www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Original Schism between Rome & Constantinople.

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