The Great Schism

[ralphinal]

I would point out that it is not only the Greeks who are confused, millions of Latin Catholics are equally confused by this meaning, which is the biggest problem about it in my opinion.

Take any group of random parishioners at a local parish and ask them what they think it means, and I assure you a huge percentage, possibly most of them who are bold enough to hazard an opinion, will say it refers to what we would all recognize as a double-procession.

I am not just making this up. I have been reading and posting here and I see it on this CAF site all the time.

As a theological construct it is the most vaguely worded thing one could imagine for a short sentence.

The only way it could be acceptable to Orthodox is if it is no longer translated as “…AND the Son” and corrected to say “…THROUGH the Son” and that still would best be qualified as a temporal spiration, not eternal.

The fact that it has been inserted into the Creed is another matter entirely. So this is really two issues, not one, and it is resolvable!

I believe the Latin church has come around to verifying it does not presently teach that this is an eternal double-procession of the Holy Spirit. If the Latin Catholic church would change the translation to reflect that I am sure it would advance our cause of reconciliation by light years (a little hyperbole there ).

As for the Creed, well…just drop it out.

Michael

I agree with most of this. Let me ask this one. I recently found out that it was a Persian CHurch (Eastern) that had the oldest example of the filioque. Does this matter?

 

[Hesychios]

I agree with most of this. Let me ask this one. I recently found out that it was a Persian CHurch (Eastern) that had the oldest example of the filioque. Does this matter?

No, not at all. That was a local council first of all, and there is some question as to the meaning they had given this term. It was not taken up outside of the catholicate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. I think that it was that very same council which declared itself separate from the Byzantine-Roman church.

The Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople were certainly aware of this lesser theological point, but did not deem it necessary (or perhaps not necessarily wise), to include it in the Creed. Apophatic reasoning was dominant in Greek thinking (and still is) and as far as something so important as a Creed they were strict constructionists. Not open to loose interpretations, they were conservative to the extreme because they were battling heretics who taking advantage of loose language in scripture and in each others writings.

As has been explained, there is a form acceptable to the Greeks and Syrians, although it would not be AND the Son but THROUGH the Son. Apparently that translates from Greek into Latin as filioque in both senses.

It should still be pointed out that there are also then two ways to translate filioque from Latin into Greek, and one is heretical. At those times when the Latins controlled Greek churches, they chose to impose the heretical interpretation upon the Greeks, I cannot for the life of me imagine why.

I don’t know how the Persion (or Parthian?) phrase translates into Greek (although I see it must translate as filioque into Latin), so I am helpless to comment on it further.

Michael

 

[ralphinal]

No, not at all. That was a local council first of all, and there is some question as to the meaning they had given this term. It was not taken up outside of the catholicate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon.

The Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople were certainly aware of this lesser theological point, but did not deem it necessary (or perhaps not necessarily wise), to include it in the Creed. Apophatic reasoning was dominant in Greek thinking (and still is) and as far as something so important as a Creed they were strict constructionists. Not open to loose interpretations, they were conservative to the extreme because they were battling heretics who taking advantage of loose language in scripture and in each others writings.

As has been explained, there is a form acceptable to the Greeks and Syrians, although it would not be AND the Son but THROUGH the Son. Apparently that translates from Greek into Latin as filioque in both senses.

It should still be pointed out that there are also then two ways to translate filioque from Latin into Greek, and one is heretical. At those times when the Latins controlled Greek churches, they chose to impose the heretical interpretation upon the Greeks, I cannot for the life of me imagine why.

I don’t know how the Persion (or Parthian?) phrase translates into Greek (although I see it must translate as filioque into Latin), so I am helpless to comment on it further.

Michael

I have a guess as to why the heretical translation was used. Honestly, they either did not know or did not care. It was not an intentional teaching of heresy but a lack of concern for its effect.

I think that it was translated as filioque for simplicity. that might not be a good literal translation

 

[Lee_M]

Historically, Pope Leo IX didn’t want to remain true to the Apostolic Faith. So he pretty much broke from the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You have a point. At the time, the East’s views were that you either follow Jesus Christ or you follow Pope Leo IX. That is why both sides say that the other side is in schism.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

The claim of papal Infallibility never came up at the time of the schism…

But this all has nothing whatever to do with the original cause of the schism. It certainly is an obstacle to reconciliation between us now, but was nothing then.

Michael

Hi Michael,

What do you suppose was the cause of the schism? Was it the addition of the Filioque into the creed? What is more than that?

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Michael,

What do you suppose was the cause of the schism? Was it the addition of the Filioque into the creed? What is more than that?

Yes, and no. The Filioque was definitely an annoyance. But we were in comunion at that point, even if there was a concern about it. The Popes and Patriarchs were not commemorating each other in the liturgies as they normally would have. At street level there was still intercommunion.

I lack the time to write anything very concise, but I reference a post I made recently that sort of addresses the collapse of relations after 1054AD. The really important point there being that our churches did not have ovelapping jurisdictions until much later, and I think it wasn’t until that happened that we could truly be thought of as two separate churches.

The era of the Crusades opened a window of opportunity to replace Orthodox bishops with Latin bishops, under the police power of the crusader armies. This is fundamentally the beginning of the two groups seeing each other as different churches, and naturally as rivals.

1054AD then, is just a convenient date for historians.

As far as the forces leading up to the big break I think a short answer could be that politics of the day was a big underlying factor. The Gregorian Reform era coincides with this 1054 event, the Normans were getting very ambitious, the Byzantine imperial family was badly behaved and meddling in church administration. There was a lot going on.

Michael

 

[ralphinal]

You have a point. At the time, the East’s views were that you either follow Jesus Christ or you follow Pope Leo IX. That is why both sides say that the other side is in schism.

This is the most clear and easy answer. You can add that the Western view was in order to follow Christ, you follow the Pope.

It is that simple.