhere, grasp these terms only in a "God-worthy" way, only in the sense of "timeless" and "extra-spatial". In my arguments I will also use the time and space concepts freely, but I defend myself against them as against an inevitable lack. Just so the astronomer acts: he protests against the claim that the sun goes around the earth, although he always sees only the sun’s rising and setting, not the movement of the earth around its axis.
 2\. My second preliminary remark concerns the _intelligible_ character of the following arguments. I believe, however, that a certain excess in this respect is unavoidable, since the images that will be discussed are given by the Church Fathers themselves, who had to fight Arianism. The historical situation of the time demanded that, in the name of the higher understanding of the reasons of Christianity, the Fathers of the Church, animated by the consciousness of the divine traits imprinted in the profoundest depths of the human being, attacked and defeated the logic of the Arians as ἄλογος καὶ ἄσοφος on their own ground.
 ## [II.](#introduction.II) {#introduction.II}
 The church fathers of the fourth century had a threefold task to solve, namely:
 a) To overcome Arianism in its germ by proving that Christ is the Son of God, the true Son of the Father. In Orthodox theology the concept of the Son is theological, in Arianism it is cosmological. In the Orthodox systems the Son is "for the Father’s sake," διὰ τὸν Πατέρα (John 6:57). The necessity of the Son’s being is motivated by the harmonious, incomprehensibly mysterious nature (λόγος, τρόπος) of the inward life of the Godhead: The Son is _ad intra_; whereas in Arianism the Son exists for the sake of the world. In the nature of the inner life of the One, all-perfect God, who has in Himself His full sufficiency and blessedness, there is no motive for the Son’s being. But since without the mediation of the Son the all-perfect God would not have had the possibility to bring forth the imperfect world, so for the Arian the Son is _ad extra_, as the hypostatic mediator between the infinite and the finite.
 b) To show the inseparableness of the hypostases of the Holy Trinity.
 c) To show that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are truly of one essence, i.e. to give a point of reference, a support for the human mind to imagine a unity of essence that is not a simple unity of species as perceived in the world, but is the true unity of the One God. This proof culminates in the thesis about τῆς θείας οὐσίας τὴν πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἁρμονίαν, about τὸ συνεχὲς of the divine substance, in which there is no διαστήματός τινος ἀνυποστάτου κενότης, no empty fissure of "not being." Accordingly, the three hypostases συμφυεῖς, συνημμέναι, ἔχονται ἀλλήλων, ἤρτηνται προσεχῶς, are grown together, immediately adjoining, clinging to each other, strongly joined together, so that human thought can find no empty interstice in the united substance of the Trinity, not κενεμβατεῖν (entering into an empty place), in a similar way as the eye of the human vision cannot grasp in the rainbow the precise boundary between the prismatic colors merging into each other. It is well known that the way of thinking of the ancient church fathers is characterized by its wholeness. It does not know the rubrics which have become a habitual thing for us from childhood. Thus, for example, their theological argumentation very seldom lets us be clear about the extent to which they understand concepts from the realm of ontological revelation on the one hand and those from the realm of economic revelation on the other, distinguishing these one from another. Also the explanation of the above-mentioned three theses often runs in parallel with the fathers. Hence, alongside the comparison of the trinitarian mystery with sun, ray and splendor, we encounter a so-to-speak analytical formula. The Fathers of the Church, taking as the starting point of their thinking the truth contained in the Word of Christ (in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) as an adequate, exact order of the hypostases (as well as man can understand it), which corresponds absolutely correctly to the inner essence of the Triune God, establish a thesis which looks like a mathematical formula: A : B :: B : C. The Father stands in the same relation to the Son as the Son to the Holy Spirit; or: The Son is the image of the Father, the Holy Spirit the image of the Son.
 The logical basis of the first part of this comparison is: for man, the Father without the Son, or the Son without the Father, is absolutely inconceivable. "The Father exists, consequently the Son also exists." This thought is not itself a conclusion, it is a mere statement of a fact. For the human thought no mediating concept exists between the concepts "Father and "Son" (and none, moreover, can exist).
 Consequently: αα) No mediation can exist between the being (ὑπόστασις, ὕπαρξις) of the Father and the being (ὑπόστασις, ὕπαρξις) of the Son.
 Consequently : ββ) The hypostasis of the Son συνεχῶς ἤρτηται (is directly linked) with the hypostasis of the Father, i.e. the Son is the second person of the Trinity, and for human thought there is an absolute necessity to presuppose the Son precisely as the second (i.e., the one and only hypostasis which presupposes as its _prius_, as its πρεσβύτερον, the one and only hypostasis alone, namely the first hypostasis).
 Consequently : γγ) But if the being of the Son is directly established by the being of the Father Himself, then the Arian cosmological consideration of the Son, namely the order of the terms : God – the idea of the world – the Son, is false. 
 Consequently: δδ) The Son is One and Alone from the One, the Only-begotten, who shone from the Father, and by his being (ὕπαρξις) presupposing the One, Only One Father as logical _prius_.
 ## [III.](#introduction.III) {#introduction.III}
 The above also establishes the church fathers’ view of the person of the Holy Spirit. Human thought is unable to deduce with compelling clarity the existence of the Holy Spirit from the nature of the Father. The mediation of the Son comes to its aid and presents itself as absolutely necessary, if only because there is no possibility for thought to assume a third where a second is missing.
 The Son is Λόγος, the Word of God, and the formula A : B :: B : C is actually formed into the thesis: the Father relates to the Son as the Word relates to the Spirit. (Among various other attempts at explaining the second half of the equation (:: B : C), one can still cite the one originally given by St. Gregory of Nyssa: like Χριστὸς to Χρίσμα, or like Βασιλεὺς to Βασιλεία.)
 Man cannot possibly utter a word without breathing. The Word of God, notes St. Gregory of Nyssa, would be more defective than the human one if it were without the Holy Spirit.
 Consequently: αα) the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is linked with the hypostasis of the Son, and through the Son comes into connection with the hypostasis of the Father[^7].
 [^7]: S. Bas. Magn., _ep_. 38 (alias 43), n. 4: ὁ Υἱὸς — ᾧ πάντοτε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον συνεπινοεῖται — τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα — τοῦ Υἱοῦ μὲν ἤρτηται, ᾧ ἀδιαστάτως συγκαταλαμβάνεται. S. Gregorius Nyssen., _adv. Maced_., n. 16 (Migne, S. Gr., t. 45, col. 1321 A.): μηδὲν εἶναι διάστημα μεταξὺ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος δι´ ἀπορρήτων αἰνίσσεται — ἀδιάστατός ἐστι πρὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τῷ Υἱῷ ἡ συνάφεια. S. J. Damasc.; τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον δι´ Υἱοῦ τῷ Πατρὶ συναπτόμενον.
 That the Holy Spirit is a μέσον τοῦ ἀγεννήτου καὶ τοῦ γεννητοῦ, the mediator between the Son and the Father, is a _theologoumenon_ which is more common in the Occident than in the Orient[^8]. Among the Orientals it is found scarcely more than in two instances. St. John of Damascus copied it from St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who had to use this expression (μέσον) in his refutation of the Arians, who claimed that between the generate and the ingenerate there could be nothing intermediate.
 [^8]: St. Athanasius the Great, for example, thoroughly rejects such a view. Migne, S. Gr., t. 26, col. 373 B., _orat_. 3, c. Arian., n. 24: καὶ οὐ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸν Λόγον συνάπτει τῷ Πατρὶ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τὸ Πνεῦμα παρὰ τοῦ Λόγου λαμβάνει. Also St. Basil the Great considers just the Son (_sit venia verbo!_) as _terminus medius_ in the ratio (λόγος) of the inner life of the Holy Trinity, which is elevated above all reason. _Epist_. 38 (alias 43), n. 4: καὶ εἰ τὸν Υἱὸν ἀληθινῶς τις λάβοι, ἕξει αὐτὸν ἑκατέρωθεν, πῆ μὲν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα, πῇ δὲ τὸ ἴδιον Πνεῦμα συνεπαγόμενον. Cf. S. Gregor. Nyss., _adv. Maced_., n. 13 (Migne, S. Gr., t. 45, col. 1317 A.): ἀλλὰ πηγὴ μὲν δυνάμεώς ἐστιν ὁ Πατὴρ, δύναμις δὲ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁ Υἱὸς, δυνάμεως δὲ πνεῦμα τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.
 Accordingly: ββ) The Spirit is the third hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. His being presupposes the existence of the Father as well as the Son, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and because the Father is Father of the Son alone. Consequently, as soon as God, the Προβολεὺς τοῦ Πνεύματος, is called Father, He is thought of as having a Son. Consequently, without danger of committing too great an inaccuracy, we may say ὑπάρχοντος (ὄντος, ὑφεστῶτος) τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (given that the Son exists, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father) or: _Filio generato ex Patre productus_, as Zoernikav, speaking of the Holy Spirit, expresses himself.
 According to what has been said, the view of the procession of the Holy Spirit in the Fathers of the Church is understandable: the breath comes out of the mouth of man and penetrates, so to speak, the word; the breath is necessary for the word to become sound. But since the mouth is opened, not to breathe, but to pronounce the sound and word, the word is a logical "_prius_" of the breath. The word, however, as having a certain meaning and having been conceived in the form of articulated sounds, does not produce these sounds from itself, and the breath does not come from the word itself, but from the human mouth, although the utterance of the word also inevitably entails breathing.
 From this analogy follows:
 aaa) The birth of the Word and the procession of the Holy Spirit are thought unitedly.
 bbb) The logical _prius_ is the birth.
 ccc) The Son-Word is neither the cause nor the co-cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Λόγος is not _Spirans_.
 *But:*
 ddd) The birth of the Son-Word is a condition[^9], worthy of God, of the unconditional procession of the Holy Spirit, is the motive and the reason (and therefore the logical "_prius_") of the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father.
 [^9]:
    I borrow the expression "condition" from S. B. Kochomsky (Theological Dissertation, Russian, St. Petersburg 1875). A "condition", attached to the "_absolutum_", sounds like a logical _contradictio in adjecto_. Certainly; but I repel this blow with the theological shield θεοπρεπῶς, "worthy of God." Surely the meaning of this _prima facie_ improper expression is not unintelligible. If the Holy Spirit, like the Son, is of the essence of the Father — asked both the Arians and the Macedonians — why, nevertheless, is the Holy Spirit not Son? — Because the Spirit is of the Father ἐκπορευτῶς, and not γεννητῶς, they answered, — Why, then, is not the Spirit γεννητός (not begotten)? — Because the Only-begotten, ὁ Μονογενής, i.e. the Son alone, is γεννητός. So the Son, by his being begotten, determines also the τρόπος τῆς ὑπάρξεως, _modus existendi_, of the Holy Spirit, his not being begotten. In general, the _theologoumenon_ δι’ Υἱοῦ either shapes itself into a thought, and then the mind operates with concepts by analyzing them and coming to the realization, for example, that the idea of "Father" as a relational concept includes in itself _implicite_ also the idea of a "Son"; that every "third" inevitably presupposes a "second". Or it forms itself into a vivid image, in which the imagination comes to the rescue with an admittedly very inadequate yet not unpicturesque idea of the passage of the spirit (breath) through the (spoken) word, and on condition that the Father does not εἰς κενόν τι πνεῖ, does not breathe into an empty space, since the Son holds firmly to the Father, ἀδιαστάτως τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχεται (ἤρτηται), represents to us
    a) an image to illustrate the moment of the _processio aeterna_ (and thus the moment of the very purest revelation of the causality of the Father and the very beginning moment of the being of the Holy Spirit): the Spirit proceeding from the Father is received by the Son, and
    b) another image to illustrate the moment of the _processio sempiterna_: the Spirit coming from the Father and resting in the Son shines through the Son. — To the question, how the procession of the Holy Spirit differs from the begottenness of the Son, of course only a strictly theological answer is possible: only the Triune God Himself knows that. In the times of polemical warfare, however, such a complete renunciation of the knowledge of the mystery of Christianity might even be received with triumphant whistling on the part of the opponents. Under such circumstances many a theologian felt compelled — even if he was not able to present a certain dogma — at least to express his assumption. Instead of a "We don’t know" one answered with a "We recognize this piecemeal", by observing, without going too close to the innermost core of the mystery, the so-to-speak accompanying features. The γεννητῶς one explained by μόνος ἐκ μόνου; on the other hand, this feature was left out when interpreting the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. But if one wished to have a positive characteristic of the ἐκπορευτῶς, one found none but this: "while the Son is being, the Spirit proceeds from the Father," ὄντος τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται (in this it was quite indifferent whether the theologian took his stand in the domain of a thought or in the domain of an image: the result had to be one and the same in both cases). The descriptive formula of this _theologoumenon_ was ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς δι’ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται, "who proceeds from the Father through the Son."
 ## [IV.](#introduction.IV) {#introduction.IV}
 It should also be noted:
 The birth of the Son of God is a _generatio aeterna et sempiterna_, i.e. it can be imagined only as an act accomplished from eternity and an act always present out of time. The procession of the Holy Spirit should be imagined in the same way:
 α) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father from eternity. From the pre-temporal, absolutely first moment of his procession, he is and exists (ὑπάρχει, ὑφέστηκε) as a perfect hypostasis, and the Logos-Son is not thought of as something entering into the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.
 β) However, the Holy Spirit always proceeds from the Father, and this procession is identical with the eternal being, the divine life of the Holy Spirit. Human vision can imagine this moment only as a process, a process that never stops and always continues. If the first conception ("the procession as an act already accomplished from eternity and before eternity") forces us to think of the movement precisely as a movement (even if its duration measures only a mathematical point), the second conception ("the procession as an act always present"), together with a character of duration and permanence, also brings into this movement a modifying moment of standing still, of rest. Since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father during the existence of the Son, ὑπάρχοντος τοῦ Υἱοῦ, and since the Father and the Son are thought of as immediately touching each other, the moment of the ever-present procession of the Holy Spirit is understood in such a way that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father is already seen as a perfect act of the Son. Spirit is already received by the Son as a perfect hypostasis; τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύεται παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ μένει παρὰ τῷ Υἱῷ θεϊκῶς, says Didymus (_de Trinitate_, 1. 31, Migne, S. Gr, t. 39, col. 425 A.). He proceeds from the Father and dwells in the Son; He proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son. The relation of the Son to the Holy Spirit in all these images differs from the relation of the Father to the Holy Spirit: as Προβολεύς, as cause, the Father is conceived as _movens_, the Son as imparting to this movement a character of rest, of abiding. But when the procession is thought of as a continuing movement, the proposition "who rests in the Son" and "in the Son abides" is replaced by an equivalent one: the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father as perfect hypostasis, comes through the Son (προϊόν), appears through the Son, reveals through Him His essence, which He has from the Father. He radiates or shines through the Son.
 The Son, by means of his hypostatic existence, γνωρίζει, makes known, the Holy Spirit as such through himself and by means of himself. He reveals him, characterizes him, so to speak, as the cognizable. The Holy Spirit is characterized and recognized (γνωρίζεται) after the Son and with the Son. The image of the dawn, if one eliminates the inevitable flaw of this parable, can illuminate this viewpoint of the church fathers: The sun is still under the eastern horizon of the given locality, it is still invisible and its ray does not yet touch the surface of the earth. If there were no air, there would be complete darkness in this place. But the ray passes through the layers of air, penetrates them, and the dawn illuminates the given locality, announcing the proximity of the still hidden solar discus; but the appearance of the dawn itself proves the existence of the atmosphere, without which the appearance of the dawn would not have been possible, although the real cause of the dawn is the sun approaching the horizon. The Holy Spirit is a hypostatic power that shines through the Son, at the same time announcing the Word and revealing the hidden divinity of the Father.
 It seems to me that these expressions — "abiding", "resting" in the Son, "penetrating", "appearing", "shining forth" through the Son — according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, denote the eternal relationships of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and are expressed briefly by the phrase "the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son".
 ## [V.](#introduction.V) {#introduction.V}
 It is true that the idea of the interpenetration of the Holy Spirit by the Son, and of the immediate relation of the third Person of the Trinity precisely to the second, is so strongly established in the minds of the fathers that they even asserted that the Holy Spirit was united (συνάπτεται) to the Father through the Son. And yet this does not at all give reason to suppose that an intimation of any causative moment in the relation of the Son to the Holy Spirit is implied in this δι’ Υἱοῦ. The Holy Spirit has his hypostasis from the Father as the sole cause. One of the most eloquent testimonies of such abandonment of the _theologoumenon_ δι’ Υἱοῦ is in the following words of St. John of Damascus: Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὡς ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον· Υἱοῦ δὲ Πνεῦμα, οὐχ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ’ ὡς δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον. Μόνος γὰρ αἴτιος ὁ Πατήρ. "The Holy Spirit is Spirit of the Father, since He proceeds from the Father. He is also the Spirit of the Son, but not as if He had His being from the Son, but for the reason that He proceeds from the Father through the Son. For the Father alone is the cause." So the δι’ Υἱοῦ is immediately followed by the unsurpassably laconic Μόνος αἴτιος, as if it were self-evident to all the world, after all, that the cause could be indicated only by ἐκ, but not also by διὰ. But if the Father is also the sole cause of the being of the Holy Spirit, yet the idea of the latter’s procession from the Father through the Son seems, at first sight, to cause us at least to raise the question: Whether the Father is directly, ἀμέσως, or indirectly, ἐμμέσως, the cause of the Holy Spirit. As far as I know, such a question was explicitly discussed almost solely by St. Gregory of Nyssa.[^10] The _termini technici_ which this church father uses (in the passage a) are compiled by Dr. N. B. Swete very clearly in the following scheme[^11]:
 ![](./bolotov1.png)
 and the Spirit is predicated as "the mediately derived", as "indirectly proceeding".
 [^10]: The fundamental passages are: a) _quod non sint tres dii_, Migne, t. 45, col. 133 B. C; b) _contr. Eunom_., col. 369 A., Migne, ibid.; c) _contr. Eunom_., col. 464 B. C, Migne, ibid.; d) _adv. Maced_., n. 6, col. 1308 B., Migne, ibid.
 [^11]: In a) τὸ αἰτιατὸν ["the caused"] is also named τὸ ἐκ τοῦ αἰτίου ["that which is from the cause"]; in b) the Son is described as κατὰ τὸ προσεχὲς ἀδιαστάτως τῷ πατρὶ συνεπινοούμενος, and the Holy Spirit as δι´ αὐτοῦ καὶ μετ´ αὐτοῦ (i.e. through the Son and with the Son) εὐθὺς καὶ συνημμένως καταλαμβανόμενος [directly and continuously understood].
 This conclusion would be quite impossible if we read only one passage in St. Gregory, i.e., d[^12]: "Provided that we see the flame divided into three lamps, and that the first flame is the cause of the third light, which by means of the transmission through the middle one has kindled the outermost light, nothing prevents us from considering the third lamp as a fire, if it were also kindled on the preceding flame". Thus, concludes the church father, the Holy Spirit, though the third person, is also of the same dignity with the Father and the Son.
 [^12]: Ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις ἐν τρισὶ λαμπάσι διῃρημένην βλέπων τὴν φλόγα [αἰτίαν δὲ τοῦ τρίτου φωτὸς ὑποθώμεθα εἶναι τὴν πρώτην φλόγα ἐκ διαδόσεως διὰ τοῦ μέσου τὸ ἄκρον ἐκάψασαν] — εἰ δὲ κωλύει οὐδὲν πῦρ εἶναι τὴν τρίτην λαμπάδα, κἂν ἐκ προλαβούσης ἀναλάμψῃ φλογὸς, τίς ἡ σοφία τῶν διὰ ταῦτα τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἀξίαν ἀθετεῖν ἀσεβῶς νομιζόντων, ἐπειδήπερ μετὰ Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν ἠριθμήθη παρὰ τῆς θείας φωνῆς;
 However, when judging this passage, which at first sight seems to be decisive, one must not overlook: First, that the effect of the cause by means of a medium is expressly assumed here, but only in the speech of the flame and the lamps, not in the speech of the Son and the Holy Spirit itself. Secondly, as is well known, St. Gregory piously honored St. Basil, calling him not just his brother but rather his "father and teacher," Πατὴρ καὶ διδάσκαλος, indeed ὁ ἅγιος Πατὴρ ἡμῶν. It is not difficult to suppose that St. Gregory considered it his duty and glory not to depart even by a hair’s breadth from the teachings and views of Basil, who was also great to him, τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου, and that one of the classical passages of St. Gregory on the _theologoumenon_ under discussion, namely b, leans, even in its expressions, on St. Basil’s view[^13]. (See pages 698 and 699.)
 [^13]: St. Basil, _epist_. 38 (alias 43) (A. D. 369-370), is addressed Γρηγορίῳ ἀδελφῷ, that is, to St. Gregory of Nyssa, and had — very probably — a great influence on the formation of the way of thinking of the latter. All parallels under the heading "St. Basil" are taken from § 4 of this letter.
 ![](./bolotov2.png)
 ---
 St. Basil:
 Between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit there is no empty interspace into which thought can enter. For between them nothing inserts itself, neither emptiness of any non-existing interspace which divides the concretum by interposing something empty.
 ---
 St. Gregory:
 In the uncreated substance the Father is thought of as beginningless, unbegotten and always as Father. 
 From him immediately (is) the Only Begotten Son, (who) is thought inseparably together with the Father.
 But through Him and with Him immediately (before an idea about something empty and non-existent forces itself in) also the Holy Spirit is conceived together, who is not later than the Son according to his being (so that one could imagine the Begotten one without the Spirit), 
 But the Spirit also has the cause of his being from the God of the universe, from whom also the Begotten light has the being, but shines through the true light, so that he is neither separated by an interspace nor by a difference of nature from the Father or from the Begotten.
 ---
 St. Basil:
 The Son is always thought inseparably together with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is (indeed) united with the Son, but possesses being in dependence on the cause, namely from the Father, from whom He also proceeds. He has the characteristic feature, peculiar to Him (alone) in His hypostasis, that He is recognizable after the Son and possesses being from the Father.
 The Son, however, who makes the Spirit coming out of the Father recognizable through himself and with himself, — only he shines only out of the Unoriginate light as Only-begotten, and so on.
 ---
 As we see, the two church fathers proclaim the δι’ Υἱοῦ explicitly, even urgently, but only in connection with predicates such as γνωρίζεσθαι, καταλαμβάνεσθαι: through the Son, the Holy Spirit is theologically recognizable, and this is a characteristic feature of the hypostasis of the Son himself, of his innermost personal life; it is his γνώρισμα. But though grounded in the innermost, most mysterious relations of the trinitarian life, the "through the Son" is free from the faintest veneer of causal significance: the expression δι’ Υἱοῦ, so far as I know, always disappears as soon as the two Fathers of the Church begin to speak of the αἰτία, the _causa_, the cause of the being of the Holy Spirit. "According to His being," says the great Basil, "the Holy Spirit is dependent on the cause, namely, the Father from whom He also proceeds." St. Gregory expresses himself even more succinctly: "The Holy Spirit has the cause of his being also there, where the Only-begotten Son himself has it, namely from the God of the universe."[^14] Thus, from the point of view of the causality relation, the Son is not logically superior to the Holy Spirit, rather they are placed on the same logical level, as _coordinati_.
 [^14]: [no translation provided]
 And thirdly, among the Fathers of the Church, St. Gregory of Nyssa, according to the _consensus theologorum_, is the most Origenist. Against Origen, however, complaints are least admissible that he did not sufficiently recognize a theological importance of the concept of cause, of αἰτία, of ἀρχή, of πηγή[^15]. This meaning was certainly as clear to St. Gregory as it was to Origen himself. Nevertheless, the Origenizing church father said nothing at all that needed to elevate the Son above the order of the αἰτιατά, the caused. Several times he misses the best opportunity to state that the Son also, as the living transmitter of the causative effect of the Father on the Spirit, is co-cause or co-source of the Spirit. Such _silentium_[^16] is profound and can prove something.
 [^15]: [no translation provided]
 [^16]: [no translation provided]
 Under this light I would like to consider also the first (a) classical passage of St. Gregory.
 Τὸ μὲν γὰρ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου, τὸ δὲ διὰ τοῦ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου, ὥστε καὶ τὸ Μονογενὲς ἀναμφίβολον ἐπὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ μένειν, καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶναι τὸ Πνεῦμα μὴ ἀμφιβάλλειν, τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ μεσιτείας καὶ αὐτῷ τὸ Μονογενὲς φυλαττούσης, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς φυσικῆς πρὸς Πατέρα σχέσεως μὴ ἀπειργούσης.
 "For the one is that which is immediately from the first, and the other is that which is through that which is immediately from the first, so that the quality of being Only-begotten remains indisputably to the Son, while, again, the fact that the Spirit has being from the Father is not subject to doubt, since the Son’s mediation, while it guarantees to Himself the character of being Only-begotten, also does not prevent the Spirit from possessing communion of nature with the Father."
 The _thesis probanda_ of this passage is: a diversity of nature, ἡ κατὰ φύσιν διαφορά, is not to be assumed in the Trinity. The diversity of the hypostases is not an argument against the unity of essence. Τὸ ἀπαράλλακτον τῆς φύσεως ὁμολογοῦντες, τὴν κατὰ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ αἰτιατὸν διαφορὰν οὐκ ἀρνούμεθα, ἐν ᾧ μόνῳ διακρίνεσθαι τὸ ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου καταλαμβάνομεν. "In confessing that the nature of the Trinity is one without distinction, we do not at all deny the difference of the cause and the caused; we even assert that in this difference alone consists the difference of individual persons." But the consideration of the hypostatic difference is here introduced, only to ward off an objection of the opponents, περὶ τῆς τοιαύτης ἀπολογησόμεθα μέμψεως, so that the logical emphasis is on the conclusion of the ὁμοούσιον: the mediation of the Son is considered from the standpoint of the community of substance.
 The fact that the Son is the second, the Holy Spirit the third hypostasis, is taken as a given and illuminated in the sense that in it there is no obstacle to the ὁμοουσιότης of the Spirit. But there is no mention of the effect of the cause; therefore the question whether the Holy Spirit has his being from the Father directly, or δι’ Υἱοῦ, through the mediation of the Son, remains _explicitly_ unanswered.[^17] "The Spirit receiving being from the Father" and "the Spirit having being from the Father," these terms, nevertheless, for the human mode of imagination, designate two different moments of the divine life. In my opinion, St. Gregory’s _theologoumenon_ is dedicated only to the second moment and keeps us in the realm of the conception about the ἔκλαμψις καὶ ἔκφανσις of the Holy Spirit, not about his ἐκπόρευσις in the most proper core of this dogmatic concept.
 [^17]: Also the passage d does not give an answer. Τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἔχεται τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἐπινοίᾳ μόνῃ κατὰ τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον προθεωρουμένου τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος ὑποστάσεως. I understand these words (as, for example, N. M. Bogorodsky also understood them in 1879) as follows: Quite theoretically, the Son is also presented before the existence of the Spirit, as logical _prius_ in relation to the Cause (not "as the Cause and therefore as logical _prius_"). Brothers, a firstborn son and a later born son, differ from each other according to their relation to the cause, to the father, and yet the elder brother is in no sense the cause of the existence of the youngest brother.
 ## [VI.](#introduction.VI) {#introduction.VI}
 These mutual relations of the divine hypostases must illustrate precisely the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, the identity of the nature of the three Persons, their communion by nature. The _theologoumenon_ of the Fathers of the Church, that essential goodness comes from the Father to the Holy Spirit through the Son, represents, so to speak, the pulse of the mysterious divine life, and under the pen of St. Ambrose becomes a powerful proof of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. "No one is good but God alone," asserted the Arians. "The Holy Spirit," Ambrose replied, "is good, and receives from the Father essential goodness through the Son; but if the Spirit is good, the Son is also good." To attribute the διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ only to the temporal gift of the Holy Spirit to the creature through the Son, would be to weaken such proofs of the church fathers as those mentioned above. In the Gospel there is only one passage (Joh. 20, 22) which can be cited to justify the δι’ Υἱοῦ, and from this passage it is immediately evident that the Holy Spirit is given to the creature through the Son (cf. Tit. 3, 5-6). This is also affirmed by the Fathers of the Church. But that, from this historical fact, they never draw a conclusion concerning the eternal relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son, so that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit through the Son is rather a reflection of this eternal basic fact on the temporal[^18] — the _onus probandi_ for proving this would fall to the one who would dare to deny the thought that _the Holy Spirit shines through the Son from eternity_, and I believe that this onus would be much too difficult for a theologian.
 [^18]: To reinforce the likelihood of such an inference, I would like to bring to mind another _theologoumenon_, namely the attempt of the church fathers to make it somewhat understandable why the Son and not the Father became man. Cf. Photii Bibliotheca, cod. 222, pp. 181b, 182, 193, 199b, 196, ed. Bekker.
 # [Theses](#theses) {#theses}
 It must be taken into account that the Old Catholics testify with honorable frankness to the differences that exist over the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit. They do everything in their power to prevent misunderstandings, which are so harmful to ecclesiastical union, and which occur so frequently in union efforts when not everything is said that needs to be said; when this happens, those questions that were left unclarified are subsequently settled by both sides according to their different opinions, and sometimes serve later for mutual recriminations.
 In my opinion, therefore, it seems possible to accept the following theses as correct:
 _Thesis_ 1. The Russian Orthodox Church considers as dogma (_credendum de fide_) only the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is of one essence with the Father and the Son. Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται καὶ ὁμοούσιόν ἐστι τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ. Other particulars (insofar as they are _not identical_ in sense with this truth) are to be considered as _theologoumena_.
 _E.g._ § 1. The fact that the Holy Spirit is "worshiped and glorified at the same time as the Father and the Son" is a dogma, not a mere _theologoumenon_, because it is identical in meaning with the _homoousion_ of the Holy Spirit and is therefore already implicit in the content of this fundamental truth.
 § 2. In the sense of such a difference between dogma and _theologoumenon_, I also understand the answer that we find in the detailed Catechism: To the question: "Can the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit be subject to any change or addition?" the answer is: "No, it cannot." 
 As dogma it may not be supplemented, neither by the explanatory addition "by the Son", nor by the restrictive addition "by the Father alone". But when the Fathers of the Church, like John of Damascus (_de Fide orthodoxa_, c. 12), say that the Holy Spirit is a power of the Father that announces the hidden Godhead, that He is a power of the Father proceeding from the Father through the Son, δύναμις τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκ Πατρὸς μὲν δι’ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευομένη, that the Holy Spirit is also the Son’s Spirit, not as if He proceeds from the Son, but because He proceeds from the Father through the Son, Υἱοῦ δὲ Πνεῦμα, οὐχ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ’ ὡς δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, they certainly do not say this in order to change the fullness of the mysterious being of the Holy Spirit, but to bring it nearer to our understanding, to enlighten it. They say it because they recognize this enlightenment as a possible and correct _theologoumenon_.
 _Thesis_ 2. The view that the Holy Spirit ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται, or πρόεισι, or ἐκλάμπει, "proceeds, passes through, shines forth from the Father through the Son", so frequently exhibits in the fathers the high significance, the importance which can be seen by its multiple repetition in the "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" of St. John of Damascus, and especially by its inclusion in the _Synodikon_ of St. Tarasius of Constantinople, the orthodoxy of which is attested by both the East and the Orthodox West (in the person of Pope Hadrian of Rome) and also by the Seventh Ecumenical Council — this importance is so obvious and sublime that theologians have the right to see in this διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ not only a mere private opinion of a church father, but a so-to-speak ecumenical, universally authorized _theologoumenon_ of the Orthodox East.
 _Thesis_ 3. The assumption that in the διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ there is always and everywhere contained solely the idea of the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit into the world for the bestowal of grace upon creatures, leads to distortions in the explanation of some patristic passages.
 § 1. It is known that the Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289), notwithstanding his antagonism to the unionist John Bekkos, found it decidedly impossible to accept the opinion that the church fathers meant by ἔκλαμψις only the temporary effulgence of the Holy Spirit by the Son.
 § 2. It is also known that the bishop Sylvester (Answer of an Orthodox to the _Schema_ of the Holy Spirit. Kiev, 1874, pag. 72-75) admits that St. Gregory of Nyssa (_contra Eunomium_ 1. I, Migne, S. Gr., t. 45, col. 336 D., 416 C.) speaks of the eternal appearance of the Holy Spirit through the Son (ἐν τῷ δι’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Υἱοῦ πεφηνέναι, δι’ αὐτοῦ μὲν ἐκλάμπον). He speaks of the revelation or appearance of the "being" which, as already a finished one, the Holy Spirit received from the Father, or, if you will, of a "being" which, if you may so express it, you had to imagine as already existing from the moment of eternity from which the Holy Spirit is to be thought, from the appearance of the Holy Spirit through the Son, unconditionally, independently of His temporal mission into the world.
 § 3. In the "Definition of Orthodoxy of His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Tarasius", as the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council called the _Synodikon_ of St. Tarasius, the διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ is found in the following context: "I believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our God, who is timeless and eternally begotten of the Father. καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον καὶ ζωοποιοῦν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς δι’ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father through the Son, the true God, in the one essential Trinity — equally to be praised, equally enthroned, eternal, uncreated founder of all created things. I believe in one ἀρχή, one Godhead and dominion, one kingdom, one power and might, which is indivisibly divided and dividedly united in three hypostases."
 Since in this section not a word is said concerning the relation of the Son of God to the world (the words of the _Constantinopolitanum_, "by whom all things were created," are not given in the _Synodikon_), and the Incarnation is spoken about only in the section that follows, it is natural that the thought of St. Tarasius moves within the limits of theology in the strict sense, θεολογία, envisioning the eternal and everlasting relations of the divine hypostases.
 § 4. In a passage by St. John of Damascus (Migne, S. Gr., t. 94, col. 1512 B., _dialog. contra Manichaeos_, E.), the following answer is given to the Manichaean, who says to him, "How?! Did not then God change, according to you, by giving birth to the Son and bringing forth the Holy Spirit?" Οὐδαμῶς· οὐ γὰρ λέγω, μὴ ὢν πρότερον Πατὴρ, ὕστερον γέγονε Πατὴρ, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ ἦν ἔχων ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν αὑτοῦ Λόγον καὶ διὰ τοῦ Λόγου αὐτοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον. "Not in the least! For I do not say that God, having not been Father before, became Father later, but that He is always (Father), having from Himself His Word, and through His Word His Spirit proceeding from Him (the Father)."
 The whole force of the answer lies here in the fact that these relations are eternal, beginningless and therefore unchangeable.
 § 5. To insist that the words προϊόν, ἐκλάμψαν, πεφηνός, προελθόν, not to speak of ἐκπορευόμενον, indicate only temporal relations, would be to place oneself in indissoluble opposition with the fact that in the holy fathers, as in the hymns of the Church, these terms are also used to designate the pre-temporal relationship of the Spirit to God the Father. In the fathers, as well as in the hymns of the Church, these terms are also used to designate the pre-temporal relationship of the Spirit, sometimes also of the Son, to God the Father.
 α) For example, St. Gregory the Theologian (Migne, S. Gr., t. 36, col. 348 B., _orat_. 39 n. 12) says: Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀληθῶς τὸ Πνεῦμα, προϊὸν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς, οὐχ υἱϊκῶς δὲ: οὐδὲ γὰρ γεννητῶς, ἀλλ´ ἐκπορευτῶς.
 β) According to the same father, ἴδιον δὲ,
 - Πατρὸς μὲν ἡ ἀγεννησία,
 - Υἱοῦ δὲ ἡ γέννησις,
 - Πνεύματος δὲ ἡ ἔκπεμψις.
 γ) St. John of Damascus (Migne, S. Gr., t. 95, col. 60, _epistola de Hymno trisagio_, n. 27) writes: Πνεῦμα ἅγιον τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον: ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γάρ, διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ Λόγου _προϊόν_, οὐχ υἱϊκῶς δέ.
 Cf. N. M. Bogorodsky (Russian theological dissertation, St. Petersburg 1879), p. 64, n. 1.
 δ) Again, the same father (Migne, S. Gr., t. 94, col. 816 C. _de fide orthodoxa_, 1, c, 8): ὁ Υἱὸς … Μονογενὴς δὲ, ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς μόνως _ἐγεννήθη_.
 ε) Again, the same father (Migne, S. Gr., t. 96, col. 833: ὁ [iambic] κανὼν εἰς τὴν Πεντηκοστὴν, ᾠδὴ δ´, ὁ εἰρμός):  
 Ἄναξ ἀνάκτων οἶος ἐξ οἴου μόνος  
 Λόγος _προελθὼν_ Πατρὸς ἐξ ἀναιτίου.
 Note the precise parallelism of the non-standard term προελθών in ε, and the indisputably standard, clear-as-day ἐγεννήθη in δ.
 ζ) St. Cyril of Alexandria (Migne, S. Gr., t. 76, col. 1157 A. B. _de recta fide ad Theodosium imp_., nn. 16, 18) writes: τοῦ πεφηνότος ἐκ Θεοῦ κατὰ φύσιν Υἱοῦ, τουτέστι τοῦ Μονογενοῦς…τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ Μονογενῆ πιστεύοντες καὶ πρωτότοκον: Μονογενῆ μὲν, ὡς Θεοῦ Πατρὸς λόγον καὶ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ _πεφηνότα_, πρωτότοκον δ´ αὖ, καθὸ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος…καὶ τοῦ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς _πεφηνότος_ Λόγου…τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Λόγον…νοήσομεν…ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν, φύσει μὲν ὄντα Θεὸν καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς _πεφηνότα_ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς: ἐν ἐσχάτοις δὲ τοῦ αἰῶνος καιροῖς γενόμενον ἄνθρωπον.
 η) St. Gregory the Theologian (Migne, S. Gr., t. 36, col. 141 C, _oratio_ 31, n. 9) says: "Τί οὖν ἐστι, φησὶν (πνευματομάχος), ὃ λείπει τῷ Πνεύματι πρὸς τὸ εἶναι Υἱόν; Εἰ γὰρ μὴ λεῖπόν τι ἦν, Υἱὸς ἂν ἦν." Οὐ λείπειν φαμέν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐλλειπὴς Θεός· τὸ δὲ τῆς _ἐκφάνσεως_, ἵν´ οὕτως εἴπω, ἢ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσεως διάφορον, διάφορον αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν κλῆσιν πεποίηκεν.
 And in the ecclesiastical hymns from the Ὀκτώηχος συντεθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ: 
 θ) (ἦχος βαρὺς, τῇ κυριακῇ πρωΐ, ἐν τῷ μεσονυκτικῷ, κανὼν τριαδικὸς, ᾠδὴ α´, τροπάριον β´):  
 Νοῦς ὁ ἄναρχος Λόγον  
 συναϊδίως _γεννήσας_,  
 καὶ Πνεῦμα συνάναρχον  
 _ἐκλάμψας_, κατηξίωσεν  
 ἕνα Θεὸν κατ´ οὐσίαν σύμμορφον  
 ἡμᾶς προσκυνεῖν τρισυπόστατον.
 Note the parallelism between ἐκλάμψας and γεννήσας.
 ι) (ἦχος πλάγιος β´, τῷ σαββάτῳ ἑσπέρας, εἰς τὸ Κύριε ἐκέκραξα, θεοτόκιον):
 ὁ γὰρ ἀσπόρως (the Slavonic translation presupposes ὁ γὰρ ἀχρόνως) ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκλάμψας Υἱὸς μονογενής.
 κ) (ἦχος γ´, τῇ κυριακῇ πρωΐ, εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον, κανὼν τῆς Θεοτόκου, ᾠδή θ´, τροπάριον β´):  
 …..Χριστέ,  
 ἵλεων νέμοις ἡμῖν  
 Πνεῦμα μεταδοτικὸν ἀγαθότητος  
 ἐκ Πατρὸς διὰ σοῦ _προερχόμενον_.
 Compare this with the prayer of St. Hilary of Poitiers (Migne, S. Lat., t. 10, col. 472, _De Trinitate_ l. 12, n. 57): _dona mihi — ut — sanctum spiritum tuum, qui ex te per unigenitum tuum_ est _promerear_.
 _Thesis_ 4. Given all this, it is at least not reprehensible to think that the sayings of the church fathers that the Holy Spirit "proceeds/goes out" (ἐκπορευόμενον, προϊόν) from the Father through the Son, "shines forth" (ἐκλάμπει) through the Son, "appears" (πεφηνός) through the Son, contain an indication of some mysterious moment in the eternal activity, in the eternal life, in the eternal internal relations of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. This moment is also called the eternal "abiding" (μένον), the eternal "rest" (ἀναπαυόμενον) of the Holy Spirit in the Son.
 _Thesis_ 5. This moment is the pictorial representation of the identity of essence (συμφυές) of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, and also of the incomprehensible but Gospel-revealed truth that the Holy Spirit is the third and the Son the second person of the Holy Trinity.
 _Thesis_ 6. This moment is _not_ identical in sense with that which is revealed in the words ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται (if we will only understand this phrase in the narrow [i.e., strictly theological] sense of the _termini technici_ ἐκπορευτῶς and ἐκπορεύεται).
 _Thesis_ 7. According to this, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father _alone_, ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, in the strict sense of the term ἐκπορευτῶς. But this proposition is only a _theologoumenon_, and not a dogma.
 § 1. "not a dogma": see § 2 on thesis 1 (the paragraph "As dogma" etc., pag. 704).
 § 2. The expression ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς not only lacks the sanction of an ecumenical council (a sanction which would render it equal to the witness of the δι’ Υἱοῦ at the Seventh Ecumenical Council), but it also lacks the degree of authority which belongs to a theological expression which the fathers themselves used. Photius would have found it very difficult to justify the ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς with citations from the church fathers.
 § 3. The church fathers speak of the Son as "the One from the One" (see δ and ε in § 5 on thesis 3), but they do not use this expression when they speak of the Holy Spirit, as if it were out of prudence that the thesis "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" not become the antithesis of the theological idea "and shines forth through the Son".
 § 4. The thesis ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται should not be taken as a negation e.g. of the thesis ἐκ μόνου μὲν τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, δι´ Υἱοῦ δὲ πρόεισιν[^19].
 [^19]: In order to indicate at least the direction which human thinking must hold to in speculating about this Greek _theologoumenon_, a forced translation attempt may here be given: The Holy Spirit _proceeds_ from the Father alone, but _comes out_ through the Son. From the Father alone the Holy Spirit has His _hypostasis_, His _personal being_, but through the Son He _presents_ His hypostasis as _existing_.
 _Thesis_ 8. From the thesis, which is not opposed by anyone, that the Father is the μόνος αἴτιος (the only, the sole cause) of the _being_ of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Son is neither the author nor the co-author of the _being_ (ὕπαρξις) of the Holy Spirit.
 § 1. "The unconditional condition" (as S. B. Kochomsky [Russian theological dissertation, St. Petersburg 1875] expresses it), is not a cause in any respect.
 § 2. Thesis No. 8 can only be proved in a negative way (because the Augustinian view was not a subject of judgment among the Greek Fathers and, of course, they [the Fathers] did not establish a specific antithesis).
 a) No one has provided any passage where the Son is characterized as αἴτιος (or συναίτιος) [cause, or co-cause] of the Holy Spirit.
 b) In the fullest, most detailed enumerations of the hypostatic ἰδιότητες (e.g., in the "_De Fide orthodoxa_," I, c. 12), the Son is called only αἰτιατός [caused], as is the Holy Spirit.
 But on the other hand:
 _Thesis_ 9. The western view differs from the eastern _theologoumenon_. Without twisting the sense, one can neither explain the _filioque_ in terms of the δι’ Υἱοῦ, nor expound the view of the eastern fathers in a sense similar to that of the western.
 _Thesis_ 10. It is to be assumed that in the oldest, pre-Augustinian stage the western _theologoumenon_ was intended to clarify only that thought which the eastern δι’ Υἱοῦ also illuminates: namely, that the Holy Spirit has the same essence with the Father and the Son, and that the _ex Patre et Filio_ was initially only an inaccurate rendering of the ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς δι’ Υἱοῦ.
 _Thesis_ 11. The _ex Patre et Filio_, however, as it was given by Augustine, is not covered by the doctrine of the eastern fathers, not only according to the formula, but also according to the sense, since —
 _Thesis_ 12. not only the "_a Patre et Filio aequaliter_" of Pope Leo III, but also the "_ex Patre principaliter_" of St. Augustine himself says less than the μόνος αἴτιος of the eastern fathers, and —
 _Thesis_ 13. the difference between the views of the westerners and the easterners cannot be felt so much in the words _ex Patre Filioque_, as in Augustine’s conception, connected with them, of the one _Spiratio_ of the Father and the Son, according to which both together form one principle of the Holy Spirit. But this conception is unknown to the eastern fathers: as far as we know, none of them called the Son "_Spirans_" or συμπροβολεὺς.
 _Thesis_ 14. Even in terms of private opinion, we cannot recognize the equality of the western _Filioque_ with the eastern δι’ Υἱοῦ, for the following reasons:
 _Thesis_ 15. aa) The western _filioque_ decidedly lacks an equivalent recognition to that of the δι’ Υἱοῦ, which Tarasius inscribed in his _Synodikon_.
 _Thesis_ 16. bb) In the West itself, the _filioque_ (regardless of its dissemination) seems to have no other support for itself than the isolated authority of St. Augustine.
 _Thesis_ 17. cc) More serious protests (not based on any misunderstanding) were heard against the _filioque_ on the part of the easterners than the objections against the δι’ Υἱοῦ.
 _Thesis_ 18. dd) A western writer (around AD 560), the Roman Diaconus Rusticus, knew that some of the ancients formulated the difference of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit with the words: "He does not proceed from the Son as He proceeds from the Father", and therefore could not decide to insist on the _filioque_.[^20]
 [^20]: Migne, S. Lat., t. 67, col. 1237 C, _contra acephal. disput._ «Quidam vero antiquorum et hoc proprietatibus adiecerunt, quia sicut Spiritus cum Patre Filium sempiterne non genuit, sic nec procedit Spiritus a Filio sicut a Patre. Ego vero, quia Spiritus quidem Filium non genuerit sempiterne, confiteor (nec enim duos dicimus Patres) : utrum vero a Filio eodem modo quo a Patre procedat, nondum perfecte habeo satisfactum.»
 But:
 _Thesis_ 19. According to God’s unfathomable counsel, the Western view proposed by St. Augustine as a private opinion was not protested at that time by the Eastern Church.
 _Thesis_ 20. Many Westerners who preached the _filioque_ to their flocks lived and died in intercommunion with the Eastern Church without hearing any objection from any side.
 _Thesis_ 21. The Eastern Church honors the fathers of the ancient Western Church as its own, so it is natural that the private opinions of these fathers also seem sacred to the West.
 _Thesis_ 22. When the Easterners read the _filioque_ at the Synod of St. Martin, they expressed their misgivings about it. At that time, however, the matter was settled and the Easterners did not object to intercommunion with the Pope. They were content with the explanation of his envoys, who explained the _filioque_ in terms of δι’ Υἱοῦ and excused it with the help of some citations of the Western fathers and St. Cyril of Alexandria.
 _Thesis_ 23. If the Westerners did not present their _filioque_ to the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, neither was any question put to them by the Easterners in order to solve the misunderstanding caused by the _Synodica_ of St. Martin.
 _Thesis_ 24. At the beginning of the ninth century, the Jerusalem affair[^21] created no grounds for breaking off intercommunion with the Western Church on account of the _filioque_.
 [^21]: See F. X. Kraus, _Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte_ (Trier 1882), § 74, 3. — F. X. Funk, _Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte_ (Rottenburg a. N. 1886), § 99. — H. B. Swete, _History of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit_ (Cambridge 1876).
 _Thesis_ 25. Photius and his successors stood in intercommunion with the Western Church without receiving from it a conciliar denial of the _filioque_ "_verbis explicitissimis_", and also, as we see, without demanding it from the Western Church.
 **Consequently:**
 **_Thesis_ 26. It is not the question of the _filioque_ which caused the separation of the Church.**
 **_Thesis_ 27. Thus, the _filioque_ as a private theological opinion cannot be considered as an "_impedimentum dirimens_" for the establishment of intercommunion between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Old Catholic Church.**
--- a/src/page/ecumen/bolotov1.png
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/bolotov1.png
--- a/src/page/ecumen/bolotov2.png
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/bolotov2.png
--- a/src/page/ecumen/cdf-1997-zoghby.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/cdf-1997-zoghby.md
@ -1,123 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Letter from Rome on Zoghby Proposal
 date: 1997-06-11
 author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
 source: https://orthocath.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/1997_letter_from_rome_on_zoghby_initiative-11.pdf
 ---
 **Congregation for the Eastern Churches Prot. No. 251/75**  
 **June 11, 1997**  
 **His Beatitude Maximos V HAKIM**  
 **Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and of all the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem**
 Your Beatitude,
 Word of the project for a rapprochement between the Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate and
 the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch has been widely noted and given rise to much public
 discussion.
 The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, and
 the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity have striven to familiarize themselves and examine
 with care those aspects that lie within their respective competence; the heads of these Dicasteries
 have further been charged by the Holy Father to share some observations with Your Beatitude.
 The Holy See follows with great interest and wishes to encourage initiatives that could ease the
 way to a complete reconciliation of the Christian Churches. It recognizes the imperatives behind
 the decades-long effort of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate aimed at promoting the
 realization of this sought-for fullness of communion. The Code of Canon Law for the Eastern
 Churches recognizes in this a duty for every Christian (Can. 902), that becomes for the Eastern
 Catholic Churches a special munus (Can. 903), to be pursued according to "*normis specialibus*
 *iuris particularis moderante eundem motum Sede Apostolica Romana pro universa Ecclesia*"
 ["by the special norms of particular law, the Apostolic Roman See directing the movement for
 the entire Church"] (Can. 904).
 This is all the more valid for two communities that see themselves as especially tied to one
 another from their common origin and shared ecclesial tradition, as well as through a long
 experience of joint initiatives, placing them without a doubt in a privileged state of closeness.
 It is the wish of the Church that appropriate ways and means be found to proceed in future along
 the path of fraternal agreement, and through the assistance of new forms that would allow the
 further realization of progress towards full communion.
 Your Patriarchate, in pursuing such goals, is spurred by the sensitivity, the situational
 understanding, and the experience that are uniquely its own. The Holy See intends to aid this
 process through the formulation of a few observations that it believes could contribute to a future
 furthering of the initiative.
 The responsible Dicasteries broadly welcome joint pastoral initiatives between Catholics and
 Orthodox, undertaken as proposed in the Directory for the Application of the Principles and
 Norms on Ecumenism, most particularly in the fields of Christian formation, education, common
 charitable endeavours, and shared prayer when this is possible.
 Specifically with respect to theological heritage, one must proceed with patience and prudence,
 and without precipitation, in order to assist both parties in following a shared path.
 A first dimension of this sharing concerns the language and categories used in the dialogue: one
 has to apply the greatest care that the common use of a word, or of a concept, not lend itself to
 differing points of view or interpretations of a historical or doctrinal nature, nor to any form of
 over simplification.
 A second dimension necessitates that the sharing of the contents of the dialogue not be limited
 solely to the two direct interlocutors, the Greek-Melkite Catholic and Orthodox Antiochian
 Patriarchates, but that it should also implicate the wider Confessions with which the two
 Patriarchates are in full communion: the Catholic Communion for the former, and the Orthodox
 Communion for the latter. The Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities in the Patriarchate of Antioch
 have, in any case, highlighted analogous concerns. This more comprehensive participation would
 also help ensure that initiatives aimed at promoting full communion at the local level do not give
 rise to misunderstandings or suspicions, even with the best of intentions.
 Let us now turn to the terms of the profession of faith of his Excellence Mgr. Elias Zoghby,
 Greek-Melkite Catholic Archbishop emeritus of Baalbeck, signed in February 1995, and to
 which many prelates of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Synod have subscribed.
 It is evident that this Patriarchate forms an integral part of the Christian East whose patrimony it
 shares. With respect to the declaration on the part of Greek-Melkite Catholics of complete
 adherence to the teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy, one must keep in mind the fact that the
 Orthodox Churches are today not yet in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this
 adherence is thus not possible so long as there is not from both sides an identity of professed and
 practiced faith. Furthermore, a correct formulation of the faith requires reference not only to a
 particular Church, but to the whole of the Church of Christ that is limited in neither space nor
 time.
 With respect to communion with the Bishops of Rome, one must not forget that doctrine relating
 to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has been the subject of some development within the
 elaboration of the Church's faith through the ages, and that it must thus be upheld in its entirety
 from its origins all the way to the present day. One need only reflect on what the First Vatican
 Council affirms and on what has been declared at the Second Vatican Council, particularly in
 NN. 22 and 23 of the Dogmatic Constitution *Lumen Gentium* and in N. 2 of the Decree on
 Ecumenism *Unitatis Redintegratio*.
 As to the ways in which the Petrine ministry could be exercised today, an issue distinct from that
 of doctrine, it is true that the Holy Father has recently reminded us all how it is possible to
 "seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love
 recognized by all concerned" (*Ut unum sint*, 95): but while it is also legitimate to approach the
 issue at the local level, there is a duty to do so always in communion with a view to the universal
 Church. In this regard, it would in any case be appropriate to recall that "the Catholic Church,
 both in her *praxis* and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular
 Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God's
 plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion" (*Ut unum sint*, 97).
 As to the various aspects of *communio in sacris*, an ongoing dialogue will have to be maintained
 in order to explore the rationale underlying the respective norms currently in effect, and this in
 light of the theological assumptions that underlie them; in this way premature unilateral 
 initiatives or eventual outcomes that would not have pondered sufficiently might be avoided:
 these could lead to significant negative consequences, including with respect to other Eastern
 Catholics, most especially to those living within the same region.
 All in all, the fraternal dialogue pursued by the Greek-Melkite Patriarchate will contribute all the
 more to the path of ecumenism insofar as it strives to include in the development of new
 sensibilities the whole Catholic Church to which it belongs. There is a good basis for believing
 that Orthodoxy also shares this concern, and this largely also in consideration of the
 requirements for communion within its own body.
 The Dicasteries concerned are ready to offer their collaboration in furthering this exchange of
 reflections and clarifications; they further express their satisfaction with the meetings held so far
 on this subject with representatives of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Church, and both hope and
 wish to see these exchanges maintained and deepened in future.
 Fully recognizing that Your Beatitude will wish to share these reflections, please accept the
 expression of our fraternal and cordial regards.
 Joseph Card. Ratzinger  
 Achille Card. Silvestrini  
 Edward Card. Cassidy
--- a/src/page/ecumen/cdf-2000-sister.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/cdf-2000-sister.md
@ -1,97 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Note on the expression «Sister Churches»
 date: 2000-06-30
 author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
 source: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
 ---
 ## A. LETTER TO THE PRESIDENTS OF THE CONFERENCES OF BISHOPS
 *Your Eminence (Your Excellency):*
 In recent years, the attention of this Congregation has been directed to problems arising from the use of the phrase «sister Churches,» an expression which appears in important documents of the Magisterium, but which has also been employed in other writings, and in the discussions connected with the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.  It is an expression that has become part of the common vocabulary to indicate the objective bond between the Church of Rome and Orthodox Churches.
 Unfortunately, in certain publications and in the writings of some theologians involved in ecumenical dialogue, it has recently become common to use this expression to indicate the Catholic Church on the one hand and the Orthodox Church on the other, leading people to think that in fact the one Church of Christ does not exist, but may be re-established through the reconciliation of the two sister Churches.  In addition, the same expression has been applied improperly by some to the relationship between the Catholic Church on the one hand, and the Anglican Communion and non-catholic ecclesial communities on the other.  In this sense, a «theology of sister Churches» or an «ecclesiology of sister Churches» is spoken of, characterized by ambiguity and discontinuity with respect to the correct original meaning of the expression as found in the documents of the Magisterium.
 In order to overcome these equivocations and ambiguities in the use and application of the expression «sister Churches,» the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged it necessary to prepare the enclosed *Note on the Expression «Sister Churches»* which was approved by Pope John Paul II in the Audience of June 9, 2000.  The indications contained in this *Note* are, therefore, to be held as authoritative and binding, although the *Note* will not be published in official form in the *Acta Apostolicae Sedis*, given its limited purpose of specifying the correct theological terminology on this subject.
 In providing you with a copy of this document, the Congregation asks you to kindly communicate the concerns and specific indications expressed therein to your Conference of Bishops and especially to the Commission or Office entrusted with ecumenical dialogue, so that the publications and other texts of the Episcopal Conference and its various offices will carefully abide by what is established in the *Note*.
 With gratitude for your assistance and with prayerful best wishes, I remain
 <div style="text-align: center" markdown="1">
 Sincerely yours in Christ,
 +**Joseph Card. Ratzinger**  
 *Prefect*
 </div>
 ## B. TEXT OF THE NOTE
 1\. The expression *sister Churches* occurs often in ecumenical dialogue, above all, in the dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox, and is the object of continuing study by both parties. While there is certainly a legitimate use of this expression, an ambiguous use has become prevalent in contemporary writings on ecumenism. In conformity with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Papal Magisterium, it is therefore appropriate to recall the correct and proper use of this expression. It is helpful to begin with a brief historical outline.
 ### I. The origin and development of the expression 
 2\. The expression *sister Churches* does not appear as such in the New Testament; however, there are numerous indications of the sisterly relations which existed among the local Churches of Christian antiquity. The New Testament passage which most explicitly reflects this awareness is the final sentence of the Second Letter of John: «The sons of your elect sister send you their greetings» (*2 Jn* 13). These are greetings sent by one ecclesial community to another; the community which sends the greetings calls itself the sister of the other.
 3\. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the *Pentarchy* gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these *patriarchal sister Churches*. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
 As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[^1]
 [^1]: Paul VI and Athenagoras I, Joint Declaration Pénétrés de reconnaissance (7-12-65), 3: AAS 58 (1966), 20. The excommunications were mutually lifted in 1965: «Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I in his Synod...declare by mutual agreement...to regret and to remove from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication» (ibid.,4); cf. also Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Ambulate in dilectione (7-12-65): AAS 58 (1966), 40-41; Athenagoras I, Patriarchal Τόμoς (7-12-65): ΤΟΜΟΣ ΑΓΑΠΗΣVatican-Phanar (1958-1970), 129 (Vatican Polyglot Press: Rome-Istanbul, 1971), 290-294.
 4\. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher*, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among *sisters* of equal dignity.
 5\. In recent times, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I, was the first to once again use the expression *sister Churches*. In welcoming the fraternal gestures and the call to unity addressed to him by John XXIII, he often expressed in his letters the hope of seeing the unity between the *sister Churches* re-established in the near future.
 6\. The Second Vatican Council adopted the expression *sister Churches* to describe the relationship between particular Churches: «in the East there flourish many particular local Churches; among them the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these, many glory in taking their origins from the apostles themselves. Therefore, there prevailed and still prevails among Eastern Christians an eager desire to perpetuate in a communion of faith and charity those family ties which ought to exist between local Churches, as between sisters.»[^2]
 [^2]: second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.
 7\. The first papal document in which the term *sisters* is applied to the Churches is the Apostolic Brief *Anno ineunte* of Paul VI to the Patriarch Athenagoras I. After having indicated his willingness to do everything possible to «re-establish full communion between the Church of the West and that of the East,» the Pope asked: «Since this mystery of divine love is at work in every local Church, is not this the reason for the traditional expression “sister Churches,” which the Churches of various places used for one another? For centuries our Churches lived in this way like sisters, celebrating together the ecumenical councils which defended the deposit of faith against all corruption. Now, after a long period of division and mutual misunderstanding, the Lord, in spite of the obstacles which arose between us in the past, gives us the possibility of rediscovering ourselves as sister Churches.»[^3]
 [^3]: paul VI, Apostolic Brief Anno ineunte (25-7-67): AAS 59 (1967), 852, 853.
 8\. The expression has been used often by John Paul II in numerous addresses and documents; the principal ones, in chronological order, are the following.
 In the Encyclical *Slavorum Apostoli*: «For us they [Cyril and Methodius] are the champions and also the patrons of the ecumenical endeavour of the sister Churches of East and West, for the rediscovery through prayer and dialogue of visible unity in perfect and total communion.»[^4]
 [^4]: john Paul II, Encyclical Letter Slavorum Apostoli (2-6-85), 27: AAS 77 (1985), 807.
 In a Letter from 1991 to the Bishops of Europe: «Hence, with these Churches [the Orthodox Churches] relations are to be fostered as between sister Churches, to use the expression of Pope Paul VI in his Brief to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I.»[^5]
 [^5]: john Paul II, Letter to the Bishops of Europe on Relations between Catholics and Orthodox in the New Situation in Central and Eastern Europe (31-5-91), 4: AAS 84 (1992), 167.
 In the Encyclical *Ut unum sint*, the theme is developed above all in number 56 which begins in this way: «Following the Second Vatican Council and in the light of earlier tradition, it has again become usual to refer to the particular or local Churches gathered around their Bishop as “sister Churches.” In addition, the lifting of the mutual excommunications, by eliminating a painful canonical and psychological obstacle, was a very significant step on the way toward full communion.» This section concludes by expressing the wish that the «traditional designation of “sister Churches” should ever accompany us along this path.» The topic is taken up again in number 60 of the Encyclical: «More recently, the joint international commission took a significant step forward with regard to the very sensitive question of the method to be followed in re-establishing full communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, an issue which has frequently embittered relations between Catholics and Orthodox. The commission has laid the doctrinal foundations for a positive solution to this problem on the basis of the doctrine of sister Churches.»[^6]
 [^6]: john Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (25-5-95), 56 and 60: AAS 87 (1995), 954, 955, 957.
 ### II. Directives on the use of the expression 
 9. The historical references presented in the preceding paragraphs illustrate the significance which the expression *sister Churches* has assumed in the ecumenical dialogue. This makes the correct theological use of the term even more important.
 10. In fact, in the proper sense, *sister Churches* are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.[^7] It must always be clear, when the expression *sister Churches* is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but *mother* of all the particular Churches.[^8]
 [^7]: Cf. the texts of the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14, and the Apostolic Brief of Paul VI to Athenagoras I Anno ineunte, cited above in footnotes 2 and 3.
 [^8]: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio (28-5-1992), 9: AAS 85 (1993), 843-844.
 11. One may also speak of *sister Churches*, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the *sister* of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the *sister* of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[^9] and therefore the plural term *Churches* can refer only to particular Churches.
 [^9]: Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (24-6-73), 1: AAS 65 (1973), 396-398.
 Consequently, one should avoid, as a source of misunderstanding and theological confusion, the use of formulations such as «*our two Churches*,» which, if applied to the Catholic Church and the totality of Orthodox Churches (or a single Orthodox Church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured.
 12. Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression *sister Churches* in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.
 *Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 30, 2000, the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.*
 <div style="text-align: center" markdown="1">
 +**Joseph Card. Ratzinger**  
 *Prefect*
 +**Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.**  
 *Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli*  
 *Secretary*
 </div>
--- a/src/page/ecumen/elpidophoros-2014-without-equals.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/elpidophoros-2014-without-equals.md
@ -1,60 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: First without equals: A response to the text on primacy of the Moscow Patriarchate
 date: 2014-02-12
 author: Metropolitan Elpidophoros (Lambriniadis) of Bursa
 source: https://web.archive.org/web/20181029031019/https://www.patriarchate.org/-/primus-sine-paribus-hapantesis-eis-to-peri-proteiou-keimenon-tou-patriarcheiou-moschas-tou-sebasmiotatou-metropolitou-prouses-k-elpidophorou
 ---
 In a recent synodal decision,[^1] the Church of Russia seems once again[^2] to choose its isolation from both the theological dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church and the communion of the Orthodox Churches. Two points are worth noting from the outset, which are indicative of the intent of the Church of Russia's Synod:
 [^1]: Reading and citing from the English text, "Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church," as published on the official website of the Patriarchate of Moscow: [https://mospat.ru/en/2013/12/26/news96344/](https://mospat.ru/en/2013/12/26/news96344/)
 [^2]: Characteristic examples of other instances of such isolation include the absence of the Patriarchate of Moscow from the Conference of European Churches, as well as the now established practice of the representatives of this Church to celebrate the Divine Liturgy separately from the other representatives of Orthodox Churches by enclosing themselves within the local Embassies of the Russian Federation whenever there is an opportunity for a Panorthodox Liturgy in various contexts.
 **First**, its desire to undermine the text of Ravenna,[^3] by invoking seemingly theological reasons in order to justify the absence of its delegation from the plenary meeting of the joint commission (an absence dictated, as everyone knows, by other reasons[^4]); and
 [^3]: His Eminence Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Messinia has dealt with this matter in a recent article published on December 30, 2013, on the website: [http://www.romfea.gr/diafora-ekklisiastika/21337-2013-12-30-03-52-35](http://www.romfea.gr/diafora-ekklisiastika/21337-2013-12-30-03-52-35).
 [^4]: As for what exactly occurred in Ravenna in 2007, and the painful impressions recorded by Roman Catholic observers, see the analysis of Fr. Aidan Nichols in his book Rome and the Eastern Churches, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2nd edition, 2010, pp. 368-9: In October 2006 [sic], the commission resumed its discussions at Ravenna, though the event was marred by a ‘walkout' on the part of the Moscow patriarchate's representative. Bishop Hilarion's protest was caused not for once by the wrongdoings, real or imagined, of the Catholic Church but by the presence of a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox church, whose autocephaly (sic), underwritten by Constantinople, is still denied in Russia. His action demonstrated, of course, the need precisely for a strong universal primacy so as to balance synodality in the Church." And he continues: "[t]he decision of the Moscow patriarchate in October 2007 to withdraw its representatives from the Ravenna meeting… was not only an irritating impediment to that dialogue; it was precisely the sort of happening that makes Catholics think the orthodox need the pope as much as the pope needs them." (p. 369).
 **Second**, to challenge in the most open and formal manner (namely, by synodal decree) the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate within the Orthodox world, observing that the text of Ravenna, on which all the Orthodox Churches agreed (with the exception, of course, of the Church of Russia), determines the primacy of the bishop on the three levels of ecclesiological structure in the Church (local, provincial, universal) in a way that supports and ensures the primacy and first-throne Orthodox Church.
 The text of the position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the "problem" (as they call it) of Primacy in the universal Church does not deny either the sense or the significance of primacy; and up to this point, it is correct. In addition, however, it endeavors to achieve (indeed, as we shall see, in an indirect way) the introduction of two distinctions related to the concept of primacy.
 **1. Separation between ecclesiological and theological primacy**
 The first differentiation contrasts primacy as it applies to the life of the Church (ecclesiology) and as understood in theology. Thus the text of the Moscow Patriarchate is forced to adopt the unprecedented distinction between, on the one hand, the 'primary' primacy of the Lord and, on the other hand, the 'secondary' primacies of bishops ("various forms of primacy ... are secondary"), although later in the same document it will be suggested that the bishop is the image of Christ (cf 2:1), which seems to imply that the two primacies are univocal or at least analogous and not merely equivocal. Even the scholastic formulation of such distinctions between 'primary' and 'secondary' primacies demonstrates the stealthy contradiction.
 Moreover, the intended separation of ecclesiology from theology (or Christology) would have adverse consequences for both. If the Church is indeed the Body of Christ and the revelation of the Trinitarian life, then we cannot talk about differences and artificial distinctions that shatter the unity of the mystery of the Church, which encapsulates the theological (in the narrow sense of the word) and Christological formulations alike. Otherwise, church life is severed from theology and is reduced to a dry administrative institution, while on the other hand a theology without correspondence in the life and structure of the Church becomes a sterile academic preoccupation. According to Metropolitan John of Pergamon: "The separation of the administrative institutions of the Church from dogma is not simply unfortunate; it is even dangerous."[^5]
 [^5]: "The Synodal Institution: Historical, Ecclesiological and Canonical Issues," in Theologia 80 (2009), pp. 5-6. [In Greek]
 **2. The separation of the different ecclesiological levels**
 The second differentiation which in our opinion is attempted by the text of the Moscow Patriarchate pertains to the three ecclesiological levels in the structure of the Church. It is here, it seems, that the entire weight of that text hangs. The text states that the primacy of the local diocese is understood and institutionalized in one way, while on the regional level of an "autocephalous archdiocese" (autocephalous eparchial synod) it is understood in another, and on the level of the universal church in yet another way (cf. 3: "Due to the fact that the nature of primacy, which exists at various levels of church order [diocesan, local and universal] vary, the functions of the primus on various levels are not identical and cannot be transferred from one level to another").
 As the Synodal decision claims, not only do these three primacies differ, but even their sources are different: the primacy of the local bishop stems from the apostolic succession (2:1), the primacy of the head of an autocephalous Church from his election by the synod (2:2), and the primacy of the head of the universal church from the rank attributed to him by the diptychs (3:3). Thus, as the text of the Moscow Patriarchate concludes, these three levels and their corresponding primacies are not commensurate, as the text of Ravenna takes them to be on the basis of the 34th Apostolic canon.
 What is clearly apparent here is the agonizing effort in the present Synodal decision to render primacy as something external and therefore foreign to **the person of the primate**. This is what we consider to be the reason why the position of the Moscow Patriarchate insists so greatly on determining the sources of primacy, which always differ from the person of the *primus*, in such a way that the primate becomes the **recipient**, rather than the **source** of his primacy. Does perhaps this dependence also imply the autonomy of primacy? For the Church, an institution is always hypostasized in a person. We can never encounter an impersonal institution, as it would be if primacy were to be conceived independently of a primate. It should be clarified here that the primacy of the *primus* is also hypostasized by the specific place, the local Church, the geographical region over which the primate presides.[^6] It is important at this point to observe the following logical and theological contradictions:
 [^6]: Thus, while the Patriarch of Antioch has for a long time resided in Damascus, he remains the Patriarch of Antioch since Damascus lies within the geographical jurisdiction of that church.
 i) If the *primus* is a recipient of (his) primacy, then primacy exists without and regardless of him, which is impossible. This appears very clearly in the reasons proffered for the primacy on the regional and ecumenical levels. For the regional level, the source of the primacy is considered to be the eparchial synod; but can there be a synod without a *primus*? The dialectical relationship between the primate and *his* synod, as formulated by the 34th canon of the Apostles (as well as the 9th and 16th canons of Antioch, according to which a synod without a presiding hierarch is considered incomplete), is abrogated for the sake of a unilateral relationship where the many constitute the one, contradicting all reason that recognizes the one presiding hierarch both as the constitutive factor and guarantor of the unity of the many.[^7] A second example of logical contradiction is presented by the appeal to the Diptychs. Here the symptom is taken to be the cause and the signified mistaken for the signifier. The Diptychs are not the source of primacy on the interprovincial level but rather its expression – indeed, only one of its expressions. Of themselves, the Diptychs are an expression of the order and hierarchy of the autocephalous churches, but such a hierarchy requires the presiding *primus* (and then a second, a third, and so on); they cannot in some retrospective way constitute the primacy on which they themselves are based.
 [^7]: Metropolitan John of Pergamon, "Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology," in the volume edited by Walter Cardinal Kasper, The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue, New York: The Newman Press, 2006, pp. 231-248. Also see Metropolitan John of Pergamon, "Eucharistic Ecclesiology in the Orthodox Tradition," Theologia 80 (2009), p. 23. [In Greek]
 In order to understand this innovations more clearly, let us look for a moment at what all this would mean if we related and applied them to the life of the Holy Trinity, the true source of all primacy ("Thus says God, the king of Israel, the God of Sabaoth who delivered him; **I am the first**" Is. 44:6).[^8]
 [^8]: I have personally dealt with this subject during a lecture at the Holy Cross School of Theology in Boston: "Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (‘Monarchy' of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person." ([http://www.ecclesia.gr/englishnews/default.asp?id=3986](http://www.ecclesia.gr/englishnews/default.asp?id=3986))
 The Church has always and consistently understood the person of the Father as the first in the communion of persons of the Holy Trinity ("the monarchy of the Father")[^9]. If we were to follow the logic of the text of the Synod of Russia, we would also have to claim that God the Father is not Himself the anarchic cause of the divinity and fatherhood ("For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, after whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named." Eph. 3.14-15), but becomes a recipient of his own "primacy." Whence? From the other Persons of the Holy Trinity? Yet how can we suppose this without invalidating the order of theology, as St. Gregory the Theologian writes, or, even worse, without overturning – perhaps we should say "confusing" – the relations of the Persons of the Holy Trinity? Is it possible for the Son or the Holy Spirit to "precede" the Father?
 [^9]: In his 3rd Theological Oration, St. Gregory the Theologian writes: "As for us, we honor Him as the monarchy" (PG 36, 76). The concept of monarchy corresponds to "the order of theology" (5th Theological Oration, PG 36, 164). The All-Holy Trinity does not comprise a federation of persons; So we should not be scandalized when the Theologian himself of the Fathers speaks of the monarchy and primacy of the divine Father.
 ii) When the text of the Synod of Russia refuses to accept a "universal hierarch" under the pretext that the universality of such a hierarch "eliminates the sacramental equality of bishops" (3:3) it is merely formulating a sophism. As to their priesthood, of course, all bishops are equal, but they neither are nor can be equal as bishops of specific cities. The sacred canons (like the 3rdcanon of the Second Ecumenical Council, the 28th of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and the 36thof the Quinisext Council) **rank** the cities, attributing to some the status of a Metropolitanate and to others the status of a Patriarchate. Among the latter, the further attribute to one primatial responsibility, to another secondary responsibility, and so on. Not all local Churches are equal, whether in order or in rank. Moreover, to the extent that a bishop is never a bishop without specific assignment but rather the presiding bishop of a local Church – that is to say, he is always the bishop of a specific city (which is an inseparable feature and condition of the episcopal ordination) – then bishops too are accordingly **ranked** (that is to say, the dignity of a Metropolis is different from that of a Patriarchate; and again, a different dignity is attributed to the ancient Patriarchates, as being endorsed by the Ecumenical Councils, and another is attributed to the modern Patriarchates). Thus, within such an order of rank, it is inconceivable that there should be no *primus*.[^10] On the contrary, in recent times, we observe the application of a novel "**primacy**", namely a "primacy of **numbers**", which those who today find fault with the canonical universal primacy of the Mother Church dogmatize about a rank that is untestified in the tradition of the Church, but rather based on the principle *ubi russicus ibi ecclesia russicae*, that is to say "wherever there is a Russian, there too the jurisdiction of the Russian Church extends."
 [^10]: This argument has been clearly articulated in the article by Fr. John Panteleimon Manoussakis, entitled "Primacy and Ecclesiology: The State of the Question," in the collective work entitled Orthodox Constructions of the West, edited by Aristotle Papanikolaou and George Demacopoulos, New York: Fordham University Press, 2013, p. 233.
 In the long history of the Church, the presiding hierarch of the universal Church was the bishop of Rome. After Eucharistic communion with Rome was broken, canonically the presiding hierarch of the Orthodox Church is the archbishop of Constantinople. In the case of the archbishop of Constantinople, we observe the unique concomitance of all three levels of primacy, namely the local (as Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome), the regional (as Patriarch), and the universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch). This threefold primacy translates into specific privileges, such as the right of appeal and the right to grant or remove autocephaly (examples of the latter are the Archdioceses-Patriarchates of Ochrid, Pec and Turnavo, etc.), a privilege that the Ecumenical Patriarch exercised even in cases of some modern Patriarchates, not yet validated by decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the first of which is that of Moscow.
 The primacy of the archbishop of Constantinople has nothing to do with the diptychs, which, as we have already said, merely express this hierarchical ranking (which, again in contradictory terms the text of the Moscow Patriarchate concedes implicitly but denies explicitly). If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of such primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one "among equals," but as Archbishop of Constantinople, and thus as Ecumenical Patriarch is the *first without equals* (primus sine paribus).
--- a/src/page/ecumen/encyclical-eastern-1848.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/encyclical-eastern-1848.md
@ -1,741 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
 date: 1848-05
 source: https://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/pope-patriarchs-the-1848-letters-of-pope-pius-ix-and-the-orthodox-patriarchs/
 ---
 *To All the Bishops Everywhere, Beloved in the Holy Ghost, Our Venerable, Most Dear Brethren;*
 *and to their Most Pious Clergy; and to All the Genuine Orthodox Sons of the One, Holy,*
 *Catholic and Apostolic Church: Brotherly Salutation in the Holy Spirit, and Every Good From*
 *God, and Salvation.*
 The holy, evangelical and divine Gospel of Salvation should be set forth by all in its original
 simplicity, and should evermore be believed in its unadulterated purity, even the same as it was
 revealed to His holy Apostles by our Savior, who for this very cause, descending from the bosom
 of God the Father, *made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant* (Phil.
 ii. 7); even the same, also, as those Apostles, who were ear and eye witnesses, sounded it forth,
 like clear-toned trumpets, to all that are under the sun (for *their sound is gone out into all lands,*
 *and their words into the ends of the world*); and, last of all, the very same as the many great and
 glorious Fathers of the Catholic Church in all parts of the earth, who heard those Apostolic
 voices, both by their synodical and their individual teachings handed it down to all everywhere,
 and even unto us. But the Prince of Evil, that spiritual enemy of man's salvation, as formerly in
 Eden, craftily assuming the pretext of profitable counsel, he made man to become a transgressor
 of the divinely-spoken command. so in the spiritual Eden, the Church of God, he has from time
 to time beguiled many; and, mixing the deleterious drugs of heresy with the clear streams of
 orthodox doctrine, gives of the potion to drink to many of the innocent who live unguardedly, not
 *giving earnest heed to the things they have heard* (Heb. ii. 10), *and to what they have been told*
 *by their fathers* (Deut. xxxii. 7), in accordance with the Gospel and in agreement with the ancient
 Doctors; and who, imagining that the preached and written Word of the LORD and the perpetual 
 witness of His Church are not sufficient for their souls' salvation, impiously seek out novelties,
 as we change the fashion of our garments, embracing a counterfeit of the evangelical doctrine.
 2\. Hence have arisen manifold and monstrous heresies, which the Catholic Church, even from
 her infancy, *taking unto her the whole armor of God, and assuming the sword of the Spirit,*
 *which is the Word of God* (Eph. vi. 13-17,) has been compelled to combat. She has triumphed
 over all unto this day, and she will triumph for ever, being manifested as mightier and more
 illustrious after each struggle.
 3\. Of these heresies, some already have entirely failed, some are in decay, some have wasted
 away, some yet flourish in a greater or less degree vigorous until the time of their return to the
 Faith, while others are reproduced to run their course from their birth to their destruction. For
 being the miserable cogitations and devices of miserable men, both one and the other, struck
 with the thunderbolt of the anathema of the seven Ecumenical Councils, shall vanish away,
 though they may last a thousand years; for the orthodoxy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church,
 by the living Word of God, alone endures for ever, according to the infallible promise of the
 LORD: *the gates of hell shall not prevail against it* (Matt. xviii. 18). Certainly, the mouths of
 ungodly and heretical men, however bold, however plausible and fair-speaking, however smooth
 they may be, will not prevail against the orthodox doctrine winning, its way silently and without
 noise. But, *wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper?* (Jer. xii. 1.) *Why are the ungodly*
 *exalted and lifted up as the cedars of Lebanon* (Ps. xxxvii. 35), to defile the peaceful worship of
 God? The reason of this is mysterious, and the Church, though daily praying that this cross, this
 messenger of Satan, may depart from her, ever hears from the Lord: *My grace is sufficient for*
 *thee, my strength is made perfect in weakness* (2. Cor. xii. 9). Wherefore she gladly *glories in her*
 *infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon her, and that they which are approved may be*
 *made manifest* (1. Cor. x. 19).
 4\. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of
 the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has
 become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and
 a great voice from heaven shall cry: *It is cast down* (Rev. xii. 10).
 5\. The new doctrine, that "the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son," is contrary
 to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: *which proceedeth*
 *from the Father* (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church
 as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering "which proceedeth from the Father."
 (Symbol of Faith).
 i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the
 Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.
 ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be
 adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.
 iii. It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of
 the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
 iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nice and of the second
 Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy
 Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, 
 when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and
 Macedonians.
 v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils,
 which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under
 dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation
 in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be
 corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic
 Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three
 Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.
 vi. It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, "a wolf in sheep's
 clothing," that is, under the signification not of *procession*, according to the Greek meaning in
 the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of *mission*, as Pope Martin explained it to
 the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.
 vii. It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp
 upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.
 viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the
 nations.
 ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes,
 Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas
 those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.
 x. It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.
 xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth
 Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and
 Western Churches.
 xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits,
 bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express
 commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches
 were closely observed. Among these novelties may be numbered sprinkling instead of baptism,
 denial of the divine Cup to the Laity, elevation of one and the same bread broken, the use of
 wafers, unleavened instead of real bread, the disuse of the Benediction in the Liturgies, even of
 the sacred Invocation of the All-holy and Consecrating Spirit, the abandonment of the old
 Apostolic Mysteries of the Church, such as not anointing baptized infants, or their not receiving
 the Eucharist, the exclusion of married men from the Priesthood, the infallibility of the Pope and
 his claim as Vicar of Christ, and the like. Thus it was that the interpolation led to the setting
 aside of the old Apostolic pattern of well nigh all the Mysteries and all doctrine, a pattern which
 the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome kept, when she was the most honored part of the
 Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
 xiii. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in
 Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of
 the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into
 adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.
 xiv. It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian
 communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the
 Catholic fold.
 xv. It has not yet been even plausibly defended out of the Scriptures, or with the least reason out
 of the Fathers, from the accusations brought against it, notwithstanding all the zeal and efforts of
 its supporters. The doctrine bears all the marks of error arising out of its nature and peculiarities.
 All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the
 divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so
 hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: "If
 any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost,
 he is an heretic" (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of
 Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps
 of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again
 teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the
 Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics,
 according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also
 heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic
 Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical
 Council.
 6\. This heresy, which has united to itself many innovations, as has been said, appeared about the
 middle of the seventh century, at first and secretly, and then under various disguises, over the
 Western Provinces of Europe, until by degrees, creeping along for four or five centuries, it 
 obtained precedence over the ancient orthodoxy of those parts, through the heedlessness of
 Pastors and the countenance of Princes. Little by little it overspread not only the hitherto
 orthodox Churches of Spain, but also the German, and French, and Italian Churches, whose
 orthodoxy at one time was sounded throughout the world, with whom our divine Fathers such as
 the great Athanasius and heavenly Basil conferred, and whose sympathy and fellowship with us
 until the seventh Ecumenical Council, preserved unharmed the doctrine of the Catholic and
 Apostolic Church. But in process of time, by envy of the devil, the novelties respecting the sound
 and orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the blasphemy of whom shall not be forgiven unto men
 either in this world or the next, according to the saying of our Lord (Matt. xii. 32), and others
 that succeeded respecting the divine Mysteries, particularly that of the world-saving Baptism,
 and the Holy Communion, and the Priesthood, like prodigious births, overspread even Old
 Rome; and thus sprung, by assumption of special distinctions in the Church as a badge and title,
 the Papacy. Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII,
 did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the
 world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth
 Ecumenical Council, and another to Sphendopulcrus, by the hands of Methodius, Bishop of
 Moravia. The greater part, however, of their successors, the Popes of Rome, enticed by the
 antisynodical privileges offered them for the oppression of the Churches of God, and finding in
 them much worldly advantage, and "much gain," and conceiving a Monarchy in the Catholic
 Church and a monopoly of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, changed the ancient worship at will,
 separating themselves by novelties from the old received Christian Polity. Nor did they cease
 their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four 
 Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the
 whims and ordinances of men.
 7\. Our illustrious predecessors and fathers, with united labor and counsel, seeing the evangelical
 doctrine received from the Fathers to be trodden under foot, and the robe of our Savior woven
 from above to be torn by wicked hands, and stimulated by fatherly and brotherly love, wept for
 the desolation of so many Christians for *whom Christ died*. They exercised much zeal and ardor,
 both synodically and individually, in order that the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Catholic
 Church being saved, they might knit together as far as they were able that which had been rent;
 and like approved physicians they consulted together for the safety of the suffering member,
 enduring many tribulations, and contempts, and persecutions, if haply the Body of Christ might
 not be divided, or the definitions of the divine and august Synods be made of none effect. But
 veracious history has transmitted to us the relentlessness of the Western perseverance in error.
 These illustrious men proved indeed on this point the truth of the words of our holy father Basil
 the sublime, when he said, from experience, concerning the Bishops of the West, and particularly
 of the Pope: "They neither know the truth nor endure to learn it, striving against those who tell
 them the truth, and strengthening themselves in their heresy" (to Eusebius of Samosata). Thus,
 after a first and second brotherly admonition, knowing their impenitence, shaking them off and
 avoiding them, they gave them over to their reprobate mind. "War is better than peace, apart
 from God," as said our holy father Gregory, concerning the Arians. From that time there has
 been no spiritual communion between us and them; for they have with their own hands dug deep
 the chasm between themselves and Orthodoxy.
 8\. Yet the Papacy has not on this account ceased to annoy the peaceful Church of God, but
 sending out everywhere so-called missionaries, men of reprobate minds, it *compasses land and*
 *sea to make one proselyte*, to deceive one of the Orthodox, to corrupt the doctrine of our LORD,
 to adulterate, by addition, the divine Creed of our holy Faith, to prove the Baptism which God
 gave us superfluous, the communion of the Cup void of sacred efficacy, and a thousand other
 things which the demon of novelty dictated to the all-daring Schoolmen of the Middle Ages and
 to the Bishops of the elder Rome, venturing all things through lust of power. Our blessed
 predecessors and fathers, in their piety, though tried and persecuted in many ways and means,
 within and without, directly and indirectly, "yet confident in the LORD," were able to save and
 transmit to us this inestimable inheritance of our fathers, which we too, by the help of God, will
 transmit as a rich treasure to the generations to come, even to the end of the world. But
 notwithstanding this, the Papists do not cease to this day, nor will cease, according to wont, to
 attack Orthodoxy,—a daily living reproach which they have before their eyes, being deserters
 from the faith of their fathers. Would that they made these aggressions against the heresy which
 has overspread and mastered the West. For who doubts that had their zeal for the overthrow of
 Orthodoxy been employed for the overthrow of heresy and novelties, agreeable to the God-loving
 counsels of Leo III and John VIII, those glorious and last Orthodox Popes, not a trace of
 it, long ago, would have been remembered under the sun, and we should now be saying the same
 things, according to the Apostolic promise. But the zeal of those who succeeded them was not
 for the protection of the Orthodox Faith, in conformity with the zeal worthy of all remembrance
 which was in Leo III., now among the blessed.
 9\. In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were
 carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and 
 proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical
 Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his
 emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold. In this
 Encyclical, he addresses those who at different times have gone over from different Christian
 Communions, and embraced the Papacy, and of course are favorable to him, extending his
 arguments also to the Orthodox, either particularly or without naming them; and, citing our
 divine and holy Fathers (p. 3, 1.14-18; p. 4, 1.19; p. 9, 1.6; and pp. 17, 23), he manifestly
 calumniates them and us their successors and descendants: them, as if they admitted readily the
 Papal commands and rescripts without question because issuing from the Popes is undoubted
 arbiters of the Catholic Church; us, as unfaithful to their examples (for thus he trespasses on the
 Fold committed to us by God), as severed from our Fathers, as careless of our sacred trusts, and
 of the soul's salvation of our spiritual children. Usurping as his own possession the Catholic
 Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to
 deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological
 instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return
 to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne."
 10\. Each one of our brethren and sons in Christ who have been piously brought up and
 instructed, wisely regarding the wisdom given him from God, will decide that the words of the
 present Bishop of Rome, like those of his schismatical predecessors, are not words of peace, as
 he affirms (p. 7,1.8), and of benevolence, but words of deceit and guile, tending to self-aggrandizement,
 agreeably to the practice of his antisynodical predecessors. We are therefore
 sure, that even as heretofore, so hereafter the Orthodox will not be beguiled. For the word of our 
 LORD is sure (John x. 5), *A stranger will they not follow, but flee from him, for they know not*
 *the voice of strangers.*
 11\. For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our
 present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the
 same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is
 manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but
 from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession.
 The truth is the other way. The Throne of Rome is esteemed that of St. Peter by a single
 tradition, but not from Holy Scripture, where the claim is in favor of Antioch, whose Church is
 therefore witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be "the most venerable of all the
 Churches in the world." Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the
 West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose,
 Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: "The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of
 Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used." We say then that the
 Apostolic Church of Antioch had no right of exemption from being judged according to divine
 Scripture and synodical declarations, though truly venerated for the throne of St. Peter. But what
 do we say? The blessed Peter, even in his own person, was judged before all for the truth of the
 Gospel, and, as Scripture declares, was found blamable and not walking uprightly. What opinion
 is to be formed of those who glory and pride themselves solely in the possession of his Throne,
 so great in their eyes? Nay, the sublime Basil the great, the Ecumenical teacher of Orthodoxy in
 the Catholic Church, to whom the Bishops of Rome are obliged to refer us (p. 8, 1.31), has
 clearly and explicitly above ( 7) shown us what estimation we ought to have of the judgments of
 the inaccessible Vatican:—"They neither," he says, "know the truth, nor endure to learn it, 
 striving against those who tell them the truth, and strengthening themselves in their heresy." So
 that these our holy Fathers whom his Holiness the Pope, worthily admiring as lights and teachers
 even of the West, accounts as belonging to us, and advises us (p. 8) to follow, teach us not to
 judge Orthodoxy from the holy Throne, but the Throne itself and him that is on the Throne by
 the sacred Scriptures, by Synodical decrees and limitations, and by the Faith which has been
 preached, even the Orthodoxy of continuous teaching. Thus did our Fathers judge and condemn
 Honorius, Pope of Rome, and Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria, and Macedonius and Nestorius,
 Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Peter Gnapheus, Patriarch of Antioch, with others. For if the
 *abomination of desolation stood in the Holy Place*, why not innovation and heresy upon a holy
 Throne? Hence is exhibited in a brief compass the weakness and feebleness of the efforts in
 behalf of the despotism of the Pope of Rome. For, unless the Church of Christ was founded upon
 the immovable rock of St. Peter‘s Confession, *Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God*
 (which was the answer of the Apostles in common, when the question was put to them, *Whom*
 *say ye that I am?* (Matt. xvi. 15,) as the Fathers, both Eastern and Western, interpret the passage
 to us), the Church was built upon a slippery foundation, even on Cephas himself, not to say on
 the Pope, who, after monopolizing the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, has made such an
 administration of them as is plain from history. But our divine Fathers, with one accord, teach
 that the sense of the thrice-repeated command, *Feed my sheep*, implied no prerogative in St.
 Peter over the other Apostles, least of all in his successors. It was a simple restoration to his
 Apostleship, from which he had fallen by his thrice-repeated denial. St. Peter himself appears to
 have understood the intention of the thrice-repeated question of our Lord: *Lovest thou Me*, and
 *more*, and *than these?*. (John xxi. 16;) for, calling to mind the words, *Thou all shall be offended*
 *because of Thee, yet will I never be offended* (Matt. xxvi. 33), he *was grieved because He said* 
 *unto him the third time, Lovest thou Me?* But his successors, from self-interest, understand the
 expression as indicative of St. Peter's more ready mind.
 12\. His Holiness the Pope says (p. viii. 1.12.) that our LORD said to Peter (Luke xxii. 32), *I have*
 *prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren*. Our
 LORD so prayed because Satan had sought to overthrow the faith of all the disciples, but the
 LORD allowed him Peter only, chiefly because he had uttered words of boasting, and justified
 himself above the rest (Matt. xxvi. 33): *Though all shall be offended, because of thee, yet will I*
 *never be offended.* The permission to Satan was but temporary. *He began to curse and to swear:*
 *I know not the man.* So weak is human nature, left to itself. *The spirit is willing, but the flesh is*
 *weak*. It was but temporary, that, coming again to himself by his return in tears of repentance, he
 might the rather strengthen his brethren who had neither perjured themselves nor denied. Oh! the
 wise judgment of the LORD! How divine and mysterious was the last night of our Savior upon
 earth! That sacred Supper is believed to be consecrated to this day in every Church: *This do in*
 *remembrance of me* (Luke xxii. 19), and *As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do*
 *show the LORD's death till he come* (1 Cor. xi. 26). Of the brotherly love thus earnest1y
 commended to us by the common Master, saying, *By this shall all men know that ye are my*
 *disciple, if ye have love one to another* (John xiii. 35), have the Popes first broken the stamp and
 seal, supporting and receiving heretical novelties, contrary to the things delivered to us and
 canonically confirmed by our Teachers and Fathers in common. This love acts at this day with
 power in the souls of Christian people, and particularly in their leaders. We boldly avow before
 God and men, that the prayer of our Savior (p. ix. l.43) to God and His Father for the common
 love and unity of Christians in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in which we
 believe, *that they may be one, ever as we are one *(John xvii. 22), worketh in us no less than in 
 his Holiness. Our brotherly love and zeal meet that of his Holiness, with only this difference, that
 in us it worketh for the covenanted preservation of the pure, undefiled, divine, spotless, and
 perfect Creed of the Christian Faith, in conformity to the voice of the Gospel and the decrees of
 the seven holy Ecumenical Synods and the teachings of the ever-existing Catholic Church: but
 worketh in his Holiness to prop and strengthen the authority and dignity of them that sit on the
 Apostolic Throne, and their new doctrine. Behold then, the head and front, so to speak, of all the
 differences and disagreements that have happened between us and them, and the middle wall of
 partition, which we hope will be taken away in the time of is Holiness, and by the aid of his
 renowned wisdom, according to the promise of God (St. John x. 16): *"Other sheep I have which*
 *are not of this fold: them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice (Who proceedeth from*
 *the Father "*). Let it be said then, in the third place, that if it be supposed, according to the words
 of his Holiness, that this prayer of our LORD for Peter when about to deny and perjure himself,
 remained attached and united to the Throne of Peter, and is transmitted with power to those who
 from time to time sit upon it, although, as has before been said, nothing contributes to confirm
 the opinion (as we are strikingly assured from the example of the blessed Peter himself, even
 after the descent of the Holy Ghost, yet are we convinced from the words of our LORD, that the
 time will come when that divine prayer concerning the denial of Peter, "that his faith might not
 fail for ever" will operate also in some one of the successors of his Throne, who will also weep,
 as he did, bitterly, and being sometime converted will strengthen us, his brethren, still more in
 the Orthodox Confession, which we hold from our forefathers;—and would that his Holiness
 might be this true successor of the blessed Peter! To this our humble prayer, what hinders that we
 should add our sincere and hearty Counsel in the name of the Holy Catholic Church? We dare
 not say, as does his Holiness (p. x. 1.22), that it should be done "without any delay;" but without 
 haste, utter mature consideration, and also, if need be, after consultation with the more wise,
 religious, truth-loving, and prudent of the Bishops, Theologians, and Doctors, to be found at the
 present day, by God's good Providence, in every nation of the West.
 13\. His Holiness says that the Bishop of Lyons, St. Irenaeus, writes in praise of the Church of
 Rome: "That the whole Church, namely, the faithful from everywhere, must come together in
 that Church, because of its Primacy, in which Church the tradition, given by the Apostles, has in
 all respects been observed by the faithful everywhere." Although this saint says by no means
 what the followers of the Vatican would make out, yet even granting their interpretation, we
 reply: Who denies that the ancient Roman Church was Apostolic and Orthodox? None of us will
 question that it was a model of orthodoxy. We will specially add, for its greater praise, from the
 historian Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 12), the passage, which his Holiness has overlooked,
 respecting the mode by which for a time she was enabled to preserve the orthodoxy which we
 praise:—"For, as everywhere," saith Sozomen, "the Church throughout the West, *being guided*
 *purely by the doctrines of the Fathers,* was delivered from contention and deception concerning
 these things." Would any of the Fathers or ourselves deny her canonical privilege in the rank of
 the hierarchy, *so long as she was guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers,* walking by the
 plain rule of Scripture and the holy Synods! But at present we do not find preserved in her the
 dogma of the Blessed Trinity according to the Creed of the holy Fathers assembled first in Nicea
 and afterwards in Constantinople, which the other five Ecumenical Councils confessed and
 confirmed with such anathemas on those who adulterated it in the smallest particular, as if they
 had thereby destroyed it. Nor do we find the Apostolical pattern of holy Baptism, nor the
 Invocation of the consecrating Spirit upon the holy elements: but we see in that Church the
 eucharistic Cup, heavenly drink, considered superfluous, (what profanity!) and very many other 
 things, unknown not only to our holy Fathers, who were always entitled the catholic, clear rule
 and index of Orthodoxy, as his Holiness, revering the truth, himself teaches (p. vi), but also
 unknown to the ancient holy Fathers of the West. We see that very primacy, for which his
 Holiness now contends with all his might, as did his predecessors, transformed from a brotherly
 character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority. What then is to be thought of his
 unwritten traditions, if the written have undergone such a change and alteration for the worse ?
 Who is so bold and confident in the dignity of the Apostolic Throne, as to dare to say that if our
 holy Father, Sr. Irenaeus, were alive again, seeing it was fallen from the ancient and primitive
 teaching in so many most essential and catholic articles of Christianity, he would not be himself
 the first to oppose the novelties and self-sufficient constitutions of that Church which was lauded
 by him as *guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers?* For instance, when he saw the Roman
 Church not only rejecting from her Liturgical Canon, according to the suggestion of the
 Schoolmen, the very ancient and Apostolic invocation of the Consecrating Spirit, and miserably
 mutilating the Sacrifice in its most essential part, but also urgently hastening to cut it out from
 the Liturgies of other Christian Communions also,—his Holiness slanderously asserting, in a
 manner so unworthy of the Apostolic Throne on which he boasts himself, that it "crept in after
 the division between the East and West" (p. xi. 1.11)—what would not the holy Father say
 respecting this novelty? Irenaeus assures us (lib. iv. c. 34) "that bread, from the ground, receiving
 the evocation of God, is no longer common bread," etc., meaning by "evocation" *invocation*: for
 that Irenaeus believed the Mystery of the Sacrifice to be consecrated by means of this invocation
 is especially remarked even by Franciscus Feu-Ardentius, of the order of popish monks called
 Minorites, who in 1639 edited the writings of that saint with comments, who says (lib. i. c. 18, p.
 114,) that Irenaeus teaches "that the bread and mixed cup become the true Body and Blood of 
 Christ by the words of invocation." Or, hearing of the vicarial and appellate jurisdiction of the
 Pope, what would not the Saint say, who, for a small and almost indifferent question concerning
 the celebration of Easter (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. v. 26), so boldly and victoriously opposed and
 defeated the violence of Pope Victor in the free Church of Christ? Thus he who is cited by his
 Holiness as a witness of the primacy of the Roman Church, shows that its dignity is not that of a
 lordship, nor even appellate, to which St. Peter himself was never ordained, but is a brotherly
 privilege in the Catholic Church, and an honor assigned the Popes on account of the greatness
 and privilege of the City. Thus, also, the fourth Ecumenical Council, for the preservation of the
 gradation in rank of Churches canonically established by the third Ecumenical Council (Canon
 8),—following the second (Canon 3), as that again followed the first (Canon 6), which called the
 appellate jurisdiction of the Pope over the West a *Custom*,—thus uttered its determination: "On
 account of that City being the Imperial City, the Fathers have with reason given it prerogatives"
 (Canon 28). Here is nothing said of the Pope's special monopoly of the Apostolicity of St. Peter,
 still less of a vicarship in Rome's Bishops, and an universal Pastorate. This deep silence in regard
 to such great privileges—nor only so, but the reason assigned for the primacy, not *"Feed my*
 *sheep,"* not *"On this rock will I build my Church,"* but simply old Custom, and the City being the
 Imperial City; and these things, not from the LORD, but from the Fathers—will seem, we are
 sure, a great paradox to his Holiness entertaining other ideas of his prerogatives. The paradox
 will be the greater, since, as we shall see, he greatly honors the said fourth Ecumenical Synod as
 one to be found a witness for his Throne; and St. Gregory, the eloquent, called the Great (lib. i.
 Ep. 25), was wont to speak of the four (Ecumenical Councils [not the Roman See] as the four
 Gospels, and the four-sided stone on which the Catholic Church is built.
 14\. His Holiness says (p. ix. 1.12) that the Corinthians, divided among themselves, referred the
 matter to Clement, Pope of Rome, who wrote to them his decision on the case; and they so prized
 his decision that they read it in the Churches. But this event is a very weak support for the Papal
 authority in the house of God. For Rome being then the center of the Imperial Province and the
 chief City, in which the Emperors lived, it was proper that any question of importance, as history
 shows that of the Corinthians to have been, should be decided there, especially if one of the
 contending parties ran thither for external aid: as is done even to this day. The Patriarchs of
 Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, when unexpected points of difficulty arise, write to the
 Patriarch of Constantinople, because of its being the seat of Empire, as also on account of its
 synodical privileges; and if this brotherly aid shall rectify that which should be rectified, it is
 well; but if not, the matter is reported to the province, according to the established system. But
 this brotherly agreement in Christian faith is not purchased by the servitude of the Churches of
 God. Let this be our answer also to the examples of a fraternal and proper championship of the
 privileges of Julius and Innocent Bishops of Rome, by St. Athanasius the Great and St. John
 Chrysostom, referred to by his Holiness (p. ix. 1. 6, 17), for which their successors now seek to
 recompense us by adulterating the divine Creed. Yet was Julius himself indignant against some
 for "disturbing the Churches by not maintaining the doctrines of Nice" (Soz. Hist. Ec. lib. iii. c.
 7), and threatening (id.) excommunication, "if they ceased not their innovations." In the case of
 the Corinthians, moreover, it is to be remarked that the Patriarchal Thrones being then but three,
 Rome was the nearer and more accessible to the Corinthians, to which, therefore, it was proper to
 have resort. In all this we see nothing extraordinary, nor any proof of the despotic power of the
 Pope in the free Church of God.
 15\. But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by
 mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I,
 cried out, "Peter has thus spoken by Leo." It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to
 overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo.
 Since however his Holiness, consulting brevity, appears to have omitted this most necessary
 point, and the manifest proof that an Ecumenical Council is not only above the Pope but above
 any Council of his, we will explain to the public the matter as it really happened. Of more than
 six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest
 were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo;
 nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether
 it were orthodox or not. These, about two hundred judgments and resolution on the epistle, as
 chiefly found in the Fourth Session of the said holy Council in such terms as the following:—
 "Maximus of Antioch in Syria said: 'The epistle of the holy Leo, Archbishop of Imperial Rome,
 agrees with the decisions of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and the hundred
 and fifty at Constantinople, which is new Rome, and with the faith expounded at Ephesus by the
 most holy Bishop Cyril: and I have subscribed it."
 And again:
 "Theodoret, the most religious Bishop of Cyrus: 'The epistle of the most holy Archbishop, the
 lord Leo, agrees with the faith established at Nice by the holy and blessed fathers, and with the
 symbol of faith expounded at Constantinople by the hundred and fifty, and with the epistles of
 the blessed Cyril. And accepting it, I have subscribed the said epistle."'
 And thus all in succession: "The epistle corresponds," "the epistle is consonant, "the epistle
 agrees in sense," and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with
 former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely
 because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which
 his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in
 unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his
 predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly
 have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers.
 Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two
 hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said
 former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, "Peter has so
 spoken," or anything of like honor, but this also, "Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped
 away the tears of the Catholic Church."
 16\. And surely we have a right to expect from the prudent forethought of his Holiness, a work so
 worthy the true successor of St. Peter, of Leo I, and also of Leo III, who for security of the
 orthodox faith engraved the divine Creed unaltered upon imperishable plates—a work which will
 unite the churches of the West to the holy Catholic Church, in which the canonical chief seat of
 his Holiness, and the seats of all the Bishops of the West remain empty and ready to be occupied.
 For the Catholic Church, awaiting the conversion of the shepherds who have fallen off from her
 with their flocks, does not separate in name only, those who have been privily introduced to the
 rulership by the action of others, thus making little of the Priesthood. But we are expecting the
 "word of consolation," and hope that he, as wrote St. Basil to St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan
 (Epis. b6), will "tread again the ancient footprints of the fathers." Not without great astonishment 
 have we read the said Encyclical letter to the Easterns, in which we see with deep grief of soul
 his Holiness, famed for prudence, speaking like his predecessors in schism, words that urge upon
 us the adulteration of our pure holy Creed, on which the Ecumenical Councils have set their seal;
 and doing violence to the sacred Liturgies, whose heavenly structure alone, and the names of
 those who framed them, and their tone of reverend antiquity, and the stamp that was placed upon
 them by the Seventh Ecumenical Synod (Act vi.), should have paralyzed him, and made him to
 turn aside the sacrilegious and all-daring hand that has thus smitten the King of Glory. From
 these things we estimate into what an unspeakable labyrinth of wrong and incorrigible sin of
 revolution the papacy has thrown even the wiser and more godly Bishops of the Roman Church,
 so that, in order to preserve the innocent, and therefore valued vicarial dignity, as well as the
 despotic primacy and the things depending upon it, they know no other means shall to insult the
 most divine and sacred things, daring everything for that one end. Clothing themselves, in words,
 with pious reverence for "the most venerable antiquity" (p. xi. 1.16), in reality there remains,
 within, the innovating temper; and yet his Holiness really hears hard upon himself when he says
 that we "must cast from us everything that has crept in among us since the Separation," (!) while
 he and his have spread the poison of their innovation even into the Supper of our LORD. His
 Holiness evidently takes it for granted that in the Orthodox Church the same thing has happened
 which he is conscious has happened in the Church of Rome since the rise of the Papacy: to wit, a
 sweeping change in all the Mysteries, and corruption from scholastic subtleties, a reliance on
 which must suffice as an equivalent for our sacred Liturgies and Mysteries and doctrines: yet all
 the while, forsooth, reverencing our "venerable antiquity," and all this by a condescension
 entirely Apostolic!—"without," as he says, "troubling us by any harsh conditions"! From such
 ignorance of the Apostolic and Catholic food on which we live emanates another sententious 
 declaration of his (p. vii. 1. 22): "It is not possible that unity of doctrine and sacred observance
 should be preserved among you," paradoxically ascribing to us the very misfortune from which
 he suffers at home; just as Pope Leo IX wrote to the blessed Michael Cerularius, accusing the
 Greeks of changing the Creed of the Catholic Church, without blushing either for his own honor
 or for the truth of history. We are persuaded that if his Holiness will call to mind ecclesiastical
 archaeology and history, the doctrine of the holy Fathers and the old Liturgies of France and
 Spain, and the Sacramentary of the ancient Roman Church, he will be struck with surprise on
 finding how many other monstrous daughters, now living, the Papacy has brought forth in the
 West: while Orthodoxy, with us, has preserved the Catholic Church as an incorruptible bride for
 her Bridegroom, although we have no temporal power, nor, as his Holiness says, any sacred
 "observances," but by the sole tie of love and affection to a common Mother are bound together
 in the unity of a faith sealed with the seven seals of the Spirit (Rev. v. 1), and by the seven
 Ecumenical Councils, and in obedience to the Truth. He will find, also, flow many modern
 papistical doctrines and mysteries must be rejected as "commandments of men" in order that the
 Church of the West, which has introduced all sorts of novelties, may be changed back again to
 the immutable Catholic Orthodox faith of our common fathers. As his Holiness recognizes our
 common zeal in this faith, when he says (p. viii. l.30), "let us take heed to the doctrine preserved
 by our forefathers," so he does well in instructing us (l. 31) to follow the old pontiffs and the
 faithful of the Eastern Metropolitans. What these thought of the doctrinal fidelity of the
 Archbishops of the elder Rome, and what idea we ought to have of them in the Orthodox
 Church, and in what manner we ought to receive their teachings, they have synodically given us
 an example ( 15), and the sublime Basil has well interpreted it ( 7). As to the supremacy, since 
 we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a few words, "I
 preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them."
 17\. From all this, every one nourished in sound Catholic doctrine, particularly his Holiness, must
 draw the conclusion, how impious and anti-synodical it is to attempt the alteration of our
 doctrine and liturgies and other divine offices which are, and are proved to be, coeval with the
 preaching of Christianity: for which reason reverence was always bestowed on then, and they
 were confided in as pure even by the old orthodox Popes themselves, to whom these things were
 an inheritance in common with ourselves. How becoming and holy would be the mending of the
 innovations, the time of whose entrance in the Church of Rome we know in each case; for our
 illustrious fathers have testified from time to time against each novelty. But there are other
 reasons which should incline his Holiness to this change. First, because those things that are ours
 were once venerable to the Westerns, as having the same divine Offices and confessing the same
 Creed; but the novelties were not known to our Fathers, nor could they be shown in the writings
 of the orthodox Western Fathers, nor as having their origin either in antiquity or catholicity.
 Moreover, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could then have introduced novelties amongst us,
 because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves,
 who desire their religious worship to be ever unchanged and of the same kind as that of their
 fathers: for as, after the Schism, many of the Popes and Latinizing Patriarchs made attempts that
 came to nothing even in the Western Church; and as, from time to time, either by fair means or
 foul, the Popes have commanded novelties for the sake of expediency (as they have explained to
 our fathers, although they were thus dismembering the Body of Christ): so now again the Pope,
 for the sake of a truly divine and most just expediency, forsooth (not mending the nets, but
 himself rending the garment of the Savior), dare to oppose the venerable things of antiquity,—
 things well fitted to preserve religion, as his Holiness confesses (p. xi. l.16), and which he
 himself honors, as he says (lb. 1.16), together with his predecessors, for he repeats that
 memorable expression o one of those blessed predecessors (Celestine, writing to the third
 Ecumenical Council): "*Let novelty cease to attack antiquity*." And let the Catholic Church enjoy
 this benefit from this so far blameless declaration of the Popes. It must by all means be
 confessed, that in such his attempt, even though Pius IX be eminent for wisdom and piety, and,
 as he says, for zeal after Christian unity in the Catholic Church, he will meet, within and without,
 with difficulties and toils. And here we must put his Holiness in mind, if he will excuse our
 boldness, of that portion of his letter (p. viii. L.32), "That in things which relate to the confession
 of our divine religion, nothing is to be feared, when we look to the glory of Christ, and the
 reward which awaits us in eternal life." It is incumbent on his Holiness to show before God and
 man, that, as prime mover of the counsel which pleases God, so is he a willing protector of the
 ill-treated evangelical and synodical truth, even to the sacrifice of his own interests, according to
 the Prophet (Is. lx. 17), *A ruler in peace and a bishop in righteousness*. So be it! But until there
 be this desired returning of the apostate Churches to the body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and
 Apostolic Church, of which *Christ is the Head* (Eph. iv. 15), and each of us *"members in*
 *particular,"* all advice proceeding from them, and every officious exhortation tending to the
 dissolution of our pure faith handed down from the Fathers is condemned, as it ought to be,
 synodically, not only as suspicious and to be eschewed, but as impious and soul-destroying: and
 in this category, among the first we place the said Encyclical to the Easterns from Pope Pius IX,
 Bishop of the elder Rome; and such we proclaim it to be in the Catholic Church.
 18\. Wherefore, beloved brethren and fellow-ministers of our mediocrity, as always, so also now,
 particularly on this occasion of the publication of the said Encyclical, we hold it to be our 
 inexorable duty, in accordance with our patriarchal and synodical responsibility, in order that
 none may be lost to the divine fold of the Catholic Orthodox Church, the most holy Mother of us
 all, to encourage each other, and to urge you that, reminding one another of the words and
 exhortations of St. Paul to our holy predecessors when he summoned them to Ephesus, we
 reiterate to each other: *take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which*
 *the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased*
 *with His own Blood. For know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among*
 *you not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to*
 *draw away disciples after them. Therefore, watch.* (Acts xx.28-31.) Then our predecessors and
 Fathers, hearing this divine charge, wept sore, and falling upon his neck, kissed him. Come, then,
 and let us, brethren, hearing him admonishing us with tears, fall in spirit, lamenting, upon his
 neck, and, kissing him, comfort him by our own firm assurance, that no one shall separate us
 from the love of Christ, no one mislead us from evangelical doctrine, no one entice us from the
 safe path of our fathers, as none was able to deceive them, by any degree of zeal which they
 manifested, who from time to time were raised up for this purpose by the tempter: so that at last
 we shall hear from the Master: *Well done, good and faithful servant*, receiving the end of our
 faith, even the salvation of our souls, and of the reasonable flock over whom the Holy Ghost has
 made us shepherds.
 19\. This Apostolic charge and exhortation we have quoted for your sake, and address it to all the
 Orthodox congregation, wherever they be found settled on the earth, to the Priests and Abbots, to
 the Deacons and Monks, in a word, to all the Clergy and godly People, the rulers and the ruled,
 the rich and the poor, to parents and children, to teachers and scholars, to the educated and
 uneducated, to masters and servants, that we all, supporting and counseling each other, may *be* 
 *able to stand against the wiles of the devil.* For thus St. Peter the Apostle exhorts us (1 Pet.): *Be*
 *sober, be vigilant because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion walketh about, seeking*
 *whom he may devour. Whom resist, steadfast in the faith.*
 20\. For our faith, brethren, is not of men nor by man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ, which the
 divine Apostles preached, the holy Ecumenical Councils confirmed, the greatest and wisest
 teachers of the world handed down in succession, and the shed blood of the holy martyrs ratified.
 *Let us hold fast to the confession* which we have received unadulterated from such men, turning
 away from every novelty as a suggestion of the devil. He that accepts a novelty reproaches with
 deficiency the preached Orthodox Faith. But that Faith has long ago been sealed in completeness,
 not to admit of diminution or increase, or any change whatever; and he who dares to do, or
 advise, or think of such a thing has already denied the faith of Christ, has already of his own
 accord been struck with an eternal anathema, for blaspheming the Holy Ghost as not having
 spoken fully in the Scriptures and through the Ecumenical Councils. This fearful anathema,
 brethren and sons beloved in Christ, we do not pronounce today, but our Savior first pronounced
 it (Matt. xii. 32): *Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him,*
 *neither in this world, neither in the world to come.* St. Paul pronounced the same anathema (Gal.
 i. 6): *I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ,*
 *unto another Gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would*
 *pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel*
 *unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.* This same anathema
 the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the whole choir of God-serving fathers pronounced. All,
 therefore, innovating, either by heresy or schism, have voluntarily clothed themselves, according
 to the Psalm (cix. 18), ("*with a curse as with a garment,*") whether they be Popes, or Patriarchs, 
 or Clergy, or Laity; nay, if any one, though an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto
 you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Thus our wise fathers, obedient to the soul-saving
 words of St. Paul, were established firm and steadfast in the faith handed down
 unbrokenly to them, and preserved it unchanged and uncontaminate in the midst of so many
 heresies, and have delivered it to us pure and undefiled, as it came pure from the mouth of the
 first servants of the Word. Let us, too, thus wise, transmit it, pure as we have received it, to
 coming generations, altering nothing, that they may be, as we are, full of confidence, and with
 nothing to be ashamed of when speaking of the faith of their forefathers.
 21\. Therefore, brethren, and sons beloved in the LORD, *having purified your souls in obeying*
 *the truth* (1 Pet. i. 22), *let us give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest*
 *at any time we should let them slip.* (Heb. ii. 1.) The faith and confession we have received is not
 one to be ashamed of, being taught in the Gospel from the mouth of our LORD, witnessed by the
 holy Apostles, by the seven sacred Ecumenical Councils, preached throughout the world,
 witnessed to by its very enemies, who, before they apostatized from orthodoxy to heresies,
 themselves held this same faith, or at least their fathers and fathers' fathers thus held it. It is
 witnessed to by continuous history, as triumphing over all the heresies which have persecuted or
 now persecute it, as ye see even to this day. The succession of our holy divine fathers and
 predecessors beginning from the Apostles, and those whom the Apostles appointed their
 successors, to this day, forming one unbroken chain, and joining hand to hand, keep fast the
 sacred inclosure of which the door is Christ, in which all the orthodox Flock is fed in the fertile
 pastures of the mystical Eden, and not in the pathless and rugged wilderness, as his Holiness
 supposes (p. 7.1.12). Our Church holds the infallible and genuine deposit of the Holy Scriptures,
 of the Old Testament a true and perfect version, of the New the divine original itself. The rites of 
 the sacred Mysteries, and especially those of the Divine Liturgy, are the same glorious and
 heartquickening rites, handed down from the Apostles. No nation, no Christian communion, can
 boast of such Liturgies as those of James, Basil, Chrysostom. The august Ecumenical Councils,
 those seven pillars of the house of Wisdom, were organized in it and among us. This, our
 Church, holds the originals of their sacred definitions. The Chief Pastors in it, and the honorable
 Presbytery, and the monastic Order, preserve the primitive and pure dignity of the first ages of
 Christianity, in opinions, in polity, and even in the simplicity of their vestments. Yes! verily,
 "grievous wolves" have constantly attacked this holy fold, and are attacking it now, as we see for
 ourselves, according to the prediction of the Apostle, which shows that the true lambs of the
 great Shepherd are folded in it; but that Church has sung and shall sing forever: *"They*
 *compassed me about; yea, they compassed me about: but in the name of the Lord I will destroy*
 *them* (Ps. cxviii. l1). Let us add one reflection, a painful one indeed, but useful in order to
 manifest and confirm the truth of our words:—All Christian nations whatsoever that are today
 seen calling upon the Name of Christ (not excepting either the West generally, or Rome herself,
 as we prove by the catalogue of her earliest Popes), were taught the true faith in Christ by our
 holy predecessors and fathers; and yet afterwards deceitful men, many of whom were shepherds,
 and chief shepherds too, of those nations, by wretched sophistries and heretical opinions dared to
 defile, alas! the orthodoxy of those nations, as veracious history informs us, and as St. Paul
 predicted.
 22\. Therefore, brethren, and ye our spiritual children, we acknowledge how great the favor and
 grace which God has bestowed upon our Orthodox Faith, and on His One, Holy, Catholic, and
 Apostolic Church, which, like a mother who is unsuspected of her husband, nourishes us as
 children of whom she is not ashamed, and who are excusable in our high-toned boldness 
 concerning *the hope that is in us*. But what shall we sinners render to the LORD *for all that He*
 *hath bestowed upon us?* Our bounteous LORD and God, who hath redeemed us by his own
 Blood, requires nothing else of us but the devotion of our whole soul and heart to the blameless,
 holy faith of our fathers, and love and affection to the Orthodox Church, which has regenerated
 us not with a novel sprinkling, but with the divine washing of Apostolic Baptism. She it is that
 nourishes us, according to the eternal covenant of our Savior, with His own precious Body, and
 abundantly, as a true Mother, gives us to drink of that precious Blood poured out for us and for
 the salvation of the world. Let us then encompass her in spirit, as the young their parent bird,
 wherever on earth we find ourselves, in the north or south, or east, or west. Let us fix our our
 eyes and thoughts upon her divine countenance and her most glorious beauty. Let us take hold
 with both our hands on her shining robe which the Bridegroom, "altogether lovely," has with His
 own undefiled hands thrown around her, when He redeemed her from the bondage of error, and
 adorned her as an eternal Bride for Himself. Let us feel in our own souls the mutual grief of the
 children-loving mother and the mother-loving children, when it is seen that men of wolfish
 minds and making gain of souls are zealous in plotting how they may lead her captive, or tear the
 lambs from their mothers. Let us, Clergy as well as Laity, cherish this feeling most intensely
 now, when the unseen adversary of our salvation, combining his fraudful arts (p. xi. 1. 2-25),
 employs such powerful instrumentalities, and walketh about everywhere, as saith St. Peter,
 *seeking whom he may devour*; and when in this way, in which we walk peacefully and
 innocently, he sets his deceitful snares.
 23\. Now, the God of peace, "that brought again from the dead that great Shepherd of the sheep,"
 "He that keepeth Israel," who "shall neither slumber nor sleep," "keep your hearts and minds,"
 "and direct your ways to every good work."
 Peace and joy be with you in the LORD.
 May, 1848, Indiction 6.
 \+ ANTHIMOS, by the Mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, new Rome, and
 Ecumenical Patriarch, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.  
 \+ HIEROTHEUS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Alexandria and of all Egypt, a beloved
 brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.  
 \+ METHODIOS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of the great City of God, Antioch, and of all
 Anatolia, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.  
 \+ CYRIL, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, a beloved brother in
 Christ our God, and suppliant.
 **The Holy Synod in Constantinople:**  
 + PAISIUS OF CAESAREA  
 + ANTHIMUS OF EPHESUS  
 + DIONYSIUS OF HERACLEA  
 + JOACHIM OF CYZICUS  
 + DIONYSIUS OF NICODEMIA  
 + HIEROTHEUS OF CHALCEDON  
 + NEOPHYTUS OF DERCI  
 + GERASIMUS OF ADRIANOPLE  
 + CYRIL OF NEOCAESAREA  
 + THEOCLETUS OF BEREA  
 + MELETIUS OF PISIDIA  
 + ATHANASIUS OF SMYRNA  
 + DIONYSIUS OF MELENICUS  
 + PAISIUS OF SOPHIA  
 + DANIEL OF LEMNOS  
 + PANTELEIMON OF DEYINOPOLIS  
 + JOSEPH OF ERSECIUM  
 + ANTHIMUS OF BODENI  
 **The Holy Synod in Antioch:**  
 + ZACHARIAS OF ARCADIA  
 + METHODIOS OF EMESA  
 + JOANNICIUS OF TRIPOLIS  
 + ARTEMIUS OF LAODICEA  
 **The Holy Synod in Jerusalem:**  
 + MELETIUS OF PETRA  
 + DIONYSIUS OF BETHLEHEM  
 + PHILEMON OF GAZA  
 + SAMUEL OF NEAPOLIS  
 + THADDEUS OF SEBASTE  
 + JOANNICIUS OF PHILADELPHIA  
 + HIEROTHEUS OF TABOR
--- a/src/page/ecumen/encyclical-patriarchal-1895.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/encyclical-patriarchal-1895.md
@ -1,163 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion
 date: 1895-08
 source: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
 ---
 *To the most Sacred and Most Divinely-beloved Brethren in Christ the Metropolitans and Bishops, and their sacred and venerable Clergy, and all the godly and orthodox Laity of the Most Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople.*
 > *"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their own conversation:*
 > *"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines."* (Heb. xiii. 7, 8).
 I. Every godly and orthodox soul, which has a sincere zeal for the glory of God, is deeply afflicted and weighed down with great pain upon seeing that he, who detests that which is good and is a murderer from the beginning, impelled by envy of man's salvation, never ceases continually to sow divers tares in the field of the Lord, in order to sift the wheat. From this source indeed, even from the earliest times, there sprang up in the Church of God heretical tares, which have in many ways made havoc, and do still make havoc, of the salvation of mankind by Christ; which moreover, as bad seeds and corrupted members, are rightly cut off from the sound body of the orthodox catholic Church of Christ. But in these last times the evil one has rent from the orthodox Church of Christ even whole nations in the West, having inflated the bishops of Rome with thoughts of excessive arrogance, which has given birth to divers lawless and anti-evangelical innovations. And not only so, but furthermore the Popes of Rome from time to time, pursuing absolutely and without examination modes of union according to their own fancy, strive by every means to reduce to their own errors the catholic Church of Christ, which throughout the world walks unshaken in the orthodoxy of faith transmitted to her by the Fathers.
 II. Accordingly the Pope of Rome, Leo XIII, on the occasion of his episcopal jubilee, published in the month of June of the year of grace 1895 an encyclical letter, addressed to the leaders and peoples of the world, by which he also at the same time invites our orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ to unite with the papal throne, thinking that such union can only be obtained by acknowledging him as supreme pontiff and the highest spiritual and temporal ruler of the universal Church, as the only representative of Christ upon earth and the dispenser of all grace.
 III. No doubt every Christian heart ought to be filled with longing for union of the Churches, and especially the whole orthodox world, being inspired by a true spirit of piety, according to the divine purpose of the establishment of the church by the God-man our Savior Christ, ardently longs for the unity of the Churches in the one rule of faith, and on the foundation of the apostolic doctrine handed down to us through the Fathers, 'Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.' [^1] Wherefore she also every day, in her public prayers to the Lord, prays for the gathering together of the scattered and for the return of those who have gone astray to the right way of the truth, which alone leads to the Life of all, the only-begotten Son and Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. [^2] Agreeably, therefore, to this sacred longing, our orthodox Church of Christ is always ready to accept any proposal of union, if only the Bishop of Rome would shake off once for all the whole series of the many and divers anti-evangelical novelties that have been 'privily brought in' to his Church, and have provoked the sad division of the Churches of the East and West, and would return to the basis of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, which, having been assembled in the Holy Spirit, of representatives of all the holy Churches of God, for the determination of the right teaching of the faith against heretics, have a universal and perpetual supremacy in the Church of Christ. And this, both by her writings and encyclical letters, the Orthodox Church has never ceased to intimate to the Papal Church, having clearly and explicitly set forth that so long as the latter perseveres in her innovations, and the orthodox Church adheres to the divine and apostolic traditions of Christianity, during which the Western Churches were of the same mind and were united with the Churches of the East, so long is it a vain and empty thing to talk of union. For which cause we have remained silent until now, and have declined to take into consideration the papal encyclical in question, esteeming it unprofitable to speak to the ears of those who do not hear. Since, however, from a certain period the Papal Church, having abandoned the method of persuasion and discussion, began, to our general astonishment and perplexity, to lay traps for the conscience of the more simple orthodox Christians by means of deceitful workers transformed into apostles of Christ, [^3] sending into the East clerics with the dress and headcovering of orthodox priests, inventing also divers and other artful means to obtain her proselytizing objects; for this reason, as in sacred duty bound, we issue this patriarchal and synodical encyclical, for a safeguard of the orthodox faith and piety, knowing 'that the observance of the true canons is a duty for every good man, and much more for those who have been thought worthy by Providence to direct the affairs of others.' [^4]
 IV. The union of the separated Churches with herself in one rule of faith is, as has been said before, a sacred and inward desire of the holy, catholic and orthodox apostolic Church of Christ; but without such unity in the faith, the desired union of the Churches becomes impossible. This being the case, we wonder in truth how Pope Leo XIII, though he himself also acknowledges this truth, falls into a plain self-contradiction, declaring, on the one hand, that true union lies in the unity of faith, and, on the other hand, that every Church, even after the union, can hold her own dogmatic and canonical definitions, even when they differ from those of the Papal Church, as the Pope declares in a previous encyclical, dated November 30, 1894. For there is an evident contradiction when in one and the same Church one believes that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and another that He proceeds from the Father and the Son; when one sprinkles, and another baptizes (immerses) thrice in the water; one uses leavened bread in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and another unleavened; one imparts to the people of the chalice as well as of the bread, and the other only of the holy bread; and other things like these. But what this contradiction signifies, whether respect for the evangelical truths of the holy Church of Christ and an indirect concession and acknowledgment of them, or something else, we cannot say.
 V. But however that may be, for the practical realization of the pious longing for the union of the Churches, a common principle and basis must be settled first of all; and there can be no such safe common principle and basis other than the teaching of the Gospel and of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils. Reverting, then, to that teaching which was common to the Churches of the East and of the West until the separation, we ought, with a sincere desire to know the truth, to search what the one holy, catholic and orthodox apostolic Church of Christ, being then 'of the same body,' throughout the East and West believed, and to hold this fact, entire, and unaltered. But whatsoever has in later times been added or taken away, every one has a sacred and indispensable duty, if he sincerely seeks for the glory of God more than for his own glory, that in a spirit of piety he should correct it, considering that by arrogantly continuing in the perversion of the truth he is liable to a heavy account before the impartial judgment-seat of Christ. In saying this we do not at all refer to the differences regarding the ritual of the sacred services and the hymns, or the sacred vestments, and the like, which matters, even though they still vary, as they did of old, do not in the least injure the substance and unity of the faith; but we refer to those essential differences which have reference to the divinely transmitted doctrines of the faith, and the divinely instituted canonical constitution of the administration of the Churches. 'In cases where the thing disregarded is not the faith (says also the holy Photius), [^5] and is no falling away from any general and catholic decree, different rites and customs being observed among different people, a man who knows how to judge rightly would decide that neither do those who observe them act wrongly, nor do those who have not received them break the law.' [^6]
 VI. And indeed for the holy purpose of union, the Eastern orthodox and catholic Church of Christ is ready heartily to accept all that which both the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously professed before the ninth century, if she has perchance perverted or does not hold it. And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for 'there is one body and one Spirit,' it is said, 'even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." [^7]
 VII. So then the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils believed and taught in accordance with the words of the Gospel that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father; but in the West, even from the ninth century, the holy Creed, which was composed and sanctioned by Ecumenical Councils, began to be falsified, and the idea that the Holy Ghost proceeds 'also from the Son' to be arbitrarily promulgated. And certainly Pope Leo XIII is not ignorant that his orthodox predecessor and namesake, the defender of orthodoxy, Leo III, in the year 809 denounced synodically this anti-evangelical and utterly lawless addition, 'and from the Son' (filioque); and engraved on two silver plates, in Greek and Latin, the holy Creed of the first and second Ecumenical Councils, entire and without any addition; having written moreover, 'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith' (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa'). [^8]
 Likewise he is by no means ignorant that during the tenth century, or at the beginning of the eleventh, this anti-evangelical and lawless addition was with difficulty inserted officially into the holy Creed at Rome also, and that consequently the Roman Church, in insisting on her innovations, and not coming back to the dogma of the Ecumenical Councils, renders herself fully responsible before the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, which holds fast that which has been received from the Fathers, and keeps the deposit of the faith which was delivered to it unadulterated in all things, in obedience to the Apostolic injunction: 'That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us'; 'avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith." [^9]
 VIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the first seven Ecumenical Councils baptized by three immersions in the water, and the Pope Pelagius speaks of the triple immersion as a command of the Lord, and in the thirteenth century baptism by immersions still prevailed in the West; and the sacred fonts themselves, preserved in the more ancient churches in Italy, are eloquent witnesses on this point; but in later times sprinkling or effusion, being privily brought in, came to be accepted by the Papal Church, which still holds fast the innovation, thus also widening the gulf which she has opened; but we Orthodox, remaining faithful to the apostolic tradition and the practice of the seven Ecumenical Councils, 'stand fast, contending for the common profession, the paternal treasure of the sound faith.' [^10]
 IX. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, according to the example of our Savior, celebrated the divine Eucharist for more than a thousand years throughout the East and West with leavened bread, as the truth-loving papal theologians themselves also bear witness; but the Papal Church from the eleventh century made an innovation also in the sacrament of the divine Eucharist by introducing unleavened bread.
 X. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils held that the precious gifts are consecrated after the prayer of the invocation of the Holy Ghost by the blessing of the priest, as the ancient rituals of Rome and Gaul testify; nevertheless afterwards the Papal Church made an innovation in this also, by arbitrarily accepting the consecration of the precious gifts as taking place along with the utterance of the Lord's words: 'Take, eat; this is my body': and 'Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood.' [^11]
 XI. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord's command, 'Drink ye all of it,' [^12] imparted also of the holy chalice to all; but the Papal Church from the ninth century downwards has made an innovation in this rite also, by depriving the laity of the holy chalice, contrary to the Lord's command and the universal practice of the ancient Church, as well as the express prohibition of many ancient orthodox bishops of Rome.
 XII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching of the Holy Scripture and the old apostolic tradition, prays and invokes the mercy of God for the forgiveness and rest of those 'which have fallen asleep in the Lord'; [^13] but the Papal Church from the twelfth century downwards has invented and heaped together in the person of the Pope, as one singularly privileged, a multitude of innovations concerning purgatorial fire, a superabundance of the virtues of the saints, and the distribution of them to those who need them, and the like, setting forth also a full reward for the just before the universal resurrection and judgment.
 XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).
 XIV. Passing over, then, these serious and substantial differences between the two churches respecting the faith, which differences, as has been said before, were created in the West, the Pope in his encyclical represents the question of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff as the principal and, so to speak, only cause of the dissension, and sends us to the sources, that we may make diligent search as to what our forefathers believed and what the first age of Christianity delivered to us. But having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows. Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the eternal Prince and immortal Head of the Church, for 'He is the Head of the body, the Church," [^14] who said also to His divine disciples and apostles at His ascension into heaven, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.' [^15] In the Holy Scripture the Apostle Peter, whom the Papists, relying on apocryphal books of the second century, the pseudo-Clementines, imagine with a purpose to be the founder of the Roman Church and their first bishop, discusses matters as an equal among equals in the apostolic synod of Jerusalem, and at another time is sharply rebuked by the Apostle Paul, as is evident from the Epistle to the Galatians. [^16] Moreover, the Papists themselves know well that the very passage of the Gospel to which the Pontiff refers, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' [^17] is in the first centuries of the Church interpreted quite differently, in a spirit of orthodoxy, both by tradition and by all the divine and sacred Fathers without exception; the fundamental and unshaken rock upon which the Lord has built His own Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, being understood metaphorically of Peter's true confession concerning the Lord, that 'He is Christ, the Son of the living God.' [^18] Upon this confession and faith the saving preaching of the Gospel by all the apostles and their successors rests unshaken. Whence also the Apostle Paul, who had been caught up into heaven, evidently interpreting this divine passage, declares the divine inspiration, saying: 'According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' [^19] But it is in another sense that Paul calls all the apostles and prophets together the foundation of the building up in Christ of the faithful; that is to say, the members of the body of Christ, which is the Church; [^20] when he writes to the Ephesians: 'Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the house hold of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.' [^21] Such, then, being the divinely inspired teaching of the apostles respecting the foundation and Prince of the Church of God, of course the sacred Fathers, who held firmly to the apostolic traditions, could not have or conceive any idea of an absolute primacy of the Apostle Peter and the bishops of Rome; nor could they give any other interpretation, totally unknown to the Church, to that passage of the Gospel, but that which was true and right; nor could they arbitrarily and by themselves invent a novel doctrine respecting excessive privileges of the Bishop of Rome as successor, if so be, of Peter; especially whilst the Church of Rome was chiefly founded, not by Peter, whose apostolic action at Rome is totally unknown to history, but by the heaven-caught apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, through his disciples, whose apostolic ministry in Rome is well known to all. [^22]
 XV. The divine Fathers, honoring the Bishop of Rome only as the bishop of the capital city of the Empire, gave him the honorary prerogative of presidency, considering him simply as the bishop first in order, that is, first among equals; which prerogative they also assigned afterwards to the Bishop of Constantinople, when that city became the capital of the Roman Empire, as the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon bears witness, saying, among other things, as follows: 'We do also determine and decree the same things respecting the prerogatives of the most holy Church of the said Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers have rightly given the prerogative to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city. And the hundred and fifty most religious bishops, moved by the same consideration, assigned an equal prerogative to the most holy throne of New Rome.' From this canon it is very evident that the Bishop of Rome is equal in honor to the Bishop of the Church of Constantinople and to those other Churches, and there is no hint given in any canon or by any of the Fathers that the Bishop of Rome alone has ever been prince of the universal Church and the infallible judge of the bishops of the other independent and self-governing Churches, or the successor of the Apostle Peter and vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
 XVI. Each particular self-governing Church, both in the East and West, was totally independent and self-administered in the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. And just as the bishops of the self-governing Churches of the East, so also those of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany and Britain managed the affairs of their own Churches, each by their local synods, the Bishop of Rome having no right to interfere, and he himself also was equally subject and obedient to the decrees of synods. But on important questions which needed the sanction of the universal Church an appeal was made to an Ecumenical Council, which alone was and is the supreme tribunal in the universal Church. Such was the ancient constitution of the Church; but the bishops were independent of each other and each entirely free within his own bounds, obeying only the syndical decrees, and they sat as equal one to another in synods. Moreover, none of them ever laid claim to monarchical rights over the universal Church; and ii sometimes certain ambitious bishops of Rome raised excessive claims to an absolutism unknown to the Church, such were duly reproved and rebuked. The assertion therefore of Leo XIII, when he says in his Encyclical that before the period of the great Photius the name of the Roman throne was holy among all the peoples of the Christian world, and that the East, like the West, with one accord and without opposition, was subject to the Roman pontiff as lawful successor, so to say, of the Apostle Peter, and consequently vicar of Jesus Christ on earth is proved to be inaccurate and a manifest error.
 XVII. During the nine centuries of the Ecumenical Councils the Eastern Orthodox Church never recognized the excessive claims of primacy on the part of the bishops of Rome, nor consequently did she ever submit herself to them, as Church history plainly bears witness. The independent relation of the East to the West is clearly and manifestly shown also by those few and most significant words of Basil the Great, which he writes in a letter to the holy Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata: 'For when haughty characters are courted, it is their nature to become still more disdainful. For if the Lord be merciful to us, what other assistance do we need? But if the wrath of God abide on us, what help is there for us from Western superciliousness? Men who neither know the truth nor can bear to learn it, but being prejudiced by false suspicions, they act now as they did before in the case of Marcellus.' [^23] The celebrated Photius, therefore, the sacred Prelate and luminary of Constantinople, defending this independence of the Church of Constantinople after the middle of the ninth century, and foreseeing the impending perversion of the ecclesiastical constitution in the West, and its defection from the orthodox East, at first endeavored in a peaceful manner to avert the danger; but the Bishop of Rome, Nicholas I, by his uncanonical interference with the East, beyond the bounds of his diocese, and by the attempt which he made to subdue the Church of Constantinople to himself, pushed maners to the verge of the grievous separation of the Churches. The first seeds of these claims of a papal absolutism were scattered abroad in the pseudo-Clementines, and were cultivated, exactly at the epoch of this Nicholas, in the so-called pseudo-lsidorian decrees, which are a farrago of spurious and forged royal decrees and letters of ancient bishops of Rome, by which, contrary to the truth of history and the established constitution of the Church, it was purposely promulgated that, as they said, Christian antiquity assigned to the bishops of Rome an unbounded authority over the universal Church.
 XVIII. These facts we recall with sorrow of heart, inasmuch as the Papal Church, though she now acknowledges the spuriousness and forged character of those decrees on which her excessive claims are grounded, not only stubbornly refuses to come back to the canons and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, but even in the expiring years of the nineteenth century has widened the existing gulf by officially proclaiming, to the astonishment of the Christian world, that the Bishop of Rome is even infallible. The orthodox Eastern and catholic Church of Christ, with the exception of the Son and Word of God, who was ineffably made man, knows no one infallible upon earth. Even the Apostle Peter himself, whose successor the Pope thinks himself to be, thrice denied the Lord, and was twice rebuked by the Apostle Paul, as not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel. [^24] Afterwards the Pope Liberius, in the fourth century, subscribed an Arian confession; and likewise Zosimus, in the fifth century, approved an heretical confession, denying original sin. Virgilius, in the sixth century, was condemned for wrong opinions by the fifth Council; and Honorius, having fallen into the Monothelite heresy, was condemned in the seventh century by the sixth Ecumenical Council as a heretic, and the popes who succeeded him acknowledged and accepted his condemnation.
 XIX. With these and such facts in view, the peoples of the West, becoming gradually civilized by the diffusion of letters, began to protest against innovations, and to demand (as was done in the fifteenth century at the Councils of Constance and Basle) the return to the ecclesiastical constitution of the first centuries, to which, by the grace of God, the orthodox Churches throughout the East and North, which alone now form the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, the pillar and ground of the truth, remain, and will always remain, faithful. The same was done in the seventeenth century by the learned Gallican theologians, and in the eighteenth by the bishops of Germany; and in this present century of science and criticism, the Christian conscience rose up in one body in the year 1870, in the persons of the celebrated clerics and theologians of Germany, on account of the novel dogma of the infallibility of the Popes, issued by the Vatican Council, a consequence of which rising is seen in the formation of the separate religious communities of the old Catholics, who, having disowned the papacy, are quite independent of it.
 XX. In vain, therefore, does the Bishop of Rome send us to the sources that we may seek diligently for what our forefathers believed and what the first period of Christianity delivered to us. In these sources we, the orthodox, find the old and divinely-transmitted doctrines, to which we carefully hold fast to the present time, and nowhere do we find the innovations which later times of empty mindedness brought forth in the West, and which the Papal Church having adopted retains till this very day. The orthodox Eastern Church then justly glories in Christ as being the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils and of the first nine centuries of Christianity, and therefore the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, 'the pillar and ground of the truth'; [^25] but the present Roman Church is the Church of innovations, of the falsification of the writings of the Church Fathers, and of the misinterpretation of the Holy Scripture and of the decrees of the holy councils, for which she has reasonably and justly been disowned, and is still disowned, so far as she remains in her error. 'For better is a praiseworthy war than a peace which separates from God,' as Gregory of Nazianzus also says.
 XXI. Such are, briefly, the serious and arbitrary innovations concerning the faith and the administrative constitution of the Church, which the Papal Church has introduced and which, it is evident, the Papal Encyclical purposely passes over in silence. These innovations, which have reference to essential points of the faith and of the administrative system of the Church, and which are manifestly opposed to the ecclesiastical condition of the first nine centuries, make the longed-for union of the Churches impossible: and every pious and orthodox heart is filled with inexpressible sorrow on seeing the Papal Church disdainfully persisting in them, and not in the least contributing to the sacred purpose of union by rejecting those heretical innovations and coming back to the ancient condition of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, of which she also at that time formed a part.
 XXII. But what are we to say of all that the Roman Pontiff writes when he addresses the glorious Slavonic nations? No one, indeed, has ever denied that by the virtue and the apostolic toils of SS. Cyril and Methodius the grace of salvation was vouchsafed to not a few of the Slavonic peoples: but history testifies that at the period of the great Photius those Greek apostles to the Slavs and intimate friends of that divine Father, setting out from Thessalonica, were sent to convert the Slavonic tribes not from Rome but from Constantinople, where moreover they had been trained, living as monks in the monastery of St. Polychronius. It is therefore utterly incoherent which is proclaimed in the Roman Pontiff's Encyclical, that, as he says, a kindly relation and mutual sympathy was brought about between the Slavonic tribes and the pontiffs of the Roman Church; for even if the Pope is ignorant of it, history nevertheless explicitly proclaims that these sacred apostles to the Slavs of whom we speak, encountered greater difficulties in their work from the bishops of Rome through their excommunications and opposition, and were more cruelly persecuted by the Frankish papal bishops than by the heathen inhabitants of those countries. Certainly the Pope knows well that the blessed Methodius having departed to the Lord, two hundred of the most distinguished of his disciples' after many struggles against the opposition of the Roman Pontiffs, were driven out of Moravia and led away by military force beyond its boundaries, from whence afterwards they were dispersed into Bulgaria and elsewhere. And he knows also that with the expulsion of the more erudite Slavonic clergy, the ritual of the East, as well as the Slavonic language then in use, were also driven out, and in process of time all vestige of orthodoxy was effaced from those provinces, and all these things done with the official cooperation of the bishops of Rome in a manner not the least honorable to the holiness of the episcopal dignity. But notwithstanding all this despiteful treatment, the orthodox Slavonic Churches, the beloved daughters of the orthodox East, and especially the great and glorious Church of divinely preserved Russia, having been preserved harmless by the grace of God, have kept, and will keep till the end of the ages, the orthodox faith, and stand forth conspicuous testimonies of the liberty that is in Christ. In vain, therefore, does the Papal Encyclical promise to the Slavonic Churches prosperity and greatness, because by the goodwill of the most gracious God they already possess these blessings, and such as these, standing firm m the orthodoxy of their fathers and glorifying in it in Christ.
 XXIII. These things being so, and being indisputably proved by ecclesiastical history, we, anxious as it is our duty to be, address ourselves to the peoples of the West, who through ignorance of the true and impartial history of ecclesiastical matters, being credulously led away, follow the anti-evangelical and utterly lawless innovations of the papacy, having been separated and continuing far from the one holy, catholic and apostolic orthodox Church of Christ, which is 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth, [^26] in which also their gracious ancestors and forefathers shone by their piety and orthodoxy of faith, having been faithful and precious members of it during nine whole centuries, obediently following and walking according to the decrees of the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils.
 XXIV. Christ-loving peoples of the glorious countries of the West! We rejoice on the one hand seeing that you have a zeal for Christ, being led by this right persuasion, 'that without faith in Christ it is impossible to please God'; [^27] but on the other hand it is self-evident to every right-thinking person that the salutary faith in Christ ought by all means to be right in everything, and in agreement with the Holy Scripture and the apostolic traditions, upon which the teaching of the divine Fathers and the seven holy, divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils is based. It is moreover manifest that the universal Church of God, which holds fast in its bosom unique unadulterated and entire this salutary faith as a divine deposit, just as it was of old delivered and unfolded by the God-bearing Fathers moved by the Spirit, and formulated by them during the first nine centuries, is one and the same for ever, and not manifold and varying with the process of time: because the gospel truths are never susceptible to alteration or progress in course of time, like the various philosophical systems; 'for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.' [^28] Wherefore also the holy Vincent, who was brought up on the milk of the piety received from the fathers in the monastery of Lérins in Gaul, and flourished about the middle of the fifth century, with great wisdom and orthodoxy characterizes the true catholicity of the faith and of the Church, saying: 'In the catholic Church we must especially take heed to hold that which has been believed everywhere at all times, and by all. For this is truly and properly catholic, as the very force and meaning of the word signifies, which moreover comprehends almost everything universally. And that we shall do, if we walk following universality, antiquity, and consent.' [^29] But, as has been said before, the Western Church, from the tenth century downwards, has privily brought into herself through the papacy various and strange and heretical doctrines and innovations, and so she has been torn away and removed far from the true and orthodox Church of Christ. How necessary, then, it is for you to come back and return to the ancient and unadulterated doctrines of the Church in order to attain the salvation in Christ after which you press, you can easily understand if you intelligently consider the command of the heaven-ascended Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, saying: 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle'; [^30] and also what the same divine apostle writes to the Galatians saying: 'I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.' [^31] But avoid such perverters of the evangelical truth, 'For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple;[^32] and come back for the future into the bosom of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, which consists of all the particular holy Churches of God, which being divinely planted, like luxuriant vines throughout the orthodox world, are inseparably united to each other in the unity of the one saving faith in Christ, and in the bond of peace and of the Spirit, that you may obtain the highly-to-be-praised and most glorious name of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the world, may be glorified among you also.
 XXV. But let us, who by the grace and goodwill of the most gracious God are precious members of the body of Christ, that is to say of His one holy, catholic and apostolic Church, hold fast to the piety of our fathers, handed down to us from the apostles. Let us all beware of false apostles, who, coming to us in sheep's clothing, attempt to entice the more simple among us by various deceptive promises, regarding all things as lawful and allowing them for the sake of union, provided only that the Pope of Rome be recognized as supreme and infallible ruler and absolute sovereign of the universal Church, and only representative of Christ on earth, and the source of all grace. And especially let us, who by the grace and mercy of God have been appointed bishops, pastors, and teachers of the holy Churches of God, 'take heed unto ourselves,—and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made us overseers, to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood,' [^33] as they that must give account. 'Wherefore let us comfort ourselves together, and edify one another.' [^34] 'And the God of all grace, who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus ... make us perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle us,' [^35] and grant that all those who are without and far away from the one holy, catholic and orthodox fold of His reasonable sheep may be enlightened with the light of His grace and the acknowledging of the truth. To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.
 Amen.
 In the Patriarchal Palace of Constantinople, in the month of August of the year of grace MDCCCXCV.
 \+ ANTHIMOS of Constantinople, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 \+ NICODEMOS of Cyzicos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 \+ PHILOTHEOS of Nicomedia, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 \+ JEROME of Nicea, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 \+ NATHANAEL of Prusa, beloved brother and intercessor of Christ our God.
 \+ BASIL of Smyrna, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 \+ STEPHEN of Philadelphia, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 \+ ATHANASIOS of Lemnos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 \+ BESSARION of Dyrrachium, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 \+ DOROTHEOS of Belgrade, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 \+ NICODEMOS of Elasson, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 \+ SOPHRONIOS of Carpathos and Cassos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 \+ DIONYSIOS of Eleutheropolis, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
 [^1]: Eph. 2:20.
 [^2]: John 14:6.
 [^3]: II Cor. 11:13.
 [^4]: Phot. Epist. iii. 10.
 [^5]: Patriarch of Constantinople; c. 800.
 [^6]: Phot. Epist iii. 6.
 [^7]: Eph. 4:5-6.
 [^8]: See life of Leo III by Athanasius, presbyter and librarian at Rome, in his Lives of the Popes. The holy Photius also, making mention of this invective of the orthodox Pope of Rome, Leo III, against the holders of the erroneous doctrine, in his renowned letter to the Metropolitan of Acquileia, expresses himself as follows: 'For (not to mention those who were before him) Leo the elder, prelate of Rome, as well as Leo the younger after him, shew themselves to be of the same mind with the catholic and apostolic Church, with the holy prelates their predecessors, and with the apostolic commands; the one having contributed much to the assembling of the fourth holy Ecumenical Council, both by the sacred men who were sent to represent him, and by his letter, through which both Nestorius and Eutyches were overthrown; by which letter he moreover, in accordance with previous synodical decrees, declared the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father, but not also "from the Son." And in like manner Leo the younger, his counterpart in faith as well as in name. This latter indeed, who was ardently zealous for true piety, in order that the unspotted pattern of true piety might not in any way whatever be falsified by a barbarous language, published it in Greek, as has already been said in the beginning, to the people of the West, that they might thereby glorify and preach aright the Holy Trinity. And not only by word and command, but also, having inscribed and exposed it to the sight of all on certain shields specially made, as on certain monuments, he fixed it at the gates of the Church, in order that every person might easily learn the uncontaminated faith, and in order that no chance whatever might be left to secret forgers and innovators of adulterating the piety of us Christians, and of bringing in the Son besides the Father as a second cause of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father with honor equal to that of the begotten Son. And it was not these two holy men alone, who shone brightly in the West, who preserved the faith free from innovation; for the Church is not in such want as that of Western preachers; but there is also a host of them not easily counted who did likewise.'—Epist. v. 53.
 [^9]: III Tim. 1:14; 1 Tim. 6:20-21.
 [^10]: St. Basil the Great, Ep. 243, To the Bishops of Italy and Gaul.
 [^11]: Matt. 26:26, 28
 [^12]: Matt. 26:28.
 [^13]: Matt. 26:31; Heb. 11:39-40; II Tim. 4:8; II Macc. 12:45.
 [^14]: Col. 1:18.
 [^15]: Matt. 28:20.
 [^16]: Gal. 2:11.
 [^17]: Matt. 16:18.
 [^18]: Matt. 16:16.
 [^19]: 1 Cor. 3:10, 11.
 [^20]: Col. 1:24.
 [^21]: Eph. 2:19, 20. Cp. 1 Pet. 2:4; Rev. 21:14.
 [^22]: See Acts of the Apostles 28:15, Rom. 15:15-16; Phil. 1:13.
 [^23]: Epist. 239.
 [^24]: Gal. 2:11.
 [^25]: I Tim. 3:15.
 [^26]: I Tim. 3:15.
 [^27]: Heb. 11:6.
 [^28]: Heb. 13:8.
 [^29]: 'In ipsa item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut teneamus, quod ubique quod semper ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est enim vere proprieque Catholicum (quod ipsa vis nominis ratioque declarat), quod omnia fere universaliter comprehendit. Sed hoc fiet si sequimur universalitatem, antiquitatem, consensionem' (Vincentii Lirinensis Commonitorium pro CatholicEe fidei antiquitate et universalitate cap. iii, cf. cap. viii and xiv).
 [^30]: 1Thess.2:15.
 [^31]: Gal. 1:6-7.
 [^32]: Rom. 16:18.
 [^33]: Acts 20:28.
 [^34]: I Thess. 5:11.
 [^35]: I Pet. 5:10.
--- a/src/page/ecumen/florence-1439.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/florence-1439.md
@ -1,29 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Bull of Union with the Greeks
 date: 1439-07-06
 author: Pope Eugene IV
 source: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum17.htm
 source: https://www.vatican.va/content/eugenius-iv/la/documents/bulla-laetentur-caeli-6-iulii-1439.html
 ---
 Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. With the agreement of our most dear son John Palaeologus, illustrious emperor of the Romans, of the deputies of our venerable brothers the patriarchs and of other representatives of the eastern church, to the following.
 Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For, the wall that divided the western and the eastern church has been removed, peace and harmony have returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides with a very strong bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them together in a covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze of grief and a dark and unlovely gloom of long-enduring strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.
 Let mother church also rejoice. For she now beholds her sons hitherto in disagreement returned to unity and peace, and she who hitherto wept at their separation now gives thanks to God with inexpressible joy at their truly marvellous harmony. Let all the faithful throughout the world, and those who go by the name of Christian, be glad with mother catholic church. For behold, western and eastern fathers after a very long period of disagreement and discord, submitting themselves to the perils of sea and land and having endured labours of all kinds, came together in this holy ecumenical council, joyful and eager in their desire for this most holy union and to restore intact the ancient love. In no way have they been frustrated in their intent. After a long and very toilsome investigation, at last by the clemency of the holy Spirit they have achieved this greatly desired and most holy union. Who, then, can adequately thank God for his gracious gifts?’ Who would not stand amazed at the riches of such great divine mercy? Would not even an iron breast be softened by this immensity of heavenly condescension?
 These truly are works of God, not devices of human frailty. Hence they are to be accepted with extraordinary veneration and to be furthered with praises to God. To you praise, to you glory, to you thanks, O Christ, source of mercies, who have bestowed so much good on your spouse the catholic church and have manifested your miracles of mercy in our generation, so that all should proclaim your wonders. Great indeed and divine is the gift that God has bestowed on us. We have seen with our eyes what many before greatly desired yet could not behold.
 For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.
 In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
 And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
 We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.
 Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread, and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest according to the custom of his western or eastern church. Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church’s ordinances.
 Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.
 Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights.
--- a/src/page/ecumen/francis-2021-irenaeus.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/francis-2021-irenaeus.md
@ -1,20 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to the Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 date: 2021-10-07
 author: Pope Francis I
 source: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2021/october/documents/20211007-gruppo-ortodossocattolico-santireneo.html
 ---
 *Dear brothers and sisters, good morning!*
 I am pleased to welcome you to Rome where, for the first time, you are meeting for your annual session. I am grateful for your theological work in the service of communion between Catholics and Orthodox. I thank Cardinal Koch for his words of introduction. I was struck by what you said about your specific task: to seek together ways in which the different traditions can enrich one another without losing their identity. I also found interesting your statement about interpretation as Gegensätze. I liked that. Thank you. It is good to cultivate a unity enriched by differences that will not yield to the temptation of a bland uniformity, which is never good. In this spirit, your discussions center on appreciating how differing aspects present in our traditions, rather than giving rise to disagreements, can become legitimate opportunities for expressing the shared apostolic faith.
 I also like your name: you are not a commission or a committee, but a “working group”: a group that assembles in fraternal and patient dialogue experts from various Churches and different countries, who desire to pray and study unity together. Your patron, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons – whom soon I will willingly declare a Doctor of the Church with the title *Doctor unitatis* – came from the East, exercised his episcopal ministry in the West, and was a great spiritual and theological bridge between Eastern and Western Christians.  His name, Irenaeus, contains the word “peace”. We know that the Lord’s peace is not a “negotiated” peace, the fruit of agreements meant to safeguard interests, but a peace that reconciles, that brings together in unity. That is the peace of Jesus. For, as the apostle Paul writes, Christ “is our peace; who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility” (*Eph* 2:14). Dear friends, with the help of God, you too are working to break down dividing walls and to build bridges of communion.
 I thank you for this and, in particular, for your recently issued study entitled *Serving Communion. Re-thinking the Relationship between Primacy and Synodality*. Through the constructive patience of dialogue, especially with the Orthodox Churches, we have come to understand more fully that in the Church primacy and synodality are not two competing principles to be kept in balance, but two realities that establish and sustain one another in the service of communion. Just as the primacy presupposes the exercise of synodality, so synodality entails the exercise of primacy. From this standpoint, the [International Theological Commission](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_index.htm) has stated, significantly, that in the Catholic Church, synodality in the broad sense can be seen as the articulation of three dimensions: “all”, “some” and “one”. Indeed, “synodality involves the exercise of the *sensus fidei* of the *universitas fidelium* (all), the ministry of leadership of the college of Bishops, each one with his presbyterium (some), and the ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome (one)” ([*Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church*](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20180302_sinodalita_en.html), 2018, No. 64).
 In this vision, the primatial ministry is an intrinsic element of the dynamic of synodality, as are also the communitarian aspect that includes the whole People of God and the collegial dimension that is part of the exercise of episcopal ministry. Consequently, a fruitful approach to the primacy in theological and ecumenical dialogues must necessarily be grounded in a reflection on synodality: there is no other way. I have frequently expressed my conviction that “in a synodal Church, greater light can be shed on the exercise of the Petrine primacy” ([*Address on the 50th Anniversary of the Institution of the Synod of Bishops*](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/october/documents/papa-francesco_20151017_50-anniversario-sinodo.html), 17 October 2015). I am confident that, with the help of God, the synodal process that will begin in coming days in every Catholic diocese will also be an opportunity for deeper reflection on this important aspect, together with other Christians.
 Dear brothers and sisters, I thank you for your visit and I offer my good wishes for a fruitful working session here in Rome at the Institute of Ecumenical Studies of the Angelicum. Entrusting my ministry to your prayers, I invoke upon you the Lord’s blessing and the protection of the Holy Mother of God. And now, if you would like, we can pray together the Our Father, each in his or her own language.
 [Our Father…]
--- a/src/page/ecumen/humbert-1054-excommunication.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/humbert-1054-excommunication.md
@ -1,34 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Papal bull of excommuncation to Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius in 1054
 date: 1054
 author: Cardinal Humbert
 source: http://ercf.blogspot.com/2011/05/papal-bull-of-excommunication-to.html
 comment: The source has "Let them be anathema Maranatha", which in context seems like an accidental word insertion. I would like to find a more primary source.
 ---
 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 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 ambassadors, 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, 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 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.
--- a/src/page/ecumen/index.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/index.md
@ -1,96 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: The Great Schism
 ---
 "The Great Schism" names the the separation between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
 Though it is often dated to the excommunications of 1054,
 the underlying issues began long before, and the full reality of the schism would not be realized for long after.
 The last century has seen a significant rapproachment between the two sides,
 which I have attempted to document here through primary sources.
 The documents collected here are presented without any attempt to modify (or endorse) their contents.
 I have made only such edits as are necessary for the sake of presentation
 (i.e. formatting the source text into Markdown or adding hyperlinks).
 Any errors are my own.
 ## 11th century
 * Cardinal Humbert &mdash; [Bull of excommunication](./humbert-1054-excommunication.md)
 ## 13th century
 * Second Council of Lyons &mdash; [First Constitution](./lyons2-1274.md)
 * Pat. Gregory II of Cyprus &mdash; [Tomos of the Council of Blachernae](./tomos-1285-blachernae.md)
 ## 15th century
 * Council of Florence &mdash; [Laetentur Caeli](./florence-1439.md)
 * Met. Mark of Ephesus &mdash; [Encyclical Letter](./mark-1440-encyclical.md)
 ## 16th century
 * Met. Michael of Kiev &mdash; [Union of Brest](./union-of-brest.md)
 ## 19th century
 * Pope Pius IX &mdash; [On the Supreme Throne of the Apostle Peter](./pius9-1848-suprema.md)
 * Patriarch Anthimos et al &mdash; [Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs](./encyclical-eastern-1848.md)
 * Pope Leo XIII &mdash; [Praeclara gratulationis publicae](./leo13-1894-praeclara.md)
 * Patriarch Anthimos et al &mdash; [Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895](./encyclical-patriarchal-1895.md)
 * Pope Leo XIII &mdash; [Satis cognitum](./leo13-1896-satis.md)
 * Vasilii Bolotov &mdash; [Theses on the Filioque](./bolotov-filioque.md)
 ## 20th century
 * Joint International Dialogue &mdash; [Munich document](./jictd-1982-munich.html)
 * North American Consultation &mdash; [Response to Munich](./naoctc-1983-munich.html)
 * Joint International Dialogue &mdash; [Bari document](./jictd-1987-bari.html)
 * North American Consultation &mdash; [Response to Bari](./naoctc-1988-bari.html)
 * Joint International Dialogue &mdash; [Valamo document](./jictd-1988-valamo.html)
 * North American Consultation &mdash; [Response to Valamo](./naoctc-1989-valamo.html)
 * North American Consultation &mdash; [Conciliarity and Primacy](./naoctc-1989-primacy.html)
 * Joint International Dialogue &mdash; [Balamand document](./jictd-1993-balamand.html)
 * North American Consultation &mdash; [Response to Balamand](./naoctc-1994-balamand.html)
 * Pontifical Council for Christian Unity &mdash; [Greek and Latin Traditions of the Holy Spirit](./pccu-1995-filioque.md)
 * Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith &mdash; [Response to the Zoghby Proposal](./cdf-1997-zoghby.md)
 ## 2000s
 * Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith &mdash; [Note on the expression "Sister Churches"](./cdf-2000-sister.html)
 * Met John Zizioulas &mdash; [Response to the Vatican Clarification of the Filioque](./zizioulas-filioque-response.md)
 * North American Consultation &mdash; [The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?](./naoctc-2003-filioque.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Paderborn Communiqué](./sijocwg-2004-paderborn.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Athens Communiqué](./sijocwg-2005-athens.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Chevetogne Communiqué](./sijocwg-2006-chevetogne.html)
 * Joint International Dialogue &mdash; [Ravenna document](./jictd-2007-ravenna.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Belgrade Communiqué](./sijocwg-2007-belgrade.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Vienna Communiqué](./sijocwg-2008-vienna.html)
 * North American Consultation &mdash; [Response to Ravenna](./naoctc-2009-ravenna.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Kiev Communiqué](./sijocwg-2009-kiev.html)
 ## 2010s
 * North American Consultation &mdash; [Steps towards a Reunited Church](./naoctc-2010-reunited.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Magdeburg Communiqué](./sijocwg-2010-magdeburg.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [St. Petersburg Communiqué](./sijocwg-2011-petersburg.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Bose Communiqué](./sijocwg-2012-bose.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Thessaloniki Communiqué](./sijocwg-2013-thessaloniki.html)
 * Moscow Patriarchate &mdash; [Response to Ravenna Document](./moscow-2013-ravenna.html)
 * Met. Elpidophoros &mdash; [Response to Moscow on Ravenna](./elpidophoros-2014-without-equals.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Rabat Communiqué](./sijocwg-2014-rabat.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Chalki Communiqué](./sijocwg-2015-chalki.html)
 * Joint International Dialogue &mdash; [Chieti document](./jictd-2016-chieti.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Taizé Communiqué](./sijocwg-2016-taize.html)
 * North American Consultation &mdash; [Response to Chieti](./naoctc-2017-chieti.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Caraiman Communiqué](./sijocwg-2017-caraiman.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Graz Communiqué](./sijocwg-2018-graz.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Serving Communion](./sijocwg-2018-serving.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Trebinje Communiqué](./sijocwg-2019-trebinje.html)
 ## 2020s
 * Pope Francis I - [Address to St Irenaeus Working Group](./francis-2021-irenaeus.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Rome Communiqué](./sijocwg-2021-rome.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Cluj-Napoca Communiqué](./sijocwg-2022-clujnapoca.html)
 * Joint International Dialogue &mdash; [Alexandria document](./jictd-2023-alexandria.html)
 * St Irenaeus Working Group &mdash; [Balamand Communiqué](./sijocwg-2023-balamand.html)
--- a/src/page/ecumen/jictd-1982-munich.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/jictd-1982-munich.md
@ -1,122 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity
 date: 1982-07-06
 author: Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
 source: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese4.html
 ---
 Faithful to the mandate received at Rhodes, this report touches upon the mystery of the church in only one of its aspects. This aspect, however, is particularly important in the sacramental perspective of our churches, that is, the mystery of the church and of the eucharist in the light of the mystery of the holy Trinity. As a matter of fact the request was made to start with what we have in common and, by developing it, to touch upon from inside and progressively all the points on which we are not in agreement.
 In composing this document we intend to show that in doing so we express together a faith which is the continuation of that of the apostles.
 This document makes the first step in the effort to fulfill the program of the preparatory commission, approved at the first meeting of the commission for dialogue.
 Since there is question of a first step, touching upon the mystery of the church under only one of its aspects, many points are not yet treated here. They will be treated in succeeding steps as has been foreseen in the program mentioned above.
 # [I](#I) {#I}
 [1\.](#I.1) Christ, Son of God incarnate, dead and risen, is the only one who has conquered sin and death. To speak, therefore, of the sacramental nature of the mystery of Christ is to bring to mind the possibility given to man, and through him, to the whole cosmos, to experience the "new creation," the kingdom of God here and now through material and created realities. This is the mode (tropos) in which the unique person and the unique event of Christ exists and operates in history starting from Pentecost and reaching to the Parousia. However, the eternal life which God has given to the world in the event of Christ, his eternal Son, is contained in "earthen vessels". It is still only given as a foretaste, as a pledge.
 {#I.1}
 [2\.](#I.2) At the Last Supper, Christ stated that he "gave" his body to the disciples for the life of "the many," in the eucharist. In it this gift is made by God to the world, but in sacramental form. From that moment the eucharist exists as the sacrament of Christ himself. It becomes the foretaste of eternal life, the "medicine of immortality," the sign of the kingdom to come. The sacrament of the Christ event thus becomes identical with the sacrament of the holy eucharist, the sacrament which incorporates us fully into Christ.
 {#I.2}
 [3\.](#I.3) The incarnation of the Son of God his death and resurrection were realized from the beginning, according to the Father's will, in the Holy Spirit, This Spirit, which proceeds eternally from the Father and manifests himself through the Son, prepared the Christ event and realized in fully in the resurecction. Christ, who is the sacrament par excellence, given by the Father for the world, continues to give himself for the many in the Spirit, who alone gives life (Jn 6). The sacrament of Christ is also a reality which can only exist in the Spirit.
 {#I.3}
 [4\.](#I.4) The Church and the Eucharist:
 {#I.4}
 a. Although the evangelists in the account of the Supper are silent about the action of the Spirit, he was nonetheless united closer than ever to the incarnate Son for carrying out the Father's work. He is not yet given, received as a person, by the disciples (Jn 7:39). But when Jesus is glorified then the Spirit himself also pours himself out and manifests himself. The Lord Jesus enters into the glory of the Father and, at the same time, by the pouring out of the Spirit, into his sacramental tropos in this world. Pentecost, the completion of the paschal mystery, inaugurates simultaneously the last times. The eucharist and the church, body of the crucified and risen Christ, become the place of the energies of the Holy Spirit.
 b. Believers are baptized in the Spirit in the name of the holy Trinity to form one body (cf. 1 Cor 12:13). When the church celebrates the eucharist it realizes "what it is", the body of Christ (1 Cor 10:17). By baptism and chrismation (confirmation) the members of Christ are "anointed" by the Spirit, grafted into Christ. But by the eucharist the paschal event opens itself out into church. The church becomes that which it is called to be by baptism and chrismation. By the communion in the body and blood of Christ, the faithful grow in that mystical divinization which makes them dwell in the Son and the Father, through the Spirit.
 c. Thus, on the one hand, the church celebrates the eucharist as expression here and now of the heavenly liturgy; but on the other hand, the eucharist builds up the church in the sense that through it the Spirit of the risen Christ fashions the church into the body of Christ. That is why the eucharist is truly the sacrament of the church, at once as sacrament of the total gift the Lord makes of himself to his own and as manifestation and growth of the body of Christ, the church. The pilgrim church celebrates the eucharist on earth until her Lord comes to restore royalty to God the Father so that God may be "all in all". It thus anticipates the judgment of the world and its final transfiguration.
 [5\.](#I.5) The mission of the Spirit remains joined to that of the Son. The celebration of the eucharist reveals the divine energies manifested by the Spirit at work in the body of Christ.
 {#I.5}
 a. The Spirit prepares the coming of Christ by announcing it through the prophets, by directing the history of the chosen people toward him, by causing him to be conceived by the Virgin Mary, by opening up hearts to his word.
 b. The Spirit manifests Christ in his work as savior, the Gospel which is he himself. The eucharistic celebration is the anamnesis (the memorial) Truly, but sacramentally, the ephapax (the "once and for all") is and becomes present. The celebration of the eucharist is par excellence the kairos (proper time) of the mystery.
 c. The Spirit transforms the sacred gifts into the body and blood of Christ (metabole) in order to bring about the growth of the body which is the church. In this sense the entire celebration is an epiclesis, which becomes more explicit at certain moments. The church is continually in a state of epiclesis.
 d. The Spirit puts into communion with the body of Christ those who share the same bread and the same cup. Starting from there, the church manifests what it is, the sacrament of the Trinitarian koinonia, the "dwelling of God with men" (cf. Rv 21:4).
 The Spirit, by making present what Christ did once for all Y the event of the mystery Y accomplishes it in all of us. The relation to the mystery, more evident in the eucharist, is found in the other sacraments, all acts of the Spirit. That is why the eucharist is the center of sacramental life.
 [6\.](#I.6) Taken as a whole, the eucharistic celebration makes present the Trinitarian mystery of the church. In it one passes from hearing the word, culminating in the proclamation of the Gospel Y the apostolic announcing of the word made flesh Y to the thanksgiving offered to the Father and to the memorial of the sacrifice and to communion in it thanks to the prayer of epiclesis uttered in faith. For the epiclesis is not merely an invocation for the sacramental transforming of the bread and cup. It is also a prayer for the full effect of the communion of all in the mystery revealed by the Son.
 {#I.6}
 In this way the presence of the Spirit itself is extended by the sharing in the sacrament of the word made flesh to all the body of the church. Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn1:32).
 That is why the eucharistic mystery is accomplished in the prayer which joins together the words by which the word made flesh instituted the sacrament and the epiclesis in which the church, moved by faith, entreats the Father, through the Son, to send the Spirit so that in the unique offering of the incarnate Son, everything may be consummated in unity. Through the eucharist believers unite themselves to Christ, who offers himself to the Father with them, and they receive the possibility of offering themselves in a spirit of sacrifice to each other, as Christ himself offers himself to the Father for the many, thus giving himself to men.
 This consummation in unity brought about by the one inseparable operation of the Son and the Spirit, acting in reference to the Father in his design, is the church in its fullness.
 ## [II](#II) {#II}
 [1\.](#II.1) If one looks at the New Testament one will notice first of all that the church describes a "local" reality. The church exists in history as local church. For a region one speaks more often of churches, in the plural. It is always question of the church of God but in a given place.
 {#II.1}
 Now the church existing in a place is not formed, in a radical sense, by the persons who come together to establish it. There is a "Jerusalem from on high" which "comes down from God", a communion which is at the foundation of the community itself. The church comes into being by a free gift, that of the new creation.
 However, it is clear that the church "which is in" a given place manifests itself when it is "assembled." This assembly itself, whose elements and requirements are indicated by the New Testament, is fully such when it is the eucharistic synaxis. When the local church celebrates the eucharist, the event which took place "once and for all" is made present and manifested. In the local church, then, there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Greek. A new unity is communicated which overcomes divisions and restores communion in the one body of Christ. This unity transcends psychological, racial, sociopolitical or cultural unity. It is the "communion of the Holy Spirit" gathering together the scattered children of God. The newness of baptism and of chrismation then bears its fruit. And by the power of the body and blood of the Lord, filled with the Holy Spirit, there is healed that sin which does not cease to assault Christians by raising obstacles to the dynamism of the "life for God in Christ Jesus" received in baptism. This applies also to the sin of division, all of whose forms contradict God's design.
 One of the chief texts to remember is 1 Cor 10:15- 17: one sole bread, one sole cup, one sole body of Christ in the plurality of members. This mystery of the unity in love of many persons constitutes the real newness of the Trinitarian koinonia communicated to men in the church through the eucharist. Such is the purpose of Christ's saving work, which is spread abroad in the last times after Pentecost.
 This is why the church finds its model, its origin and its purpose in the mystery of God, one in three persons. Further still, the eucharist thus understood in the light of the Trinitarian mystery is the criterion for functioning of the life of the church as a whole. The institutional elements should be nothing but a visible reflection of the reality of the mystery.
 [2\.](#II.2) The unfolding of the eucharistic celebration of the local church shows how the koinonia takes shape in the church celebrating the eucharist. In the eucharist celebrated by the local church gathered about the bishop, or the priest in communion with him, the following aspects stand out, interconnected among themselves even if this or that moment of the celebration emphasizes one or another.
 {#II.2}
 The koinonia is eschatological. It is the newness which comes in the last times. That is why everything in the eucharist as in the life of the church begins with conversion and reconciliation. The eucharist presupposes repentance (metanoia) and confession (exomologesis), which find in other circumstances their own sacramental expression. But the eucharist forgives and also heals sins, since it is the sacrament of the divinizing love of the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit.
 But this koinonia is also kerygmatic. This is evident in the synaxis not only because the celebration "announces" the event of the mystery, but also because it actually realizes it today in the Spirit. This implies the proclamation of the word to the assembly and the response of faith given by all. Thus the communion of the assembly is brought about in the kerygma, and hence unity in faith. Orthodoxy (correct faith) is inherent in the eucharistic koinonia. This orthodoxy is expressed most clearly through the proclamation of the symbol of faith which is a summary of the apostolic tradition of which the bishop is the witness in virtue of his succession. Thus the eucharist is inseparably sacrament and word since in it the incarnate word sanctifies in the Spirit. That is why the entire liturgy and not only the reading of holy scriptures constitutes a proclamation of the word under the form of doxology and prayer. On the other hand, the word proclaimed is the word made flesh and become sacramental.
 Koinonia is at once ministerial and pneumatological. That is why the eucharist is its manifestation par excellence. The entire assembly, each one according to rank, is leiturgos of the koinonia. While being a gift of the Trinitarian God, koinonia is also the response of men. In the faith which comes from the Spirit and the word, these put in practice the vocation and the mission received in baptism: to become living members, in one's proper rank, of the body of Christ.
 [3\.](#II.3) The ministry of the bishop is not merely a tactical or pragmatic function (because a president is necessary) but an organic function. The bishop receives the gift of episcopal grace (1 Tm 4:14) in the sacrament of consecration effected by bishops who themselves have received this gift, thanks to the existence of an uninterrupted series of episcopal ordinations, beginning from the holy apostles. By the sacrament of ordination the Spirit of the Lord "confers" on the bishop, not juridically as if it were a pure transmission of power, but sacramentally, the authority of servant which the Son received from the Father and which he received in a human way by his acceptance in his passion.
 {#II.3}
 The function of the bishop is closely bound to the eucharistic assembly over which he presides. The eucharistic unity of the local church implies communion between him who presides and the people to whom he delivers the word of salvation and the eucharistic gifts. Further, the minister is also the one who "receives" from his church, which is faithful to tradition, the word he transmits. And the great intercession which he sends up to the Father is simply that of his entire church praying with him. The bishop cannot be separated from his church any more than the church can be separated from its bishop.
 The bishop stands at the heart of the local church as minister of the Spirit to discern the charismas and take care that they are exercised in harmony, for the good of all, in faithfulness to the apostolic tradition. He puts himself at the service of the initiatives of the Spirit so that nothing may prevent them from contributing to building up koinonia. He is minister of unity, servant of Christ the Lord, whose mission is to "gather into unity the children of God". And because the church is built up by the eucharist, it is he, invested with the grace of priestly ministry, who presides at the latter.
 But this presidency must be properly understood. The bishop presides at the offering which is that of his entire community. By consecrating the gifts so that they become the body and blood the community offers, he celebrates not only for it, nor only with it and in it, but through it. He appears then as minister of Christ fashioning the unity of his body and so creating communion through his body. The union of the community with him is first of all of the order of mysterion and not primordially of the juridical order. It is that union expressed in the eucharist which is prolonged and given practical expression in the "pastoral" relations of teaching, government and life. The ecclesial community is thus called to be the outline of a human community renewed.
 [4\.](#II.4) There is profound communion between the bishop and the community in which the Spirit gives him responsibility for the church of God. The ancient tradition expressed it happily in the image of marriage. But that communion lies within the communion of the apostolic community. In the ancient tradition (as the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus proves) the bishop elected by the people Y who guarantee his apostolic faith, in conformity with what the local church confesses Y receives the ministerial grace of Christ by the Spirit in the prayer of the assembly and by the laying on of hands (chirotonia) of the neighboring bishops, witnesses of the faith of their own churches. His charism, coming directly from the Spirit of God, is given him in the apostolicity of his church (linked to the faith of the apostolic community) and in that of the other churches represented by their bishops. Through this his ministry is inserted into Apostolic succession, therefore, means something more than a mere transmission of powers. It is succession in a Church which witnesses to the apostolic faith, in communion with the other Churches witnessing to the same apostolic faith. The see (cathedra) plays an essential role ? faith. The see (cathedra) plays an essential role in inserting the bishop into the heart of ecclesial apostolicity. On the other hand, once ordained, the bishop becomes in his church the guarantor of apostolicity and the one who represents it within the communion of churches. That is why in his church every eucharist can only be celebrated in truth if presided over by him or by a presbyter in communion with him. Mention of him in the anaphora is essential.
 {#II.4}
 Through the ministry of presbyters, charged with presiding over the life and the eucharistic celebration of the communities entrusted to them, those communities grow in communion with all the communities for which the bishop has primary responsibility. In the present situation the diocese itself is a communion of eucharistic communities. One of the essential functions of presbyters is to link these to the eucharist of the bishop and to nourish them with the apostolic faith of which the bishop is the witness and guarantor. They should also take care that Christians, nourished by the body and blood of him who gave his life for his brethren, should be authentic witnesses of fraternal love in the reciprocal sacrifice nourished by the sacrifice of Christ. For, according to the word of the apostle, "if someone sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" The eucharist determines the Christian manner of living the paschal mystery of Christ and the gift of Pentecost. Thanks to it there is a profound transformation of human existence always confronted by temptation and suffering.
 ## [III](#III) {#III}
 [1\.](#III.1) The body of Christ is unique. There exists then only one church of God. The identity of one eucharistic assembly with another comes from the fact that all with the same faith celebrate the same memorial, that all by eating the same bread and sharing in the same cup become the same unique body of Christ into which they have been integrated by the same baptism. It there are many celebrations, there is nevertheless only one mystery celebrated in which all participate. Moreover, when the believer communicates in the Lord's body and blood, he does not receive a part of Christ but the whole Christ.
 {#III.1}
 In the same way, the local church which celebrates the eucharist gathered around its bishop is not a section of the body of Christ. The multiplicity of local synaxes does not divide the church, but rather shows sacramentally its unity. Like the community of the apostles gathered around Christ, each eucharistic assembly is truly the holy church of God, the body of Christ, in communion with the first community of the disciples and with all who throughout the world celebrate and have celebrated the memorial of the Lord. It is also in communion with the assembly of the saints in heaven, which each celebration brings to mind.
 [2\.](#III.2) Far from excluding diversity or plurality, the koinonia supposes it and heals the wounds of division, transcending the latter in unity.
 {#III.2}
 Since Christ is one for the many, as in the church which is his body, the one and the many, the universal and local are necessarily simultaneous. Still more radically, because the one and only God is the communion of three persons, the one and only church is a communion of many communities and the local church a communion of persons. The one and unique church finds her identity in the koinonia of the churches. Unity and multiplicity appear so linked that one could not exist without the other. It is this relationship constitutive of the church that institutions make visible and, so to speak, "historicize".
 [3\.](#III.3) Since the universal church manifests itself in the synaxis of the local church, two conditions must be fulfilled above all if the local church which celebrates the eucharist is to be truly within the ecclesial communion.
 {#III.3}
 a) First, the identity of the mystery of the church lived by the local church with the mystery of the church lived by the primitive church - catholicity in time - is fundamental. The church is apostolic because it is founded on and continually sustained by the mystery of salvation revealed in Jesus Christ, transmitted in the Spirit by those who were his witnesses, the apostles. Its members will be judged by Christ and the apostles (cf. Lk 22:30).
 b) Today mutual recognition between this local church and the other churches is also of capital importance. Each should recognize in the others through local particularities the identity of the mystery of the church. It is a question of mutual recognition of catholicity as communion in the wholeness of the mystery. This recognition is achieved first of all at the regional level. Communion in the same patriarchate or in some other form of regional unity is first of all a manifestation of the life of the Spirit in the same culture, or in the same historical conditions. It equally implies unity of witness and calls for the exercise of fraternal correction in humility. This communion within the same region should extend itself further in the communion between sister churches.
 This mutual recognition, however, is true only under the conditions expressed in the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom and the first Antiochene anaphoras. The first condition is communion in the same kerygma, and so in the same faith. Already contained in baptism this requirement is made explicit in the eucharistic celebration. But it also requires the will for communion in love (agape) and in service (diakonia), not only in words but in deeds.
 Permanence through history and mutual recognition are particularly brought into focus in the eucharistic synaxis by the mention of the saints in the Canon and of the heards of the churches in the diptychs. Thus it is understood why these latter are signs of catholic unity in eucharistic communion, responsible, each on its own level, for maintaining that communion in the universal harmony of the churches and their common fidelity to the apostolic tradition.
 [4\.](#III.4) We find then among these churches those bonds of communion which the New Testament indicated: communion in faith, hope and love, communion in the sacraments, communion in the diversity of charisms, communion in the reconciliation, communion in the ministry. The agent of this communion is the Spirit of the risen Lord. Through him the church universal, catholic, integrates diversity or plurality, making it one of its own essential elements. This catholicity represents the fulfillment of the prayer of Chapter 17 of the Gospel according to John, taken up in the eucharistic epicleses.
 {#III.4}
 Attachment to the apostolic communion binds all the bishops together, linking the episkope of the local churches to the college of the apostles. They too form a college rooted by the Spirit in the "once for all" of the apostolic group, the unique witness to the faith. This means not only that they should be united among themselves by faith, charity, mission, reconciliation, but that they have in common the same responsibility and the same service to the church. Because the one and only church is made present in his local church, each bishop cannot separate the care for his own church from that of the universal church. When, by the sacrament of ordination, he receives the charism of the Spirit for the episkope of one local church, his own, by that very fact be receives the charism of the Spirit for the episkope of the entire church. In the people of God he exercises it in communion with all the bishop who are here and now in charge of churches and in communion with the living tradition which the bishops of the past have handed on. The presence of bishops from neighboring sees at his episcopal ordination "sacramentalizes" and makes present this communion. It produces a thorough fusion between his solicitude for the local community and his care for the church spread throughout the world. The episkope for the universal church is seen to be entrusted by the Spirit to the totality of local bishops in communion with one another. This communion is expressed traditionally through conciliar practice. We shall have to examine further the way it is conceived and realized in the perspective of what we have just explained.
--- a/src/page/ecumen/jictd-1987-bari.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/jictd-1987-bari.md
@ -1,210 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Faith, Sacraments, and the Unity of the Church
 date: 1987-06-16
 author: Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
 source: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese3.html
 ---
 *The international joint commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church at its plenary meeting in Bari (9-16, June 1987) approved a new statement on "Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church".*
 *This topic had been agreed on at the Munich plenary of 1982. After parallel study by three joint subcommissions the joint co-ordinating committee at Nicosia, Cyprus, 1983, produced a synthesis of their work, which was presented and discussed at the Crete plenary meeting in 1984. The same committee then revised the draft, (Opole, Poland, 1985) in accordance with the modifications asked for by the plenary. The text which resulted was examined afresh during the plenary which spread over two sessions, that of 1986 and that of 1987. The approved text, now about to be published, is the joint commission's second statement. It follows and is closely linked with "The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity".*
 *These two statements answer to the requirements of the "Plan for embarking on theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" at the first plenary session in Patmos, Rhodes (1980). This joint preparatory document considers that "study of the sacraments of the Church is helpful for examining the problems of dialogue positively and in depth".*
 ## [Introduction](#introduction) {#introduction}
 [1\.](#1) After our meeting in Munich in 1982 and in accord with the Plan adopted by our commission during its first meeting at Rhodes in 1980, this fourth session of the commission has undertaken to consider the question of the relation between faith and sacramental communion.
 {#1}
 [2\.](#2) As was stated in the Plan of our dialogue, which was approved at Rhodes, unity in faith is a presupposition for unity in the sacraments, and especially in the Holy Eucharist. But this commonly accepted principle raises some fundamental issues which require consideration. Does faith amount to adhering to formulas or is it also something else? Faith, which is a divine gift, should be understood as a commitment of the Christian, a commitment of mind, heart, and will. In its profound reality it is also an ecclesial event which is realized and accomplished in and through the communion of the Church, in its liturgical and especially in its eucharistic expression. This ecclesial and liturgical character of the faith must be taken seriously into consideration.
 {#2}
 [3\.](#3) Given this fundamental character of faith, it is necessary to affirm that faith must be taken as a preliminary condition, already complete in itself, which precedes sacramental communion; and also that it is increased by sacramental communion, which is the expression of the very life of the Church and the means of the spiritual growth of each of its members. This question has to be raised in order to avoid a deficient approach to the problem of faith as a condition for unity. It should not, however, serve to obscure the fact that faith is such a condition, and that there cannot be sacramental communion without communion in faith both in the broader sense and in the sense of dogmatic formulation.
 {#3}
 [4\.](#4) In addition to the question of faith as a presupposition of sacramental communion and in close connection with it, following the Plan of the dialogue, we have also considered in our meetings the relation of what are called sacraments of initiation, - i.e. baptism, confirmation or chrismation and eucharist, - to each other and to the unity of the Church. At this point it is necessary to examine if our two Churches are confronted simply with a difference in liturgical practice or also in doctrine, since liturgical practice and doctrine are linked to one another. Should we consider these three sacraments as belonging to one sacramental reality or as three autonomous sacramental acts? It should also be asked if for the sacraments of initiation a difference in liturgical practice between the two traditions raises a problem of doctrinal divergence, which could be considered as a serious obstacle to unity.
 {#4}
 ## [I. Faith and communion in the sacraments](#I) {#I}
 [5\.](#5) Faith is inseparably both the gift of God who reveals himself and the response of the human person who receives this gift. This is the synergy of the grace of God and human freedom. The locus of this communion is the Church. In the Church, revealed truth is transmitted according to the tradition of the Apostles based on the Scriptures, by means of the ecumenical councils, liturgical life, and the Fathers of the Church; and is put into practice by the members of the Body of Christ. The faith of the Church constitutes the norm and the criterion of the personal act of faith. Faith is not the product of an elaboration or of a logical necessity, but of the influence of the grace of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul received grace "in the obedience of faith". (Rom 1:5). Saint Basil says on this subject: "Faith precedes discourse about God; faith and not demonstration. Faith which is above logical methods leads to consent. Faith is born not of geometric necessities, but of the energies of the Spirit"(In Ps 115:1).
 {#5}
 [6\.](#6) Every sacrament presupposes and expresses the faith of the Church which celebrates it. Indeed, in a sacrament the Church does more than profess and express its faith: it makes present the mystery it is celebrating. The Holy Spirit reveals the Church as the Body of Christ which he constitutes and makes grow. Thus the Church nourishes and develops the communion of the faith of its members through the sacraments.
 {#6}
 ### [1. True faith is a divine gift and free response of the human person](#I.1) {#I.1}
 [7\.](#7) Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Through faith Got grants salvation. Through it, humanity has access to the mystery of Christ who constitutes the Church and whom the Church communicates through the Holy Spirit who dwells in it. The Church can only transmit what causes it to exist. Now, there is only one mystery of Christ and God's gift is unique, whole and irrevocable (Rom 11:29). As for its content, faith embraces the totality of doctrine and church practice relating to salvation. Dogma, conduct and liturgical life overlap each other to form a single whole and together constitute the treasure of faith. Linking in a remarkable fashion the theoretical and practical character of faith, Saint John Damascene says: "This [faith] is made perfect by all that Christ decreed, faith through works, respect for and practice of the commandments of the One who has renewed us. Indeed, the one who does not believe according to the tradition of the catholic Church or who by unseemly works is in communion with the devil, is an infidel" (De fide orthodoxa IV, 10, 83).
 {#7}
 [8\.](#8) Given by God, the faith announced by the Church is proclaimed, lived and transmitted in a local, visible church in communion with all the local churches spread over the world, that is, the catholic Church of all times and everywhere. The human person is integrated into the Body of Christ by his or her "koinonia" (communion) with this visible Church which nourishes this faith by means of the sacramental life and the word of God, and in which the Holy Spirit works in the human person.
 {#8}
 [9\.](#9) One can say that, in this way, the gift of faith exists in the single Church in its concrete historical situation, determined by the environment and the times, and therefore in each and all of the believers under the guidance of their pastors. In human language and in a variety of cultural and historical expressions, the human person must always remain faithful to this gift of faith. Certainly, one cannot claim that the expression of the true faith, transmitted and lived in the celebration of the sacraments, exhausts the totality of the richness of the mystery revealed in Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, within the limits of its formulation and of the persons who receive it, it gives access to the whole truth of the revealed faith, that is, to the fullness of salvation and life in the Holy Spirit.
 {#9}
 [10\.](#10) According to the Letter to the Hebrews, this faith is "the substance of things to be hoped for, the vision of unseen realities" (11:1). It grants a share in divine goods. It is also understood in terms of an existential confidence in the power and love of God, in acceptance of the eschatological promises as fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, as this Letter to the Hebrews further indicates, faith also requires an attitude towards the milieu of existence and the world. This attitude is marked by readiness to sacrifice one's own will and to offer one's life to God and to others as Christ did on the cross. Faith brings one into association with the witness of Christ and with "a cloud of witnesses" (12:1) which envelop the Church.
 {#10}
 [11\.](#11) Faith therefore involves a conscious and free response from the human person and a continual change of heart and spirit. Consequently, faith is an interior change and a transformation, causing one to live in the grace of the Holy Spirit who renews the human person. It seeks a reorientation towards the realities of the future kingdom which, even now, is beginning to transform the realities of this world.
 {#11}
 [12\.](#12) Faith is a presupposition of baptism and the entire sacramental life which follows it. Indeed, one participates through baptism in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom 6). Thus begins a process which continues all through Christian existence.
 {#12}
 ### [2. The liturgical expression of the faith](#I.2) {#I.2}
 [13\.](#13) In the Church, the sacraments are the privileged place where the faith is lived, transmitted and professed. In the Byzantine liturgical tradition the first prayer for entrance into the catechumenate asks the Lord for the candidate: "Fill him/her with faith, hope ant love for you that he/she may understand that you are the one true God, with your only Son our Lord Jesus Christ and your Holy Spirit". Similarly the first question the Church puts to the candidate for baptism in the Latin liturgical tradition is: "What do you ask of the Church?" and the candidate answers: "Faith" - "What does faith give you?" - "Eternal life".
 {#13}
 [14\.](#14) Our two churches express their conviction in this matter by the axiom: "Lex orandi lex credendi". For them the liturgical tradition is an authentic interpreter of revelation and hence the criterion for the expression of the true faith. Indeed, it is in the liturgical expression of the faith of our churches that the witness of the Fathers and of the ecumenical councils celebrated together continues to be for believers the sure guide of faith. Independently of diversity in theological expression, this witness, which itself renders explicit the "kerygma" of the holy Scriptures, is made present in the liturgical celebration. In its turn, the proclamation of the faith nourishes the liturgical prayer of the people of God.
 {#14}
 ### [3. The Holy Spirit and the sacraments](#I.3) {#I.3}
 [15\.](#15) The sacraments of the Church are "sacraments of faith" where God the Father hears the "epiclesis" (invocation) in which the Church expresses its faith by this prayer for the coming of the Spirit. In them, the Father gives his Holy Spirit who leads us into the fullness of salvation in Christ. Christ himself constitutes the Church as his Body. The Holy Spirit edifies the Church. There is no gift in the Church which cannot be attributed to the Spirit. (Basil the Great, PG 30, 289). The sacraments are both gift and grace of the Holy Spirit, in Jesus Christ in the Church. This is expressed very concisely in an Orthodox hymn of Pentecost: "The Holy Spirit is the author of every gift. He makes prophecies spring forth. He renders priests perfect. He teaches wisdom to the ignorant. He makes fishermen into theologians and consolidates the institution of the Church".
 {#15}
 [16\.](#16) Every sacrament of the Church confers the grace of the Holy Spirit because it is inseparably a sign recalling what God has accomplished in the past, a sign manifesting what he is effecting in the believer and in the Church, and a sign announcing and anticipating the eschatological fulfillment. In the sacramental celebration the Church thus manifests, illustrates, and confesses its faith in the unity of God's design.
 {#16}
 [17\.](#17) It will be noted that all sacraments have an essential relationship to the eucharist. The eucharist is the proclamation of faith par excellence from which is derived and to which every confession is ordered. Indeed, it alone proclaims fully, in the presence of the Lord which the power of the Spirit brings about, the marvel of the divine work. For the Lord sacramentally makes his work pass into the Church's celebration. The sacraments of the Church transmit grace, expressing and strengthening faith in Jesus Christ, and are thus witnesses of faith.
 {#17}
 ### [4. The faith formulated and celebrated in the sacraments: the symbols of faith](#I.4) {#I.4}
 [18\.](#18) In the eucharistic assembly the Church celebrates the event of the mystery of salvation in the eucharistic prayer (anaphora) for the glory of God. The mystery it celebrates is the very one which it confesses, while receiving the saving gift.
 {#18}
 [19\.](#19) Although the content and finality of this eucharistic celebration have remained the same in the local churches, they have however used varied formulas and different languages which, according to the genius of different cultures, bring into relief particular aspects and implications of the unique salvation event. At the heart of ecclesial life, in the eucharistic "synaxis" (assembly), our two traditions, eastern and western, thus experience a certain diversity in the formulation of the content of the faith being celebrated.
 {#19}
 [20\.](#20) From earliest times there has been joined to the administration of baptism a formulation of faith by means of which the local church transmits to the catechumen the essential content of the doctrine of the Apostles. This "symbol" of the faith enunciates in compact form the essentials of the apostolic tradition, articulated chiefly in the confession of faith in the Holy Trinity and in the Church. When all the local churches confess the true faith, they transmit, in the rite of baptism, this one faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, at different times and in different places, the formulation has been expressed differently as circumstances required, using terms and propositions which were not identical from one formulary to another. All, however, respected the content of faith. The eastern church in its baptismal rite uses the Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed. Faithful to its own tradition, the western church conveys to the catechumen the text called "The Apostles Creed". This diversity of formulas from one church to another does not in itself indicate any divergence about the content of the faith transmitted and lived.
 {#20}
 ### [5. Conditions for communion of faith](#I.5) {#I.5}
 [21\.](#21) The first condition for a true communion between the churches is that each church makes reference to the Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed as the necessary norm of this communion of the one Church spread throughout the whole world and across the ages. In this sense the true faith is presupposed for a communion in the sacraments. Communion is possible only between those Churches which have faith, priesthood and the sacraments in common. It is because of this reciprocal recognition that the faith handed down in each local church is one and the same (as are the priesthood and the sacrament as well), that they recognize each other as genuine churches of God and that each of the faithful is welcomed by the churches as a brother or sister in the faith. At the same time, however, faith is deepened and clarified by the ecclesial communion lived in the sacraments in each community. This ecclesial designation of faith as the fruit of sacramental life is verified at various levels of church life.
 {#21}
 [22\.](#22) In the first place, by the celebration of the sacraments, the assembly proclaims, transmits, and assimilates its faith.
 {#22}
 [23\.](#23) Furthermore, in the celebration of the sacraments, each local church expresses its profound nature. It is in continuity with the Church of the Apostles and in communion with all the churches which share one and the same faith and celebrate the same sacraments. In the sacramental celebration of a local church, the other local churches recognize the identity of their faith with that Church's and by that fact are strengthened in their own life of faith. Thus the celebration of the sacraments confirms the communion of faith between the churches and expresses it. This is why a member of one local church, baptized in that church, can receive the sacraments in another local church. This communion in the sacraments expresses the identity and unicity of the true faith which the churches share.
 {#23}
 [24\.](#24) In the eucharistic concelebration between representatives of different local churches identity of faith is particularly manifested and reinforced by the sacramental act itself. This is why councils, in which bishops led by the Holy Spirit express the truth of the Church's faith, are always associated with the eucharistic celebration. By proclamation of the one mystery of Christ and sharing of the one sacramental communion, the bishops, the clergy and the whole Christian people united with them are able to witness to the faith of the Church.
 {#24}
 ### [6. True faith and communion in the sacraments](#I.6) {#I.6}
 [25\.](#25) Identity of faith, then, is an essential element of ecclesial communion in the celebration of the sacraments. However, a certain diversity in its formulation does not compromise the "koinonia" between the local churches when each church can recognize, in the variety of formulations, the one authentic faith received from the Apostles.
 {#25}
 [26\.](#26) During the centuries of the undivided Church, diversity in the theological expression of a doctrine did not endanger sacramental communion. After the schism occurred, East and West continued to develop, but they did this separately from each other. Thus it was no longer possible for them to take unanimous decisions that were valid for both of them.
 {#26}
 [27\.](#27) The Church as "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) keeps the deposit of faith pure and unaltered while transmitting it faithfully to its members. When the authentic teaching or unity of the Church was threatened by heresy or schism, the Church, basing itself on the Bible, the living tradition and the decisions of preceding councils, declared the correct faith authentically and infallibly in an ecumenical council.
 {#27}
 [28\.](#28) When it is established that these differences represent a rejection of earlier dogmas of the Church and are not simple differences of theological expression, then clearly one is faced with a true division about faith. It is no longer possible to have sacramental communion. For faith must be confessed in words which express the truth itself. However, the life of the Church may occasion new verbal expressions of "the faith once and for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3), if new historical and cultural needs call for them, as long as there is explicit desire not to change the content of the doctrine itself. In such cases, the verbal expression can become normative for unanimity in the faith. This requires criteria for judgement which allow a distinction between legitimate developments, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and other ones.
 {#28}
 Thus:
 [29\.](#29) The continuity of the tradition: the Church ought to give suitable answers to new problems, answers based on the Scriptures and in accord and essential continuity with the previous expressions of dogmas.
 {#29}
 [30\.](#30) The doxological meaning of the faith: every liturgical development in one local Church should be able to be seen by the others as in conformity with the mystery of salvation as it has received that mystery and celebrates it.
 {#30}
 [31\.](#31) The soteriological meaning of the faith: every expression of the faith should envision the human being's final destiny, as a child of God by grace, in his or her deification (theosis) through victory over death and in the transfiguration of creation.
 {#31}
 [32\.](#32) If a formulation of the faith contradicts one or other of these criteria, it becomes an obstacle to communion. If, on the other hand, such a particular formulation of the faith contradicts none of these criteria then this formulation can be considered as a legitimate expression of faith, and does not make sacramental communion impossible.
 {#32}
 [33\.](#33) This requires that the theology of "theologoumena" be seriously considered. It is also necessary to clarify what concrete development occurring in one part of Christianity can be considered by the other as a legitimate development. Furthermore, it should be recognized that often the meaning of terms has changed in the course of time. For this reason, an effort should be made to understand every formula according to the intention of its authors so as not to introduce into it foreign elements or eliminate elements which, in the mind of the authors, were obvious.
 {#33}
 ### [7. The unity of the Church in faith and sacraments](#I.7) {#I.7}
 [34\.](#34) In the Church the function of ministers is above all to maintain, guarantee ant promote the growth of communion in faith and sacraments. As ministers of the sacraments and doctors of the faith, the bishops, assisted by other ministers, proclaim the faith of the Church, explain its content and its demands for Christian life and defend it against wrong interpretations which would falsify or compromise the truth of the mystery of salvation.
 {#34}
 [35\.](#35) Charitable works of ministers, or their taking positions on the problems of a given time or place, are inseparable from the two functions of the proclamation and teaching of the faith, on the one hand, and the celebration of worship and sacraments, on the other.
 {#35}
 [36\.](#36) Thus, unity of faith within a local church and between local churches is guaranteed and judged by the bishop, who is witness to the tradition, and in communion with his people. It is inseparable from unity of sacramental life. Communion in faith and communion in the sacraments are not two distinct realities. They are two aspects of a single reality which the Holy Spirit fosters, increases and safeguards among the faithful.
 {#36}
 ## [II. The Sacraments of Christian initiation: their relation to the unity of the Church](#II) {#II}
 [37\.](#37) Christian initiation is a whole in which chrismation is the perfection of baptism and the eucharist is the completion of the other two.
 {#37}
 The unity of baptism, chrismation and the eucharist in a single sacramental reality does not deny, however, their specific character. Thus, baptism with water and the Spirit is participation in the death and resurrection of Christ and new birth by grace. Chrismation is the gift of the Spirit to the baptized as a personal gift. Received under the proper conditions, the eucharist, through communion in the Body and Blood of the Lord, grants participation in the Kingdom of God, including forgiveness of sins, communion in divine life itself and membership in the eschatological community.
 [38\.](#38) The history of the baptismal rites in East and West, as well as the way in which our common Fathers interpreted the doctrinal significance of the rites, shows clearly that the three sacraments of initiation form a unity. That unity is strongly affirmed by the Orthodox Church. For its part, the Catholic Church also preserves it. Thus, the new Roman Ritual of initiation declares that "the three sacraments of Christian initiation are so closely united that they being the faithful to full capability for carrying out, through the Spirit, the mission which in the world, belongs to the entire assembly of the Christian people" (Prenotanda Generalia, n. 2).
 {#38}
 [39\.](#39) The pattern of administration of the sacraments which developed very early in the Church reveals how the Church understood the various stages of initiation as accomplishing, theologically and liturgically, incorporation into Christ by entering into the Church and growing in Him through communion in his Body and his Blood in this Church. All of this is effected by the same Holy Spirit who constitutes the believer as a member of the Body of the Lord.
 {#39}
 [40\.](#40) The early pattern included the following elements:
 {#40}
 [41\.](#41) 1. For adults, a period of spiritual probation and instruction during which the catechumens were formed for their definitive incorporation into the Church;
 {#41}
 [42\.](#42) 2. baptism by the bishop assisted by his priests and deacons, or administered by priests assisted by deacons, preceded by a profession of faith and various intercessions and liturgical services;
 {#42}
 [43\.](#43) 3. confirmation or chrismation in the West by the bishop, or in the East by the priest when the bishop was absent, by means of the imposition of hands or by anointing with holy chrism, or by both.
 {#43}
 [44\.](#44) 4. The celebration of the holy eucharist during which the newly baptized and confirmed were admitted to the full participation in the Body of Christ.
 {#44}
 [45\.](#45) These three sacraments were administered in the course of a single, complex liturgical celebration. There followed a period of further catechetical and spiritual maturation through instruction and frequent participation in the eucharist.
 {#45}
 [46\.](#46) This pattern remains the ideal for both churches since it corresponds the most exactly possible to the appropriation of the scriptural and apostolic tradition accomplished by the early Christian churches which lived in full communion with each other.
 {#46}
 [47\.](#47) The baptism of infants, which has been practiced from the beginning, became in the Church the most usual procedure for introducing new Christians into the full life of the Church. In addition, certain local changes took place in liturgical practice in consideration of the pastoral needs of the faithful. These changes did not concern the theological understanding of the fundamental unity, in the Holy Spirit, of the whole process of Christian initiation.
 {#47}
 [48\.](#48) In the East, the temporal unity of the liturgical celebration of the three sacraments was retained, thus emphasizing the unity of the work of the Holy Spirit and the fullness of the incorporation of the child into the sacramental life of the Church.
 {#48}
 In the West, it was often preferred to delay confirmation so as to retain contact of the baptized person with the bishop. Thus, priests were not ordinarily authorized to confirm.
 [49\.](#49) The essential points of the doctrine of baptism on which the two Churches are agreed are the following:
 {#49}
 1. The necessity of baptism for salvation;
 2. The effects of baptism, particularly new life in Christ and liberation from original sin;
 3. Incorporation into the Church by baptism;
 4. The relation of baptism to the mystery of the Trinity;
 5. The essential link between baptism and the death and resurrection of the Lord;
 6. The role of the Holy Spirit in baptism;
 7. The necessity of water which manifests baptism's character as the bath of new birth.
 [50\.](#50) On the other hand, differences concerning baptism exist between the two Churches:
 {#50}
 1. The fact that the Catholic Church, while recognizing the primordial importance of baptism by immersion, ordinarily practices baptism by infusion;
 2. The fact that in the Catholic Church a deacon can be the ordinary minister of baptism.
 [51\.](#51) Moreover, in certain Latin Churches, for pastoral reasons, for example in order to better prepare confirmands at the beginning of adolescence, the practice has become more and more common of admitting to first communion baptized persons who have not yet received confirmation, even though the disciplinary directives which called for the traditional order of the sacraments of Christian initiation have never been abrogated. This inversion, which provokes objections or understandable reservations both by Orthodox ant Roman Catholics, calls for deep theological and pastoral reflection because pastoral practice should never lose sight of the meaning of the early tradition and its doctrinal importance. It is also necessary to recall here that baptism conferred after the age of reason in the Latin Church is now always followed by confirmation and participation in the eucharist.
 {#51}
 [52\.](#52) At the same time, both churches are preoccupied with the necessity of assuring the spiritual formation of the neophyte in the faith. For that, they wish to emphasize on the one hand that there is a necessary connection between the sovereign action of the Spirit, who realizes through the three sacraments the full incorporation of the person into the life of the Church, the latter's response and that of his community of faith and, on the other hand, that the full illumination of the faith is only possible when the neophyte, of whatever age, has received the sacraments of Christian initiation.
 {#52}
 [53\.](#53) Finally, it is to be recalled that the Council of Constantinople, jointly celebrated by the two churches in 879-880, determined that each See would retain the ancient usages of its tradition, the Church of Rome preserving its own usages, the Church of Constantinople its own, and the thrones of the East also doing the same (cf. Mansi XVII, 489 B).
 {#53}
 *(Translation from the original French text)*
--- a/src/page/ecumen/jictd-1988-valamo.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/jictd-1988-valamo.md
@ -1,204 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church, with Particular Reference to the Importance of Apostolic Succession for the Sanctification and Unity of the People of God
 date: 1988-06-26
 author: Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
 source: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese2.html
 ---
 ### [Introductory note](#intro-note) {#intro-note}
 *The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church approved in its fifth plenary session at the monastery of New Valamo, Finland, June 19-27, 1988, a new common statement entitled, "The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church, with particular Reference to the Importance of the Apostolic Succession for the Sanctification and Unity of the People of God".*
 *This theme was chosen by the joint commission during its third session in Crete in 1984. Immediately afterwards, in 1984 and 1985, the theme was studied simultaneously by three subcommissions. In June 1985 in Opole, Poland, the joint coordinating committee, on the basis of the studies produced by the subcommissions, elaborated an organic synthesis.*
 *The proposed document was given a preliminary examination by the joint commission in the first phase of the fourth plenary session in Bari in June 1986 and a number of amendments were proposed. Therefore the draft was revised by a joint editorial committee which met in Rome September 22-26, 1986.*
 *Consequently the draft of the document reached the fifth plenary session of the commission in Finland already in a highly developed form. Nevertheless, the joint commission reexamined it paragraph by paragraph before approving it unanimously.*
 *This is the third document produced by the joint commission, in which the fourteen autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches are taking part, and which was created on the occasion of the visit of His Holiness John Paul II to the Ecumenical Patriarchate on November 30, 1979.*
 *With strict theological coherence, the document on the sacrament of Order and Apostolic succession is linked to the first two already published, the first entitled "The Mystery of the Church and of the Holy Eucharist in the light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity" (Munich, 1982), and the second entitled "Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church" (Bari, 1987).*
 *The Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church chose as the theme of the first phase of the dialogue a study of the sacraments in their relation to the unity of the Church, proposing and desiring the use of a positive method, intending, that is, to begin with those common elements which unite Catholics and Orthodox.*
 *The document which is now being published is, along with the two earlier ones, a valuable result of the work of this international joint commission. As such, for the time being it engages the responsibility only of the members of the commission.*
 *The competent authorities of the Catholic Church, for their part, while permitting publication of the document as an encouragement to the conversations underway, reserve to themselves the right to express in the future their official position on the results already obtained, on the possible need to subsequently clarify some aspects, and on the need to address other points in the dialogue. The authorities of the various Orthodox Churches engaged in this dialogue will do the same.*
 ## [Introduction](#introduction) {#introduction}
 [1\.](#1) Having expressed our idea of the mystery of the Church as a communion of faith and sacraments, pre-eminently manifested in the eucharistic celebration, our commission now addresses the crucial question of the place and role of ordained ministry in the sacramental structure of the Church. We will deal, then, with the sacrament of order as well as with ordination to each of the three degrees of episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate. We rely on the certitude that in our Churches apostolic succession is fundamental for the sanctification and the unity of the people of God.
 {#1}
 [2\.](#2) Our Churches affirm that ministry in the Church makes actual that of Christ himself. In the New Testament writings, Christ is called apostle, prophet, pastor, servant, deacon, doctor, priest, episkopos. Our common tradition recognizes the close link between the work of Christ and that of the Holy Spirit.
 {#2}
 [3\.](#3) This understanding prevents us seeing in the economy Christ in isolation from the Spirit. The actual presence of Christ in his Church is also of an eschatological nature, since the Spirit constitutes the earnest of the perfect realization of God's design for the world.
 {#3}
 [4\.](#4) In this perspective the Church appears as the community of the New Covenant which Christ through the Holy Spirit gathers about himself and builds up as his Body. Through the Church, Christ is present in history; through it he achieves the salvation of the world.
 {#4}
 [5\.](#5) Since Christ is present in the Church, it is his ministry that is carried out in it. The ministry in the Church therefore does not substitute for the ministry of Christ. It has its source in him. Since the Spirit sent by Christ gives life to the Church, ministry is only fruitful by the grace of the Spirit. In fact, it includes many functions which the members of the community carry out according to the diversity of the gifts they receive as members of the Body of Christ. Certain among them receive through ordination and exercise the function proper to the episcopate, to the presbyterate and to the diaconate. There is no Church without the ministries created by the Spirit; there is no ministry without the Church, that is to say, outside and above the community. Ministries find their meaning and grounds for existence (raison d'être) only in it.
 {#5}
 ## [I. Christ and the Holy Spirit](#I) {#I}
 [6\.](#6) The Spirit, which eternally proceeds from the Father and reposes on the Son, prepared the Christ event and achieved it. The incarnation of the Son of God, his death and his resurrection, were accomplished in fact according to the will of the Father, in the Holy Spirit. At the baptism, the Father through the manifestation of the Spirit inaugurates the mission of the Son. This Spirit is present in his ministry: the announcing of the Good News of salvation, the manifesting of the coming of the Kingdom, the bearing witness to the Father. Likewise, it is in the same Spirit that, as the unique priest of the New Covenant, Christ offers the sacrifice of his own life and it is through the Spirit that he is glorified.
 {#6}
 [7\.](#7) Since Pentecost, in the Church which is his Body, it is in the Spirit alone that those who are charged with ministry can carry out the acts which bring the Body to its full stature. In the ministry of Christ as in that of the Church, it is the one and the same Spirit which is at work and which will act with us all the days of our life.
 {#7}
 [8\.](#8) In the Church ministry should be lived in holiness, with a view towards the sanctification of the people of God. So that the whole Church and especially its ordained ministers might be able to contribute to "the perfecting of the saints for the work of ministry for building up the body of Christ", different services are made possible by many charisms (Eph 4:11-12; cf. 1 Cor 12:4-28; Rom 12:4-8).
 {#8}
 [9\.](#9) The newness of the Church's ministry consists in this: Christ, servant of God for humanity, is present through the Spirit, in the Church, his Body, from which he cannot be separated. For he himself is "the first-born amongst many brothers". It is according to this sacramental way that one must understand the work of Christ in history from Pentecost to the Parousia. The ministry of the Church as such is sacramental.
 {#9}
 [10\.](#10) For this reason Christ's presence in the Church is also eschatological. Wherever the Spirit is at work, he actually reveals to the world the presence of the Kingdom in creation. Here is where ecclesial ministry is rooted.
 {#10}
 [11\.](#11) This ecclesial ministry is by nature sacramental. The word sacramental is meant to emphasise here that every ministry is bound to the eschatological reality of the Kingdom. The grace of the Holy Spirit, earnest of the world to come, has its source in the death and resurrection of Christ and is offered, in a sacramental manner, by means of sensible realities. The word sacramental likewise shows that the minister is a member of the community whom the Spirit invests with proper functions and power to assemble it and to preside in the name of Christ over the acts in which it celebrates the mysteries of salvation. This view of the sacramentality of ministry is rooted in the fact that Christ is made present in the Church by the Spirit whom he himself has sent to the Church.
 {#11}
 [12\.](#12) This nature of ecclesial ministry is further shown in the fact that all ministries are intended to serve the world so as to lead it to its true goal, the Kingdom of God. It is by constituting the eschatological community as Body of Christ that the ministry of the Church answers the needs of the world.
 {#12}
 [13\.](#13) The community gathered in the Spirit around Christ exercising his ministry for the world has its foundation in Christ, who is himself the cornerstone, and in the community of the Twelve. The apostolic character of Churches and their ministry is understood in this light.
 {#13}
 [14\.](#14) On the one hand, the Twelve are witness of the historic life of Jesus, of his ministry and of his resurrection. On the other, as associated with the glorified Christ, they link each community with the community of the last days. Thus the ecclesial ministry will be called apostolic because it is carried out in continuity and in fidelity to what was given by Christ and handed on in history by the apostles. But it will also be apostolic because the eucharistic assembly at which the minister presides is an anticipation of the final community with Christ. Through this double relationship the Church's ministry remains constantly bound to that of the Twelve, and so to that of Christ.
 {#14}
 ## [II. The priesthood in the divine economy of salvation](#II) {#II}
 [15\.](#15) The entire divine economy of salvation culminates in the incarnation of the Son, in his teaching, his passion, his glorious resurrection, his ascension and his second coming. Christ acts in the Holy Spirit. Thus, once and for all, there is laid the foundation for re-establishing the communion of man with God.
 {#15}
 [16\.](#16) According to the epistle to the Hebrews, Christ by his death has become the one mediator of the New Covenant (Heb 9:15) and having entered once for all into the Holy Place with his own blood (Heb 9:12), he is forever in heaven the one and eternal High Priest of this New Covenant, "so as to appear now in the presence of God on our behalf" (Heb 9:24) to offer his sacrifice (Heb 10:12).
 {#16}
 [17\.](#17) Invisibly present in the Church through the Holy Spirit, whom he has sent, Christ then is its unique High Priest. In him, priest and victim, all together, pastors and faithful, form a "chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people he claims as his own" (1 Pt 2:9; cf. Rv 5:10).
 {#17}
 [18\.](#18) All members of the Churches, as members of the Body of Christ, participate in this priesthood, called to become "a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God" (Rom 12:1; cf. 1 Pt 2:5). Head of the Church, Christ has established, to make himself present, apostles chosen among the people, whom he endowed with authority and power by strengthening them through the grace of the Holy Spirit. The work and mission of the apostles are continued in the Church by the bishops with the priests and deacons who assist them. By ordination, the bishops are established successors of the apostles and direct the people along the ways of salvation.
 {#18}
 [19\.](#19) Grouped around the glorified Lord, the Twelve give witness to the presence of the Kingdom already inaugurated and which will be fully manifested at the second coming. Christ has indeed promised them that they would sit on twelve thrones, judging with the Son of Man the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt 19:28).
 {#19}
 [20\.](#20) As historic witnesses of what the Lord accomplished, the ministry of the Twelve is unique and irreplaceable. What they laid down was founded therefore once for all and no one in the future could build except on the foundation thus established (Eph 2:20; Rv 21:14).
 {#20}
 [21\.](#21) But the apostles remain at the same time the foundations of the Church as it endures through the ages, in such a way that the mission they received from the Lord always remains visible and active, in expectation of the Lordss return (cf. Mt 18:18 and, earlier, 16:19).
 {#21}
 [22\.](#22) This is why the Church, in which God's grace is at work, is itself the sacrament par excellence, the anticipated manifestation of the final realities, the foretaste of God's Kingdom, of the glory of the God and Father, of the eschaton in history.
 {#22}
 [23\.](#23) Within this sacrament which is the Church, the priesthood conferred by ordination finds its place, being given for this Church. In fact, it constitutes in the Church a charismatic ministry (leitourg-ma) par excellence. It is at the service of the Church's life and continued existence by the Holy Spirit, that is to say, of the unity in Christ, of all the faithful living and dead, of the martyrs, the saints, the just of the Old Testament.
 {#23}
 ## [III. The ministry of the bishop, presbyter and deacon](#III) {#III}
 [24\.](#24) In the celebration of the eucharist, the entire assembly, each according to his or her status, is "liturge" of the Koinonia, and is so only through the Spirit. "There are varieties of ministries, but the same Lord (É). To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good". (1 Cor 12:5,7). The various ministries converge in the eucharistic synaxis, during which they are conferred. However, their diversity is ordered to the entire life of the community: fidelity to the Word of God, abiding in harmony and fraternal charity, witness before "those outside", growth in holiness, constancy in prayer, care for the poorest.
 {#24}
 [25\.](#25) Since it culminates in the celebration of the eucharist in which Christian initiation is completed, through which all become one Body of Christ, the ministry of the bishop is, among all the charismas and ministries which the Spirit raises up, a ministry of presiding for gathering in unity. In fact, bearing the variety of gifts of the Spirit, the local Church has at its centre the bishop, whose communion realizes the unity of all and expresses the fullness of the Church.
 {#25}
 [26\.](#26) This unity of the local Church is inseparable from the universal communion of the Churches. It is essential for a Church to be in communion with the others. This communion is expressed and realized in and through the episcopal college. By his ordination, the bishop is made minister of a Church which he represents in the universal communion.
 {#26}
 [27\.](#27) Episcopal ordination, which, according to the canons, is conferred by at least two or three bishops, expresses the communion of the Churches with that of the person selected: it makes him a member of the communion of bishops. In the ordination the bishops exercise their function as witnesses to the communion in the apostolic faith and sacramental life not only with respect to him whom they ordain, but also with respect to the Church of which he will be bishop. What is fundamental for the incorporation of the newly elected person in the episcopal communion is that it is accomplished by the glorified Lord in the power of the Holy Spirit at the moment of the imposition of hands.
 {#27}
 Here we are only considering ordination under its sacramental aspect. The problems raised by the manner of electing a bishop will be studied later.
 [28\.](#28) Episcopal ordination confers on the one who receives it by the gift of the Spirit, the fullness of the priesthood. During the ordination the concelebration of the bishops expresses the unity of the Church and its identity with the apostolic community. They lay hands and invoke the Holy Spirit on the one who will be ordained as the only ones qualified to confer on him the episcopal ministry. They do it, however, within the setting of the prayer of the community.
 {#28}
 [29\.](#29) Through his ordination, the bishop receives all the powers necessary for fulfilling his function. The canonical conditions for the exercise of his function and the installation of the bishop in the local Church will be further discussed by the Commission.
 {#29}
 [30\.](#30) The gift conferred consecrates the recipient once for all to the service of the Church. This is a point of the traditional doctrine in East and West, which is confirmed by the fact that in the event of disciplinary sanctions against a bishop followed by canonical reintegration, there is no re-ordination. On this subject, as on all the essential points concerning ordination, our Churches have a common doctrine and practice, even if on certain canonical and disciplinary requirements, such as celibacy, customs can be different because of pastoral and spiritual reasons.
 {#30}
 [31\.](#31) But ecclesial ministry is exercised through a variety of functions. These are exercised in interdependence; none could replace another. This is especially true of the fundamental ministries of the bishop, the presbyter and the deacon, and of the functions of the laity, all of which together give structure to the eucharistic community.
 {#31}
 [32\.](#32) Throughout the entire history of our Churches, women have played a fundamental role, as witnessed not only by the most Holy Mother of God, but also by the holy women mentioned in the New Testament, by the numerous women saints whom we venerate, as well as by so many other women who up to the present day have served the Church in many ways. Their particular charisms are very important for the building up of the Body of Christ. But our Churches remain faithful to the historical and theological tradition according to which they ordain only men to the priestly ministry.
 {#32}
 [33\.](#33) Just as the apostles gathered together the first communities, by proclaiming Christ, by celebration the eucharist, by leading the baptised towards growing communion with Christ and with each other, so the bishop, established by the same Spirit, continues to preach the same Gospel, to preside at the same eucharist, to serve the unity and sanctification of the same community. He is thus the icon of Christ the servant among his brethren.
 {#33}
 [34\.](#34) Because it is at the eucharist that the Church manifests its fullness, it is equally in the presiding at the eucharist that the role of the bishop and of the priest appears in its full light.
 {#34}
 [35\.](#35) In the eucharistic celebration, in fact, believers offer themselves with Christ as a royal priesthood. They do so thanks to the ministerial action which makes present in their midst Christ himself who proclaims the Word, makes the bread and the cup become through the Spirit his Body and Blood, incorporating them in himself, giving them his life. Moreover, the prayer and the offering of the people incorporated in Christ are, so to speak, recapitulated in the thanksgiving prayer of the bishop and his offering of the gifts.
 {#35}
 [36\.](#36) The eucharist thus realizes the unity of the Christian community. It also manifests the unity of all the Churches which truly celebrate it and further still the unity, across the centuries, of all the Churches with the apostolic community from the beginnings up to the present day. Transcending history, it reunites in the Spirit the great assembly of the apostles, of martyrs, of witnesses of all periods gathered around the Lamb. Indeed, as the central act of episcopal ministry it makes clearly present the world to come: the Church gathered in communion, offering itself to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.
 {#36}
 [37\.](#37) He who presides at the eucharist is responsible for preserving communion in fidelity to the teaching of the apostles and for guiding it in the new life. He is its servant and pastor. The bishop is also the guide of the entire liturgical life of his local Church and, following his example, this Church becomes a community of prayer. He presides at its praise and at its intercession, and he himself prays unceasingly for all those entrusted to him by the Lord, knowing that he is responsible for each one before the tribunal of God.
 {#37}
 [38\.](#38) It also rests with him to see to it that there be given to his people, by preaching and catechesis, the authentic content of the Word of God given to the apostles "once for all". He is in fact the primary one responsible for the preaching of the Word of God in his diocese.
 {#38}
 [39\.](#39) To him also belongs the task of leading this people towards proclaiming to all human beings salvation in Jesus Christ, and towards a witness which embodies that proclamation. Therefore, it is for him to govern his Church in such a way that it always remains faithful to its Christian vocation and to the mission deriving therefrom. In all this, however, he remains a member of the Church called to holiness and dependent on the salvific ministry of this Church, as St Augustine reminds his community: "For you I am a bishop, with you I am a Christian". At his ordination the bishop makes his own the faith of the whole Church by solemnly confessing it and thus becomes father to the extent that he has fully become its son by this confession. It is essential for the bishop to be the father of his people.
 {#39}
 [40\.](#40) As successor of the apostles, bishops are responsible for communion in the apostolic faith and fidelity to the demands of a life lived according to the Gospel.
 {#40}
 [41\.](#41) It is in presiding over the eucharistic assembly that the role of the bishop finds its accomplishment. The presbyters form the college grouped around him during that celebration. They exercise the responsibilities the bishop entrusts to them by celebrating the sacraments, teaching the Word of God and governing the community, in profound and continuous communion with him. The deacon, for his part, is attached to the service of the bishop and the priest and is a link between them and the assembly of the faithful.
 {#41}
 [42\.](#42) The priest, ordained by the bishop and dependent upon him, is sent to fulfil certain definite tasks; above all he is sent to a parish community to be its pastor: he presides at the eucharist at the altar (consecrated by the bishop), he is minister of the sacraments for the community, he preaches the Gospel and catechizes; it is his duty to keep in unity the charisms of the people (laos) of God; he appears as the ordinary minister of the local eucharistic community, and the diocese is thus a communion of eucharistic communities.
 {#42}
 [43\.](#43) The diaconate is exercised at the service of the bishop and the priest, in the liturgy, in the work of evangelization and in the service of charity.
 {#43}
 ## [IV. Apostolic succession](#IV) {#IV}
 [44\.](#44) The same unique ministry of Christ and his apostles remains in action in history. This action is, through the Spirit, a breakthrough to "the world to come", in fidelity to what the apostles transmitted about what Jesus did and taught.
 {#44}
 [45\.](#45) The importance of this succession comes also from the fact that the apostolic tradition concerns the community and not only an isolated individual, ordained bishop. Apostolic succession is transmitted through local Churches ("in each city", according to the expression of Eusebius of Caesarea; "by reason of their common heritage of doctrine", according to Tertullian in the De Praescriptione, 32, 6). It is a matter of a succession of persons in the community, because the Una Sancta is a communion of local Churches and not of isolated individuals. It is within this mystery of koinonia that the episcopate appears as the central point of the apostolic succession.
 {#45}
 [46\.](#46) According to what we have already said in the Munich Document, "apostolic succession", therefore, means something more than a mere transmission of powers. It is succession in a Church which witnesses to the apostolic faith, in communion with the other Churches, witnesses of the same apostolic faith. The "sees (cathedra) plays an important role in inserting the bishop into the heart of ecclesial apostolicity" (Munich Document, II, 4). More precisely, the term "cathedra" is used here in the sense of the presence of the bishop in each local Church.
 {#46}
 [47\.](#47) "On the other hand, once ordained, the bishop becomes in his Church the guarantor of apostolicity, the one who represents it within the communion of Churches, its link with the other Churches. That is why in his Church every eucharist can only be celebrated in truth if presided over by him or by a presbyter in communion with him. Mention of him in the anaphora is essential" (ibid).
 {#47}
 [48\.](#48) "Attachment to the apostolic communion joins together all the bishops, maintaining the episkope of the local Churches, to the college of the apostles" (ibid., III, 4). The bishops are thus rooted in the "once for all" of the apostolic group through which the Holy Spirit gives witness to the faith. Indeed, as the foundation of the Church, the Twelve are unique. Even so, it was necessary that other men should make visible their irreplaceable presence. In this way the link of each community would be maintained with both the original community and the eschatological community.
 {#48}
 [49\.](#49) Through his ordination each bishop becomes successor of the apostles, whatever may be the Church over which he presides or the prerogatives (presbeta) of this Church among the other Churches.
 {#49}
 [50\.](#50)  Incorporated into the number of those to whom the particular responsibility for the ministry of salvation has been entrusted, and so placed in the succession of the apostles, the bishop ought to pass on their teaching as well as model his whole life on them. Ireneaeus of Lyons puts it thus: "It is where the charisms of God have been planted that we should be instructed in the truth, that is among those in whom are united succession in the Church from the apostles, unassailable integrity of conduct and incorruptible purity of doctrine" (Adv. Haer. IV, 26, 5). Among the essential functions of the bishop is that of being in his Church through the Spirit a witness and guarantor of the faith and an instrument for maintaining it in apostolic fidelity. Apostolic succession is also a succession in the labours and sufferings of the apostles for the service of the Gospel and in the defence of the people entrusted to each bishop. According to the words of the first letter of St. Peter, the apostolic succession is also a succession in the presence of mercy and understanding, of defence of the weak, of constant attention to those entrusted to their charge, with the bishop thus being a model for the flock (cf. 1 Pt 5:14; 2 Cor 4:8-11; 1 Tm 4:12; Tt 2:7).
 {#50}
 [51\.](#51) Furthermore it belongs to the episcopal ministry to articulate and organize the life of the Church with its service and offices. It is his task also to watch over the choice of those who are to carry out responsibilities in his diocese. Fraternal communion requires that all the members, ministers or lay people, listen to each other for the good of the people of God.
 {#51}
 [52\.](#52) In the course of its history, the Church in East and West has known various forms of practising communion among bishops: by exchange of letters, by visits of one Church to another, but principally by synodal or conciliar life. From the first centuries a distinction and a hierarchy was established between Churches of earlier foundation and Churches of more recent foundation, between mother and daughter Churches, between Churches of larger cities and Churches of outlying areas. This hierarchy of taxis soon found its canonical expression, formulated by the councils, especially in the canons received by all the Churches of the East and West. These are, in the first place, canons 6 and 7 of the Ist Council of Nicea (325), canon 3 of the 1st Council of Constantinople (2nd ecumenical Council, 381), canon 28 of Chalcedon (4th ecumenical Council, 451), as well as canons 3, 4 and 5 of Sardica (343) and canon 1 of the Council of Saint Sophia (879-880). Even if these canons have not always been interpreted in the same way in the East and in the West, they belong to the heritage of the Church. They assigned to bishops occupying certain metropolitan or major sees a place and prerogatives recognized in the organization of the synodal life of the Church. Thus was formed the pentarchy: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, even if in the course of history there appeared apart from the pentarchy other archbishops, metropolitans, primates and patriarchs.
 {#52}
 [53\.](#53) The synodal character of episcopal activity showed itself especially in questions under discussion which interested several local Churches or the Churches as a whole. Thus in each region different types of synods or local and regional councils and conferences of bishops were organized. Their forms could change according to different places and times, but their guiding principle is to manifest and make efficacious the life of the Church by joint episcopal action, under the presidency of the one whom they recognized as the first among them. In fact, according to canon 34 of the apostolic canons, belonging to the canonical tradition of our Churches, the first among the bishops only takes a decision in agreement with the other bishops and the latter take no important decision without the agreement of the first.
 {#53}
 [54\.](#54) In ecumenical councils, convened in the Holy Spirit at times of crisis, bishops of the Church, with supreme authority, decided together about the faith and issued canons to affirm the Tradition of the apostles in historic circumstances which directly threatened the faith, unity and sanctifying work of the whole people of God, and put at risk the very existence of the Church and its fidelity to its Founder, Jesus Christ.
 {#54}
 [55\.](#55) It is in this perspective of communion among local Churches that the question could be addressed of primacy in the Church in general and, in particular, the primacy of the bishop of Rome, a question which constitutes a serious divergence among us and which will be discussed in the future.
 {#55}
--- a/src/page/ecumen/jictd-1993-balamand.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/jictd-1993-balamand.md
@ -1,126 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion
 date: 1993-06-23
 author: Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
 source: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-lingua-inglese.html
 comment: In the original, the title is given this footnote: "The text was originally drafted in French and translated into English during the meeting."
 ---
 ## [Introduction](#introduction) {#introduction}
 [1\.](#1) At the request of the Orthodox Churches, the normal progression of the theological dialogue with the Catholic Church has been set aside so that immediate attention might be given to the question which is called "uniatism".
 {#1}
 [2\.](#2) With regard to the method which has been called "uniatism", it was stated at Freising (June 1990) that "we reject it as method for the search for unity because it is opposed to the common tradition of our Churches".
 {#2}
 [3\.](#3) Concerning the Oriental Catholic Churches, it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in answer to the spiritual needs of their faithful.
 {#3}
 [4\.](#4) The document prepared at Ariccia by the joint coordinating committee (June 1991) and finished at Balamand (June 1993) states what is our method in the present search for full communion, thus giving the reason for excluding "uniatism" as a method.
 {#4}
 [5\.](#5) This document is composed of two parts:
 {#5}
 1. Ecclesiological principles and
 2. Practical rules.
 ## [Ecclesiological principles](#ecclesiological-principles) {#ecclesiological-principles}
 [6\.](#6) The division between the Churches of the East and of the West has never quelled the desire for unity wished by Christ. Rather this situation, which is contrary to the nature of the Church, has often been for many the occasion to become more deeply conscious of the need to achieve this unity, so as to be faithful to the Lord's commandment.
 {#6}
 [7\.](#7) In the course of the centuries various attempts were made to re-establish unity. They sought to achieve this end through different ways, at times conciliar, according to the political, historical, theological and spiritual situation of each period. Unfortunately, none of these efforts succeeded in re-establishing full communion between the Church of the West and the Church of the East, and at times even made oppositions more acute.
 {#7}
 [8\.](#8) In the course of the last four centuries, in various parts of the East, initiatives were taken within certain Churches and impelled by outside elements, to restore communion between the Church of the East and the Church of the West. These initiatives led to the union of certain communities with the See of Rome and brought with them, as a consequence, the breaking of communion with their Mother Churches of the East. This took place not without the interference of extraecclesial interests. In this way Oriental Catholic Churches came into being. And so a situation was created which has become a source of conflicts and of suffering in the first instance for the Orthodox but also for Catholics.
 {#8}
 [9\.](#9) Whatever may have been the intention and the authenticity of the desire to be faithful to the commandment of Christ: "that all may be one" expressed in these partial unions with the See of Rome, it must be recognized that the reestablishment of unity between the Church of the East and the Church of the West was not achieved and that the division remains, embittered by these attempts.
 {#9}
 [10\.](#10) The situation thus created resulted in fact in tensions and oppositions.
 {#10}
 Progressively, in the decades which followed these unions, missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as "to bring them back" to one's own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church, in turn, came to accept the same vision according to which only in her could salvation be found. To assure the salvation of "the separated brethren" it even happened that Christians were rebaptized and that certain requirements of the religious freedom of persons and of their act of faith were forgotten. This perspective was one to which that period showed little sensitivity.
 [11\.](#11) On the other hand certain civil authorities made attempts to bring back Oriental Catholics to the Church of their Fathers. To achieve this end they did not hesitate, when the occasion was given, to use unacceptable means.
 {#11}
 [12\.](#12) Because of the way in which Catholics and Orthodox once again consider each other in their relationship to the mystery of the Church and discover each other once again as Sister Churches, this form of "missionary apostolate" described above, and which has been called "uniatism", can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.
 {#12}
 [13\.](#13) In fact, especially since the panorthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the re- discovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church - profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops - cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context, it is clear that any rebaptism must be avoided.
 {#13}
 [14\.](#14) It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavour of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).
 {#14}
 [15\.](#15) While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for his own and the design of God for his Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue.
 {#15}
 [16\.](#16) The Oriental Catholic Churches who have desired to re-establish full communion with the See of Rome and have remained faithful to it, have the rights and obligations which are connected with this communion. The principles determining their attitude towards Orthodox Churches are those which have been stated by the Second Vatican Council and have been put into practice by the Popes who have clarified the practical consequences flowing from these principles in various documents published since then. These Churches, then, should be inserted, on both local and universal levels, into the dialogue of love, in mutual respect and reciprocal trust found once again, and enter into the theological dialogue, with all its practical implications.
 {#16}
 [17\.](#17) In this atmosphere, the considerations already presented and the practical guidelines which follow, insofar as they will be effectively received and faithfully observed, are such as to lead to a just and definitive solution to the difficulties which these Oriental Catholic Churches present to the Orthodox Church.
 {#17}
 [18\.](#18) Towards this end, Pope Paul VI affirmed in his address at the Phanar in July 1967: "It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to finding full communion again. They ought to do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them, by taking care for the cohesion and growth of the people of God, and avoiding everything that could scatter it or cause confusion in its ranks" (Tomos Agapis, n. 172). In this spirit Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I together stated clearly: "We reject every form of proselytism, every attitude which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect" (December 7th, 1987).
 {#18}
 ## [Practical rules](#practical-rules) {#practical-rules}
 [19\.](#19) Mutual respect between the Churches which find themselves in difficult situations will increase appreciably in the measure that they will observe the following practical rules.
 {#19}
 [20\.](#20) These rules will not resolve the problems which are worrying us unless each of the parties concerned has a will to pardon, based on the Gospel and, within the context of a constant effort for renewal, accompanied by the unceasing desire to seek the full communion which existed for more than a thousand years between our Churches. It is here that the dialogue of love must be present with a continually renewed intensity and perseverance which alone can overcome reciprocal lack of understanding and which is the necessary climate for deepening the theological dialogue that will permit arriving at full communion.
 {#20}
 [21\.](#21) The first step to take is to put an end to everything that can foment division, contempt and hatred between the Churches. For this the authorities of the Catholic Church will assist the Oriental Catholic Churches and their communities so that they themselves may prepare full communion between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The authorities of the Orthodox Church will act in a similar manner towards their faithful. In this way it will be possible to take care of the extremely complex situation that has been created in Eastern Europe, at the same time in charity and in justice, both as regards Catholics and Orthodox.
 {#21}
 [22\.](#22) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will be no longer place for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches, can be set in motion and develop.
 {#22}
 [23\.](#23) The history of the relations between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Catholic Churches has been marked by persecutions and sufferings. Whatever may have been these sufferings and their causes, they do not justify any triumphalism; no one can glorify in them or draw an argument from them to accuse or disparage the other Church. God alone knows his own witnesses. Whatever may have been the past, it must be left to the mercy of God, and all the energies of the Churches should be directed towards obtaining that the present and the future conform better to the will of Christ for his own.
 {#23}
 [24\.](#24) It will also be necessary - and this on the part of both Churches - that the bishops and all those with pastoral responsibilities in them scrupulously respect the religious liberty of the faithful. These, in turn, must be able to express freely their opinion by being consulted and by organizing themselves to this end. In fact, religious liberty requires that, particularly in situations of conflict, the faithful are able to express their opinion and to decide without pressure from outside if they wish to be in communion either with the Orthodox Church or with the Catholic Church. Religious freedom would be violated when, under the cover of financial assistance, the faithful of one Church would be attracted to the other, by promises, for example, of education and material benefits that may be lacking in their own Church. In this context, it will be necessary that social assistance, as well as every form of philanthropic activity be organized with common agreement so as to avoid creating new suspicions.
 {#24}
 [25\.](#25) Furthermore, the necessary respect for christian freedom - one of the most precious gifts received from Christ - should not become an occasion for undertaking a pastoral project which may also involve the faithful of other Churches, without previous consultation with the pastors of these Churches. Not only should every form of pressure, of any kind whatsoever, be excluded, but respect for consciences, motivated by an authentic exigency of faith, is one of the principles guiding the pastoral concern of those responsible in the two Churches and should be the object of their common reflection (cf. Gal 5, 13).
 {#25}
 [26\.](#26) That is why it is necessary to seek and to engage in an open dialogue, which in the first place should be between those who have responsibilities for the Churches at the local level. Those in charge of the communities concerned should create joint local commissions or make effective those which already exist, for finding solutions to concrete problems and seeing that these solutions are applied in truth and love, in justice and peace. If agreement cannot be reached on the local level, the question should be brought to mixed commissions established by higher authorities.
 {#26}
 [27\.](#27) Suspicion would disappear more easily if the two parties were to condemn violence wherever communities of one Church use it against communities of a Sister Church. As requested by His Holiness Pope John Paul II in his letter of May 31st, 1991, it is necessary that all violence and every kind of pressure be absolutely avoided in order that freedom of conscience be respected. It is the task of those in charge of communities to assist their faithful to deepen their loyalty towards their own Church and towards its traditions and to teach them to avoid not only violence, be that physical, verbal or moral, but also all that could lead to contempt for other Christians and to a counter-witness, completely ignoring the work of salvation which is reconciliation in Christ.
 {#27}
 [28\.](#28) Faith in sacramental reality implies a respect for the liturgical celebrations of the other Church. The use of violence to occupy a place of worship contradicts this conviction. On the contrary, this conviction sometimes requires that the celebration of other Churches should be made easier by putting at their disposal, by common agreement, one's own church for alternate celebration at different times in the same building. Still more, the evangelical ethos requires that statements or manifestations which are likely to perpetuate a state of conflict and hinder the dialogue be avoided. Does not St. Paul exhort us to welcome one another as Christ has welcomed us, for the glory of God (Rom 15:7)?
 {#28}
 [29\.](#29) Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops and priests of the other Church and for that reason to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church. When cooperation becomes necessary for the good of the faithful, it is then required that those responsible to an agreement among themselves, establish for this mutual assistance clear principles which are known to all, and act subsequently with frankness, clarity, and with respect for the sacramental discipline of the other Church.
 {#29}
 In this context, to avoid all misunderstanding and to develop confidence between the two Churches, it is necessary that Catholic and Orthodox bishops of the same territory consult with each other before establishing Catholic pastoral projects which imply the creation of new structures in regions which traditionally form part of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, in view to avoid parallel pastoral activities which would risk rapidly degenerating into rivalry or even conflicts.
 [30\.](#30) To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church connected with the problem which is the object of this document, special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. Their education should be objectively positive with respect of the other Church. First of all, everyone should be informed of the apostolic succession of the other Church and the authenticity of its sacramental life. One should also offer all a correct and comprehensive knowledge of history aiming at a historiography of the two Churches which is in agreement and even may be common. In this way, the dissipation of prejudices will be helped, and the use of history in a polemical manner will be avoided. This presentation will lead to an awareness that faults leading to separation belong to both sides, leaving deep wounds on each side.
 {#30}
 [31\.](#31) The admonition of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor 6:1-7) will be recalled. It recommends that Christians resolve their differences through fraternal dialogue, thus avoiding recourse to the intervention of the civil authorities for a practical solution to the problems which arise between Churches or local communities. This applies particularly to the possession or return of ecclesiastical property. These solutions should not be based only on past situations or rely solely on general juridical principles, but they must also take into account the complexity of present realities and local circumstances.
 {#31}
 [32\.](#32) It is in this spirit that it will be possible to meet in common the task of re-evangelization of our secularized world. Efforts will also be made to give objective news to the mass-media especially to the religious press in order to avoid tendentious and misleading information.
 {#32}
 [33\.](#33) It is necessary that the Churches come together in order to express gratitude and respect towards all, known and unknown - bishops, priests or faithful, Orthodox, Catholic whether Oriental or Latin - who suffered, confessed their faith, witnessed their fidelity to the Church, and, in general, towards all Christians, without discrimination, who underwent persecutions. Their sufferings call us to unity and, on our part, to give common witness in response to the prayer of Christ "that all may be one, so that the world may believe" (John 17,21).
 {#33}
 [34\.](#34) The International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, at its plenary meeting in Balamand, strongly recommends that these practical rules be put into practice by our Churches, including the Oriental Catholic Churches who are called to take part in this dialogue which should be carried on in the serene atmosphere necessary for its progress, towards the re-establishment of full communion.
 {#34}
 [35\.](#35) By excluding for the future all proselytism and all desire for expansion by Catholics at the expense of the Orthodox Church, the commission hopes that it has overcome the obstacles which impelled certain autocephalous Churches to suspend their participation in the theological dialogue and that the Orthodox Church will be able to find itself altogether again for continuing the theological work already so happily begun.
 {#35}
--- a/src/page/ecumen/jictd-2007-ravenna.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/jictd-2007-ravenna.md
@ -1,171 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority
 date: 2007-10-13
 author: Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
 source: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese.html
 ---
 ## [Introduction](#introduction) ## {#introduction}
 [1\.](#1) “That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17, 21). We give thanks to the triune God who has gathered us – members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church - so that we might respond together in obedience to this prayer of Jesus. We are conscious that our dialogue is restarting in a world that has changed profoundly in recent times. The processes of secularization and globalization, and the challenge posed by new encounters between Christians and believers of other religions, require that the disciples of Christ give witness to their faith, love and hope with a new urgency. May the Spirit of the risen Lord empower our hearts and minds to bear the fruits of unity in the relationship between our Churches, so that together we may serve the unity and peace of the whole human family. May the same Spirit lead us to the full expression of the mystery of ecclesial communion, that we gratefully acknowledge as a wonderful gift of God to the world, a mystery whose beauty radiates especially in the holiness of the saints, to which all are called.
 {#1}
 [2\.](#2) Following the plan adopted at its first meeting in Rhodes in 1980, the Joint Commission began by addressing the mystery of ecclesial koinônia in the light of the mystery of the Holy Trinity and of the Eucharist. This enabled a deeper understanding of ecclesial communion, both at the level of the local community around its bishop, and at the level of relations between bishops and between the local Churches over which each presides in communion with the One Church of God extending across the universe (cfr. Munich Document, 1982). In order to clarify the nature of communion, the Joint Commission underlined the relationship which exists between faith, the sacraments – especially the three sacraments of Christian initiation – and the unity of the Church (cfr. Bari Document, 1987). Then by studying the sacrament of Order in the sacramental structure of the Church, the Commission indicated clearly the role of apostolic succession as the guarantee of the koinonia of the whole Church and of its continuity with the Apostles in every time and place (cfr. Valamo Document, 1988). From 1990 until 2000, the main subject discussed by the Commission was that of “uniatism” (Balamand Document, 1993; Baltimore, 2000), a subject to which we shall give further consideration in the near future. Now we take up the theme raised at the end of the Valamo Document, and reflect upon ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority.
 {#2}
 [3\.](#3) On the basis of these common affirmations of our faith, we must now draw the ecclesiological and canonical consequences which flow from the sacramental nature of the Church. Since the Eucharist, in the light of the Trinitarian mystery, constitutes the criterion of ecclesial life as a whole, how do institutional structures visibly reflect the mystery of this koinonia? Since the one and holy Church is realised both in each local Church celebrating the Eucharist and at the same time in the koinonia of all the Churches, how does the life of the Churches manifest this sacramental structure?
 {#3}
 [4\.](#4) Unity and multiplicity, the relationship between the one Church and the many local Churches, that constitutive relationship of the Church, also poses the question of the relationship between the authority inherent in every ecclesial institution and the conciliarity which flows from the mystery of the Church as communion. As the terms “authority” and “conciliarity” cover a very wide area, we shall begin by defining the way we understand them.[^1]
 {#4}
 [^1]: Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church “subsists in the Catholic Church” (Lumen Gentium, 8); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.
 ## [I. The Foundations of Conciliarity and of Authority](#I) {#I}
 ### [1. Conciliarity](#I.1) {#I.1}
 [5\.](#5) The term conciliarity or synodality comes from the word “council” (synodos in Greek, concilium in Latin), which primarily denotes a gathering of bishops exercising a particular responsibility. It is also possible, however, to take the term in a more comprehensive sense referring to all the members of the Church (cfr. the Russian term sobornost). Accordingly we shall speak first of all of conciliarity as signifying that each member of the Body of Christ, by virtue of baptism, has his or her place and proper responsibility in eucharistic koinonia(communio in Latin). Conciliarity reflects the Trinitarian mystery and finds therein its ultimate foundation. The three persons of the Holy Trinity are “enumerated”, as St Basil the Great says (On the Holy Spirit, 45), without the designation as “second” or “third” person implying any diminution or subordination. Similarly, there also exists an order (taxis) among local Churches, which however does not imply inequality in their ecclesial nature.
 {#5}
 [6\.](#6) The Eucharist manifests the Trinitarian koinônia actualized in the faithful as an organic unity of several members each of whom has a charism, a service or a proper ministry, necessary in their variety and diversity for the edification of all in the one ecclesial Body of Christ (cfr. 1 Cor 12, 4-30). All are called, engaged and held accountable – each in a different though no less real manner – in the common accomplishment of the actions which, through the Holy Spirit, make present in the Church the ministry of Christ, “the way, the truth and the life” (Jn 14, 6). In this way, the mystery of salvific koinonia with the Blessed Trinity is realized in humankind.
 {#6}
 [7\.](#7) The whole community and each person in it bears the “conscience of the Church” (ekklesiastike syneidesis), as Greek theology calls it, the sensus fidelium in Latin terminology. By virtue of Baptism and Confirmation (Chrismation) each member of the Church exercises a form of authority in the Body of Christ. In this sense, all the faithful (and not just the bishops) are responsible for the faith professed at their Baptism. It is our common teaching that the people of God, having received “the anointing which comes from the Holy One” (1 Jn 2, 20 and 27), in communion with their pastors, cannot err in matters of faith (cfr. Jn 16, 13).
 {#7}
 [8\.](#8) In proclaiming the Church’s faith and in clarifying the norms of Christian conduct, the bishops have a specific task by divine institution. “As successors of the Apostles, the bishops are responsible for communion in the apostolic faith and for fidelity to the demands of a life in keeping with the Gospel” (Valamo Document, n. 40).
 {#8}
 [9\.](#9) Councils are the principal way in which communion among bishops is exercised (cfr. Valamo Document, n. 52). For “attachment to the apostolic communion binds all the bishops together linking the episkope of the local Churches to the College of the Apostles. They too form a college rooted by the Spirit in the ‘once for all’ of the apostolic group, the unique witness to the faith. This means not only that they should be united among themselves in faith, charity, mission, reconciliation, but that they have in common the same responsibility and the same service to the Church” (Munich Document, III, 4).
 {#9}
 [10\.](#10) This conciliar dimension of the Church’s life belongs to its deep-seated nature. That is to say, it is founded in the will of Christ for his people (cfr. Mt 18, 15-20), even if its canonical realizations are of necessity also determined by history and by the social, political and cultural context. Defined thus, the conciliar dimension of the Church is to be found at the three levels of ecclesial communion, the local, the regional and the universal: at the local level of the diocese entrusted to the bishop; at the regional level of a group of local Churches with their bishops who “recognize who is the first amongst themselves” (Apostolic Canon 34); and at the universal level, where those who are first (protoi) in the various regions, together with all the bishops, cooperate in that which concerns the totality of the Church. At this level also, the protoi must recognize who is the first amongst themselves.
 {#10}
 [11\.](#11) The Church exists in many and different places, which manifests its catholicity. Being “catholic”, it is a living organism, the Body of Christ. Each local Church, when in communion with the other local Churches, is a manifestation of the one and indivisible Church of God. To be “catholic” therefore means to be in communion with the one Church of all times and of all places. That is why the breaking of eucharistic communion means the wounding of one of the essential characteristics of the Church, its catholicity.
 {#11}
 ### [2. Authority](#I.2) {#I.2}
 [12\.](#12) When we speak of authority, we are referring to exousia, as it is described in the New Testament. The authority of the Church comes from its Lord and Head, Jesus Christ. Having received his authority from God the Father, Christ after his Resurrection shared it, through the Holy Spirit, with the Apostles (cfr. Jn 20, 22). Through the Apostles it was transmitted to the bishops, their successors, and through them to the whole Church. Jesus Christ our Lord exercised this authority in various ways whereby, until its eschatological fulfilment (cfr. 1 Cor 15, 24-28), the Kingdom of God manifests itself to the world: by teaching (cfr. Mt 5, 2; Lk 5, 3); by performing miracles (cfr. Mk 1, 30-34; Mt 14, 35-36); by driving out impure spirits (cfr. Mk 1, 27; Lk 4, 35-36); in the forgiveness of sins (cfr. Mk 2, 10; Lk 5, 24); and in leading his disciples in the ways of salvation (cfr. Mt 16, 24). In conformity with the mandate received from Christ (cfr. Mt 28, 18-20), the exercise of the authority proper to the apostles and afterwards to the bishops includes the proclamation and the teaching of the Gospel, sanctification through the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, and the pastoral direction of those who believe (cfr. Lk 10, 16).
 {#12}
 [13\.](#13) Authority in the Church belongs to Jesus Christ himself, the one Head of the Church (cfr. Eph 1, 22; 5, 23). By his Holy Spirit, the Church as his Body shares in his authority (cfr. Jn 20, 22-23). Authority in the Church has as its goal the gathering of the whole of humankind into Jesus Christ (cfr. Eph 1,10; Jn 11, 52). The authority linked with the grace received in ordination is not the private possession of those who receive it nor something delegated from the community; rather, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit destined for the service (diakonia) of the community and never exercised outside of it. Its exercise includes the participation of the whole community, the bishop being in the Church and the Church in the bishop (cfr. St Cyprian, Ep. 66, 8).
 {#13}
 [14\.](#14) The exercise of authority accomplished in the Church, in the name of Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, must be, in all its forms and at all levels, a service (diakonia) of love, as was that of Christ (cfr. Mk 10, 45; Jn 13, 1-16). The authority of which we are speaking, since it expresses divine authority, cannot subsist in the Church except in the love between the one who exercises it and those subject to it. It is, therefore, an authority without domination, without physical or moral coercion. Since it is a participation in the exousia of the crucified and exalted Lord, to whom has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (cfr. Mt 28, 18), it can and must call for obedience. At the same time, because of the Incarnation and the Cross, it is radically different from that of leaders of nations and of the great of this world (cfr. Lk 22, 25-27). While this authority is certainly entrusted to people who, because of weakness and sin, are often tempted to abuse it, nevertheless by its very nature the evangelical identification between authority and service constitutes a fundamental norm for the Church. For Christians, to rule is to serve. The exercise and spiritual efficacy of ecclesial authority are thereby assured through free consent and voluntary co-operation. At a personal level, this translates into obedience to the authority of the Church in order to follow Christ who was lovingly obedient to the Father even unto death and death on a Cross (cfr. Phil 2, 8).
 {#14}
 [15\.](#15) Authority within the Church is founded upon the Word of God, present and alive in the community of the disciples. Scripture is the revealed Word of God, as the Church, through the Holy Spirit present and active within it, has discerned it in the living Tradition received from the Apostles. At the heart of this Tradition is the Eucharist (cfr. 1 Cor 10, 16-17; 11, 23-26). The authority of Scripture derives from the fact that it is the Word of God which, read in the Church and by the Church, transmits the Gospel of salvation. Through Scripture, Christ addresses the assembled community and the heart of each believer. The Church, through the Holy Spirit present within it, authentically interprets Scripture, responding to the needs of times and places. The constant custom of the Councils to enthrone the Gospels in the midst of the assembly both attests the presence of Christ in his Word, which is the necessary point of reference for all their discussions and decisions, and at the same time affirms the authority of the Church to interpret this Word of God.
 {#15}
 [16\.](#16) In his divine Economy, God wills that his Church should have a structure oriented towards salvation. To this essential structure belong the faith professed and the sacraments celebrated in the apostolic succession. Authority in the ecclesial communion is linked to this essential structure: its exercise is regulated by the canons and statutes of the Church. Some of these regulations may be differently applied according to the needs of ecclesial communion in different times and places, provided that the essential structure of the Church is always respected. Thus, just as communion in the sacraments presupposes communion in the same faith (cfr. Bari Document, nn.29-33), so too, in order for there to be full ecclesial communion, there must be, between our Churches, reciprocal recognition of canonical legislations in their legitimate diversities.
 {#16}
 ## [II. The threefold actualization of Conciliarity and Authority](#II) {#II}
 [17\.](#17) Having pointed out the foundation of conciliarity and of authority in the Church, and having noted the complexity of the content of these terms, we must now reply to the following questions: How do institutional elements of the Church visibly express and serve the mystery of koinonia? How do the canonical structures of the Churches express their sacramental life? To this end we distinguished between three levels of ecclesial institutions: that of the local Church around its bishop; that of a region taking in several neighbouring local Churches; and that of the whole inhabited earth (oikoumene) which embraces all the local Churches.
 {#17}
 ### [1. The Local Level](#II.1) {#II.1}
 [18\.](#18) The Church of God exists where there is a community gathered together in the Eucharist, presided over, directly or through his presbyters, by a bishop legitimately ordained into the apostolic succession, teaching the faith received from the Apostles, in communion with the other bishops and their Churches. The fruit of this Eucharist and this ministry is to gather into an authentic communion of faith, prayer, mission, fraternal love and mutual aid, all those who have received the Spirit of Christ in Baptism. This communion is the frame in which all ecclesial authority is exercised. Communion is the criterion for its exercise.
 {#18}
 [19\.](#19) Each local Church has as its mission to be, by the grace of God, a place where God is served and honoured, where the Gospel is announced, where the sacraments are celebrated, where the faithful strive to alleviate the world’s misery, and where each believer can find salvation. It is the light of the world (cfr. Mt 5, 14-16), the leaven (cfr. Mt 13, 33), the priestly community of God (cfr. 1 Pet 2, 5 and 9). The canonical norms which govern it aim at ensuring this mission.
 {#19}
 [20\.](#20) By virtue of that very Baptism which made him or her a member of Christ, each baptized person is called, according to the gifts of the one Holy Spirit, to serve within the community (cfr. 1 Cor 12, 4-27). Thus through communion, whereby all the members are at the service of each other, the local Church appears already “synodal” or “conciliar” in its structure. This “synodality” does not show itself only in the relationships of solidarity, mutual assistance and complementarity which the various ordained ministries have among themselves. Certainly, the presbyterium is the council of the bishop (cfr. St Ignatius of Antioch, To the Trallians, 3), and the deacon is his “right arm” (Didascalia Apostolorum, 2, 28, 6), so that, according to the recommendation of St Ignatius of Antioch, everything be done in concert (cfr. To the Ephesians, 6). Synodality, however, also involves all the members of the community in obedience to the bishop, who is the protos and head (kephale) of the local Church, required by ecclesial communion. In keeping with Eastern and Western traditions, the active participation of the laity, both men and women, of monastics and consecrated persons, is effected in the diocese and the parish through many forms of service and mission.
 {#20}
 [21\.](#21) The charisms of the members of the community have their origin in the one Holy Spirit, and are directed to the good of all. This fact sheds light on both the demands and the limits of the authority of each one in the Church. There should be neither passivity nor substitution of functions, neither negligence nor domination of anyone by another. All charisms and ministries in the Church converge in unity under the ministry of the bishop, who serves the communion of the local Church. All are called to be renewed by the Holy Spirit in the sacraments and to respond in constant repentance (metanoia), so that their communion in truth and charity is ensured.
 {#21}
 ### [2. The Regional Level](#II.2) {#II.2}
 [22\.](#22) Since the Church reveals itself to be catholic in the synaxis of the local Church, this catholicity must truly manifest itself in communion with the other Churches which confess the same apostolic faith and share the same basic ecclesial structure, beginning with those close at hand in virtue of their common responsibility for mission in that region which is theirs (cfr. Munich Document, III, 3, and Valamo Document, nn.52 and 53). Communion among Churches is expressed in the ordination of bishops. This ordination is conferred according to canonical order by three or more bishops, or at least two (cfr. Nicaea I, Canon 4), who act in the name of the episcopal body and of the people of God, having themselves received their ministry from the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands in the apostolic succession. When this is accomplished in conformity with the canons, communion among Churches in the true faith, sacraments and ecclesial life is ensured, as well as living communion with previous generations.
 {#22}
 [23\.](#23) Such effective communion among several local Churches, each being the Catholic Church in a particular place, has been expressed by certain practices: the participation of the bishops of neighbouring sees at the ordination of a bishop to the local Church; the invitation to a bishop from another Church to concelebrate at the synaxis of the local Church; the welcome extended to the faithful from these other Churches to partake of the eucharistic table; the exchange of letters on the occasion of an ordination; and the provision of material assistance.
 {#23}
 [24\.](#24) A canon accepted in the East as in the West, expresses the relationship between the local Churches of a region: “The bishops of each province (ethnos) must recognize the one who is first (protos) amongst them, and consider him to be their head (kephale), and not do anything important without his consent (gnome); each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese (paroikia) and its dependent territories. But the first (protos) cannot do anything without the consent of all. For in this way concord (homonoia) will prevail, and God will be praised through the Lord in the Holy Spirit” (Apostolic Canon 34).
 {#24}
 [25\.](#25) This norm, which re-emerges in several forms in canonical tradition, applies to all the relations between the bishops of a region, whether those of a province, a metropolitanate, or a patriarchate. Its practical application may be found in the synods or the councils of a province, region or patriarchate. The fact that the composition of a regional synod is always essentially episcopal, even when it includes other members of the Church, reveals the nature of synodal authority. Only bishops have a deliberative voice. The authority of a synod is based on the nature of the episcopal ministry itself, and manifests the collegial nature of the episcopate at the service of the communion of Churches.
 {#25}
 [26\.](#26) A synod (or council) in itself implies the participation of all the bishops of a region. It is governed by the principle of consensus and concord (homonoia), which is signified by eucharistic concelebration, as is implied by the final doxology of the above-mentioned Apostolic Canon 34. The fact remains, however, that each bishop in his pastoral care is judge, and is responsible before God for the affairs of his own diocese (cfr. St Cyprian, Ep.55, 21); thus he is the guardian of the catholicity of his local Church, and must be always careful to promote catholic communion with other Churches.
 {#26}
 [27\.](#27) It follows that a regional synod or council does not have any authority over other ecclesiastical regions. Nevertheless, the exchange of information and consultations between the representatives of several synods are a manifestation of catholicity, as well as of that fraternal mutual assistance and charity which ought to be the rule between all the local Churches, for the greater common benefit. Each bishop is responsible for the whole Church together with all his colleagues in one and the same apostolic mission.
 {#27}
 [28\.](#28) In this manner several ecclesiastical provinces have come to strengthen their links of common responsibility. This was one of the factors giving rise to the patriarchates in the history of our Churches. Patriarchal synods are governed by the same ecclesiological principles and the same canonical norms as provincial synods.
 {#28}
 [29\.](#29) In subsequent centuries, both in the East and in the West, certain new configurations of communion between local Churches have developed. New patriarchates and autocephalous Churches have been founded in the Christian East, and in the Latin Church there has recently emerged a particular pattern of grouping of bishops, the Episcopal Conferences. These are not, from an ecclesiological standpoint, merely administrative subdivisions: they express the spirit of communion in the Church, while at the same time respecting the diversity of human cultures.
 {#29}
 [30\.](#30) In fact, regional synodality, whatever its contours and canonical regulation, demonstrates that the Church of God is not a communion of persons or local Churches cut off from their human roots. Because it is the community of salvation and because this salvation is “the restoration of creation” (cfr. St Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 1, 36, 1), it embraces the human person in everything which binds him or her to human reality as created by God. The Church is not just a collection of individuals; it is made up of communities with different cultures, histories and social structures.
 {#30}
 [31\.](#31) In the grouping of local Churches at the regional level, catholicity appears in its true light. It is the expression of the presence of salvation not in an undifferentiated universe but in humankind as God created it and comes to save it. In the mystery of salvation, human nature is at the same time both assumed in its fullness and cured of what sin has infused into it by way of self-sufficiency, pride, distrust of others, aggressiveness, jealousy, envy, falsehood and hatred. Ecclesial koinonia is the gift by which all humankind is joined together, in the Spirit of the risen Lord. This unity, created by the Spirit, far from lapsing into uniformity, calls for and thus preserves – and, in a certain way, enhances – diversity and particularity.
 {#31}
 ### [3. The Universal Level](#II.3) {#II.3}
 [32\.](#32) Each local Church is in communion not only with neighbouring Churches, but with the totality of the local Churches, with those now present in the world, those which have been since the beginning, and those which will be in the future, and with the Church already in glory. According to the will of Christ, the Church is one and indivisible, the same always and in every place. Both sides confess, in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, that the Church is one and catholic. Its catholicity embraces not only the diversity of human communities but also their fundamental unity.
 {#32}
 [33\.](#33) It is clear, therefore, that one and the same faith is to be confessed and lived out in all the local Churches, the same unique Eucharist is to be celebrated everywhere, and one and the same apostolic ministry is to be at work in all the communities. A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils, although the Church ought always “to give suitable answers to new problems, answers based on the Scriptures and in accord and essential continuity with the previous expressions of dogmas” (Bari Document, n.29). Equally, a local Church cannot change a fundamental point regarding the form of ministry by a unilateral decision, and no local Church can celebrate the Eucharist in wilful separation from other local Churches without seriously affecting ecclesial communion. In all of these things one touches on the bond of communion itself – thus, on the very being of the Church.
 {#33}
 [34\.](#34) It is because of this communion that all the Churches, through canons, regulate everything relating to the Eucharist and the sacraments, the ministry and ordination, and the handing on (paradosis) and teaching (didaskalia) of the faith. It is clear why in this domain canonical rules and disciplinary norms are needed.
 {#34}
 [35\.](#35) In the course of history, when serious problems arose affecting the universal communion and concord between Churches – in regard either to the authentic interpretation of the faith, or to ministries and their relationship to the whole Church, or to the common discipline which fidelity to the Gospel requires - recourse was made to Ecumenical Councils. These councils were ecumenical not just because they assembled together bishops from all regions and particularly those of the five major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, according to the ancient order (taxis). It was also because their solemn doctrinal decisions and their common faith formulations, especially on crucial points, are binding for all the Churches and all the faithful, for all times and all places. This is why the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils remain normative.
 {#35}
 [36\.](#36) The history of the Ecumenical Councils shows what are to be considered their special characteristics. This matter needs to be studied further in our future dialogue, taking account of the evolution of ecclesial structures during recent centuries in the East and the West.
 {#36}
 [37\.](#37) The ecumenicity of the decisions of a council is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration, according to which the people of God as a whole – by means of reflection, discernment, discussion and prayer - acknowledge in these decisions the one apostolic faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the bishops are the teachers (didaskaloi) and the guardians. This process of reception is differently interpreted in East and West according to their respective canonical traditions.
 {#37}
 [38\.](#38) Conciliarity or synodality involves, therefore, much more than the assembled bishops. It involves also their Churches. The former are bearers of and give voice to the faith of the latter. The bishops’ decisions have to be received in the life of the Churches, especially in their liturgical life. Each Ecumenical Council received as such, in the full and proper sense, is, accordingly, a manifestation of and service to the communion of the whole Church.
 {#38}
 [39\.](#39) Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an Ecumenical Council is not an “institution” whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an “event”, a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of Ecumenical Councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissensions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.
 {#39}
 [40\.](#40) During the first millennium, the universal communion of the Churches in the ordinary course of events was maintained through fraternal relations between the bishops. These relations, among the bishops themselves, between the bishops and their respective protoi, and also among the protoi themselves in the canonical order (taxis) witnessed by the ancient Church, nourished and consolidated ecclesial communion. History records the consultations, letters and appeals to major sees, especially to that of Rome, which vividly express the solidarity that koinonia creates. Canonical provisions such as the inclusion of the names of the bishops of the principal sees in the diptychs and the communication of the profession of faith to the other patriarchs on the occasion of elections, are concrete expressions of koinonia.
 {#40}
 [41\.](#41) Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.
 {#41}
 [42\.](#42) Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils.
 {#42}
 [43\.](#43) Primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent. That is why primacy at the different levels of the life of the Church, local, regional and universal, must always be considered in the context of conciliarity, and conciliarity likewise in the context of primacy.
 {#43}
 Concerning primacy at the different levels, we wish to affirm the following points:
 1. Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church.
 2. While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West, there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations.
 [44\.](#44) In the history of the East and of the West, at least until the ninth century, a series of prerogatives was recognised, always in the context of conciliarity, according to the conditions of the times, for the protos or kephale at each of the established ecclesiastical levels: locally, for the bishop as protos of his diocese with regard to his presbyters and people; regionally, for the protos of each metropolis with regard to the bishops of his province, and for the protos of each of the five patriarchates, with regard to the metropolitans of each circumscription; and universally, for the bishop of Rome as protos among the patriarchs. This distinction of levels does not diminish the sacramental equality of every bishop or the catholicity of each local Church.
 {#44}
 ## [Conclusion](#conclusion) {#conclusion}
 [45\.](#45) It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.
 {#45}
 [46\.](#46) We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together.
 {#46}
--- a/src/page/ecumen/jictd-2016-chieti.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/jictd-2016-chieti.md
@ -1,116 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church
 date: 2016-09-21
 author: Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
 source: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese1.html
 ---
 Chieti, 21 September 2016
 > *We declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have communion [koinonia] with us;*
 > *and truly our communion [koinonia] is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.*
 > *We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.’*
 > *(1 Jn 1:3-4)*
 1\. Ecclesial communion arises directly from the Incarnation of the eternal Word of God, according to the goodwill (eudokia) of the Father, through the Holy Spirit. Christ, having come on earth, founded the Church as his body (cf. 1Cor 12:12-27). The unity that exists among the Persons of the Trinity is reflected in the communion (koinonia) of the members of the Church with one another. Thus, as St Maximus the Confessor affirmed, the Church is an ‘eikon’ of the Holy Trinity.[^1] At the Last Supper, Jesus Christ prayed to his Father: ‘Protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one’ (Jn 17:11). This Trinitarian unity is manifested in the Holy Eucharist, wherein the Church prays to God the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.
 {#1}
 [^1]: St Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogia (PG 91, 663D).
 2\. From earliest times, the one Church existed as many local churches. The communion (koinonia) of the Holy Spirit (cf. 2Cor 13:13) was experienced both within each local church and in the relations between them as a unity in diversity. Under the guidance of the Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13), the Church developed patterns of order and various practices in accordance with its nature as ‘a people brought into unity from the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’.[^2]
 {#2}
 [^2]: St Cyprian, De Orat. Dom., 23 (PL 4, 536).
 3\. Synodality is a fundamental quality of the Church as a whole. As St John Chrysostom said: ‘"Church" means both gathering [systema] and synod [synodos]’.[^3] The term comes from the word ‘council’ (synodos in Greek, concilium in Latin), which primarily denotes a gathering of bishops, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for common deliberation and action in caring for the Church. Broadly, it refers to the active participation of all the faithful in the life and mission of the Church.
 {#3}
 [^3]: St John Chrysostom, Explicatio in Ps 149 (PG 55, 493).
 4\. The term primacy refers to being the first (primus, protos). In the Church, primacy belongs to her Head – Jesus Christ, ‘who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence [protevon]’ (Col. 1:18). Christian Tradition makes it clear that, within the synodal life of the Church at various levels, a bishop has been acknowledged as the ‘first’. Jesus Christ associates this being ‘first’ with service (diakonia): ‘Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all’ (Mk 9:35).
 {#4}
 5\. In the second millennium, communion was broken between East and West. Many efforts have been made to restore communion between Catholics and Orthodox, but they have not succeeded. The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, in its ongoing work to overcome theological divergences, has been considering the relationship between synodality and primacy in the life of the Church. Different understandings of these realities played a significant role in the division between Orthodox and Catholics. It is, therefore, essential to seek to establish a common understanding of these interrelated, complementary and inseparable realities.
 {#5}
 6\. In order to achieve this common understanding of primacy and synodality, it is necessary to reflect upon history. God reveals himself in history. It is particularly important to undertake together a theological reading of the history of the Church’s liturgy, spirituality, institutions and canons, which always have a theological dimension.
 {#6}
 7\. The history of the Church in the first millennium is decisive. Despite certain temporary ruptures, Christians from East and West lived in communion during that time, and, within that context, the essential structures of the Church were constituted. The relationship between synodality and primacy took various forms, which can give vital guidance to Orthodox and Catholics in their efforts to restore full communion today.
 {#7}
 ## The Local Church
 8\. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of which Christ is the head is present in the eucharistic synaxis of a local church under its bishop. He is the one who presides (the ‘proestos’). In the liturgical synaxis, the bishop makes visible the presence of Jesus Christ. In the local church (i.e. a diocese), the many faithful and clergy under the one bishop are united with one another in Christ, and are in communion with him in every aspect of the life of the Church, most especially in the celebration of the Eucharist. As St Ignatius of Antioch taught: ‘where the bishop is, there let all the people be, just as, where Jesus Christ is, we have the catholic church [katholike ekklesia]’.[^4] Each local church celebrates in communion with all other local churches which confess the true faith and celebrate the same Eucharist. When a presbyter presides at the Eucharist, the local bishop is always commemorated as a sign of the unity of the local church. In the Eucharist, the proestos and the community are interdependent: the community cannot celebrate the Eucharist without a proestos, and the proestos, in turn, must celebrate with a community.
 {#8}
 [^4]: St Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8.
 9\. This interrelatedness between the proestos or bishop and the community is a constitutive element of the life of the local church. Together with the clergy, who are associated with his ministry, the local bishop acts in the midst of the faithful, who are Christ’s flock, as guarantor and servant of unity. As successor of the Apostles, he exercises his mission as one of service and love, shepherding his community, and leading it, as its head, to ever-deeper unity with Christ in the truth, maintaining the apostolic faith through the preaching of the Gospel and the celebration of the sacraments.
 {#9}
 10\. Since the bishop is the head of his local church, he represents his church to other local churches and in the communion of all the churches. Likewise, he makes that communion present to his own church. This is a fundamental principle of synodality.
 {#10}
 ## The Regional Communion of Churches
 11\. There is abundant evidence that bishops in the early Church were conscious of having a shared responsibility for the Church as a whole. As St Cyprian said: ‘There is but one episcopate but it is spread amongst the harmonious host of all the numerous bishops’.[^5] This bond of unity was expressed in the requirement that at least three bishops should take part in the ordination (cheirotonia) of a new one;[^6] it was also evident in the multiple gatherings of bishops in councils or synods to discuss in common issues of doctrine (dogma, didaskalia) and practice, and in their frequent exchanges of letters and mutual visits.
 {#11}
 [^5]: St Cyprian, Ep.55, 24, 2; cf. also, ‘episcopatus unus est cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur’ (De unitate, 5).
 [^6]: First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), canon 4: ‘It is preferable that a bishop be established by all the bishops of a province; but if this appears difficult because of a pressing necessity or because of the distance to be travelled, at least three bishops should come together; and, having the written consent of the absent bishops, they may then proceed with the consecration. The validation [kyros] of what takes place falls on the metropolitan bishop of each province.’ Cf. also Apostolic Canon, 1: ‘A bishop must be ordained by two or three bishops’.
 12\. Already during the first four centuries, various groupings of dioceses within particular regions emerged. The protos, the first among the bishops of the region, was the bishop of the first see, the metropolis, and his office as metropolitan was always attached to his see. The ecumenical councils attributed certain prerogatives (presbeia, pronomia, dikaia) to the metropolitan, always within the framework of synodality. Thus, the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), while requiring of all the bishops of a province their personal participation in or written agreement to an episcopal election and consecration - a synodical act par excellence - attributed to the metropolitan the validation (kyros) of the election of a new bishop.[^7] The Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451) again evoked the rights (dikaia) of the metropolitan – insisting that this office is ecclesial, not political[^8] - as did the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), also.[^9]
 {#12}
 [^7]: First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), canon 4; also canon 6: ‘If anyone becomes a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great council decrees that such a person is not even a bishop.’
 [^8]: Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canon 12: ‘As for cities that have already been honoured by the title of metropolis by imperial letters, let these cities and the bishops who govern them enjoy only the honour of the title; that is, let the proper rights of the true [kata aletheian] metropolis be safeguarded.’
 [^9]: Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), canon 11 grants the metropolitans the right to appoint the treasurers of their suffragan dioceses if the bishops do not provide for it.
 13\. Apostolic Canon 34 offers a canonical description of the correlation between the protos and the other bishops of each region: ‘The bishops of the people of a province or region [ethnos] must recognize the one who is first [protos] amongst them, and consider him to be their head [kephale], and not do anything important without his consent [gnome]; each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese [paroikia] and its dependent territories. But the first [protos] cannot do anything without the consent of all. For in this way concord [homonoia] will prevail, and God will be praised through the Lord in the Holy Spirit’.[^10]
 {#13}
 [^10]: Cf. Council of Antioch (327), canon 9: ‘It is proper for the bishops in every province [eparchia] to submit to the bishop who presides in the metropolis’.
 14\. The institution of the metropolitanate is one form of regional communion between local churches. Subsequently other forms developed, namely the patriarchates comprising several metropolitanates. Both a metropolitan and a patriarch were diocesan bishops with full episcopal power within their own dioceses. In matters related to their respective metropolitanates or patriarchates, however, they had to act in accord with their fellow bishops. This way of acting is at the root of synodical institutions in the strict sense of the term, such as a regional synod of bishops. These synods were convened and presided over by the metropolitan or the patriarch. He and all the bishops acted in mutual complementarity and were accountable to the synod.
 {#14}
 ## The Church at the Universal Level
 15\. Between the fourth and the seventh centuries, the order (taxis) of the five patriarchal sees came to be recognised, based on and sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, with the see of Rome occupying the first place, exercising a primacy of honour (presbeia tes times), followed by the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in that specific order, according to the canonical tradition.[^11]
 {#15}
 [^11]: Cf. First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), canon 6: ‘The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places, since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces, the prerogatives [presbeia] of the churches are to be preserved’; Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381), canon 3: Let the bishop of Constantinople … have the primacy of honour [presbeia tes times] after the bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome’; Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canon 28: ‘The Fathers rightly accorded prerogatives [presbeia] to the see of older Rome since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the one hundred and fifty most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of New Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her’ (this canon was never received in the West); Council in Trullo (692), canon 36: ‘Renewing the enactments of the one hundred and fifty Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the six hundred and thirty who met at Chalcedon, we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges [presbeia] with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that see is and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the see of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the see of Jerusalem’.
 16\. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.[^12] This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.
 {#16}
 [^12]: Cf. Jerome, In Isaiam 14, 53; Leo, Sermo 96, 2-3.
 17\. When a new patriarch was elected to one of the five sees in the taxis, the normal practice was that he would send a letter to all the other patriarchs, announcing his election and including a profession of faith. Such ‘letters of communion’ profoundly expressed the canonical bond of communion among the patriarchs. By including the new patriarch’s name, in the proper order, in the diptychs of their churches, read in the Liturgy, the other patriarchs acknowledged his election. The taxis of the patriarchal sees had its highest expression in the celebration of the holy Eucharist. Whenever two or more patriarchs gathered to celebrate the Eucharist, they would stand according to the taxis. This practice manifested the eucharistic character of their communion.
 {#17}
 18\. From the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325) onwards, major questions regarding faith and canonical order in the Church were discussed and resolved by the ecumenical councils. Though the bishop of Rome was not personally present at any of those councils, in each case either he was represented by his legates or he agreed with the council’s conclusions post factum. The Church’s understanding of the criteria for the reception of a council as ecumenical developed over the course of the first millennium. For example, prompted by historical circumstances, the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787) gave a detailed description of the criteria as then understood: the agreement (symphonia) of the heads of the churches, the cooperation (synergeia) of the bishop of Rome, and the agreement of the other patriarchs (symphronountes). An ecumenical council must have its own proper number in the sequence of ecumenical councils, and its teaching must accord with that of previous councils.[^13] Reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criterion for the ecumenicity of a council.
 {#18}
 [^13]: Cf. Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787): J. D. MANSI, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XIII, 208D-209C.
 19\. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure.[^14] Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).[^15] The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople,[^16] and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.
 {#19}
 [^14]: Cf. Synod of Sardica (343), canons 3 and 5.
 [^15]: Cf. Council in Trullo, canon 2. Similarly, the Photian Council of 861 accepted the canons of Sardica as recognising the bishop of Rome as having a right of cassation in cases already judged in Constantinople.
 [^16]: Cf. Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canons 9 and 17.
 ## Conclusion
 20\. Throughout the first millennium, the Church in the East and the West was united in preserving the apostolic faith, maintaining the apostolic succession of bishops, developing structures of synodality inseparably linked with primacy, and in an understanding of authority as a service (diakonia) of love. Though the unity of East and West was troubled at times, the bishops of East and West were conscious of belonging to the one Church.
 {#20}
 21\. This common heritage of theological principles, canonical provisions and liturgical practices from the first millennium constitutes a necessary reference point and a powerful source of inspiration for both Catholics and Orthodox as they seek to heal the wound of their division at the beginning of the third millennium. On the basis of this common heritage, both must consider how primacy, synodality, and the interrelatedness between them can be conceived and exercised today and in the future.
 {#21}
--- a/src/page/ecumen/jictd-2023-alexandria.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/jictd-2023-alexandria.md
@ -1,132 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium and Today
 date: 2023-06-07
 author: Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
 source: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/document-d-alexandrie---synodalite-et-primaute-au-deuxieme-mille.html
 ---
 Alexandria, 7 June 2023
 ## [Introduction](#0) {#0}
 0.1 As a result of careful study of synodality and primacy in the first millennium, the Chieti document stated: ‘From earliest times, the one Church existed as many local churches. The communion (koinonia) of the Holy Spirit (cf. 2Cor 13:13) was experienced both within each local church and in the relations between them as a unity in diversity. Under the guidance of the Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13), the Church developed patterns of order and various practices in accordance with its nature as “a people brought into unity from the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”’ ([Chieti, 2](./jictd-chieti.html#2); quoting St Cyprian, De orat. dom. 23; PL 4, 536).
 0.2 The bond of unity was evident in ‘the multiple gatherings of bishops in councils or synods to discuss in common issues of doctrine (dogma, didaskalia) and practice’ ([Chieti, 11](./jictd-chieti.html#11)). At the universal level, communion was fostered by cooperation among the five patriarchal sees, ordered according to a taxis (cf. [Chieti, 15](./jictd-chieti.html#15)). Despite many crises, the unity of faith and love was maintained through the practice of synodality and primacy (cf. [Chieti, 20](./jictd-chieti.html#20)).
 0.3 The present document considers the troubled history of the second millennium in four periods. It strives to give as far as possible a common reading of that history, and it gives Orthodox and Roman Catholics a welcome opportunity to explain themselves to one another at various points along the way, so as to further the mutual understanding and trust that are essential prerequisites for reconciliation at the start of the third millennium. The document concludes by drawing lessons from the history that has been surveyed.
 ## 1. From 1054 to the Council of Florence (1438-1439)
 1.1 At the beginning of the second millennium, difficulties and disagreements between East and West were exacerbated by cultural and political factors. The acts of excommunication in 1054 aggravated the estrangement between East and West. The eastern and western Churches made efforts to reestablish their unity. However, as a result of the crusades, and in particular the conquest of Constantinople by the fourth crusade (1204), the rupture of 1054 was sadly deepened. 
 1.2 The so-called Gregorian Reform, named after Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085), succeeded in putting an end to the systematic appointment of bishops and abbots by secular powers. Canonical elections were re-established, so that cathedral chapters would elect their diocesan bishops and monasteries would elect their abbot. At the same time, the reform intended to fight against moral abuses in the Church and in society in the West. This process of reform was led by the papacy through the traditional Roman local synods. Meanwhile, the power of the pope increasingly extended to the temporal sphere, as Gregory even succeeded in deposing Emperor Henry IV. There was a heightened stress on the responsibility of the Roman See to preserve the western Church from alien interference and inner abuses.
 1.3 Consequently, a more juridical ecclesiology was developed. The ‘False Decretals’ (9th cent.) and the false Donation of Constantine (prob. 8th cent.), which were mistakenly supposed to be authentic, stressed the central figure of the pope in the Latin Church. The new mendicant orders in the 13th century, such as the Franciscans and Dominicans, exempted from episcopal authority, promoted a conception of the papacy as being entrusted with the pastoral care of the whole Church.
 1.4 After the Investiture Controversy of the late 11th and early 12th centuries, the Church engaged in another great struggle with temporal powers for the direction of the western Christian world. Innocent III (1198-1216) consolidated the view of the pope as the head governing the whole ecclesial body. As the successor of Peter, the pope had the fulness of power (plenitudo potestatis) and a concern for all the churches (sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum). Individual bishops were called to share in his solicitude (in partem sollicitudinis), by caring for their own dioceses.
 1.5 At that time, despite the doctrinal development of Roman primacy, synodality was still evident. Popes continued to govern the Latin Church with the Roman synod, gathering the bishops of the Roman province and those present in Rome. The synod normally met twice a year. Problems were addressed and freely discussed by all participants. The pope as primus made the final decision. There is no evidence that the pope was bound by a vote, but there is no evidence either that the pope took any final decision contrary to the advice of his synod.
 1.6 During the 12th century, the role of the Roman synod was gradually replaced by the consistory, the meeting of the cardinals. Cardinals were members of the Roman clergy, seven of them being bishops of the suburbicarian sees of the province of Rome. The pope consulted the consistory on a regular basis. With the decrees of 1059 and 1179, the college of cardinals gained the exclusive right to elect the pope. The fact that cardinals were suburbicarian bishops or endowed with a Roman presbyteral or diaconal title stressed the fact that the Church of Rome and not any other body is entitled to elect her bishop.
 1.7 In the West, there were provincial synods, but the popes also convoked general councils, like the four Lateran Councils (1123, 1139, 1179, 1215) which continued the reform of the Church in the West. Constitution 5 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) stated that ‘the Roman Church … through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as she is the mother and teacher [mater et magistra] of all Christ’s faithful’. The same council called on the Greeks to ‘conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman Church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd’ (Const. 4). This call was not accepted.
 1.8 This period of papal predominance coincided with the crusades, which were initially prompted by an appeal of the Byzantine emperor in his conflict with the Seljuk Turks, but which developed into violent antagonism between Latins and Greeks. As a result of the first crusade (1095-1099), a Latin patriarch and Latin hierarchy were established in Antioch (1098) and in Jerusalem (1099), instead of or parallel to the Greek patriarchates. The third crusade (1189-1192) established a Latin hierarchy in Cyprus (1191), and, contrary to the canons, abolished the autocephaly of the Church of Cyprus. The Greek bishops, reduced in number from 15 to only four, were forced to be obedient to the Roman Church and to swear an oath to the respective Latin bishops.
 1.9 The fourth crusade (1204) resulted in the plundering of Constantinople and the establishment of parallel Latin hierarchies in the remaining ancient sees of the Greek Church. Though he discouraged the Venetians from conquering Constantinople, Pope Innocent III subsequently appointed a Latin patriarch in Constantinople as well as in Alexandria. The decisions of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) were imposed particularly on the Churches of Jerusalem and Cyprus. The principle whereby the ‘Greeks’ could keep their liturgical rituals but had to accept the bishop of Rome as their head and commemorate him, was practised especially in Cyprus (cf. the Latin synods of Limassol, 1220, and of Famagusta, 1222, and the Bulla Cypria of Pope Alexander IV, 1260). In many cases, the Greek clergy, considered from now on as belonging to the Latin Church, were forced to participate in Latin liturgical acts. The atmosphere worsened with the polemical attitude of theologians denouncing eastern usages as ‘errors of the Greeks’, or even ‘errors of the schismatic Greeks’.
 1.10 In spite of these trials, there were still those in the East who cultivated good ecclesial relations and worked for the restoration of unity. Great patriarchs with deep theological understanding, such as Philotheos Kokkinos (c.1300-1379), a disciple of Gregory Palamas, examined the possibility of convoking an ecumenical council that would provide a solution for the divisions.
 1.11 During the second millennium in the East, the conciliar institution functioned according to the canonical principles of Apostolic Canon 34, where the Patriarch of Constantinople as the protos and the bishops present in Constantinople participated in sessions of the Endemousa Synod. Through the Endemousa Synod, the Church expressed a form of permanent synodality in which the patriarchs of the East, present in Constantinople, or their representatives, and other bishops were convoked by the Patriarch of Constantinople to make synodal decisions.
 1.12 After the restoration of the Byzantine empire in Constantinople in 1261, it was possible to rebuild mutual relations. In fact, the Second Council of Lyon (1274) proclaimed an act of union which contained the profession of faith requested formerly by Pope Clement IV (1267) and signed by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (in February 1274), accepting Latin claims on the procession of the Holy Spirit, papal primacy, and other disputed points (e.g., purgatory, the azymes). It was affirmed that the Roman Church had ‘summum plenumque principatum [the highest and full primacy]’ over the whole Church and that the successor of Peter had received ‘plenam potestatem [fulness of power]’ to govern it, the other bishops being called to share his solicitude. This profession was rejected by the Church of Constantinople in 1285.
 1.13 During the 14th century, the Hesychast controversy, provoked by Barlaam, a monk of Calabria, arose in the East. The monks of Mount Athos delegated St Gregory Palamas to answer the challenges of Barlaam. During the 14th century, four synods in Constantinople (1341, 1347, 1351, and 1368) defended the distinction between the essence and the uncreated energy of God, developed by St Gregory Palamas on the basis of Fathers of the Church such as St Basil of Caesarea and St Maximus the Confessor. These events indicate the continuing practice of synodality in the East.
 1.14 The 14th and 15th centuries witnessed a radical change in the political sphere, putting an end to papal temporal predominance. The attempt of Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) to reaffirm papal supremacy in the temporal order in the bull Unam Sanctam (1302) was violently opposed by the king of France, so putting an end to the papal pretension to rule the world politically. This episode was followed a few years later by the exile of the papacy in the French city of Avignon, where the popes lived for seventy years under the control of the French monarchy.
 1.15 The chaos resulting from the election of two and then three popes provoked a deep trauma in the western Church. To resolve the crisis, a general council was convoked in Constance (1414-1418). This council, attended not only by bishops and abbots but also by representatives of political bodies, developed in its decree, Haec sancta (1415), the thesis that the highest authority in the Church belongs to a general council, understood as an assembly of bishops and secular powers, in contradistinction to the authority of the pope. This thesis is known as ‘conciliarism’. Conciliarism subverted the canonical role of the primate in the synod and jeopardised the freedom of the Church. It stressed the new idea that a council should ‘represent’ all the categories of Christian society, and that such a council, meeting every ten years, with the pope executing its decisions, would govern the Church. The ecclesial practice of synodality was thus challenged by the secular notion of corporate representation, a concept drawn from secular Roman law bestowing legal personality on collective bodies.
 1.16 The weakening of papal authority provided the opportunity for states to increase their control over the Church in the West. The Roman see was compelled to sign concordats which recognized the right of political powers to participate in the appointment of bishops. Such an agreement is exemplified in the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438), which endorsed conciliarism and prepared the ground for Gallicanism (see below, 2.3). Conciliarism was condemned at the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) and definitively excluded by the teaching of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870).
 1.17 The council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439) met while the conciliarist assembly of Basel (1431-1449), rejected by Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1447), was still in session. Both western parties invited the emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople, but in accordance with the pentarchy the emperor and the patriarch decided to go not to Basel but to Ferrara and then to Florence where the pope was present. It was also true that, under pressure from the Ottomans and needing western military assistance, the emperor and the patriarch recognized that the pope was in a position to generate western help in favour of Constantinople. The council addressed the points of disagreement which had arisen between the two Churches, mainly: the Filioque, the use of azymes for the Eucharist, purgatory, the beatific vision after death, and papal primacy. The bull of union, Laetentur coeli (1439), with a strong biblical introduction, praised Christ as the head and cornerstone of the reunited Church.
 1.18 The primary goal of the strong statements of Florence on papal primacy was the rejection of the conciliarist thesis of Basel. The council proceeded with three affirmations: ‘the holy Apostolic See [Rome] and the Roman pontiff have the primacy over the whole world’; ‘the same Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, … the head of the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians’; ‘to him, in the person of blessed Peter, was given by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power [plenam potestatem] of feeding, ruling, and governing [pascendi, regendi ac gubernandi] the whole Church’. These affirmations were accepted by the Greeks on three conditions, which were included in the decree: a) addition of the clause, ‘as is also contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons’; b) mention of the other patriarchal sees of the Pentarchy; and c) the maintenance of the privileges and the rights of the patriarchs (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, DS, 1307-1308).
 1.19 With regard to all of the disputed issues, the council stated that the differences in doctrinal formulation or canonical practice did not affect the unity of faith. The union was signed by the Greeks under the pressure of circumstances, and was subsequently not received by the Greek Church. It was officially rejected by the Council of Constantinople in 1484, with the participation of the four eastern patriarchates: ‘through this present synodal tomos, we overturn the council which was convened in Florence, along with its definition [the bull of union] and the propositions contained within it, and we declare by this tomos that the council of Florence is null and void’ (Melloni-Paschalidis, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, IV/1, 227).
 ## 2. From the Reformation to the 18th Century
 2.1 Two major new developments affected the relationship between synodality and primacy in the 16th-18th centuries: the Protestant Reformation, and the unions established between Rome and various eastern Churches. The rise of Protestantism led to contacts with the East and even hopes for union, at least during the preliminary phase of their encounter, though it further divided the West. Synodality was still practised in the East during this difficult period, and the decisions of several synods held at that time show what were the theological issues separating Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. The phenomenon of unions was experienced by the Orthodox as a wound and a threat, as causing further divisions in the East, and as a form of proselytism.
 2.2 The objections of the Reformers were taken up by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), but the council gave no definition of primacy. A consensus on the meaning of primacy and the rights of the primate was unattainable; episcopal counter-tendencies proved too strong, especially in France. While in some parts of the Latin Church the election of bishops by cathedral chapters continued to be practised, it was prescribed that provincial synods should be set up and should send a list of three names to Rome, so that the pope could choose and appoint bishops (session XXIV; Decretum de Reformatione, can.1). After Trent, the papacy took the lead in the Tridentine reforms and the Roman Catholic Church became increasingly centralized with regard to doctrine, liturgy, and missionary activity. The papacy was an important focus in the controversy with Protestantism about the true faith, and in the long run papal authority was strengthened in the post-Tridentine period. The papacy and commitment to it became a marker of Roman Catholic confessional identity against Protestantism. The efforts of both old and new religious orders (e.g. the Jesuits) for the Tridentine reform and in the counter-reformation in humanistic education and mission added to the authority of the papacy.
 2.3 Provincial synods, aimed at implementing the Tridentine reforms, took place in Italy (e.g., Milan, 1566), in the German Empire (e.g. Salzburg, 1569), in France (from 1581), and in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Piotrków, 1589). Under political pressure, the Roman Catholic bishops of many kingdoms sought greater autonomy with regard to papal primacy. These episcopalist tendencies (e.g. Gallicanism in France, Febronianism in Germany) continued to advocate for conciliarism. The French Revolution finally led to the downfall of the Ancien Régime and the destruction of the state Church, which ultimately strengthened ties between the Church in France and Rome, since after the collapse of the old order only the papacy had the authority to reorganise the Church (cf. the Concordat with France in 1801 and the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815).
 2.4 The juridical Millet system assigned all Orthodox living in the Ottoman Empire, irrespective of ethnic considerations, to the Rum-Millet, dependent upon the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in ecclesiastical and civil matters. This emphasized the latter’s central position within the Orthodox Church, known already from the canonical order, and enhanced its importance vis-à-vis the other ancient patriarchates. Despite this new situation, the spirit of synodality was nevertheless preserved. Councils were convoked by the ecumenical patriarch to resolve issues in a synodal way, such as the Council of Constantinople (1593), to confirm the title of patriarch granted earlier to the metropolitan of Moscow; the Council of Iasi (1642), to adjudicate the confession of faith of the Metropolitan of Kyiv, Peter Mohyla; and the two great Councils of Constantinople (1638, 1642). Further synods were convoked in Constantinople (1672, 1691), and by Patriarch Dositheus in Jerusalem (1672), which condemned the Confession of Faith attributed to the ecumenical patriarch, Cyril Loukaris.
 2.5 Beginning in the late 16th century, polemical works appeared by both eastern and western authors, particularly on the topic of papal supremacy. Subsequently, the question of papal primacy was addressed either polemically or apologetically in Eastern synodical decisions, confessions of faith, and canonical commentaries.
 2.6 Various unions between eastern Churches and Rome were established between the 16th and 18th centuries. The motives for these unions have always been contested. Genuine desire for the unity of the Church cannot be excluded from consideration. Religious and political factors frequently intertwined. The unions often appear as attempts to flee from unfortunate local situations. Some Ruthenians at the time of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth joined Rome at the Synod of Brest (1596). Other unions happened in Croatia (1611), Uzhorod (1646), Transylvania (1700-1701), and Serbia (1777). Albanian-speaking Orthodox who had fled at the end of the 15th century to southern Italy after the Turkish conquest, subsequently entered into communion with Rome. In 1724, at a time of vacancy of the patriarchal see of Antioch, the community in Damascus elected a pro-Catholic patriarch, who took the name of Cyril VI and was recognised by the pope in 1729, thereby forming the Melkite Catholic Church. Unions were also effected with other Churches.
 2.7 At the beginning of the 18th century, Tsar Peter I (1689-1725) introduced reforms in Russia at large and in the Church. The patriarchate was abolished (until 1917), and a Holy Synod under the leadership of a state official, the Oberprokuror, governed the Church. In restructuring the Church administration, Peter followed Protestant models. Synodal structures prevailed, but strongly under the influence of the state.
 ## 3. 19th Century Developments
 3.1 After the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, the situation of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe was precarious. The new political regimes, even the restored monarchies, were secular states which claimed to maintain control of the Church, just as the former regimes had done. An example was the French concordat of 1801. Later on, to avoid state interference in ecclesiastical affairs, the papacy adopted the doctrine of the Church as a ‘perfect society’, meaning that the Church was an independent, autonomous, and sovereign society in her own sphere of competence, just as the state was sovereign in temporal affairs. The Church claimed to be invested with an original legal system, i.e. not derived from or bestowed by the state.
 3.2 Pope Pius IX’s encyclical letter, In Suprema Petri Apostoli Sede (1848), emphasized that ‘the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiffs’ was always recognised in the East and called the Orthodox to return to communion with the See of Peter. The Orthodox patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem reacted and issued their patriarchal and synodical encyclical letter of 1848, in which, among other issues, they argued against papal supremacy.
 3.3 In 1868, Pope Pius IX issued a letter inviting all of the Orthodox bishops to the First Vatican Council, an invitation that was declined. Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VI told the papal delegation which delivered the letter that the attendance of Orthodox bishops at the Council ‘would mean a renewal of old theological disputes that would accentuate disagreement and reopen old wounds’. For Patriarch Gregory, the main source of disagreement was the nature of the pope’s authority.
 3.4 In the 19th century, the Orthodox Church was confronted with an exacerbation of nationalism, and even with the intention of integrating this into the structure of Church organisation. The Great Council held in Constantinople in 1872 condemned ethnophyletism, on the occasion of the Bulgarian schism. At the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, national emancipation movements led to the formation of nation states in the Balkans. In order to express and foster the eucharistic unity of the Church in this new situation, the Ecumenical Patriarchate granted a tomos of autocephaly to the Churches of Greece (1850), Serbia (1879), and Romania (1885), according to the canonical tradition, and these Churches were included in the diptychs.
 3.5 The First Vatican Council was held in 1869-1870, and it produced two documents: Pastor Aeternus (1870) on the Church, which defined papal primacy and infallibility, and Dei Filius (1870) on the Catholic faith. Much tension has arisen between Roman Catholics and Orthodox with regard to the council’s teaching on the papacy. Two points should be noted: first, Vatican I called Pastor Aeternus its ‘first’ dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ, because it was intended to be followed by another, Tametsi Deus, dealing more fully with the bishops and with the Church as a whole. However, the council was adjourned because of the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war and the draft of that second document was never discussed. The council thus left its ecclesiology unbalanced; its dogmatic teaching on the papacy was not complemented by teaching on the episcopacy nor contextualized by broader teaching on the Church. Second, the teaching of Pastor Aeternus was strongly influenced by the circumstances of the Church in 18th and 19th century western Europe, where there had been a resurgence of conciliarism in the form of Gallicanism and Febronianism (see above, 2.3), which promoted the autonomy of national Churches, and an accompanying tendency on the part of states to subordinate the Church to them. The council’s teaching on the primacy and universal jurisdiction of the pope was a response to the perceived threat to the unity and independence of the Church.
 3.6 Although Pastor Aeternus taught that the pope has ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction over the Church as a whole, it nevertheless stressed that the power of each bishop is ‘asserted, confirmed and vindicated’ by the pope, and affirmed that the Church’s ‘bond of unity’ is one of ‘communion and of profession of the same faith’ (DS 3060-3061). Moreover, the subsequent declaration of the German bishops in 1875, which was solemnly approved by Pope Pius IX, insisted, against certain interpretations of the council's teaching, that the papacy and the episcopate are both ‘of divine institution’ (DS 3115).
 3.7 With regard to infallibility, the council defined not the personal infallibility of the pope, but his ability under certain conditions to proclaim infallibly the faith of the Church (DS 3074), and when it said that such ex cathedra definitions are ‘irreformable of themselves, not because of the consent of the Church [ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae]’ it was not separating the pope from the communion and faith of the Church but declaring that such definitions do not need further ratification. That was a specific response to the 4th Gallican article of 1682, which stated that the pope’s judgment ‘is not irreformable, at least pending the consent of the Church’. 
 3.8 Vatican I reinforced the prevalent tendency in Western ecclesiology following Lateran IV, which held that the universal Church had priority over the local Churches and possessed its own structure above the latter. The pope was not simply the bishop of the local Church of Rome, but pastor of the whole Church. The pope had jurisdiction over the whole Church, while the bishops had jurisdiction over their particular flock.
 3.9 The teaching of Vatican I on the papal primacy of jurisdiction and infallibility was rejected by some Roman Catholics, who subsequently formed the Old Catholic Church. The teaching also provoked some reaction from the Catholic Eastern Churches, though they ultimately accepted it.
 3.10 Vatican I’s teaching on the papal primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church and papal infallibility was considered unacceptable by the Orthodox Church. Such an ecclesiology is for the Orthodox a serious departure from the canonical tradition of the Fathers and the ecumenical councils, because it obscures the catholicity of each local Church. In the wake of Vatican I, arguments deployed by the Orthodox included, among others: that the head of the whole Church is not a mortal, sinful man, but the sinless and immortal God-man Christ; that St Peter himself was not a monarch nor mighty, but first among the apostles; that the jurisdiction of each patriarch is geographically determined by the sacred canons, and that none has jurisdiction over the Church as a whole. On the specific matter of infallibility, the Orthodox Church also considered that infallibility belongs to the Church as a whole, as expressed by councils received by the entire people of God. It must be admitted that these arguments were often invoked in a polemical way, and not in a historical-critical manner.
 3.11 Pope Leo XIII’s apostolic letter, Orientalium Dignitas (1894), recognised the distinct rights of all the Catholic Eastern Churches and showed a respectful approach to Eastern traditions. His encyclical letter Praeclara Gratulationis (1895) invited all the Orthodox to union with the Church of Rome on the condition that they recognize the papal primacy of jurisdiction. Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus VII and the synod assembled around him wrote a patriarchal and synodical letter in 1895 to express their strongly negative opinion of uniatism as a method of proselytizing Orthodox Christians. They also rejected Pope Leo’s invitation.
 ## 4. The 20th and 21st Centuries: Ressourcement and Rapprochement
 4.1 In the 20th century, the biblical, patristic and liturgical movements resulted in greater attention being paid to the teaching of the Bible and the Fathers, and also to the liturgy. Roman Catholic-Orthodox relations have benefited from this common return to the sources (ressourcement).
 4.2 The concept of sobornost' was developed in 19th century Russia by a group of Orthodox thinkers called slavophiles as a reaction to the state-controlled Holy Synod established by Tsar Peter I in 1721 (cf. 2.7, above). The term derives from sobor, which in Church Slavonic means an ecclesial ‘gathering’ or ‘assembly’ or ‘synod’. In the symbol of faith, the Greek word katholikèn is translated in Church Slavonic as sobornuyu. The slavophiles intended by sobornost’ an intrinsic quality of the whole Church: its catholicity, and the participation of all the baptised in the life of the Church. The idea of sobornost' is apparent in the preparation, composition, and decision-making processes of the Council of Moscow (1917-1918), which involved all the components of the Church. Although it has been criticised, particularly for being too influenced by a collectivist ideal and not giving proper recognition to the Church’s hierarchy, sobornost' has had an important influence on ecclesiology, both Orthodox and Roman Catholic, because of its more conciliar understanding of the Church as communion (cf. also Ravenna, 5).
 4.3 In the 19th century in the West, the School of Tübingen promoted the concept of the Church as communion (communio) through a retrieval of the patristic tradition. This idea expresses the conviction that the life of the Church comes from above, and that the Church is an icon of the Holy Trinity (ecclesia de Trinitate), by the grace of the Holy Spirit. It was a basis for the renewal of ecclesiological reflection particularly in the 20th century. In such an understanding of the Church, there is both unity and diversity, as in the Holy Trinity, and this applies to the Church in various ways. The Church as a whole is the body of Christ in which each member is gifted by the Spirit for the benefit of the body and all are bound together by the bond of love (cf. 1Cor 12-13). The communion of saints (sancti) comes about through the communion in the holy gifts (sancta) (cf. 1Cor 10:16-17). Also, the one Church takes the form of a communion of local Churches, in each of which the one universal Church is present, such that there is a mutual indwelling between the local and the universal and among the local Churches themselves.
 4.4 One of the most important results of the 20th century ressourcement is ‘eucharistic ecclesiology’, which sees the local Church gathered around its bishop for the celebration of the Eucharist as a manifestation of the whole Church (cf. Ignatius, Smyrn. 8), and as the starting point and central focus of ecclesiological reflection. The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) taught that such a gathering is ‘the principal manifestation of the Church’ (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 41), and that the eucharistic sacrifice is ‘the source and summit of the whole Christian life’ (Lumen Gentium, 11; cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 10). It further highlighted the significance of the local Church when it said that ‘a bishop marked with the fullness of the sacrament of Orders, is “the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood”, especially in the Eucharist, which he offers or causes to be offered, and by which the Church continually lives and grows’ (Lumen Gentium, 26). The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in Crete (2016) stated that ‘the tradition of the Apostles and Fathers’ always emphasised ‘the indissoluble relation both between the entire mystery of the divine Economy in Christ and the mystery of the Church, and also between the mystery of the Church and the mystery of the holy Eucharist, which is continually confirmed in the sacramental life of the Church through the operation of the Holy Spirit’ (Encyclical, I, 2). It likewise stated that ‘each local Church as she offers the holy Eucharist is the local presence and manifestation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ (Message, 1). These two major councils need close consideration.
 4.5 At the turn of the 20th century, the Orthodox Church was facing many challenges—for instance, with regard to relationships with other Christians, proselytism, secularization, and ethnophyletism—that led the Ecumenical Patriarchate to seek closer collaboration between the autocephalous Orthodox Churches. In 1902, Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III sent a patriarchal and synodical encyclical to the autocephalous Orthodox Churches asking their opinion on a variety of topics, seeking to promote panorthodox unity. The Churches responded positively. In 1920, the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate issued an encyclical letter entitled ‘Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere’, calling for closer inter-Christian communication and collaboration. The Ecumenical Patriarchate also convoked a panorthodox conference in Constantinople in 1923, and subsequently organised a panorthodox meeting in the Vatopedi monastery on Mount Athos (1930), which already listed themes to be included in the agenda of the Holy and Great Council. These efforts were interrupted mainly by the Second World War.
 4.6 Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras convoked panorthodox conferences (Rhodes 1961, 1963 and 1964; Chambésy, Geneva 1968) that established the agenda of the Holy and Great Council. A series of pre-conciliar conferences was held at Chambésy to prepare the related documents. In this context, four Synaxes of the primates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches (Constantinople 2008 and 2014, Chambésy 2016, and Crete 2016) led to the convocation of the Holy and Great Council by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew with the unanimous consent of the primates of the Orthodox Churches in Crete from 19-27 June, 2016. The gathering of the Holy and Great Council shows that ‘The Orthodox Church expresses her unity and catholicity “in Council”. Conciliarity [i.e. synodality] pervades her organisation, the way decisions are taken and determines her path’ (Message, 1).
 4.7 Among other ecclesiological matters, the Second Vatican Council treated the question of how the episcopate is understood and how it is related to the papal ministry, which had remained open at Vatican I. Vatican II integrated and completed the teaching of Vatican I that the pope had supreme and full authority over the Church and that in certain circumstances he could infallibly proclaim the faith of the Church by saying that the body of bishops (‘college of bishops’) in union with its head, the pope, also exercises both of these prerogatives (Lumen Gentium, 22, 25, respectively). A greater balance was thus established between the bishops and the pope. The council reaffirmed the responsibility of bishops not just for their own local Churches but for the Church as a whole (Lumen Gentium, 23), and it particularly highlighted the significance of an ecumenical council, when the bishops act together with the pope as ‘teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 25). In 1965, Pope Paul VI instituted the Synod of Bishops as a ‘permanent Council of bishops for the universal Church’, representative of ‘the whole Catholic episcopate’, which would assist the pope in an advisory and consultative capacity (Apostolic Letter, Apostolica Sollicitudo).
 4.8 In January 1964, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras met on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. On 7 December 1965, the penultimate day of Vatican II, they lifted the mutual anathemas of 1054 in a simultaneous ceremony at the Vatican and the Phanar. In their exchanges during the 1960s, Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI started to use the terminology of ‘sister Churches’ with regard to the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople. Vatican II recognised that the Eastern Churches ‘possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist’ (Unitatis Redintegratio, 15), and urged dialogue with these Churches, paying attention to the relations that existed between them and the Roman See ‘before the separation’ (Unitatis Redintegratio, 14).
 4.9 In 1995, Pope John Paul II said: ‘If those who want to be first are called to become the servants of all, then the primacy of love will be seen to grow from the courage of this charity. I pray the Lord to inspire, first of all in myself, and in the bishops of the Catholic Church, concrete actions as a witness to this inner certitude’ (Orientale Lumen, 19). He also expressed a readiness ‘to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation’, and he proposed a discussion, particularly between Roman Catholic and Orthodox bishops and theologians, on the exercise of the primacy ‘that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned’ (Ut Unum Sint, 95). Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have regularly repeated this invitation, and both have often invoked St Ignatius of Antioch’s description of the Church of Rome as ‘presiding in love [agape]’ (Ad Romanos, Proemium).
 4.10 Pope Francis has emphasized that synodality is ‘a constitutive element of the Church’. His desire for ‘an entirely synodal Church’ (Address on the 50th Anniversary of the Institution of the Synod of Bishops, 17 October 2015) strongly encourages the search for a more effective synodality in the Roman Catholic Church. He has said that, ‘in the dialogue with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, we Catholics have the opportunity to learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and their experience of synodality’ (Encyclical Letter, Evangelii Gaudium, 2013, 246).
 ## Conclusion
 5.1 Major issues complicate an authentic understanding of synodality and primacy in the Church. The Church is not properly understood as a pyramid, with a primate governing from the top, but neither is it properly understood as a federation of self-sufficient Churches. Our historical study of synodality and primacy in the second millennium has shown the inadequacy of both of these views. Similarly, it is clear that for Roman Catholics synodality is not merely consultative, and for Orthodox primacy is not merely honorific. In 1979, Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios said: ‘The dialogue of charity … has opened up the way to better understanding of our respective theological positions and thereby to new approaches to theological work, and to a new attitude with regard to the common past of our Churches. This purification of the collective memory of our Churches is an important outcome of the dialogue of charity and an indispensable condition for future progress’ (Joint Declaration, 30 November 1979). Roman Catholics and Orthodox need to continue along that path so as to embrace an authentic understanding of synodality and primacy in light of the ‘theological principles, canonical provisions and liturgical practices’ (Chieti, 21) of the undivided Church of the first millennium.
 5.2 The Second Vatican Council opened new perspectives by fundamentally interpreting the mystery of the Church as one of communion. Today, there is an increasing effort to promote synodality at all levels in the Roman Catholic Church. There is also a willingness to distinguish what might be termed the patriarchal ministry of the pope within the Western or Latin Church from his primatial service with regard to the communion of all the Churches, offering new opportunities for the future. In the Orthodox Church, synodality and primacy are practised at the panorthodox level, according to the canonical tradition, by the holding of holy and great councils.
 5.3 Synodality and primacy need to be seen as ‘interrelated, complementary and inseparable realities’ (Chieti, 5) from a theological point of view (Chieti, 4, 17). Purely historical discussions are not enough. The Church is deeply rooted in the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and a eucharistic ecclesiology of communion is the key to articulating a sound theology of synodality and primacy.
 5.4 The interdependence of synodality and primacy is a fundamental principle in the life of the Church. It is intrinsically related to the service of the unity of the Church at the local, regional and universal levels. However, principles must be applied in specific historical settings, and the first millennium offers valuable guidance for the application of the principle just mentioned (Chieti, 21). What is required in new circumstances is a new and proper application of the same governing principle.
 5.5 Our Lord prayed that his disciples ‘may all be one’ (Jn 17:21). The principle of synodality-primacy in the service of unity should be invoked to meet the needs and requirements of the Church in our time. Orthodox and Roman Catholics are committed to finding ways to overcome the alienation and separation that occurred during the second millennium.
 5.6 Having reflected together on the history of the second millennium, we acknowledge that a common reading of the sources can inspire the practice of synodality and primacy in the future. Observing the mandate of our Lord to love one another as he has loved us (Jn 13:34), it is our Christian duty to strive for unity in faith and life.
--- a/src/page/ecumen/leo13-1894-praeclara.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/leo13-1894-praeclara.md
@ -1,99 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Praeclara gratulationis publicae: On the Reunion of Christendom
 author: Pope Leo XIII
 date: 1894-06-20
 source: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13praec.htm
 ---
 To Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Catholic World  
 In Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See
 Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction,
 The splendid tokens of public rejoicing which have come to Us from all sides in the whole course of last year, to commemorate Our Episcopal Jubilee, and which were lately crowned by the remarkable devotion of the Spanish Nation, have afforded Us special joy, inasmuch as the Unity of the Church and the admirable adhesion of her members to the Sovereign Pontiff have shone forth in this perfect agreement of concurring sentiments. During those days it seemed as if the Catholic world, forgetful of everything else, had centered its gaze and all its thoughts upon the Vatican.
 The special missions sent by Kings and Princes, the many Pilgrimages, the letters We received so full of affectionate feeling, the Sacred Services–everything clearly brought out the fact that all Catholics are of one mind and of one heart in their veneration for the Apostolic See. And this was all the more pleasing and agreeable to Us, that it is entirely in conformity with Our intent and with Our endeavors. For, indeed, well acquainted with Our times, and mindful of the duties of Our Ministry, We have constantly sought during the whole course of Our Pontificate and striven, as far as it was possible, by teaching and action, to bind every Nation and people more closely to Us, and make manifest everywhere the salutary influence of the See of Rome. Therefore, do We most earnestly offer thanks in the first place to the goodness of God, by whose help and bounty We have been preserved to attain Our great age; and then, next, to all the Princes and Rulers, to the Bishops and Clergy, and to as many as have co-operated by such repeated tokens of Piety and Reverence to Honor Our Character and Office, while affording Us personally such seasonable consolation.
 A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fullness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations of public joy and Reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.
 This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief.
 But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith.
 Pressed on to Our intent by Charity, that hastens fastest there where the need is greatest, We direct Our first thoughts to those most unfortunate of all nations who have never received the light of the Gospel, or who, after having possessed it, have lost it through neglect or the vicissitudes of time: Hence do they ignore God, and live in the depths of error. Now, as all salvation comes from Jesus Christ–for there is no other Name under Heaven given to men whereby we must be saved–Our ardent desire is that the most Holy Name of Jesus should rapidly pervade and fill every land.
 And here, indeed, is a duty which the Church, faithful to the Divine Mission entrusted to her, has never neglected. What has been the object of her labors for more than nineteen centuries? Is there any other work she has undertaken with greater zeal and constancy than that of bringing the nations of the earth to the Truth and Principles of Christianity? Today, as ever, by Our Authority, the Heralds of the Gospel constantly cross the seas to reach the farthest corners of the earth; and We Pray God daily that in His goodness He may deign to increase the number of His Ministers who are really worthy of this Apostolate, and who are ready to Sacrifice their convenience, their health, and their very life, if need be, in order to extend the frontiers of the Kingdom of Christ.
 Do Thou, above all, O Savior and Father of mankind, Christ Jesus, hasten and do not delay to bring about what Thou didst once promise to do–that when lifted up from the earth Thou wouldst draw all things to Thyself. Come, then, at last, and manifest Thyself to the immense multitude of souls who have not felt, as yet, the ineffable Blessings which Thou hast earned for men with Thy Blood; rouse those who are sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, that, enlightened by the rays of Thy Wisdom and Virtue, in Thee and by Thee “they may be made perfect in one.”
 As We consider the Mystery of this Unity We see before Us all the countries which have long since passed, by the Mercy of God, from timeworn error to the wisdom of the Gospel. Nor could We, indeed, recall anything more pleasing or better calculated to extol the work of Divine Providence that the memory of the days of yore, when the Faith that had come down from Heaven was looked upon as the common inheritance of one and all; when civilized nations, separated by distance, character and habits, in spite of frequent disagreements and warfare on other points, were united by Christian Faith in all that concerned Religion. The recollection of that time causes Us to regret all the more deeply that as the ages rolled by the waves of suspicion and hatred arose, and great and flourishing nations were dragged away, in an evil hour, from the bosom of the Roman Church. In spite of that, however, We trust in the Mercy of God’s Almighty Power, in Him Who alone can fix the hour of His benefits and Who has Power to incline man’s will as He pleases; and We turn to those same nations, exhorting and beseeching them with Fatherly love to put an end to their dissensions and return again to Unity.
 First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.
 The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ’s Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.
 And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, “in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report”; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began. Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.
 We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling. To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.
 Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: “What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified? What will our defense be in the eyes of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren.”
 Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.
 Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God’s bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: “Make the schisms of the Churches cease,” and “Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West.
 Suffer that We should address you more particularly, nations of the Slavonic race, you whose glorious name and deeds are attested by many an ancient record. You know full well how much the Slavs are indebted to the merits of St. Cyril and St. Methodius, to whose memory We Ourselves have rendered due honor only a few years ago. Their virtues and their labors were to great numbers of your race the source of civilization and salvation. And hence the admirable interchange, which existed for so long between the Slavonic nations and the Pontiffs of Rome, of favors on the one side and of filial devotion on the other. If in unhappy times many of your forefathers were separated from the Faith of Rome, consider now what priceless benefits a return of Unity would bring to you. The Church is anxious to welcome you also to her arms, that she may give you manifold aids to salvation, prosperity, and grandeur.
 With no less affection do We now look upon the nations who, at a more recent date, were separated from the Roman Church by an extraordinary revolution of things and circumstances. Let them forget the various events of times gone by, let them raise their thoughts far above all that is human, and seeking only truth and salvation, reflect within their hearts upon the Church as it was constituted by Christ. If they will but compare that Church with their own communions, and consider what the actual state of Religion is in these, they will easily acknowledge that, forgetful of their early history, they have drifted away, on many and important points, into the novelty of various errors; nor will they deny that of what may be called the Patrimony of Truth, which the authors of those innovations carried away with them in their desertion, there now scarcely remains to them any article of belief that is really certain and supported by Authority.
 Nay, more, things have already come to such a pass that many do not even hesitate to root up the very Foundation upon which alone rests all Religion, and the hope of men, to wit, the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ, Our Savior. And again, whereas formerly they used to assert that the books of the Old and the New Testament were written under the inspiration of God, they now deny them that Authority; this, indeed, was an inevitable consequence when they granted to all the right of private interpretation. Hence, too, the acceptance of individual conscience as the sole guide and rule of conduct to the exclusion of any other: hence those conflicting opinions and numerous sects that fall away so often into the doctrines of Naturalism and Rationalism.
 Therefore it is, that having lost all hope of an agreement in their persuasions, they now proclaim and recommend a union of brotherly love. And rightly, too, no doubt, for we should all be united by the bond of mutual Charity. Our Lord Jesus Christ enjoined it most emphatically, and wished that this love of one another should be the mark of His Disciples. But how can hearts be united in perfect Charity where minds do not agree in Faith?
 It is on this account that many of those We allude to men of sound judgment and seeking after Truth, have looked to the Catholic Church for the sure way of salvation; for they clearly understand that they could never be united to Jesus Christ, as their Head if they were not members of His Body, which is the Church; nor really acquire the True Christian Faith if they rejected the Legitimate teaching confided to Peter and his Successors. Such men as these have recognized in the Church of Rome the Form and Image of the True Church, which is clearly made manifest by the Marks that God, her Author, placed upon her: and not a few who were possessed with penetrating judgment and a special talent for historical research, have shown forth in their remarkable writings the uninterrupted succession of the Church. of Rome from the Apostles, the integrity of her Doctrine, and the consistency of her Rule and Discipline.
 With the example of such men before you, Our heart appeals to you even more than Our words: to you, Our Brethren, who for three centuries and more differ from Us on Christian Faith; and to you all likewise, who in later times, for any reason whatsoever, have turned away from Us: Let us all meet in the Unity of Faith and of the Knowledge of the Son of God. Suffer that We should invite you to the Unity which has ever existed in the Catholic Church and can never fail; suffer that We should lovingly hold out Our hand to you. The Church, as the common mother of all, has long been calling you back to her; the Catholics of the world await you with brotherly love, that you may render Holy Worship to God together with us, united in perfect Charity Worship to God together with us, united in perfect charity by the profession of one Gospel, One Faith and One Hope.
 To complete the harmony of this most desired unity, it remains for Us to address all those throughout the world whose salvation has long been the object of Our thoughts and watchful cares; We mean Catholics, whom the profession of the Roman Faith, while it renders them obedient to the Apostolic See, preserves in Union with Jesus Christ. There is no need to exhort them to True and Holy Unity, since through the Divine Goodness they already possess it; nevertheless, they must be admonished, lest under pressure of the growing perils on all sides around them, through negligence or indolence they should lose this great Blessing of God. For this purpose, let them take this Rule of thought and action, as the occasion may require, from those instructions which at other times We have addressed to Catholic people, either collectively or individually; and above all, let them lay down for themselves as a Supreme Law, to yield obedience in all things to the teaching and Authority of the Church, in no narrow or mistrustful spirit, but with their whole soul and promptitude of will.
 On this account let them consider how injurious to Christian Unity is that error, which in various forms of opinion has oft-times obscured, nay, even destroyed the True Character and idea of the Church. For by the Will and Ordinance of God, its Founder, it is a Society perfect in its kind, whose Office and Mission it is to school mankind in the Precepts and Teachings of the Gospel, and by safeguarding the integrity of Morals and the exercise of Christian Virtue, to lead men to that happiness which is held out to every one in Heaven. And since it is, as we have said, a perfect Society, therefore it is endowed with a living Power and efficacy which is not derived from any external source, but in virtue of the Ordinance of God and its own Constitution, inherent in its very nature; for the same reason it has an inborn Power of making Laws, and Justice requires that in its exercise it should be dependent on no one; it must likewise have freedom in other matters appertaining to its rights.
 But this freedom is not of a kind to occasion rivalry or envy, for the Church does not covet Power, nor is she urged on by any selfish desire; but this one thing she does wish, this only does she seek, to preserve amongst men the duties which Virtue imposes, and by this means and in this way to provide for their everlasting welfare. Therefore is she wont to be yielding and indulgent as a mother; yes, it not infrequently happens that in making large concessions to the exigencies of States, she refrains from the exercise of her own rights, as the compacts often concluded with civil governments abundantly testify.
 Nothing is more foreign to her disposition than to encroach on the rights of civil power; but the civil power in its turn must respect the rights of the Church, and beware of arrogating them in any degree to itself. Now, what is the ruling spirit of the times when actual events and circumstances are taken into account? No other than this: it has been the fashion to regard the Church with suspicion, to despise and hate and spitefully calumniate her; and, more intolerable still, men strive with might and main to bring her under the sway of civil governments. Hence it is that her property has been plundered and her liberty curtailed: hence again, that the training of her Priesthood has been beset with difficulties; that laws of exceptional rigor have been passed against her Clergy; that Religious Orders, those excellent safeguards of Christianity, have been suppressed and placed under a ban; in a word, the principles and practice of the regalists have been renewed with increased virulence.
 Such a policy is a violation of the most Sacred Rights of the Church, and it breeds enormous evils to States, for the very reason that it is in open conflict with the Purposes of God. When God, in His most Wise Providence, placed over human society both temporal and Spiritual Authority, He intended them to remain distinct indeed, but by no means disconnected and at war with each other. On the contrary, both the Will of God and the common weal of human society imperatively require that the civil power should be in accord with the Ecclesiastical in its Rule and Administration.
 Hence the State has its own peculiar rights and duties, the Church likewise has hers; but it is necessary that each should be united with the other in the bonds of concord. Thus will it come about that the close mutual relations of Church and State will be freed from the present turmoil, which for manifold reasons is ill-advised and most distressing to all well-disposed persons; furthermore, it will be brought to pass that, without confusion or separation of the peculiar interests of each, the people will render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.
 There is likewise a great danger threatening unity on the part of that association which goes by the name of Freemasons, whose fatal influence for a long time past oppresses Catholic nations in particular. Favored by the agitations of the times, and waxing insolent in its power and resources and success, it strains every nerve to consolidate its sway and enlarge its sphere. It has already sallied forth from its hiding-places, where it hatched its plots, into the throng of cities, and as if to defy the Almighty, has set up its throne in this very city of Rome, the Capital of the Catholic world. But what is most disastrous is, that wherever it has set its foot it penetrates into all ranks and departments of the commonwealth, in the hope of obtaining at last supreme control. This is, indeed, a great calamity: for its depraved principles and iniquitous designs are well known. Under the pretence of vindicating the rights of man and of reconstituting society, it attacks Christianity; it rejects revealed Doctrine, denounces practices of Piety, the Divine Sacraments, and every Sacred thing as superstition; it strives to eliminate the Christian Character from Marriage and the family and the education of youth, and from every form of instruction, whether public or private, and to root out from the minds of men all respect for Authority, whether human or Divine. On its own part, it preaches the worship of nature, and maintains that by the principles of nature are truth and probity and justice to be measured and regulated. In this way, as is quite evident, man is being driven to adopt customs and habits of life akin to those of the heathen, only more corrupt in proportion as the incentives to sin are more numerous.
 Although We have spoken on this subject in the strongest terms before, yet We are led by Our Apostolic watchfulness to urge it once more, and We repeat Our warning again and again, that in face of such an eminent peril, no precaution, howsoever great, can be looked upon as sufficient. May God in His Mercy bring to naught their impious designs; nevertheless, let all Christians know and understand that the shameful yoke of Freemasonry must be shaken off once and for all; and let them be the first to shake it off who are most galled by its oppression–the men of Italy and of France. With what weapons and by what method this may best be done We Ourselves have already pointed out: the victory cannot be doubtful to those who trust in that Leader Whose Divine Words still remain in all their force: I have overcome the world.
 Were this twofold danger averted, and government and States restored to the Unity of Faith, it is wonderful what efficacious remedies for evils and abundant store of benefits would ensue. We will touch upon the principal ones.
 The first regards the Dignity and Office of the Church. She would receive that Honor which is her due and she would go on her way, free from envy and strong in her liberty, as the Minister of Gospel Truth and Grace to the notable welfare of States. For as she has been given by God as a Teacher and Guide to the human race, she can contribute assistance which is peculiarly adapted to direct even the most radical transformations of time to the common good, to solve the most complicated questions, and to promote uprightness and justice, which are the most solid foundations of the commonwealth.
 Moreover there would be a marked increase of union among the nations, a thing most desirable to ward off the horrors of war.
 We behold the condition of Europe. For many years past peace has been rather an appearance than a realty. Possessed with mutual suspicions, almost all the nations are vying with one another in equipping themselves with military armaments. Inexperienced youths are removed from paternal direction and control, to be thrown amid the dangers of the soldier’s life; robust young men are taken from agriculture or ennobling studies or trade of the arts to be put under arms. Hence the treasures of States are exhausted by the enormous expenditure, the national resources are frittered away, and private fortunes impaired; and this, as it were, armed peace, which now prevails, cannot last much longer. Can this be the normal condition of human society? Yet we cannot escape from this situation, and obtain True Peace, except by the aid of Jesus Christ. For to repress ambition and covetousness and envy–the chief instigators of war–nothing is more fitted than the Christian Virtues and, in particular, the Virtue of Justice; for, by its exercise, both the law of nations and the faith of treaties may be maintained inviolate, and the bonds of brotherhood continue unbroken, if men are but convinced that Justice exalteth a nation.
 As in its external relations, so in the internal life of the State itself, the Christian Virtues will provide a guarantee of the commonweal much more sure and stronger far than any which laws or armies can afford. For there is no one who does not see that the dangers to public security and order are daily on the increase, since seditious societies continue to conspire for the overthrow and ruin of States, as the frequency of their atrocious outrages testifies.
 There are two questions, forsooth–the one called the social, and the other the political question–which are discussed with the greatest vehemence. Both of them, without doubt, are of the last importance, and, though praiseworthy efforts have been put forth, in studies and measures and experiments for their wise and just solution, yet nothing could contribute more to this purpose than that the minds of men in general should be imbued with right sentiments of duty from the internal principle of Christian Faith. We treated expressly of the social question in this sense a short time ago, from the standpoint of principles drawn from the Gospel and natural reason.
 As regards the political question, which aims at reconciling liberty with Authority–two things which many confound in theory, and separate too widely in practice–most efficient aid may be derived from the Christian Philosophy. For, when this point has been settled and recognized by common agreement, that, whatsoever the form of government, the Authority is from God, reason at once perceives that in some there is a Legitimate right to command, in others the corresponding duty to obey, and that without prejudice to their dignity, since obedience is rendered to God rather than to man; and God has denounced the most rigorous judgment against those in Authority, if they fail to represent Him with uprightness and justice. Then the liberty of the individual can afford ground of suspicion or envy to no one; since, without injury to any, his conduct will be guided by Truth and rectitude and whatever is allied to public order. Lastly, if it be considered what influence is possessed by the Church, the mother of and peacemaker between rulers and peoples, whose mission it is to help them both with her Authority and Counsel, then it will be most manifest how much it concerns the commonweal that all nations should resolve to unite in the same belief and the same profession of the Christian Faith.
 With these thoughts in Our mind and ancient yearnings in Our heart, We see from afar what would be the new order of things that would arise upon the earth, and nothing could be sweeter to Us than the contemplation of the benefits that would flow from it. It can hardly be imagined what immediate and rapid progress would be made all over the earth, in all manner of greatness and prosperity, with the establishment of tranquility and peace, the promotion of studies, the founding and the multiplying on Christian lines according to Our directions, of associations for the cultivators of soil, for workmen and tradesmen, through whose agency rapacious usury would be put down, and a large field opened up for useful labors.
 And these abundant benefits would not be confined within the limits of civilized nations, but, like an overcharged river, would flow far and wide. It must be remembered, as we observed at the outset, that an immense number of races have been waiting, all through the long ages, to receive the light of Truth and civilization. Most certainly, the counsels of God with regard to the eternal salvation of peoples are far removed above the understanding of man; yet if miserable superstition still prevails in so many parts of the world, the blame must be attributed in no small measure to Religious dissensions. For, as far as it is given to human reason to judge from the nature of events, this seems without doubt to be the mission assigned by God to Europe, to go on by degrees carrying Christian civilization to every portion of the earth. The beginnings and first growth of this great work, which sprang from the labors of former centuries, were rapidly receiving large development, when all of a sudden the discord of the sixteenth century broke out. Christendom was torn with quarrels and dissensions, Europe exhausted with contests and wars, and the Sacred Mission felt the baneful influence of the times. While the causes of dissension still remain, what wonder is it that so large a portion of mankind is held enthralled with barbarous customs and insane rites?
 Let us one and all, then, for the sake of the common welfare, labor with equal assiduity to restore the ancient concord. In order to bring about this concord, and spread abroad the benefits of the Christian Revelation, the present is the most seasonable time; for never before have the sentiments of human brotherhood penetrated so deeply into the souls of men, and never in any age has man been seen to seek out his fellowmen more eagerly in order to know them better and to help them. Immense tracts of land and sea are traversed with incredible rapidity, and thus extraordinary advantages are afforded not only for commerce and scientific investigations but also for the propagation of the Word of God from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same.
 We are well aware of the long labors involved in the restoration of that order of things which We desire; and it may be that there are those who consider that We are far too sanguine and look for things that are rather to be wished for than expected. But we unhesitatingly place all Our hope and confidence in the Savior of mankind, Jesus Christ, well remembering what great things have been achieved in times past by the folly of the Cross and its preaching, to the astonishment and confusion of the wisdom of the world. We beg of Princes and Rulers of States, appealing to their statesmanship and earnest solicitude for the people, to weigh Our Counsels in the balance of Truth and second them with their Authority and favor. If only a portion of the looked-for results should come about, it will cause no inconsiderable boon in the general decadence, when the intolerable evils of the present day bring with them the dread of further evils in days to come.
 The last years of the past century left Europe worn out with disasters and panic-stricken with the turmoils of revolution. And why should not our present century, which is now hastening to its close, by a reversion of circumstances bequeath to mankind the pledges of concord, with the prospects of the great benefits which are bound up in the Unity of the Christian Faith?
 May God, Who is rich in Mercy, and in Whose Power are the times and moments, grant Our wishes and desires, and in His great Goodness, hasten the fulfillment of that Divine Promise of Jesus Christ: There will be One Fold and One Shepherd.
 As a pledge of these Heavenly Gifts, and in witness of Our good will to you, Venerable Brothers, and to the Clergy and people committed to each of you, We most lovingly grant in the Lord the Apostolic Benediction.
--- a/src/page/ecumen/leo13-1896-satis.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/leo13-1896-satis.md
@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Satis cognitum: On the Unity of the Church
 date: 1896-06-29
 author: Pope Leo XIII
 source: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13satis.htm
 ---
 To Our Venerable Brethren, the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.
 Venerable Brethren, Health, and Benediction.
 1\. It is sufficiently well known unto you that no small share of Our thoughts and of Our care is devoted to Our endeavour to bring back to the fold, placed under the guardianship of Jesus Christ, the Chief Pastor of souls, sheep that have strayed. Bent upon this, We have thought it most conducive to this salutary end and purpose to describe the exemplar and, as it were, the lineaments of the Church. Amongst these the most worthy of Our chief consideration is Unity. This the Divine Author impressed on it as a lasting sign of truth and of unconquerable strength. The essential beauty and comeliness of the Church ought greatly to influence the minds of those who consider it. Nor is it improbable that ignorance may be dispelled by the consideration; that false ideas and prejudices may be dissipated from the minds chiefly of those who find themselves in error without fault of theirs; and that even a love for the Church may be stirred up in the souls of men, like unto that charity wherewith Christ loved and united himself to that spouse redeemed by His precious blood. “Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it” (Eph. v., 25).
 If those about to come back to their most loving Mother (not yet fully known, or culpably abandoned) should perceive that their return involves, not indeed the shedding of their blood (at which price nevertheless the Church was bought by Jesus Christ), but some lesser trouble and labour, let them clearly understand that this burden has been laid on them not by the will of man but by the will and command of God. They may thus, by the help of heavenly grace, realize and feel the truth of the divine saying, “My yoke is sweet and my burden light” (Matt. xi., 30).
 Wherefore, having put all Our hope in the “Father of lights,” from whom “cometh every best gift and every perfect gift” (Ep. James i., 17) – from Him, namely, who alone “gives the increase” (I Cor. iii., 6) – We earnestly pray that He will graciously grant Us the power of bringing conviction home to the minds of men.
 2\. Although God can do by His own power all that is effected by created natures, nevertheless in the counsels of His loving Providence He has preferred to help men by the instrumentality of men. And, as in the natural order He does not usually give full perfection except by means of man’s work and action, so also He makes use of human aid for that which lies beyond the limits of nature, that is to say, for the sanctification and salvation of souls. But it is obvious that nothing can be communicated amongst men save by means of external things which the senses can perceive. For this reason the Son of God assumed human nature – “who being in the form of God…. emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man” (Philipp. ii., 6,7) – and thus living on earth He taught his doctrine and gave His laws, conversing with men.
 3\. And, since it was necessary that His divine mission should be perpetuated to the end of time, He took to Himself Disciples, trained by himself, and made them partakers of His own authority. And, when He had invoked upon them from Heaven the Spirit of Truth, He bade them go through the whole world and faithfully preach to all nations, what He had taught and what He had commanded, so that by the profession of His doctrine, and the observance of His laws, the human race might attain to holiness on earth and neverending happiness in Heaven. In this wise, and on this principle, the Church was begotten. If we consider the chief end of His Church and the proximate efficient causes of salvation, it is undoubtedly spiritual; but in regard to those who constitute it, and to the things which lead to these spiritual gifts, it is external and necessarily visible. The Apostles received a mission to teach by visible and audible signs, and they discharged their mission only by words and acts which certainly appealed to the senses. So that their voices falling upon the ears of those who heard them begot faith in souls – “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the words of Christ” (Rom. x., 17). And faith itself – that is assent given to the first and supreme truth – though residing essentially in the intellect, must be manifested by outward profession – “For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. x., 10). In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.
 Jesus Christ commanded His Apostles and their successors to the end of time to teach and rule the nations. He ordered the nations to accept their teaching and obey their authority. But his correlation of rights and duties in the Christian commonwealth not only could not have been made permanent, but could not even have been initiated except through the senses, which are of all things the messengers and interpreters.
 For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ – “Now you are the body of Christ” (I Cor. xii., 27) – and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible: and because it is the body of Christ is it living and energizing, because by the infusion of His power Christ guards and sustains it, just as the vine gives nourishment and renders fruitful the branches united to it. And as in animals the vital principle is unseen and invisible, and is evidenced and manifested by the movements and action of the members, so the principle of supernatural life in the Church is clearly shown in that which is done by it.
 From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error: as also are those who regard the Church as a human institution which claims a certain obedience in discipline and external duties, but which is without the perennial communication of the gifts of divine grace, and without all that which testifies by constant and undoubted signs to the existence of that life which is drawn from God. It is assuredly as impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life. As Christ, the Head and Exemplar, is not wholly in His visible human nature, which Photinians and Nestorians assert, nor wholly in the invisible divine nature, as the Monophysites hold, but is one, from and in both natures, visible and invisible; so the mystical body of Christ is the true Church, only because its visible parts draw life and power from the supernatural gifts and other things whence spring their very nature and essence. But since the Church is such by divine will and constitution, such it must uniformly remain to the end of time. If it did not, then it would not have been founded as perpetual, and the end set before it would have been limited to some certain place and to some certain period of time; both of which are contrary to the truth. The union consequently of visible and invisible elements because it harmonizes with the natural order and by God’s will belongs to the very essence of the Church, must necessarily remain so long as the Church itself shall endure. Wherefore Chrysostom writes: “Secede not from the Church: for nothing is stronger than the Church. Thy hope is the Church; thy salvation is the Church; thy refuge is the Church. It is higher than the heavens and wider than the earth. It never grows old, but is ever full of vigour. Wherefore Holy Writ pointing to its strength and stability calls it a mountain” (Hom. De capto Eutropio, n. 6).
 Also Augustine says: “Unbelievers think that the Christian religion will last for a certain period in the world and will then disappear. But it will remain as long as the sun – as long as the sun rises and sets: that is, as long as the ages of time shall roll, the Church of God – the true body of Christ on earth – will not disappear” (In Psalm. lxx., n. 8). And in another place: “The Church will totter if its foundation shakes; but how can Christ be moved?…Christ remaining immovable, it (the Church, shall never be shaken. Where are they that say that the Church has disappeared from the world, when it cannot even be shaken?” (Enarratio in Psalm. ciii., sermo ii., n. 5).
 He who seeks the truth must be guided by these fundamental principles. That is to say, that Christ the Lord instituted and formed the Church: wherefore when we are asked what its nature is, the main thing is to see what Christ wished and what in fact He did. Judged by such a criterion it is the unity of the Church which must be principally considered; and of this, for the general good, it has seemed useful to speak in this Encyclical.
 4\. It is so evident from the clear and frequent testimonies of Holy Writ that the true Church of Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian can dare to deny it. But in judging and determining the nature of this unity many have erred in various ways. Not the foundation of the Church alone, but its whole constitution, belongs to the class of things effected by Christ’s free choice. For this reason the entire case must be judged by what was actually done. We must consequently investigate not how the Church may possibly be one, but how He, who founded it, willed that it should be one. But when we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: “I believe in one Church.” “The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts…We say, therefore, that the Catholic Church is unique in its essence, in its doctrine, in its origin, and in its excellence…Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution – a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it” (S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stronmatum lib. viii., c. 17). For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentions only one Church, which he calls His own – “I will build my church; ” any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church. This becomes even more evident when the purpose of the Divine Founder is considered. For what did Christ, the Lord, ask? What did He wish in regard to the Church founded, or about to be founded? This: to transmit to it the same mission and the same mandate which He had received from the Father, that they should be perpetuated. This He clearly resolved to do: this He actually did. “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John xx., 21). “Ad thou hast sent Me into the world I also have sent them into the world” (John xvii., 18).
 But the mission of Christ is to save that which had perished: that is to say, not some nations or peoples, but the whole human race, without distinction of time or place. “The Son of Man came that the world might be saved by Him” (John iii., 17). “For there is no other name under Heaven given to men whereby we must be saved” (Acts iv., 12). The Church, therefore, is bound to communicate without stint to all men, and to transmit through all ages, the salvation effected by Jesus Christ, and the blessings flowing there from. Wherefore, by the will of its Founder, it is necessary that this Church should be one in all lands and at all times. to justify the existence of more than one Church it would be necessary to go outside this world, and to create a new and unheard – of race of men.
 That the one Church should embrace all men everywhere and at all times was seen and foretold by Isaias, when looking into the future he saw the appearance of a mountain conspicuous by its all surpassing altitude, which set forth the image of “The House of the Lord” – that is, of the Church, “And in the last days the mountain of the House of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of the mountains” (Isa. ii., 2).
 But this mountain which towers over all other mountains is one; and the House of the Lord to which all nations shall come to seek the rule of living is also one. “And all nations shall flow into it. And many people shall go, and say: Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the House of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us His ways, and we will walk in His paths” (Ibid., ii., 2-3).
 Explaining this passage, Optatus of Milevis says: “It is written in the prophet Isaias: ‘from Sion the law shall go forth and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.’ For it is not on Mount Sion that Isaias sees the valley, but on the holy mountain, that is, the Church, which has raised itself conspicuously throughout the entire Roman world under the whole heavens….The Church is, therefore, the spiritual Sion in which Christ has been constituted King by God the Father, and which exists throughout the entire earth, on which there is but one Catholic Church” (De Schism. Donatist., lib. iii., n. 2). And Augustine says: “What can be so manifest as a mountain, or so well known? There are, it is true, mountains which are unknown because they are situated in some remote part of the earth But this mountain is not unknown; for it has filled the whole face of the world, and about this it is said that it is prepared on the summit of the mountains” (In Ep. Joan., tract i., n. 13).
 5\. Furthermore, the Son of God decreed that the Church should be His mystical body, with which He should be united as the Head, after the manner of the human body which He assumed, to which the natural head is physiologically united. As He took to Himself a mortal body, which He gave to suffering and death in order to pay the price of man’s redemption, so also He has one mystical body in which and through which He renders men partakers of holiness and of eternal salvation. God “hath made Him (Christ) head over all the Church, which is His body” (Eph. i., 22-23). Scattered and separated members cannot possibly cohere with the head so as to make one body. But St. Paul says: “All members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ” (I Cor. xii., 12). Wherefore this mystical body, he declares, is “compacted and fitly jointed together. The head, Christ: from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly jointed together, by what every joint supplieth according to the operation in the measure of every part” (Eph. iv., 15-16). And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. “There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitateccl. Unitate, n. 23). And to set forth more clearly the unity of the Church, he makes use of the illustration of a living body, the members of which cannot possibly live unless united to the head and drawing from it their vital force. Separated from the head they must of necessity die. “The Church,” he says, “cannot be divided into parts by the separation and cutting asunder of its members. What is cut away from the mother cannot live or breathe apart” (Ibid.). What similarity is there between a dead and a living body? “For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the Church: because we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones” (Eph. v., 29-30).
 Another head like to Christ must be invented – that is, another Christ if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. “See what you must beware of – see what you must avoid – see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member” (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).
 The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord – leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ….He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).
 6\. But He, indeed, Who made this one Church, also gave it unity, that is, He made it such that all who are to belong to it must be united by the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body – “one body and one spirit as you are called in one hope of your calling (Eph. iv., 4). Jesus Christ, when His death was nigh at hand, declared His will in this matter, and solemnly offered it up, thus addressing His Father: “Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in Me…that they also may be one in Us…that they may be made perfect in one” John xvii., 20-21 23). Yea, He commanded that this unity should be so closely knit and so perfect amongst His followers that it might, in some measure, shadow forth the union between Himself and His Father: “I pray that they all may be one as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee” (Ibid. 21).
 Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ.
 7\. The heavenly doctrine of Christ, although for the most part committed to writing by divine inspiration, could not unite the minds of men if left to the human intellect alone. It would, for this very reason, be subject to various and contradictory interpretations. This is so, not only because of the nature of the doctrine itself and of the mysteries it involves, but also because of the divergencies of the human mind and of the disturbing element of conflicting passions. From a variety of interpretations a variety of beliefs is necessarily begotten; hence come controversies, dissensions and wranglings such as have arisen in the past, even in the first ages of the Church. Irenaeus writes of heretics as follows: “Admitting the sacred Scriptures they distort the interpretations” (Lib. iii., cap. 12, n. 12). And Augustine: “Heresies have arisen, and certain perverse views ensnaring souls and precipitating them into the abyss only when the Scriptures, good in themselves, are not properly understood” (In Evang. Joan., tract xviii., cap. 5, n. 1). Besides Holy Writ it was absolutely necessary to insure this union of men’s minds – to effect and preserve unity of ideas – that there should be another principle. This the wisdom of God requires: for He could not have willed that the faith should be one if He did not provide means sufficient for the preservation of this unity; and this Holy Writ clearly sets forth as We shall presently point out. Assuredly the infinite power of God is not bound by anything, all things obey it as so many passive instruments. In regard to this external principle, therefore, we must inquire which one of all the means in His power Christ did actually adopt. For this purpose it is necessary to recall in thought the institution of Christianity.
 8\. We are mindful only of what is witnessed to by Holy Writ and what is otherwise well known. Christ proves His own divinity and the divine origin of His mission by miracles; He teaches the multitudes heavenly doctrine by word of mouth; and He absolutely commands that the assent of faith should be given to His teaching, promising eternal rewards to those who believe and eternal punishment to those who do not. “If I do not the works of my Father, believe Me not” John x., 37). “If I had not done among them the works than no other man had done, they would not have sin” (Ibid. xv., 24). “But if I do (the works) though you will not believe Me, believe the works” (Ibid. x., 38). Whatsoever He commands, He commands by the same authority. He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point.
 When about to ascend into heaven He sends His Apostles in virtue of the same power by which He had been sent from the Father; and he charges them to spread abroad and propagate His teaching. “All power is given to Me in Heaven and in earth. Going therefore teach all nations….teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. xxviii., 18-1920). So that those obeying the Apostles might be saved, and those disobeying should perish. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believed not shall be condemned” (Mark xvi., 16). But since it is obviously most in harmony with God’s providence that no one should have confided to him a great and important mission unless he were furnished with the means of properly carrying it out, for this reason Christ promised that He would send the Spirit of Truth to His Disciples to remain with them for ever. “But if I go I will send Him (the Paraclete) to you….But when He, the Spirit of Truth is come, He will teach you all truth” John xvi., 7 13). “And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of Truth” (Ibid. xiv., 16-17). “He shall give testimony of Me, and you shall give testimony” (Ibid. xv., 26-27). Hence He commands that the teaching of the Apostles should be religiously accepted and piously kept as if it were His own – “He who hears you hears Me, he who despises you despises Me” (Luke x., 16). Wherefore the Apostles are ambassadors of Christ as He is the ambassador of the Father. “As the Father sent Me so also I send you” John xx., 21). Hence as the Apostles and Disciples were bound to obey Christ, so also those whom the Apostles taught were, by God’s command, bound to obey them. And, therefore, it was no more allowable to repudiate one iota of the Apostles’ teaching than it was to reject any point of the doctrine of Christ Himself.
 Truly the voice of the Apostles, when the Holy Ghost had come down upon them, resounded throughout the world. Wherever they went they proclaimed themselves the ambassadors of Christ Himself. “By whom (Jesus Christ) we have received grace and Apostleship for obedience to the faith in all nations for His name” (Rom. i., 5). And God makes known their divine mission by numerous miracles. “But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed” (Mark xvi., 20). But what is this word? That which comprehends all things, that which they had learnt from their Master; because they openly and publicly declare that they cannot help speaking of what they had seen and heard.
 But, as we have already said, the Apostolic mission was not destined to die with the Apostles themselves, or to come to an end in the course of time, since it was intended for the people at large and instituted for the salvation of the human race. For Christ commanded His Apostles to preach the “Gospel to every creature, to carry His name to nations and kings, and to be witnesses to him to the ends of the earth.” He further promised to assist them in the fulfilment of their high mission, and that, not for a few years or centuries only, but for all time – “even to the consummation of the world.” Upon which St. Jerome says: “He who promises to remain with His Disciples to the end of the world declares that they will be for ever victorious, and that He will never depart from those who believe in Him” (In Matt., lib. iv., cap. 28, v. 20). But how could all this be realized in the Apostles alone, placed as they were under the universal law of dissolution by death? It was consequently provided by God that the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ should not end with the life of the Apostles, but that it should be perpetuated. We see it in truth propagated, and, ‘as it were, delivered from hand to hand. For the Apostles consecrated bishops, and each one appointed those who were to succeed them immediately “in the ministry of the word.”
 Nay more: they likewise required their successors to choose fitting men, to endow them with like authority, and to confide to them the office and mission of teaching. “Thou, therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus: and the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same command to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also” (2 Tim. ii., 1-2). Wherefore, as Christ was sent by God and the Apostles by Christ, so the Bishops and those who succeeded them were sent by the Apostles. “The Apostles were appointed by Christ to preach the Gospel to us. Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ is therefore from God, and the Apostles from Christ, and both according to the will of God….Preaching therefore the word through the countries and cities, when they had proved in the Spirit the first – fruits of their teaching they appointed bishops and deacons for the faithful….They appointed them and then ordained them, so that when they themselves had passed away other tried men should carry on their ministry” (S. Clemens Rom. Epist. I ad Corinth. capp. 42, 44). On the one hand, therefore, it is necessary that the mission of teaching whatever Christ had taught should remain perpetual and immutable, and on the other that the duty of accepting and professing all their doctrine should likewise be perpetual and immutable. “Our Lord Jesus Christ, when in His Gospel He testifies that those who not are with Him are His enemies, does not designate any special form of heresy, but declares that all heretics who are not with Him and do not gather with Him, scatter His flock and are His adversaries: He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth” (S. Cyprianus, Ep. lxix., ad Magnum, n. I).
 9\. The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
 The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
 The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: “Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: “One Lord, one faith,” and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: “that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only – “but until we all meet in the unity of faith…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that – “He gave some Apostles – and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (11-12).
 Wherefore, from the very earliest times the fathers and doctors of the Church have been accustomed to follow and, with one accord to defend this rule. Origen writes: “As often as the heretics allege the possession of the canonical scriptures, to which all Christians give unanimous assent, they seem to say: ‘Behold the word of truth is in the houses.’ But we should believe them not and abandon not the primary and ecclesiastical tradition. We should believe not otherwise than has been handed down by the tradition of the Church of God” (Vetus Interpretatio Commentariorum in Matt. n. 46). Irenaeus too says: “The doctrine of the Apostles is the true faith…which is known to us through the Episcopal succession…which has reached even unto our age by the very fact that the Scriptures have been zealously guarded and fully interpreted” (Contra Haereses, lib. iv., cap. 33, n. 8). And Tertullian: “It is therefore clear that all doctrine which agrees with that of the Apostolic churches – the matrices and original centres of the faith, must be looked upon as the truth, holding without hesitation that the Church received it from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God….We are in communion with the Apostolic churches, and by the very fact that they agree amongst themselves we have a testimony of the truth” (De Praescrip., cap. xxxi). And so Hilary: “Christ teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached. Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand: they cannot comprehend” (Comment. in Matt. xiii., n. 1). Rufinus praises Gregory of Nazianzum and Basil because “they studied the text of Holy Scripture alone, and took the interpretation of its meaning not from their own inner consciousness, but from the writings and on the authority of the ancients, who in their turn, as it is clear, took their rule for understanding the meaning from the Apostolic succession” (Hist. Eccl., lib. ii., cap. 9).
 Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. “Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee” (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2). In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).
 For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: “All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are pro posed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium” (Sess. iii., cap. 3). Hence, as it is clear that God absolutely willed that there should be unity in His Church, and as it is evident what kind of unity He willed, and by means of what principle He ordained that this unity should be maintained, we may address the following words of St. Augustine to all who have not deliberately closed their minds to the truth: “When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?” (De Unitate Credendi, cap. xvii., n. 35).
 It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour for ever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.
 10\. But as this heavenly doctrine was never left to the arbitrary judgment of private individuals, but, in the beginning delivered by Jesus Christ, was afterwards committed by Him exclusively to the Magisterium already named, so the power of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the authority of ruling and governing, was not bestowed by God on all Christians indiscriminately, but on certain chosen persons. For to the Apostles and their legitimate successors alone these words have reference: “Going into the whole world preach the Gospel.” “Baptizing them.” “Do this in commemoration of Me.” “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them.” And in like manner He ordered the Apostles only and those who should lawfully succeed them to feed – that is to govern with authority – alll Christian souls. Whence it also follows that it is necessarily the duty of Christians to be subject and to obey. And these duties of the Apostolic office are, in general, all included in the words of St. Paul: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God” (I Cor. iv., I).
 Wherefore Jesus Christ bade all men, present and future, follow Him as their leader and Saviour; and this, not merely as individuals, but as forming a society, organized and united in mind. In this way a duly constituted society should exist, formed out of the divided multitude of peoples, one in faith, one in end, one in the participation of the means adapted to the attainment of the end, and one as subject to one and the same authority. To this end He established in the Church all principles which necessarily tend to make organized human societies, and through which they attain the perfection proper to each. That is, in it (the Church), all who wished to be the sons of God by adoption might attain to the perfection demanded by their high calling, and might obtain salvation. The Church, therefore, as we have said, is man’s guide to whatever pertains to Heaven. This is the office appointed unto it by God: that it may watch over and may order all that concerns religion, and may, without let or hindrance, exercise, according to its judgment, its charge over Christianity. Wherefore they who pretend that the Church has any wish to interfere in Civil matters, or to infringe upon the rights of the State, know it not, or wickedly calumniate it.
 God indeed even made the Church a society far more perfect than any other. For the end for which the Church exists is as much higher than the end of other societies as divine grace is above nature, as immortal blessings are above the transitory things on the earth. Therefore the Church is a society divine in its origin, supernatural in its end and in means proximately adapted to the attainment of that end; but it is a human community inasmuch as it is composed of men. For this reason we find it called in Holy Writ by names indicating a perfect society. It is spoken of as the House of God, the city placed upon the mountain to which all nations must come. But it is also the fold presided over by one Shepherd, and into which all Christ’s sheep must betake themselves. Yea, it is called the kingdom which God has raised up and which will stand for ever. Finally it is the body of Christ – that is, of course, His mystical body, but a body living and duly organized and composed of many members; members indeed which have not all the same functions, but which, united one to the other, are kept bound together by the guidance and authority of the head.
 Indeed no true and perfect human society can be conceived which is not governed by some supreme authority. Christ therefore must have given to His Church a supreme authority to which all Christians must render obedience. For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino. “The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head” (St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, 9, xxxix., a. I). From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by schism, as well as by heresy. “We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism” (writes St. Jerome): “heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some Episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church” (S. Hieronymus, Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. iii., v. 1011). In which judgment St. John Chrysostom concurs: “I say and protest (he writes) that it is as wrong to divide the Church as to fall into heresy” (Hom. xi., in Epist. ad Ephes., n. 5). Wherefore as no heresy can ever be justifiable, so in like manner there can be no justification for schism. “There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism….there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church” (S. Augustinus, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. ii., cap. ii., n. 25).
 11\. The nature of this supreme authority, which all Christians are bound to obey, can be ascertained only by finding out what was the evident and positive will of Christ. Certainly Christ is a King for ever; and though invisible, He continues unto the end of time to govern and guard His church from Heaven. But since He willed that His kingdom should be visible He was obliged, when He ascended into Heaven, to designate a vice-gerent on earth. “Should anyone say that Christ is the one head and the one shepherd, the one spouse of the one Church, he does not give an adequate reply. It is clear, indeed, that Christ is the author of grace in the Sacraments of the Church; it is Christ Himself who baptizes; it is He who forgives sins; it is He who is the true priest who hath offered Himself upon the altar of the cross, and it is by His power that His body is daily consecrated upon the altar; and still, because He was not to be visibly present to all the faithful, He made choice of ministers through whom the aforesaid Sacraments should be dispensed to the faithful as said above” (cap. 74). “For the same reason, therefore, because He was about to withdraw His visible presence from the Church, it was necessary that He should appoint someone in His place, to have the charge of the Universal Church. Hence before His Ascension He said to Peter: ‘Feed my sheep’ ” (St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, lib. iv., cap. 76).
 Jesus Christ, therefore, appointed Peter to be that head of the Church; and He also determined that the authority instituted in perpetuity for the salvation of all should be inherited by His successors, in whom the same permanent authority of Peter himself should continue. And so He made that remarkable promise to Peter and to no one else: “Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. xvi., 18). “To Peter the Lord spoke: to one, therefore, that He might establish unity upon one” (S. Pacianus ad Sempronium, Ep. iii., n. 11). “Without any prelude He mentions St. Peter’s name and that of his father (Blessed art thou Simon, son of John) and He does not wish Him to be called any more Simon; claiming him for Himself according to His divine authority He aptly names him Peter, from petra the rock, since upon him He was about to found His Church” (S. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, In Evang. Joan., lib. ii., in cap. i., v. 42).
 12\. From this text it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. It must be the necessary condition of stability and strength. Remove it and the whole building falls. It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity. How could he fulfil this office without the power of commanding, forbidding, and judging, which is properly called jurisdiction? It is only by this power of jurisdiction that nations and commonwealths are held together. A primacy of honour and the shadowy right of giving advice and admonition,which is called direction, could never secure to any society of men unity or strength. The words – and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak. “What is the it?” (writes Origen). “Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church or the Church? The expression indeed is ambiguous, as if the rock and the Church were one and the same. I indeed think that this is so, and that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail” (Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii). The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. “For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built ‘His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it” (Ibid.). Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power. He invested him, therefore, with the needful authority; since the right to rule is absolutely required by him who has to guard human society really and effectively. This, furthermore, Christ gave: “To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.” And He is clearly still speaking of the Church, which a short time before He had called His own, and which He declared He wished to build on Peter as a foundation. The Church is typified not only as an edifice but as a Kingdom, and every one knows that the keys constitute the usual sign of governing authority. Wherefore when Christ promised to give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, he promised to give him power and authority over the Church. “The Son committed to Peter the office of spreading the knowledge of His Father and Himself over the whole world. He who increased the Church in all the earth, and proclaimed it to be stronger than the heavens, gave to a mortal man all power in Heaven when He handed him the Keys” (S. Johannes Chrysostomus, Hom. Liv., in Matt. v., 2). In this same sense He says: “Whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth it shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed also in Heaven.” This metaphorical expression of binding and loosing indicates the power of making laws, of judging and of punishing; and the power is said to be of such amplitude and force that God will ratify whatever is decreed by it. Thus it is supreme and absolutely independent, so that, having no other power on earth as its superior, it embraces the whole Church and all things committed to the Church.
 The promise is carried out when Christ the Lord after His Resurrection, having thrice asked Peter whether he loved Him more than the rest, lays on him the injunction: “Feed my lambs – feed my sheep.” That is He confides to him, without exception, all those who were to belong to His fold. “The Lord does not hesitate. He interrogates, not to learn but to teach. When He was about to ascend into Heaven He left us, as it were, vice-gerent of His love….and so because Peter alone of all others professes his love he is preferred to all – that being the most perfect he should govern the more perfect” (S. Ambrosius, Exposit. in Evang. secundum Lucam, lib. x., nn. 175-176).
 These, then, are the duties of a shepherd: to place himself as leader at the head of his flock, to provide proper food for it, to ward off dangers, to guard against insidious foes, to defend it against violence: in a word to rule and govern it. Since therefore Peter has been placed as shepherd of the Christian flock he has received the power of governing all men for whose salvation Jesus Christ shed His blood. “Why has He shed His blood? To buy the sheep which He handed over to Peter and his successors” (S. Joannes Chrysostomus, De Sacerdotio, lib. ii).
 And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith. “But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not” (Luke xxii., 32), and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: “Confirm thy brethren” (Ibid.). He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defence of its faith. “Could not Christ who confided to him the Kingdom by His own authority have strengthened the faith of one whom He designated a rock to show the foundation of the Church?” (S. Ambrosius, De Fide, lib. iv., n. 56). For this reason Jesus Christ willed that Peter should participate in certain names, signs of great things which properly belong to Himself alone: in order that identity of titles should show identity of power. So He who is Himself “the chief corner-stone in whom all the building being framed together, groweth up in a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. ii., 21), placed Peter as it were a stone to support the Church. “When he heard ‘thou art a rock,’ he was ennobled by the announcement. Although he is a rock, not as Christ is a rock, but as Peter is a rock. For Christ is by His very being an immovable rock; Peter only through this rock. Christ imparts His gifts, and is not exhausted….He is a priest, and makes priests. He is a rock, and constitutes a rock” (Hom. de Poenitentia, n. 4 in Appendice opp. S. Basilii). He who is the King of His Church, “Who hath the key of David, who openeth and no man shutteth, who shutteth and no man openeth (Apoc. iii., 7), having delivered the keys to Peter declared him Prince of the Christian commonwealth. So, too, He, the Great Shepherd, who calls Himself “the Good Shepherd,” constituted Peter the pastor “of His lambs and sheep. Feed My lambs, feed My Sheep.” Wherefore Chrysostom says: “He was preeminent among the Apostles: He was the mouthpiece of the Apostles and the head of the Apostolic College….at the same time showing him that henceforth he ought to have confidence, and as it were blotting out his denial, He commits to him the government of his brethren….He saith to him: ‘If thou lovest Me, be over my brethren.’ Finally He who confirms in “every good work and word” (2 Thess. ii., 16) commands Peter “to con firm his brethren.”
 Rightly, therefore, does St. Leo the Great say: “From the whole world Peter alone is chosen to take the lead in calling all nations, to be the head of all the Apostles and of all the Fathers of the Church. So that, although in the people of God there are many priests and many pastors Peter should by right rule all of those over whom Christ Himself is the chief ruler” (Sermo iv., cap. 2). And so St. Gregory the great, writing to the Emperor Maurice Augustus, says: “It is evident to all who know the gospel that the charge of the whole Church was committed to St. Peter, the Apostle and Prince of all tie Apostles, by the word of the Lord….Behold! he hath received the keys of the heavenly kingdom – the power of binding and loosing is conferred upon him: the care of the whole government of the Church is confided to him” (Epist. Iib. v., Epist. xx).
 13\. It was necessary that a government of this kind, since it belongs to the constitution and formation of the Church, as its principal element that is as the principle of unity and the foundation of lasting stability – should in no wise come to an end with St. Peter, but should pass to his successors from one to another. “There remains, therefore, the ordinance of truth, and St. Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he had received, hath not abandoned the government of the Church which had been confided to him” (S. Leo M. sermo iii., cap. 3). For this reason the Pontiffs who succeed Peter in the Roman Episcopate receive the supreme power in the church, jure divino. “We define” (declare the Fathers of the Council of Florence) “that the Holy and Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy of the Church throughout the whole world: and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him, in Blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed, to rule, and to govern the universal Church, as is also contained in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons” (Conc. Florentinum). Similarly the Fourth Council of Lateran declares: “The Roman Church, as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, by the will of Christ obtains primacy of jurisdiction over all other Churches.” These declarations were preceded by the consent of antiquity which ever acknowledged, without the slightest doubt or hesitation, the Bishops of Rome, and revered them, as the legitimate successors of St. Peter.
 Who is unaware of the many and evident testimonies of the holy Fathers which exist to this effect? Most remarkable is that of St. Irenaeus who, referring to the Roman Church, says: “With this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, it is necessary that every Church should be in concord” (Contra Haereses, lib. iii., cap. 3, n. 2); and St. Cyprian also says of the Roman Church, that “it is the root and mother of the Catholic Church, the chair of Peter, and the principal Church whence sacerdotal unity has its source” (Ep. xlviii., ad Cornelium, n. 3. and Ep. lix., ad eundem, n. 14). He calls it the chair of Peterbecause it is occupied by the successor of Peter: he calls it the principal Church, on account of the primacy conferred on Peter himself and his legitimate successors; and the source of unity, because the Roman Church is the efficient cause of unity in the Christian commonwealth. For this reason Jerome addresses Damasus thus: “My words are spoken to the successor of the Fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross….I communicate with none save your Blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this I know is the rock on which the Church is built” (Ep. xv., ad Damasum, n. 2). Union with the Roman See of Peter is to him always the public criterion of a Catholic. “I acknowledge everyone who is united with the See of Peter” (Ep. xvi., ad Damasum, n. 2). And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, “the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church” (Ep. xliii., n. 7); and he denies that anyone who dissents from the Roman faith can be a Catholic. “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held” (Sermo cxx., n. 13). So, too, St. Cyprian: “To be in communion with Cornelius is to be in communion with the Catholic Church” (Ep. Iv., n. 1). In the same way Maximus the Abbot teaches that obedience to the Roman Pontiff is the proof of the true faith and of legitimate communion. Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man…but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.” The reason and motive of this he explains to be that “the Apostolic See has received and hath government, authority, and power of binding and loosing from the Incarnate Word Himself; and, according to all holy synods, sacred canons and decrees, in all things and through all things, in respect of all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world, since the Word in Heaven who rules the Heavenly powers binds and loosens there” (Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustrem).
 Wherefore what was acknowledged and observed as Christian faith, not by one nation only nor in one age, but by the East and by the West, and through all ages, this Philip, the priest, the Pontifical legate at the Council of Ephesus, no voice being raised in dissent, recalls: “No one can doubt, yea, it is known unto all ages, that St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and the ground of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the Kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ. That is: the power of forgiving and retaining sins was given to him who, up to the present time, lives and exercises judgment in the persons of his successors” (Actio iii.). The pronouncement of the Council of Chalcedon on the same matter is present to the minds of all: “Peter has spoken through Leo” (Actio ii.), to which the voice of the Third Council of Constantinople responds as an echo: “The chief Prince of the Apostles was fighting on our side: for we have had as our ally his follower and the successor to his see: and the paper and the ink were seen, and Peter spoke through Agatho” (Actio xviii.).
 In the formula of Catholic faith drawn up and proposed by Hormisdas, which was subscribed at the beginning of the sixth century in the great Eighth Council by the Emperor Justinian, by Epiphanius, John and Menna, the Patriarchs, this same is declared with great weight and solemnity. “For the pronouncement of Our Lord Jesus Christ saying: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ &c., cannot be passed over. What is said is proved by the result, because Catholic faith has always been preserved without stain in the Apostolic See” (Post Epistolam, xxvi., ad omnes Episc. Hispan., n. 4). We have no wish to quote every available declaration; but it is well to recall the formula of faith which Michael Paleologus professed in the Second Council of Lyons: “The same holy Roman Church possesses the sovereign and plenary primacy and authority over the whole Catholic Church, which, truly and humbly, it acknowledges to have received together with the plenitude of power from the Lord Himself, in the person of St. Peter, the Prince or Head of the Apostles, of whom the Roman Pontiff is the successor. And as it is bound to defend the truth of faith beyond all others, so also if any question should arise concerning the faith it must be deter mined by its judgment” (Actio iv.).
 14\. But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose, twelve, whom He called apostles” (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicarsof the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.
 But since the successor of Peter is one, and those of the Apostles are many, it is necessary to examine into the relations which exist between him and them according to the divine constitution of the Church. Above all things the need of union between the bishops and the successors of Peter is clear and undeniable. This bond once broken, Christians would be separated and scattered, and would in no wise form one body and one flock. “The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chief priest, to whom if an extraordinary and supreme power is not given, there are as many schisms to be expected in the Church as there are priests” (S. Hieronymus, Dialog, contra Luciferianos, n. 9). It is necessary, therefore, to bear this in mind, viz., that nothing was conferred on the apostles apart from Peter, but that several things were conferred upon Peter apart from the Apostles. St. John Chrysostom in explaining the words of Christ asks: “Why, passing over the others, does He speak to Peter about these things?” And he replies unhesitatingly and at once, “Because he was pre eminent among the Apostles, the mouthpiece of the Disciples, and the head of the college” (Hom. lxxxviii. in Joan., n. 1). He alone was designated as the foundation of the Church. To him He gave the power of binding and loosing; to him alone was given the power of feeding. On the other hand, whatever authority and office the Apostles received, they received in conjunction with Peter. “If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him and the other princes, whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it” (S. Leo M. sermo iv., cap. 2).
 15\. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.
 These things enable us to see the heavenly ideal, and the divine exemplar, of the constitution of the Christian commonwealth, namely: When the Divine founder decreed that the Church should be one in faith, in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors as the principle and centre, as it were, of this unity. Wherefore St. Cyprian says: “The following is a short and easy proof of the faith. The Lord saith to Peter: ‘I say to thee thou art Peter’; on him alone He buildeth His Church; and although after His Resurrection He gives a similar power to all the Apostles and says: ‘As the Father hath sent me,’ &c., still in order to make the necessary unity clear, by His own authority He laid down the source of that unity as beginning from one” (De Unit. Eccl., n. 4). And Optatus of Milevis says: “You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter. In this Peter, the head of all the Apostles (hence his name Cephas), has sat; in which chair alone unity was to be preserved for all, lest any of the other apostles should claim anything as exclusively his own. So much so, that he who would place another chair against that one chair, would be a schismatic and a sinner” (De Schism. Donat., lib. ii). Hence the teaching of Cyprian, that heresy and schism arise and are begotten from the fact that due obedience is refused to the supreme authority. “Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world” (Epist. xii. ad Cornelium, n. 5). No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church. Wherefore Optatus of Milevis blamed the Donatists for this reason: “Against which ages (of hell) we read that Peter received the saving keys, that is to say, our prince, to whom it was said by Christ: ‘To thee will I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the gates of hell shall not conquer them.’ Whence is it therefore that you strive to obtain for yourselves the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven – you who fight against the chair of Peter?” (Lib. ii., n. 4-5).
 But the Episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter; otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. It is not sufficient for the due preservation of the unity of the faith that the head should merely have been charged with the office of superintendent, or should have been invested solely with a power of direction. But it is absolutely necessary that he should have received real and sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey. What had the Son of God in view when he promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone? Biblical usage and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers clearly show that supreme authority is designated in the passage by the word keys. Nor is it lawful to interpret in a different sense what was given to Peter alone, and what was given to the other Apostles conjointly with him. If the power of binding, loosening, and feeding confers upon each and every one of the Bishops the successors of the Apostles a real authority to rule the people committed to him, certainly the same power must have the same effect in his case to whom the duty of feeding the lambs and sheep has been assigned by God. “Christ constituted [Peter] not only pastor, but pastor of pastors; Peter therefore feeds the lambs and feeds the sheep, feeds the children and feeds the mothers, governs the subjects and rules the prelates, because the lambs and the sheep form the whole of the Church” (S. Bruonis Episcopi Signiensis Comment. in Joan., part iii., cap. 21, n. 55). Hence those remarkable expressions of the ancients concerning St. Peter, which most clearly set forth the fact that he was placed n the highest degree of dignity and authority. They frequently call him “the Prince of the College of the Disciples; the Prince of the holy Apostles; the leader of that choir; the mouthpiece of all the Apostles; the head of that family; the ruler of the whole world; the first of the Apostles; the safeguard of the Church.” In this sense St. Bernard writes as follows to Pope Eugenius: “Who art thou? The great priest – the high priest. Thou art the Prince of Bishops and the heir of the Apostles…. Thou art he to whom the keys were given. There are, it is true, other gatekeepers of heaven and to pastors of flocks, but thou are so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a different and more glorious name than all the rest. They have flocks consigned to them, one to each; to thee all the flocks are confided as one flock to one shepherd, and not alone the sheep, but the shepherds. You ask how I prove this? From the words of the Lord. To which – I do not say – of the Bishops, but even of the Apostles have all the sheep been so absolutely and unreservedly committed? If thou lovest me, Peter, feed my sheep. Which sheep? Of this or that country, or kingdom? My sheep, He says: to whom therefore is it not evident that he does not designate some, but all? We can make no exception where no distinction is made” (De Consideratione, lib. ii., cap. 8).
 But it is opposed to the truth, and in evident contradiction with the divine constitution of the Church, to hold that while each Bishop is individually bound to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, taken collectively the Bishops are not so bound. For it is the nature and object of a foundation to support the unity of the whole edifice and to give stability to it, rather than to each component part; and in the present case this is much more applicable, since Christ the Lord wished that by the strength and solidity of the foundation the gates of hell should be prevented from prevailing against the Church. All are agreed that the divine promise must be understood of the Church as a whole, and not of any certain portions of it. These can indeed be overcome by the assaults of the powers of hell, as in point of fact has befallen some of them. Moreover, he who is set over the whole flock must have authority, not only over the sheep dispersed throughout the Church, but also when they are assembled together. Do the sheep when they are all assembled together rule and guide the shepherd? Do the successors of the Apostles assembled together constitute the foundation on which the successor of St. Peter rests in order to derive therefrom strength and stability? Surely jurisdiction and authority belong to him in whose power have been placed the keys of the Kingdom taken collectively. And as the Bishops, each in his own district, command with real power not only individuals but the whole community, so the Roman pontiffs, whose jurisdiction extends to the whole Christian commonwealth, must have all its parts, even taken collectively, subject and obedient to their authority. Christ the Lord, as we have quite sufficiently shown, made Peter and his successors His vicars, to exercise for ever in the Church the power which He exercised during His mortal life. Can the Apostolic College be said to have been above its master in authority?
 This power over the Episcopal College to which we refer, and which is clearly set forth in Holy Writ, has ever been acknowledged and attested by the Church, as is clear from the teaching of General Councils. “We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him” (Hadrianus ii., in Allocutione iii., ad Synodum Romanum an. 869, Cf. Actionem vii., Conc. Constantinopolitani iv). The reason for which is stated thus: “there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See” (Nicholaus in Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Michael. Imperat.)* wherefore Gelasius on the decrees of Councils says: “That which the First See has not approved of cannot stand; but what it has thought well to decree has been received by the whole Church” (Epist. xxvi., ad Episcopos Dardaniae, n. 5). It has ever been un questionably the office of the Roman Pontiffs to ratify or to reject the decrees of Councils. Leo the great rescinded the acts of the Conciliabulum of Ephesus. Damasus rejected those of Rimini, and Hadrian 1. those of Constantinople. The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless. Rightly, therefore, has Leo X. laid down in the 5th council of Lateran “that the Roman Pontiff alone, as having authority over all Councils, has full jurisdiction and power to summon, to transfer, to dissolve Councils, as is clear, not only from the testimony of Holy Writ, from the teaching of the Fathers and of the Roman Pontiffs, and from the decrees of the sacred canons, but from the teaching of the very Councils themselves.” Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ. Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3).
 Nor does it beget any confusion in the administration that Christians are bound to obey a twofold authority. We are prohibited in the first place by Divine Wisdom from entertaining any such thought, since this form of government was constituted by the counsel of God Himself. In the second place we must note that the due order of things and their mutual relations are disturbed if there be a twofold magistracy of the same rank set over a people, neither of which is amenable to the other. But the authority of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, independent; that of the bishops limited, and dependent. “It is not congruous that two superiors with equal authority should be placed over the same flock; but that two, one of whom is higher than the other, should be placed over the same people is not incongruous. Thus the parish priest, the bishop, and the Pope, are placed immediately over the same people” (St. Thomas in iv Sent. dist. xvii., a. 4, ad q. 4, ad 3). So the Roman Pontiffs, mindful of their duty, wish above all things, that the divine constitution of the Church should be preserved. Therefore, as they defend with all necessary care and vigilance their own authority, so they have always laboured, and will continue to labour, that the authority of the bishops may be upheld. Yea, they look up whatever honour or obedience is given to the bishops as paid to themselves. “My honour is the honour of the Universal Church. My honour is the strength and stability of my brethren. Then am I honoured when due honour is given to everyone” (S. Gregorius M. Epistolarum, lib viii., ep. xxx., ad Eulogium).
 16\. In what has been said we have faithfully described the exemplar and form of the Church as divinely constituted. We have treated at length of its unity: we have explained sufficiently its nature, and pointed out the way in which the Divine Founder of the Church willed that it should be preserved. There is no reason to doubt that all those, who by Divine Grace and mercy have had the happiness to have been born, as it were, in the bosom of the Catholic Church, and to have lived in it, will listen to Our Apostolic Voice: “My sheep hear my voice” John x., 27), and that they will derive from Our words fuller instruction and a more perfect disposition to keep united with their respective pastors, and through them with the Supreme Pastor, so that they may remain more securely within the one fold, and may derive therefrom a greater abundance of salutary fruit. But We, who, notwithstanding our unfitness for this great dignity and office, govern by virtue of the authority conferred on us by Jesus Christ, as we “look on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. xii., 2) feel Our heart fired by His charity. What Christ has said of Himself We may truly repeat of Ourselves: “Other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice” John x., 16). Let all those, therefore, who detest the wide-spread irreligion of our times, and acknowledge and confess Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the Saviour of the human race, but who have wandered away from the Spouse, listen to Our voice. Let them not refuse to obey Our paternal charity. Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him wholly and entirely. “The Head and the body are Christ wholly and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten son of God, the body is His Church; the bridegroom and the bride, two in one flesh. All who dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ, although they may be found in all places in which the Church is found, are not in the Church; and again all those who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head, and do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church” (S. Augustinus, Contra Donatistas Epistola, sive De Unit. Eccl., cap. iv., n. 7).
 And with the same yearning Our soul goes out to those whom the foul breath of irreligion has not entirely corrupted, and who at least seek to have the true God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, as their Father. Let such as these take counsel with themselves, and realize that they can in no wise be counted among the children of God, unless they take Christ Jesus as their Brother, and at the same time the Church as their mother. We lovingly address to all the words of St. Augustine: “Let us love the Lord our God; let us love His Church; the Lord as our Father, the Church as our Mother. Let no one say, I go in deed to idols, I consult fortune-tellers and soothsayers; but I leave not the Church of God: I am a Catholic. Clinging to thy Mother, thou offendest thy Father. Another, too, says: ‘Far be it from me; I do not consult fortune-telling, I seek not soothsaying, I seek not profane divinations, I go not to the worship of devils, I serve not stones: but I am on the side of Donatus.’ What doth it profit thee not to offend the Father, who avenges an offense against the Mother? What doth it profit to confess the Lord, to honour God, to preach Him, to acknowledge His Son, and to confess that He sits on the right hand of the Father, if you blaspheme His Church? . . . If you had a beneficent friend, whom you honoured daily – and even once calumniated his spouse, would you ever enter his house? Hold fast, therefore, O dearly beloved, hold fast altogether God as your Father, and the Church as your Mother” (Enarratio in Psal. Lxxxviii., sermo ii., n. 14).
 Above all things, trusting in the mercy of God, who is able to move the hearts of men and to incline them as and when He pleases, We most earnestly commend to His loving kindness all those of whom We have spoken. As a pledge of Divine grace, and as a token of Our affection, We lovingly impart to you, in the Lord, Venerable Brethren, to your clergy and people, Our Apostolic Blessing.
 Given at St. Peter’s, Rome, the 29th day of june, in the year 1896, and the nineteenth of our Pontificate.
--- a/src/page/ecumen/lyons2-1274.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/lyons2-1274.md
@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Second Council of Lyons
 date: 1274
 source: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum14.htm
 comment: Lyons II promulgated a number of constitutions; I have reproduced here only the one on the subject of the Filioque, as the others don't appear to me to be relevant to the topic of this index.
 ---
 ## 1. On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith
 1\. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.
--- a/src/page/ecumen/mark-1440-encyclical.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/mark-1440-encyclical.md
@ -1,84 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Encyclical Letter of Mark of Ephesus
 date: 1440-07
 author: Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus
 source: https://archive.org/details/100101V17N05061981SepOctNovDec/013%20V03N02%201967%20Mar%20Apr%20May/page/n17/mode/2up
 ---
 *The many writings of St Mark occasioned by the false Union of Florence are an important source material for all who wish to understand the position of the Church of Christ as against the heresies of the Roman Church, as well as against the pseudo-Orthodoxy that proclaims that "nothing separates us" precisely where the Fathers have pronounced anathema.*
 *The present Letter was written probably in July of 1440 as an answer to the promulgation in Constantinople of the false Union.[^1]*
 [^1]: Translated from the Russian translation of Archimandrite Amvrossv Pogodin, in *St. Mark of Ephesus and the Union of Florence*, Jordanville, N.Y., 1961, pp. 331-8.
 To All Orthodox Christians on the Mainland and in the Islands.
 From Mark, Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus—Rejoice in Christ!
 To those who have ensnared us in an evil captivity and desire to lead us away into the Babylon of Latin rites and dogmas could not, of course, completely accomplish this, seeing immediately that there was little chance of it, in fact that it was simply impossible; but having stopped somewhere in the middle, both they and those who followed after them, they neither remained any longer what they were, nor became anything else. For having quit Jerusalem, a firm and unwavering faith, but being in no condition and not wishing to become and to be called Babylonians, they thus called themselves, as if by right, "Greco-Latins," and among the people are called "Latinizers." And so these split people, like the mythical centaurs, confess together with the Latins that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and has the Son as Cause of His existence, and yet together with us confess that He proceeds from the Father. And they say together with them that the addition to the Creed (of the *Filioque*) was done canonically and with blessing, and yet together with us do not permit it to be uttered (Besides, who would turn away from what was canonical and blessed?!). And they say together with them that unleavened bread is the Body of Christ, and yet together with us do not dare to accept it. Is this not sufficient to reveal their spirit, and how that it was not in a quest for the Truth (which, having in their hands, they betrayed) that they came together with the Latins, but rather from a desire to enrich themselves and to conclude not a true, but false, Union.
 ## II
 But one should examine in what manner they have united with them; for everything that is united to something different is naturally united by means of some middle point between them. And thus they imagined to unite with them by means of some judgment concerning the Holy Spirit, together with them expressing the opinion that He has existence also from the Son; but everything else between them is divergent, and there is among them neither any middle point nor anything in common. Just as before two divergent Creeds are uttered; likewise, there are celebrated two Liturgies, divergent and discordant one with the other: one with leavened bread, the other with unleavened bread; divergent also are baptisms: one performed with triple immersion, the other with pouring over the head from above, and one with anointing with chrism, the other completely without; and all rites are in everything divergent and discordant one with the other, and likewise the fasts and church usages and other like things. What kind of unity is this, when there is no apparent and clear sign of it? And in what manner have they united with them, desiring also to preserve their own (for in this they were unanimous) and at the same time not following the traditions of the Fathers?
 ## III
 But what is their own "wise" opinion? "Never," they say, "has the Greek Church said that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father; she has said simply that He proceeds from the Father, thus not excluding the participation of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit. Therefore (they say) both before and now we exhibit unity."
 Alas, what absurdity! Alas, what blindness! If the Greek Church, having received it from Christ Himself and the Holy Apostles and Fathers, has said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but has never said (for she has received this from no one) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, then what else does this signify than that she affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father? For if He is not from the Son, evidently, He is only from the Father.
 Do you know what is said concerning the Generation? "Begotten of the Father before all ages." Would anyone add here "only of the Father?" Yet it is precisely thus and in no other way that we understand it, and, if need be, will express it. For we have been taught that the Son is begotten of none else, but only of the Father. Therefore too John Damascene says, on behalf of the whole Church and all Christians: "We do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son."[^a] And if we do not say that the Spirit is also from the Son, then it is apparent that we thus say that the Spirit is only from the Father; therefore a little before this he says: "We do not call the Son Cause,"[^b] and in the next chapter: "The sole Cause is the Father."[^c]
 [^a]: Joann. Damasc., *Patrologia Graeca*, v. 94, col. 832.
 [^b]: *Ibid*.
 [^c]: *Ibid*., col. 849b.
 ## IV
 What more? "Never," they say, have we considered Latins heretics, but only schismatics." But this too they have taken from them (the Latins), for the latter, having nothing with which to accuse us in our doctrine, call us schismatics because we have turned away from the obedience to them which, as they think, we should have. But let us examine the matter. Will it be just for us likewise to show them kindness and place no blame on them in matters of the Faith?
 It was they who gave grounds for the schism by openly making the addition (the *Filioque*), which until then they had spoken in secret; while we were the first to separate ourselves from them, or rather, to separate and cut them off from the common Body of the Church. Why, may I ask? Because they have the right Faith or have made the addition (to the Creed) in an Orthodox fashion? Surely whoever would begin to talk like that would not be right in the head. But rather because they have an absurd and impious opinion and for no reason at all made the addition. And so we have turned away from them as from heretics and have shunned them.
 What more is necessary? The pious canons speak thus: "He is a heretic and subject to the canons against heretics who even slightly departs from the Orthodox Faith."[^d] If, then, the Latins do not at all depart from the correct Faith, we have evidently cut them off unjustly: but if they have thoroughly departed (from the Faith) -- and that in connection with the theology of the Holy Spirit, blasphemy against Whom is the greatest of all perils -- then it is clear that they are heretics, and we have cut them off as heretics.
 [^d]: Nomocanonis tit. XII, c. 2. Pitra, *Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum*, v. 11, p. 600.
 Why do we anoint with chrism those of them who come to us? Is it not clear that it is because they are heretics? For the seventh canon of the Second Ecumenical Council states: *As for those heretics who betake themselves to Orthodoxy, and to the lot of those being saved, we accept them in accordance with the subjoined sequence and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, those calling themselves Cathari ("Puritans") and Aristeri ("Best"), and the Quartodecimans, otherwise known as Tetradites, and Apollinarians we accept when they offer libelli (recantations in writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same beliefs as the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, and are sealed first with holy chrism on their forehead and their eyes, and nose, and mouth, and ears, and in sealing them we say: 'The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.'
 Do you see with whom we number those who come from the Latins? If all those (enumerated in the canon) are heretics, then it is clear that these (the Latins) are the same. And what does the most wise Patriarch of Antioch, Theodore Balsamon, say of this in reply to the Most Holy Patriarch of Alexandria, Mark? "Imprisoned Latins and others coming to our Catholic churches request communion of the Divine Sacraments. We desire to know: Is this permissible?" (Answer:) "He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad (St. Matt. 12:30; St. Luke 11:23). Because many years ago the celebrated Roman Church was separated from communion with the other four Most Holy Patriarchs, having apostatized into customs and doctrines foreign to the Catholic Church and not Orthodox (it was for this reason that the Pope was not deemed worthy of sharing in the commemoration of the names of the Eastern Patriarchs at Divine Services), -- therefore we must not sanctify one of Latin race through the Divine and most pure Gifts (given) by priestly hands, unless he shall first resolve to depart from Latin dogmas and customs and shall be catechized and joined to those of Orthodoxy."[^e]
 [^e]: Theodori Balsamonis Responsa ad interrogationis Marci, n. 15, *PG*, v. 138, col. 968.
 Do you hear, how they have departed not only in customs, but also in dogmas foreign to those of Orthodoxy (and what is foreign to Orthodox dogma is, of course, heretical teaching), and that, according to the canons, they must be catechized and united to Orthodoxy? And if it is necessary to catechize, then clearly it is necessary to anoint with chrism. How have they suddenly presented themselves to us as Orthodox, they who for so long and according to the judgment of such great Fathers and Teachers have been considered heretics? Who has so easily "made" them Orthodox? --It is gold, if you desire to acknowledge the truth, and your own thirst for gain; or, to express it better: it did not make them Orthodox, but made you like them and carried you into the camp of the heretics.
 ## V
 "But if," they say, "we had devised some middle ground (compromise) between dogmas, then thanks to this we would have united with them and accomplished our business superbly, without at all having been forced to say anything except what corresponds to custom and has been handed down (by the Fathers)." This is precisely the means by which many, from of old, have been deceived and persuaded to follow those who have led them off to the steep precipice of impiety; believing that there is some sort of middle ground between two teachings that can reconcile obvious contradictions—they have been exposed to peril....
 If the Latin dogma is true that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, then ours is false that states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and this is precisely the reason for which we separated from them); and if ours is true, then without a doubt theirs is false. What kind of middle ground can there be between two such judgments? There can be none, unless it were some kind of judgment suitable to both the one and the other, like a boot that fits both feet. And will *this* unite us?....
 ## VI
 But, someone will say, how shall we regard those moderate Greco-Latins who, maintaining a middle ground, openly favor some of the Latin rites and dogmas, favor but do not wish to accept others, and entirely disapprove of still others? One must flee from them as one flees from a snake, as from the Latins themselves, or, it may be, from those who are even worse than they -- as from buyers and sellers of Christ. For they, as the Apostle says, "suppose that gain is godliness" (1 Tim. 6:5), of whom he adds: "flee these" (1 Tim. 6:11), for they go over to them (the Latins) not in order to learn, but for gain. *What communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?* (II Cor. 6: 14-15).
 Behold how we, together with Damascene and all the Fathers, do not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son[^f]; while they, together with the Latins, say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. And we, together with the divine Dionysios, say that the Father is the sole Source of the supernatural Divinity[^g]; while they say together with the Latins that the Son also is the Source of the Holy Spirit, and by this clearly excluding the Spirit from the Divinity. And we, together with Gregory the Theologian, distinguish the Father from the Son in His capacity of being Cause[^h]; while they together with the Latins unite Them into one in the capacity of being Cause. And we, together with St. Maximus and the Romans of that time and the Western Fathers, "do not make the Son the Cause of the Spirit";[^i] while they, in their [Conciliar Decree (Act of Union)](./florence-1439.md), proclaim the Son "in Greek, Cause, and in Latin, Principle" of the Spirit. And we, together with the Philosopher and Martyr Justin, affirm, "As the Son is from the Father, so is the Spirit from the Father";[^j] while they say together with the Latins that the Son proceeds from the Father immediately, and the Spirit from the Father mediately. And we, together with Damascene and all the Fathers, confess that it is not known to us in what consists the difference between generation and procession;[^k] while they, together with Thomas (Aquinas) and the Latins, say that the difference consists in this, that generation is immediate, and procession mediate. And we affirm, in agreement with the Fathers, that the Will and Energy of the Uncreated and Divine Nature are uncreated; while they, together with the Latins and Thomas, say that Will is identical with Nature, but that the Divine Energy is created, whether it be called Divinity, or the Divine and Immaterial Light, or the Holy Spirit, or something else of this nature, and in some fashion these poor creatures "worship" the created "Divinity" and the created "Divine Light" and the created "Holy Spirit." And we say that neither do the Saints receive the Kingdom and the unutterable blessings already prepared for them, nor are sinners already sent to hell, but both await their fate which will be received in the future age after the resurrection and Judgement; while they, together with the Latins, desire immediately after death to receive according to their merits, and for those in an intermediate condition, who have died in repentance, they give a purgatorial fire (which is not identical with that of hell) so that, as they say, having purified their souls by it after death, they also together with the righteous will enjoy the Kingdom (of Heaven); this is contained in their [Conciliar Decree (Act of Union)](./florence-1439.md). And we, obeying the Apostles who have prohibited it, shun Jewish unleavened bread; while they, in the same Act of Union, proclaim that what is used in the services of the Latins is the Body of Christ. And we say that the addition to the Creed arose uncanonically and anticanonically and contrary to the Fathers; while they affirm that it is canonical and blessed -- to such an extent are they unaware how to conform to the Truth and to themselves! And for us the Pope is as one of the Patriarchs, and that only if he be Orthodox; while they with great gravity proclaim him Vicar of Christ, Father and Teacher of all Christians. May they be more fortunate than their Father, who are also like him: for he does not greatly prosper, having an antipope who is the cause of sufficient unpleasantness; and they are not happy to imitate him.
 [^f]: Joann. Damasc. *PG*, v. 36, col. 252.
 [^g]: Dionys., *PG*, v. 3, col. 641.
 [^h]: *PG*, v. 36, col. 252.
 [^i]: *PG*, v. 91, c. 136.
 [^j]: Just. Mart., *PG*, v. 6, c. 1224.
 [^k]: *PG*, v. 94, c. 824.
 ## VII
 And so, brethren, flee from them and from communion with them, for they are *false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works* (II Cor. 11:13–15). And in another place the same Apostle says of them: *For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal* (Rom. 16:18; 2 Tim. 2:19). And in another place: *Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision* (Philippians 3:2). And then, in another place: *But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed* (Gal. 1:8). See what has been prophetically foretold, that "though an angel from heaven..." -- so that no one could cite in justification of himself an especially high position. And the beloved Disciple speaks thus: *If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting; for he that giveth him greeting is partaker in his evil deeds* (2 John 10-11).
 Therefore, in so far as this is what has been commanded you by the Holy Apostles, -- stand aright, hold firmly to the traditions which you have received, both written and by word of mouth, that you be not deprived of your firmness if you become led away by the delusions of the lawless. May God, Who is All-powerful, make them also to know their delusion; and having delivered us from them as from evil tares, may He gather us into His granaries like pure and useful wheat, in Jesus Christ our Lord, to Whom belongs all glory, honor, and worship, with His Father Who is without beginning, and His All-holy and Good and Life-giving Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
--- a/src/page/ecumen/moscow-2013-ravenna.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/moscow-2013-ravenna.md
@ -1,111 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church
 date: 2013-12-26
 author: Moscow Patriarchate
 source: https://mospat.ru/en/news/51892/
 comment: In the original, there are two ordered list items rendered as "1." because HTML auto-numbers ordered lists. Based on the context, and the sections beginning with "3." etc afterwards, I have assumed that these are typographical errors and corrected them to "1." and "2."
 ---
 *The problem of primacy in the Universal Church has been repeatedly raised during the work of the Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. On March 27, 2007, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church instructed the Synodal Theological Commission to study this problem and draft an official position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem (Minutes, No. 26). Meanwhile, the Joint Commission at its meeting on October 13, 2007, in Ravenna, working in the absence of a delegation of the Russian Church and without consideration for her opinion, adopted a document on the [Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church](./jictd-2007-ravenna.html). Having studied the Ravenna document, the Russian Orthodox Church disagreed with it in the part that refers to synodality and primacy on the level of the Universal Church. Since the Ravenna document makes a distinction between three levels of church administration, namely, local, regional and universal, the following position taken by the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church deals with this problem on the three levels as well.*
 [1\.](#1) In the Holy Church of Christ, primacy belongs to her Head – our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man. According to St. Paul, the Lord Jesus Christ *is* ***the head of the body, the church***: *who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;* ***that in all things he might have the pre-eminence*** (Col. 1:18).
 {#1}
 According to the apostolic teaching, *the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be* ***the head over all things to the church***,which is his body (Eph. 1:17-23).
 The Church, which is on the earth, represents not only a community of those who believe in Christ but also a divine-human organism: *Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular* (1 Cor. 12:27).
 Accordingly, various forms of primacy in the Church in her historical journey in this world are secondary versus the eternal primacy of Christ as Head of the Church by whom God the Father *reconciles all things unto himself, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven* (Col. 1:20). Primacy in the Church should be in the first place a ministry of reconciliation with the aim to build harmony, according to the apostle who calls *to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace* (Eph. 4:3).
 [2\.](#2) In the life of the Church of Christ, which lives in this age, primacy, along with synodality, is one of the fundamental principles of her order. On various levels of church life, the historically established primacy has a *different nature* and *different sources*. These levels are 1) the diocese (eparchy), 2) the autocephalous Local Church, and 3) Universal Church.
 {#2}
 [(1)](#2.1) On the level of *diocese*, primacy belongs to the bishop. The bishop’s primacy in his diocese has solid theological and canonical foundations tracing back to the early Christian Church. According to the teaching of St. Paul, *the Holy Ghost hath made [bishops] overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood* (Acts 20:28). **The source of the bishop’s primacy** in his diocese is the apostolic succession handed down through episcopal consecration.[^1]
 {#2.1}
 [^1]: It includes election, consecration and reception by the Church.
 The ministry of the bishop is an essential foundation of the Church: ‘The bishop is in the church and the church is in the bishop and that if somebody is not with the bishop, he is not in the church’ (St. Cyprian of Carthage[^2]). St. Ignatius the God-Bearer compares the bishop’s primacy in his diocese to the supremacy of God: ‘Study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed’ (Letter to the Magenesians, 6).
 [^2]: Ep. 69.8, PL 4, 406A (Letter 54 in the Russian version)
 In his church domain, the bishop has full power, sacramental, administrative and magisterial. St. Ignatius the God-Bearer teaches us: ‘Let no one, apart from the bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the church. Let that Eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it… It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure’ (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7).
 The bishop’s sacramental power is most fully expressed in the Eucharist. In celebrating it, the bishop represents the image of Christ, presenting the Church of the faithful in the face of God the Father, on one hand, and giving the faithful God’s blessing and nourishing them with the truly spiritual food and drink of the Eucharistic sacrament, on the other. As head of his diocese, the bishop leads the congregation’s divine worship, ordains clergy and assigns them to church parishes, authorizing them to celebrate the Eucharist and other sacraments and religious rites.
 The bishop’s administrative power is expressed in that the clergy, monastics and laity of his diocese as well as parishes and monasteries, except for stauropegial ones, and various diocesan institutions (educational, charitable, etc.) obey him. The bishop administers justice in cases of ecclesial offences. The Apostolic Canons state: ‘Let not the presbyters or deacons do anything without the sanction of the bishop; for he it is who is entrusted with the people of the Lord and of whom will be required the account of their souls’ (Canon 39).
 [(2)](#2.2) On the level of the *autocephalous Local Church*, primacy belongs to the bishop elected as Primate of the Local Church by a Council of her bishops.[^3] Accordingly, the **source of primacy** on the level of the autocephalous Church is the election of the pre-eminent bishop by a Council (or a Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical power. This primacy is based on solid canonical foundations tracing back to the era of Ecumenical Councils.
 {#2.2}
 [^3]: As a rule, the pre-eminent bishop heads the main (pre-eminent) chair in the canonical territory of his Church.
 The power of the Primate in an autocephalous Local Church is different from that of a bishop in his church domain: it is the power of the first among equal bishops. He fulfils his ministry of primacy in conformity with the church-wide canonical tradition expressed in Apostolic Canon 34: ‘It behoves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him ***as their head***, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by his territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit’.
 The powers of the Primate of an autocephalous Local Church are defined by a Council (Synod) and fixed in a statute. The Primate of an autocephalous Local Church acts as chairman of her Council (or Synod). Thus, the Primate does not have one-man power in an autocephalous Local Church but governs her in council, that is, in cooperation with other bishops.[^4]
 [^4]: The autocephalous Local Church can include complex church entities. For instance, in the Russian Orthodox Church, there are autonomous and self-governed Churches, metropolitan regions, exarchates and metropolises. Each of them has its own form of primacy defined by a Local Council and reflected in the church statute.
 [(3)](#2.3) On the level of the *Universal Church* as a community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common confession of faith and living in sacramental communion with one another, primacy is determined in conformity with the tradition of sacred diptychs and represents *primacy in honour*. This tradition can be traced back to the canons of Ecumenical Councils (Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Canon 36 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council) and has been reconfirmed throughout church history in the actions of Councils of individual Local Churches and in the practice of liturgical commemoration whereby the Primate of each Autocephalous Church mentions the names of those of other Local Churches in the order prescribed by the sacred diptychs.
 {#2.3}
 The order in diptychs has been changing in history. In the first millennium of church history, the primacy of honour used to belong to the chair of Rome.[^5] After the Eucharistic community between Rome and Constantinople was broken in the mid-11th century, primacy in the Orthodox Church went to the next chair in the diptych order, namely, to that of Constantinople. Since that time up to the present, the primacy of honour in the Orthodox Church on the universal level has belonged to the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equal Primates of Local Orthodox Churches.
 [^5]: A reference to the primacy of honour of the chair of Rome and the second place of the chair of Constantinople is made in Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council: ‘The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome’. Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council clarifies this rule and points to the canonical reason for the primacy of honour of Rome and Constantinople: ‘The Fathers in fact have correctly attributed the prerogatives (which belong) to the see of the most ancient Rome because it was the imperial city. And thus moved by the same reasoning, the one hundred and fifty bishops beloved of God have accorded equal prerogatives to the very holy see of New Rome, justly considering that the city that is honored by the imperial power and the senate and enjoying (within the civil order) the prerogatives equal to those of Rome, the most ancient imperial city, ought to be as elevated as Old Rome in the affairs of the Church, being in the second place after it’.
 **The source of primacy in honour** on the level of the Universal Church lies in the canonical tradition of the Church fixed in the sacred diptychs and recognized by all the autocephalous Local Churches. The primacy of honour on the universal level is not informed by canons of Ecumenical or Local Councils. The canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the church-wide scale.[^6]
 [^6]: There are canons used in polemical literature to give a canonical justification to the judicial powers of the first chair of Rome. These are Canons 4 and 5 of the Council of Sardica (343). These canons, however, do not state that the rights of the chair of Rome to accept appeals are extended to the whole Universal Church. It is known from the canonical codex that these rights were not limitless even in the West. Thus, already the 256 Council of Carthage chaired by St. Cyprian responded to the claims of Rome to primacy expressed the following opinion about relations between bishops: ‘neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let all of us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there’ (Sententiae episcoporum, PL 3, 1085C; 1053A-1054A). The same is stated in the Letter of the Council of Africa to Celestine, the pope of Rome (424), which is included in all the authoritative editions of the code of canons, particularly, Book of Canons as a canon of the Council of Carthage. In this letter the Council rejects the right of the pope of Rome to accept appeals against judgements made by the Council of African Bishops: ‘We earnestly conjure you, that for the future you do not readily admit to a hearing persons coming hence, nor choose to receive to your communion those who have been excommunicated by us…’. Canon 118 of the Council of Carthage forbids to make appeals to Churches in overseas countries – which is anyway implied by Rome as well: Clerics who have been condemned, if they take exception to the judgment, shall not appeal beyond seas, but to the neighbouring bishops, and to their own; if they do otherwise let them be excommunicated in Africa’.
 The ecclesiological distortions ascribing to the primus on the universal level the functions of *governance* inherent in primates on other levels of church order are named in the polemical literature of the second millennium as “papism”.
 [3\.](#3) Due to the fact that the nature of primacy, which exists at various levels of church order (diocesan, local and universal) vary, the functions of the primus on various levels are not identical and cannot be transferred from one level to another.
 {#3}
 To transfer the functions of the ministry of primacy from the level of an eparchy to the universal level means to recognize a special form of ministry, notably, that of a ‘universal hierarch’ possessing the magisterial and administrative power in the whole Universal Church. By eliminating the sacramental equality of bishops, such recognition leads to the emergence of a jurisdiction of a universal first hierarch never mentioned either in holy canons or patristic tradition and resulting in the derogation or even elimination of the autocephaly of Local Churches.
 In its turn, the extension of the primacy inherent in the primate of an autocephalous Local Church (according to Apostolic Canon 34) to the universal level[^7] would give the primus in the Universal Church special powers regardless of whether Local Orthodox Churches agree to it or not. Such a transfer in the understanding of the nature of primacy from local to universal level would also require that the primus election procedure be accordingly moved up to the universal level, which would as much as violate the right of the pre-eminent autocephalous Local Church to elect her Primate on her own.
 [^7]: As is known, there is not a single canon that would allow of such practice.
 [4\.](#4) The Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ warned his disciples against the love of rulers (cf. Mt. 20:25-28). The Church has always opposed distorted ideas of primacy, which have begun to creep into church life from old times.[^8] In Councils’ decisions and works of holy fathers, such abuses of power were condemned.[^9]
 {#4}
 [^8]: As far back as the apostolic times, St. John the Theologian in his Epistle condemned Diotrephes ‘who loves to be the first’ (3 Jn. 1:9).
 [^9]: Thus, the Third Ecumenical Council, seeking to protect the right of the Church of Cyprus to have her own head, stated in its Canon 8: ‘the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood’.
 The bishops of Rome, who enjoy the primacy of honour in the Universal Church, from the point of view of Eastern Churches, have always been patriarchs of the West, that is, primates of the Western Local Church. However, already in the first millennium of church history, a doctrine on a special divinely-originated magisterial and administrative power of the bishop of Roman as extending to the whole Universal Church began to be formed in the West.
 The Orthodox Church rejected the doctrine of the Roman Church on papal primacy and the divine origin of the power of the first bishop in the Universal Church. Orthodox theologians have always insisted that the Church of Rome is one of the autocephalous Local Churches with no right to extend her jurisdiction to the territory of other Local Churches. They also believed that primacy in honour accorded to the bishops of Rome is instituted not by God but men.[^10]
 [^10]:
    Thus, in the 13th century St. Herman of Constantinople wrote, ‘There are five patriarchates with certain boundaries for each. However, in the recent time a schism has arisen among them, initiated by a daring hand which seeks to dominate and prevail in the Church. The Head of the Church is Christ, and every attempt to obtain domination is contrary to His teaching’ (cit. in Соколов И.И. Лекции по истории Греко-Восточной Церкви. – СПб., 2005. С.129).
    In the 14th century, Nilus Cabasilas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, wrote on the primacy of the bishop of Rome, ‘the pope indeed has two privileges: he is the bishop of Rome… and he is the first among the bishops. From Peter he has received the Roman episcopacy; as to the primacy, he received it much later from the blessed Fathers and the pious Emperors, for its was just that ecclesiastical affairs be accomplished in order’ (De primatu papae, PG 149, 701 CD).
    His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew states, ‘We all, the Orthodox… are convinced that in the first millennium of the existence of the Church, in the times of the undivided Church, the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the pope, was recognized. However, it was honorary primacy, in love, without being  legal dominion over the whole Christian Church. In other words, according to our theology, this primacy is of human order; it was established because of the need for the Church to have a head and a coordinating center’ (from the address to the Bulgarian mass media, November 2007).
 Throughout the second millennium up to today, the Orthodox Church has preserved the administrative structure characteristic of the Eastern Church of the first millennium. Within this structure, each autocephalous Local Church, being in dogmatic, canonical and Eucharistic unity with other Local Churches, is independent in governance. In the Orthodox Church, there was no and has never been a single administrative center on the universal level.
 In the West, on the contrary, the development of a doctrine on the special power of the bishop of Rome whereby the supreme power in the Universal Church belongs to the bishop of Rome as successor to St. Peter and vicar of Christ on the earth has led to the formation of a completely different administrative model of church order with a single universal center in Rome.[^11]
 [^11]: Differences in the church order of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church can be seen not only on universal but also local and diocesan levels.
 In accordance with the two different models of church order, different ways, in which the conditions for canonicity of a church community were seen, were presented. In the Catholic tradition, the necessary condition for canonicity is the Eucharistic unity of a particular church community with the chair of Rome. In the Orthodox tradition, canonical is a community which is part of an autocephalous Local Church, and through this it is in the Eucharistic unity with other canonical Local Churches.
 As is known, attempts to impose the Western model of administrative order upon the Eastern Church were invariably met with resistance in the Orthodox East. This is reflected in church documents[^12] and polemical literature aimed against papism, which comprise a part of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.
 [^12]: In the 1848 Encyclical, the Eastern Patriarchs condemn the fact that bishops of Rome turned the primacy of honour into lordship over the whole Universal Church: “We see very primacy transformed from a brotherly character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority.” (Par. 13). The dignity of the Church of Rome, the Encyclical states, “is not that of a lordship, to which St. Peter himself was never ordained, but is a brotherly privilege in the Catholic Church, and an honor assigned the Popes on account of the greatness and privilege of the City” (Par. 13). 
 [5\.](#5) Primacy in the Universal Orthodox Church, which is the primacy of honour by its very nature, rather than that of power, is very important for the Orthodox witness in the modern world.
 {#5}
 The patriarchal chair of Constantinople enjoys the primacy of honour on the basis of the sacred diptychs recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches. The content of this primacy is defined by a consensus of Local Orthodox Churches expressed in particular at pan-Orthodox conferences for preparation of a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church[^13].
 [^13]: See in particular, the Decision of the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Conference (1968), Par. 6, 7; the Procedure of Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences (1986), Par. 2, 13.
 In exercising his primacy in this way, the Primate of the Church of Constantinople can offer initiatives of general Christian scale and address the external world on behalf of the Orthodox plenitude provided he has been empowered to do so by all the Local Orthodox Churches.
 [6\.](#6) Primacy in the Church of Christ is called to serve the spiritual unity of her members and to keep her life in good order, *for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace* (1 Cor. 14:33). The ministry of the primus in the Church, alien to temporal love of power, has as its goal *the edifying of the body of Christ…that we…by speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things,* ***which is the head, even Christ,*** *from whom the whole body…according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love* (Eph. 4:12-16).
 {#6}
--- a/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-1983-munich.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-1983-munich.md
@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue regarding the 'Munich Document'
 date: 1983-05-25
 author: North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
 source: https://www.usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/response-joint-international-commission-theological
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-1988-bari.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-1988-bari.md
@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue regarding the 'Bari Document'
 date: 1988-06-02
 author: North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
 source: https://www.usccb.org/resources/bari-response.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-1989-primacy.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-1989-primacy.md
@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: An Agreed Statement on Conciliarity and Primacy in the Church
 date: 1989-10-28
 author: North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
 source: https://www.usccb.org/resources/conciliarity-and-primacy.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-1989-valamo.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-1989-valamo.md
@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Reaction to International Commission's 'Valamo Document'
 date: 1989-10-28
 author: North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
 source: https://www.usccb.org/resources/valamo-response.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-1994-balamand.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-1994-balamand.md
@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue regarding the 'Balamand Document'
 date: 2009-10-24
 author: North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
 source: https://www.usccb.org/resources/balamand-response.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2003-filioque.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2003-filioque.md
@ -1,817 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement
 date: 2003-10-25
 author: North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
 source: https://www.usccb.org/resources/filioque-a-church-dividing-issue.pdf
 source: https://www.assemblyofbishops.org/ministries/ecumenical-and-interfaith-dialogues/orthodox-catholic/filioque-a-church-dividing-issue
 ---
 From 1999 until 2003, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation has focused its
 discussions on an issue that has been identified, for more than twelve centuries, as one of the root
 causes of division between our Churches: our divergent ways of conceiving and speaking about
 the origin of the Holy Spirit within the inner life of the triune God. Although both of our
 traditions profess “the faith of Nicaea” as the normative expression of our understanding of God
 and God’s involvement in his creation, and take as the classical statement of that faith the revised
 version of the Nicene creed associated with the First Council of Constantinople of 381, most
 Catholics and other Western Christians have used, since at least the late sixth century, a Latin
 version of that Creed, which adds to its confession that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the
 Father” the word *Filioque*: “and from the Son”. For most Western Christians, this term continues
 to be a part of the central formulation of their faith, a formulation proclaimed in the liturgy and
 used as the basis of catechesis and theological reflection. It is, for Catholics and most Protestants,
 simply a part of the ordinary teaching of the Church, and as such, integral to their understanding
 of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. Yet since at least the late eighth century, the presence of this
 term in the Western version of the Creed has been a source of scandal for Eastern Christians,
 both because of the Trinitarian theology it expresses, and because it had been adopted by a
 growing number of Churches in the West into the canonical formulation of a received ecumenical
 council without corresponding ecumenical agreement. As the medieval rift between Eastern and
 Western Christians grew more serious, the theology associated with the term Filioque, and the
 issues of Church structure and authority raised by its adoption, grew into a symbol of difference,
 a classic token of what each side of divided Christendom has found lacking or distorted in the
 other.
 Our common study of this question has involved our Consultation in much shared research,
 prayerful reflection and intense discussion. It is our hope that many of the papers produced by
 our members during this process will be published together, as the scholarly context for our
 common statement. A subject as complicated as this, from both the historical and the theological
 point of view, calls for detailed explanation if the real issues are to be clearly seen. Our
 discussions and our common statement will not, by themselves, put an end to centuries of
 disagreement among our Churches. We do hope, however, that they will contribute to the growth
 of mutual understanding and respect, and that in God’s time our Churches will no longer find a
 cause for separation in the way we think and speak about the origin of that Spirit, whose fruit is
 love and peace (see Gal 5.22).
 ## [I. The Holy Spirit in the Scriptures](#1) {#1}
 In the Old Testament “the spirit of God” or “the spirit of the Lord” is presented less as a divine
 person than as a manifestation of God’s creative power – God’s “breath” (*ruach YHWH*) -
 forming the world as an ordered and habitable place for his people, and raising up individuals to
 lead his people in the way of holiness. In the opening verses of Genesis, the spirit of God “moves
 over the face of the waters” to bring order out of chaos (Gen 1.2). In the historical narratives of
 Israel, it is the same spirit that “stirs” in the leaders of the people (Jud 13.25: Samson), makes
 kings and military chieftains into prophets (I Sam 10.9-12; 19.18-24: Saul and David), and
 enables prophets to “bring good news to the afflicted” (Is 61.1; cf. 42.1; II Kg 2.9). The Lord
 tells Moses he has “filled” Bezalel the craftsman “with the spirit of God,” to enable him to
 fashion all the furnishings of the tabernacle according to God’s design (Ex 31.3). In some
 passages, the “holy spirit” (Ps 51.13) or “good spirit” (Ps 143.10) of the Lord seems to signify
 his guiding presence within individuals and the whole nation, cleansing their own spirits (Ps.
 51.12-14) and helping them to keep his commandments, but “grieved” by their sin (Is 63.10). In
 the prophet Ezekiel’s mighty vision of the restoration of Israel from the death of defeat and exile,
 the “breath” returning to the people’s desiccated corpses becomes an image of the action of
 God’s own breath creating the nation anew: “I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live...”
 (Ezek 37.14).
 In the New Testament writings, the Holy Spirit of God (*pneuma Theou*) is usually spoken of in a
 more personal way, and is inextricably connected with the person and mission of Jesus. Matthew
 and Luke make it clear that Mary conceives Jesus in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit,
 who “overshadows” her (Mt 1.18, 20; Lk 1.35). All four Gospels testify that John the Baptist –
 who himself was “filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb” (Lk 1.15) – witnessed the
 descent of the same Spirit on Jesus, in a visible manifestation of God’s power and election, when
 Jesus was baptized (Mt 3.16; Mk 1.10; Lk 3.22; Jn 1.33). The Holy Spirit leads Jesus into the
 desert to struggle with the devil (Mt 4.1; Lk 4.1), fills him with prophetic power at the start of his
 mission (Lk 4.18-21), and manifests himself in Jesus’ exorcisms (Mt 12.28, 32). John the Baptist
 identified the mission of Jesus as “baptizing” his disciples “with the Holy Spirit and with fire”
 (Mt 3.11; Lk 3.16; cf. Jn 1.33), a prophecy fulfilled in the great events of Pentecost (Acts 1.5),
 when the disciples were “clothed with power from on high” (Lk 24.49; Acts 1.8). In the narrative
 of Acts, it is the Holy Spirit who continues to unify the community (4.31-32), who enables
 Stephen to bear witness to Jesus with his life (8.55), and whose charismatic presence among
 believing pagans makes it clear that they, too, are called to baptism in Christ (10.47).
 In his farewell discourse in the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as one who will
 continue his own work in the world, after he has returned to the Father. He is “the Spirit of
 truth,” who will act as “another advocate (parakletos)” to teach and guide his disciples
 (14.16-17), reminding them of all Jesus himself has taught (14.26). In this section of the Gospel,
 Jesus gives us a clearer sense of the relationship between this “advocate,” himself, and his
 Father. Jesus promises to send him “from the Father,” as “the Spirit of truth who proceeds from
 the Father” (15.26); and the truth that he teaches will be the truth Jesus has revealed in his own
 person (see 1,14; 14.6): “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to
 you.” (16.14-15)
 The Epistle to the Hebrews represents the Spirit simply as speaking in the Scriptures, with his
 own voice (Heb 3.7; 9.8). In Paul’s letters, the Holy Spirit of God is identified as the one who
 has finally “defined” Jesus as “Son of God in power” by acting as the agent of his resurrection
 (Rom 1.4; 8.11). It is this same Spirit, communicated now to us, who conforms us to the risen
 Lord, giving us hope for resurrection and life (Rom 8.11), making us also children and heirs of
 God (Rom 8.14-17), and forming our words and even our inarticulate groaning into a prayer that
 expresses hope (Rom 8.23-27). “And hope does not disappoint us because God’s love has been
 poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.” (Rom 5.5)
 ## [II. Historical Considerations](#2) {#2}
 Throughout the early centuries of the Church, the Latin and Greek traditions witnessed to the
 same apostolic faith, but differed in their ways of describing the relationship among the persons
 of the Trinity. The difference generally reflected the various pastoral challenges facing the
 Church in the West and in the East. The Nicene Creed (325) bore witness to the faith of the
 Church as it was articulated in the face of the Arian heresy, which denied the full divinity of
 Christ. In the years following the Council of Nicaea, the Church continued to be challenged by
 views questioning both the full divinity and the full humanity of Christ, as well as the divinity of
 the Holy Spirit. Against these challenges, the fathers at the Council of Constantinople (381)
 affirmed the faith of Nicaea, and produced an expanded Creed, based on the Nicene but also
 adding significantly to it.
 Of particular note was this Creed’s more extensive affirmation regarding the Holy Spirit, a
 passage clearly influenced by Basil of Caesaraea’s classic treatise *On the Holy Spirit*, which had
 probably been finished some six years earlier. The Creed of Constantinople affirmed the faith of
 the Church in the divinity of the Spirit by saying: “and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of
 life, who proceeds (*ekporeuetai*) from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped
 and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.” Although the text avoided directly calling
 the Spirit “God,” or affirming (as Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus had done) that the Spirit
 is “of the same substance” as the Father and the Son – statements that doubtless would have
 sounded extreme to some theologically cautious contemporaries - the Council clearly intended,
 by this text, to make a statement of the Church’s faith in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit,
 especially in opposition to those who viewed the Spirit as a creature. At the same time, it was not
 a concern of the Council to specify the manner of the Spirit’s origin, or to elaborate on the
 Spirit’s particular relationships to the Father and the Son.
 The acts of the Council of Constantinople were lost, but the text of its Creed was quoted and
 formally acknowledged as binding, along with the Creed of Nicaea, in the dogmatic statement of
 the Council of Chalcedon (451). Within less than a century, this Creed of 381 had come to play a
 normative role in the definition of faith, and by the early sixth century was even proclaimed in
 the Eucharist in Antioch, Constantinople, and other regions in the East. In regions of the Western
 churches, the Creed was also introduced into the Eucharist, perhaps beginning with the third
 Council of Toledo in 589. It was not formally introduced into the Eucharistic liturgy at Rome,
 however, until the eleventh century – a point of some importance for the process of official
 Western acceptance of the *Filioque*.
 No clear record exists of the process by which the word *Filioque* was inserted into the Creed of
 381 in the Christian West before the sixth century. The idea that the Spirit came forth “from the
 Father through the Son” is asserted by a number of earlier Latin theologians, as part of their
 insistence on the ordered unity of all three persons within the single divine Mystery (e.g.,
 Tertullian, *Adversus Praxean* 4 and 5). Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century,
 emphasizes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and
 power (*ibid*. 2), which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted by
 the Son to the Spirit (*ibid*. 8). Hilary of Poitiers, in the mid-fourth century, in the same work
 speaks of the Spirit as ‘coming forth from the Father’ and being ‘sent by the Son’ (*De Trinitate*
 12.55); as being ‘from the Father through the Son’ (*ibid*. 12.56); and as ‘having the Father and
 the Son as his source’ (*ibid*. 2.29); in another passage, Hilary points to John 16.15 (where Jesus
 says: “All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that [the Spirit] shall take from
 what is mine and declare it to you”), and wonders aloud whether “to receive from the Son is the
 same thing as to proceed from the Father” (*ibid*. 8.20). Ambrose of Milan, writing in the 380s,
 openly asserts that the Spirit “proceeds from (procedit a) the Father and the Son,” without ever
 being separated from either (*On the Holy Spirit* 1.11.20). None of these writers, however, makes
 the Spirit’s mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize
 the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father
 alone is the source of God’s eternal being. *[Note: This paragraph includes a stylistic revision in*
 *the reference to Hilary of Poitiers that the Consultation agreed to at its October 2004 meeting.]*
 The earliest use of Filioque *language* in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated
 for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council
 anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon
 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the
 Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that
 the Greek equivalent of *Filioque* was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently
 understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the
 Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in
 imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the *Filioque* spread
 throughout Gaul.
 Nearly a century later, a council of English bishops was held at Hatfield in 680 under the
 presidency of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury, a Byzantine asked to serve in England by
 Pope Vitalian. According to the Venerable Bede (*Hist. Eccl. Gent. Angl.* 4.15 [17]), this Council
 explicitly affirmed its faith as conforming to the five Ecumenical Councils, and also declared that
 the Holy Spirit proceeds “in an ineffable way (*inenarrabiliter*)” from the Father and the Son.
 By the seventh century, three related factors may have contributed to a growing tendency to
 include the *Filioque* in the Creed of 381 in the West, and to the belief of some Westerners that it
 was, in fact, part of the original creed. First, a strong current in the patristic tradition of the West,
 summed up in the works of Augustine (354-430), spoke of the Spirit’s proceeding from the
 Father and the Son. (e.g., *On the Trinity* 4.29; 15.10, 12, 29, 37; the significance of this tradition
 and its terminology will be discussed below.) Second, throughout the fourth and fifth centuries a
 number of credal statements circulated in the Churches, often associated with baptism and
 catechesis. The formula of 381 was not considered the only binding expression of apostolic faith.
 Within the West, the most widespread of these was the Apostles’ Creed, an early baptismal creed,
 which contained a simple affirmation of belief in the Holy Spirit without elaboration. Third,
 however, and of particular significance for later Western theology, was the so-called Athanasian
 Creed (*Quicunque*). Thought by Westerners to be composed by Athanasius of Alexandria, this
 Creed probably originated in Gaul about 500, and is cited by Caesarius of Arles (+542). This text
 was unknown in the East, but had great influence in the West until modern times. Relying
 heavily on Augustine’s treatment of the Trinity, it clearly affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from
 the Father and the Son. A central emphasis of this Creed was its strong anti-Arian Christology:
 speaking of the Spirit as proceeding from the Father *and* the Son implied that the Son was not
 inferior to the Father in substance, as the Arians held. The influence of this Creed undoubtedly
 supported the use of the *Filioque* in the Latin version of the Creed of Constantinople in Western
 Europe, at least from the sixth century onwards.
 The use of the Creed of 381 with the addition of the *Filioque* became a matter of controversy
 towards the end of the eighth century, both in discussions between the Frankish theologians and
 the see of Rome and in the growing rivalry between the Carolingian and Byzantine courts, which
 both now claimed to be the legitimate successors of the Roman Empire. In the wake of the
 iconoclastic struggle in Byzantium, the Carolingians took this opportunity to challenge the
 Orthodoxy of Constantinople, and put particular emphasis upon the significance of the term
 *Filioque*, which they now began to identify as a touchstone of right Trinitarian faith. An intense
 political and cultural rivalry between the Franks and the Byzantines provided the background for
 the *Filioque* debates throughout the eighth and ninth centuries.
 Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The
 Council had given definitive approval to the ancient practice of venerating icons. The translation
 proved to be defective. On the basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation
 to Pope Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. Among the points of objection,
 Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did
 not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but
 confessed rather his procession from the Father *through the Son* (Mansi 13.760). The Pope
 strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this
 and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (*ibid*. 759-810). Following this exchange of
 letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called *Libri Carolini* (791-794), a work written to
 challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787
 on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood
 the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text, the Carolingian view of the *Filioque*
 also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word *Filioque* was part of the Creed of 381, the
 *Libri Carolini* reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,
 and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
 While the acts of the local synod of Frankfurt in 794 are not extant, other records indicate that it
 was called mainly to counter a form of the heresy of “Adoptionism” then thought to be on the
 rise in Spain. The emphasis of a number of Spanish theologians on the integral humanity of
 Christ seemed, to the court theologian Alcuin and others, to imply that the man Jesus was
 “adopted” by the Father at his baptism. In the presence of Charlemagne, this council – which
 Charlemagne seems to have promoted as “ecumenical” (see Mansi 13.899-906) - approved the
 *Libri Carolini*, affirming, in the context of maintaining the full divinity of the person of Christ,
 that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. As in the late sixth century, the Latin
 formulation of the Creed, stating that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, was
 enlisted to combat a perceived Christological heresy.
 Within a few years, another local council, also directed against “Spanish Adoptionism,” was held
 in Fréjus (Friuli) (796 or 797). At this meeting, Paulinus of Aquileia (+802), an associate of
 Alcuin in Charlemagne’s court, defended the use of the Creed with the *Filioque* as a way of
 opposing Adoptionism. Paulinus, in fact, recognized that the *Filioque* was an addition to the
 Creed of 381 but defended the interpolation, claiming that it contradicted neither the meaning of
 the creed nor the intention of the Fathers. The authority in the West of the Council of Fréjus,
 together with that of Frankfurt, ensured that the Creed of 381 with the *Filioque* would be used in
 teaching and in the celebration of the Eucharist in churches throughout much of Europe.
 The different liturgical traditions with regard to the Creed came into contact with each other in
 early-ninth-century Jerusalem. Western monks, using the Latin Creed with the added *Filioque*,
 were denounced by their Eastern brethren. Writing to Pope Leo III for guidance, in 808, the
 Western monks referred to the practice in Charlemagne’s chapel in Aachen as their model. Pope
 Leo responded with a letter to “all the churches of the East” in which he declared his personal
 belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. In that response, the
 Pope did not distinguish between his personal understanding and the issue of the legitimacy of
 the addition to the Creed, although he would later resist the addition in liturgies celebrated at
 Rome.
 Taking up the issue of the Jerusalem controversy, Charlemagne asked Theodulf of Orleans, the
 principal author of the *Libri Carolini*, to write a defense of the use of the word *Filioque*.
 Appearing in 809, *De Spiritu Sancto* of Theodulf was essentially a compilation of patristic
 citations supporting the theology of the *Filioque*. With this text in hand, Charlemagne convened
 a council in Aachen in 809-810 to affirm the doctrine of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father
 and the Son, which had been questioned by Greek theologians. Following this council,
 Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed with the *Filioque* (Mansi
 14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place
 in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term *Filioque*, and approved its use
 in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text
 of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired
 by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it.
 Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible,
 but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the
 Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the
 *Liber Pontificalis*, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s,
 containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives
 and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the *Filioque*
 during the Eucharist in their own dioceses.
 The Byzantines had little appreciation of the various developments regarding the *Filioque* in the
 West between the sixth and ninth centuries. Communication grew steadily worse, and their own
 struggles with monothelitism, iconoclasm, and the rise of Islam left little time to follow closely
 theological developments in the West. However, their interest in the Filioque became more
 pronounced in the middle of the 9th century, when it came to be combined with jurisdictional
 disputes between Rome and Constantinople, as well as with the activities of Frankish
 missionaries in Bulgaria. When Byzantine missionaries were expelled from Bulgaria by King
 Boris, under Western influence, they returned to Constantinople and reported on Western
 practices, including the use of the Creed with the *Filioque*. Patriarch Photios of Constantinople,
 in 867, addressed a strongly worded encyclical to the other Eastern patriarchs, commenting on
 the political and ecclesiastical crisis in Bulgaria as well as on the tensions between
 Constantinople and Rome. In this letter, Photios denounced the Western missionaries in Bulgaria
 and criticized Western liturgical practices.
 Most significantly, Patriarch Photios called the addition of the *Filioque* in the West a blasphemy,
 and presented a substantial theological argument against the view of the Trinity which he
 believed it depicted. Photios’s opposition to the *Filioque* was based upon his view that it signifies
 two causes in the Trinity, and diminishes the monarchy of the Father. Thus, the *Filioque* seemed
 to him to detract from the distinctive character of each person of the Trinity, and to confuse their
 relationships, paradoxically bearing in itself the seeds of both pagan polytheism and Sabellian
 modalism (*Mystagogy* 9, 11). In his letter of 867, Photios does not, however, demonstrate any
 knowledge of the Latin patristic tradition behind the use of the *Filioque* in the West. His
 opposition to the *Filioque* would subsequently receive further elaboration in his Letter to the
 Patriarch of Aquileia in 883 or 884, as well as in his famous *Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit*,
 written about 886.
 In concluding his letter of 867, Photios called for an ecumenical council that would resolve the
 issue of the interpolation of the *Filioque*, as well as illuminating its theological foundation. A
 local council was held in Constantinople in 867, which deposed Pope Nicholas I - an action
 which increased tensions between the two sees. In 863, Nicholas himself had refused to
 recognize Photios as Patriarch because of his allegedly uncanonical appointment. With changes
 in the imperial government, Photios was forced to resign in 867, and was replaced by Patriarch
 Ignatius, whom he himself had replaced in 858. A new council was convened in Constantinople
 later in 869. With papal representatives present and with imperial support, this Council
 excommunicated Photios, and was subsequently recognized in the Medieval West, for reasons
 unrelated to the *Filioque* or Photios, as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, although it was never
 recognized as such in the East.
 The relationship between Rome and Constantinople changed when Photios again became
 patriarch in 877, following the death of Ignatius. In Rome, Pope Nicholas had died in 867, and
 was succeeded by Pope Hadrian II (867-872), who himself anathematized Photios in 869. His
 successor, Pope John VIII (872-882), was willing to recognize Photios as the legitimate Patriarch
 in Constantinople under certain conditions, thus clearing the way for a restoration of better
 relations. A Council was held in Constantinople in 879-880, in the presence of representatives
 from Rome and the other Eastern Patriarchates. This Council, considered by some modern
 Orthodox theologians to be ecumenical, suppressed the decisions of the earlier Council of
 869-870, and recognized the status of Photios as patriarch. It affirmed the ecumenical character
 of the Council of 787 and its decisions against iconoclasm. There was no extensive discussion of
 the *Filioque*, which was not yet a part of the Creed professed in Rome itself, and no statement
 was made by the Council about its theological justification; yet this Council formally reaffirmed
 the original text of the Creed of 381, without the *Filioque*, and anathematized anyone who would
 compose another confession of faith. The Council also spoke of the Roman see in terms of great
 respect, and allowed the Papal legates the traditional prerogatives of presidency, recognizing
 their right to begin and to close discussions and to sign documents first. Nevertheless, the
 documents give no indication that the bishops present formally recognized any priority of
 jurisdiction for the see of Rome, outside of the framework of the Patristic understanding of the
 communion of Churches and the sixth-century canonical theory of the Pentarchy. The difficult
 question of the competing claims of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople to jurisdiction
 in Bulgaria was left to be decided by the Emperor. After the Council, the *Filioque* continued to
 be used in the Creed in parts of Western Europe, despite the intentions of Pope John VIII, who,
 like his predecessors, maintained the text sanctioned by the Council of 381.
 A new stage in the history of the controversy was reached in the early eleventh century. During
 the synod following the coronation of King Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor at Rome in 1014,
 the Creed, including the *Filioque*, was sung for the first time at a papal Mass. Because of this
 action, the liturgical use of the Creed, with the *Filioque*, now was generally assumed in the Latin
 Church to have the sanction of the papacy. Its inclusion in the Eucharist, after two centuries of
 papal resistance of the practice, reflected a new dominance of the German Emperors over the
 papacy, as well as the papacy’s growing sense of its own authority, under imperial protection,
 within the entire Church, both western and eastern.
 The *Filioque* figured prominently in the tumultuous events of 1054, when excommunications
 were exchanged by representatives of the Eastern and Western Churches meeting in
 Constantinople. Within the context of his anathemas against Patriarch Michael I Cerularios of
 Constantinople and certain of his advisors, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, the legate of
 Pope Leo IX, accused the Byzantines of improperly deleting the *Filioque* from the Creed, and
 criticized other Eastern liturgical practices. In responding to these accusations, Patriarch Michael
 recognized that the anathemas of Humbert did not originate with Leo IX, and cast his own
 anathemas simply upon the papal delegation. Leo, in fact, was already dead and his successor
 had not been elected. At the same time, Michael condemned the Western use of the *Filioque* in
 the Creed, as well as other Western liturgical practices. This exchange of limited
 excommunications did not lead, by itself, to a formal schism between Rome and Constantinople,
 despite the views of later historians; it did, however, deepen the growing estrangement between
 Constantinople and Rome.
 The relationship between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria,
 Antioch, and Jerusalem were seriously damaged during the period of the crusades, and especially
 in the wake of the infamous Fourth Crusade. In 1204, Western Crusaders sacked the city of
 Constantinople, long the commercial and political rival of Venice, and Western politicians and
 clergy dominated the life of the city until it was reclaimed by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos
 in 1261. The installation of Western bishops in the territories of Constantinople, Antioch and
 Jerusalem, who were loyal to Rome and to the political powers of Western Europe, became a
 tragically visible new expression of schism. Even after 1261, Rome supported Latin patriarchs in
 these three ancient Eastern sees. For most Eastern Christians, this was a clear sign that the
 papacy and its political supporters had little regard for the legitimacy of their ancient churches.
 Despite this growing estrangement, a number of notable attempts were made to address the issue
 of the *Filioque* between the early twelfth and mid-thirteenth century. The German Emperor
 Lothair III sent bishop Anselm of Havelberg to Constantinople in 1136, to negotiate a military
 alliance with Emperor John II Comnenos. While he was there, Anselm and Metropolitan Nicetas
 of Nicomedia held a series of public discussions about subjects dividing the Churches, including
 the *Filioque*, and concluded that the differences between the two traditions were not as great as
 they had thought (PL 188.1206B – 1210 B). A letter from Orthodox Patriarch Germanos II
 (1222-1240) to Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) led to further discussions between Eastern and
 Western theologians on the *Filioque* at Nicaea in 1234. Subsequent discussions were held in
 1253-54, at the initiative of Emperor John III Vatatzes (1222-1254) and Pope Innocent IV
 (1243-1254). In spite of these efforts, the continuing effects of the Fourth Crusade and the threat
 of the Turks, along with the jurisdictional claims of the papacy in the East, meant that these
 well-intentioned efforts came to no conclusion.
 Against this background, a Western council was held in Lyons in 1274 (Lyons II), after the
 restoration of Constantinople to Eastern imperial control. Despite the consequences of the
 crusades, many Byzantines sought to heal the wounds of division and looked to the West for
 support against the growing advances of the Turks, and Pope Gregory X (1271-1276)
 enthusiastically hoped for reunion. Among the topics agreed upon for discussion at the council
 was the *Filioque*. Yet the two Byzantine bishops who were sent as delegates had no real
 opportunity to present the Eastern perspective at the Council. The *Filioque* was formally
 approved by the delegates in the final session on July 17, in a brief constitution which also
 explicitly condemned those holding other views on the origin of the Holy Spirit. Already on July
 6, in accord with an agreement previously reached between papal delegates and the Emperor in
 Constantinople, the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches was proclaimed, but it was
 never received by the Eastern clergy and faithful, or vigorously promoted by the Popes in the
 West. In this context it should be noted that in his letter commemorating the 700th anniversary of
 this council (1974), Pope Paul VI recognised this and added that “the Latins chose texts and
 formulae expressing an ecclesiology which had been conceived and developed in the West. It is
 understandable […] that a unity achieved in this way could not be accepted completely by the
 Eastern Christian mind.” A little further on, the Pope, speaking of the future Catholic-Orthodox
 dialogue, observed: “…it will take up again other controverted points which Gregory X and the
 Fathers of Lyons thought were resolved.”
 At the Eastern Council of Blachernae (Constantinople) in 1285, in fact, the decisions of the
 Council of Lyons and the pro-Latin theology of former Patriarch John XI Bekkos (1275-1282)
 were soundly rejected, under the leadership of Patriarch Gregory II, also known as Gregory of
 Cyprus (1282-1289). At the same time, this council produced a significant statement addressing
 the theological issue of the *Filioque*. While firmly rejecting the “double procession” of the Spirit
 from the Father and the Son, the statement spoke of an “eternal manifestation” of the Spirit
 *through* the Son. Patriarch Gregory’s language opened the way, at least, towards a deeper, more
 complex understanding of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in both the East
 and the West. (see below) This approach was developed further by Gregory Palamas
 (1296-1359), in the context of his distinction between the essence and the energies of the divine
 persons. Unfortunately, these openings had little effect on later medieval discussions of the origin
 of the Spirit, in either the Eastern or the Western Church. Despite the concern shown by
 Byzantine theologians, from the time of Photios, to oppose both the idea of the *Filioque* and its
 addition to the Latin creed, there is no reference to it in the *Synodikon of Orthodoxy*, a collection
 containing more than sixty anathemas representing the doctrinal decisions of Eastern councils
 through the fourteenth century.
 One more attempt was made, however, to deal with the subject authoritatively on an ecumenical
 scale. The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1445) again brought together representatives from
 the Church of Rome and the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, to
 discuss a wide range of controversial issues, including papal authority and the *Filioque*. This
 Council took place at a time when the Byzantine Empire was gravely threatened by the
 Ottomans, and when many in the Greek world regarded military aid from the West as
 Constantinople’s only hope. Following extensive discussions by experts from both sides, often
 centered on the interpretation of patristic texts, the union of the Churches was declared on July 6,
 1439. The Council’s decree of reunion, *Laetentur caeli*, recognized the legitimacy of the Western
 view of the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father and the Son, as from a single principle and
 in a single spiration. The *Filioque* was presented here as having the same meaning as the position
 of some early Eastern Fathers that the Spirit exists or proceeds “through the Son.” The Council
 also approved a text which spoke of the Pope as having “primacy over the whole world,” as
 “head of the whole church and father and teacher of all Christians.” Despite Orthodox
 participation in these discussions, the decisions of Florence – like the union decree of Lyons II -
 were never received by a representative body of bishops or faithful in the East, and were
 formally rejected in Constantinople in 1484.
 The Fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the fracturing effect of the Protestant Reformation in the
 West, as well as subsequent Latin missions in the former Byzantine world and the establishment
 of Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, led to a deepening of the schism, accompanied
 by much polemical literature on each side. For more than five hundred years, few opportunities
 were offered to the Catholic and Orthodox sides for serious discussion of the *Filioque*, and of the
 related issue of the primacy and teaching authority of the bishop of Rome. Orthodoxy and
 Roman Catholicism entered into a period of formal isolation from each other, in which each
 developed a sense of being the only ecclesiastical body authentically representing the apostolic
 faith. For example, this is expressed in Pius IX’s encyclical *In Suprema Petri Sede* of January 6,
 1848, and in Leo XIII’s encyclical *Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae* of June 20, 1894, as well as
 the encyclical of the Orthodox Patriarchs in 1848 and the encyclical of the Patriarchate of
 Constantinople of 1895, each reacting to the prior papal documents. Ecumenical discussions of
 the *Filioque* between the Orthodox Churches and representatives of the Old Catholics and
 Anglicans were held in Germany in 1874-75, and were occasionally revived during the century
 that followed, but in general little substantial progress was made in moving beyond the hardened
 opposition of traditional Eastern and Western views.
 A new phase in the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church began
 formally with the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the Pan-Orthodox Conferences
 (1961-1968), which renewed contacts and dialogue. From that time, a number of theological
 issues and historical events contributing to the schism between the churches have begun to
 receive new attention. In this context, our own North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation
 was established in 1965, and the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue
 between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was established in 1979. Although a committee of
 theologians from many different Churches, sponsored by the Faith and Order Commission of the
 World Council of Churches, studied the *Filioque* question in depth in 1978 and 1979, and
 concluded by issuing the “Klingenthal Memorandum” (1979), no thorough new joint discussion
 of the issue has been undertaken by representatives of our two Churches until our own study. The
 first statement of the Joint International Commission (1982), entitled “The Mystery of the
 Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Trinity,” does briefly address the
 issue of the *Filioque*, within the context of an extensive discussion of the relationship of the
 persons of the Holy Trinity. The Statement says: “Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties
 which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son
 and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn.
 15:26) as the sole source of the Trinity, and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom.
 8:15) since he is already the Spirit of the Son (Gal.4:6), is communicated to us, particularly in the
 Eucharist, by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and eternity (Jn. 1:32).” (No. 6).
 Several other events in recent decades point to a greater willingness on the part of Rome to
 recognize the normative character of the original creed of Constantinople. When Patriarch
 Dimitrios I visited Rome on December 7, 1987, and again during the visit of Patriarch
 Bartholomew I to Rome in June 1995, both patriarchs attended a Eucharist celebrated by Pope
 John Paul II in St. Peter’s Basilica. On both occasions the Pope and Patriarch proclaimed the
 Creed in Greek (i.e., without the Filioque). Pope John Paul II and Romanian Patriarch Teoctist
 did the same in Romanian at a papal Mass in Rome on October 13, 2002. The document
 *Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church*, issued
 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on August 6, 2000, begins its theological
 considerations on the Church’s central teaching with the text of the creed of 381, again without
 the addition of the *Filioque*. While no interpretation of these uses of the Creed was offered, these
 developments suggest a new awareness on the Catholic side of the unique character of the
 original Greek text of the Creed as the most authentic formulation of the faith that unifies Eastern
 and Western Christianity.
 Not long after the meeting in Rome between Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch
 Bartholomew I, the Vatican published the document “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding
 the Procession of the Holy Spirit” (September 13, 1995). This text was intended to be a new
 contribution to the dialogue between our churches on this controversial issue. Among the many
 observations it makes, the text says: “The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar,
 ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as the expression of one common faith of the
 Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the
 Second Ecumenical Council. No confession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition
 can contradict this expression of faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.” Although
 the Catholic Church obviously does not consider the *Filioque* to be a contradiction of the creed
 of 381, the significance of this passage in the 1995 Vatican statement should not be minimized. It
 is in response to this important document that our own study of the *Filioque* began in 1999, and
 we hope that this present statement will serve to carry further the positive discussions between
 our communions that we have experienced ourselves.
 ## [III. Theological Reflections](#3) {#3}
 In all discussions about the origin of the Holy Spirit within the Mystery of God, and about the
 relationships of Father, Son and Holy Spirit with each other, the first habit of mind to be
 cultivated is doubtless a reverent modesty. Concerning the divine Mystery itself, we can say very
 little, and our speculations always risk claiming a degree of clarity and certainty that is more than
 their due. As Pseudo-Dionysius reminds us, “No unity or trinity or number or oneness or
 fruitfulness, or any other thing that either is a creature or can be known to any creature, is able to
 express the Mystery, beyond all mind and reason, of that transcendent Godhead which in a superessential
 way surpasses all things” (*On the Divine Names* 13.3). That we do, as Christians,
 profess our God, who is radically and indivisibly one, to be the Father and the Son and the Holy
 Spirit – three “persons” who can never be confused with or reduced to one another, and who are
 all fully and literally God, singly and in the harmonious whole of their relationships with each
 other - is simply a summation of what we have learned from God’s self-revelation in human
 history, a revelation that has reached its climax in our being able, in the power of the Holy Spirit,
 to confess Jesus as the Eternal Father’s Word and Son. Surely our Christian language about God
 must always be regulated by the Holy Scriptures, and by the dogmatic tradition of the Church,
 which interprets the content of Scripture in a normative way. Yet there always remains the
 difficult hermeneutical problem of applying particular Scriptural terms and texts to the inner life
 of God, and of knowing when a passage refers simply to God’s action within the “economy” of
 saving history, or when it should be understood as referring absolutely to God’s being in itself.
 The division between our Churches on the *Filioque* question would probably be less acute if both
 sides, through the centuries, had remained more conscious of the limitations of our knowledge of
 God.
 Secondly, discussion of this difficult subject has often been hampered by polemical distortions,
 in which each side has caricatured the position of the other for the purposes of argument. It is not
 true, for instance, that mainstream Orthodox theology conceives of the procession of the Spirit,
 within God’s eternal being, as simply unaffected by the relationship of the Son to the Father, or
 thinks of the Spirit as not “belonging” properly to the Son when the Spirit is sent forth in history.
 It is also not true that mainstream Latin theology has traditionally begun its Trinitarian
 reflections from an abstract, unscriptural consideration of the divine substance, or affirms two
 causes of the Spirit’s hypostatic existence, or means to assign the Holy Spirit a role subordinate
 to the Son, either within the Mystery of God or in God’s saving action in history.
 We are convinced from our own study that the Eastern and Western theological traditions have
 been in substantial agreement, since the patristic period, on a number of fundamental
 affirmations about the Holy Trinity that bear on the Filioque debate:
 * both traditions clearly affirm that *the Holy Spirit is a distinct hypostasis* or person within the
 divine Mystery, equal in status to the Father and the Son, and is not simply a creature or a way
 of talking about God’s action in creatures;
 * although the Creed of 381 does not state it explicitly, both traditions confess the Holy Spirit to
 be God, *of the same divine substance (homoousios)* as Father and Son;
 * both traditions also clearly affirm that the Father *is the primordial source (arch‘) and ultimate*
 *cause (aitia) of the divine being*, and thus of all God’s operations: the “spring” from which
 both Son and Spirit flow, the “root” of their being and fruitfulness, the “sun” from which their
 existence and their activity radiates;
 * both traditions affirm that *the three hypostases or persons in God are constituted* in their
 hypostatic existence and distinguished from one another solely *by their relationships of origin*,
 and not by any other characteristics or activities;
 * accordingly, both traditions affirm that *all the operations of God* - the activities by which God
 summons created reality into being, and forms that reality, for its well-being, into a unified and
 ordered cosmos centered on the human creature, who is made in God’s image – are *the*
 *common work of Father, Son and Holy Spirit*, even though each of them plays a distinctive role
 within those operations that is determined by their relationships to one another.
 Nevertheless, the Eastern and Western traditions of reflection on the Mystery of God have clearly
 developed categories and conceptions that differ in substantial ways from one another. These
 differences cannot simply be explained away, or be made to seem equivalent by facile argument.
 We might summarize our differences as follows:
 ### [1) Terminology](#3.1) {#3.1}
 The *Filioque* controversy is first of all a controversy over words. As a number of recent authors
 have pointed out, part of the theological disagreement between our communions seems to be
 rooted in subtle but significant differences in the way key terms have been used to refer to the
 Spirit’s divine origin. The original text of the Creed of 381, in speaking of the Holy Spirit,
 characterizes him in terms of John 15.26, as the one “who proceeds (*ekporeuetai*) from the
 Father”: probably influenced by the usage of Gregory the Theologian (Or. 31.8), the Council
 chose to restrict itself to the Johannine language, slightly altering the Gospel text (changing *to*
 *pneuma…ho para tou Patros ekporeuetai to: to pneuma to hagion… to ek tou Patros*
 *ekporeuomenon*) in order to emphasize that the “coming forth” of the Spirit begins “within” the
 Father’s own eternal hypostatic role as source of the divine Being, and so is best spoken of as a
 kind of “movement out of (*ek*)” him. The underlying connotation of *ekporeuesthai* (“proceed,”
 “issue forth”) and its related noun, *ekporeusis* (“procession”), seems to have been that of a
 “passage outwards” from within some point of origin. Since the time of the Cappadocian Fathers,
 at least, Greek theology almost always restricts the theological use of this term to the coming-forth
 of the Spirit from the Father, giving it the status of a technical term for the relationship of
 those two divine persons. In contrast, other Greek words, such as *proienai*, “go forward,” are
 frequently used by the Eastern Fathers to refer to the Spirit’s saving “mission” in history from the
 Father and the risen Lord.
 The Latin word *procedere*, on the other hand, with its related noun *processio*, suggests simply
 “movement forwards,” without the added implication of the starting-point of that movement;
 thus it is used to translate a number of other Greek theological terms, including *proienai*, and is
 explicitly taken by Thomas Aquinas to be a general term denoting “origin of any kind” (*Summa*
 *Theologiae* I, q. 36, a.2), including – in a Trinitarian context - the Son’s generation as well as the
 breathing-forth of the Spirit and his mission in time. As a result, both the primordial origin of the
 Spirit in the eternal Father and his “coming forth” from the risen Lord tend to be designated, in
 Latin, by the same word, *procedere*, while Greek theology normally uses two different terms.
 Although the difference between the Greek and the Latin traditions of understanding the eternal
 origin of the Spirit is more than simply a verbal one, much of the original concern in the Greek
 Church over the insertion of the word *Filioque* into the Latin translation of the Creed of 381 may
 well have been due – as Maximus the Confessor explained (*Letter to Marinus*: PG 91.133-136) -
 to a misunderstanding on both sides of the different ranges of meaning implied in the Greek and
 Latin terms for “procession”.
 ### [2) The Substantive Issues](#3.2) {#3.2}
 Clearly two main issues separate the Eastern and Western Churches in their history of debating
 the Filioque: one theological, in the strict sense, and one ecclesiological.
 #### [a) Theological:](#3.2.1) {#3.2.1}
 If “theology” is understood in its Patristic sense, as reflection on God as Trinity, the theological
 issue behind this dispute is whether the Son is to be thought of as playing any role in the origin
 of the Spirit, as a hypostasis or divine “person,” from the Father, who is the sole ultimate source
 of the divine Mystery. The Greek tradition, as we have seen, has generally relied on John 15.26
 and the formulation of the Creed of 381 to assert that all we know of the Spirit’s hypostatic
 origin is that he “proceeds from the Father,” in a way distinct from, but parallel to, the Son’s
 “generation” from the Father (e.g., John of Damascus, *On the Orthodox Faith* 1.8). However,
 this same tradition acknowledges that the “mission” of the Spirit in the world also involves the
 Son, who receives the Spirit into his own humanity at his baptism, breathes the Spirit forth onto
 the Twelve on the evening of the resurrection, and sends the Spirit in power into the world,
 through the charismatic preaching of the Apostles, at Pentecost. On the other hand, the Latin
 tradition since Tertullian has tended to assume that since the order in which the Church normally
 names the persons in the Trinity places the Spirit after the Son, he is to be thought of as coming
 forth “from” the Father “through” the Son. Augustine, who in several passages himself insists
 that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” because as God he is not inferior to the Son (*De*
 *Fide et Symbolo* 9.19; *Enchiridion* 9.3), develops, in other texts, his classic understanding that
 the Spirit also “proceeds” from the Son because he is, in the course of sacred history, the Spirit
 and the “gift” of both Father and Son (e.g., *On the Trinity* 4.20.29; *Tractate on Gospel of John*
 99.6-7), the gift that begins in their own eternal exchange of love (*On the Trinity* 15.17.29). In
 Augustine’s view, this involvement of the Son in the Spirit’s procession is not understood to
 contradict the Father’s role as the single ultimate source of both Son and Spirit, but is itself given
 by the Father in generating the Son: “the Holy Spirit, in turn, has this from the Father himself,
 that he should also proceed from the Son, just as he proceeds from the Father” (*Tractate on*
 *Gospel of John* 99.8).
 Much of the difference between the early Latin and Greek traditions on this point is clearly due
 to the subtle difference of the Latin *procedere* from the Greek *ekporeuesthai*: as we have
 observed, the Spirit’s “coming forth” is designated in a more general sense by the Latin term,
 without the connotation of ultimate origin hinted at by the Greek. The Spirit’s “procession” from
 the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his
 “procession” from the Father, even when – as in the explanations of Anselm and Thomas
 Aquinas – the relationship of Father and Son to the Holy Spirit is spoken of as constituting “a
 single principle” of the Spirit’s origin: even in breathing forth the Spirit together, according to
 these later Latin theologians, the Father retains priority, giving the Son all that he has and making
 possible all that he does.
 Greek theologians, too, have often struggled to find ways of expressing a sense that the Son, who
 sends forth the Spirit in time, also plays a mediating role of some kind in the Spirit’s eternal
 being and activity. Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, explains that we can only distinguish the
 hypostases within the Mystery of God by “believing that one is the cause, the other is from the
 cause; and in that which is from the cause, we recognize yet another distinction: one is
 immediately from the first one, the other is through him who is immediately from the first one.”
 It is characteristic of the “mediation” (*mesiteia*) of the Son in the origin of the Spirit, he adds,
 that it both preserves his own unique role as Son and allows the Spirit to have a “natural
 relationship” to the Father. (*To Ablabius*: GNO III/1, 56.3-10) In the thirteenth century, the
 Council of Blachernae (1285), under the leadership of Constantinopolitan Patriarch Gregory II,
 took further steps to interpret Patristic texts that speak of the Spirit’s being “through” the Son in
 a sense consistent with the Orthodox tradition. The Council proposed in its *Tomos* that although
 Christian faith must maintain that the Holy Spirit receives his existence and hypostatic identity
 solely from the Father, who is the single cause of the divine Being, he “shines from and is
 manifested eternally through the Son, in the way that light shines forth and is manifest through
 the intermediary of the sun’s rays.” (trans. A. Papadakis, *Crisis in Byzantium* [St. Vladimir’s,
 1996] 219) In the following century, Gregory Palamas proposed a similar interpretation of this
 relationship in a number of his works; in his *Confession* of 1351, for instance, he asserts that the
 Holy Spirit “has the Father as foundation, source, and cause,” but “reposes in the Son” and “is
 sent – that is, manifested – through the Son.” (*ibid*. 194) In terms of the transcendent divine
 energy, although not in terms of substance or hypostatic being, “the Spirit pours itself out from
 the Father through the Son, and, if you like, from the Son over all those worthy of it,” a
 communication which may even be broadly called “procession” (*ekporeusis*) (*Apodeictic*
 *Treatise* 1: trans. J. Meyendorff, *A Study of Gregory Palamas* [St. Vladimir’s, 1974] 231-232).
 The Greek and Latin theological traditions clearly remain in some tension with each other on the
 fundamental issue of the Spirit’s eternal origin as a distinct divine person. By the Middle Ages,
 as a result of the influence of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, Western theology almost universally
 conceives of the identity of each divine person as defined by its “relations of opposition” – in
 other words, its mutually defining relations of origin - to the other two, and concludes that the
 Holy Spirit would not be hypostatically distinguishable from the Son if the Spirit “proceeded”
 from the Father alone. In the Latin understanding of *processio* as a general term for “origin,”
 after all, it can also be said that the Son “proceeds from the Father” by being generated from him.
 Eastern theology, drawing on the language of John 15.26 and the Creed of 381, continues to
 understand the language of “procession” (*ekporeusis*) as denoting a unique, exclusive, and
 distinctive causal relationship between the Spirit and the Father, and generally confines the Son’s
 role to the “manifestation” and “mission” of the Spirit in the divine activities of creation and
 redemption. These differences, though subtle, are substantial, and the very weight of theological
 tradition behind both of them makes them all the more difficult to reconcile theologically with
 each other.
 #### [b) Ecclesiological:](#3.2.2) {#3.2.2}
 The other issue continually present since the late eighth century in the debate over the *Filioque* is
 that of pastoral and teaching authority in the Church – more precisely, the issue of the authority
 of the bishop of Rome to resolve dogmatic questions in a final way, simply in virtue of his office.
 Since the Council of Ephesus (431), the dogmatic tradition of both Eastern and Western
 Churches has repeatedly affirmed that the final norm of orthodoxy in interpreting the Christian
 Gospel must be “the faith of Nicaea.” The Orthodox tradition sees the normative expression of
 that faith to be the Creeds and canons formulated by those Councils that are received by the
 Apostolic Churches as “ecumenical”: as expressing the continuing and universal Apostolic faith.
 The Catholic tradition also accepts conciliar formulations as dogmatically normative, and
 attributes a unique importance to the seven Councils that are accepted as ecumenical by the
 Catholic and Orthodox Churches. However, in recognizing the universal primacy of the bishop
 of Rome in matters of faith and of the service of unity, the Catholic tradition accepts the
 authority of the Pope to confirm the process of conciliar reception, and to define what does and
 does not conflict with the “faith of Nicaea” and the Apostolic tradition. So while Orthodox
 theology has regarded the ultimate approval by the Popes, in the eleventh century, of the use of
 *Filioque* in the Latin Creed as a usurpation of the dogmatic authority proper to ecumenical
 Councils alone, Catholic theology has seen it as a legitimate exercise of his primatial authority to
 proclaim and clarify the Church’s faith. As our own common study has repeatedly shown, it is
 precisely at times in which issues of power and control have been of concern to our Churches
 that the question of the *Filioque* has emerged as a central concern: held out as a condition for
 improving relations, or given as a reason for allowing disunity to continue unhealed.
 As in the theological question of the origin of the Holy Spirit discussed above, this divergence of
 understanding of the structure and exercise of authority in the Church is clearly a very serious
 one: undoubtedly Papal primacy, with all its implications, remains the root issue behind all the
 questions of theology and practice that continue to divide our communions. In the continuing
 discussion of the *Filioque* between our Churches, however, we have found it helpful to keep
 these two issues methodologically separate from one another, and to recognize that the mystery
 of the relationships among the persons in God must be approached in a different way from the
 issue of whether or not it is proper for the Western Churches to profess the faith of Nicaea in
 terms that diverge from the original text of the Creed of 381.
 ### [3) Continuing our Reflections](#3.2.3) {#3.2.3}
 It has often been remarked that the theology of the Holy Spirit is an underdeveloped region of
 Christian theological reflection. This seems to hold true even of the issue of the origin of the
 Holy Spirit. Although a great deal has been written about the reasons for and against the theology
 of the *Filioque* since the Carolingian era, most of it has been polemical in nature, aimed at
 justifying positions assumed by both sides to be non-negotiable. Little effort has been made, until
 modern times, to look for new ways of expressing and explaining the Biblical and early Christian
 understanding of the person and work of the Holy Spirit, which might serve to frame the
 discussion in a new way and move all the Churches towards a consensus on essential matters that
 would be in continuity with both traditions. Recently, a number of theologians, from a variety of
 Churches, have suggested that the time may now be at hand to return to this question together, in
 a genuinely ecumenical spirit, and to seek for new developments in our articulation of the
 Apostolic faith that may ultimately win ecumenical Christian reception.
 Recognizing its challenges, our Consultation supports such a common theological enterprise. It is
 our hope that a serious process of reflection on the theology of the Holy Spirit, based on the
 Scriptures and on the whole tradition of Christian theology, and conducted with an openness to
 new formulations and conceptual structures consonant with that tradition, might help our
 Churches to discover new depths of common faith and to grow in respect for the wisdom of our
 respective forbears. We urge, too, that both our Churches persist in their efforts to reflect –
 together and separately – on the theology of primacy and synodality within the Church’s
 structures of teaching and pastoral practice, recognizing that here also a continuing openness to
 doctrinal and practical development, intimately linked to the Spirit’s work in the community,
 remains crucially necessary. Gregory Nazianzen reminds us, in his *Fifth Theological Oration* on
 the divinity of the Holy Spirit, that the Church’s slow discovery of the Spirit’s true status and
 identity is simply part of the “order of theology (*taxis tēs theologias*),” by which “lights break
 upon us gradually” in our understanding of the saving Mystery of God. (Or. 31.27) Only if we
 “listen to what the Spirit is saying to the Churches” (Rev 3.22), will we be able to remain faithful
 to the Good News preached by the Apostles, while growing in the understanding of that faith,
 which is theology’s task.
 ## [IV. Recommendations](#4) {#4}
 We are aware that the problem of the theology of the *Filioque*, and its use in the Creed, is not
 simply an issue between the Catholic and Orthodox communions. Many Protestant Churches,
 too, drawing on the theological legacy of the Medieval West, consider the term to represent an
 integral part of the orthodox Christian confession. Although dialogue among a number of these
 Churches and the Orthodox communion has already touched on the issue, any future resolution
 of the disagreement between East and West on the origin of the Spirit must involve all those
 communities that profess the Creed of 381 as a standard of faith. Aware of its limitations, our
 Consultation nonetheless makes the following theological and practical recommendations to the
 members and the bishops of our own Churches:
 * that our Churches commit themselves to a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and
 person of the Holy Spirit, drawing on the Holy Scriptures and on the full riches of the
 theological traditions of both our Churches, and to looking for constructive ways of
 expressing what is central to our faith on this difficult issue;
 * that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make
 definitive assertions about the inner life of God;
 * that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in
 recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the
 other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;
 * that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and
 hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the
 manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;
 * that those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological
 issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and
 doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together;
 * that the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the
 status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as
 ecumenical.
 * that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value
 of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for
 catechetical and liturgical use.
 * that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the
 statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second
 Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds
 eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.
 We offer these recommendations to our Churches in the conviction, based on our own intense
 study and discussion, that our traditions’ different ways of understanding the procession of the
 Holy Spirit need no longer divide us. We believe, rather, that our profession of the ancient Creed
 of Constantinople must be allowed to become, by our uniform practice and our new attempts at
 mutual understanding, the basis for a more conscious unity in the one faith that all theology
 simply seeks to clarify and to deepen. Although our expression of the truth God reveals about his
 own Being must always remain limited by the boundaries of human understanding and human
 words, we believe that it is the very “Spirit of truth,” whom Jesus breathes upon his Church, who
 remains with us still, to “guide us into all truth” (John 16.13). We pray that our Churches’
 understanding of this Spirit may no longer be a scandal to us, or an obstacle to unity in Christ,
 but that the one truth towards which he guides us may truly be “a bond of peace” (Eph 4.3), for
 us and for all Christians.
 Washington, DC  
 October 25, 2003
--- a/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2009-ravenna.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2009-ravenna.md
@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue regarding the ‘Ravenna Document’
 date: 2009-10-24
 author: North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
 source: https://www.usccb.org/resources/ravenna-response.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2010-reunited.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2010-reunited.md
@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Steps towards a Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future
 date: 2010-10-02
 author: North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
 source: https://www.usccb.org/resources/steps-towards-a-reunited-church.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2017-chieti.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2017-chieti.md
@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church Document “Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church” (2016)
 date: 2017-10-28
 Author: North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
 source: https://www.usccb.org/resources/Chieti-Response.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/pccu-1995-filioque.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/pccu-1995-filioque.md
@ -1,88 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit
 date: 1995-09-13
 author: Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity
 source: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/documenti/altri-testi/en1.html
 ---
 *The Holy Father, in the homily he gave in St Peter Basilica on 29 June in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, expressed a desire that "the traditional doctrine of the* Filioque, *present in the liturgical version of the Latin Credo, [be clarified] in order to highlight its full harmony with what the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of 381 confesses in its creed: the Father as the source of the whole Trinity, the one origin both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."*
 *What is published here is the clarification he has asked for, which has been undertaken by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. It is intended as a contribution to the dialogue which is carried out by the Joint International Commission between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. It appeared in "L'Osservatore Romano" (September 13, 1995) accompanied by three stars.*
 In its first report on ["The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity"](./jictd-1982-munich.md), unanimously approved in Munich on 6 July 1982, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had mentioned the centuries-old difficulty between the two churches concerning the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit. Not being able to treat this subject for itself in this first phase of the dialogue, the Commission stated: "Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (*Jn* 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (*Rom* 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (*Gal* 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the Eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (*Jn* 1:32)." (Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, *Information Service* n. 49, p.108, I,6).
 The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.
 On the basis of *Jn* 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit "τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον" ("who takes his origin from the Father"). The Father alone is the principle without principle (ἀρχὴ ᾰναρχος) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (πηγή) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner.[^1]
 [^1]: These are the terms employed by St Thomas Aquinas in the *Summa Theologica*, Ia, q. 36, a. 3, 1um and 2um.
 The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the "Father's Monarchy," and the Western tradition, following St Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father "principaliter", that is, as principle (*De Trinitate* XV, 25, 47, PL 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Αἰτία) or Principle (*principium*) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
 This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as Principle of the whole Trinity is called ἐκπόρευσις by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers. St Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ἐκπόρευσις, distinguishing it from that of procession (τὸ προϊέναι) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (προιόν) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ἐκπόρευσις (*Discourse* 39, 12, *Sources chrétiennes* 358, p. 175). Even if St Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ἐκπορεύσθαι the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (Cf. *Commentary on St John*, X, 2, PG 74, 910D; *Ep* 55, *PG* 77, 316 D, etc.). Even for St Cyril, the term ἐκπόρευσις as distinct from the term "proceed" (προϊέναι) can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.
 That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον and the Catholic Church has refused the addition καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the formula ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins.
 The Orthodox Orient does not, however, refuse all eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit in their origin from the Father. St Gregory of Nazianzus, a great witness to our two traditions, makes this clear in response to Macedonius who was asking: "What then is lacking to the Spirit to be the Son, for if nothing was lacking to him, he would be the Son? — We say that nothing is lacking to him, for nothing is lacking to God; but it is the difference in manifestation, if I may say so, or in the relationship between them (τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσεως διάφορον) which makes also the difference in what they are called" (*Discourse* 31, 9, *Sources chrétiennes* 250, pp. 290-292).
 The Orthodox Orient has, however, given a happy expression to this relationship with the formula διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son). St Basil already said of the Holy Spirit: "Through the Son (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ), who is one, he is joined to the Father, who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (*Treatise on the Holy Spirit*, XVIII, 45, *Sources chrétiennes* 17 bis, p. 408). St Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature (φύσει) the Holy Spirit in his being (κατ᾽ οὐσίαν) takes substantially (οὐσιοδῶς) his origin (ἐκπορευόμενον) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (δι᾽ Υἱοῦ γεννηθέντος)" (*Quaestiones ad Thalassium*, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C). We find this again in St John Damascene: "(ὁ Πατὴρ) ἀεὶ ἧν, ἕχων ἐξ ἐαυτοῦ τὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον, καὶ διὰ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον", in English: "I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him" (*Dialogus contra Manichaeos* 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p.354; cf. PG 94, 848-849 A). This aspect of the Trinitarian mystery was confessed at the seventh Ecumenical council, meeting at Nicaea in 787, by the Patriarch of Constantinople St Tarasius, who developed the Symbol as follows: "τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον καὶ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ του Πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον" (Mansi, Xll, 1122 D).
 This doctrine all bears witness to the fundamental Trinitarian faith as it was professed together by East and West at the time of the Fathers. It is the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox.
 The doctrine of the *Filioque* must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (ἀρχὴ, αἰτία) of the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit. The *Filioque* is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit. Against Arianism, which was still virulent in the West, its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one Monarchy of the Father.
 We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the *Filioque* on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation, while being aware of how inadequate human language is to express the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God, a mystery which is beyond our words and our thoughts.
 The Catholic Church interprets the *Filioque* with reference to the conciliar and ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value of the confession of faith in the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit, as defined in 381 by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in its Symbol. This Symbol only became known and received by Rome on the occasion of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. In the meantime, on the basis of the earlier Latin theological tradition, Fathers of the Church of the West like St Hilary, St Ambrose, St Augustine and St Leo the Great, had confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds (*procedit*) eternally from the Father and the Son.[^2]
 [^2]: It is Tertullian who lays the foundations for Trinitarian theology in the Latin tradition, on the basis of the substantial communication of the Father to the Son and through the Son to the Holy Spirit: "Christ says of the Spirit 'He will take from what is mine' (Jn 16:14), as he does from the Father. In this way, the connection of the Father to the Son and of the Son to the Paraclete makes the three cohere one from the other. They who are one sole reality (*unum*) not one alone (*unus*) by reason of the unity of substance and not of numerical singularity" (*Adv. Praxean*, XXV, 1-2). This communication of the divine consubstantiality in the Trinitarian order he expresses with the verb "*procedere*" (ibid., II, 6). We find this same theology in St Hilary of Poitiers, who says to the Father: "May I receive your Spirit who takes his being from you through your only Son" (*De Trinitate* XII, PL 10, 471). He remarks: "If anyone thinks there is a difference between receiving from the Son (*Jn* 16:15) and proceeding (*procedere*) from the Father (*Jn* 15:26), it is certain that it is one and the same thing to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father" (*De Trinitate*, VIII, 20, PL 10, 251 A). It is in this sense of communication of divinity through procession that St Ambrose of Milan is the first to formulate the *Filioque*: "The Holy Spirit when he proceeds (procedit) from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (*De Spiritu Sancto*, I, 11, 120, PL 16, 733 A = 762 D). St Augustine, however, takes the precaution of safeguarding the Father's monarchy within the consubstantial communion of the Trinity: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as Principle (*principaliter*) and, through the latter's timeless gift to the Son, from the Father and the Son in communion (*communiter*)" (*De Trinitate* XV , 25, 47, PL 42, 1095). St Leo, *Sermon* LXXV, 3, PL 54, 402; *Sermon* LXXVI, 2, ibid. 404).
 Since the Latin Bible (the Vulgate and earlier Latin translations) had translated *Jn* 15:26 (παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται) by "*qui a Patre procedit*", the Latins translated the ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople by "*ex Patre procedentum*" (Mansi VII, 112 B). In this way, a false equivalence was involuntarily created with regard to the eternal origin of the Spirit between the Oriental theology of the ἐκπόρευσις and the Latin theology of the *processio*.
 The Greek ἐκπόρευσις signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin *processio*, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.[^3] In confessing the Holy Spirit "*ex Patre procedentem*", the Latins, therefore, could only suppose an implicit *Filioque* which would later be made explicit in their liturgical version of the Symbol.
 [^3]: Tertullian uses the verb *procedere* in a sense common to the Word and the Spirit insofar as they receive divinity from the Father: "The Word was not uttered out of something empty and vain, and he does not lack substance, he who proceeded (*processit*) from such a [divine] substance and has made so many [created] substances." (*Adv. Praxean*, VII, 6). St Augustine, following St Ambrose, takes up this more common conception of procession: "All that proceeds is not born, although what is born proceeds" (*Contra Maximinum*, II, 14, 1, PL 42, 770). Much later St Thomas Aquinas remarks that "the divine nature is communicated in every processing that is not *ad extra*" (*Summa Theologica* Ia, q. 27, a. 3, 2um). For him, as for all this Latin theology which used the term "procession" for the Son as well as for the Spirit, "generation is a procession which puts the divine person in possession of the divine nature" (ibid., Ia. q. 43, a. 2, c), for "from all eternity the Son proceeds in order to be God" (ibid.). In the same way, he affirms that "through his procession, the Holy Spirit receives the nature of the Father, as does the Son" (ibid., Ia, q. 35, a. 2, c). "Of words referring to any kind of origin, the most general is procession. We use it to indicate any origin whatever; we say, for instance, that the line proceeds from the point; that the ray proceeds from the sun, the river from its source, and likewise in all kinds of other cases. Since we admit one or another of these words that evoke origin, we can, therefore, conclude that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son" (ibid., Ia, q. 36, a. 2, c).
 In the West, the *Filioque* was confessed from the fifth century through the *Quicumque* (or "*Athanasianum*", DS 75) Symbol, and then by the Councils of Toledo in Visigothic Spain between 589 and 693 (DS 470, 485, 490, 527, 568), to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality. If these Councils did not perhaps insert it in the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople, it is certainly to be found there from the end of the eighth century, as evidenced in the proceedings of the Council of Aquileia-Friuli in 796 (Mansi XIII, 836, D, ff.) and that of Aachen of 809 (Mansi XIV, 17). In the ninth century, however, faced with Charlemagne, Pope Leo III, in his anxiety to preserve unity with the Orient in the confession of faith, resisted this development of the Symbol which had spread spontaneously in the West, while safeguarding the truth contained in the *Filioque*. Rome only admitted it in 1014 into the liturgical Latin version of the Creed.
 In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of procession (προϊέναι) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (προεῖσι) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (προϊόν) substantially (οὐσιωδῶς) in it and from it" (St Cyril of Alexandria, *Thesaurus*, *PG* 75, 585 A).[^4]
 [^4]: St Cyril bears witness here to a Trinitarian doctrine common to the whole school of Alexandria since St Athanasius, who had written "Just as the Son says: 'All that the Father has is mine' (Jn 16:15), so shall we find that, through the Son, it is all also in the Spirit" (*Letters to Serapion*, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B). St Epiphanius of Saramis (*Ancoratus*, VIII, PG 43, 29 C) and Didymus the Blind (*Treatise on the Holy Spirit*, CLIII, PG 34, 1064 A) link the Father and the Son by the same preposition ἐκ in the communication to the Holy Spirit of the consubstantial divinity.
 In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the *Filioque* with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ἐκπόρευσις. St Maximus the Confessor then wrote a letter from Rome linking together the two approaches — Cappadocian and Latin-Alexandrian — to the eternal origin of the Spirit: the Father is the sole principle without principle (in Greek, αἰτία) of the Son and of the Spirit; the Father and the Son are consubstantial source of the procession (τὸ προϊέναι) of this same Spirit. "For the procession they [the Romans] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (Αἰτία) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ἐκπόρευσις — but they explained that the latter comes (προϊέναι) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (*Letter to Marin of Cyprus*, *PG* 91, 136 A-B). According to St Maximus, echoing Rome, the *Filioque* does not concern the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his προϊέναι (*processio*) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's Monarchy.
 The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (προεῖσι) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common. This point was confessed as dogma in 1215 by the fourth Lateran Council: "The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (*alius*) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (*aliud*), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance (...) It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality" (DS 804-805).
 In 1274, the second Council of Lyons confessed that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle (*tamquam ex uno principio*)" (DS 850). In the light of the Lateran Council, which preceded the second Council of Lyons, it is clear that it is not the divine essence that can be the "one principle" for the procession of the Holy Spirit. The *Catechism of the Catholic Church* interprets this formula in n. 248 as follows: "The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the 'principle without principle' (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 Spirit proceeds" (Second Council of Lyons, DS 850)."
 For the Catholic Church, "at the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who takes his origin from the Father" ("ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον" cf. Jn 15:26), it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. 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*). (...) "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* n. 248). Being aware of this, the Catholic Church has refused the addition of καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the formula ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople in the churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek. The liturgical use of this original text remains always legitimate in the Catholic Church.
 If it is correctly situated, the *Filioque* of the Latin tradition must not lead to subordination of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion, it nonetheless recognizes the reality of the original relationship of the Holy Spirit as person with the Father, a relationship that the Greek Fathers express by the term ἐκπόρευσις.[^5]
 [^5]: "The two relationships of the Son to the Father and of the Holy Spirit to the Father oblige us to place two relationships in the Father, one referring to the Son and the other to the Holy Spirit" (St Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica*, Ia, q. 32, a. 2, c).
 In the same way, if in the Trinitarian order the Holy Spirit is consecutive to the relation between the Father and the Son, since he takes his origin from the Father as Father of the only Son,[^6] it is in the Spirit that this relationship between the Father and the Son itself attains its Trinitarian perfection. Just as the Father is characterized as Father by the Son he generates, so does the Spirit, by taking his origin from the Father, characterize the Father in the manner of the Trinity in relation to the Son and characterizes the Son in the manner of the Trinity in his relation to the Father: in the fullness of the Trinitarian mystery they are Father and Son in the Holy Spirit.[^7] The Father only generates the Son by breathing (προβάλλειν in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (προβολή in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.[^8]
 [^6]: Cf. *Catechism of the Catholic Church*, n. 248.
 [^7]: St Gregory of Nazianzus says that "the Spirit is a middle term (*μέσον*) between the Unbegotten and the Begotten" (*Discourse* 31, 8, *Sources chrétiennes*, 250, p. 290). Cf. also, in a Thomistic perspective, G Leblond, "Point of view on the procession of the Holy Spirit," in *Revue Thomiste*, LXXXVI, t. 78, 1978, pp. 293-302.
 [^8]: St Cyril of Alexandria says that "the Holy Spirit flows from the Father into the Son (ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ)", *Thesaurus*, XXXIV, PG 75, 577 A).
 The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.[^9] But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of διὰ in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character. It is in this sense that St John Damascene says: "The Holy Spirit is a substantial power contemplated in his own distinct hypostasis, who proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Word" (*De Fide orthodoxa* I, 7, *PG* 94, 805 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1973, p.16; *Dialogus contra Manichaeos* 5, *PG* 94. 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354).[^10]
 [^9]: St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (*Rom* 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God [the Father] is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God [the Father] is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment *In orationem dominicam*, quoted by St John Damascene, *PG* 46, 1109 BC). And St Maximus affirms in the same way the Trinitarian order when he writes: "Just as the Thought [the Father] is principle of the Word, so is he also of the Spirit through the Word. And, just as one cannot say that the Word is of the voice [of the Breath], so one cannot say that the Word is of the Spirit" (*Quaestiones et dubia*, PG 90, 813 B).
 [^10]: St Thomas Aquinas, who knew the *De Fide orthodoxa*, sees no opposition between the *Filioque* and this expression of St John Damascene: "To say that the Holy Spirit reposes or dwells in the Son does not exclude his proceeding from the Son; for we say also that the Son dwells in the Father, although he proceeds from the Father" (*Summa Theologica*, Ia, q. 36, a. 2, 4um).
 What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in its source (*2 Cor* 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8, 16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (*Col* 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (*Rom* 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (*Mk* 1:11, 9:7; *Lk* 20:13; *Eph* 1:6).[^11]
 [^11]: St Thomas Aquinas, following St Augustine, writes: "If we say of the Holy Spirit that he dwells in the Son, it is in the way that the love of one who loves reposes in the loved one" (*Summa Theologica*, 1a, q. 36, a. 2, 4um). This doctrine of the Holy Spirit as love has been harmoniously assumed by St Gregory Palamas into the Greek theology of the ἐκπόρευσις from the Father alone: "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (χρῆται) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (συνπροελθόντα) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him" (*Capita physica* XXXVI, PG 150, 1144, D-1145 A).
 The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love. This takes into account the fact that, through love, the Holy Spirit orients the whole life of Jesus towards the Father in the fulfillment of his will. The Father sends his Son (*Gal* 4:4) when Mary conceives him through the operation of the Holy Spirit (cf. *Lk* 1:35). The Holy Spirit makes Jesus manifest as Son of the Father by resting upon him at baptism (cf. *Lk* 3:21-22; *Jn* 1:33). He drives Jesus into the wilderness (cf. *Mk* 1:12). Jesus returns "full of the Holy Spirit" (*Lk* 4:1). Then he begins his ministry "in the power of the Spirit" (*Lk* 4:14). He is filled with joy in the Spirit, blessing the Father for his gracious will (cf. *Lk* 10:21). He chooses his apostles "through the Holy Spirit" (*Acts* 1:2). He casts out demons by the Spirit of God (*Mt* 12:28). He offers himself to the Father "through the eternal Spirit" (*Heb* 9:14). On the Cross he "commits his Spirit" into the Father's hands (*Lk* 23:46). "In the Spirit" he descended to the dead (cf. *1 Pet* 3:19), and by the Spirit he was raised from the dead (cf. *Rom* 8:11) and "designated Son of God in power" (*Rom* 1:4).[^12] This role of the Spirit in the innermost human existence of the Son of God made man derives from an eternal Trinitarian relationship through which the Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of Love, characterizes the relation between the Father, as source of love, and his beloved Son.
 [^12]: Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical *Dominum et Vivificantem*, nn.18-24, *AAS* LXXVIII, 1986, 826-831. Cf. also *Catechism of the Catholic Church*, nn. 438, 689 690, 695, 727.
 The original character of the person of the Spirit as eternal Gift of the Father's love for his beloved Son shows that the Spirit, while coming from the Son in his mission, is the one who brings human beings into Christ's filial relationship to his Father, for this relationship finds only in him its Trinitarian character: "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying *Abba! Father!*" (*Gal* 4:6). In the mystery of salvation and in the life of the Church, the Spirit, therefore, does much more than prolong the work of the Son. In fact, whatever Christ has instituted — Revelation, the Church, the sacraments, the apostolic ministry, and its Magisterium — calls for constant invocation (ἐπίκλησις) of the Holy Spirit and his action (ἐνέργεια), so that the love that "never ends" (*1 Cor* 13:8) may be made manifest in the communion of the saints with the life of the Trinity.
 \* * *
--- a/src/page/ecumen/pius9-1848-suprema.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/pius9-1848-suprema.md
@ -1,290 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: On the Supreme Throne of Peter the Apostle
 date: 1848-01-06
 author: Pope Pius IX
 source: https://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/pope-patriarchs-the-1848-letters-of-pope-pius-ix-and-the-orthodox-patriarchs/
 comment: Translation from [the French](http://www.archive.org/details/InSupremaPetriApostoliSede), published in *Irenikon*.
 ---
 Placed by divine disposition on the supreme seat of the Apostle Peter, and burdened with
 responsibility for all the Churches despite Our unworthiness, We have never ceased since the
 outset of Our pontificate from casting Our loving gaze upon the Christian peoples of the East and
 their surrounding lands, whatever their rite, for they seemed for a number reasons to stake a
 special claim on Our solicitous attention. It is in the East that the only Son of God appeared,
 made man for us men, and who through His life, death and resurrection deigned bring about the
 work of human redemption. It is in the East that the Gospel of light and peace was first preached
 by the divine Saviour Himself and by His disciples, and where blossomed the numerous
 Churches, illustrious by virtue of the names of the apostles who founded them. In the years that
 followed and over the span of centuries, famous bishops and martyrs and many others reputed
 for their sanctity and doctrine gushed forth from among the peoples of the East. The whole world
 sings the praises of Ignatius of Antioch, of Polycarp of Smyrna, of the three Gregories of
 Neocaesarea, Nyssa and Nazianzus, of Athanasius of Alexandria, of Basil of Caesarea, of John
 Chrysostom, of the two Cyrils of Jerusalem and Alexandria, of Gregory the Armenian, of
 Ephrem of Syria, of John Damascene, of Cyril and Methodius, apostles to the Slavs, not to
 mention a host of others, or also of those who shed their blood for Christ, or who acquired
 immortal fame through their learned writings and holy works. Yet another glory of the East is the
 memory of its numerous assemblies of bishops, and especially the celebrated first ecumenical
 councils held under the presidency of the Roman Pontiff, and at which the catholic faith was
 preserved from the innovators of the time and confirmed through solemn judgments. Ultimately,
 down to these most recent times, even as (sadly!) far too great a number of Eastern Christians 
 distanced itself from communion with this Holy See and as a consequence from the unity of the
 Catholic Church, and even as these lands fell under the domination of peoples foreign to the
 Christian religion, many men mustered there who have testified, through the assistance of divine
 grace and amidst all the endlessly repeated calamities and perils, of an unshakable determination
 in the true faith and Catholic unity. We wish in particular to praise most highly those Patriarchs,
 Primates, Archbishops and Bishops who have spared nothing in sheltering their flock in the
 profession of Catholic truth. Their pains, blessed by God, have been such that, after the storm
 and in less troubled times, one has found them still maintaining in Catholic unity a considerable
 flock amidst the desolation.
 It is thus principally to you that We address Our words, Catholic Bishops, Venerable
 Brothers and beloved sons, and to you clergy in all orders who have persevered, unshakable in
 the faith and communion with this Holy See, or who, no less praiseworthy, have returned to it
 having recognized your error. Though We have already made haste in responding to many of you
 who sent us letters of congratulations for Our elevation to the sovereign Pontificate, and though
 We have written to all the Catholic Bishops throughout the world in Our encyclical of 9
 November, 1846 , We further insist on sending you an especial assurance of both the burning
 love We bear for you and Our solicitude for all that concerns you. We find in this a favourable
 opportunity to express these sentiments to you, as We send Our venerable brother Innocent,
 Archbishop of Saida, as ambassador to the Sublime Porte in order to compliment on Our behalf
 the right-powerful Sultan of the Turks and to thank him for the gracious embassy he took the
 lead in sending to us. We have enjoined in the most pressing manner our venerable brother to
 commend earnestly to this Sultan both your persons and interests, as well as the interests of the
 Catholic Church over throughout whole extent of the vast Ottoman empire. We have no doubt 
 that this Sultan, who has already proven his good will towards you, will be increasingly
 favourably disposed to you, and that among his subjects no one will need suffer on behalf of the
 Christian religion. The Archbishop of Saida will inform you all the more strongly of the depth of
 Our love for you through the Bishops and Primates of your respective peoples whom he will be
 able to meet in Constantinople; before returning to us, he will travel, as time and circumstances
 permit, to various parts in the East so as to visit on Our behalf the Catholic Churches of all the
 rites in these lands, as We have commanded him, and to testify of Our affection and words of
 consolation for their concerns to those among Our venerable brothers and beloved sons whom he
 will meet there.
 The same Archbishop will transmit to you and will bring to general attention the letter
 that We have addressed to you as testimony to Our love for your Catholic works; you will find
 within assurance that We have nothing closest to our heart than to merit these from you and from
 the Catholic religion as it exists in your lands. And as it has been reported to us among other
 things that, in the ecclesiastic structures amongst your peoples, certain issues, as a result of an
 unfortunate past, remain either uncertain or resolved other than appropriately, We shall employ
 Ourselves with joy, by virtue of Our apostolic authority, so that all shall henceforth be disposed
 and ordered in conformity with the sacred canons and the traditions of the Holy Fathers. We
 shall maintain intact your particular Catholic liturgies; as We value them greatly, even as they
 differ in some ways from the Latin liturgy. Our predecessors always held them in great esteem
 due to the venerable antiquity of their origin, the languages employed by the Apostles and the
 Fathers and in which they are written down, as well as the magnificence of their rites, truly
 suited as they are to nourishing the piety of the faithful and to imbue them with respect for the
 divine mysteries.
 Various Decrees and Constitutions issued by the Roman Pontiffs for the conservation of
 the Eastern liturgies testify to the sentiments of the Apostolic See in this regard. It suffices to cite
 the apostolic letters of Our predecessor Benedict XIV, and especially that of 26 July 1735[^1],
 beginning with these words: *Allatae sunt*. Eastern priests who find themselves in the West are
 completely free to celebrate in the Latin churches according to the rite proper to their people, and
 have at their disposal in various places, but especially in Rome, shrines specifically assigned to
 their use. Furthermore, there is no shortage of monasteries associated with the Eastern rite, nor of
 houses devoted to Easterners, nor of colleges erected to receive their sons, either individually or
 together with other young people, so that raised in the sacred arts and sciences and formed in
 clerical discipline, they might become able to exercise subsequently ecclesiastical functions,
 each among his own people. And while the calamities of recent years may have led to the
 destruction of some of these institutions, several are still operating and flourishing; is not their
 continued existence, Venerable Fathers and beloved sons, manifest evidence of the singular
 affection the Apostolic See bears for you, to you, and to all that concerns you?
 [^1]: See the bulls of Benedict XIV, Tome IV, No 44; also other constitutions from the same Pontiff on this subject,
 Tome I, No 87 and Tome III, No 44.
 As is already known to you, Venerable Brothers and most dear sons, We also make use of
 the works of that Congregation of the holy Roman Church that draws its name from the purpose
 for which it was established, *a Propaganda fide*, to exercise greater vigilance for your religious
 concerns. Yet many more in Our illustrious city, whether Roman or foreign, strive on behalf of
 your interests. Thus, some Bishops of the Latin rite, joined to Bishops from the Eastern rites and
 other religious personages, have formed not too long ago under the authority of the Congregation
 we have just mentioned, a pious association the purpose of which is to contribute in all ways,
 with the help of daily prayers and alms, to the progress and development of the Catholic religion
 among you. As soon as We were apprised of this pious project, We praised and approved it,
 pressing its authors to set their hand to the task without delay.
 What we have just said is addressed to all Our Eastern sons, but our words now turn,
 especially, to those of you who enjoy authority over others. Whatever your office, O Venerable
 Brothers, Catholic Bishops of these lands, may this exhortation be for you as a spur, exciting
 again your zeal and that of your clergy. We thus exhort you in the Lord our God, to watch over,
 fully confident of heavenly assistance and with an even greater ardour, the safety of your dear
 flock, to be without ceasing its light through both word and example so that that it may journey
 with dignity in accordance with God's will, yielding the fruit of all manner of good works. So
 that the priests who are in your care devote themselves fully to these same cares: press especially
 those who have the care of souls, so that they might hold close to their heart the dignity of the
 house of God; that they might stimulate the piety of the people; that they might administer in
 holiness the things that are holy; and that, without neglecting their other duties, they might apply
 all their attention to instructing the young in the articles of Christian doctrine and to distributing
 to the other faithful the bread of the divine word, to each according to his capacity. They must,
 and you yourselves also must, deploy the greatest vigilance so that all the faithful might be
 dilligent in conserving the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, giving thanks to the Lord of
 light and to the Father of mercies for what He has deigned to allow, by an act of His grace, in
 spite of such a great upsetting of all things, that they should have remained firm in the Catholic
 communion of the unique Church of Christ, or who have entered into it while such a great
 number of their fellows are still erring outside the unique fold of Christ abandoned by their 
 forebears such long a time ago.
 After having spoken to you thus, We cannot restrain ourselves back from addressing the
 words of charity and peace to those Easterners who, though glorying in the name of Christian,
 keep themselves apart from communion with the see of Peter. The charity of Jesus Christ prods
 us forward, and in conformity with its warnings and its examples We hurry forth after the sheep
 lost along paths both arduous and inaccessible, striving to bring them succour in their frailty so
 that they may enter at last within the fold of the Lord's flocks.
 Pray listen to Our words, all you who, in the lands of the East and on its margins, bear the
 glory of the name Christian yet who nevertheless are not in communion with the holy Roman
 Church; and you especially who, charged with the sacred tasks or bearing the highest
 ecclesiastical dignities, have authority over these peoples. Recall the ancient state of your
 Churches, when these were joined amongst themselves and with the other Churches of the
 Catholic universe through the bond of unity. Then consider what ends those divisions that
 followed have served, the result of which has been to break the unity of either doctrine or
 ecclesiastic order not only with the Western Churches, but even among your own. Recall the
 words of the creed, in which you confess with us: belief in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic
 Church. Seek to find whether it is possible to ascertain this unity of the catholic, holy and
 apostolic Church among such division as exist between your Churches, as you decline to
 recognize it in the communion of the Roman Church under whose authority such a great number
 of Churches are united and have been so always in all parts of the world. And to clearly
 understand this feature of the unity that must mark the Church catholic, meditate upon this prayer
 given to us in the Gospel of St John[^2], in which Christ, the only Son of God, prays to his Father
 on behalf of his disciples: "Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that
 they may be one, as we also are"; and He adds immediately following : "And not for them only
 do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; that they all may be one,
 as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe
 that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they
 may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one:
 and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved
 me."
 [^2]: John 17: 11, 20 et seqq.
 Thus, the author himself of human salvation, Christ Our Lord, laid the foundation of his
 one Church, against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail, in the Prince of the Apostles: Peter,
 to whom He gave the keys of the kingdom of Heaven[^3]; for whom He prayed, so that his faith
 might never fail, commanding him, as well, to confirm his brothers in the same faith[^4]; on whom
 He laid the charge to feed His lambs and sheep[^5], in other words: the whole Church consisting of
 the true lambs and sheep of Christ. And these prerogatives similarly belong to the Bishops of
 Rome, successors of Peter: as, since the death of Peter, the Church, she that must last till the end
 of time, cannot be deprived of the foundation on which she was built by Christ. This is why St.
 Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp who before him had received the teachings of the Apostle John --
 Irenaeus, later bishop of Lyons whom those in the East as well as those in the West number
 among the principal lights of Christian antiquity -- wishing to refute the heretics of his time in
 order to demonstrate the doctrine transmitted by the apostles, believed it superfluous to spell out
 the succession in all the Churches of apostolic origin; it seemed sufficient to him to set the
 doctrine of the Church of Rome against the innovators, as he wrote "For it is a matter of
 necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent
 authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been
 preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere."[^6]
 [^3]: Matthew 16: 18-19.
 [^4]: Luke 22: 31-32.
 [^5]: John 21: 15 et seqq.
 [^6]: Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, Book III, chapter 3.
 As We know well, all of you are intent to hold to the doctrine preserved by your
 forebears. You should then follow the ancient Bishops and Christians of all the lands of the East;
 innumerable are their monumental works that attest, in agreement with Westerners, to their
 respect for the authority of the Roman Pontiffs. Among the more remarkable documents that the
 ancient East has left us on this subject (aside from the testimony of Irenaeus cited above), We
 would draw attention to the fourth century events relating to Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria,
 no less illustrious for his holiness than for his doctrine and pastoral zeal. Unjustly condemned by
 the Eastern Bishops, most particularly at the council held in Tyre, and expelled from his Church,
 he came to Rome to which also journeyed other Eastern Bishops who were like him unjustly
 despoiled of their sees. "The Bishop of Rome (Julius, Our predecessor), having examined the
 cause of each and finding them all faithful to the Nicaean faith and in full agreement with him,
 received them into communion. And as, from the dignity of his See, all being under his care, he
 confirmed each in his respective Church. He also wrote to the Eastern Bishops, reprimanding
 them because they had failed to decide justly in the causes of these Pontiffs and so troubled the
 peace of the Church."[^7] At the beginning of the fifth century, John Chrysostom, Bishop of
 Constantinople and no less illustrious than Athanasius, condemned in a sovereign injustice by a
 council at Chalcedon, appealed through letters and envoys to Our Apostolic See and was
 declared blameless by Our predecessor Saint Innocent I.[^8]
 [^7]: Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica, Book III, chapter 8; see also Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, passim.
 [^8]: See the letters of St. Innocent to St. John Chrysostom, and the letters of St. John Chrysostom to St. Innocent, the
 clergy, and the people of Constantinople.
 The Council of Chalcedon, held in 451, is another celebrated monument to the veneration
 of your forebears for the authority of the Roman Pontiffs. The six hundred Bishops who
 attended, almost all (bar a few rare exceptions) from the East, after having heard in the second
 session the reading of a letter from the Roman Pontiff, Saint Leo the Great, all cried out as one :
 *Peter has spoken from the mouth of Leo*. And the assembly presided over by the Papal Legates
 having then separated, the Council Fathers, in the report on the proceedings that they forwarded
 to Saint Leo, affirmed that he himself through his Legates had commanded the gathered Bishops
 *as the head does the limbs*.[^9]
 [^9]: Labbe, Tome IV, pp. 1235 and 7755, Venice edition.
 And it is not only from the canons of the Council of Chalcedon, but also from the canons
 of all the other ancient Councils of the East, that We could claim and for which it is a constant
 that the Roman Pontiffs always held the first place in the Council -- especially the Ecumenical
 Councils – for which their authority was invoked, and this both before the holding of the
 Councils and after their dissolution. In addition to these Councils, there are furthermore a great
 number of passages found in the writings of the ancient writers and Fathers of the East, as well
 as many historical examples, from which it is evident that the supreme authority of the Roman
 Pontiffs had always from the time of your forefathers been in force throughout the East. But it
 would take too long to cite in detail all this testimony; such as we have noted should anyway
 suffice in highlighting the truth, and We shall limit ourselves to recalling how, even in Apostolic
 times, the faithful of Corinth behaved when dissensions severely troubled their Church. The
 Corinthians appealed to Saint Clement who, but few years after the death of Peter, had been
 made Pontiff of the Roman Church.[^10] They wrote to him on this subject and charged Fortunatus
 to bear their letters to him. Clement, after having closely examined the matter, charged this same
 Fortunatus, to whom he joined his own envoys Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Vito, to bear to
 Corinth that famous letter from the holy Pontiff and the Roman Church in which the Corinthians
 and all other Easterners set such store that it was read publicly in many churches over the
 centuries that followed.[^11]
 [^10]: Bibliotheca veterum patrum, a Gallandio edita, Tome I, p. 9 et seqq.
 [^11]: Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica., Book III, chapter 16. See also in Book IV, chapter 23, the witness of Bishop
 Dionysius of Corinth
 We thus exhort you, and We entreat you to return without delay -- to enter into communion with
 the Holy See of Peter in which lies the foundation of the true Church or Christ as affirmed by
 both the tradition of your forebears and the tradition of the other ancient Fathers, as well as the
 very words of Our Lord Jesus Christ found in the holy Gospels and that we cited to you. For it is
 not, and never will be possible for those who wish to be separate from the Rock [*Pierre*] on
 which the Church was divinely built, to be in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and
 Apostolic Church.
 As a result, no reasons can excuse failing to return to the true Church and to communion
 with the Holy See. As you know well, in matters touching on the profession of the divine faith
 there is nothing so hard that one should not bear it for the glory of Christ and the reward of
 eternal life. For Our part, We offer you the assurance that nothing would be sweeter to us than to
 see you return to Our communion. Far from seeking to distress you through some prescription
 that could seem burdensome, We will receive you with a fatherly kindness and with the most
 gentle love, as per the constant custom of the Holy See. We ask of you only those things that are
 strictly necessary: return to unity; agree with us in the profession of the true faith that the
 Catholic Church holds and teaches; and, along with that of the whole Church itself, maintain
 communion with the supreme see of Peter. With respect to your sacred rites, only those things
 found in them contrary to catholic faith and unity are subject to correction. Once remedied in this
 regard, your ancient Eastern liturgies will remain unchanged. We have already declared in the
 first part of this letter how these liturgies are dear to us, and how much they were so also to Our
 predecessors, due to their antiquity and the magnificence of their rites, so appropriate for
 nurturing the faith.
 In addition, with respect to the holy ministers, priests and pontiffs of the peoples of the
 East who return to catholic unity, We have considered and decided to follow the same path as
 that followed so frequently by Our predecessors, both in the past that immediately precedes Our
 own and in earlier times; We shall confirm them in their rank and dignities and We shall count
 on them, no less than on the other Eastern Catholic clergy, to maintain and spread the practice of
 the catholic faith amongst their peoples. We will apply ourselves in this ceaselessly with the
 greatest care to be worthy of one and all.
 May the all-merciful God give the force of truth to our words! That these blessings may
 enfold those of Our brothers and sons who share Our concern for the salvation of your souls! Oh!
 If this consolation were given Us: to see catholic unity reestablished among Eastern Christians,
 and to find in this unity a new wind to imbue with increasing force the true faith of Jesus Christ
 among the infidels! We will not cease to beseech the God of mercies, Father of light through His
 only Son our Redeemer, in the most heartfelt prayers and supplications, invoking the protection
 of the very blessed Virgin, Mother of God, and of the holy Apostles, the Martyrs, the Fathers, all 
 of whom, through their sermons, their blood, their virtue and their writings, conserved and
 spread the true religion of Christ throughout the East. Filled with the desire to see you return to
 the fold of the Catholic Church, and to bless you as Our brothers and sons, and awaiting the day
 when this joy will be given us, We yet again attest Our affection and Our tenderness towards all
 the Catholics spread through all the lands of the East, to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops,
 bishops, clergy and laity, and We confer on them Our apostolic blessing.
 Given in Rome, at St. Mary Major, January 6, 1848, in the second year of Our pontificate.
 **Pope Pius IX**
--- a/src/page/ecumen/schmemann-indissolubility.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/schmemann-indissolubility.md
@ -1,640 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: The Indissolubility of Marriage: The Theological Tradition of the East
 author: Alexander Schmemann
 date: 1967-10-18
 source: https://archive.org/details/bondofmarriageec00bass/
 comment: Archive.org says this paper was delivered at an interdenominational symposium sponsored by the Canon Law Society of America and held at the Center for Continuing Education at the University of Notre Dame. The ["Comment and Discussion"](#comment) section is, I therefore assume, a Catholic response to Schmemann's article.
 ---
 ALEXANDER SCHMEMANN*
 \* Dean of St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary, Tuckahoe, New York. Father Schmemann is the author of *Sacraments and Orthodoxy* (1965), and *The World as Sacrament* (1967).
 ## [I.](#I) {#I}
 I must begin this paper by stating the initial paradox of
 the Eastern Orthodox approach toward marriage. On the
 one hand, the Orthodox Church explicitly affirms the
 indissolubility of marriage;[^1] yet, on the other hand, she
 seems to accept divorce and has in her canonical tradition
 several regulations concerning it.[^2]
 How can these apparently contradictory positions be reconciled? And, first of
 all, what does this paradox mean? Is it an uneasy compromise
 between the maximalism of theory and the minimalism of practice, that famous “economy” which the
 Orthodox seem to invoke so often in order to solve all
 kinds of difficulties? I think that no answer can be given
 to any of these questions before an attempt is made to
 understand the complexity of the Orthodox teaching about
 marriage.
 [^1]: See F. Gavin, *Some Aspects of Contemporary Greek Orthodox Thought* (London, 1923), pp. 384 ff.; Bishop Sylvester, *Orthodox Dogmatic Theology*, 4 vols. (Kiev, 1897), pp. 539 ff.
 [^2]: N. Suvorov, *Kurs Tserkovnago Prava* (Manual of Canon Law), (Yaroslave, 1889), II, 331 ff.
 A western Christian may not realize that this teaching
 has never taken the form of a consistent and systematic
 doctrine in which the liturgical rites, the canonical
 requirements, the theological interpretations and finally the
 demands of reality would be expressed within a unified
 framework. Does it mean, however, that there is no
 Orthodox doctrine of marriage, doctrine which would in turn
 serve as a norm for practice? No! But it means that this
 doctrine has not been given a “juridical” formulation and
 remains, as much of Eastern Orthodox theology in general,
 in the state of affirmations rather than explanations, is
 expressed more often in liturgical rites rather than canonical
 texts, and finally, serves as a guiding principle rather
 than explicit legislation.
 The starting point for any elucidation of this doctrine is,
 of necessity, in the Orthodox understanding of matrimony
 as *sacrament*. Here one must keep in mind that in the
 Orthodox Church, sacramental theology has never been
 formulated in clear and precise definitions as in the West.
 It is true that in postpatristic manuals of dogmatics much
 of the western approach to sacraments has been rather
 uncritically adopted. This “westernized” theology, however,
 so obviously contradicts the earlier and more normative
 Orthodox tradition, that of the Fathers and of the liturgy,
 that it cannot be accepted as an adequate expression of
 the Orthodox “lex credendi.” When speaking of the
 sacrament of matrimony, we must, therefore, see it within a
 wider perspective of the Orthodox meaning of sacraments
 in general.
 It is sufficient for our present subject to stress that the
 sacrament or *mysterion* in the Orthodox tradition implies
 necessarily the idea of a *transformation*, of a “*passage*”
 from the old into the new and, therefore, an eschatological
 connotation.[^3] The sacrament is always the passage from
 “this world” into the Kingdom of God as already
 inaugurated by Christ, and of which the Church herself is
 the “sacrament” in “this eon.” Thus, in the baptismal
 death and resurrection, man is not simply absolved of his
 original sin but is truly “transferred” from the old creation
 into the new. In the sacrament of anointment, he is
 introduced into the Kingdom inaugurated on the day of Pente-
 cost by the Holy Spirit. In the Eucharist the Church
 fulfills herself by ascending to the Kingdom of God, to “His
 table in His Kingdom.” All sacraments are considered
 eschatological in the sense that they manifest and
 communicate in this world the reality of the world to come.
 Hence, and this is the second important observation, all
 sacraments are fulfilled in the Eucharist which, according
 to the patristic teaching, is the “sacrament of sacraments”
 because it is in a very concrete sense the sacrament of the
 Kingdom. Finally, all sacraments are truly sacraments of
 Christ, i.e., are ontologically connected with his death,
 resurrection and glorification.
 [^3]: See my book *Sacraments and Orthodoxy* (New York, 1965).
 How are these categories applicable to matrimony
 which, different in this from all other sacraments, does not
 seem to be directly and immediately connected with the
 “Christ event” and which exists as a universal and natural
 institution outside the Church? The answer to this
 question is given partially at least in the liturgical celebration
 of matrimony.
 ## [II.](#II) {#II}
 The present liturgy of matrimony in the Orthodox
 Church consists of two services—the Betrothal and the
 Crowning—the first service taking place normally in the
 vestibule of the church and the second, having primarily
 the form of a procession which introduces the couple into
 the Church. We may leave out of this paper the
 description of the complex development of these services and
 the various strata of symbolism with which they were
 adorned on the liturgically fertile soil of Byzantium.[^4] Let
 us rather concentrate on the fundamental significance of
 this peculiar “liturgical dualism” of matrimony.
 [^4]: See A. Raes, SJ., *Le Mariage dans les Eglises d Orient* (Chevotogne, 1958).
 There can be no doubt that the first service—the
 Betrothal—is nothing else than the Christianized form of the
 marriage as it existed always and everywhere, ie., as a
 public contract sealed before God and men by those
 entering the state of marriage. It is, in other terms, the
 Christian “blessing” or “sanction” of the marriage, its
 acceptance by the Church. It appears rather late in the
 history of the Church and at a time when for all practical
 reasons the civil society coincided with the Church and
 when the Church was given an almost exclusive control
 over family. In the early pre-Constantinian Church, the
 only requirement for the members of the Church who
 wanted to marry was the preliminary permission of the
 bishop.[^5] This means that the Church did not consider
 herself to be the performer of the marriage as such and early
 documents stress the recognition by the Church of all
 civil laws governing the marriage.[^6] But if the Church did
 not “institute” the marriage, she was given the power to
 “transform it” and such is the real meaning of
 *matrimony as sacrament*. “Lo, I make all things new”: this from the
 beginning was also applied to marriage. And, it is this
 “transformation” of the marriage that constitutes the
 content of the second service mentioned above—the Crowning
 —which begins precisely as all Christian sacraments with
 a procession. The procession signifies that the “natural”
 marriage is taken now into the dimensions of the Church
 and, this means, into the dimensions of the Kingdom. The
 earliest form of this service was the simple participation
 of the newly married in the Encharist and their partaking
 as “one flesh” of the Body and Blood of Christ.[^7] Even
 today, though it has severed its connection with the
 Eucharist, the rite of matrimony keeps the indelible mark
 of its Eucharistic origin and the common cup given to
 the couple at the end of the service points back to the
 Eucharistic chalice.[^8]
 [^5]: St. Ignatius, *Ad Polycarpum*, 5 v.
 [^6]: See for example, *Epistola ad Diognetum*, v. 6; Athenagoras, *Lecatio Pro Christianis*, chap. 33, Migne, *PG* 6, 965; Ambrose, *De Inst. Virg.*, 6, Migne, *PL*, 16, 316; John Chrysostom, *Hom 56 in Genes*, 29, *PG* 54, 488.
 [^7]: See A. N. Smirensky, “The Evolution of the Present Rite of Matrimony and Parallel Canonical Developments,” *St. Viadimir's Seminary Quarterly*, 8 (1960), 40, n. 1.
 [^8]: See A. Raes, *op. cit.*, p. 49.
 In this sacramental transformation, the marriage
 acquires new dimensions. Its content and goal now is not
 mere “happiness” but the *martyria*, the witness, to the
 Kingdom of God. It is given the power to be a service of
 Christ in the world and a special vocation within the
 Church. Above everything else it is a sacrament of the
 Kingdom, for the family is one of the basic *antitypa* of the
 Kingdom.[^9]
 [^9]: See *Sacraments and Orthodoxy*, pp. 59 ff.
 The whole patristic tradition deals with matrimony
 almost exclusively in these categories in which the marriage
 is connected with the great mystery of Christ and the
 Church.[^10] This tradition, in other terms, is interested in
 the marriage as transformed and fulfilled in Christ and
 the Church—this transformation being also the fulfillment
 of the natural marriage. It deals, so to speak, with the
 ideal marriage which has died to its natural limitations
 and has risen to a new life in which it is totally
 transparent to Christ and to His Kingdom. This marriage, it is
 obvious, is indissoluble and the very categories of
 dissolubility or indissolubility simply do not apply to it. It
 transcends them because by its very nature it is already a
 transformed and transfigured marriage. And, in a certain
 way, it is only such marriage that the Church teaches and
 reflects upon and, in a sense, only such marriage is
 recognized by her and it is only to such marriage that her
 positive evaluation of matrimony is referred. An example of
 this can be seen in the canonical regulations forbidding
 the ordination of all those whose marriage is not
 “perfect,” i.e., first and unique on both sides. The marriage,
 thus, belongs to the *theologia gloriae* as in fact a part of
 ecclesiology and eschatology. The Church rejoices, so to
 speak, in this foretaste and anticipation of the Kingdom
 of God.
 [^10]: See A. Raes, *op. cit.*, p. 8 and also S. Troitsky, *Christianskaia Philosophia Braka* (Christian Philosophy of Marriage), (Paris, 1934).
 ## [III.](#III) {#III}
 There exists, however, another dimension of the
 marriage—this one rooted in the pastoral mission of the
 Church in the world. If the fundamental doctrine, or
 better to say, *theoria*, vision of the marriage, as still expressed
 in the liturgy, belongs to the early, maximalistic and
 eschatological period of the Church, this second dimension
 is the fruit and the result of the long and painful
 pilgrimage of the Church through history. It would be
 improper to describe it as a lowering of the standards and
 as compromise with all kinds of “real situations.” For it
 belongs to the very essence of the Eastern Orthodox
 tradition to keep together, in a truly antinomical way, on the
 one hand the “impossible” demands on man—demands
 that entered the world when God became man so as to
 “make man God”; and on the other hand the infinite
 compassion toward man of the One who took upon Himself
 the sins of the world. Regarding marriage, it is as if, in
 one and the same breath, the Church were proclaiming
 its Divine nature and destiny, yet also, its existential
 ambiguity—the marriage as one of the major battlefields
 between the good and the evil, between God and the
 devil, between the New Adam and the old; marriage as
 inexorably rooted in the tragedy of the original sin. The
 Church keeps the glorious vision revealed to her by
 Christ; she gives the gift to all, but she also *knows* the
 “impossibility” for man fully to accept both the vision
 and the gift. Just as in the Eucharist the Church, while
 inviting her members to communicate says: “Holy things
 are for the holy,” shows that only “One is Holy,” the
 maximalism of the Church’s revelation about marriage is
 precisely that which makes her condescending to the
 unfathomable tragedies of human existence.
 The whole point therefore is that this is not a
 “compromise” but the very antinomy of the Church’s life in this
 world. The marriage *is* indissoluble, yet it is being
 dissolved all the time by sin and ignorance, passion and
 selfishness, lack of faith and lack of love. Yes, the Church
 acknowledges the divorce, but she *does not divorce!* She
 only acknowledges that here, in this concrete situation,
 this marriage has been broken, has come to an end, and
 in her compassion she gives permission to the innocent
 party to marry again. It is sufficient, however, to study
 only once the text of the rite of the second marriage to
 realize immediately the radical difference of its whole
 “ethos.” It is indeed a penitential service, it is
 intercession, it is love, but nothing of the glory and joy of that
 which has been broken remains.[^11]
 [^11]: See Hapgood, *Orthodox Service Book*, pp. 302 ff.
 In practice, all this may be deeply misunderstood.
 During the long centuries of the Church’s organic connection
 with Christian states, she had to accept many functions
 and duties, if not contrary, at least alien, to her nature.[^12]
 This has been reflected in the liturgy and in ecclesiastical
 legislation and requires a detailed and patient study. If,
 however, one asks about the “essence” of the Orthodox
 teaching about marriage, one finds it in this apparently
 paradoxical tension—its belonging to Christ and His
 Kingdom and, therefore, its indissolubility on the one hand
 and the pastoral recognition of its human frailty and
 ambiguity on the other hand. Only within this tension a
 fruitful study of the Orthodox concept and practice of
 both marriage and divorce becomes possible.
 [^12]: See A, N. Smirensky, *op. cit.*
 # [COMMENT AND DISCUSSION](#comment) {#comment}
 The ancient Christian traditions of the East converge with
 the belief of the Catholic West in a common affirmation of the
 sacramental holiness of marriage. In the plan of redemption
 the earthly reality of marriage has been transformed in Christ
 into an image, an icon, of the union of Christ with the Church.
 Man and wife are joined in a permanent relationship to each
 other that transcends the limitations of natural compatibility as
 a witness of the fidelity of the Lord to His people. In this
 perspective divorce and remarriage are more than a failure
 of personal commitment. They are a tragedy for the Church,
 the broken pieces of a holy ideal shattered by sin and human
 weakness.
 The pastoral concern of the Church for the tragedy of
 broken marriage is to respond to human frailty with healing
 forgiveness. In the Christianity of the East, this forgiveness
 implies permission to marry again. The Church neither grants nor
 acknowledges divorce, but to the lonely and abandoned it
 sorrowfully grants the right to take another spouse. For the
 person and for the Church this is a penitential recognition of
 the harsh reality of sin and the deep need for God’s grace.
 The liturgical form of the second marriage itself expresses the
 paradox of sin and grace in the words of an antinomy that
 encapsulates the very life of the Church itself. For the Church’s
 role in the world is a constant reconciliation of opposites, the
 glory of ideals *in statu Patriae* and the reality of sin *in statu viae*.
 The theology of marriage, its liturgical expression and
 canonical discipline belong to the area of antinomy. It is
 precisely in the acceptance of the consequences of this antinomy
 in the life of the Church that there is to be found the greatest
 difference between Orthodox and Latin belief. Between
 Oriental and Latin traditions the most fundamental discrepancy
 does not lie in the interpretation of the exceptions of Matthew’s
 Gospel or even in the understanding of sacramentality in
 regard to marriage. Rather, it is to be found in diverse
 conceptions of the nature and role of the Church in the world.
 In Byzantine eclesiology the life of the Church moves
 constantly upon two different levels of reality. The dichotomy of
 the Kingdom of God revealed and present in a yet unredeemed
 and sinful world gives rise to a conflict of opposites that
 belongs to the very nature of the Church. Within this context
 there exists the parallel development of theological reflection
 upon the sacramental indissolubility of marriage and the
 canonical provisions designed to meet its failure. There is a
 theology of marriage as a reflection of the Kingdom and a
 juridical counterpart mirroring human weakness.
 Three main stages mark the historical evolution of the
 Oriental Church’s approach to marriage and divorce. In the
 primitive Church we find a basic acceptance of marriage as it
 existed in the world. The writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch
 portray a bishop living among his people and uniting them into
 one community in Christ. He knew the faithful and brought the
 blessings of the Church to them at every personal change in
 the status of their lives. It is not clear that St. Ignatius speaks
 of a sacramental action in the blessing of marriage, but his
 words fit into an ecclesiological concept in which all
 sacraments are involved in the one sacrament of the Church. The
 holiness of marriage lies within the holiness of the Church, It is
 the Church that transforms life and marriage. But first the
 Church had to accept and bless the life that existed. She had
 first to accept the worldly reality of marriage.
 In the pre-Constantinian Church we find an acceptance of
 marriage as it existed in Roman society, including all the
 regulations and customs of marriage prevailing at that time.
 At the same time the great effort to proclaim the Kingdom of
 God effected a gradual transformation of society. Within the
 community of the Church all things are made new. Marriage
 came to have a new meaning for the baptized in relationship
 to the central and allembracing reality of the Eucharist.
 Marriage received the acknowledgment of the bishop as the
 head of the community of the faithful. With this came the
 gradual integration of matrimony into the constitutional act
 of the Church, the holy Eucharist.
 Then came the great and tragic confusion created by the
 reconciliation between the Church and the empire. On the
 one hand it was a glorious triumph for the Church. On the
 other it created enormous problems for both Church and
 state. An extremely complex semi-Christian society provided
 an environment for a disconcerting mixture of roles. At this
 time the Church had not yet developed its own specific system
 of canonical legislation. It made every effort, however, to
 influence the civil legislation by Christian principles. The state
 sanctioned the canons of the councils as state laws, but the
 Church did not sanction state law as canons. The Church’s
 legislation was integrated into civil legislation, but civil
 legislation was never to become a part of the Church.
 Between Church and state there was a hesitant and uneasy
 balance. The Church saw itself as the Body of Christ and the
 temple of the Holy Spirit. Yet to the state it was mainly a
 society, a corporation, a visibly structured organization. The
 conversion of Constantine, real as it was, was still completely
 within the pagan presuppositions of conversion. The Edict of
 Milan was not a Christian document. It was a typically
 syncretistic pragmatic gesture. The more Constantine became
 Christian the more intolerant he became. By the end of the
 century Theodosius said that everyone who was not a Christian
 was a mental case and should be burned. This is far from the
 freedom in which the Church rejoiced at the Edict of Milan.
 The Church’s teachings on marriage could not be imposed
 upon the state in their entirety, because the reality of greatest
 concern to the Church lies beyond the province of the state.
 What occurred was a gradual effort to transform society in
 general and, in so doing, bring to bear upon the law a strong
 moral influence. Divorce became more and more difficult to
 obtain. Women moved up the social ladder to a greater equality
 with men. Fundamentally, however, the tension continued to
 exist between the human reality and the Christian ideal.
 Marriage was one of many great sectors of society to be
 Christianized, transformed and introduced to new dimensions of
 ‘meaning, But this was only possible within the Church and not
 within the logic of civil legislation.
 The third stage occurred when the Church, in the person
 of bishop or priest, became the minister of marriage. In a
 vacuum of leadership, the Church received the total
 responsibility for the familial sector of social life. Born of this necessity
 were the purely temporal dimensions of the Church's dealings
 with civil and societal realities. It seems that the Church was
 almost forced to take on functions that do not naturally belong
 to it. Christianity assumed the role of the pagan state religions
 of the old empire. The Church was given a responsibility by
 the state to fulfill a civil role in society in regulating the
 temporal life of man. At this stage the sacramental view of
 marriage began to be translated into canonical prescriptions.
 The notion of the indissolubility of marriage took on extensive
 juridical implications.
 Looking back upon this era, Orthodox theology makes a
 distinction between the disciplinary tradition of the Church
 as a whole and the various canonical traditions of the
 particular churches. Reasons for divorce and remarriage changed,
 were expanded or restricted by the different national churches
 at various times in history. But the Church itself always looked
 upon divorce with the greatest reluctance. It always sought
 to distinguish a temporal responsibility on the level of social
 relationships from its essential role in integrating man into
 the Kingdom. The Church felt no basic need to exercise judicial
 authority in the temporal order. Its primary task was to refer
 temporal life to the order of revelation and sacramentality.
 Today the Church no longer controls the destinies of civil
 socicty. It no longer exercises a purely social jurisdiction. But in
 the present stage of transition, it still acts as if it must cling
 to that power and responsibility. The Church still feels the
 weight of an ancient responsibility for all temporal
 arrangements. Within the ambiguities of this situation, Orthodox
 practice now wavers between the Byzantine or Russian
 imperial legislation on what constitutes grounds for divorce and
 the legal rules of the states and nations in which she lives.
 The ambiguity of the Church’s stance between a theology
 that stresses the indissolubility of marriage and the canonical
 practice that allows dissolubility is not to be understood as a
 compromise with the world. It is precisely the lot of the Church
 in the world. Sin is not a juridical crime. It is a rebellion against
 God. The Church confronts the reality of sin both *in statu Patriae*,
 from which stems her teachings and eschatological
 orientation, and *in statu viae*, from which comes her pastoral
 concern for man.
 Within Orthodox tradition there is no such thing as divorce.
 The Church can no more remove the sacramentality of a
 marriage than she can remove the consecration from the
 Eucharistic Host. The Church simply grants the right to
 remarry in certain cases. What about the previous marriage? The
 ontological status of that first marriage is simply never made
 a matter of question. To ask the question supposes a static
 view of reality. Within the dynamic action attributed to the
 Holy Spirit by Orthodox theology, marriage can exist only
 while people actually live a marriage. If the marriage is not
 lived, it is dead. It is nothing. The real problem is not the
 abstract, Aristotelian essence that might remain, but what is to be
 done in pastoral terms with the existing situation. This is where
 the mechanics of canonical procedure in allowing remarriage
 are rooted.
 The basic question today is not how to delineate various
 new juridical reasons to allow divorce and remarriage. It is
 rather the question of what constitutes the sacramentality of
 marriage and how close does this sacramentality constitute
 a reality that can be expressed in juridical terms. What is the
 relationship between what can be described as the maximum
 of the Church’s teaching, which is not only an ideal, but the
 revelation of the true ontology of marriage and the real
 situation of man?
 Is the dialectic between indissolubility and dissolubility just
 a matter of toleration or rather a category of tension which has
 to be kept if the Church is to fulfill her mission among men?
 Unless we ask the most basic questions about the nature of
 marriage and its relationship to the mission of the Church, the
 very sensitive question of divorce and remarriage will not be
 solved. The whole complicated development of the Church’s
 teaching on marriage is one expression of her fundamental
 relationship to the world. It is only from a study of this relationship
 in which the problem is truly rooted that a solution can be
 found.
 In Orthodox tradition sacrament or “mysterion” implies
 necessarily the idea of a transformation, a passage from the
 old into a new dimension of both meaning and reality. The
 Church’s salvific mission to the world is fulfilled in a presence
 to the world in as far as the world can be transformed and has
 to be transformed by it. The world is not something wholly
 separated from the Church. It is the very matter of the
 Kingdom. In this sense, marriage is transformed by the Church and
 in the Church, while divorce remains a part of the morality
 of the world. It is a morality that the Church cannot be
 indifferent to or spurn. She must not only be interested in the
 morality of the world but must also transform it to a new
 reality.
 Dr. Noonan's paper concluded quite convincingly that some
 Christians considered marriage dissoluble at a particular time
 in history. He did not go beyond this premise to generalize
 upon this practice of the Church as being decisive for a later
 period. “It has been done for two hundred years in the past.
 Therefore, it can be done today” was not his conclusion. This
 type of argumentation would run counter to the reality of
 growth inherent in the nature of man and religion. It would be
 a type of legal positivism foreign to Christianity.
 Morality develops into a greater refinement of norms and
 a greater perceptiveness of judgment from reflection upon the
 existing situation of man in the light of primary principles. At
 one time slavery was accepted by Scripture, by tradition and
 by the Church. But today no one can consider slavery morally
 acceptable or even indifferent. The argument that it was
 accepted at one time does not prove that it can be accepted
 again. The Church moves with history and adjusts itself to
 developing human reality. As with the eventual rejection of
 slavery, so in the understanding of marriage there may be an
 evolution from an acceptance of dissolubility to belief in its
 absolute indissolubility. The ultimate criterion will not be the
 practice of the past, but the meaning of Christian marriage
 in the light of the real human situation today.
 On the other hand, the argument from the *praxis ecclesiae*
 does have a negative value. Development cannot imply
 contradiction. The Church is based upon a revelation and an
 institution in which tradition is implied. The *quod traditur* is an
 essential element in a revealed religion. To be Christian means
 to be traditional because tradition belongs to the
 revealed religion. So there exists the antinomy of developing
 human nature that precludes a happening of one time from
 being normative for all time and the need to study history to
 find the negative limit beyond which contradiction excludes
 continuity. The problem of tradition is closely connected with
 the meaning of the theology of real development in doctrine.
 We cannot say that at one time the Church believed one
 thing and at a later time she believed another in contradiction
 to it. The Church, in fact, in the early period was largely
 unconcerned with the institutional expressions of society.
 However, from the very beginning she had a notion of man, a
 notion of society and a notion of the destiny of man, which
 ultimately excluded the possibility of man’s being enslaved.
 Again, the Church had from the beginning, in the New
 Testament and in the Fathers, an intuition, an understanding, a
 vision of marriage as indissoluble. Yet this vision could not be
 made an immediate practical possibility because of the
 extremely adverse social conditions of the time. The teaching had
 to develop gradually. It was only at the time of the Emperor
 Leo VI in the tenth century that matrimony as a liturgical
 service was made obligatory for all Christians of the empire.
 This became the pastoral and missionary means of the Church
 to reach the people. Legislation prior to this time was mainly
 concerned with problems of regulating marriage and divorce.
 Now it became a question of how to impose upon the people
 the Christian view of marriage. The liturgical form developed
 as a teaching of what marriage should be. Christian history
 shows the explicitation, not the change, of a particular truth.
 There is a slow and patient evolution within society that brings
 about a real development.
 When we study the past, we study it not only in the effort
 to see how many metamorphoses took place, but how certain
 basic ideas—God, man, history, world, nature—developed and
 were refined. It would be a catastrophe if today we suddenly
 proclaimed, as a kind of ecumenical achievement, that whereas
 in the past we had thought of marriage as indissoluble, today
 we all agree that it is dissoluble. On the other hand, to simply
 maintain the old tradition of absolute indissolubility would be
 equally intolerable. We are moving today, not in the direction
 of a liberation of marriage from medieval conceptualizations,
 but rather toward a deepening awareness of what has always
 been central in the belief of the Church, regardless of the
 inadequacy of the juridical or philosophical categories in which
 it has been expressed. For almost two thousand years, the
 Church has proclaimed that marriage is sacred and
 indissoluble. Yet all the while she has reluctantly accepted its
 dissolution to some extent as a tragic human failure.
 There will always be a clash between the Kingdom and the
 world, the ideal and the exception, the eschatological hope
 and the reality. This dialectic between lofty goal and the
 reluctant acceptance of failure must maintain a proper balance
 in order that a real development may occur. Where the
 dialectic is ignored or overemphasis is given only one side, ultimately
 the impasse results in stagnation. Both sides of the dialectic
 have a role. St. Paul said that in the Kingdom “there is neither
 male nor female,” yet he treated women in the same category
 as children and slaves. The role of women in the Church
 suffered in the imbalance of the latter perspective. It is only
 when we explore more fully the reasons why St. Paul
 enunciated the fundamental equality that a restoration of balance
 can be achieved. In similar fashion, between ideal and
 exception the imbalance resulting from an overemphasis upon
 the ideal will be corrected by exploring the implications of the
 human reality that makes exception possible.
 In the theology of marriage of the Eastern traditions the
 primary point of departure is not the natural properties of
 marriage, but the supernatural union that it images. In the
 liturgy of matrimony the last act of the rite is the coronation:
 “Now receive these crowns in God’s Kingdom.” In its ultimate
 reality marriage is not measured by its current cultural
 acceptance. It is an icon of the Kingdom. Marriage transcends
 happiness. It transcends contract and even the family. But
 having defined marriage in these supernatural terms,
 Orthodoxy still remembers the natural dimension of marriage. The
 tension between the two exists and is inescapable. It is
 important, however, that the starting point of understanding
 begin, and not end, with revelation. The modern reduction of
 marriage to happiness and sexual fulfillment to which the
 Church may add a transcendent demand is not adequate. For
 Christians marriage is primarily a union witnessing the union
 of Christ and the Church.
 At the time of the revival of the study of Roman Law which
 inspired the science of canon law in the Western Church, a
 juridical conceptualization overtook the personal and
 theological vision of marriage. The canonical conception came to center
 upon consent and copula, instead of divine mystery and human
 relationships. With this came a canonical refinement of the
 conditions for the validity of the marital contract. Rather than
 the *consortium totius vitae* of an earlier humanism or the
 “mysterion” of the Fathers, marriage came to be equated with
 contractual obligations and rights. A whole machinery was
 set up in the Latin Church to adjudicate the validity of
 marriages according to the canonical definition of a unique
 contract giving the right to bodily acts of reproduction. In an
 effort to achieve legal clarity, both the personal elements of
 this unique relationship and the supernatural context of
 mystery were pushed to the background. Consequently, where we
 in the Church should be speaking of the common life of two
 spouses who are children of God, we are probing in tribunal
 practice the conditions of a contract for bodily acts. The result
 is a sterility of vision that has reduced the great mystery of
 human and divine love to an unreal formulation of legal rules.
 The Church’s primary task in marriage today is to proclaim
 the full richness of both divine revelation and human
 understanding. It is not to inform the world that the Church now
 accepts new rules for allowing divorce and remarriage. We
 must become less interested in the judicial forum, and more
 concerned about a catechesis of marriage. In fact, all that we
 say about the indissolubility or dissolubility of marriage implies
 a grasp of the preliminary question, what is marriage. It is
 toward an understanding of this sacred mystery that we must
 now strive together from all the traditions of the Christian
 experience.
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2004-paderborn.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2004-paderborn.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Paderborn Communiqué
 date: 2004-06-27
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2004_paderborn_en.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2005-athens.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2005-athens.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Athens Communiqué
 date: 2005-11-13
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2005_athens_en.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2006-chevetogne.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2006-chevetogne.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Chevetogne Communiqué
 date: 2006-12-03
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2006_chevetogne_en.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2007-belgrade.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2007-belgrade.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Belgrade Communiqué
 date: 2007-11-04
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2007_belgrade_en.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2008-vienna.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2008-vienna.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Vienna Communiqué
 date: 2008-11-23
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2008_vienna_en.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2009-kiev.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2009-kiev.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Kiev Communiqué
 date: 2009-11-08
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2009_kiev_en.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2010-magdeburg.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2010-magdeburg.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Magdeburg Communiqué
 date: 2010-11-21
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2010_magdeburg_en.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2011-petersburg.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2011-petersburg.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: St. Petersburg Communiqué
 date: 2011-11-13
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2011_petersburg_en.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2012-bose.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2012-bose.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Bose Communiqué
 date: 2012-11-04
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2012_bose_en.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2013-thessaloniki.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2013-thessaloniki.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Thessaloniki Communiqué
 date: 2013-11-17
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/Communique_2013_Thessaloniki_EN.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2014-rabat.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2014-rabat.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Rabat Communiqué
 date: 2014-11-09
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/Communique_2014_Malta_EN.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2015-chalki.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2015-chalki.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Halki Communiqué
 date: 2015-11-08
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2015_Chalki_EN.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2016-taize.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2016-taize.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Taizé Communiqué
 date: 2016-11-06
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2016_Taiz%C3%A9_EN.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2017-caraiman.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2017-caraiman.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Caraiman Communiqué
 date: 2017-10-08
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2017_Caraiman_EN.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2018-graz.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2018-graz.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Graz Communiqué
 date: 2018-10-21
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2018_graz_en.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2018-serving.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2018-serving.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Serving Communion: Re-thinking the Relationship between Primacy and Synodality
 date: 2018-10-21
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2018_graz_serving_communion.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2019-trebinje.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2019-trebinje.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Trebinje Communiqué
 date: 2019-10-13
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2019_Trebinje_EN.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2021-rome.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2021-rome.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Rome Communiqué
 date: 2021-10-10
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/2021_Rome_EN.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2022-clujnapoca.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2022-clujnapoca.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Cluj-Napoca Communiqué
 date: 2022-10-16
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/texte/kommuniques/2022_Cluj-Napoca_EN.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2023-balamand.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/sijocwg-2023-balamand.md
@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Balamand Communiqué
 date: 2023-06-25
 author: Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/en/texts/kommuniques-irenaeus-arbeitskreis
 source: https://de.moehlerinstitut.de/pdf/Communiqu%C3%A9_Balamand-2023_EN.pdf
 ---
--- a/src/page/ecumen/tomos-1285-blachernae.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/tomos-1285-blachernae.md
@ -1,142 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: Exposition of the Tomus of Faith Against Beccus
 date: 1285
 author: Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus
 source: https://web.archive.org/web/20210805222141/https://www.oocities.org/trvalentine/orthodox/tomos1285.html
 comment: I neglected to make a record of this from the copy of Papadakis's *Crisis in Byzantium* that I had access to once, so I am borrowing Valentine's text until I can reproduce it from the source. When I get my hands on *Crisis* again, I will update this with the citations Valentine says he omitted, for completeness.
 ---
 By the most holy and ecumenical patriarch, Lord Gregory of Cyprus, who was attacked by certain individuals, and for whom this vigorous reply was given. The disturbance and storm, which occurred in the Church a short while ago, had, as it were, for its father and leader, the Adversary himself, who is forever stricken with envy of man's salvation, and who is always seeking to do that which would prevent it. Even so, he also had individuals who, although they were, at first, not the major leaders at fault, but only worked as so many servants and instruments, by preference, did for the disturbance whatever he wanted done. But, since from the beginning, the union [of 1274], the certain harmless accommodation, and the alleged benefit to us were not, in reality, what they claimed, their actual intention was made clear by their actions. And this was proposed as a bait, drawing men's souls to that which was hidden; it was, further, proposed with promises, with the most terrible imprecations, and with solemn oaths, to the effect that they had nothing else in mind other than that which these very things signified — harmlessness, safety, that is, irreproachability. Shortly afterward, however, these imprecations and oaths were forgotten, as if they had been made for some purpose other than that for which they were intended. And the union and accommodation, and their hitherto seemingly important undertaking, are, as it were, cast down, while the words and the deeds of evil are raised up. And someone[^1] dares to declare in our midst that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, just as it does, indeed, from the Father, and that the only-begotten Son — like the Father, who begets the Son — is its cause. This, then, is how the disturbance begins, how the great struggle against the Church is rekindled.
 [^1]: This "someone" is clearly John Beccus. The account here is historically accurate, and refers to the fact that initially the Union of Lyons, as sponsored by Michael VIII, was grounded on the principle οἰκονομία. However, Beccus' attempt to justify the Filioque theologically, shortly after his accession, transferred the issue from the plane of accommodation to that of theology. What was being threatened was the integrity of Byzantine theological tradition and custom, which Michael had promised to retain undisturbed.
 Almost everyone knows (there is no need to explain it again) that this alien doctrine, which disturbed us lately, was not a recent development, but had its genesis with others, not with us. All the same, it was brought here like a foreign plague, and flourished for quite some time. And it was John Beccus who gave it the strength to grow so much and he accepted it and became the suitable ground, as it were, for its growth; and he nourished it, in my opinion, from the rivers of evil and lawlessness, or, as he falsely said, from Holy Scriptures, interpreting it wrongly, spreading babble from there, and committing sacrilege, while, at the same time robbing the meaning of Scripture, and the sense of those who listened superficially or of those who had an eye on his wealth. Yet, this evil man was almost in his eighth[^2] year of office and residence in this city; for this is how long he had been established on the patriarchal throne, the prize for a bad crop. And all this time God allowed the Church to suffer and endure the worst because of the multitude of the sins of everyone, by which we alone provoke the anger of Him who is without passion.
 [^2]: Beccus' patriarchate: 26 May 1275 to 26 December 1282.
 Eventually, however, God pitied us, his servants, and looked upon us with mercy and raised up an emperor — who seems to live only for the purpose of doing his bidding — and the Church, just as, in the past, He had raised David's fallen and ruined tabernacle through him.[^3] And the man who had accepted and nourished the evil and discord was removed from our midst, and the true doctrine concerning the Spirit is expressed with confidence, and those who wish to change the life dearest to God are, in the future, free to build on the foundation of faith. It is, likewise, commendable, and truly salutary, and the work of superior planning to attend to the future safety of the Church and, in every way, to secure its stability so that if someone hateful to God should again attempt to disturb it he will be shown to be acting in vain, because he will be repelled by the unshakable words of our faith. This could be accomplished satisfactorily if we do two things. We should first define our belief dearly, that is, the Orthodox faith, and raise it as a permanent monument to our sublime faith; seen, thus, from a distance — being visible to all — it will attract to itself the spiritual eyes of everyone. Secondly we must make this evil, destructive and alien teaching known, so that when this has been exposed we will all turn away from it and despise it and quickly escape from its danger.
 [^3]: Acts 15:16
 Accordingly, the faith which we acknowledge and believe in our heart is as follows. We believe as we have been taught from the beginning and from the Fathers. We have been taught and we believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible, who, being without principle (ἄναρχος), unbegotten, and without cause, is the natural principle and cause of the Son and of the Spirit. We also believe in His only begotten Son, who, being consubstantial with Him, was begotten eternally and without change from Him, through whom all things were made. We believe in the all-Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the same Father, which, with the Father and the Son together, is worshipped as coeternal, co-equal, co-essential, co-equal in glory, and as joint-creator of the world. We believe that the only-begotten Word of the supersubstantial and life-giving Trinity came down from heaven for us men and for our salvation, was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man; that is, He became perfect man while remaining God and in no way altered or transformed the divine nature by His contact with the flesh, but assumed humanity without change. And He, who is passionless according to His divine nature, suffered the passion and the cross and, on the third day, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of God the Father. We believe in accordance with God, holy tradition and teaching in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.
 Additionally, we acknowledge a single hypostasis of the incarnate Word, and we believe the same Christ to be one, and we proclaim and know Him after the Incarnation, as redeeming with two natures, from which, and in which, and which He is. Consequently, we believe in two energies and two wills of the same Christ, each nature having its own will and its own saving action. We venerate, but not absolutely and without adoration, the holy and sacred images of Christ, of the immaculate Mother of God, and of all the saints, because the honor we show them passes over to the original. We reject the recently established union [of Lyons] which provoked God's hostility toward us.[^4] For this union divided and ravaged the Church, under the pretense of harmless accommodation, persuading it, by their stupidity and deception, to establish their glory, but not God's,[^5] and to turn from Orthodoxy and the sound teaching of the Fathers, and to fall down the precipice of heresy and blasphemy.[^6] We also render void their dangerous doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. We have been taught from God, the Word Himself, that the all-Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; and we confess that it has its existence from the Father, and that it prides itself — exactly as the Son Himself does — in the fact that the same [Father] is essentially the cause of its being. And we know and believe that the Son is from the Father, being enriched in having the Father as His cause and natural principle, and in being consubstantial and of one nature with the Spirit, which is from the Father. Even so, He is not, either separately or with the Father, the cause of the Spirit; for the all-Holy Spirit's existence is not "through the Son" and "from the Son" as they who hasten toward their destruction and separation from God understand and teach.[^7] We shun and cut off from our communion those who do not correctly uphold the sound faith but blaspheme blatantly, and think and speak perversely[^8] and perpetuate what is most alarming and unbearable to hear.
 [^4]: Cf. Rom. 8:7
 [^5]: Rom. 10:3
 [^6]: The word "blasphemy" is used repeatedly by Gregory to describe Beccus' doctrine concerning the procession of the Spirit. To be sure, the deeply biblical nuance of the word in Scripture and in patristic literature did not escape him. In the New Testament, the word indicates violation of the power and majesty of God (Mark 2:7; Luke 5:2 1). In the early patristic period, opposing theological views were stigmatized as blasphemy. See especially G. Kittel (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, I (Grand Rapids-London, 1964), 621-25.
 [^7]: Psalm 73:27
 [^8]: Acts 20:30
 They were originally members of our nation and of our doctrine and belonged to the Church, and yet they rebelled against it and put it aside — the Church which had spiritually given them birth and had nourished them. And they placed the Church in ultimate danger and showed themselves blameworthy children, estranged sons, who had veered from their paths. You did not repay well — evil and perverse generation[^9] — either the Lord God or Mother Church. One should be willing to endure every danger — even death itself should not be rejected — on behalf of the Church and its doctrines. And yet, their behavior toward the Church was worse than that of natural enemies, for they were openly emotionally disturbed and had altogether lost the ability of distinguishing between friend and foe. The first among them, as we said, was John Beccus who (because Christ had visited his own Church, and moved against him and his evil associates, and proceeded clearly forward with the result that he was going to be justly punished for his endless chatter), after appearing to repent for the mischief he had caused when he went raving mad, and, after composing a pious statement and giving it to the synod handling his case, had hardly tasted leniency and escaped condemnation, when he turned back to his own vomit of blasphemy.[^10]
 [^9]: Matt. 17:17
 [^10]: 2 Peter 2:22
 This statement should be made known so that all who hear[^11] it may judge if he was justly condemned. The verbatim text was as follows:
 [^11]: This passage indicates that the text was intended for those who had assembled to "hear" the Tomus read from the pulpit of the Hagia Sophia.
 > Because of my attempt to promote the precarious accommodation of the supposed ecclesiastical union, and to bring everyone around to agree to it, it happened that I spoke and wrote on Church doctrine; certain things which I had said, however, were found to be of a dubious nature and at variance with sacred and holy doctrine and this being so, the synod had them condemned. I said, for example, that the Holy Spirit has, as cause of its personal existence, the Father and the Son, and that this doctrine was in harmony with the formula which declares that the 'Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.' In the final analysis, this means that the Spirit has two causes, and that both the direct and the remote principles of causation were implied. That is, the Son is as much the cause of the existence of the Spirit as the meaning of the preposition "through" allows. And since all these doctrines are found in my own writings and speeches, they are mine, for no one else had thought and written these. Additionally, I said that the Father and the Son [together] constitute a single cause of the Spirit from whom, as from one principle and source, the Spirit has its being. All this and anything else that may lead to such dogmatic absurdity-before God, his awesome angels, and before the holy and sacred synod-from the bottom of my heart, without deceit, without hiding one thing and saying another, I turn away from, I reject, and I cast out because they lead to the ultimate destruction of the soul. I confess with heart and tongue and I believe as does the holy Catholic Church from the beginning in the Holy Trinity, the one God, thus: that the Father does not have His being either from another or from Himself, but is without beginning and without cause that the only-begotten Son of God has His existence by generation from the Father and has the Father as His cause; I confess and believe that the Holy Spirit has-by procession-its existence from God the Father; and that the Father, according to the voices of the holy teachers, is the cause of the Son and of the Spirit; that the formula 'the Spirit proceeds through the Son' in no way renders the Son, either separately or with the Father, the cause of the Spirit because, according to the dubious and absurd view of certain individuals, the Son and the Father constitute the one cause and unique principle of the Spirit. These, then, are the doctrines that I confess. I hope it will be these and all the doctrines of the holy catholic Church of God, according to this written confession, that I shall be found confessing unto my last breath. Everyone who, now or in the future, does not confess thus I dissociate myself from, and I cast out far from the Orthodox faith of Christians. This is the statement of my confession and faith, by which I acknowledge and witness to everyone, and by which I indicate clearly that I hold to the faith concerning God, and that I am entirely devoted to the evangelical, apostolic, and patristic doctrine and teaching. Because of my boldness, by which I precariously attempted to delve into certain of the above-mentioned doctrines, I was deposed from the episcopate by the most holy [Joseph], lord and ecumenical patriarch, and by his holy and sacred synod, in which the most holy [Athanasius] pope and patriarch of Alexandria was also present. As such, I approve this lawfully and canonically rendered sentence of deposition, and I accept this resolution as justifiable and lawful. I shall never try to regain the priesthood.
 Nevertheless, once this confession which he wrote and signed with his own hand was published, he annulled it immediately as soon as the ecclesiastical court had given him a reprieve. And he again composes books and blasphemies, and he again adds spurious doctrines and the opinions of others which our fathers did not know. And he obstinately tries to prove himself superior to these "errors" of this evil, whereas, of course, he should have done this solely by repentance and by the suppression of all that he had written. By ignoring the way,[^12] he veered from the straight path and was given to a mind even more reprobate than before.[^13] We imagine that the spirit of error left him for a while, but attacked him again with greater force, having brought along not seven, but a whole legion of spirits, and that it took possession of his soul and filled it.[^14] Therefore, he is again summoned and asked to account for this change from good to evil. And who summons him but the emperor [Andronicus] who is jealous of God, the God of hosts,[^15] and who has become as the hand of the Most High himself in the restoration of the Church and the faith, whom I happily call a new Moses, God's excellent servant,[^16] who rescued the present-day people of Israel not from that ancient material bondage of Egypt, but from another one that is far worse. Because of this service, the emperor has been drawn by the hand of God, whose books contain his name.[^17] We, therefore, need not write a great deal about him.
 [^12]: 2 Peter 2:15
 [^13]: Rom. 1:28
 [^14]: Cf. Matt. 12:43-45
 [^15]: 1 Kings 19:10
 [^16]: Heb. 3:5
 [^17]: Cf. Phil. 4:3; Apoc. 17:8
 And Beccus was asked by the emperor and by the holy synod to state the reasons for which he turned back (after he had obtained the grace of a commendable repentance, and had put — to speak scripturally — his hand to the plow,[^18] and had agreed to follow the Church's order), and lost all ability to gain the kingdom of heaven, preferring blasphemy to truth. However, it became clear from his words (he did not say anything that is true), and from his actions (he made no attempt to hide his wickedness), that he is so closely united with heterodoxy that no words would convince him to renounce his position. Accordingly, the entire assembly of the faithful, inspired by the righteous zeal against him and those who share his views, render this decision like the ancient priests pronouncing against their own kin, the sons of Israel, who had broken the law.
 [^18]: Luke 9:62
 1. To John Beccus and to those who follow him, to Constantine Meliteniotes and George Metochites, who were born of us,[^19] and who were reared in our customs and doctrines, but who did not abide in them despite the fact that these were their own and of the Fathers, and had been established with the passage of time ever since the Christian faith began to be preached in these parts. But these, against which not even the gates of hell have prevailed nor shall prevail[^20] — they have despised, and I do not know why they condemn them, or why they refuse to praise them. But then they introduced instead a belief that was entirely unknown to its authors, for they respect neither the text's antiquity nor those who revealed these truths, namely, the ones who spoke of the things of the Spirit not for any other reason but because they were filled with the Spirit. To these men because they were so corrupt that they held beliefs both strange and alien to our traditions to the detriment and destruction of the Church; and, sometime later, they renounced this madness and declared by word and in writing before countless eyes and ears that they would be accursed if, in the future, they should not be found in full possession of the traditional faith, but drawn to a belief alien to the Church; and because they did not abide by their own written statement concerning this repentance, but changed their mind and opinion and again turned to their previous apostasy, as if possessed of a rebellious nature and a faithlessness toward ancestral doctrines, to these, because they wickedly turned away and preferred this separation from their own Church, we pronounce the resolution which they have pronounced upon themselves (or in the case of those who, in the future, will dare to do so), we cut them off (since they hold such views) from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.
 {#a1}
 [^19]: Cf. 1 John 2:19
 [^20]: Matt. 16:18
 2. To the same [John Beccus], and to those who along with him were rash enough to introduce into the apostolic faith matters which the teachers of the Church did not hand down and which we have not received through them, we pronounce the above-recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.
 {#a2}
 3. To the same, who say that the Father is, through the Son, the cause of the Spirit, and who cannot conceive the Father as the cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit — giving it existence and being — except through the Son; thus according to them the Son is united to the Father as joint-cause and contributor to the Spirit's existence. This, they say, is supported by the phrase of Saint John of Damascus, "the Father is the projector through the Son of the manifesting Spirit."[^21] This, however, can never mean what they say, inasmuch as it clearly denotes the manifestation — through the intermediary of the Son — of the Spirit, whose existence is from the Father. For the same John of Damascus would not have said — in the exact same chapter — that the only cause in the Trinity is God the Father, thus denying, by the use of the word "only," the causative principle to the remaining two hypostases.[^22] Nor would he have, again, said elsewhere, "and we speak, likewise, of the Holy Spirit as the 'Spirit of the Son,' yet we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son."[^23] For both of these views to be true is impossible. To those who have not accepted the interpretation given to these testimonia by the Fathers, but, on the contrary, perceive them in a manner altogether forbidden by them, we pronounce the above recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.
 {#a3}
 [^21]: John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa, in Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos II, 36 (= PG 94.849B): "He Himself [the Father], then, is mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and, through the Word, projector of the manifesting Spirit."
 [^22]: John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa, in Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos II, 36 (= PG 94.849B)
 [^23]: Ibid., 30 (= PG 94-832B).
 4. To the same, who affirm that the Paraclete, which is from the Father, has its existence through the Son and from the Son, and who again propose as proof the phrase "the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son." In certain texts [of the Fathers], the phrase denotes the Spirit's shining forth and manifestation. Indeed, the very Paraclete shines form and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun's rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us. It does not, however, mean that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that it receives its being through Him and from Him. For this would mean that the Spirit has the Son as cause and source (exactly as it has the Father), not to say that it has its cause and source more so from the Son than from the Father; for it is said that that from which existence is derived likewise is believed to enrich the source and to be the cause of being. To those who believe and say such things, we pronounce the above resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.
 {#a4}
 5. To the same, who say that the preposition "through" everywhere in theology is identical to the preposition "from" and, as a result, maintain that there is no difference in saying that the Spirit proceeds "through the Son" from saying that it proceeds "from the Son" — whence, undoubtedly, the origin of their idea that the existence and essence of the Spirit is from the Son. And they either infer a double or a single procession of origin, and join the Son to the Father according to this explanation of "cause," both of which are beyond all blasphemy. For there is no other hypostasis in the Trinity except the Father's, from which the existence and essence of the consubstantial [Son and Holy Spirit] is derived. According to the common mind of the Church and the aforementioned saints, the Father is the foundation and the source of the Son and the Spirit, the only source of divinity, and the only cause. If, in fact, it is also said by some of the saints that the Spirit proceeds "through the Son," what is meant here is the eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son, not the purely [personal] emanation into being of the Spirit, which has its existence from the Father. Otherwise, this would deprive the Father from being the only cause and the only source of divinity, and would expose the theologian [Gregory of Nazianzus] who says "everything the Father is said to possess, the Son, likewise, possesses except causality"[^24] as a dishonest theologian. To these who speak thus, we pronounce the above-recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.
 {#a5}
 [^24]: Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 34, PG 36.252A; cf. also Mouzalon's use and explanation of this proof-text, in PG 142.293A-B.
 6. To the same, who contend that the unique essence and divinity of the Father and the Son is the cause of the Spirit's existence — an idea which no one who has ever had it in his mind has either expressed or considered making public. For the common essence and nature is not the cause of the hypostasis; nor does this common essence ever generate or project that which is undivided; on the other hand, the essence which is accompanied by individual characteristics does, and this, according to the great Maximus, denotes the hypostasis.[^25] But also, according to the great Basil, because he too defines the hypostasis as that which describes and brings to mind what in each thing is common, and which cannot be described by means of individual characteristics which appear in it.[^26] Because of this, the indivisible essence always projects something indivisible (or generates the indivisible that generates), in order that the created may be [simultaneously] the projector as well as the projected; the essence of the Father and the Son, however, is one, and is not, on the whole, indivisible.[^27] To these, who absurdly blaspheme thus, we pronounce the above-recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.
 {#a6}
 [^25]: Cf. Maximus the Confessor, Letter 7: To John the Presbyter, PG 91.436A.
 [^26]: Basil, locus incognitus.
 [^27]: On this section, cf. John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa, in Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, II, 27 (= PG 94.825A-B).
 7. To the same, who teach that the Father and the Son — not as two principles and two causes — share in the causality of the Spirit, and that the Son is as much a participant with the Father as is implied in the preposition "through." According to the distinction and strength of these prepositions, they introduce a distinction in the Spirit's cause, with the result that sometimes they believe and say that the Father is cause, and sometimes the Son. This being so, they introduce a plurality and a multitude of causes in the procession of the Spirit, even though this was prohibited on countless occasions. As such, we pronounce the above-recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.
 {#a7}
 8. To the same, who stoutly maintain that the Father by virtue of the nature — not by virtue of the hypostasis — is the Holy Spirit's cause; the result is that they necessarily proclaim the Son as cause of the Spirit, since the Son has the same nature as the Father. At the same time, they fail to see the absurdity that results from this. For it is necessary first that the Spirit be the cause of someone, for the simple reason that it has the same nature as the Father. Secondly, the number of the cause increases, since as many hypostases as share in nature must, likewise, share in causality. Thirdly, the common essence and nature is transformed into the cause of the hypostasis, which all logic — and, along with this, nature itself — prohibits. To these, who believe in such things strange and alien to truth, we pronounce the above-recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.
 {#a8}
 9. To the same, who state that, in reference to the creation of the world, the phrase "through the Son" denotes the immediate cause,[^28] as well as the fact that it denies the Son the right to be creator and cause of things made "through Him." That is to say, in theology proper [the study of the Trinity in itself], even if the Father is called the initial cause of the Son and the Spirit, He is also, "through the Son," the cause of the Spirit. Accordingly, the Son cannot be separated from the Father in the procession of the Spirit. By saying such things, they irrationally join the Son to the Father in the causation of the Spirit. In reality, even if the Son, like the Father, is creator of all things made "through Him," it does not follow that He is also the Spirit's cause, because the Father is the projector of the Spirit through Him; nor, again, does it follow that, because the Father is the Spirit's projector "through the Son," He is, through Him, the cause of the Spirit. For the formula "through the Son" here denotes the manifestation and illumination [of the Spirit by the Son], and not the emanation of the Spirit into being. If this was not so, it would be difficult, indeed, even to enumerate the theological absurdities that follow. To these, who irrationally express such views, and ascribe them to the writings of the saints, and from these stir up a multitude of blasphemies, we pronounce the above-recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.
 {#a9}
 [^28]: Immediate or primordial cause: προκαταρκτικὴ αἰτία; cf. Basil, On the Holy Spirit, PG 32.136B.
 10. To the same, who declare that the Son is said to be the fountain of life in the same way that the Virgin Mother of God is said to be the fountain of life.[^29] The Virgin is so called because she lent living flesh to the only-begotten Word with a rational and intellectual soul, and became the cause of mankind born according to Christ. Similarly, those who understand life to be in the Holy Spirit will think of the Son as the fountain of life in terms of cause. Hence, their argument — from conclusions drawn of incongruous comparisons and examples — for the participation of the Son with the Father in the procession of the Spirit. And yet, it is not because the Virgin is said to be the fountain of life that the only-begotten Word of God is called the fountain of life. For she is so called because it is from her that real life came, for the same Word of God and true God was born according to His humanity, and she became the cause of His holy flesh. As for the Son, He is the fountain of life because He became the cause of life for us who were dead to sin; because he became as an overflowing river to everyone; and because, for those who believe in the Son, the Spirit is bestowed as from this fountain and through Him. This grace of the Spirit is poured forth, and it is neither novel nor alien to Scripture were it to be called by the same name as Holy Spirit. For, sometimes, an act (ἐνέργεια) is identified by the name of the one who acts, since frequently we do not refuse to call "sun" the sun's own luster and light.[^30] To these, whose ambition is to draw such conclusions, and to reconcile what by nature cannot at all be reconciled, we pronounce the above-recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.
 {#a10}
 [^29]: For the use of the phrase in patristic literature, sec G. W H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961-1968), fasc. 4, 1080.
 [^30]: Cf. Patriarch Philotheus' words in Against Gregoras, PG 151.916D: "And this divine splendor and grace, this energy and gift of the all-Holy Spirit, is called Holy Spirit by Scripture ... for we call 'sun' not only the solar disk, but the splendor and energy sent forth from there."
 11. To the same, who do not receive the writings of the saints in the correct manner intended by the Church, nor do they honor what appears to be the closest [interpretation] according to the patristic traditions and the common beliefs about God and things divine, but distort the meaning of these writings so as to set them at variance with the prescribed dogmas, or adhere to the mere word and, from this, bring forth strange doctrine, we pronounce the above-recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God. 
 {#a11}
 Certainly, the doctrines of the above-listed and already expelled individuals are filled with blasphemy, malice, and fall short of all ecclesiastical prudence. Even if Beccus, the father of these doctrines — or someone among his zealous supporters — confidently affirms that these teachings are the thoughts of the saints, in reality, we must suppose him a slanderer and blasphemer of the saints. For where have the God-bearing Fathers said that God the Father is, through the Son, the cause of the Spirit? Where do they say that the Paraclete has its existence from the Son and through the Son? Again, where do they say that the same Paraclete has its existence from the Father and from the Son? In what text do they teach that the one essence and divinity of the Father and the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit's existence? Who, and in which of his works, ever prohibited anyone from saying that the hypostasis of the Father is the unique cause of being of the Son and the Spirit? Who among those who believe that the Father is the cause of the Spirit has taught that this is by virtue of the nature, not by virtue of the hypostasis? And who has failed to maintain this as the characteristic that distinguishes the Father from the other two hypostases? Finally, who says that those other teachings, about which he has lied by insulting the Fathers, belong to the Fathers? He abstains from neither evil. For at some places he alters their own words, and, even when he uses the words without distortion, he does not adhere to their true meaning. Neither does he look at the aim that the author had in mind, but arrogantly passes over the purpose and the desire, and even the express intent of the author's statement, and adheres to the word and, having obtained the shadow instead of the body, composes books. And this is like saying that he twists ropes of sand and builds houses therefrom to make I do not know what, unless it is a monument and a memorial — the former, an advertisement of his folly the latter, a declaration of the struggle he undertook against his own salvation. This being so, we condemn the doctrines themselves together with their authors, and judge that their memory, like the expelled, be eliminated from the Church with a resounding noise.
 They are like thorns and thistles which, by divine permission, have grown within the life-giving precincts of the Church, or like evil weeds which the enemy has sown among the authentic wheat of the gospel.[^31] For he found an opportunity for his wickedness in the forebearance of the avenging God. They are a death-bearing brood of vipers[^32] (if you prefer something that has a greater resemblance to evil) and, according to Scripture, descendants of serpents bringing death to every soul that approaches them; and they are worth preserving so long as they do not need to be born at all and men do not know of them. They should be destroyed with fire, and with iron, and with every possible means — a task the Church should undertake — and they should be given over to non-being and to ultimate destruction. Indeed, we counsel all the sons of our Church to avoid them with great care, and not even to listen to them in a cursory manner.
 [^31]: Cf. Matt. 13:24-30
 [^32]: Luke 3:7
 [^33]But we cannot stop with admonition alone but must supplement this with both threat and fear for the sake of the security of the future. But what does this threat consist of? Is it because the act [of Lyons] which occurred a short while back — I know not why they called it "accommodation" and union, when it deserves a completely different name — confused the Church and finally ravaged it? Indeed, this act introduced precariously and very dangerously the aforementioned and unreasonable doctrines, which had John Beccus as their protector. Thus, we define our position very clearly for everyone, should any individual — living now or in the future — ever dare to revive that act which has been wisely abolished, or attempt to impose doctrines on our Church which have been already profitably condemned, or suggest them either secretly and maliciously, or introduce a proposal in favor of believing or approving these doctrines, or strive for their free acceptance among us, and thus scorn the genuine doctrines of the early Church and its present decrees against the spurious and alien and, indeed, against the accommodation and act by which they crept into the Church to its detriment. This Beccus, and anyone who agrees ever to receive those members of the Roman Church who remain intransigent concerning those doctrines for which they were from the beginning accused by our Church and for which the schism occurred, and who agree to receive them more openly than we were accustomed, that is, prior to this misleading accommodation and worthless union [of Lyons] hostile to the good — this man, besides expelling him from the Church, cutting him off, and removing him from the assembly and society of the faithful, we subject to the terrible penalty of anathema. For he should not even be forgiven by men, he who did not learn not to dare such things (after such an experience of the preceding evil, or after the recent condemnation), and who did not understand not to contrive against the accepted formulations of the Fathers, nor to remain forever a disciple and subject of the Church.
 [^33]: This section, beginning with "But we cannot" and continuing to the end of the Tomus, is quoted verbatim by Gennadius Scholarius in his Second Treatise on the Procession of the Holy Spirit; see L. Petit et al. (edd.), Œuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios, II (Paris, 1929), 424-26. The patriarch here draws the threads of his argument together, and summarizes the reasons for the rejection of the Union of Lyons. Gennadius was particularly anxious to show that the Church had indeed solemnly and formally rejected the decision of 1274 and the dogmatization of the Filioque. Hence his lengthy quotation.
 And we proclaim and do these things, as we said, for the sake of remaining spiritually unharmed, for the mutual benefit of everyone, for those who now belong to our devout Church, and for those who after this shall continue to do so. Remain steadfast, true [followers] of God, by avoiding and loathing those other doctrines that are opposed to the truth, and those fabrications of Beccus. Avoid not only him, but those individuals mentioned above by name who together with him spew out blasphemies which, till now, they have made their own, and which they accept unrepentantly. By so doing, the Paraclete will abide in you, and will preserve you not only from the plague of such error, but from the greater plague of the passions for the participation in the eternal benefits and the blessedness prepared for the just. And may you be and remain so.
 The recorded resolution and decision has now been issued by the Church against those who have rebelled and repudiated the Church. In a short while it will be proclaimed by the supreme judge, unless, before the arrival of His great and manifest day,[^34] they set themselves free by repentance, tears and mourning beyond endurance. For if they repent and look again at the light of Mother Church with the pure eyes of the soul, they will be like those who, in coming to Christ, will not be turned out. To the contrary, Christ will approach the returning one and will embrace him, even if he is a prodigal son who has wasted his inherited portion, Luke 15:11-32 or a lost sheep which had abandoned its sheepfold, or an individual who has removed himself from grace. So it is with the Church which in like manner shall gather them together and reckon as its own and forthwith establish them among the ranks and company of its children, provided they lament one day and experience what we experience now. And although we excommunicate them, separate them from the Church of the devout, impose on them the awesome and great judgment of separation and estrangement from the Orthodox, we do not do it because we wish to exult over their misfortune or to rejoice over their rejection. On the contrary, we grieve and bear their isolation with loathing. But why do we need to act in this fashion? Mainly for two reasons: the first being that their unhappiness and bitterness will cause them, after they have realized their folly, to return repentant and save themselves in the Church. Secondly, others will henceforth be chastened and disciplined so as not to attempt anything similar, or attack that which is holy, or behave willfully against that which is sacred; lest, if they show such audacity, they receive the same rewards in accordance with the example that has been set.
 [^34]: Acts 2:21
 **Some manuscripts add the following paragraph.**
 *Whereas the Son is the living and enhypostatic wisdom of God the Father, the Holy Spirit which proceeds ineffably and eternally from God the Father alone as Scripture affirms, is likewise the light and self-subsistent life of the inaccessible and eternal light. Whosover is of a different mind we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.*
--- a/src/page/ecumen/union-of-brest.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/union-of-brest.md
@ -1,116 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: The Union of Brest-Litovsk
 date: 1595-06-01
 source: https://stjosaphatugcc.org/full-text-of-the-union-of-brest.php
 ---
 We require prior guarantees of these articles from the Romans before we enter into union with the Roman Church.
 [1\.](#1) Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.
 {#1}
 [2\.](#2) That the divine worship and all prayers and services of Orthros, Vespers, and the night services shall remain intact (without any change at all) for us according to the ancient custom of the Eastern Church, namely: the Holy Liturgies of which there are three, that of Saint Basil, that of Saint Chrysostom, and that of Epiphanius which is served during the Great Lent with Presanctified Gifts, and all other ceremonies and services of our Church, as we have had them until now, for in Rome these same services are kept within the obedience of the Supreme Pontiff, and that these services should be in our own language.
 {#2}
 [3\.](#3) That the Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ should be retained entirely as we have been accustomed until now, under the species of bread and wine; that this should remain among us eternally the same and unchangeable.
 {#3}
 [4\.](#4) That the Mystery of Holy Baptism and its form should remain among us unchanged as we have served it until now, without any addition.
 {#4}
 [5\.](#5) We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.
 {#5}
 [6\.](#6) We will accept the new calendar, if the old one cannot be, but without any violation of the Paschalia [the Easter cycle] and our other feasts as they were in the time of unity, because we have some special feasts which the Romans do not have; on the sixth of January we celebrate the memory of the Baptism of the Lord Christ and the first revelation of the One God in Trinity. We call this feast Theophany, and on this day we have a special service of the Blessing of Waters.
 {#6}
 [7\.](#7) That we should not be compelled to take part in processions on the day of Corpus Christi - that we should not have to make such processions with our Mysteries inasmuch as our use of the Mysteries is different.
 {#7}
 [8\.](#8) Likewise that we should not be compelled to have the blessing of fire, the use of wooden clappers, and similar ceremonies before Easter, for we have not had such ceremonies in our Church until now, but that we should maintain our ceremonies according to the rubrics and the Typicon of our Church.
 {#8}
 [9\.](#9) That the marriages of priests remain intact, except for bigamists.
 {#9}
 [10\.](#10) That the metropolitanate, the episcopate, and other ecclesiastical dignities shall be conferred on no one except the Rus' people or Greeks, who must be of our religion. And since our Canons require that the Metropolitain, the Bishops, and soon, first elected by the clergy, must be worthy people, we ask the King's Grace that the election be free, leaving intact the authority of the King's Grace to appoint the one whom he pleases. This means that as soon as someone has died we should elect four candidates, and the King's Grace will freely chose whom he wishes from among the four. This is necessary, especially so that the persons named to such positions will be worthy and educated, for the King's Grace, who is not of the same religion, cannot know who is worthy of this, and thus it has happened that such uninstructed people were appointed that they were scarcely literate. If the King's Grace should wish to appoint a layman to these spiritual posts, the appointee must receive Holy Orders within no more than three months under pain of losing appointment, according to the Constitution of the Parliament of Grondo and the Articles of King Sigmund Augustus of blessed memory, approved by the present King's Grace, for at the moment there are some who hold certain spiritual appointments in their hands but do not receive Holy Orders even for years, justifying themselves with some sort of royal "exemptions". We ask that in future this should not be.
 {#10}
 [11\.](#11) That our Bishops should not send to Rome for the sacrae (permission to consecrate), but, if the King's Grace names someone to a bishopric, that according to the old custom the Archbishop-Metropolitain should have the duty and the right to ordain him. The Metro-politain himself, before entering upon the office of metropolitain, should send the sacrae to the Pope. Then, after he has received the sacrae from Rome, let the bishops ordain him, at least two of them, according to their custom. If a bishop is elected Metropolitain, let him not send for the sacrae, because he already has the episcopal cheirotonia; he may take an oath of obedience to the Supreme Pontiff in the presence of the Archbishop of Gniezno (who on that occasion will not be functioning as Archbishop, but as Primate of Poland).
 {#11}
 [12\.](#12) So that our authority would be greater and we should govern our faithful with greater respect, we ask seats in the Senate of the King's Grace for the Metropolitain and the bishops. We ask this for many reasons for we have the same office and hierarchical dignity as the Roman Bishops.
 {#12}
 [13\.](#13) And if in time the Lord shall grant that the rest of the brethren of our people and of the Greek Religion shall come to this same holy unity, it shall not be held against us or begrudged to us that we have preceded them in this unity, for we have to do this for definite, serious reasons for harmony in the Christian republic [Poland] to avoid further confusion and discord.
 {#13}
 [14\.](#14) Most important of all, it is necessary that if in our dioceses presbyters - Archimandrates, Hegumenoi, presbyters, and other clergy, but especially foreigners, even bishops and monks who might come from Greece - of our Religion should not wish to be under our obedience they should never dare to perform any divine service. For if that were allowed then there would never be any order.
 {#14}
 [15\.](#15) If in the future someone of our Religion should want to join the Roman Church, denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted, since he is degrading the Ceremonies of the one Church of God, since, being already in one Church, we shall have one Pope.
 {#15}
 [16\.](#16) That marriages may freely take place between the Roman faithful and the Rus' faithful, without any compulsion as to Religion, for both are already one Church.
 {#16}
 [17\.](#17) Inasmuch as we have lost the possession of many ecclesiastical properties, some of which our predecessors alienated by rights other than the free administration of these goods during their personal lives, so that we find ourselves in such want and poverty that we cannot provide satisfactorily for the needs of the churches, and indeed we ourselves scarcely have the means of subsistence, we require that these properties be returned to our churches. If anyone has legitimately acquired the lifetime usufruct of any ecclesiastical benefice, let him be obliged to pay an annual rent to the Church, and upon his death let the benefice revert to the Church. Such a benefice shall not be granted to anyone without the consent of the bishop and his chapter. Every benefice to which the Church presently has title is to be recorded in the Gospel Books, even if the Church does not exercise any control over some benefices. In that way they will at least belong indisputably to the Church. With this accomplished, the Church can then undertake to regain those benefices which have been alienated at an earlier time.
 {#17}
 [18\.](#18) Upon the death of the Metropolitain or of a bishop, the wardens and state treasurer shall not interfere in the ecclesiastical properties. As is the custom and tradition of the Roman Church, these properties shall be administered by the chapter until a new Metropolitain or bishop is elected. While this is already guaranteed to us by our privilege, we ask that it be incorporated into the constitution of the kingdom.
 {#18}
 [19\.](#19) That Archimandrates, Hegumenoi, monks and their monasteries, according to the old custom shall be under the obedience of the bishops of their dioceses, for among us there is only one monastic Rule, which even the bishops use, and we do not have "Provincials".
 {#19}
 [20\.](#20) That at the tribunal among the Roman Clergy we also should have two of our [clergy] to look after the affairs of our Church.
 {#20}
 [21\.](#21) That the archimandrates, hegumenoi, priests, archdeacons, and our other clergy be held in the same esteem as the Roman clergy, and should enjoy and make use of the same liberties and privileges which were granted by King Ladislaus; they should be exempt from all taxation, both personal and concerning ecclesiastical property, in contrast to the unjust practice which has hitherto obtained - if they possess some private properties then they should pay taxes on them, whatever is just, as other proprietors do. Any priest and other clergy who possesses ecclesiastical properties within the territories of the senators and nobility are subject to them and must obey them: they should not appeal to the courts or enter into quarrels with the landlords, but must acknowledge the right of patronage. But accusations regarding the person of the clergy and their spiritual functions, are subject only to the bishop, and the misdemeanors of the clergy shall be punished exclusively by the bishop on the complaints of the landlord. Thus everyone, clergy and laity, will have their rights preserved whole and inviolate.
 {#21}
 [22\.](#22) That the Romans should not forbid us to ring bells in our churches on Good Friday, both in the cities and everywhere else.
 {#22}
 [23\.](#23) That we should not be forbidden to visit the sick with the Most Holy Mysteries, publicly, with lights and vestments, according to our rubrics.
 {#23}
 [24\.](#24) That without any interference we might be free to hold proces-sions, as many as are required, on holy days, according to our custom.
 {#24}
 [25\.](#25) That our Rus' monasteries and churches should not be changed into Roman Catholic churches. And if any Roman Catholic has damaged or destroyed one of our churches or monasteries, in his territory, he shall be obliged to repair it or build a new one for the exclusive use of the Rus' people.
 {#25}
 [26\.](#26) The spiritual Church Brotherhoods which have recently been erected by the Patriarchs and confirmed by the King's Grace - for example, those in L'viv, in Brest, in Vilnius, and elsewhere - in which we see great benefit for the Church of God and the cultivation of divine worship if they wish to abide in this unity, shall be main-tained in all their integrity under the obedience of their Metropol-itain and of the bishops in whose dioceses they function and to whom each of them is properly ascribed.
 {#26}
 [27\.](#27) That we shall be free to have schools and seminaries in the Greek and Church-Slavonic languages in the localities where it is most convenient, and that our printing-presses shall be free (of course under the supervision of the Metropolitain and bishops, so that no heresies be propagated and nothing be printed without the knowledge and consent of the Metropolitain and bishops).
 {#27}
 [28\.](#28) Since there have been great abuses and disobedience on the part of some priests in the dominions of the King's Grace as well as in the lands of the lords and magnates, so that these priests have obtained the protection of the landlords and magnates for their abuses, dissolving marriages, so that the wardens and other officials profit to some extent by the fees from these divorces and therefore shield these priests, not permitting the bishops and the synod to summon such wayward clerics, abusing and even beating our visitators, we request that such abuses should cease, and that we would be free to correct the wayward and keep order, and if someone should be excommunicated because of his disobedience or for an abuse, let the government and the lords, once they have been informed by the bishops or the visitator, not permit such excommunicated clergy to perform clerical functions or serve in the churches until they have been absolved by their pastors from their faults. This shall also be understood for archimadrates and hegumenoi and other ecclesiastics who are subject to the bishops and to their authority.
 {#28}
 [29\.](#29) Than the Cathedrals in the main cities and all the parish churches everywhere in the dominions of the King's Grace, of every place and jurisdiction, whether founded by the King, or by the city, or by a local lord, shall be subject to the bishop and under his authority, and that lay people shall not administer them under any pretext, for there are those who meddle against the obedience of the bishop, arranging matters as they wish and who do not want to obey their bishops. Let this not occur in the future.
 {#29}
 [30\.](#30) And if someone has been excommunicated by his bishops for any offense, let him not be received into the Roman Church but, on the contrary, let his excommunication be proclaimed there also. And we shall do the same with regard to those excommunicated from the Roman Church, for this is a joint concern.
 {#30}
 [31\.](#31) And when the Lord God by His will and holy grace shall permit the rest of our brothers of the Eastern Church of the Greek tradition to come to the holy unity with the Western Church, and later in this common union and by the permission of the Universal Church there should be any change in the ceremonies and Typicon of the Greek Church, we shall share all this as people of the same religion.
 {#31}
 [32\.](#32) We have heard that some have departed for Greece to procure ecclesiastical powers and return here to advise and influence the clergy and extend their jurisdiction over us. We, therefore, request the King's Grace to order precautions to be taken on the state borders so that anyone bearing such jurisdictions and excommuni-cations be barred from entering the kingdom. Otherwise, grave mis-understandings could arise between the pastors and the flocks of the Church.
 {#32}
 [33\.](#33) All these things we the undersigned, desiring holy concord for the praise of God's Name and for the peace of the Holy Church of Christ, we have given these articles which we consider necessary for our Church and for which we require agreement in advance and guarantees from the Holy Father the Pope and from the King's Grace, our merciful lord, for greater security, we have committed our Instructions to our Reverend brothers in God, father Hypatius Potij, the Protothrone, Bishop Volodymyr of Brest, and Father Cyril Terlet-sky, Exarch and Bishop of Lutsk and Ostrih, so that in our name and in their own name they should ask the Most Holy Father the Pope, and also the King's Grace, our merciful lord, to confirm and guarantee beforehand all the articles which we have here given in writing, so that assured as to the faith, the Mysteries, and our ceremonies, we might come to this holy accord with the Roman Church without any violation of our conscience and the flock of Christ committed unto us and likewise that others who are still hesitating, seeing that we retain everything inviolate, might more quickly come after us to this holy union.
 {#33}
 Given in the Year of God 1595, the month of June, the first day according to the Old Calendar.
 MICHAEL, Metropolitain of Kiev and Halych and all Rus' Hypatius, Bishop of Volodymyr and Brest
 Cyril Terletsky, by the grace of God Exarch and Bishop of Lutsk and Ostrih
 Leontius Pelchytsky, by the grace of God Bishop of Pinsk and Turov
 [the seals of eight bishops are added, including Gedeon Balaban of L'viv and Dionysius Zbirujski of Kholm.]
--- a/src/page/ecumen/zizioulas-filioque-response.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/zizioulas-filioque-response.md
@ -1,61 +0,0 @@
 ---
 title: One Single Source: An Orthodox Response to the Clarification on the Filioque
 date: 2003-05-27
 author: Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon
 source: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.html
 comment: The earliest potential date I can find is the article being presented at [a 2003 meeting of the North American Consultation](https://www.usccb.org/news/2003/north-american-orthodox-catholic-theological-consultation-holds-64th-meeting-continues). It may not have been published until it appeared in *The One and the Many* in 2010. I have provisionally dated it to the earlier meeting.
 comment: I strongly suspect that the italizied prologue is an editorial comment inserted [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20120514054125/http://home.comcast.net/~t.r.valentine/orthodoxy/filioque/zizioulis_onesource.html) and copied thence. This could be verified from the aforementioned book. Similarly, I suspect the gratuitous markup of phrases is an editorial addition by the linked source above.
 ---
 *(East and West can easily continue dialogue also as regards the Filioque question providing there is full acceptance of the doctrine of tradition on the* ***monarchia*** *of the Father. The* ***monarchia*** *of the Father means that the Father is the sole cause/origin both of the Son and of the Spirit)*
 [This](./pccu-1995-filioque.md) is a very valuable **statement on the thorny issue of the Filioque**, which clarifies many aspects of the position of the Roman Catholic theology on this matter. I am sure that this statement will play a very important role in the official theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church when it comes to the point of discussing this issue. My reaction as an Orthodox theologian to this document can be summarized in the following observations:
 [1\.](#1) It is with deep satisfaction that I read in the document the emphatic assertion that no confession of faith belonging to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict the expression of faith of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 381) which has been taught and professed by the undivided Church. This is a very good basis for discussion.
 {#1}
 [2\.](#2) It is extremely important, in my judgment, to clarify the point concerning the "source" (***πηγή***) or "principle"  or "cause" (*αιτία*) in the Holy Trinity. This is crucial perhaps decisive. The document of the Vatican sees no difference between the monarchia of the Father, i.e. the idea that the Father is the sole "principle" in God's Trinitarian being, an idea strongly promoted by the Greek Fathers, and St. Augustine's expression that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "principaliter". However, before we can come to the conclusion that the two traditions, Eastern and Western, understand this matter in the same way, we must raise the following questions:
 {#2}
 a) Does the expression "***principaliter***" necessarily preclude making the Son a kind of secondary cause in the ontological emergence of the Spirit? ***The Filioque seems to suggest two sources of the Spirit's personal existence***, one of which (the Father) may be called the first and original cause (principaliter), while the other one (the Son) may be regarded as a secondary (not principaliter) cause, but still a "cause" albeit not "principaliter".
 The discussions both at the time of St. Photius and at Lyons and Florence-Ferrara seem to have paid special attention to this delicate point. It is not accidental that the Greek theologians ever since the time of Photius insisted on the expression: *μόνος αίτιος ο Πατήρ* i.e. the Father is the sole cause of the Son as well as of the Spirit. This concern does not seem to be fully covered by the Augustinian expression *principaliter*. The second Council of Lyons is unclear on this matter when it says that the Father as Father of His Son is "together with Him the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds".
 b) In the light of this observation it would be important to evaluate the use of the idea of cause ***(αιτία)*** in Trinitarian theology. It was not without reason that the Cappadocian Fathers introduced this term next to the words ***πηγή*** and ***αρχή*** (source and principle) which were common since St. Athanasius at least both in the West and in the East.
 The term "***cause***", when applied to the Father, indicates a free, willing and ***personal*** agent, whereas the language of "***source***" or "principle" can convey a more "natural" and thus impersonal imagery (the ***homoousios*** was interpreted in this impersonal way by several people in the fourth century). This point acquires crucial significance in the case of the Filioque issue.
 In the Byzantine period the Orthodox side accused the Latin speaking Christians, who supported the ***Filioque***, of introducing two Gods, precisely because they believed that the Filioque implied two causes--not simply two sources or principles--in the Holy Trinity. The Greek Patristic tradition, at least since the Cappadocian Fathers, identified the one God with the person of the Father, whereas, St. Augustine seems to identify Him with the one divine substance (the deitas or divinitas).
 It is of course true that, as the Vatican document points out, the Fourth Lateran Council excludes any interpretation that would make divine substance the source or cause, of the Son's generation and the, Spirit's procession. And yet the Cappadocian idea of "cause" seems to be almost absent in the Latin theological tradition.
 As Saint Maximus the Confessor insisted, however, in defence of the Roman use of the ***Filioque***, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the ***Filioque*** the Romans do not imply a "cause" other than the Father. The notion of "cause" seems to be of special significance and importance in the Greek Patristic argument concerning the Filioque. If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit that the Son in no way constitutes a "cause" ***(aition)*** in the procession of the Spirit, this would bring the two traditions much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque.
 c) Closely related to the question of the single cause is the problem of the exact meaning of the Son's involvement in the procession of the Spirit. ***Saint Gregory of Nyssa*** explicitly admits a "mediating" role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Is this role to be expressed with the help of the preposition ***δία*** (through) the Son (***εκ Πατρός δι'Υιού***), as Saint Maximus and other Patristic sources seem to suggest? The Vatican statement notes that this is "the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox". I would agree with this, adding that the discussion should take place in the light of the "single cause" principle to which I have just referred.
 [3\.](#3) Another important point in the Vatican document is the emphasis it lays on the distinction between ***επόρευσις (ekporeusis)*** and ***processio***. It is historically true that in the ***Greek tradition*** a ***clear distinction*** was always made between ***εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai)*** and ***προείναι (proeinai)***, the first of these two terms denoting exclusively the Spirit's derivation from the Father alone, whereas ***προείναι (proienai)*** was used to denote the Holy Spirit's dependence on the Son owing to the common substance or ***ουσία (ousia)*** which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or *υπόστασις* ***(hypostasis)*** receives from the Son, too, as ***ουσιωδώς (ousiwdws)*** that is, with regard to the one ουσία (ousia) common to all three persons (Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor et al). On the basis of this distinction one might argue that there is a kind of ***Filioque*** on the level of ουσία (ousia), but not of υπόστασις ***(hypostasis)***.
 {#3}
 However, as the document points out, the distinction between ***εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai)*** and ***προείναι (proeinai)*** was not made in ***Latin theology***, which ***used the same term***, procedere, ***to denote both realities***. Is this enough to explain the insistence of the Latin tradition on the ***Filioque***? Saint Maximus the Confessor seems to think so. For him the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the ***εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai)*** but the ***προείναι (proeinai)*** of the Spirit.
 This remains a valid point, although the subsequent history seems to have ignored it. The Vatican statement underlines this by referring to the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church today the ***Filioque*** is omitted whenever the Creed is used in its Greek original which contains the word ***εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai)***.
 Is this enough? Or should we still insist that the Filioque be removed also from the Latin text of the Creed? It would seem difficult to imagine a situation whereby Greek and Latin Christians would recite the Creed together without using ***a common text***. At the level of theologians, however, the clarifications made by the Vatican statement with regard to this matter are extremely helpful and can be very useful for the theological dialogue between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
 [4\.](#4) The last part of the document, which describes the Spirit as the Gift of love from the Father to the Son and tries to expand on the Augustinian ***nexus amoris***, presents considerable difficulties to me.
 {#4}
 On the one hand the document refers to the irreversible Trinitarian order according to which the Spirit can be called "the Spirit of the Son" while the Son can never be called "the Son of the Spirit" (Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus etc.). On the other hand, however, the same document describes the Spirit as the eternal gift of love from the Father to the Son on the basis of Biblical texts all of which clearly refer to the divine economy, and not to the immanent Trinity.
 We seem to encounter here the usual difficulty between Western and Eastern theological tradition, namely the problem of the distinction between the eternal and the economic level of God's being. The implications of this difficulty are far-reaching and cannot be analyzed here. Suffice it to say that the ***Filioque*** at the level of the economy presents no difficulty whatsoever to the Orthodox, but the projection of this into the immanent Trinity creates great difficulties.
 The reference to the well known passage from Saint Gregory Palamas describing the Spirit as "some kind of love (***eros - έρος***)" of the Father towards the Son or to that from St. John of Damascus who speaks of the Spirit as "resting" (***αναπαυόμενον - anapauomenon***) in the Son, should not be justified on the ground of the economy.
 Neither of these two theologians bases the above references to the Spirit's relation to the Son on the relation of these two Persons in the Economy, as St. Augustine seems to do and as the Vatican document also does. The ***Filioque*** in no way can be projected from the Economy into the immanent Trinity, and the same is true also of any form of ***Spirituque*** that might be detected--this is in fact possible--from the relation of Christ to the Spirit in the history of salvation.
 This makes it difficult to subscribe to the statements of the document such as this: "This role of the Spirit in the innermost human existence of the Son of God made man derives from an eternal Trinitarian relationship through which the Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of love, characterizes the relation between the Father as source of love, and his beloved Son".
 [5\.](#5) When it refers to the work of the Spirit in relation to that of Christ at the level of the Economy the Vatican statement is in my opinion extremely helpful. The idea that the Spirit brings us into the filial relationship of the Father and the Son making us sons of the Father by grace through the "spirit of sonship", and that the constant invocation of the Spirit is necessary for the realization of the work of Christ in us, shows that the East and the West can reach a common ground in many areas of Pneumatology in spite of any obscurities and difficulties that may still remain with regard to the Filioque issue.
 {#5}
 In conclusion, the Vatican document on the procession of the Holy Spirit constitutes an encouraging attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the ***Filioque*** problem and show that a rapprochement between West and East on this matter is eventually possible. An examination of this problem in depth within the framework of a constructive theological dialogue can be greatly helped by this document.