Statement and Decree By H.A.H. Prince-Bishop Rutherford I of Rome-Ruthenia
IntroductionThe Roman-Ruthenian Church and State is unique in terms of the spiritual and temporal patrimony that it inherited. It is orthodox, i.e., right believing, in its Christian doctrine; and it is catholic, i.e., universal. Furthermore, its apostolic succession is both from Orthodoxy and Latin/Roman Catholicism, giving it a pan-Christian heritage and nature that is both fully Orthodox and fully Catholic that it devoutly maintains. It calls this, among other names, Orthodox Old Catholicism.
As an organisation, the United Roman-Ruthenian Church promotes a union and brotherhood of all Christians similar to prior to the Great Schism. Yet, in the last 1000 years, the divisions have only deepened. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church feels this particularly acutely, given its heritage and mission.
The Great Schism of 1054, which divided Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, remains one of the most significant and painful divisions in Christian history. While the schism resulted from theological, cultural, linguistic, and political differences, its effects continue to shape how both traditions perceive each other. Unfortunately, historical grievances and misunderstandings often overshadow the profound unity in faith that still exists between these two branches of Christianity.
In an effort to promote brotherhood and unity, we will explore two emblematic issues of the schism—the filioque controversy and the question of leavened versus unleavened bread in the Eucharist—to demonstrate how linguistic and cultural nuances contributed to divisions that need not have become permanent. Finally, we propose practical steps for reconciliation and mutual understanding in a spirit of humility, truth, and love.
Re-Examining the FilioqueTheological and Linguistic Roots of the ControversyThe filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, which asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son,” was added to the Nicene Creed in the Latin-speaking West but remains absent from the Greek-speaking East. The Orthodox rejection of the filioque stems from its perceived implications for Trinitarian theology, specifically the unique role of the Father as the sole arche (source) of the Holy Spirit. In Greek, the term ekporeusis (procession) refers strictly to the Spirit’s eternal origin, making the addition of filioque appear to suggest dual sources within the Godhead—a theological impossibility in authentic Christian doctrine.
In the Latin language, however, the term procedit (proceeds) has a broader semantic range, encompassing not only eternal origin but also relational dynamics within the Trinity. For Latin theologians, the filioque affirms the close relationship between the Son and the Spirit, emphasizing Christ’s full divinity in the face of Arian heresies. It does not, however, in any way deny the Father’s unique role as the source of the Spirit – nor was it ever intended to do so. Also, it is reasonable to expect that Orthodoxy would approve of acts designed to refute denials of the full divinity of Christ.
A Common UnderstandingModern ecumenical dialogues have revealed that, when properly understood, both traditions affirm the same Trinitarian truth:
1. The Father is the sole origin of the Spirit within the eternal Trinity.
2. The Spirit is eternally related to the Son and is sent into the world through Him.
It is unfortunately that this misunderstanding resulted, and we assert that the filioque controversy, therefore, arises more from linguistic and cultural differences than from genuine theological divergence. We in the United Roman-Ruthenian Church see on this issue no theological difference between our Eastern Fathers and our Latin Fathers nor in the understanding of the modern faithful in terms of the divinity of Christ and the nature of the Trinity.
ResolutionWithin the context of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, the practical and theologically faithful resolution determined is to honor the linguistic and cultural contexts of each tradition as follows:
• In Greek contexts: The original Nicene Creed, without the filioque, should remain normative. This preserves the theological precision of the Greek language and respects the Eastern emphasis on the Father’s unique role as source. This likewise applies to translations into languages such as English, respecting the context.
• In Latin contexts: The filioque may be retained, provided its meaning is clearly explained as consistent with the shared understanding of Trinitarian theology. This likewise applies to translations into languages such as English, respecting the context.
• Liturgy: Within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, in the case of Latin-derived liturgy, regardless of language used, such as the Tridentine and Anglo-Roman liturgy, the filioque is retained. In the case of purely Eastern Rite liturgy, it is always omitted. Likewise, in the case of the Gallo-Russo-Byzantine and Anglican-Byzantine Liturgy, as they are principally Eastern liturgy, it is omitted regardless of language used.
• Ecumenical Gatherings: The version of the Creed should be said as given for the Gallo-Russo-Byzantine Rite above. However, no visitor shall be required to state or to omit something that is held sacred as part of their confession and tradition consistent with authentic Christian doctrine and tradition.
It is further recommended to our brethren in other communions and confessions that this or a similar approach be adopted. Such an approach allows each tradition to articulate the same truth in a manner authentic to its heritage, fostering unity without imposing uniformity.
Leavened vs. Unleavened Bread: A Liturgical DisputeThe use of leavened (artos) or unleavened bread (azymes) in the Eucharist became another source of division, despite both practices being rooted in early Christian tradition.
Symbolic Differences• Leavened Bread (Eastern Orthodox): Symbolizes the risen Christ and the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.
• Unleavened Bread (Latin/Roman Catholic): Reflects the Jewish Passover and emphasizes Christ as the spotless Lamb of God.
The divergence arose from differing theological emphases and liturgical customs rather than from doctrinal disagreement. Both traditions affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, regardless of the bread used.
Council of Florence and BeyondThe Council of Florence (1439) declared that both leavened and unleavened bread are valid for the Eucharist. This ecumenical acknowledgment highlights that such differences should not divide the Church. Yet mutual suspicion and cultural misunderstandings have kept the debate alive in some circles.
A Call to UnityBoth traditions would benefit from a renewed focus on the shared Eucharistic mystery rather than on the external forms. The type of bread, while symbolically significant, should not obscure the deeper reality of communion with Christ and His Body, the Church.
It is therefore the already-extant policy of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church that, in the Gallo-Russo-Byzantine and Anglican-Byzantine Rites, both leavened and unleavened bread may be used for Holy Communion. Regular unleavened communion hosts are permissible, as are both loaves of bread of both leavened and unleavened types. However, the Reserved Sacrament, as a practical matter, is maintained only in the form of unleavened hosts.
Healing the Fractures Within OrthodoxyWhile addressing Orthodox-Catholic relations, we must also recognize the fractures within Orthodoxy itself. Jurisdictional disputes and issues of recognition undermine the Orthodox witness to unity. These divisions often hypocritically mirror the same political and cultural pressures that contributed to the Great Schism.
Toward Greater ConciliarityOrthodoxy’s strength lies in its conciliar nature, which balances unity and diversity. Restoring communion within Orthodoxy requires a recommitment to dialogue, humility, and the willingness to place Christ’s will above political or national interests. Indeed, it is the policy of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church that an autocephalous jurisdiction is canonical through adherence to the historic and constant faith of the Church as taught by the saints and the Church Fathers (St. Vincent of Lerins) and the faith once delivered for all unto the saints (Jude 3). Neither affiliation with the Apostolic See of Sts. Stephen and Mark, nor the Bishop of Rome, of Constantinople, or of any other ecclesiastical jurisdiction is required. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church accepts as canonical all who accept the traditional faith.
Paths Forward: Unity in DiversityThe ultimate goal of Christian unity is not uniformity but a shared commitment to the truth of the Gospel. We, the United Roman-Ruthenian Church therefore promotes:
1. Theological Dialogue: Continue respectful and honest dialogue to clarify misunderstandings and articulate shared beliefs.
2. Mutual Respect: Acknowledge and honor the distinct traditions and practices of each autocephalous Church, recognizing their complementary richness.
3. Ecumenical Worship: In contexts where it is appropriate, use the original Creed without the filioque to emphasize unity while respecting diversity.
4. Collaborative Witness: Work together on social, charitable, and moral issues, demonstrating a united Christian witness to the world.
5. Prayer for Unity: Commit to praying for the healing of divisions, trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church toward reconciliation.
ConclusionThe United Roman-Ruthenian Church, as an autocephalous Church that is both Orthodox and Old Catholic, we constantly seek and promote Christian unity, particularly between the Churches of the Apostolic faith. Indeed, we are in a unique position to do so. The divisions between Orthodox and Catholic Christians, though rooted in history, need not define our present or future. By reexamining contentious issues such as the filioque and liturgical practices in their proper context, we can uncover a profound unity in faith that transcends cultural and linguistic differences.
As we move forward, let us remember Christ’s prayer “that they may all be one” (John 17:21). Achieving this unity requires humility, love, and a willingness to learn from one another. By focusing on what unites us—our shared faith in Christ and the Apostolic tradition—we can begin to heal the wounds of division and offer a powerful witness to the world.
“
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” (Luke 2:14) May this peace guide our efforts toward reconciliation and unity.
