In an effort to "discern" whether God is calling me into the Byzantine Catholic Church -
(I am presently a Roman Catholic) I am reading
"Light of the East: A Guide to Eastern Catholicism for Western Catholics," by George
Appleyard.

According to the author, the insertion of
a Latin word, "filioque" into the Nicean creed upset the Eastern Churches. Rome, however, stepped in and authorized the change. The author goes on to say that in 1054, the leadership of the two Churches (Rome and Constantinople) ex-
communicated each other! (What a feat!) It sounds like an algebra equation where both sides being equal, cancel each other out! Never did like Algebra.

But seriously folks. Can someone explain how the Eastern Churches view of Christ's Nature and Divinity differed from those in the Roman Church? The author explains that the addition of the filioque is "heretical" in the Greek language but not in the Latin.

I'm lost! Can someone help me understand the theological basis of this dispute? In ENGLISH! Also. What are the major theological differences between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians? The book I am reading seems to imply that the ONLY difference is that Eastern Catholics are in Communion with Rome while the Orthodox Church is not. There must be more to it than that!

Any and all responses are greatly appreciated!

Kimberly Kateri
Student of Eastern Catholicism 101! :rolleyes:

Kimberly writes:

>>>According to the author, the insertion of
a Latin word, "filioque" into the Nicean creed upset the Eastern Churches. Rome, however, stepped in and authorized the change.<<<

Yes, basically true, yet nuanced into a major distortion. The simple fact is that the Roman See WANTED the filioque added to the dogma of the Church and waged a campagne within the Church to have it added, and exercized all its powers of persuasion to get it ratified in a Church council of Bishops, and succeeded with all the bishops of the east escept one, and that one, the Bishop of Constantinople, voted NO... And unanimous consent was required... So the Pope, acting as the patriarch of the Roman See, and in "sole possession of the Petrine keys of heaven and their ministry", sent a writ of excommunication along with two envoys from Rome who marched straight into a service in Constantinople and right up to the altar, where the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior is consecrated, and slapped down the paper announcing the excommunication of the Patriarch who had said no... The clergy followed them out with the paper, and begged them not to leave it there, entreated them with tears and prostration, to no avail... They were spurned in self-righteous indignation, and the intruding emmisarries were doubtless prayed for daily for years afterward... [at least I hope so.]

You see, the Pope wanted the filioque added to the creed, and he could not get the unanimous consent of the Bishops, so he retaliated. The 'upset' was his, and not the eastern Churches, Who all supported him save this one old bishop, and for that no, he attacked the dissenting bishop.
This is what the Orthodox Church sees when the Church of Rome claims Papal infalligility in matters of doctrine and morals... The east and the west had been struggling along fairly peacefully for a long time in serious contentions, but when the Pope would not submit to the thousand year old rule of unanimity in creedal formulations and dogma, he split himself and his Church off from the whole rest of the Catholic Church, and then proceeded to destroy the eastern Church in the west, killing or imprisoning those clergy and monks who would not submit themselves to his authority. Ireland, which up to that time had become known as the Isle of Saints, virtually dried up and went dead, producing but a handful of western saints for the next thousand years, low even by RC standards...

The slaughter and pillaging of Christians and their churches in the 3rd Crusade in the sack of Constantinople was part and parcel of this overall process of subjugating the rest of the Church to the Pope of Rome in the name of Her "Authority".

>>>Can someone explain how the Eastern Churches view of Christ's Nature and Divinity differed from those in the Roman Church?<<<

The Orthodox hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal, and that the Son exists as begotten of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit exists as a result of procession from the Father, and that the three Persons are one in Essence.

The Roman confession believes that the Holy Spirit ALSO exists as a consequence of procession from the Son, and of late has Him as the feeling of the love that the Father has for the Son and vice versa.

Others can doubtless correct my errors, but this is how I am understanding these matters, both historically and doctrinally.

And may I apologize ahead of time for any offence I may have caused in the abbreviated and abrupt way that I have stated matters, but like most confessions, it is not enough to avoid details and confess sorrow, but the healing comes with acknowledgement in detail of the facts, and then repentance from them, and penance... Otherwise, the wounds don't heal... In the offender...

geo

From an Orthodox Catholic view point you might want to access an excerpt from Bishop Kallistos Ware in his book 'The Orthodox Church' regarding the Great Schism

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm#n4

Regarding the Filioque try -

http://www.romanity.org/htm/ro7en3tx.htm

OrthoMan

Dear Kimberley,

The "Filioque" or the view that the Spirit proceeds from the Son was born amidst much confusion in both East and West.

Anyone who might think it was all a matter of disagreement between two parties who understood perfectly each other's views on the subject - well, that is just nonsense.

Rome was never a great defender of the Filioque in history. Fr. Romanides, listed by Orthoman in his links, insisted that it was the Frankish theologians of northern Europe under Emperor Charlemagne who slowly took over the Romans of the West to impose their doctrine of the "Filioque." Even Pope John VIII in the time of St Photios of Constantinople repudiated the Filioque and to this day the two Greek and Latin tablets at Rome that have the Nicene Creed inscribed do not have there the Filioque.

Language has a part to play in this as well, as Kallistos Ware, also noted by Orthoman, notes in his works and in at least two televised interviews that I saw.

First of all, Kallistos Ware does NOT believe the Filioque is heretical, but is, in fact, from his point of view entirely Orthodox. But let's not get into that right now . . .

The fact is that anyone reading standard Roman Catholic theological materials explaining the Filioque can see that Rome NEVER taught what the East has accused it of teaching - namely that there are TWO sources of Origin of the Spirit in the Trinity, the Father and the Son.

RC theologians, even the most ardent defenders of the Filioque, hold that there is only one Origin of the Spirit in the Trinity which is the Father Who actively spirates the Holy Spirit. The Son only "Passively" spirates the Spirit. Rome has been consistent in holding that since the split. Orthodox theologians who are examining this teaching today are coming to similar conclusions as Ware, namely that the "heresy" is a straw one. The argument really comes down to the Filioque's inclusion in the Creed and whether the Pope had the authority to do that. But that's about authority and not doctrine and we know what the respective Churches feel about that subject.

Pope John Paul II does NOT use the Filioque when celebrating Mass in Greek. The RC Church of Greece does NOT use the Filioque and the Pope is, in fact, considering suppressing the Filioque.

And I know that personally because of a meeting I had with someone from the Vatican last month.

The East believes in the same Councils governing the doctrine of the unity of Christ's Divine and Human Natures, apart from the Oriental Orthodox who use a different theological perspective.

But the East tends to emphasize the Divinized Human Nature of Christ, His Divinity and our Theosis or transfiguration of ourselves in Christ.

And the East does this much more than the West which seems not to have recovered well from the old Arian and Nestorian controversies.

I would recommend Fr. John Meyendorff's book "Byzantine Theology."

It is excellent. One of Fr. Meyendorff's great collaborators and editors was Fr. Gustav Weigel, a Jesuit.

It was Fr. Weigel who read a first draft of Meyendorff's book and called his attention to his treatment of the "Filioque" and his criticism of the West regarding its interpolation into the Creed.

"You're just not critical enough of the West," Fr. Weigel said . . .

Alex

Alex writes:

[Language has a part to play in this as well, as Kallistos Ware, also noted by Orthoman, notes in his works and in at least two televised interviews that I saw.

First of all, Kallistos Ware does NOT believe the Filioque is heretical, but is, in fact, from his point of view entirely Orthodox. But let's not get into that right now . . .]

Would be very interested in learning more about these two televised interviews with Bishop Kallistos. Can you remember where or when they were televised and what program? I would like to obtain videos if at all possible.

Alex Writes:

<< [The argument over heresy is a neverending one, but there are Orthodox today who hold one may accept the Filioque, the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory et alia as theological opinions and yet remain fully Orthodox, as Meyendorff has illustrated with case examples in his works.] >>

Alex: I have by no means read everything that Meyendorff wrote but was interested in learning more in regards to what you are claiming above. I forwarded your comments to an Orthodox priest friend who graduated from St Vlad's and studied under Meyendorff and read everything he wrote. Here is his reply -

-----------------------

"Bob, I'd go ask whoever wrote this for citations. I've read everything Fr. Meyendorff wrote, and don't recall anything along these lines. 'Theolegoumena' as just that: opinions, and not normative -- even Fr. Meyendorff's words!

Fr. Michael"

---------------------

So I guess I'm going to have to rely on you to give me recommendations as to what books by Meyendorff contain such comments. I will be going to St Vlad's on Education Day in October and hitting the bookstore. So recommendations would be appreciated big guy!

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

I once suggested to an Orthodox priest that the Rosary was fully practiced within his Church.

He denied it. I told him the reference to Staretz Zechariah.

He denied that it was in there.

I then told him it was in chapter six.

He said he'd read it once more.

Two weeks later, he called me to apologise and said that although he's read that book more than once, he still seemed to refuse to accept that the Rosary was practiced by Orthodox Christians.

Ware's comments can be viewed in his "Orthodox Church" where he does make the blunt statement that an Orthodox can believe in the Filioque as a theological opinion. I honestly don't remember about the interviews although I do remember seeing them. Someone here even quoted a Greek priest as saying, in response to them, words to the effect that Ware was becoming more "Anglican."

Meyendorff actually does make reference to Orthodox who historically understood and accepted the Immaculate Conception doctrine (St Dmytry Rostovsky was another and was called to face the Synod for it). There were Orthodox Immaculate Conception Brotherhoods who took the bloody vow and there is a professor at the University of Dayton who has written on this. But there are articles galore analyzing the Latinization of the Kyivan Baroque.

St Peter Mohyla accepted Purgatory in his first Catechism - something that was purged by the other Orthodox Churches, but Mohyla continued to teach it in his own jurisdiction. Surely that is common knowledge even among Orthodox with the greatest of anti-western agendas?!

My point is not to exchange bibliographies but to say that if an Orthodox can accept a Western doctrine as a theological opinion without being deemed a heretic, then that theological opinion is not "Un-Orthodox" in terms of faith. And there are references in Meyendorff aplenty in that respect, even one where an Orthodox invokes Blessed Thomas Aquinas. It's there believe me and if your priest-guru doesn't remember it, it's time to brush off the dust from those books.

An Orthodox could not accept as a theological opinion something that contradicts the Orthodox faith such as Arianism, Nestorianism or Monophysism.

My point is if one can accept a Western doctrine legitimately as an Orthodox Christian, that Western Doctrine does not therefore contradict the Orthodox Faith tradition.

(Rest cancelled on grounds that it could have been better informed by Christian charity.)

Alex

[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Here's Meyendorff's comments on the Immaculate Conception quoted by Alex:

"The preoccupation of Western theologians to find in Byzantium ancient authorities for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary has often used these passages out of context...Ouotations can easily be multiplied, and they give clear indications that the Mariological piety of the Byzantines would probably have led them to accept the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as it was defined in 1854,if only they had shared the Western doctine of original sin... The only Byzantine author who definitely understood and accepted both the Western concept of original sin and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is Gennadios Scholarios(d. ca 1472)..."

From Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology pp. 147-148.

John

Kimberly,

I hope you are finding the information you are looking for. I highly recommend that you find a spiritual elder to work with who can help you keep things in perspective. The book you are reading is written at a very introductory level and, IMHO, oftentimes a bit too simplified. I agree with OrthoMan that Bishop Kallistos� �The Orthodox Church� gives a very good history of the Byzantine Churches. The issues of 1054 are best seen as a flashpoint and a visible break but the East and West were drifting apart for some time. Various levels of Eucharistic communion remained in some places until well into the 18th century.

--

Bob,

If I am thinking of the same videos as Alex, I seem to remember that the videos featuring Bishop Kallistos ran on the ACTS interfaith network (now defunct) and originally ran in the late 1990s. They were produced by the GOA so the GOA website would be a good starting place to locate the videotapes. I don�t remember Bishop Kallistos speaking to the filioque in those interviews (he may have, I just don�t remember) but he has spoken about the idea of the filioque being acceptable to Orthodoxy as a theolegoumena but not as an acceptable addition to the Creed (I think most recently in Pittsburgh this past spring). [My personal position is that it is an acceptable approach when approaching from a Western ethos but that it should be removed from the Creed by the RCC.]

Fr. Meyendorff discusses many of these issues in his excellent book �Byzantine Theology�. Regarding the Immaculate Conception, Meyendorff speaks that Orthodoxy would have come to the same conclusion as the West in the IC if the East had the same understanding of original sin as the West but that since it doesn�t it didn�t. What he does in that book is to examine various Orthodox opinions and compare them to the Western ones. He does cite some examples of Orthodox theologians who held decidedly Western views. He does not conclude that the Western views on these and other topics are heretical, just not within the Byzantine ethos. He seems to allow that some of them are logical to the Western mindset. I can find additional references but they should be easy enough to find in Meyendorff�s books.

This thread could give rise to some excellent discussions. Peter the Great westernizations of Russia included many theological latinizations within the Russian Orthodox Church. There is still great love among the �intelligensia� for the scholastic method and the Western approach. That would be a wonderful discussion in itslelf.

Admin

Wow Alex!
I have not experienced you like this. You took Bob's head off. I think it's a good time to abstain like you said. I have always known you for your sense of humor, intelligence and humbleness. I like the Old Alex. Slainte!

Dear George (Blaisdell):

May God richly Bless you for taking the time to explain to me the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman view of comprehending the
Trinity.

Given your analysis, I am inclined to see the Nature of Christ from the Orthodox perspective. That is, I see The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit as 3 separate entities if you will. The fact that they are "3 in One" is at the heart of the Trinitarian Mystery! I am reminded of a passage in Scripture that would seem to support the Orthodox position. Before Ascending to His Father in heaven, Christ notices the obvious dispair of his disciples. He explains to them that it is necessary for Him to go in order that "the comforter" (or Helper) may
come. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but it seems to me that if The Holy Spirit proceeds from BOTH
The Father and The Son, as the Roman Confession implies, then Christ would have needed to remain
on Earth after His death and resurrection. I think the words of Jesus are very telling, here. Both He and The Holy Spirit had a different role to play! Jesus went on to explain that The Holy
Spirit would lead them (His followers)into all
Truth! (Just some theological "musings" of mine!)

Thank you for filling in the gaps as to the
factors contributing to the Schism. Although the book I am reading may over simplify the historical and political events that led to both Churches excommunicating the other - when one is being introduced to a foreign subject, simplification is often helpful at first. Once I grasp the "facts", I can then more readily put them into a historical,political and cultural
context. Each of us has our own style of learning!

One thing you mentioned that the book overlooks is that, prior to the insertion of the "filioque" by Rome, a "unanimous vote" by all the Bishops - East and West - was necessary to change creedal statements! To think that ONLY one Eastern Bishop disagreed with the Bishop of Rome on this issue, came as quite a surprise to me! As for the "sacking" of Constantinople during the 3rd Crusade - the book does give an honest and straight forward account of this tragedy. I knew that many Muslims were killed during the Crusades but I had no idea that Eastern Christians were among those killed! It's like discovering that many Roman Catholics were murdered along side the Jews during the Holocaust of WWII.

I was not offended by anything that you wrote. Neither did I intend for my questions to cause any tension or "academic rivalry" between other members of this forum. Notably, Alex and Bob. I am new to the Byzantine Faith and am searching for clarification on some very fundamental issues. I plan to enroll in a formal
Inquiry Class offered by "Our Lady of Perpetual Help,"; a Byzantine Catholic Parish here in Albuquerque. Fr. Christopher Zugger is a most patient and compassionate teacher!

Kimberly Kateri

PS. I know exactly what you mean about how some Latin Priests speak of The Holy Spirit as, "the love borne of the relationship between The Father and The Son". Is this a relatively "new" concept? I converted to Roman Catholicism in 1994 and wonder if this idea is an "invention" of Vatican II and the 1960's??

Dear Rum,

You are right.

I just felt that Orthoman was picking on me and it got to me.

I apologise to him and to the members of this Forum and will abstain.

I've been struggling with several issues of late and have come to realize that familiarity breeds contempt, at least with respect to me.

Since what I was being asked was references, it isn't that I can't provide them. I won't provide them seeing that I feel my credibility is questioned.

I find that offensive - sorry I do. And I don't go around trying to get other second opinions on other's posts here and then post them as if to say, "See there - you're wrong!"

(I've taken out the rest here since it really wasn't informed by Christian charity).

Alex

[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Alex,
Come on Big Guy chill! Don't react on the emotions. The one thing I learned from my pastor is when your upset take time off to cool down before sending things by e-mail. There is no reason to abandon your family here (that includes us Orthodox). Love, patience and self-control are reminders to remain and to act Christian. Unfortunately, lately I had to deal with one of my priests abandoning the church by taking the first flight to Lebanon because he did not communicate his frustrations or his anxieties. He got up and left. I did not see Christ in this behavior. In fact his actions delivered an unfavorable message to many people especially the youth. Is there anything good to avail us from your departure? Should we deregister ourselves in this forum anytime we become emotional overcharged? Patience my friend and BigGuy. You are the most well-liked in all these forums. Breath in, breath out Alex-san. You wouldn't want me to take your deregistered name as Orthodox Catholic for mine would you?! Who loves you babe!

Dear Alex:

I sincerely hope that you will
prayerfully reconsider your decision to
leave the Byzantine forum. There is
some wisdom in the saying from my grand-
parents' generation: "Never discuss
religion or politics." As a teen and
young adult, I could not understand
the potential harm that can come
from discussing such violatile
subjects. Yet, as I approach middle
age, I cherish the freedom to express
my opinions in these and other areas.

In the short time that I have been a
member of this forum, I have been
welcomed,edified, encouraged,
intellectually stimulated and amused
by your posts.

It was Jesus who said we must love one
another and be willing to
forgive "70 x 7"! (Some "number"
like that!). Please reconsider as
your colorful insights would be
greatly missed.

Your Sister in Christ!

Kimberly Kateri

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Rum,

Don't worry. I've seen Alex "quit for good" about 5 times since I've been a member of this board. He'll be back in a week or few after he cools down, just like he always does. God Bless.

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!
"That website guy"

Alex writes:

>>>I've been struggling with several issues of late and have come to realize that familiarity breeds contempt, at least with respect to me.<<<

That goes double for me too! You know, familiarity was an intimate part of my pre-Orthodox days, and I always prided myself on how close I could get to people [familiarity] in, say, the second sentence out of my mouth.

And having attained this familiarity, I had enormous control over the way conversations developed. And I thought I was doing good at the time!

In Orthodoxy, and I guess this is because of the fact of communion and the unity of mind that it entails, and the inter-familiarity involved, we tend to be almost formal one with another. If one of us needs help, or asks a question of a personal nature, the results are generally stunning, and would not be apparent from the formality of normal exchange.

It is almost as if, and here I am speaking only for my personal perception of my particular spiritual community, my parish, it is almost as if we are all living in glass houses, and can see pretty much anything we like in those around us in our community, and as a matter of courtesy almost, although we are fully aware of the whole log in our own eyes, yet even so, it is a matter of more than courtesy, that we simply do NOT look into each others' issues, or if we see something, we keep it to ourselves, lest we meddle...

>>>Since what I was being asked was references, it isn't that I can't provide them. I won't provide them seeing that I feel my credibility is questioned.<<<

That one kind of bothered me too, and yet, you know, how else could he have less offensively brought up the idea that they were needed. He went to someone who knows betteer than he does, who actually studied under the man, and passed on to you what the other guy wrote back to him. Can you see how communal he was being, and how hard he was trying not to offend. It is just that the question itself is kind of offensive, and sometimes we butt heads [x2]! [that be a noun and a verb+object!!] :-)

>>>I find that offensive - sorry I do. And I don't go around trying to get other second opinions on other's posts here and then post them as if to say, "See there - you're wrong!"<<<

Ortho-man fell into a mine-field - Can you see it from his perspective? He was simply looking for an outside perspective so as NOT to offend. These things don't always pan out so good... Trust me!

>>>And if to express disdain at this is lacking in Christian charity, then I apologise, but I think we all have the fundamental right to express our anger and offense when we feel it is given, certainly our Orthodox posters do with some regularity.<<<

As Orthodox Christians, we do not see ourselves in terms of our rights, but in terms of communion in Christ, and when we get mad, we already know we are in trouble. I had a priest start to get mad at me, and he clammed up and ran from me, and apologized to me in the next Sunday's Orthros...

>>>But I believe I've outstayed my welcome here<<<

!!!Whoah thar Pard'!!! Ya don't git te ride off into the sunset leavin' the rest o' us drovers with our irons in a cold fire!! Hie on over an' have a biskit an' a cup o' Joe here at the chuck-wagon!

>>>and I feel that I have lost any respect or credibility I may have had, since it is being questioned, and not only by Orthoman.<<<

What? You are the most credible critter on this whole list! The rest of us are wingin' it, and you have a good reply to us all! I mean, ALEX!!! What on earth will we do without YOU??? C'mon!

>>>I thank everyone for your patience with me, especially the Administrator who will deregister me at his earliest available opportunity.<<<

He better not! I gots me still a hot brander yit in the bottom o' thet coffee-fire!



geo

Dear Friends,

I've reviewed my reaction here and have modified things.

I apologise to Orthoman and to you all here. I guess emotions get to me.

Elias' Zoghby's book quotes Ware in Diakonia about the Filioque . . .

And Gennadios Scholarios not only accepted the Immaculate Conception, he is a saint of the Orthodox Church notwithstanding.

I thank George Blaisdell for putting things in perspective for me. And I feel crappy for reacting to someone like Orthoman whom I have come to respect and admire so much for his depth of theological knowledge and his inspiring piety.

I commend the Administrator for his calmness and erudition, as always. It is really overwhelming and I hope our Church puts his great talents to as much use as possible for its own good.

I also comment the Administrator for taking the time to make so many positive suggestions here, especially the whole issue of the Latinizations in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches of the time of the Kyivan Baroque.

Rum Orthodox is right and I ask your forgiveness, my reaction was out of place.

Instead of seeing Orthoman's requests for sources and calling on Orthodox priests etc., I should have realized that he was doing all that because I HAD REALLY GOTTEN UNDER HIS SKIN!

In any event, I need to read, pray and meditate for a while in dealing with issues in my life.

It's not fair to bring the tension they are causing to me now to this forum to have you beautiful people put up with them.

I've learned from my sojourn here about your faith and your absolute trust in God through prayer.

Rather than get embroiled in heated arguments, which is counterproductive for everyone, a time for prayer and abandonment to God's Will is the order of the day.

You people have a great Administrator here in the person of you-know-who .

He's unflappable, erudite and totally grounded in the spirituality of the Gospels.

Hang on to him, people, and support him always.

Alex

[Fr. Meyendorff discusses many of these issues in his excellent book �Byzantine Theology�.]

Thank you Administrator. This is exactly the answer I was hoping for. In stating that my reason for asking was that I plan on being at St Vlad's for education day in a few weeks, I thought I had made it perfectly clear why I was asking the question in the first place. Apparently my wording wasn't explicit enough and my motives were taken as a challenge. Now I know the book to buy which I will do as soon as I hit the bookstore.

Perhaps I too, need a little rest.

OrthoMan

Bob, if you can edure to sit in front of your computer monitor for over an hour, one of these interviews is available in real video format on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website on this page (scroll down to "Conversation with Bishop Kallistos")

http://goarch.org/en/multimedia/video/

This tape was also avialable from Light and Life:

http://www.light-n-life.com/landl-cgi/select2.pl?ID=CONV105&Category=46&Search=&istart=

Vicki

Thank you Vicki. Have placed the order with Light-N-Life. Will be an addition to the Church Library after I watch it.

OrthoMan

Pax!
Since being new here. I'd been reviewing the messages posted here and I want to share my insights on this. I believe that the schism between Rome and Constantinople is not more on a dogmatice difference but rather on geographical and political differences fueled by ARROGANCE of both sides. The "filioque" clause issue should have been settled if both parties have turned to the teachings of the early Church Fathers. Please bear with me and let us review what had happened.

The breach caused by the Iconoclastic controversy was scarcely healed when the "Photian schism" separated the East from the West. Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople, had been depose by the court and was replaced by Photius. Pope Nicholas I demanded compensation for his violated rights. After some negotiations, Photius defied the Pope and in 867 attacked the introduction of Latin rites and the 'double procession' (the additions, 'God of God' {from the creed of Nicaea} and 'from the Father and the Son', occur first in the "Creed of Constantinople" as recited in the 3rd Council of Toledo, 589. The latter phrase, "the filioque clause" had already been used at an early council of Toledo, 447: it gained popularity in the West and was inserted in most version of the creed, except that of the Roman Church where Pope Leo III in 809 refused to insert it. But in 867, Pope Nicholas I was excommunicated by Photius for having corrupted the creed with this addition)into the Church of Bulgaria, and in the same year a Council in Constantinople declared the Roman Church heretical on certain points, condemned her interference in the East, and excommunicated Nicholas. And Oecumenical Council (Constantinople IV) in 870 failed to compose the quarrel, which was only patched up in 920.

The final schism was the result of the clash of two powerful personalities, of Pope Leo IX and Michael Cerularius. In 1024 the Emperor had asked John XIX for the recognition of the independence of the Church of Constantinople in her own sphere. This was refused. In 1053 Cerularius, fearing an alliance between the Emperor and the Pope which might result in the transfer of the Greek Province in Southern Italy from his jurisdiction, and perhaps in other infringements of his authority decided upon schism. He ordered the closing of all churches of Latin rite at Constantinople. In 1054,in spite of the Emperor's efforts at mediation, the Roman legates at Constantinople excommunicated the Patriarch. Cerularius anathemaized them in reply and the schism was complete. (Source: Documents of the Christian Church)

UNDESTANDING THE "FILIOQUE" IN LIGHT OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration (De fide)

The Latin Fathers preferred the co-ordinating formula: ex Patre et Filio (Filioque), the Greek Fathers the subordinating formula: ex Patre per Filium. Tertullian employs both forms, but explains the co-ordinating formula in the sense of the subordinating one. Adv. Prax. 4: "I do not erive the Spirit otherwise than from the Father through the Son (a Patre per Filium). Op. cit. 8: "the Third is the Spirit proceeding from God (the Father) and from the Son (a Deo et filii), as the third from the root through the bud is the fruit." St. Hilary, under Greek influence, uses the subordinating formula: "From thee (the Father) through him (the Son) is thy Holy Spirit." (De Trin. XII 56). St. Ambrose teaches that "the Holy Ghost, since he proceeds from the Father and the Son, cannot be separated from the Father nor the Son" (de Spiritu Sancto I 120). St. Augustine establishes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (de utroque) by a detaile scriptural proof (In IOan. tr. 99,6; De Trin. XV 27,48)

Origen uses the subordination phrase: "the Holy Ghost is the first of everything by the father through the Son"; "The Son gives to His hypostasis not only that he is, but also that he is wise, understanding, and just" (Comm. in Ion II 10 (6), 75-76). St. Athanasius declares: "The same peculiar relationship in which we know the Son to be with the Father, governs, as we shall find, also that which is between the Spirit and the Son. And as the Son speaks: 'All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine (John 16:15),' so we shall find, that all this is also through the Son in the Spirit." (Ep. ad Serap. 3,I). St. Basil teaches taht "the goodness and the sanctity and the kingly dignity characteristic of God the Father is transmitted from the Father through the Only begotten to the Spirit" (De Spiritu Sancto 18,47) The three Cappadocians (Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa) compare the relationship of the three Persons to each other with the links of a chain. The example is based on the sub-ordinating formula "from the Father through the Son."

St. Didymus of Alexandria, St. Epiphanius of Salamis and St. Cyril of Alexandria employ, even if not exclusively, the co-ordinating formula (filioque). Cf. St. Epiphanius, Ancoratus 7: "the Holy Ghost is from the same Essence of the Father and the Son." 16.8: "From the Father and the Son, the Third according to his name." Cf. Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto34; Cyril, Thes. de sancta et consubct. Trin. 34.

St. John of Damascus rejects the notion that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, nevertheless he teaches that He is the Spirit of the Son and that he proceeds through the Son from the Father (De fide orth. 18,12). In sayin this he does not deny that the Son is a Principle of the Holy Spirit, but only that unlike the Father, He is not the primitive Principle.

The co-ordinating formula (filioque) and the subordinating formula (et filium) concur essentially, in so far as they both attest that both the Father and the Son are the Principle of the Holy Spirit and they also complement each other. While in the former the unicity and the indivisibility of the Principle are above all expressed, the latter effectively stresses that the Father is the Primitive Principle and that the Son as "God from God" is the Derived Principle, in so far as He, with His Essencem also receives the power of spiration from the Father( cf. St. Augustine)

In Carmel,
ruel/tocarm

Dear Orthoman,

Please forgive me a sinner for misunderstanding you, Big Guy!

I am an idiot and also an unworthy.

May God and St Panteleimon bless you richly!

Alex