Answering an Orthodox friend

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shirtless,

Please permit the following clarifications to your post:

In the period from 500 to 1000, the Pope in Rome began to assert that he had supreme power over the entire universal church in all matters. He insisted on what Eastern Christians referred to as “Latinization” of the church.

Correction: The Eastern Church was the one guilty of what may be called a form of uniatism at this period of history. Any Oriental will testify to that. One can see this from the Council of Trullo, which sought to impose Eastern (Byzantine) disciiplinary standards on the Latins and the Armenians.

For example, he wished to bar our use of icons. At an ecumenical council held around 843, it was agreed, however, that we could continue to use our icons. That was the last ecumenical council at which East and West were able to reach agreement.

Correction: There were certain portions of the Gallican Church that were iconoclastic. Rome was thoroughly orthodox during the whole debate. In fact, the 7th Ecum was convened at the explicit approval of the Pope of Rome.

Also during that time period, the Pope took it upon himself to amend the Nicene Creed, by requiring the insertion of the word “filioque,” to indicate his belief that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son. Now wait a minute, the Nicene Creed’s text was established by the Council of Nicea back in 325, and the word “filioque” was not in there. While the Eastern Church did not necessarily disagree with the concept of double procession, who is the Bishop of Rome, the head of only one of the five co-equal churches of Christendom, to amend their common statement of faith, solely on his own initiative? If there is some reason to amend the Nicene Creed, let’s have another ecumenical council to discuss and pray about it, and have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Correction: The filioque was a centuries-long development within the Latin Church, beginning in the 5th century. In fact, the filioque had been in use in MOST of the Latin Church EXCEPT Rome. The Latins did not start the debate, but rather the Easterns did. The difference was really a matter of language. St. Maximos himself readily defended the Latins from the accusations of his fellow Easterns. For a few centuries, ecclesiastically speaking, it was all about the Easterns unfairly accusing the Latins of heterodoxy. The first time a Latin ecclesiastic did the same was Cardinal Humbert, who accused the Easterns of removing the filioque. Thereafter it went downhill on both sides. The Pope of Rome never insisted on the addition of filioque to the Easterns (though he did so to some Orientals). As far as the Easterns were concerned, the only decree Rome ever made was that the Easterns should agree that the addition in the Latin Creed was appropriate – never that there should be a wholesale insertion of it into the Creed of the Church universal.

Well, the Bishop of Rome disagreed, the parties could not agree, and we had the mutual excommunications and schism in 1054.

I believe another has already made a correction on this point.

Think of it this way: if the Governor of California decided to strike the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and insist that the rest of the nation adhere to that, and take steps to enforce his will, what do you think the reaction would be?

A better analogy is if the President of the United States was to do so.

An earlier example: When Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that Mary was assumed into heaven, it was necessary to resolve a dispute between the Western and Eastern church on whether Mary died first, and then was assumed, or whether she was assumed while still living. Pope Pius XII’s declaration punted on the issue, because it says “at the end of her earthly life” and does not address the matter specifically.

Can we have a source for this? I’m not aware that the physical death of Mary was ever an issue to discuss. This was the common Tradition of all the Churches. The idea that Mary never experienced physical death is a relatively recent theologoumenon that developed in the Latin Catholic Church. In fact, some have criticized that this theologoumenon became popular as a result of the dogma of the assumption, not that the difference existed prior to it and failed to take it into account.

Blessings,
Marduk