NEWS: December 1, 2025
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bird’s Eye View of the News
THE DECLARATION OF ISTANBUL, A LANDMARK IN APOSTASY –
Pope Leo XIV’s trip to the Middle East is still unfolding in Lebanon as I write these lines. On November 27, in an atmosphere of mediocrity he arrived at Ankara, where President Recep Erdogan did not deign to receive him at the airport. Instead, Leo XIV went to the presidential palace to pay his respects to Erdogan. Then the Pope addressed the Turkish authorities and diplomatic corps in the presidential library in Ankara with less than 200 people attending – including Prelates, a number of journalists and the security guards.
/bev311_Nic.jpg)
The next day he went to Nicaea where he prayed with Schismatic patriarch Bartholomew on a fenced platform on stilts accompanied by no more than 40 persons. The site was chosen because it was reputedly where the First Council of Nicaea took place 1700 years ago. On the 29th he visited an empty Blue Mosque.
In short, the least we can say is that the Islamic civil and religious authorities did not give him a warm welcome. Less euphemistically speaking, we could say that they snubbed him.
Nonetheless, Catholics filled the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit on the morning of the 28th for a prayer encounter, and on the evening of the 29th around 4,000 people from different religions attended his Mass at the Volkswagen Arena in Istanbul. Also, the Schismatics made efforts to bring some persons together for two ceremonies at their small St. George church on the afternoon of the 29th and the morning of the 30th.
This is the overview I could glean of the reception Pope Prevost had in Constantinople, a city of multiple names: the imperial Byzantium, the noble Constantinople – which I prefer – and the republican Istanbul.
Omitting the Filioque
Now let me analyze the doctrinal aspect of the trip.
On four occasions Leo XIV recited the Creed: on the platform in Nicaea on the 28th, in the Doxology at St. George schismatic church on the morning of the 29th, in the Mass on the evening of that same day at the stadium, and in the Divine Liturgy again in the St. George church on the 30th. On all these occasions, as far as I could verify, he omitted the part of the Catholic Creed that mentions the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son – Filioque.
In the joint declaration that he issued with Bartholomew – the Declaration of Istanbul – a part of the Creed was reproduced in which that procession of the Holy Spirit was omitted as well. The text follows:
/bev311_Dec.jpg)
“In addition to acknowledging the obstacles that prevent the restoration of full communion among all Christians – obstacles which we seek to address through the path of theological dialogue –
we must also recognize that what binds us together is the faith expressed in the creed of Nicaea. This is the saving faith in the person of the Son of God, true God from true God,
homoousios [consubstantial] with the Father, who for us and our salvation was incarnate and dwelt among us, was crucified, died and was buried, arose on the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come again to judge the living and the dead.
“Through the coming of the Son of God, we are initiated into the mystery of the Holy Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and are invited to become, in and through the person of Christ, children of the Father and co-heirs with Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit.”
So, by way of omission Leo XIV de facto denied the dogma of Filioque so that he could please the self-proclaimed Orthodox.
Now then, when the Council of Toledo (589) taught the doctrine of the Filioque for the first time officially, it was reiterating a long theological tradition before it. The same doctrine was taught by many other councils that re-affirmed the Filioque. Among them we can cite the Council of Aachen (809), Council of Worms (868), Fourth Council of Constantinople (869), Council of Bari (1098), Council of Lateran (1215), Council of Lyon (1274), Council of Florence (1438) and Councils of Jerusalem (1583, 1672).
/bev311_Ler.jpg)
Among the Saints who defended the Filioque we can name St. Augustine, St Hilary of Poitiers, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Pope St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nysse, St. Ambrose, Pope St. Gregory the Great and St. Basil.
We see, therefore, that Pope Leo XIV is clearly abandoning the dogma expressed in the Catholic Creed. The fact that John Paul II and Benedict XVI also did the same – recited the Creed without the Filioque – does not give an excuse for Leo XIV to do so, but rather increases the gravity of the apostasy: Instead of being the apostasy of one Pope, it is that of several.
The Pope ended his Declaration of Istanbul with these words:
“We strongly urge all the faithful of our Churches, and especially the clergy and theologians, to embrace joyously the fruits that have been achieved thus far, and to labor for their continued increase.”
With such an encouragement we see that Leo XIV is indirectly ordering all Catholics to stop saying the Creed with the Filioque, which would be one of the “fruits” of the ecumenical dialogue to which he refers.
As a Catholic who has dedicated his life to the defense of our Holy Faith and our Mother Church, I can say publicly that I respectfully resist this new doctrine of Leo XIV and the two other mentioned Pontiffs regarding the Filioque and the change of our Creed.
I believe that they are following the agenda of Progressivism, which is to replace the Church Militant, characterized by the defense of the one Catholic Faith, with a Church Tolerant, which disregards the Faith under the pretext of love for and unity with the false religions.
I think that this doctrine contradicts the Catholic Faith as it was taught during 1958 years before the ascension of the Conciliar Popes to the Throne of Peter and the Council Vatican II.
As far as the new doctrine contradicts the perennial Magisterium of the Church, I resist it; as far as the Pope's teaching continues to follow that Magisterium, I accept it. It is the position that a faithful Catholic can and should take.
At Nicaea a small platform holding the Pope &
very few people
In short, the least we can say is that the Islamic civil and religious authorities did not give him a warm welcome. Less euphemistically speaking, we could say that they snubbed him.
Nonetheless, Catholics filled the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit on the morning of the 28th for a prayer encounter, and on the evening of the 29th around 4,000 people from different religions attended his Mass at the Volkswagen Arena in Istanbul. Also, the Schismatics made efforts to bring some persons together for two ceremonies at their small St. George church on the afternoon of the 29th and the morning of the 30th.
This is the overview I could glean of the reception Pope Prevost had in Constantinople, a city of multiple names: the imperial Byzantium, the noble Constantinople – which I prefer – and the republican Istanbul.
Omitting the Filioque
Now let me analyze the doctrinal aspect of the trip.
On four occasions Leo XIV recited the Creed: on the platform in Nicaea on the 28th, in the Doxology at St. George schismatic church on the morning of the 29th, in the Mass on the evening of that same day at the stadium, and in the Divine Liturgy again in the St. George church on the 30th. On all these occasions, as far as I could verify, he omitted the part of the Catholic Creed that mentions the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son – Filioque.
In the joint declaration that he issued with Bartholomew – the Declaration of Istanbul – a part of the Creed was reproduced in which that procession of the Holy Spirit was omitted as well. The text follows:
The Pope & the Schismatic patriarch sign
the Declaration of Istanbul
“Through the coming of the Son of God, we are initiated into the mystery of the Holy Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and are invited to become, in and through the person of Christ, children of the Father and co-heirs with Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit.”
So, by way of omission Leo XIV de facto denied the dogma of Filioque so that he could please the self-proclaimed Orthodox.
Now then, when the Council of Toledo (589) taught the doctrine of the Filioque for the first time officially, it was reiterating a long theological tradition before it. The same doctrine was taught by many other councils that re-affirmed the Filioque. Among them we can cite the Council of Aachen (809), Council of Worms (868), Fourth Council of Constantinople (869), Council of Bari (1098), Council of Lateran (1215), Council of Lyon (1274), Council of Florence (1438) and Councils of Jerusalem (1583, 1672).
St. Vincent of Lerins gives us the criterium
to judge true doctrine
We see, therefore, that Pope Leo XIV is clearly abandoning the dogma expressed in the Catholic Creed. The fact that John Paul II and Benedict XVI also did the same – recited the Creed without the Filioque – does not give an excuse for Leo XIV to do so, but rather increases the gravity of the apostasy: Instead of being the apostasy of one Pope, it is that of several.
The Pope ended his Declaration of Istanbul with these words:
“We strongly urge all the faithful of our Churches, and especially the clergy and theologians, to embrace joyously the fruits that have been achieved thus far, and to labor for their continued increase.”
With such an encouragement we see that Leo XIV is indirectly ordering all Catholics to stop saying the Creed with the Filioque, which would be one of the “fruits” of the ecumenical dialogue to which he refers.
As a Catholic who has dedicated his life to the defense of our Holy Faith and our Mother Church, I can say publicly that I respectfully resist this new doctrine of Leo XIV and the two other mentioned Pontiffs regarding the Filioque and the change of our Creed.
I believe that they are following the agenda of Progressivism, which is to replace the Church Militant, characterized by the defense of the one Catholic Faith, with a Church Tolerant, which disregards the Faith under the pretext of love for and unity with the false religions.
I think that this doctrine contradicts the Catholic Faith as it was taught during 1958 years before the ascension of the Conciliar Popes to the Throne of Peter and the Council Vatican II.
As far as the new doctrine contradicts the perennial Magisterium of the Church, I resist it; as far as the Pope's teaching continues to follow that Magisterium, I accept it. It is the position that a faithful Catholic can and should take.
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |