7 changed files with 1 additions and 1310 deletions
--- a/build.py
+++ b/build.py
@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ def main():
    out = pathlib.Path(args.out)
    md = markdown.Markdown(extensions=["attr_list", "footnotes", "md_in_html", "meta"])
    comment_md = markdown.Markdown()
    # Clean the output directory
    if out.exists():
@ -109,8 +108,7 @@ def main():
                if meta_comment := meta.get("comment"):
                    for comment in meta_comment:
                        aside = page.new_tag("aside")
-                        html = bs4.BeautifulSoup(comment_md.convert(comment), features="html.parser")
+                        aside.string = comment
                        aside.extend(html.p.contents)
                        page.header.append(aside)
                # Write the fully templated page
--- 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/index.md
+++ b/src/page/ecumen/index.md
@ -13,17 +13,8 @@ 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.
 ## 16th century
 * The [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)
 * [Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs](./encyclical-eastern-1848.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)
@ -33,13 +24,11 @@ Any errors are my own.
 * 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)
--- 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/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.