Filioque, Petrine & Roman Primacy

The following excerpt is taken from Francis Dvornik, Byzantine missions among the Slavs. SS. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius (F. Dvornik, Byzantine missions among the Slavs - 6), pp. 189-192. The citations deal with the letter of Pope St. Stephen (Latin – Stephanus V, died September 14, 891) where he mentions that the Roman Church is the seat of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, being appointed to safeguard against heresies. All emphasis is mine.

Their anxiety was well founded. Immediately after Methodius’ departure Wiching hastened to Rome in order to win over Pope Stephen V to his own plans. From the letter which the pope addressed to Svatopluk at the end of 885, we gather that Wiching accused Methodius of heretical teaching concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost, of disobedience to the injunction of the Holy See, which had forbidden him to use the vernacular language in the liturgy, and of transgressing the ecclesiastical canons because he named his own successor—Gorazd. He also accused Methodius of having introduced into Moravia the Byzantine prescriptions for fasting. [61]

Wiching must have left Moravia with the consent of Svatopluk because, at the beginning of his letter, the pope is very outspoken in his praise of Svatopluk’s loyalty to the Holy See and of his desire to follow its teaching. This praise of the most powerful ruler in Central Europe is understandable, as the pope’s position was shaky at the beginning of his reign, and the support of such an influential prince was desirable. It was not surprising that the pope addressed Svatopluk as “Slavic King.” [62] It is evident that Wiching well knew how to exploit the unstable position of the papacy to his own aims, in stressing the loyalty of the mighty prince and of himself to St. Peter.

The pope first gives a long explanation of the Roman doctrine on the procession of the Holy Ghost remarking, however, that this mystery is not fit for discussion by those who are not well versed in theology. He then gives Svatopluk information on the character of fasting. It is interesting to note that, although he speaks of Methodius without giving him his title, the pope is very reticent concerning the accusation that Methodius had taught heretical doctrine. He expresses his astonishment at hearing such an accusation, and condemns Methodius’ doctrine conditionally, “if it be true.” Then he forbids the use of the Slavonic language in the liturgy.

The genuineness of the letter must be examined, together with the instructions which the pope gave to his legates—Bishop Dominicus and two priests—when he sent them to Moravia to regulate the situation. The legates are first told how to address Svatopluk in the name of the pope and the Roman clergy. Then come instructions concerning the Filioque. [63]

From the words of the pope it is clear that Methodius and his disciples reproached their adversaries with having added the Filioque to the Nicaean Creed, affirming that the Holy Fathers had forbidden any addition to, or detraction from, this Symbol. This had already been enacted by the Council of Ephesus. [64] But a very recent council, that of 879-880, called by the Greeks the Union Synod, had made such a decision in a most telling way, by rehabilitating Photius. The Nicaean Creed was solemnly recited during the sixth session of the Council, held in the imperial palace under the presidency of the Emperor Basil and, after the recital, the Fathers very solemnly forbade not only the use of any other Symbol—this used also to be stressed in other oecumenical councils—but equally any addition to or detraction from it. The same injunction was repeated during the last session, held in the church of the Holy Wisdom, where the Fathers who had attended the previous session reported what had happened and presented the signature of the emperor. [65]

It is probable that Methodius and his disciples knew about the decision of the Union Synod and recognized it the more willingly, as this decision was also signed by the legates of John VIII. Evidently Methodius learned about this during his stay in Constantinople, if not before. Methodius’ disciples regarded themselves as being perfectly entitled to ask their opponents to respect the decision of synods which also had been accepted by Rome.

Pope Stephen V avoided sanctioning this addition to the Creed, but approved the Western interpretation of the mystery in stressing that the Roman Church had the privilege not only of defending the dogmas but also of interpreting them.

The prohibition of the Slavic liturgy is listed in the instruction together with the injunction that only preaching in the vernacular is recommended. Regarding fasting, the instructions contain only a short recapitulation of what the pope said in the letter. [66]

All this was therefore in the letter. But the last point of the instruction contradicts the letter as we know it. The pope blames Methodius for having chosen a successor, against the canonical rules. Gorazd is forbidden to exercise these functions until he appears in person in Rome and himself states his case. [67]

This seems to indicate that the pope did not make a definite decision concerning the succession to Methodius. In the papal letter there is no mention of Gorazd. We read there, however, a long passage concerning Wiching, who is recommended to Svatopluk as being orthodox and devoted to him, and that the pope is sending him back “to direct his Church commissioned to him by God.” What is even more puzzling is that the words of this recommendation are almost identical with the words in which John VIII had recommended Methodius to Svatopluk. These words are regarded by editors of this letter as having been interpolated by Wiching himself. Another interpolation is found in the passage in which the pope forbade the use of the vernacular in the liturgy. We read there that when in Rome Methodius had taken an oath in the name of St. Peter that he would never do such a thing. [68] We know that this is untrue and that such an assertion could hardly have been written in Rome.

There is no doubt that the papal decision was taken rather hastily and without giving a hearing to the accused party. Nevertheless, the pope does not seem to have made a definite decision concerning the succession to Methodius. This decision was probably intended to be made after the return of the legates, and after hearing Gorazd.

Further Reading

Irenaeus, Apostolic Succession & the Roman See