There is absolutely no salvation outside the Church, this we can be sure is the teaching of the Scriptures and the fathers. So, why not rag on the schismatic Protestants?
The obvious truth is that God wants the salvation of the sinner more than the sinner wants his own. This is unequivocal and universal.
One of my favorite recent saints, because he speaks the language of western theology in strikingly modern terms, is Saint Philaret of Moscow. On the question, he points out the obvious:
It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth…They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy.
To buttress his point, he quotes Saint Theodore the Recluse:
You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins…I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.
The first time I heard the above saint’s words on the subject, I’ll admit, I did not like them. This was for several reasons. They contradicted my chief reason for becoming (and still my main reason for staying) Orthodox–schism will damn you. I also did not like a “modern” saint, with their fluffier and friendlier answers, contradicting the straight-forward treatment of the same topic by martyrs and saints of old. It seemed to be an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too–to have a pro-modernist position all the meanwhile threatening the rank and file not to leave Orthodoxy.
In response to this, as I reflect on this, I believe my earlier sentiment comes from ignorance and pride. Ignorance of simply not knowing enough yet, nor ever having the Eucharist. Pride from doubting the saints, who speak from the vantage point of knowing God more intimately.
Our Savior and God teaches, “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more” (Luke 12:48).
In our modern day and age, we take the preceding as license. If God may save schismatics, then He will save schismatics. This is untrue. Normatively, schismatics are unsaved. Period.
We must affirm an essential Christian truth, however. Those who have been given little will not be judged like those who have been given much.
My wife and I once attended a Greek Orthodox service. It was the most nominal and impious service one may imagine. They cut the liturgy in half to make time for a prayer service for a family afterwards, kept “left-over Eucharist” for those who were about one hour late, and laughed all about it afterwards. This was absolutely the worse possible face one could have put on for Orthodoxy, the very epitome of nominalism. It would be no surprise that the next time I visited this parish, the priest was far more impassioned than usual and in fact taught two sermons–inspired by his cousin being baptized into a Protestant communion.
My wife and I then went to our old Reformed Baptist church after the liturgy that day to say hi to old friends. The teaching was long, engaging, and Biblical. Everyone was friendly (other than the Pastor himself, who was less guarded with his view of me an an apostate.) We, my wife and I, immediately felt a sense of sorrow.
Not for ourselves and our poor excuse for worship earlier that morning–no, it was for the Protestants. Our Reformed Baptist church, as solid, level-headed, and Biblical as one may find–nothing zany or crazy about it, did not worship God.
This stabbed us like a knife. We were once the people in the pews. Engaged, quiet, sitting down while reflecting upon every word of the Scriptures exegeted. We used to love every second of it. To us, this was worship. We did not know any better, because this is all we knew.
We never fasted. We never did long, prepratory prayers before worship. Most importantly, we never had the Eucharist.
I refuse to rag on a Protestant. “Lord, forgive them, they do not know what they do.” They do not know, for they do not have the Eucharist.
Just as those in Plato’s cave think the shadows are reality and the one who has left the dungeon, after seeing the light, cannot convince them of the outside reality–those without the Eucharist are no different. They will not believe, because they cannot believe. All they know is their world of shadows. The cross is foolishness to those perishing. God has laid low the wisdom of the wise with the cross, with the Eucharist! But those who do not know what it is like to have the Eucharist desire wisdom or even signs. But, the cross requires spiritual discernment.
This is why Paul went to the Corinthians knowing nothing but Christ and Him crucified. This was not merely the spoken word. For those baptized, which apparently were most of the Corinthians, it was the epitome of the cross–the Eucharist!
It is the Eucharist in which the sacrifice done once and for all is made available to us. We experience Jesus Christ in His flesh and blood and He becomes increasingly one with us.
How can I rag on a Protestant that has known none of this? He has never experienced it. He has never seen miracles, like I have seen–people who get sick from bread and wine stay well. Others getting sick. The Protestants have Eucharistic pageantry, but they do not have the Eucharist.
To me, this does not make them without blame. However, it gives us ever more the reason to have pity.
Who is with blame? Us Orthodox Christians. I am beginning to understand what Saint Theodore the Recluse wrote about when he said we who are in Orthodoxy cannot be saved if we leave the Church. How can one, who has had the Eucharist, turn his back on Christ being physically present in His flesh and blood? Such a faithless person is without excuse.
Let’s study our own sins and concern ourselves with not losing our own souls. May how we love one another, and our God, draw all men to Jesus Christ in the Eucharist–not in word, but in deed as well.
XVIII. These facts we recall with sorrow of heart, inasmuch as the Papal Church, though she now acknowledges the spuriousness and forged character of those decrees on which her excessive claims are grounded, not only stubbornly refuses to come back to the canons and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, but even in the expiring years of the nineteenth century has widened the existing gulf by officially proclaiming, to the astonishment of the Christian world, that the Bishop of Rome is even infallible. The orthodox Eastern and catholic Church of Christ, with the exception of the Son and Word of God, who was ineffably made man, knows no one infallible upon earth. Even the Apostle Peter himself, whose successor the Pope thinks himself to be, thrice denied the Lord, and was twice rebuked by the Apostle Paul, as not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel. [24] Afterwards the Pope Liberius, in the fourth century, subscribed an Arian confession; and likewise Zosimus, in the fifth century, approved an heretical confession, denying original sin. Virgilius, in the sixth century, was condemned for wrong opinions by the fifth Council; and Honorius, having fallen into the Monothelite heresy, was condemned in the seventh century by the sixth Ecumenical Council as a heretic, and the popes who succeeded him acknowledged and accepted his condemnation.
XIX. With these and such facts in view, the peoples of the West, becoming gradually civilized by the diffusion of letters, began to protest against innovations, and to demand (as was done in the fifteenth century at the Councils of Constance and Basle) the return to the ecclesiastical constitution of the first centuries, to which, by the grace of God, the orthodox Churches throughout the East and North, which alone now form the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, the pillar and ground of the truth, remain, and will always remain, faithful. The same was done in the seventeenth century by the learned Gallican theologians, and in the eighteenth by the bishops of Germany; and in this present century of science and criticism, the Christian conscience rose up in one body in the year 1870, in the persons of the celebrated clerics and theologians of Germany, on account of the novel dogma of the infallibility of the Popes, issued by the Vatican Council, a consequence of which rising is seen in the formation of the separate religious communities of the old Catholics, who, having disowned the papacy, are quite independent of it.
XX. In vain, therefore, does the Bishop of Rome send us to the sources that we may seek diligently for what our forefathers believed and what the first period of Christianity delivered to us. In these sources we, the orthodox, find the old and divinely-transmitted doctrines, to which we carefully hold fast to the present time, and nowhere do we find the innovations which later times of empty mindedness brought forth in the West, and which the Papal Church having adopted retains till this very day. The orthodox Eastern Church then justly glories in Christ as being the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils and of the first nine centuries of Christianity, and therefore the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’; [25] but the present Roman Church is the Church of innovations, of the falsification of the writings of the Church Fathers, and of the misinterpretation of the Holy Scripture and of the decrees of the holy councils, for which she has reasonably and justly been disowned, and is still disowned, so far as she remains in her error. ‘For better is a praiseworthy war than a peace which separates from God,’ as Gregory of Nazianzus also says.
XXI. Such are, briefly, the serious and arbitrary innovations concerning the faith and the administrative constitution of the Church, which the Papal Church has introduced and which, it is evident, the Papal Encyclical purposely passes over in silence. These innovations, which have reference to essential points of the faith and of the administrative system of the Church, and which are manifestly opposed to the ecclesiastical condition of the first nine centuries, make the longed-for union of the Churches impossible: and every pious and orthodox heart is filled with inexpressible sorrow on seeing the Papal Church disdainfully persisting in them, and not in the least contributing to the sacred purpose of union by rejecting those heretical innovations and coming back to the ancient condition of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, of which she also at that time formed a part.
XXII. But what are we to say of all that the Roman Pontiff writes when he addresses the glorious Slavonic nations? No one, indeed, has ever denied that by the virtue and the apostolic toils of SS. Cyril and Methodius the grace of salvation was vouchsafed to not a few of the Slavonic peoples: but history testifies that at the period of the great Photius those Greek apostles to the Slavs and intimate friends of that divine Father, setting out from Thessalonica, were sent to convert the Slavonic tribes not from Rome but from Constantinople, where moreover they had been trained, living as monks in the monastery of St. Polychronius. It is therefore utterly incoherent which is proclaimed in the Roman Pontiff’s Encyclical, that, as he says, a kindly relation and mutual sympathy was brought about between the Slavonic tribes and the pontiffs of the Roman Church; for even if the Pope is ignorant of it, history nevertheless explicitly proclaims that these sacred apostles to the Slavs of whom we speak, encountered greater difficulties in their work from the bishops of Rome through their excommunications and opposition, and were more cruelly persecuted by the Frankish papal bishops than by the heathen inhabitants of those countries. Certainly the Pope knows well that the blessed Methodius having departed to the Lord, two hundred of the most distinguished of his disciples’ after many struggles against the opposition of the Roman Pontiffs, were driven out of Moravia and led away by military force beyond its boundaries, from whence afterwards they were dispersed into Bulgaria and elsewhere. And he knows also that with the expulsion of the more erudite Slavonic clergy, the ritual of the East, as well as the Slavonic language then in use, were also driven out, and in process of time all vestige of orthodoxy was effaced from those provinces, and all these things done with the official cooperation of the bishops of Rome m a manner not the least honorable to the holiness of the episcopal dignity. But notwithstanding all this despiteful treatment, the orthodox Slavonic Churches, the beloved daughters of the orthodox East, and especially the great and glorious Church of divinely preserved Russia, having been preserved harmless by the grace of God, have kept, and will keep till the end of the ages, the orthodox faith, and stand forth conspicuous testimonies of the liberty that is in Christ. In vain, therefore, does the Papal Encyclical promise to the Slavonic Churches prosperity and greatness, because by the goodwill of the most gracious God they already possess these blessings, and such as these, standing firm m the orthodoxy of their fathers and glorifying in it in Christ.
XXIII. These things being so, and being indisputably proved by ecclesiastical history, we, anxious as it is our duty to be, address ourselves to the peoples of the West, who through ignorance of the true and impartial history of ecclesiastical matters, being credulously led away, follow the anti-evangelical and utterly lawless innovations of the papacy, having been separated and continuing far from the one holy, catholic and apostolic orthodox Church of Christ, which is ‘the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth, [26] in which also their gracious ancestors and forefathers shone by their piety and orthodoxy of faith, having been faithful and precious members of it during nine whole centuries, obediently following and walking according to the decrees of the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils.
XXIV. Christ-loving peoples of the glorious countries of the West! We rejoice on the one hand seeing that you have a zeal for Christ, being led by this right persuasion, ‘that without faith in Christ it is impossible to please God’; [27] but on the other hand it is self-evident to every right-thinking person that the salutary faith in Christ ought by all means to be right in everything, and in agreement with the Holy Scripture and the apostolic traditions, upon which the teaching of the divine Fathers and the seven holy, divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils is based. It is moreover manifest that the universal Church of God, which holds fast in its bosom unique unadulterated and entire this salutary faith as a divine deposit, just as it was of old delivered and unfolded by the God-bearing Fathers moved by the Spirit, and formulated by them during the first nine centuries, is one and the same for ever, and not manifold and varying with the process of time: because the gospel truths are never susceptible to alteration or progress in course of time, like the various philosophical systems; ‘for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.’ [28] Wherefore also the holy Vincent, who was brought up on the milk of the piety received from the fathers in the monastery of Lérins in Gaul, and flourished about the middle of the fifth century, with great wisdom and orthodoxy characterizes the true catholicity of the faith and of the Church, saying: ‘In the catholic Church we must especially take heed to hold that which has been believed everywhere at all times, and by all. For this is truly and properly catholic, as the very force and meaning of the word signifies, which moreover comprehends almost everything universally. And that we shall do, if we walk following universality, antiquity, and consent.’ [29] But, as has been said before, the Western Church, from the tenth century downwards, has privily brought into herself through the papacy various and strange and heretical doctrines and innovations, and so she has been torn away and removed far from the true and orthodox Church of Christ. How necessary, then, it is for you to come back and return to the ancient and unadulterated doctrines of the Church in order to attain the salvation in Christ after which you press, you can easily understand if you intelligently consider the command of the heaven-ascended Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, saying: ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle’; [30] and also what the same divine apostle writes to the Galatians saying: ‘I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.’ [31] But avoid such perverters of the evangelical truth, ‘For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple;[32] and come back for the future into the bosom of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, which consists of all the particular holy Churches of God, which being divinely planted, like luxuriant vines throughout the orthodox world, are inseparably united to each other in the unity of the one saving faith in Christ, and in the bond of peace and of the Spirit, that you may obtain the highly-to-be-praised and most glorious name of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the world, may be glorified among you also.
XXV. But let us, who by the grace and goodwill of the most gracious God are precious members of the body of Christ, that is to say of His one holy, catholic and apostolic Church, hold fast to the piety of our fathers, handed down to us from the apostles. Let us all beware of false apostles, who, coming to us in sheep’s clothing, attempt to entice the more simple among us by various deceptive promises, regarding all things as lawful and allowing them for the sake of union, provided only that the Pope of Rome be recognized as supreme and infallible ruler and absolute sovereign of the universal Church, and only representative of Christ on earth, and the source of all grace. And especially let us, who by the grace and mercy of God have been appointed bishops, pastors, and teachers of the holy Churches of God, ‘take heed unto ourselves,—and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made us overseers, to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood,’ [33] as they that must give account. ‘Wherefore let us comfort ourselves together, and edify one another.’ [34] ‘And the God of all grace, who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus … make us perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle us,’ [35] and grant that all those who are without and far away from the one holy, catholic and orthodox fold of His reasonable sheep may be enlightened with the light of His grace and the acknowledging of the truth. To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.
Amen.
In the Patriarchal Palace of Constantinople, in the month of August of the year of grace MDCCCXCV.
+ ANTHIMOS of Constantinople, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
+ NICODEMOS of Cyzicos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
+ PHILOTHEOS of Nicomedia, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
+ JEROME of Nicea, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
+ NATHANAEL of Prusa, beloved brother and intercessor of Christ our God.
+ BASIL of Smyrna, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
+ STEPHEN of Philadelphia, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
+ ATHANASIOS of Lemnos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
+ BESSARION of Dyrrachium, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
+ DOROTHEOS of Belgrade, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
+ NICODEMOS of Elasson, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
+ SOPHRONIOS of Carpathos and Cassos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
+ DIONYSIOS of Eleutheropolis, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
Endnotes
1. Eph. 2:20.
2. John 14:6.
3. II Cor. 11:13.
4. Phot. Epist. iii. 10.
5. Patriarch of Constantinople; c. 800.
6. Phot. Epist iii. 6.
7. Eph. 4:5-6.
8. See life of Leo 111 by Athanasius, presbyter and librarian at Rome, in his Lives of the Popes. The holy Photius also, making mention of this invective of the orthodox Pope of Rome, Leo III, against the holders of the erroneous doctrine, in his renowned letter to the Metropolitan of Acquileia, expresses himself as follows: ‘For (not to mention those who were before him) Leo the elder, prelate of Rome, as well as Leo the younger after him, shew themselves to be of the same mind with the catholic and apostolic Church, with the holy prelates their predecessors, and with the apostolic commands; the one having contributed much to the assembling of the fourth holy Ecumenical Council, both by the sacred men who were sent to represent him, and by his letter, through which both Nestorius and Eutyches were overthrown; by which letter he moreover, in accordance with previous synodical decrees, declared the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father, but not also “from the Son.” And in like manner Leo the younger, his counterpart in faith as well as in name. This latter indeed, who was ardently zealous for true piety, in order that the unspotted pattern of true piety might not in any way whatever be falsified by a barbarous language, published it in Greek, as has already been said in the beginning, to the people of the West, that they might thereby glorify and preach aright the Holy Trinity. And not only by word and command, but also, having inscribed and exposed it to the sight of all on certain shields specially made, as on certain monuments, he fixed it at the gates of the Church, in order that every person might easily learn the uncontaminated faith, and in order that no chance whatever might be left to secret forgers and innovators of adulterating the piety of us Christians, and of bringing in the Son besides the Father as a second cause of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father with honor equal to that of the begotten Son. And it was not these two holy men alone, who shone brightly in the West, who preserved the faith free from innovation; for the Church is not in such want as that of Western preachers; but there is also a host of them not easily counted who did likewise.’—Epist. v. 53.
9. III Tim. 1:14; 1 Tim. 6:20-21.
10. St. Basil the Great, Ep. 243, To the Bishops of Italy and Gaul.
11. Matt. 26:26, 28
12. Matt. 26:28.
13. Matt. 26:31; Heb. 11:39-40; II Tim. 4:8; II Macc. 12:45.
14. Col. 1:18.
15. Matt. 28:20.
16. Gal. 2:11.
17. Matt. 16:18.
18. Matt. 16:16.
19. 1 Cor. 3:10, 11.
20. Col. 1:24.
21. Eph. 2:19, 20. Cp. 1 Pet. 2:4; Rev. 21:14.
22. See Acts of the Apostles 28:15, Rom. 15:15-16; Phil. 1:13.
23. Epist. 239.
24. Gal. 2:11.
25. I Tim. 3:15.
26. I Tim. 3:15.
27. Heb. 11:6.
28. Heb. 13:8.
29. ‘In ipsa item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut teneamus, quod ubique quod semper ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est enim vere proprieque Catholicum (quod ipsa vis nominis ratioque declarat), quod omnia fere universaliter comprehendit. Sed hoc fiet si sequimur universalitatem, antiquitatem, consensionem’ (Vincentii Lirinensis Commonitorium pro CatholicEe fidei antiquitate et universalitate cap. iii, cf. cap. viii and xiv).
30. 1Thess.2:15.
31. Gal. 1:6-7.
32. Rom. 16:18.
33. Acts 20:28.
34. I Thess. 5:11.
35. I Pet. 5:10.
“Never, O Man, is that which concerns the Church put right through compromises: there is no mean between truth and falsehood. But just as what is outside the light will necessarily be in darkness, so also he who steps away a little from the truth is left subject to falsehood” (Saint Mark of Ephesus, +1443).
“If the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, His procession from the Father alone would of necessity be either perfect or imperfect. If it is imperfect, then procession for two Persons would be much more contrived and less perfect than procession from one Person alone. If it is not imperfect, then why would it be necessary for Him to proceed from the Son also? “ (Saint Photios, encyclical epistle to the Eastern Patriarchs, (PG 102, 721-741.) ).
Jaroslav Pelikan: The Filioque. (www.agrino.com)
“If there is a special circle of the inferno described by Dante reserved for historians of theology, the principal homework assignment to that subdivision of hell for at least the first several eons of eternity may well be the thorough study of all the treatises – in Latin, in Greek, in Church Slavonic, & in various modern languages, devoted to the inquiry: Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone, as Eastern Christendom contends, or from both the Father and the Son (ex Patre Filioque), as the Latin Church teaches? Futile or even presumptuous though it may seem to pry into such arcane matters within the inscrutable life of the Godhead, the problem of Filioque or “double procession”, in the framework of the total doctrine of the Trinity, manages to touch on many of the central issues of theology and to display , more effectively than any other of the “questions in dispute” (quaestiones disputatae) how fundamental & far-reaching are the differences between the Orthodox Christian East & the West, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant”.
“What’s quite interesting is that Augustine’s triadology finds no subject in God, certainly not in God the Father, who has no absolute existence, for he is real only in relation to the Son”. (Richard Haugh. (1975). Photius and the Carolingians: the Trinitarian controversy. Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland publishing company; page 200.).
“To the Byzantines the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son was indeed the “crowning heresy” which alone justified rejection of communion with the pope of Rome and the Western Church”, “Life & Works of Demetrios Kydones (1323-1398)”, James Likoudis, Ending the Byzantine-Greek schism; page 13.).
Saint Photios the great (820-893). “More than anything else, a pronouncement of the LORD opposes them like a sharp, and inescapable arrow that strikes, and destroys every wild animal fox, as though with a thunderbolt.
Which pronouncement?
That which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Son Himself delivers His mystical teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
But do you still seek for another initiator into the Mysteries to make you perfect – in reality, to consummate your impiety – and do you propagate the myth that the Spirit proceeds from the Son?” [Saint Photios. (1983). On the mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. Boston, Massachusetts: Studion publishers; 2, page 69.].
The Filioque doctrine is the doctrine by which the Church of Rome stands or falls.
It was resisted and forbidden by Pope Leo III, but it was enforced and insisted upon by Charlemagne in the false heretical council of Aachen in 809 AD.
It is wrong for Thomas Aquinas to say “that to believe the Holy Spirit is from the Son is necessary for salvation” (Contra Errores Graecorum).
Next to the Bible itself, the greatest pieces of Christian literature every written were the “Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit”, “The Synodicon On the Holy Spirit”, by Saint Photios the great, and “On the Holy Spirit” by Saint Basil the great, and “On the Incarnation of the Word” by Saint Athanasius the great.
It is necessary for salvation in the earth for everyone to reject the doctrine of the Filioque and confess the original creed of the Orthodox Church.
“But whenever the Friend should come, Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of the Truth Who proceeds from the Father, that One shall give the testimony regarding Me”. (John 15:26).
Vladimir Lossky. “The procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. Whether we like it or not, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit has been the sole dogmatic grounds for the separation of East and West. All the other divergences which, historically, accompanied or followed the first dogmatic controversy about the Filioque are more or less dependent upon that original issue”.
“…. even today the East still regards this Filioque as a falsification of the old ecumenical creed and as clear heresy. However, similarly, to the present day those Catholic and Protestant dogmatic theologians of the West who attempt to make what is claimed to be the central dogma of Christianity credible to their contemporaries with every possible modernization and new argument (usually in vain) hardly seem to be aware that they are interpreting the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit not so much in the light of the New Testament as in the light of Augustine”. [Hans Küng. (2001). The Catholic Church: a short history. New York: modern library; pages 49-51.].
Saint Photios. “The Synodicon on the Holy Spirit: the epitomes”.
1. “If the Spirit is indeed simple but proceeds from the Father and the Son, then those two would certainly be considered one person, and there would be introduced here a Sabellian fusion, or better to say, a semi-Sabellian fusion”.
2. “If indeed the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son, He would be altogether double and composite. If the Holy Spirit is ascribed to two principles, where will the much hymned monarchy of the Father be?”.
Saint Photius the Great. mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. “There are various arguments, scattered throughout many lengthy dissertations, which confute the arrogance of those contentious men who hold fast to unrighteousness and strive against the truth. Since your great zeal and love for God has requested that those corrective arguments, furnished by divine providence, be gathered into a general overview and outline, this goal is indeed not unworthy of your desire and godly love. Above all else, there is a saying of the Lord which opposes them like a sharp, inescapable arrow, striking down and destroying every wild animal and fox as though with a thunderbolt. What saying? That which the Son Himself delivers; that which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Rejecting this compact garment, do you still seek for the divine clothing? Would you propagate the fable that the Spirit proceeds from the Son?”.
Charlemagne’s adoption of the Filioque made him a heretic rather than his eastern rivals because: (a) it contradicted the words of Christ about the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone (John 15.26), (b) it involved a change in the Creed, which was forbidden by the Third Ecumenical Council, and (c) it was objectively false, as destroying the monarchy of the Father and introducing a second principle into the life of the Holy Trinity.[1] The Filioque immediately produced conflict between Frankish and Greek monks in Jerusalem”.
[1 ] See Saint Photius the great, The mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, translated by Holy transfiguration monastery, Boston, Massachusetts: Studion publishers, 1983; “The Filioque: Truth or Trivia?”, Orthodox Christian witness, March 21 / April 3, 1983.
Salvation by Filioque? The Roman Catholics [Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)] say that I cannot be saved unless I believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son” (“Filioque”). Thomas Aquinas. Contra Errores Graecorum. I, Chapter thirty-one, That to believe the Holy Spirit is from the Son is Necessary for Salvation. Likoudis, James. (1992). Ending the Byzantine Greek schism: containing the 14th-century APOLOGIA of Demetrios Kydones for UNITY WITH ROME and the “Contra Errores Graecorum” of Saint Thomas Aquinas. New Rochelle, New York: Catholics united for the faith, Inc.; page 180.].
What does Jesus Christ say, in Scripture, on the procession of the Holy Spirit? John 15:26: “But when the Friend should come, Whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth Who proceeds from the Father, He shall bring the testimony regarding Me”.
So, Jesus Christ says the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father”. Alone.
And Jesus Christ does not say the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son”.
Since we should not say that which Jesus Christ does not say, we should not, therefore, say that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son”.
But both Roman Catholics and Protestants together continue to say “Filioque”, they all continue to say that “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”.
Blasphemy! (Scott Robert Harrington, Erie, Pennsylvania, August, 2018).
“Charlemagne believed that the Western Roman Empire had never ceased to exist. … To put it simply, Charlemagne was a caesaropapist, exercising ecclesiastical authority unthinkable in the East, and the filioque could not have been attached without his will” (“Saint Photios and the Filioque”; page 13.).
“The Filioque issue”.
“The clash between the East and the West was not only over the mission to the Slavs. It had deeper roots in the role which the new Frankish and Germanic rulers were to play in Western Europe and in the Western Church.
“In the year 800, on Christmas Day, “Charlemagne” was crowned emperor by the Pope of Rome. In 792 this new ruler had already sent his “Caroline Books” (“Libri Carolini”) to Pope Hadrian I. The reason for Charlemagne’s attack against the Eastern Church was that this was the only way in which he could discredit the Eastern emperor so that he himself could be recognized as the sole ruler in Christendom. In his vision of the new “Holy Roman Empire” Charlemagne wanted to include all of the East together with all of the West.
“In 808 Pope Leo III of Rome reacted against the charges of Charlemagne against the East. He had the creed without the filioque enshrined in silver tablets on the doors of Saint Peter’s”. [Father Thomas Hopko: The Orthodox faith, volume three, Bible and church history; pages 155-156.].
“The life of our venerable Father Moses of the Carpathians”, whose memory the Holy Church commemorates on July 26th”, Living Orthodoxy, #106, Volume 18, #4, July-August 1997; page 3.). “The venerable Moses was a native of the Carpathian Mountains”.
He said: “I desire neither kingdom nor power … but seek the kingdom of heaven on high”. (page 4.). Our venerable father Moses said: “The LORD saith: “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” [Mark 8:36-37.]”. (page 5.).
To all:
Reformed, Roman, Protestant, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, all mainline Christians, confess belief in One God in Three Persons, Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, and salvation only by the Cross & Resurrection of Christ, the Body and Blood of Christ in His Cross, and the Worthiness and Holiness and Love of God in Christ, in Him alone, and not in ourselves as Christians, as believers: He alone makes us worthy by His love, grace, and blood of His Cross and power of His blessed Resurrection. All who are in Christ Jesus agree completely on this same reality. God bless all of us. In PA, Scott
Where in PA are you?
Craig. Erie, PA. Bishop John (Berzins), Father Pimen (Steven) Simon, Deacon Markell; Russian Orthodox Church of the Nativity (Old Rite), Moscow Patriarchate, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), Metropolitan Hilarion; His Holiness Patriarch KIRILL. God bless them
.
Where is Erie Pennsylvania I live next to jordanville for the next month
Dr. Kharalambos Anstall. (1997). Juridical Justification Theology: An Orthodox Refutation and a Statement of the Orthodox Teaching. Dewdney, BC, Canada: Syaxis Press – The Canadian Orthodox Publishing House.: “THE INCARNATION: The Central Event in the History of Redemption”. “The prologue of the Gospel of Saint John the Theologian explicitly spells out the principal and central event of human history – indeed, the entire history of created being – which culminated in the most singularly important statement for all generations of true Christians, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us”. These words express the great “cri de coeur” – the ecstatic shout of joy = which has reverberated down the long corridors of time in an undiminished and wondrous Orthodox proclamation of our faith, our hope and our love”. [page 11.]. “The life of man is hid with Christ in God” [Colossians 3:3]. The great Paschal Hymn of the Orthodox Church says it all precisely: “Christ is risen from the dead, Trampling down death by death, And to those in the tombs bestowing life”. “Although two millennia of Holy Scripture and Orthodox Tradition have consistently taught us why Christ/God became man, we must always be reminded that, while He created us in His images and urges us through loving communion to acquire His similitude, He did not create an automaton, a mindless creature subject only to external control. He created us with intellect (nous) ad free will (thelema), unrstricted and always capable of voluntarily rejecting His love. He also gave us a great gift, that of reason – which is ours to use as we elect – for good or evil purposes”. [page 15.]. God have mercy on us. I have sinned immeasurably; LORD have mercy on me, a sinner. God bless all of you. LORD, remember us when Thou comest in Thy Kingdom. Amen.
Craig, Erie, PA is between Cleveland OH and NY state, close to Jamestown, NY, and south of Buffalo, NY. Jordanville NY is Holy Trinity Monastery of ROCOR. It is our Church seminary. Where in NY is Jordanville? Somewhere upstate. I am not sure where. I have never been there. Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick visited our Church of Nativity parish sometime. He is the author of “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” by Ancient Faith Ministries, Chesterton, IN. I have read the first ed. The 2nd revised edition of this book, rev. & expanded, is now available from Ancient Faith. I highly recommend these books. It is the best book on E. Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, multiple Christian traditions, non-Christian cults, and world Religions, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Interesting well written book by Fr. Damick. A must read.
Jordanville is near utica. I recommend visiting nice guys all around
Water, If the Spirit proceeds from the Father as from one principle, He cannot proceed also from the Son, for that would be two principles; simple math. The Father and Son are not one principle; that would be confusing the Father and Son as one as being one principle together, since they are indeed consubstantial, but the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and Son together, as well. You seem not to understand that Filioque is semi-Sabellian and confuses the hypostases of Father and Son. You don’t get that yet, it seems to me. In, the earlier popes did not have endorsed Filioque, but endorsed Constantinople I, but later papal councils contradicted Ephesus, which forbad any word, including Filioque, to be added to Constantinople I, and Pope John VIII and Pope Leo III and great pope Gregory I got this.
Dear Water:
(Please forward this post to Craig, Hans, and to whomever else you like, if you will).
Recommended reading list, some of the religious books I have encountered; sample any of these, if you are at-all interested.
1. Andreyev, I.M. (1995). Orthodox Apologetic Theology. Fr. Seraphim Rose, trans. Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood – St. Paisius Missionary School.
2. Armstrong, Dave. (2015). Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical. Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press.
3. Carlton, Clark. (1999). The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press.
4. Cavarnos, Constantine. (1992). Orthodox Tradition and Modernism. Translated by Patrick G. Barker. Etna, CA: Center For Traditionalist Orthodox Studies.
5. Clendenin, Daniel B., ed. (1995). Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
6. Early, James. (2006). From Baptist to Byzantium: How a Baptist Missionary Traveled Halfway Around the World to Find the Ancient Orthodox Faith. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press.
7. Farber, Seth. (1998). Eternal Day: The Christian Alternative to Secularism and Modern Psychology. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press.
8. Florovsky, Georges. (1972). Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Volume One of the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company.
9. Karkkainen, Veli-Matti. (2004). One With God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
10. Mascall, E.L. (1971). The Openness of Being: Natural Theology Today. London, England, UK: Darton, Longman & Todd. (“Theology is the happy result of a daring trust in the coherence of faith and reason” – M.-D. Chenu, Faith and Theology, p. 30. Mascall, p. 1.).
11. Morris, John W. (n.d.). Orthodox Fundamentalists: A Critical View. Minneapolis, MN: Light & Life Publishing Company.
12. Romanides, John S. (1982). Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay of Theology and Society. Patriarch Athenagoras Memorial Lectures. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
13. Schaeffer, Frank. (2002). Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press.
14. Sparks, Fr. Jack N., Ph.D., ed. (2008). Orthodox Study Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Bibles.
15. Young, Fr. Alexey. (1989). The Great Divide: The West severs itself from its Orthodox Christian roots: an historical overview. Redding, CA: Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society. PO Box 2132, Redding, CA 96099.
“God bless us everyone!” (Tiny Tim, Charles Dickens, “A Christmas Carol”).
scott,
I have read Dave Armstrong, impressive.
Water, What’s new with you? What are you reading? Anything new we can discuss. You know what I think about a lot, but I have other theological interests besides Filioque. What about the fact we both agree Sola scriptura is a bit of a mistake. Or can be. I mean, I don’t understand why anyone believes it. Since I have read Orthodox, and Catholic sources, I no longer favor a Protestant view of this issue, controversy. Take care. God bless.
scott,
Have a look at my blog, and let me have some feedback – a few short articles.
Water, I plan looking at your Blog. Please send me a link and/or an address. GB. Kyrie eleison. Dumnezeu mila.
scott,
Click on “waterandthespiritapolgetics” and you’ll get there.
Criste eleison.
Keith Green. Make My Life a Prayer to You. “No Compromise”. (lyrics).
Make my life a prayer to you
I wanna do what you want me to
No empty words and no white lies
No token prayers no compromise
I wanna shine the light you gave
Thru your son you sent to save us
From ourselves and our despair
It comforts me to know you’re really there
Chorus
Well I wanna thank you know
For being patient with me
Oh it’s so hard to see
When my eyes are on me
I guess I’ll have to trust
And just believe what you say
Oh you’re coming again
Coming to take me away
I wanna die and let you give
Your life to me so I might live
And share the hope you gave me
The love that set me free
I wanna tell the world out there
You’re not some fable or fairy tale
That I’ve made up inside my head
You’re God the son and you’ve risen from the dead
Chorus
I wanna die and let you give
Your life to me so I might live
And share the hope you gave me
The love that set me free
“Before The Father” Lyrics.
by John Michael Talbot | from the album Heart Of The Shepherd
I kneel before the Father
From whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name
And I pray He will bestow
Gifts in keeping with the riches of His Glory
May He strengthen you inwardly
Through the working of His Spirit
May Christ dwell within your heart through faith
And may charity be the root and sure foundation of your life
And so attain unto the fullness of God Himself
And may you grasp fully with all of the holy ones
Who have surely come before
The height and depth and the width and breadth of Christ’s love
And experience this love beyond knowledge
May He strengthen you inwardly
Through the working of His Spirit
May Christ dwell within your heart through faith
And may charity be the root and sure foundation of your life
And so attain unto the fullness of God Himself
I kneel before the Father
From whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name
scott,
Some great music from John Talbot!
Water, John Michael Talbot had a recent book on “The Jesus Prayer” which I believe is Talbot’s finest book. It contains FILIOQUE.
His most controversial book is “The Fire of God” (1986-1987). During the height of the Cold War, Reagan administration history. A relic of the past.
Worth investigating further.
If you like, Water, please ask me questions on my spiritual experience, doctrines, religious background, church attendance, book reading, ideas I hold now, ideas I held in the past but now have changed and disbelieved, the development of doctrine in my doctrinal Christian evolution, the role of my moral failures, my learning from theology, what I consider the truth now that I have become Russian Orthodox, what I considered the truth to be when I was a Lutheran, a charismatic Pentecostal and Evangelical. And ask me what I think about anything. And Water, tell me whatever you think on anything. And what evidence you find for an eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son other than the words “Spirit of the Son”, whose meaning is not agreed on by all Christians. Which verse of the NT says the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Person of the Son before the creation of the Universe, and before the Incarnation of the Son in time. And ask me why I am Orthodox and not Papal Catholic, and no longer Lutheran. We both agree Luther had some errors. I think he is more than a heretic; there are non heretical aspects of Luther’s thoughts, but I think it is fair for anyone to admit they were heretics, but I refrain from labeling anyone a heretic, other than the obvious ones, Arius, Nestorius, Herbert W. Armstrong, Charles Taze Russell. God bless you.
scott,
What does the Orthodox church teach about gay marriage and homosexuality in general?
I believe the Church teaches now, yesterday, today, and forever, that there is absolutely no such thing as gay marriage. Also, consanguinous unions are not marriages, but incest, and are forbidden by Levitical Biblical law. As is bestiality and every form of sexual immorality, and immorality of any kind, including cannibalism (which is rare). For the Orthodox Church, marriage is for life, as God gives it, and for people of reason and sufficient biological age, at least age 18 by national American law and custom. For Orthodoxy, temptation to any sin, including homosexuality, is not in itself a sin, but only a temptation to give in to this kind of sin. As for the orientation, psychology and the Church together both teach by science, biology, anatomy, and Biblical law, that homosexuality as an orientation is abnormal psychology, and a sin: a sinful, reprobate mind turns homosexual same-sex oriented. This orientation can be fought and resisted, as it is not a natural condition, but learned by improper upbringing and lack of Biblical instruction; perhaps a hormonal imbalance of enzymes and improper biological functioning: it is not known or proven, only suspected. The APA American Psychological Association in the DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders once labelled the homosexual behavior and orientation as a mental, abnormal psychology mental and personality, behavioral disorder. The homosexual lobby bullied and lobbied the APA, the pro-gay money won out, and for pro-gay politics, not hard biological science or Christian ethics, homosexuality was classified as no psychological illness, but instead fear of homosexuality and homophobia are considered mental illnesses which need to be changed, and not homosexuality itself. Surely, suspecting everyone or some people of being gay who are not that is a paranoid disorder, and a suspicious mind and accusatory attitude toward anyone else is not an ethical Christian stance. There is a lot of pedophilia, and this is not a disorder just of Roman Catholic priests, but of people in all religions. Possibly. The evidence suggests that, I think.
scott,
What does the Orthodox church reach about abortion?
Water, I believe the Orthodox Church is fully pro-life. Which means to be against abortion. This would mean the life of all, including the mother. I believe no ecumenical council of the whole Church has decided having an abortion when needed to save the life of the mother is a sin. Otherwise, the Church would all say all other abortions for any other reasons are sins. All of them.
scott,
What does the Orthodox church teach about artificial birth control?
I believe no part of the Church has spoken ecumenically with a Church council received by all Christians always everywhere and by everyone, as with the 7 councils endorsed by all Christians, 325-787 AD, that absolutely forbids birth control, or absolutely endorses it or permits it in some cases. The jury is do out, but the most traditionalist Christians, both Orthodox and Catholic, favor natural marriage, and not artificial contraception. But no council of all Christians has endorsed or spoken against Humanae Vitae. It’s kind of like the Assumption of Mary. Orthodox believe it, but an ecumenical council has not been convened and received by all that teaches it. In Orthodoxy, the final authority is not the Church Fathers, or the Popes or any of the Patriarchs, and certainly none of the Byzantine (so-called) Emperors, or Charlemagne, for that matter. Only the ecumenical council received by all Christians. And Christians all only agree on 7 (except for the Monophysites, who only accept the first 3, and many Protestants, only the first 4.
scott,
Obviously we do have some difference here.
By the way, Charlemagne holds no kind of authority whatsoever in the Catholic church.
If you are interested, read “Reflections on Humanae Vitae” by St. John Paul II.
Obviously, Water, we have a very serious difference of opinion on the role of Charlemagne and the Franks in the Roman Catholic schism of 809 Aachen against Pope Leo III, Nicholas I, 869-870, 1014, and 1054. Henry II forced Pope Benedict VIII to accept Filioque, and the Pope did. The later pope accepted what the earlier pope refused. So Leo III is our friend, because he is a friend of the Catholic faith, and Benedict VIII is our enemy, as he is an enemy of the Catholic faith. We are on the side of Scripture and Catholicity, and Catholicity and Scripture are on our side, so we reject Filioque. Charlemagne is the key historical reason Filioque began to triumph later in Rome.
Our evidence: Haugh, Richard. (1975). Photius and the Carolingians. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company. Read this book before presuming there is no basis for believing that Charlemagne is an authority for Western Catholicism.
scott,
We are talking at cross purposes here. Charlemagne has no authority whatsoever as a theologian. You will not find him quoted anywhere.
Whatever he may have done politically does not give him an ounce of standing as a theologian.
Water Why did Pope Leo III forbid Filioque why Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 allowed it? Does truth change? How is this not a serious contradiction between two popes. Was Pope Leo III right to forbid it even if he thought it was true? Is Pope Benedict VIII right to permit what was once forbidden? If they are succeeding the same Saint Peter, the faith should not change so much. Saint Peter never preached Filioque.
scott,
My understanding is that Leo III agreed with the filioque, but advised against its inclusion ( I presume because of difficulties he foresaw with the East ).
However that may be, a pope is not infallible in all matters, even matters of faith. I’m not sure you have a good grasp of what papal infallibility means.
I’m not sure you considered how Vatican I changed the definition of infallibility from not infallible to infallible in 1870 AD. No wonder Hans Kung and Dr. Dollinger rightly say Vatican I is not Catholic. Auer, Rev. Fr. Marc. (1990). The Myth of Papal Infallibility. Buffalo, NY: The Cenacle/ Liberty, TN: The St. John of Kronstadt Press. Pope Pius IX considered himself more Catholic than all of the previous Popes. History shows that. This seems to be worse even than Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and Nicholas, and against the irenic humble spirit of blessed Saint Gregory I the Great of Rome, but maybe all these particular popes are more questionable than Leo III and John VIII. Certainly Eugene IV and Benedict VIII are also questionable.
scott,
There have been bad popes, there will be bad popes again.
Judas, chosen by Jesus, betrayed him. Peter denied him, and all the apostles ran when Jesus was arrested.
People are human, and they can fall.
Some theologians may dislike papal infallibility and stand against it, that is not the church speaking.
scott,
What about IVF, surrogacy, the morning after pill?
This is an issue I don’t have to think about since I am not married. Ask a married Orthodox priest if you want to know what Orthodoxy suggests as the truth for others to follow. Birth control? I don’t know. The natural way to do that is to remain unmarried. There is no ecumenical council that has ruled childless marriages are sinful. Having children is a great moral ethical responsibility, and a gift from God, not an obligation in all marriage. Some want children but can’t have them (for biology reasons); some have children but don’t want them. Would that there were no bad parents or bad children, but all Christians agree there is some form of original sin and we are all sinners, that’s for sure. God help us. We need God’s mercy very much. For us to have true hope, we need to experience God’s love pardon and forgiveness, and true repentance, of course.
scott,
I do suggest you read JPII’s “Reflections on Humanae Vitae.”
The morning after pill is an abortion inducing pill, so I suspect you would be against that. IVF is an artificial manipulative mechanical way of achieving conception, far from natural conception, as given to man by God.
Surrogacy involves IVF or some form of premarital sex or adultery, so I assume you would not go along with that.
Water, What is Water and the Spirit Apologetics? Do you have a website.
Mine is Scott Robert Harrington, WordPress Saint Andrew of Valaam Association. God bless you.
scott,
It is a blog on WordPress.com, if I click on “scottrobertharrington” it takes me to your blog, “Andrew of Valaam Association”. In the same way, if you click on “waterandthespiritapologetics”, it’ll take you to my blog.
Gb.
“I have asked one thing from the LORD; it is what I desire: to dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, gazing on the beauty of the LORD and seeking [Him] in His temple. For He will conceal me in His shelter in the day of adversity; He will hide me under the cover of His tent [tabernacle]; He will set me high on a rock. Then my head will be high above my enemies around me; I will offer sacrifices in His tent [tabernacle] with shouts of joy. I will sing and make music to the LORD”. Psalm 27:4-6 HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible; page 381 OT; Holman Bible Publishers, Copyright 2003.
I believe Dr. Ford told the truth.
I believe Dr. Ford told the truth.
I believe Brett Kavanaugh did not tell the truth.
I believe Brett Kavanaugh and Donald Trump are bringing moral disaster and political ruin to American freedom justice honesty and democracy.
I believe Donald Trump is bringing disgrace to the American Presidency.
Nationalism and Trumpism are sins.
The Bible says no man can serve 2 masters.
The Religious Right seeks to serve both God and Trump.
The Bible says no man can serve 2 masters.
The Religious Right just doesn’t get it.
Whether one votes Democrat, Republican, Independent, or not at all, America and its men need a moral renewal and spiritual revival.
Why are so many women coming forward.
Maybe it is because son many men, including myself, have done wrong in their youth.
We need Christ’s mercy today more than ever.
America needs Jesus.
We need to stick to Christ alone, and abandon the Religious Right and its Trumpism, which is its dishonest greedy money-making hypocrisy.
“The Addition to the Creed”.
“A disagreement about the Holy Spirit also began to develop in the Church. Did the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father? Or, did He proceed from the Father and the Son?
“In John 15:26, our Lord Jesus Christ asserted, “But when the Helper comes, Whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth Who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me”. This is the basic statement in all of the New Testament about the Holy Spirit “proceeding”, and it is clear: He “proceeds from the Father”.
“Thus when the ancient council at Constantinople in AD 381, during the course of its conclave, reaffirmed the Creed of Nicea (AD 325), it expanded that Creed to proclaim these familiar words: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified”.
“But some two hundred years later, at a local council in Toledo, Spain (AD 589), King Reccared declared that the Holy Spirit should be confessed and taught to proceed from the Father AND THE SON. (The phrase “and the Son” in Latin is the word filioque; thus the reference to the problem is often called the “filioque debate”.). The King may have meant well, but he was contradicting the apostolic teaching about the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately the local Spanish council agreed with his error, and it gradually spread in the West – though at first it was rejected by the papacy.
“Because of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures as confessed by the entire Church at Nicea and at Constantinople and for centuries beyond, there was no reason to believe anything other than the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. Period!” [pages 54-55. Gillquist, Peter E. (1989). Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, Inc. 1st ed.].
My story of how I became a Christian. Scott Robert Harrington (b., Erie, PA, USA, 11-1, 1960): The main years (formative-generative, germinal) of my older youth, 1972-1994. (Young adulthood, age 34. Ages 12-34.
I had many bad habits and unacceptable thoughts, confusions of thoughts and negative feelings (which I shall not describe in detail here), an emotional passionate confusing on natural feelings which are good in themselves, but which were expressed in abnormal ways.
But I began to learn of God and Christ and (Western) Christianity, things which had some effect on me, which could have been used by God to help me control passionate emotions.
This happened between 1972-1983.
The statements and traditions that influenced me the most.
1. Martin Luther’s small catechism. Lutheranism.
2. The Lord’s Prayer.
3. The 10 commandments.
4. Sin. (Personal).
5. Luther’s statement, which did not help me become good. “Be a sinner. Sin boldly” (Martin Luther, 1483-1546).
6. Larry Christenson. (1976/1985). The Charismatic RENEWAL Among Lutherans: A Pastoral and Theological Perspective. Minneapolis: Lutheran Charismatic Renewal Services/International Lutheran Renewal Center.
7. First Assembly of God, 32nd and Liberty Street, Erie, PA, 1978-1982.
6. Immanuel Lutheran Church, 10th and Powell Avenue, Erie, PA, 1972-1994.
The turning point.
Peter E. Gillquist. (1978). Love Is Now. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Peter E. Gillquist. (1979). The Physical Side of Being Spiritual. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Peter E. Gillquist. (1974). Let’s Quit FIghting About the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
The highest turning points.
1. The Collected Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview. 5 volumes. Westchester, IN: Crossway Publishers.
2. Billy Graham. Peace With God. Pocket Books, Simon & Schuster.
3. Peter E. Gillquist. (1989). Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. 1st ed. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, Inc.
4. Schaeffer, Frank. (1994). Dancing Alone: The Quest For Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
5. Farrell, Dr. Joseph P., Ph.D. (1987). Saint Photios. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
6. Azkoul, Rev. Fr. Dr. Michael. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. Saint Photius. On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers, 1983.
7. THE RUDDER Pedalion of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. Denver Cummings, trans. Chicago, IL: Orthodox Christian Educational Society.
8. Ostroumoff, Ivan N. (1971). A History of the Council of Florence. Translated from the Russian by Basil Popoff. Holy Tranfiguration Monastery, Boston, Massachusetts.
9. Romanides, Fr. John S. (1982). Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay of Theology and Society. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Water, On the basis of what verses in the Old and New Testaments does Roman Catholicism teach that married men normally cannot become Roman Catholic priests, and that there is most of the time obligatory celibacy for Roman Catholic priests, most of them? On the basis of what Scripture and what Church Fathers do Catholics prefer unmarried priests? Why is it considered something not encouraged to let married men serve as priests? In the Light of Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy has no problem with either marriage or monasticism, and fully respects both traditions and ways of life. As God gives.
Good question scott,
The principal scripture is this:
Matthew 19:12 “12 There are eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
“Let anyone accept this who can” Jesus says.
There are others:
Luke 18:29-30 “29 He said to them, ‘In truth I tell you, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God
30 who will not receive many times as much in this present age and, in the world to come, eternal life. ”
1 Cor 7: 7-9, 17, 32-35,38. “I should still like everyone to be as I am myself; but everyone has his own gift from God, one this kind and the next something different.
8 To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me.
9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up.”
17 Anyway let everyone continue in the part which the Lord has allotted to him, as he was when God called him. This is the rule that I give to all the churches.
32 I should like you to have your minds free from all worry. The unmarried man gives his mind to the Lord’s affairs and to how he can please the Lord;
33 but the man who is married gives his mind to the affairs of this world and to how he can please his wife, and he is divided in mind.
34 So, too, the unmarried woman, and the virgin, gives her mind to the Lord’s affairs and to being holy in body and spirit; but the married woman gives her mind to the affairs of this world and to how she can please her husband.
35 I am saying this only to help you, not to put a bridle on you, but so that everything is as it should be, and you are able to give your undivided attention to the Lord.”
Not one of those verses say married men can’t be priests; they onlysay some men don’t need to marry.
scott,
Read this carefully:
Matthew 19:12 “12 There are eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
“who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven.” Who might these people be?
It’s between God and the male-female human persons concerned whether they marry, or not. There is no consensus by all Christians what these verses mean. Follow blessed Augustine of Hippo: In essentials unity, in uncertainties freedom, in all things love. This is one of those matters which requires love, and is also a matter of uncertainty which requires freedom, but there is no Biblical basis for forbidding priesthood for married people, nor for denigrating Hebrews which says “Marriage is honorable (to be honored) in all (people), and the bed is undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers, God will judge”.
Paul also warns, Saint Paul, some will forbid marriage in the last days, and will teach requirement to abstain from meat, which God hath provided to be received with thanks. The Bible says to turn away from such men: so it is a false choice (heresy) of Catholicism to require priests to be celibate. Tradition generally regards the standards of the true Church, which held to ecumenical standards and adjudicated this matter of celibacy, and only bishops, some of who have been married (married only one time as Scripture notes), and some who were widowers, bishops are to be celibate for the kingdom, and the bishopric is to be composed, for the LORD, of monks, monastic and celibate mens, some of whom were formerly married to only one woman. Orthodoxy general encourages no divorce, and none is necessary where there is no adultery. But for cases of adultery, the Bible permits divorce in some cases, but forbids remarriage to a divorced woman (while a divorced man whose wife has committed adultery is free to remarry).
Scripture counsels to resist despair and despondency and lack of hope for people who have sinned is as serious a sin and a mistake as presumption, impenitence, pride, arrogance, and insolence (defiance and antinomianism). Scripture gives moral admonitions and warnings to adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals, child molesters, masturbators, effeminate, users of pornography, lust, uncleanliness, that such which practice sexual immorality of any kind will not inherit the kingdom of God. And the Scripture notes: And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were cleansed, you were forgiven, you were renewed and pardoned, and given the gift of the seal of the Holy Spirit, and were saved by the washing of renewal and repentance, and were not saved by your many works of righteousness, but by baptism, repentance, and God’s mercy in Christ, the Cross (Titus 3;5), and you were as well given the Holy Spirit to purify you all (who became members of the true Orthodox Church in Orthodox trine immersion baptism).
scott,
You have sunk very low indeed if you accuse the Catholic church of “forbidding to marry”.
You only have to look at the Orthodox whose bishops are meant to be celibate, and one could accuse them of the same error. But of course this is ludicrous. Those who are called to the priesthood are celibate for the kingdom, as Christ urges and Paul commends. To condemn this teaching is unscriptural. There are some married priests in the Catholic church, in particular Anglican priests who were already married and converted to Catholicism, and some Eastern Catholic rites, who have married priests.
I think your protestant background lets you down here scott.
A consensus by Christians is not the way to the truth. The Holy Spirit leads the church into the fullness of the truth, and Jesus has given his church the power to bind and loose.
Having said all that, this is not a dogma, and the church may at some stage decide to allow married priests in certain circumstances.
But as Paul makes clear, the unmarried man or woman can devote themselves to the Lord more fully.
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with Jesus and Paul.
Water, You say that I have sunk very low. Why do you need to talk about me and not listen to my words. I never wrote the Catholic Church forbids to marry. I wrote Saint Paul wrote these words that in the last days some would forbid to marry. This does apply to a mandatory celibacy tradition which applies from most priests in Catholicism. This is a tradition which does not exist in the Orthodox Church. You are right, the Catholic Church does permit some to marry, but forbids some priest candidates from becoming priests unless they are celibate. And some of the priests are neither married nor celibates, but sexual predators. This can happen in any church or denomination, as all human beings are human and prone to sin. All men are tempted by sexual sins. I had some sins of sexual nature in my own past, before I repented and God cleansed me. I still struggle with this issue, and I have yet to find out what God wants for me, and would be better off to remain one with Christ in a single state, but Orthodoxy teaches there is no sin either in marriage and sex, or in celibacy, just as Catholicism does. We are mostly on the same page in this, Water. So there is no need to make this personal. I do think you did talk about me a bit too much in your reply. I do suggest the Latin celibate tradition has not yet dealt with the homosexuality pedophilia issue in the Roman communion. This sometimes happens there are vices in Orthodoxy, that is, not in Orthodoxy itself, but in some Orthodox monks. And there are I gather some divorced Orthodox men and priests. There are vices in Catholicism, that is, not in Catholicism itself, but in some Catholics, and the reason there are more reports of pedophilia and homosexuality in Catholic Church than in the Orthodox Church or Protestants is because there are more people in the Catholic Church than in the Orthodox Church or Protestants, and neither of these has as many people as the Catholics have, so with its enforced celibacy tradition and many more Catholics, there are bound to be more sex abuse cases in Catholicism than in Orthodoxy and Protestantism. But this seems to be more pedophilia and homosexuality in Catholic priests; in the Orthodox Church and Protestants, there is plenty of sin, divorce, adultery, fornication, sexual sins, but I speak as a human, not properly here. In the Church itself there is no sin, the Church is holy, but members of the Church, as Christ said, are free and human, and there is a mixture of pure wheat good and impure weeds bad, so I do not judge anyone. Surely there is glory of God and beauty and holiness, both inside the Orthodox Church, and in Catholicism, Protestantism, and even among heretics. God bless you. Heresy itself is unholy, but a soul can be morally better than his false doctrines.
scott,
I’m sorry if I misjudged you, but I thought you were implying that the church “forbids to marry”, which you still say in regard to priests, although this is a free choice for them, they do it, like your bishops, for the sake of the kingdom.
New topic.
If the Holy Spirit eternally and forever rests in the Son, as the passage(s) in the Gospels suggests, where the Spirit abides on the Son, rests on the Son as a dove at Christ’s baptism by John the Baptist, how can the Holy Spirit then eternally proceed from the Son if the Spirit eternally rests in the Son?
scott,
Which passage?
” ……. we have the witness of St. Epiphanius of Salamis, who writes … .
“For the Only-Begotten Himself calls Him [the Spirit] ‘the Spirit of the Father,’ and says of Him that ‘He proceeds from the Father,’ and ‘will receive of mine,’ so that He is reckoned as not being foreign to the Father nor to the Son, but is of their same substance, of the same Godhead; He is Spirit Divine … of God, and He is God. For He is Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father and Spirit of the Son, not by some kind of synthesis, like soul and body in us, but in the midst of Father and Son, of the Father and of the Son, a Third by appellation. … The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son; and neither is the Son created nor is the Spirit created.” (Ankyrotos or The Man Well Anchored, A.D. 374).
Once again, an eternal, Personal connection between Son and Spirit is recognized. And St. Epiphanius also says …
“The Spirit is always with the Father and the Son, … proceeding from the Father and receiving of the Son, not foreign to the Father and the Son, but of the same substance, of the same Godhead, of the Father and the Son, He is with the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit ever subsisting, Spirit Divine, Spirit of glory, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Father. … He is Third in appellation, equal in Divinity, not different as compared to Father and Son, connecting Bond of the Trinity, Ratifying Seal of the Creed. (Panarion)
This is exactly the same theology found in the Alexandrians and Cappadocians above, in which an eternal, Personal connection between Son and Spirit is recognized.
He also writes …
“No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds (proienai) and of Whom He receives.” (OP.. cit., xi, in P.G., XLIII, 35):
Also, in the year A.D. 410 –that is, after the A.D. 381 Council of Constantinople, the Council of Seleucia (in the Antiochian patriarchate), declared its faith in …
“…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” (Lamy, “Concilium Seleucia”, Louvain, 1868).
The Greek term used was “proienai” (not “ekporeusis”). It was, thus, an orthodox profession, and possibly an intentional attempt to validate the Alexandrian theology of St. Athanasius, etc. Please keep in mind also that, in A.D. 410, this regional Council of Seleucia was on par with the contemporary view of Constantinople I, which was also seen as merely a regional council, and not yet counted as Ecumenical. Indeed, if the bishops at Seleucia in A.D. 410 interpreted the Constantinopolitan Creed in the exclusive, rigid sense in which most modern Eastern Orthodox interpret it, they would never have been able to make the profession quoted above. A change in Eastern understanding has clearly taken place.
And this is self-evident from the very language of the Constantinopolitan Creed itself. For, in one place, the Creed describes the Personal identity of the Spirit as “the Life Giver” (“the Giver of Life”). But, in another place, it tells us that it is “through” the Son that “all things were created” –a reference to the Son’s eternal, Personal identity as the Word. For, as John 1:3-4declares of the Son:
“All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be. What came to be through Him was life …”
This alone reveals the necessity of an eternal, Personal connection between Son and Spirit. For, if the Spirit is the “Giver of Life,” and if life comes “through” the Son, then the Spirit cannot possibly be the “Giver of Life” (His Personal identity) except through the Son. Thus, the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father must intrinsically involve the Son –the very thing which Photian theology denies.
Moving along in history, but prior to the Photian age, it is clear that numerous Byzantines were able to appreciate the difference between the true meaning of Filioque (as the Latins used it) and popular Greek misconceptions about it.
For example, St. Maximos the Confessor clearly saw no problem with the theology behind Filioque. At the height of the Monothelite controversy, when the Roman curia issued its profession of faith to the imperial court of Constantinople, employing the Greek term “ekporeusis,” but then including “and the Son,” the Byzantines were understandably scandalized, since the expression in Greek obviously (though unintentionally) implied two Causes for the Spirit. However, St. Maximos came to Rome’s defense, writing …
“Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says ‘the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.’ The other deals with the Divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria …On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the Cause of the Spirit –they know in fact that the Father is the only Cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but that they have manifested the procession through Him [the Son] and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (i.e., Monothelitism). In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the ‘also from the Son’) in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.” (Epistle to Marinus, PG 91, 136.)
Here, in the mid 600’s, St. Maximos already recognizes that the problem is a semantic one, rooted in different cultural expressions and preoccupations. If only Photius and others had followed his example of catholic charity.
And, even in his own writings, St. Maximos will echo the Filioque –that is, the substance of the Filioque as it is found in the writings of other Eastern fathers. For example, in his Quaestiones et Dubia, Interr. XXXIV, St. Maximos speaks of the Spirit proceeding “through the Son” and “by means of the Word.” (PG 90, 813B).
Likewise, St. John Damascene, while always careful to protect the Father’s role as the sole Cause of the Spirit, echoes the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the others, saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “through the Son.” He writes …
“Neither do we say that the Spirit is from (“ek”) the Son, but we call Him the Spirit of (“de”) the Son.” (OF 188/ PG 141 B).
Yet, he also says …
“He is the Spirit of the Son, not as being from Him but as proceeding through Himfrom the Father.” (OF 196/PG 148 B).
And also …
“He is a sanctifying force that is subsistent, but proceeds unceasingly from the Father and abides in the Son.” (OF 201/ PG 151 c).
And also …
“And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation” (ibid., 12).
And, echoing St. Gregory Nazianzus above …
“[The Holy Spirit] is the median (meson) of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and He is joined with the Father through the Son.” (OF 200/ PG 151 B)
And also …
“I say that God is always Father since He has always His Word [the Son] coming from Himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from Him” (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).
Once again, we see the eternal, Personal connection between Son and Spirit –the very thing denied in Photian theology. Indeed, for St. John Damascene, the Spirit is most typically presented as the eternal “Breath” accompanying the Father’s eternal utterance of the eternal Word (the Son). In this, we again see the intrinsic, Personal connection and the Spirit’s role as the Spirit of Sonship –the eternal Breath released (by the Father) because He utters the eternal Word, and thus the Word’s (the Son’s) necessary participation in the procession of the Breath (the Spirit). For as St. Thomas Aquinas would later elaborate on St. John’s imagery, the Cause of both the Word (the Son) and the Breath (the Spirit) is the Speaker (the Father). And to say that the Word is essential to the procession of the Breath does not make the Word the Cause of the Breath, but merely assets that the Breath depends on the Cause’s utterance of the Word. For, in begetting an eternal Son, the eternal Father spirates an eternal Spirit of Sonship.”
Water: Insufficient response from your quote of Ephipanius of Salamis (however you quote his name). I am unfamiliar with this saint so further comment would be spurious. 1. I don’t know what point you are making. 2. I don’t know what point you are trying to read, see in the saint. 3. I don’t read any words in this quote where he says the Spirit rests in the Son, therefore the Spirit cannot proceed from the Son. You have not shown what he believed about this. 4. Therefore you did not address my question, nor provide any evidence either from the Fathers or Scriptures on this. 5. Even when any Christian speaks, he/she is a unique, new creation in Christ, with a mind of his/her own. The Holy Spirit does not eradicate free will. Therefore each Christian has a free mind, albeit illuminated by the Holy Spirit when what he/she says is correct. The Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, and this is what proienai means, so you are always referring to a temporal procession (mission) from the Son of the Spirit, something we agree on as Orthodox. This is not what we are saying when we reject Filioque. I believe you fail to understand the Filioque still, and why it is error, for it teaches an eternal procession, and not a temporal mission (procession) from the Son. Because Catholicism rejects the essence energies distinction of St. Palamas, it falls into this failure to distinguish procession eternally from procession temporally, which is why you yourself, Water, fail to understand what the Filioque is, and why you fail to reject Filioque for the Semi-Sabeliian Binitarian heresy that it is. It does not officially deny the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, but does diminish Him from Him to Him, from God to god, from Holy Spirit to holy spirit, from Holy Spirit to Holy Ghost, the subordinated spirit of a dead faith from paganism inherited by Augustine when he used Greek philosophical Neo-Platonic categories of human pagan philosophy and psychology and human analogy to form his Augustinian non-Greek NT Augustine’s philosophical triniatrianism, philosophical triadoloy, not New Testament Greek Orthodox Christian Trinitarian Biblical theology.
scott,
I cannot make” you understand, but the body of the early church fathers, both Latin and Greek, understand that the Holy Spirit issues at least from the Father, through the Son, which means an eternal procession. Both East and west were in agreement on this until the 8/9th century, when Photius and others provoked division, albeit with some insensitivity from the Latins, and you follow in this path, to your detriment and to the harm of the whole Christian church.
Roman Catholic scholar Francis Dvornik gives evidence that the schism has wrongfully been blamed on Photius, without any factual or historical justification or justice. You seem not to know that fact. As for through the Son, the consensus of the Fathers, at least the Greek Fathers, is that this refers to a temporal mission, not an eternal procession. If the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, there is no difference between the Father and Son, and the Spirit becomes the (Grand) Son of the Father and Son, their “mutual love”. You need to thoroughly study: Photius, Saint. (Patriarch of Constantinople). Rev. Fr. Dr. Michael Azkoul,Ph.D., & Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, MA, trans. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers. See also: Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, Ph.D., trans. (1987). Saint Photios. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. The most thorough defense of the Monopatrism of the Orthodox Church is in Photios, and in “God, History, and Dialectic”, available online at Google from Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, see his website, and in print from some places, including Amazon.com. 4 Volumes.
scott,
I do not study schismatics.
The church of east and west was in communion throughout the early centuries.
You say ; “the consensus of the Fathers, at least the Greek Fathers, is that this refers to a temporal mission, not an eternal procession.” Prove it to me, From their writings. Not from some 9th century or later reconstruction.
You have a bias against Photios. Why?
scott,
His ideas split the church.
The church cannot be split (Matt. 16). The church is one. People can leave the church. Photius did not leave the church. The people who followed Photius including Pope John VIII stayed in the church. Constantinople IV in 879-880 is a valid ecumenical council of the church. People who followed Augustine of Hippo’s ideas in 1014, 1054 AD, left the church. It happened because a Cardinal, Humbert, tried to have more authority than a pope. The pope was dead at the time so you can’t say Humbert was following the pope.
scott,
What happened “because a Cardinal, Humbert, tried to have more authority than a pope”.
The bull of excommunication of Humbert was invalid because the pope was already dead when it was delivered. It also excommunicated Michael I, not any other person, and not his successors.
The anathemas against the legates named only Humbert, Peter and Frederick.
Not even the pope was anathematized.
On that basis, it would seem that things could have been handled differently by both sides.
scott,
Obviously you and I have a somewhat different opinion as to who left whom. Remember that the see of Rome always had primacy.
Matthew 16 does not say the church can be split.
Matthew 16 does not say ideas can split the church.
Only individuals with false ideas can leave the visible church for their private ideas.
Photius was not such an individual. He remained in the visible church, and kept her visible correct doctrines, which are more than mere ideas, but holy apostolic traditions from Christ Himself [John 15:26, Acts 2:33].
scott,
We differ.
Who decides who the schismatics are?
scott,
I’ll work that out on my own.
You ask me to prove what I said from the Fathers. Then you refuse to read Dvornik from your own Roman Catholic source, and you refuse to read Photius? Why the refusal? Pope John VIII accepted Photius. Why don’t you, then?
scott,
From the church fathers themselves.
Water, Photius himself is a church father. John VIII is a pope. Neither are heretical or schismatic. They stood together in 879-880. They are in communion with each other. So we should be in communion with them. And accept the words of Photius in “Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit”, which agrees with most of the Church Fathers, East and West, Latin and Greek, including Maximus the Confessor. The only Father whose traditions, some of them, all do not receive, is Augustine of Hippo.
scott,
In the words of the early church fathers, not what later writers had to say about what they meant.
You ask me to prove from the Fathers that Photius does not agree with the Fathers. Then you seem to refuse to read Photius. I have read some of the Fathers, in quotes. I have seen no Father that said anything that contradicted Photius, or that Photius contradicted. Water, how can you know Photius contradicted the Fathers, if you don’t even read Photius? I have read Basil, On the Holy Spirit. He did not contradict Photius. I have been taught neither did Maximus the Confessor. And I have read things in books quoting the Fathers, and never a hint from any Father contradicting John 15:26 and Acts 2:33 and the majority of Latin and Greek Fathers,
scott,
Show me in the early fathers the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son but not eternally so. That should not be very difficult for you since you say that this is what they taught.
“In 1948, Roman Catholic scholar Francis Dvornik published his definitive “The Photian Schism” which once and for all discredited the notion that St. Photios was the author of the ninth century breach between East and West; … [1] Another scholar, P.C. Heath, asserted that Photios did not cause the schism and that “the East should no longer be accused in our text books by the use of the term “Eastern schism”. Blaming … the Franks, Heath concludes that “in 1054, it was that the Western Schism became final” [2]. [page 4.] (Saint Photios and the Filioque. by Michael Azkoul. Edited by James Graves. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, trans. (1983). Saint Photios. On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers,].
Notes. 1. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 21 (New York: 1911); p. 483.
2. “The Western Schism of the Franks and the “Filioque
“, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XXIII, 2 (1972); p. 113.
“Nor is it any longer possible to maintain that Photios shattered the unity of the Church for the sake of ambition and national pride” (Azkoul; p. 4.).
scott,
That’s not what I asked you.
You asked me what the church fathers said on this matter.
Where did you find the quotes you gave me from (some of) the church fathers? Where do we find some of the fathers? The problem is, how does either of us knows how many fathers said what, and which of them even talked on procession of the Spirit, whether temporal or eternal? Epistemology? How do we know what we think we know?
scott,
The ones I quoted you are from the article I referenced to you some posts ago. They are enough for you to question your assumptions, but do read the article for a fuller picture.
Water: What is the article again, so I can read it? What do you assume that my assumptions are? What was your question again? I shall attempt to give a simple answer to a simple question, if a complex answer is not justified by the nature of the issue. How do we know whether or not the issue requires a simple or complex answer? I believe the answer is simple: Christ said “from the Father” in John 15:26 and Luke said the Spirit is received “from the Father” in Acts 2:33, but, following the Franks, who rely on Augustine too much, later popes, but not Pope Gregory I, not Pope Leo III, and not Pope John VIII, insist on Filioque, when Filioque is not in John 15:26 or any other Scripture, OT or NT, and that is the simple answer why Catholics and Protestants should not believe in Filioque, but they choose to believe in Filioque anyway, even though it is not in Scripture or in Christ.
scott,
The question:
“The church of east and west was in communion throughout the early centuries.
You say ; “the consensus of the Fathers, at least the Greek Fathers, is that this refers to a temporal mission, not an eternal procession.” Prove it to me, From their writings. Not from some 9th century or later reconstruction.
Show me in the early fathers the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son but not eternally so.”
The article:
catholicbridge.com/orthodox/catholic-orthodox-filioque-father-son.php
Water: Show me John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Pope Leo I the great, Maximus the Confessor, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius the great, Cyril of Jerusalem, John of Damascus, Symeon the New Theologian, Gregory Palamas, Photius the great, Mark of Ephesus, Pope Gregory I the great, or any other father, where they said that the Father proceeds from the Father and the Son eternally as from one principle, proceeds eternally from the person of the Son as a co-origin of the Spirit in the persons of the Father and the Son.
scott,
As soon as you have answered my question.
Okay. What was your question?
scott,
“Show me in the early fathers the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son but not eternally so. That should not be very difficult for you since you say that this is what they taught.”
I thought I already answered that? Deleted?
Which early fathers said the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son? Did they use the word eternally? Or did they just say proceed? If the Spirit rests in the Son, how can He proceed eternally from the Son?
scott,
Something for you to ponder:
St. Cyril of Alexandria says …
“We must not say that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, in such a way as to suggest that through the Spirit He made use of a power foreign to Himself, and from the Spirit received the ability to work against unclean spirits, and to perform Divine signs among men; but must rather say that the Spirit, through Whom He did indeed work His Divine signs, is His own. “[The Twelve Errors, Error 9, 430 A.D.] Here .., St. Cyril of Alexandria clearly acknowledges the Son’s eternal, Personal possession of (i.e., participation in) the Spirit. Christ did not work from some post-incarnational pouring forth of the Spirit, but by a Spirit Who was proper to Himself (the Person of the Son) from all eternity.
And also: “”For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of Him by Himself, as He is the Spirit and not the Son; but He is not unconnected with Him [the Son]; for He is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth, and He is sent by Him just as He is from God the Father. …Since, therefore, He is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father, that is, of the Son, He is evidently Wisdom and Power. (Epist., xvii, Ad Nestorium, De excommunicatione in P.G., LXXVII, 117)”
St. Cyril also writes …
“Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit” (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).
The Son did not come to possess the Holy Spirit in time, but from all eternity. Likewise, and this is all-important, the Spirit possesses all that is of the Father through the Son! This clearly shows that St. Cyril recognized an eternal, Personal connection between the Son and the Spirit, and it firmly pits St. Cyril’s position against that of Photius, who claims that the Spirit’s procession from the Father has nothing to do with the Person of the Son.”
The second ecumenical council stands with Photios, and Photios stands with the 2nd council. It is very reasonable to suggest that quote may not actually be from Cyril of Alexandria. And even if it is, so what? He may err. Anyone may err. I have erred some times. But an ecumenical council cannot err, so the final word in the Catholic Church is the ecumenical councils, not random quotes from select fathers, not even from Photios. Photios however is a pillar of orthodoxy, and his catholicity is unquestionable. He may have erred in some things, but we all do. Following the spirit of pope Nicholas I instead of Leo III and John VIII, today’s partisans of Filioque still retain their semi-Sabellian error, and make a serious mistake adding “And the Son” FILIOQUE to Constantinople I.
scott,
An ecumenical council without the bishop of Rome has no force. You have the evidence of the church fathers for this.
That depends upon which bishop of Rome you are talking about. The earlier popes of Rome spoke against the Filioque addition. They all endorsed the council of Ephesus, which forbid any additions or deletions from the Nicene Creed. The later popes of Rome contradicted the earlier popes of Rome by adding Filioque in 1014 AD. So you have a problem here on which pope of Rome you are talking about. You yourself admitted popes can err. Which popes erred? Which did not err? The Holy Spirit is given to all Christians. The Church is above the pope, not the Pope above the Church. Only the ecumenical councils, 325-880 AD, are above all Christians. Florence is not an ecumenical council. Some popes have been heretics, some have not. Some Patriarchs of Constantinople have been heretics, some have not. Photios was Orthodox. Pope Nicholas I was schismatic.
scott,
Constantinople I is an addition to the Nicene creed.
There is one bishop of Rome, one of Constantinople, etc.
The pope has been given Christ’s authority by Jesus passing his authority to Peter, as leader of the apostles. The fathers are clear that an ecumenical council without the bishop of Rome has no authority. You can’t get past that one. There cannot be a ecumenical council without the bishop of Rome.
The earlier Church and the fathers condemned Pope Honorius.
Papal infallibility did not happen until 1870 AD. If it were true, it would have been there in the first ecumenical council 325 AD. A pope of Rome endorsed this council. So on the authority of the pope at the time, the pope said the ecumenical council was the authority, not the pope. An ecumenical council is valid in and of itself, with or without any particular pope or Patriarch. The people of God have a place in the Church, and the Church as a whole has endorsed only 325-880 AD, 8 councils, as ecumenical. Rome has accepted 7 of these 8, 325-889 AD. Rome also accepted the 8th of these in 880 AD. Rome also contradicted Rome of 880 AD with Rome of 869-870 AD. If it depends upon Popes of Rome, how do you explain how popes of Rome endorsed a council it calls ecumenical in 869-870 AD which Rome endorses a council which it calls ecumenical in 879-880 which contradicts Rome’s earlier ecumenical council of 869-870 AD? How do you decide which Pope of Rome and which ecumenical council to accept, and which to reject?
scott,
Whatever you may say, the church fathers’ opinion weighs more than yours any day.
I have the evidence of the church fathers against universal papal authority and jurisdiction and for universal ecumenical councils authority and jurisdiction. The popes of Rome today are in schism from 8 ecumenical councils, 325-880 AD. Florence contradicts Constantinople 381 and Ephesus 431,
scott,
You may have whatever evidence you like. You have just seen that the church fathers say that a ecumenical council without the bishop of Rome is not an ecumenical council. You can go round and round all you like, it does not help you.
Water, Do you believe any one church father saying the Spirit eternally “proceeds from the Father and the Son” has more Christian authority than the Christian authority of an ecumenical council, the second ecumenical council, the first council of Constantinople, 381 AD, which said the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father”?
scott,
You show your protestant origins, taking some evidence and ignoring the rest.
St. Maximos the Confessor (c. A.D. 650) writes ….
“How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her Pontificate …..even as all these things all are equally subject to her (the church of Rome) according to sacerdotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
Likewise, St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) says ….
“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).
And, St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) says, writing to Pope
Leo III ….
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred.” (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)
…and ….
“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)
Also, during Photius’ own time, his Byzantine contempory St. Methodius, the brother of St. Cyril and Apostle to the Slavs (c. 865), clearly testifies to the belief that the authority of an Ecumenical Council depends on the authority of Rome:
“Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council.” (Methodius, in N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).
And we can of course multiply other examples. But, according to the ancestors of the modern Eastern Orthodox, the authority of the Bishop of Rome is superior to an Ecumenical Council, since it is only the Petrine authority of Rome that can ratify an Ecumenical Council.
Water You take some evidence and ignore the rest, so your ad hominem statement about Protestant roots is way out of line. God bless you. I’ll accept your apology. I have many faults, but being Protestant is not one of them anymore. You ignore Photius and Mark of Ephesus, and ignore the fact that the popes have endorsed Aquinas. You try to play it both ways, you accept Vatican I and papal infallibility, then you also say popes can err. Seems a bit contradictory. I mean no harm and sorry for my frank tone.
scott,
There again you show your ignorance, you have no clue what papal infallibility means.
Water, Show me in the early fathers that they spoke against Constantinople I, “proceeds from the Father”, and that they said what Aquinas said, name one early father who said, what Aquinas said, “The to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is necessary for salvation”. Did Augustine of Hippo say that? Did Ambrose or Milan, Jerome, or Cyril of Alexandria, or Athanasius say that? Surely John of Damascus and Basil the great and John Chrysostom did not say that.
scott,
St Thomas Aquinas does not speak for the church, so his word alone is not sufficient.
scott,
No one speaks against Constantinople I stating thet the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, as Principium or Cause, certainly not the Catholic church.
The “Catholic” Church speaks against Constantinople I every time a Catholic says “who proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Whoever is not for Christ’s words is against them and whoever adds “and the Son” to Christ’s words is against Christ’s words. I am not ashamed of Christ’s words, I am not ashamed of the Gospel, the Gospel is the power of salvation unto everyone who believes it. I am ashamed of “Filioque”, it is moral fratricide against the Catholic Church (Orthodox), and it is a hangover from the Franks and Charlemagne. Only an acceptance of the traditions of Christ and a repudiation of azymes will begin the heal the Frankish breach that Papal Rome has been since 1014 AD. Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII are with us and with Christ, and with the Catholic Church. These popes are truly Catholic. Charlemagne is not Catholic. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not Catholic because of Filioque. It is sad so many Catholics do not understand this and do not believe it. They still are blinded by the words of Aquinas in the work “CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM”. God save all.
scott,
You are starting to sound like a parrot, unable to comprehend.
Those words are ad hpminem and therefore invalid and illogical. Stick with the facts and refrain from making statements about me or yourself and stick with the truth. Filioque is error. Monopatrism is the truth. The defends given in the argument you give is repetition like a parrot for papal universality. Only the Church herself is universal and infallible and ecumenical. Pope of Rome Gregory I recognized this fact and spoke against the Patriarch of Constantinople being referred to as the Ecumenical Patriarch. In Orthodoxy, most Orthodox have a problem calling the Patriarch of Constantinople an Ecumenical Patriarch in view of this example of humility from Pope of Rome Gregory I the Great. Orthodoxy is not partisan nor invested in any one aspect of the Church, only the aspect of the earliest councils which are received by all as ecumenical. The nature of the later councils, whether they are ecumenical, is disputed by many.
scott,
Whether you like it or not Jesus gave his authority to Peter as leader of the apostles. If that does not fit with your history, it changes nothing. That is God’s will, and it will endure, as God’s will is not thwarted by men.
Whether you like it or not, in Matthew 16, Christ gave His authority to the faith of Peter, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God”. The Rock of which Christ spoke in Matthew 16 is Peter’s confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” whether you like that or not. Peter is therefore called a rock founded upon the Rock of Peter’s confession of faith “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Peter prevailed as a rock of the Church because of His faith in the Rock, Christ. The New Testament said “No other foundation” can be laid other than Christ Himself and faith in Him. All bishops in the Church are successors of Saint Peter, and no bishop is above the whole church, or above the other bishops. Peter is the spokesman for Christ with the other bishops of the Church. He is not the leader of the bishops; he is their fellow brother. The leader of the Church and the bishops is not Peter, but Christ, is the Holy Spirit. Bishops are all equal. Together as one Body of Christ, they lead the flock of Christ, the Catholic Church. No one is more Catholic than Peter, and Peter does not endorse Vatican I and its pretensions.
scott,
Nice try, but the church fathers do not agree with you.
Water, You appeal to the church fathers as the final authority that the pope of Rome is the leader of the Church. Then you say the pope of Rome is the final authority. Contradictory. My position is totally self-consistent: the final authority is the ecumenical councils, 325-880 AD, especially the councils of 381 and 431, which are the key to all of the councils.
scott,
The church fathers do not give authority to the bishop of Rome, they merely recognize that this is the case. The authority is from Jesus himself. Your position goes against what Jesus instituted. It is of no avail.
Peter was patriarch of Antioch before he was patriarch of Rome. In Peter’s authority, and primacy, therefore, Antioch from Peter also has Peter’s primacy and authority.
scott,
That is not in the church fathers, you just made it up.
Water said:
scott,
That is not in the church fathers, you just made it up.
Scott said:
Water, Those irrelevant words are made up and invented by you.
No church father I am aware of endorsed anything near what Vatican I said, what Pope Pius IX said, what Pope Pius X said, what Pope Leo III said, what Pope Pius XI said, what Pope Benedict XV said. Dollinger and Kung are correct; these other men are men and are wrong. Papism is a non-patristic tradition of men and was not endorsed by Peter, Paul, John, James, Andrew, or any of the Apostles, is not in the Didache, the Apostolic Fathers, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Basil, John Chrysostom, Augustine, or any of the other church fathers. Cyprian of Carthage knew nothing of papism.
scott,
You are all over the place, running from one thing to the other in your desperation.
That comment was total nonsense and illogical ad hominem diversion. There was no evidence given from the church fathers and the seven ecumenical councils 325-787 for Vatican I or the statements about the pope of these popes.
scott,
You should write a book: “How to turn your friends into enemies in five easy steps.”
Water: Why do you keep talking about me and making personal statements about me? Have you ever read Dale Carnegie: How to Win Friends and Influence people. The statements you have made have been filled with references to me personally, not Biblical arguments for an eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son, or any indication that you even care that Christ Himself nowhere in Scriptures says, “The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Me”. Certainly the LORD is honest and has revealed everything in John 15:26. (See John 16:13; cf. John 14:26). Is it possible to debate an issue without using any ad hominem statements about others while defending a doctrinal issue and Christian confession from the Scriptures and the Church fathers and the common ecumenical councils received as ecumenical by all, which at bare minimum is 7, 325-787? Remember what Carnegie said: To make a friend, do not tell anyone else “You are wrong”. From me, there is no statement where because I disagree with you about Filioque, I make any such statement about you on this. We agree to disagree on this. I believe Filioque is not Roman Catholic, and so do the Byzantine Catholics. (But we part company with them as Orthodox, for they hold some issues which do not accord with the catholicity of the earliest church fathers which does not include purgatory or azymes, or papal governance of the entire church).
scott,
I don’t particularly hold Carnegie in any kind of esteem.
Jesus does not hesitate to say to the rich young man “Do not defraud” (Mark), to the one man he asked to follow him “Let the dead bury the dead”, etc.
By the way, what disagreements do you have with the Byzantine Orthodox?
By the way, Water, Why did you make so many personal comments about me personally? Why did you not show from the church fathers you seem for some reason to think most of them supported Filioque where they showed the exact place in the Scriptures where our Lord Jesus Christ specifically says “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son”?
scott,
Read the article I gave you. Read my posts.
Water, I can read that article if you send link again. I apologize for not reading it. I delay. But you should not delay answering my questions: The church fathers are a better guide to the New Testament than later Christian writings. I am unaware of any Church Father saying, “The Lord Jesus Christ Himself in this passage of the New Testament directly says His own words “The Holy Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Since the Church Fathers are obedient to the Lord Christ Jesus and do not say anything that Christ does not say, you need to show your citations of the Fathers are accurate and you need to show from your own reading of the the New Testament words of Christ in red where Christ says “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. The common tradition of the Catholic Church has always agreed the Church says “proceeds from the Father”. Filioque is a later error and is not a word from the mouth of Christ Jesus.
scott,
It is all over the Latin fathers, and many of the Greek fathers in the sense of “through the son”. Do read the article and respond to the evidence it presents rather than merely re affirming your position.
The link is: “www.goarch.org/catholic/news/releases/articles/release8676.asp”
Water: I clicked on the Goarch link. It said “Page cannot be found”.
scott,
That’s what happens when you procrastinate.
But I did give you the wrong link last time, so I guess it’s both our fault. The link is: catholicbridge.com/orthodox/catholic-orthodox-filioque-father-son.php
Good luck this time.
Water, There is no such reality as “Byzantine”. There was never a “Byzantine empire”. Byzantium is an ancient name from the Eastern Roman empire. Constantinople became New Rome and the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. There was never any caesaropapism in the Eastern Roman Empire. Charlemagne exhibited caesaropapism. Starting with Pope Nicholas I, there was papocaesarism. There are no “Byzantine Orthodox”. I have no disagreement with the Orthodox. You mean “Byzantine Catholic”, and they are papist, not Catholic. Like the earlier popes, they do not say Filioque. My difference with them that as “Catholics” (sic) they must accept Lyons, Florence, Vatican I, which the Church founded by Christ rejects.
scott,
Sorry I misunderstood you. Obviously we differ.
On matters of love and ethics Catholics Orthodox and most Protestants are on the same ethical spiritual page. On matters of Triadology, doctrine of the Trinity, and epistemology & hermeneutics, and views of the Biblical theology, Catholics and Protestants are united against the Orthodox, and Catholics and Protestants promote religious rationalist skeptical individualism versus the Orthodox’s traditionalist fideist communitarian spirit and ethos.
scott,
What a pity to see the Body of Christ thus torn asunder. All Christians have a unique role to play in one united church, with “one faith, one baptism, one lord”.
Some Popes of Rome and Patriarchs of Constantinople have been Orthodox and Catholic, like Gregory I, Leo III, and John VIII, and Photios. Some Popes of Rome and Patriarchs of Constantinople have been heterodox and schismatic like Nicholas I, Boniface VIII, Innocent III, Eugene IV, Benedict VIII, Pius IX, and some of the Patriarchs of Constantinople have been heretics. Some of the Eastern Roman emperors have been heretics. The current EP Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew seems to be heterodox and schismatic and neo-papist. He is attempting to be a Pope of Orthodoxy, and Orthodoxy has no Pope. Only the Ecumenical Council is infallible; no Christian is infallible, only the Church is infallible in Peter, in Peter’s faith, and Vatican I and Filioque are not Peter’s faith. They are is schism from Saint Peter and the Catholic Church.
scott,
To each his own.
Water, You yourself wrote popes can err. Then you defend papal infallibility. How does one know when a pope is speaking infallibly, and when he is not? This applies not to popes alone, but to anyone. Anyone can have an infallible statement, and err in some other things. But Vatican I goes farther than this. And no church fathers have said of themselves what Pope Pius IX, Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius X, Pius XI, said of themselves. Their words some of them among to self-deification.
scott,
One day when you take the trouble to find out what papal infallibility means perhaps you will be able to talk about it sensibly.
Water said:
scott,
That is not in the church fathers, you just made it up.
You need to provide factual substantiation that I have made up or invented anything at all. You should not make dishonest accusations which you have not backed up with truth. And charity.
You allege Filioque in the Church Fathers, but show nowhere in the Fathers where any father said, “Jesus Christ in this verse of the Bible directly says the words “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”. You need to show the church fathers, the majority of them, did not believe and accept John 15:26. If John 15:26 is true, Filioque is false. If Filioque is true, John 15:26 is false.
scott,
There it is again: the old Protestant “either/or” dichotomy! If you don’t get past that way of thinking, you’ll never get to the truth.
It’s like saying “There is one God”, therefore if you say that there is a Father, a son and a Holy Spirit, you are saying there are three gods. With that kind of thinking, progress is not possible.
Your request “any father said, “Jesus Christ in this verse of the Bible directly says the words “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”. is like asking for a quote by Jesus saying that “the Holy Spirit is God”. It is just preposterous.
How many times must I tell you that we all agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father as his Source and Principium? You seem to be deaf other than to your own ideas expressed as you have come across them, any different line of understanding seems to be closed to you. Why is that?
Water. Straw man. You lack logic. You assume falsely my argument is Protestant because I appeal to Scripture. You already know I do not follow sola Scriptura. But all Christians of all traditions follow prima Scriptura, Scripture first, since all Christians use Scripture first. You yourself refer to one Scripture, Matthew 16, to justify the papacy. Should I assume you are a Protestant because your argument is based on one verse, just as my argument against Filioque is based on one verse. Again, if you followed both Scripture and tradition, Scripture and Photius, you would have no problem in seeing FIlioque is a mistake. It depends on which fathers you appeal to. The West uses Augustine as its main authority to interpret Scripture. It’s both Scripture and Constantinople I, 381 AD, and that is not Protestant. Your objection is spurious and illogical. Again, Orthodoxy is not Protestant when it says Scripture in John 15:26 is sufficient to solve the Filioque problem. Even as you seem to think Matthew 16 is sufficient to prove papal primacy for Rome. How do you explain Avignon, then? Saint Peter was not bishop of Avignon, but he was bishop of Rome. AND of Antioch.
scott,
What I am talking about is the “either/or” dichotomy. It has nothing to do with the primacy of scripture or the church fathers or the filioque.
Either the Filioque is true or it is false. It has nothing to do with Protestantism, but with reality,
We are not talking a temporal sending of the Spirit through the Son, something the Church confesses. Notice Christ did not send the Spirit until after He ascended. He said “I shall send you from the Father” the Spirit, talking about a future time. In time, He breathed on them, which is a temporal mission. Together with the Father, He sends the Spirit from the Father alone. The Westerners do not understand this or believe this. It is not true the Church does not understand papal infallibility. It is true there are only 7 common councils everyone does accept. Vatican I is not an ecumenical council. From the Orthodox perspective, as a matter of opinion, there are no ecumenical councils after 880 AD, though some traditions of Orthodoxy have a dogmatic necessity and other councils are accepted in necessary Orthodox tradition, as the councils defending St. Gregory Palamas’ theology and so on.
scott,
You keep repeating yourself.
Water, You keep repeating yourself in your failure to prove exactly why Filioque is either necessary or true. It seems you have nothing behind the belief. Exactly which doctrine are you defending, and what is your basis for believing it?
scott,
Try reading my previous posts.
Water: You still did not answer even one of my many questions, and you have not answered why Filioque is necessary to be believed if the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect and complete.
scott,
Your logic leads you astray.
Water.
That is not true.
Your words are not true.
You have been led astray by Filioque.
The Bible says “All we like sheep have gone astray, every one of us to their own way. But the LORD has laid upon Him [JESUS] the iniquity of us all”. We agree on that. My past was sinful. Since my conversion to Christ in Orthodoxy, I have sometimes sinned in thought, word, and deed, by what I have done, and by what I have left undone. But I am not heterodox. My doctrines are not false. My thinking on theology is not false. I am far from perfect. I do not know everything about Christ and theology. I have learned an important lesson from Christ from Photius and from Peter Gillquist. I owe my salvation to the Christ and His Church, and to their testimony. We all need to follow the light we have. There is still much in common between Rome and Constantinople. It is sad the body of Christ, the Church, has been sinned against by the papal Filioque.
scott,
You have made a great step forward by moving past Protestantism. I congratulate you on that. I cannot congratulate you however on your animosity against the Catholic church. You are called to love, not to hate, even your enemies.
I do not hate the Catholic Church. I am a member of the Catholic Church. I hate no one. I made no statements about you. You have made some personal statements about me. You say I am led astray. That may be your charity, but it is not true. One must follow the truth wherever it leads. I must have the courage to be Catholic. And that means Orthodox. Rome today with Filioque is still Frankish and is in captivity to the legacy of Charlemagne and the errors of clinging too tightly to Augustine, who, while a saved and holy father of the Catholic Church, made some doctrinal errors. No one of us is perfect. I hate error. Filioque is error. I do not want to suggest what Filioque suggests, that the Son is the father of the Spirit, making the Holy Spirit a grandson. It seems to me you hate the idea of reading and believing what Photius said. I wish for you to find the Gospel and accept this work, it is the Gospel, and I am not ashamed of the Gospel. God bless your life with love and truth and freedom and peace. God bless you Water. I am free in Christ from Charlemagne.
scott,
You drown in your own logic.
You keep talking about me. Instead of stating statements about Scripture which are true. Your approach is personal instead of objective and fact-based.
“THE SYNODICON ON THE HOLY SPIRIT”. To be read on the second day of Pentecost. “A confession and proclamation of the Orthodox piety of the Christians, in which all the impieties of the heretics are overthrown and the definitions of the Catholic Church of Christ are sustained. Through which the enemies of the Holy Spirit are severed from the Church of Christ”. [page 125.].
“THE ACCLAMATIONS”.
“TO those who confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, with no intermediary, just as the Son is begotten from the Father alone, with no intermediary, according to the testimony of God the Word Himself to His apostles at the season of His Passion for the salvation of the world when He said, “But when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, Who proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me”, [John 15:26] and to those who accept unaltered this divine testament of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, ETERNAL MEMORY”. [page 130.]. Saint Photios. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, trans. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers, Inc.].
scott,
Lack of understanding.
You lack basic understanding of John 15:26, Acts 2:33, Matthew 16, the papacy, Filioque, Constantinople I, Charlemagne, Church history, the New Testament, the Church Fathers, the ecumenical councils, Pope John VIII, Pope Leo III, Pope Gregory I, Pope Nicholas I, the false councils of Vatican I, Florence, Lyrons. Doctrine does not develop. Truth does not change. The Church does not change. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
scott,
Jesus is the head of the church. He is with the church till the end of time. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. Jesus established the primacy of Peter for all time, not just for a millenium.
Oct 19, 2011
#1
Dear NiceneChristian: Can you please comment on the following words from Thomas Aquinas from and Eastern Orthodox Christian perspective. Please comment on his use of St. Athanasius the Great and of St. Cyril (he doesn’t say whether this is Cyril of Jerusalem or Cyril of Alexandria). He also cites Epiphanius. The Latinists (papist) sometimes falsely appeal to the Greek and Latin Church Fathers in support of their errors (heresies). Thank you kindly. Sincerely, In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington
“CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM by Thomas Aquinas, O.P., translated by Peter Damian Fehlner, F.I.
http:// dhspriory.com/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm
Part Two Chapter 31. That to believe the Holy Spirit is from the Son is necessary for salvation.
“It frequently happens that when disputants disagree, the points on which they disagree are not necessary for salvation. Lest anyone think that believing the Holy Spirit to be from the Son is not necessary to the faith by which we are saved, it should be shown from the texts of the Greek Doctors that such is necessary for faith and salvation.
“For Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: “In accord with the command of the Apostle (Titus 3:10): After a first and second correction, avoid a heretic, even those you might see flying through the air with Elijah or walking dryshod on the water like Peter and Moses; unless they profess that the Holy Spirit is naturally existing from God the Son, as the son also is naturally God begotten eternally and existing of God and Father; you are not to receive them.” And again: “Have no communion with those who blaspheme and deny that the Holy Spirit is God from the nature of God the Son.”
“Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.” So too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”
“It is, therefore, clear that in no way are they to be tolerated who deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
Chapter 32. That the Roman Pontiff is the first and greatest among all bishops.”
“The error of those who say that the Vicar of Christ, the Pontiff of the Roman Church, does not have a primacy over the universal Church is similar to the error of those who say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. ….”
God save us in Christ Jesus: Amen. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington October 6/19, 2011 AD
scott,
I’ll leave more learned people to answer this.
John S. Romanides. Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine: An Interplay of Theology and Society.
The Theological Background
At the foundation of the Filioque controversy between Franks and Romans lie essential differences in theological method, theological subject matter, spirituality, and therefore, also in the understanding of the very nature of doctrine and of the development of the language or of terms in which doctrine is expressed. Of all the aspects dealt with in my published works, I will single out the following as necessary to an elemental understanding of the Roman attitudes to Frankish pretensions on the Filioque. Although we have named the second part of this paper “The Theological Background,” we are still speaking about theology within historical perspective, and not abstractly with extra contextual references to the Bible.
When reading through Smaragdus’ minutes of the meeting between Charlemagne’s emissaries and Pope Leo III, one is struck not only by the fact that the Franks had so audaciously added the Filioque to the Creed and made it into a dogma, but also by the haughty manner in which they so authoritatively announced that the Filioque was necessary for salvation, and that it was an improvement of an already good, but not complete, doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit. This was in answer to Leo’s strong hint at Frankish audacity. Leo, in turn, warned that when one attempts to improve what is good he should first be sure that in trying to improve he is not corrupting. He emphasizes that he cannot put himself in a position higher than the Fathers of the Synods, who did not omit the Filioque out of oversight or ignorance, but by divine inspiration.
The question arises, “Where in the world did the newly born Frankish theological tradition get the idea that the Filioque is an improvement of the Creed, and that it was omitted from creedal expression because of oversight or ignorance on the part of the Fathers of the Synod?” Since Augustine is the only representative of Roman theology that the Franks were more or less fully acquainted with, one must turn to the Bishop of Hippo for a possible answer.
I think I have found the answer in Saint Augustine’s lecture delivered to the assembly of African bishops in 393. Augustine had been asked to deliver a lecture on the Creed, which he did. Later he reworked the lecture and published it. I do not see why the Creed expounded is not that of Nicaea-Constantinople, since the outline of Augustine’s discourse, and the Creed are the same. Twelve years had passed since its acceptance by the Second Ecumenical Synod and, if ever, this was the opportune time for assembled bishops to learn of the new, official, imperially approved creed. The bishops certainly knew their own local Creed and did not require lessons on that.
In any case, Augustine makes three basic blunders in this discourse and died many years later without ever realizing his mistakes, which were to lead the Franks and the whole of their Germanic Latin Christendom into a repetition of those same mistakes.
In his De Fide et Symbolo, Augustine makes an unbelievable naive and inaccurate statement: “With respect to the Holy Spirit, however, there has not been, on the part or learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures, a fuller careful enough discussion of the subject to make it possible for us to obtain an intelligent conception of what also constitutes His special individuality (proprium).”
Everyone at the Second Ecumenical Synod knew well that this question was settled once and for all by the use in the Creed of the word “procession” as meaning the manner of existence of the Holy Spirit from the Father which constitutes His special individuality. Thus, the Father is unbegotten, i.e. derives His existence from no one. The Son is from the Father by generation. The Holy Spirit is from the Father, not by generation, but by procession. The Father is cause, the son and the Spirit are caused. The difference between the ones caused is the one is caused by generation, and the other by procession, and not by generation.
In any case, Augustine spent many years trying to solve this non-existent problem concerning the individuality of the Holy Spirit and, because of another set of mistakes in his understanding of revelation and theological method, came up with the Filioque.
It is no wonder that the Franks, believing that Augustine had solved a theological problem which the other Roman Fathers had supposedly failed to grapple with and solve came to the conclusion that they uncovered a theologian far superior to all other Fathers. In him the Franks had a theologian far superior to all other Fathers. In him the Franks had a theologian who improved upon the teaching of the Second Ecumenical Synod.
A second set of blunders made by Augustine in this same discourse is that he identified the Holy Spirit with the divinity “which the Greeks designate qeothV, and explained that this is the “love between the Father and the Son.”
Augustine is aware of the fact that “those parties oppose this opinion who think that the said communion, which we call either Godhead, or Love, or Charity, is not a substance. Moreover, they require the Holy Spirit to be set forth to them according to substance; neither do they take forth to them according to substance; neither do they take it to have been otherwise impossible for the expression `God is Love’ to have been used, unless love were a substance.”
It is obvious that Augustine did not at all understand what the East Roman Fathers, such as Saint Gregory Nyssa, Saint Gregory the Theologian, and Saint Basil the Great, were talking about. On the one hand, they reject the idea that the Holy Spirit can be the common energies of the Father and Son known as qeothV and love since these are not an essence or an hypostasis, whereas the Holy Spirit is an hypostasis. Indeed, the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Synod required that the Holy Spirit not be identified with any common energy of the Father and Son, but they did not identify the Holy Spirit with the common essence of the Father and Son either.
The Holy Spirit is an individual hypostasis with individual characteristics or properties not shared by other hypostases, but He does share fully everything the Father and Son have in common, to wit, the divine essence and all uncreated energies and powers. The Holy Spirit is an individuality who is not what is common between the Father and Son, but has in common everything the Father and Son have in common.
All his life, Augustine rejected the distinction between what the persons are and what they have (even though this is a Biblical distinction) and identified what God is with what He has. He not only never understood the distinction between 1.) the common essence and energies of the Holy Trinity and 2.) the incommunicable individualities of the diving hypostases; but completely failed to grasp the very existence of the difference between a.) the common divine essence and b.) the common divine love and divinity. He himself admits that he does not understand why a distinction is made in the Greek language between ousia and upostaseiV in God. Nevertheless, he insisted that his distinctions must be accepted as a matter of faith and rendered in Latin as una essentia and tes substantiae. (De Trinitate, 5.8.10;7.4-6)
It is clear that St. Augustine accepted the most important aspect of the Trinitarian terminology of the cappadocian Fathers and the Second Ecumenical Synod.
However, not aware of the teaching of such Fathers, like Basil and the two Gregories mentioned, who do not identify the common qeothV and the agaph of the Trinity with the common divine essence of the Trinity, Augustine has the following peculiar remarks:
“But men like these should make their heart pure, so far as they can, in order that they may have power to see that in the substance of God there is not anything of such a nature as would imply that therein substance is one thing, and that which is accident to substance (aliud quod accidat substantia) another thing, and not substance; whereas whatsoever can be taken to be taken therein is substance.”
Once these foundations are laid, then the Holy Spirit as that which is common to the Father and Son exists by reason of the Father and Son. Thus, there can be no distinction between the Father and Son sending the Holy Spirit, and the Father causing the existence of the Holy Spirit. What God is by nature, how the three hypostases exist by nature, and what God does by will, become confused. Thus, it is a fact that for Augustine both generation and procession end up being confused with the divine powers and energies and, thereby, also end up meaning the same thing. The Filioque thus is an absolute necessity in order to salvage something of the individuality of the Holy Spirit. God, then, is from no one. The Son is from one. The Holy Spirit must be from two. Otherwise, since generation and procession are the same, there would be no difference between the Spirit and the Son since they would both be from one.
The third and most disturbing blunder in Augustine’s approach to the question before us is that his theological method is not only pure speculation on what one accepts by faith (for the purpose of intellectually understanding as much as one’s reason allows by either illumination or ecstatic intuition), but it is a speculation which is transferred from the individual speculating believer to a speculating church, which, like an individual, understands the dogmas better with the passage of time.
Thus, the Church awaits a discussion about the Holy Spirit “Full enough or careful enough to make it possible for us to obtain an intelligent conception of what also constitutes His special individuality (proprium)…”
The most amazing thing is the fact that Augustine begins with seeking out the individual properties of the Holy Spirit and immediately reduces Him to what is common to the Father and Son. However, in his later additions to his De Trinitate, he insists that the Holy Spirit is an individual substance of the Holy Trinity completely equal to the other two substances and possessing the same essence as we saw.
In any case, the Augustinian idea that the Church herself goes through a process of attaining a deeper and better understanding of her dogmas or teachings was made the very basis of the Frankish propaganda that the Filioque is a deeper and better understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, adding it to the Creed is an improvement upon the faith of the Romans who had allowed themselves to become lazy and slothful on such an important matter. This, of course, raises the whole question concerning the relationship between revelation and verbal and iconic or symbolic expressions of revelation.
For Augustine, there is no distinction between revelation and conceptual intuition of revelation. Whether revelation is given directly to human reason, or to human reason by means of creatures, or created symbols, it is always the human intellect itself which is being illumined or given vision to. the vision of god itself is an intellectual experience, even though above the powers of reason without appropriate grace.
Within such a context, every revelation is a revelation of concepts which can be searched out by reason for a fuller and better understanding. Suffice it that faith and the acceptance of dogmas by virtue of the authority of the Church always forms the starting point. What cannot now be fully understood by reason based on faith will be fully understood in the next life. “And inasmuch as, being reconciled and called back into friendship through love, we shall be able to become acquainted with all the secret things of God, for this reason it is said of the Holy Spirit that “He shall lead you into all truth.” What Augustine means by such language is made very clear by what he says elsewhere, “I will not be slow to search out the substance of God, whether through His scripture or through the creature.”
Such material in the hands of the Franks transformed the purpose of theology into a study or searching out of the divine substance and, in this respect, the scholastic tradition far surpassed the tradition of the Roman Fathers who consistently taught that not only man, but even the angels, neither know, nor will ever know, the divine essence which is known only to the Holy Trinity.
Both Orthodox and Arians fully agreed with the inherited tradition that only God knows His own essence. This means that He who knows the divine nature is himself God by nature, Thus, in order to prove that the Logos is a creature, the Arians argued that the Logos does not know the essence of the Father. The Orthodox argued that the Logos does know the essence of the Father and, therefore, is uncreated. The Eunomians threw a monkey wrench into the agreed rules for proving points with their shocking claim that, not only does the Logos know the essence of God, but man also can know this essence. Therefore, the Logos does not have to be uncreated because He knows this essence.
Against the Arian and Orthodox position that creatures cannot know the divine uncreated essence, but may know the uncreated energy of God in its multiple manifestations, the Eunomians argued that the diving essence and uncreated energy are identical, so that to know the one is to know the other.
Strangely, Augustine adopted the Eunomian positions on these questions. Therefore, when the Franks appeared in the East with these positions they were accused of being Eunomians.
In contrast to this Augustinian approach to language and concepts concerning God, we have the Patristic position expressed by Saint Gregory the Theologian against the Eunomians. Plato had claimed that it is difficult to conceive of God but, to define Him in words is an impossibility. Saint Gregory disagrees with this and emphasizes that “it is impossible to express Him, and yet, more impossible to conceive Him. For that which may be conceived may perhaps be made clear by language, if not fairly well, at any rate imperfectly…”
The most important element in Patristic epistemology is that the partial knowability of the divine actions or energies, and the absolute and radical unknowability and incommunicability of the divine essence is not a result of the philosophical or theological speculation, as it is in Paul of Samosata, Arianism, and Nestorianism, but of the personal experience of revelation or participation in the uncreated glory of God by means of vision or theoria. Saint Gregory defines a theologian as one who has reached this theoria by means of purification and illumination, and not by means of dialectical speculation. Thus, the authority for Christian truth is not the written words of the Bible, which cannot in themselves either express God, but rather the individual apostle, prophet, or saint who is glorified in God.
Thus, the Bible, the writings of the Fathers, and the decisions of Synods are not revelation, but about revelation. Revelation itself transcends words and concepts, although it inspires those participating in divine glory to accurately express what is inexpressible in words and concepts. Suffice it that under the guidance of the saints, who know by experience, the faithful should know that God is not to be identified with Biblical words and concepts which point to Him, albeit infallibly.
scott,
There is no difference between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit but that the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, and the Holy Spirit processes, and what those qualities entail. In every other way they are equal in God.
ChristianChat.com
Scotth1960
Senior Member
Feb 2, 2011
4,060
6
0
May 27, 2011
#1
“The teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque) appears before the fifth century. One may not infer, however, that it was then normative or universal. Although speculation about the Holy Spirit was undertaken by such Hellenizers as Origen, Macedonios, and Victorinus, the source of the doctrine espoused by modern Christians was Augustine of Hippo (359-431). Contentions that the filioque has Biblical foundations have yet to be established. (1)”.
(page 6: “Saint Photios and the Filioque”, by Michael Azkoul, Edited by James Graves. In: Saint Photios. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers.).
Note 1. “We must not say anything about God we do not find
in Scripture either in word or in sense,” Thomas Aquinas believed. “Nowhere do we find it stated explicitly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but we discover it in the sense above in John, where the Son, speaking of the Holy Spirit, says, He will glorify me, because He will receive of mine” (John 16:14)…” (Summa Theologiae, I, q. 36, a. 2). Thomas’ arguments were largely based upon the Libri Carolini and ultimately Augustine. Photios’ treatment of such Scriptural passages is found, among other places, in the Mystagogy, 20-24. Of course, the locus classicus in the New Testament for the doctrine of the single procession of the Spirit is John 15:26, “But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, Who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me….”.
God bless us and save us in the precious holy blood of Christ
Jesus our LORD GOD and Saviour; Amen and Amen. In Erie PA USA May 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington
Scotth1960
Senior Member
Feb 2, 2011
4,060
6
0
May 29, 2011
#2
Dear friends, This article “Saint Photios and the Filioque”, by Rev. Fr. Michael Azkoul (Page 4), also says: “In 1948, the Roman Catholic scholar Francis Dvornik published the definitive “The Photian Schism” which once and for all discredited the notion that St. Photios was the author of the ninth century breach between East and West; by attempting to prove that Photios was a believer in the embryonic papal pretentions, Dvornik necessarily dispels the image of him as “wordly, crafty and unscrupulous.”
(Encyclopeida Britannica, Vol. 21 (New York: 1911), p. 483.). Another scholar, P.C. Heath, asserted that Photios did not cause the schism and that “the East should no longer be accused in our text books by the use of the term “Eastern schism”.” Blaming the popes and the Franks, Heath concludes that “in 1054, it was the Western Schism that became final.” (“The Western Schism of the Franks and the “Filioque”), Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XXIII, 2 (1973), p. 113.). God save us. In Erie PA USA May 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington PS God save us; Amen.
Scotth1960 said:
“The teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque) appears before the fifth century. One may not infer, however, that it was then normative or universal. Although speculation about the Holy Spirit was undertaken by such Hellenizers as Origen, Macedonios, and Victorinus, the source of the doctrine espoused by modern Christians was Augustine of Hippo (359-431). Contentions that the filioque has Biblical foundations have yet to be established. (1)”.
(page 6: “Saint Photios and the Filioque”, by Michael Azkoul, Edited by James Graves. In: Saint Photios. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers.).
Note 1. “We must not say anything about God we do not find
in Scripture either in word or in sense,” Thomas Aquinas believed. “Nowhere do we find it stated explicitly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but we discover it in the sense above in John, where the Son, speaking of the Holy Spirit, says, He will glorify me, because He will receive of mine” (John 16:14)…” (Summa Theologiae, I, q. 36, a. 2). Thomas’ arguments were largely based upon the Libri Carolini and ultimately Augustine. Photios’ treatment of such Scriptural passages is found, among other places, in the Mystagogy, 20-24. Of course, the locus classicus in the New Testament for the doctrine of the single procession of the Spirit is John 15:26, “But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, Who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me….”.
God bless us and save us in the precious holy blood of Christ
Jesus our LORD GOD and Saviour; Amen and Amen. In Erie PA USA May 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington
scott,
Changes nothing.
Filioque changes everything.
Filioque is the “wild animal and fox” source of every heresy of Catholicism & Protestantism.
scott,
From your perspective.
From your perspective, papal infallibility is the gospel, but popes can err. “Non sequitur. Your facts are non-coordinated”. (Star Trek: Classic. “The Changeling”). From the Perspective of the New Testament, the Holy Spirit speaks not to or through Peter alone, but to the whole body of the Apostles, with Peter as their spokesman, but speaking for the belief of all the apostles, and with them, not as their prince or leader, but as their colleague and brother, with the Holy Spirit doing the leading of all. Acts 15. Thus the councils of the Church are the infallibility of the Church, not the chair of Peter, but the faith of Peter and of all of the saints (Jude 1:3), Peter with the bishops and apostles, Peter as first among equals, but not a Magisterium of Peter, but rather a Petrine ministry, along with a Matthean, Marcan, Lucan, Johannine, Jacobian, Judan, Pauline, Andrean, the ministry of all the apostles and Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, the 70 and others.
scott,
That is a partisan understanding of scripture.
First, papal infallibility is not “the gospel”. It is a small part of the gospel.
A council is infallible when the bishops of the church meet in council and makes statements which are meant to be infallible, together with the bishop of Rome.
The pope, similarly, is infallible when he speaks to the whole church with the intention of teaching infallibly on a matter of faith, usually in consultation with the bishops.
There are a few things that distinguish Peter from the other apostles. Peter is mentioned 195 times in the new testament, John 26 times, James 24 times.
Jesus addresses Peter by name, initiating the conversation, twelve times, on six occasions. Only Judas is addressed by name, once, in the garden, Jesus initiating the conversation.
Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom to Peter alone, to Peter alone does Jesus say that he will build the church on the “rock” of Peter.
Read Isaiah 22 regarding the “keys of David, given by God to the Davidic prime minister, who had power to bind and loose when the king was away, and ruled the kingdom in his absence, a foreshadowing of the Petrine ministry and primacy.
Reflect on these things.
Water: First you say Christ gives the keys to the kingdom to Peter alone. Then you say He gives the keys of the kingdom to the popes. Which of these do you follow? Your words contradict each other.
scott,
1 Cor 13:11 “11 When I was a child, I used to talk like a child, and see things as a child does, and think like a child; but now that I have become an adult, I have finished with all childish ways.”
Follow Paul. Or is your mind so blinkered that you cannot grasp anything but the most literal sense of words?
Grow up.
Quote part of 1 Cor. 13 (out of context) with a condescending adult attitude toward me, leave out 1 Cor. 13:13 and Paul’s rule to be “speaking the truth with love” and exhibit a pattern of choosing to talk about me personally rather than addressing doctrines objectively, make this personal, and make many statements directed at me, and don’t listen to or respond logically and doctrinally to what I have been saying to you. You do have a half-point, half-truth. It’s partially a mater of one’s perspective. We all “know in part and prophesy in part” as Paul himself noted. None of us knows the Bible or the fathers perfectly, at least I can’t say I know them better, or not as much as, you know. I don’t know how much I know; you don’t know how much I know. To find out more about each other and to dialogue charitably with each other, this is what Christian faith for everyone is supposed to be about. God bless you brother.
scott,
That is better. But don’t forget that Jesus is not shy to tell people off when he has reason to. For example in Mark 8:14-21 “14 Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. 15* And he cautioned them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” * 16 And they discussed it with one another, saying, “We have no bread.” 17* And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, (1)”Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? (2) Do you not yet perceive or understand? (3) Are your hearts hardened? 18 (4) Having eyes do you not see, and (5) having ears do you not hear? (6)And do you not remember? 19* When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” 20* “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” 21 And he said to them, (7) “Do you not yet understand?”
And Paul in Gal 3:1, 3 “1 You stupid people in Galatia! After you have had a clear picture of Jesus Christ crucified, right in front of your eyes, who has put a spell on you?
3 Having begun in the Spirit, can you be so stupid as to end in the flesh?
I’m not at all quite certain in any way what your point is, or why in particular you are quoting those particular scriptures to me, but, as for me, I have lived a long time, some 58 years, suns and moons, days and nights, and I have made quite a few bad mistakes, and some serious sins and misdeeds, but have learned and experience God and His greater love and mercy for all of us sinners, and we don’t deserve all of the mercy he shows all of us, favoring no man over an other, but being kind to all men (2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tm. 2:4 and saving those who believe John 3:16, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38-39). It seems pertinent to me, now matter how religious we at all seem to be, no matter that we debate doctrines and traditions and Scripture, the truth to the backbone of the Bible comes down to this old song, John Michael Talbot, circa 1978-1981, “Sometimes, in the cool of the evening, the truth comes like a lover through the wind. Sometimes, when my thoughts have gone misleading, she’ll ask that same old question once again. But would you crucify Him? Now would you crucify Him, talking about the sweet LORD Jesus, if He’d walk right now among you once again. She’s asking how many times, have you quoted from your Bible, to justify your eye for your eye and your tooth for your tooth? She’s asking how many times, have you looked down to the harlot, looking through her tears, pretending you don’t know. For once you were just like her; how can you be now so self-righteous? When in the name of the LORD you throw the first stone? Somehow I think they’d crucify Him, I think they’d crucify Him, if He walked right now among us once again”. I think we all like sheep have gone quite astray. Because of our many sins, and we find it easier to justify ourselves the way we quote Bible verses (sometimes out of context) left and right to each other, even at each other, to prove a point (pointless point?),, we all need hope, love, and each other, and we all are in need of a closer walk with our common LORD and Saviour JESUS. Who has so loved us all, equally (John 3:16).
Beautiful scott, I think that unless we come to God through compassion, we do not come to God at all.
My point though was that we need to be able to take correction from each other.
I think we need leave correction to God, but we need to speak truth and that will take care of correction. If a man’s doctrines are heresies, we need to point that out in the spirit of love and peace. Filioque is one such doctrine. It remains uncorrected at Rome. Rome once did not have this problem. I once had many problems. The Orthodox Church corrected me.
scott,
“we need to point that out in the spirit of love and peace. “. I like that.
Ranting and raving about Charlemagne, Franks, heresies, etc, is not ” in the spirit of love and peace.”
Calling my sincere faithful rational and honest beliefs about Charlemagne and the Franks “ranting” and “raving” is not in the spirit of truth, peace, and love.
scott,
Read your posts.
Water.
“Scott. From your perspective”.
That implies a subjective criterion of truth and judgment. It’s all a matter of personal perspective and individual judgment. Anyone else’s statements cannot be verified or believed, and dismissing them can be a priori dismissed with a prejudicial “that’s JUST YOUR perspective”.
No objective truth.
No consensus that “2 plus 2 always equals 4”, whether one believes it or not.
Christ is risen.
It’s an objective fact of history.
It does not depend upon anyone’s perspective.
The Christian faith is based on the objective historical existence and experience, with many valid witnesses, to Christ and His words in human history.
If Christ is not risen, faith is vain.
scott,
I can’t agree more with that. We differ on whose understanding is right.
Water, Some sometimes say there are often 2 differing 2 main groups, sub-groups, within every religious tradition, more liberal, left, and more conservative, right; but I think that this is an over simplification. But it is a trend. There are these sub groups, I feel, in Lutherans, ELCA liberal LCMS conservative among Catholics, and in Judaism, Jews, Reformed, Orthodox, and Conservative, that is sort of 3 main Jewish groups, and among the right conservative Jews, there is modern Orthodox, and traditional Orthodox. In Eastern Orthodoxy, this is sort of true, too, there are ecumenist Orthodox, more liberals, and old calendarist traditionalist Orthodox, conservatives. I think there are those in the middle in my parish, we are in the middle, but tending toward the right, open to ancient traditions, but not afraid of modernity. We are certainly not afraid of science or (so-called) “progress” or change, although our doctrines and our faith does not change.
Two Catholic Churches – I’m Staying With One
October 11, 2018 by rebeccaweiss
49 Comments
PATHEOS. Open Catholis or Exclusivist Catholics. A View of Rebecca Weiss.
While we pray with our Saviour God Christ Jesus John 17 for the restoration of the Patriarch of the West of Old Rome with the Unity of the Undivided Catholic Church, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem (and Moscow, Romania, Ukraine, etc. as well), we know the Saviour is able to deliver Rome from the Frankish fox Filioque of Charlemagne, the misguidance (well-intentioned against Arianism) of Reccared, Toledo III, 589 AD, and the vain speculations of Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Lombard, Alcuin of York, Ratramnus of Corbie, and others on Filioque, we know the Holy Spirit is ready to forgive those who have once said Filioque against Him, the Holy Spirit. May God forgive me for having said Filioque; it is up to Him. I mean no blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; I was ignorant uninformed, not knowing the Scriptures (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), nor the power of God (Holy Spirit in the traditions, the Fathers, Photios, Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus, Basil, John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor, etc.).
In every soul who is Christian, there lies the same fault line between Light and darkness, Good and evil, Truth and errors, Orthodoxy and heterodoxy, Catholicity and sectarianism, Unity and schisms, International unity and nationalism, Knowledge of Scripture and the Fathers/Traditions and Ecumenical Councils, and Ignorance.
When they repent, the West can be forgiven by the Holy Spirit for their errors of Rome, against Photius, 869-870, Lyons, Florence, Vatican I, Vatican II, Immaculate conception, Purgatory, communion in one kind with azymes (no wine, no blood of Christ), indulgences, and any other errors if they repent.
Even as I have been forgiven for Lutheranism, schism, Pentecostalism, false beliefs of charismaticism (I had believed in glossolalia as the Assemblies of God taught me; now I manifest it against my own mind and will and heart, and consider myself with a mental illness, anxiety prone, worried about torment, still insecure in myself; while this pattern of the fallen flesh has remained with me after baptism, I consider and hope in the mercy of God, Who loves me still, though I babble without any faith in what my mouth is doing in this inexplicable glossolalia that I want not).
I repented of pretribulation rapture and dispensationalism when more Reformed amillennial writers pointed out the common amillennialism of the whole Catholic Church (East and West), Augustine, and all of the later Greek Fathers, Chrysostom, etc., I repented of Lutheranism, Sola fide, Sola Scriptura, Filioque, Protestantism, fundamentalism: I am more open to development of doctrine when it comes to the unsolved mystery of creation versus evolution; I feel the age of the earth is problematic, but likely to be much older than a strict fundamentalism, but fundamentalist Darwinism also an error, and man created from the earth by God, divine intervention, and not evolution from non-human animal species.
I had a pattern of sexual and moral impropriety that Christ forgave.
I had tended some sense of depression, but in Christ I hold onto Christ Himself and therefore His hope is in me, inspite of my weakened medical condition and illness. As Hans noted, I have been on stronger medication. I am not ashamed of this. I am only things I feel shame for is the past immorality and false speaking I did in the past. But Christ has rescued me and I praise Him.
In all, there is Orthodox Catholic Christology, and heterodoxy, false views of Christology.
See then, for example, if you are interested:
ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHRISTOLOGY.
Saint Cyril of Alexandria. (1995). ON THE UNITY OF CHRIST. John Anthony McGuckin, translator. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
MODERNIST HERETICAL CHRISTOLOGY:
Thiering, Barbara. (1992). Jesus The Man: A New Interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls. London, England, UK: Corgi Books/Penguin Books International/ cf. New York, NY USA.
GOD SAVE US ALL. AMEN.
Scott R. Harrington Erie PA October 2018. Take care. God be with you and help you find all of the truth. Amen.
THe glossalia is concerning and this might be something related to actual mental illness instead of something spiritual, so I will pray for you about this. We all have different crosses to bear, brother. Mine are pride and anger. I have found this cartoon on that topic pretty uplifting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP0J2eDPIjU
scott,
This part of the prayer will do for me: “we pray with our Saviour God Christ Jesus John 17 for the restoration of the Patriarch of the West of Old Rome with the Unity of the Undivided Catholic Church, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem (and Moscow, Romania, Ukraine, etc. as well)”
Trinities Theories about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
December 22, 2013
why I am not a Thomist 2 – the possibility of a non-simple Source
short-busLast time I sketched out the broad, old, deep case for the Christian God being a being. This time, I want to explain where and why I get off the Thomist metaphysical bus before it reaches its destination. The Thomist project looks something like this. (I know this is oversimplified; I don’t think it matters for the subjects before us though. Correct me in the comments if I’m wrong.)
There must be an explanation for why there there are any beings at all.
This explanation is not provided by the cosmos itself or by any part of it.
Therefore, this explanation must be provided by one or more sources, as it were, “outside” the cosmos.
This outside-the-cosmos explanation-provider must be utterly simple.
Therefore, it is one source, not many. (4)
Therefore, this source’s being must be the same as its essence. (4)
Therefore, as all human terms are suited primarily to apply to things which aren’t utterly simple, any human term which truly applies to this source will do so in a sense which isn’t the same as, but is somewhat like the sense in which it applies to composite things. (4)
I have no objection to 1-3; I believe in God.
Notice how much weight 4 bears. 5-7 (and other doctrines about God that I’ve left out) are derived from 4, from the claim that the source of the cosmos must be utterly simple. That is, not only does it have no parts, but it has no distinguishable properties, aspects, facets, modes, or if you like, metaphysical ingredients. In this post, I will explain why I think the case for 4 is less than compelling.
morgan-freeman as GodSuppose one believed in a material and anthropomorphic God, a being made of matter, but some special kind of matter – not the kind which composes the cosmos. This God would literally have parts – e.g., a head and a torso. Could he provide an explanation for why there is anything at all?
Let us suppose that this material God existed necessarily. Still, it would seem that he’s not qualified to be the ultimate source of everything else. Why?
He has parts. We’ve stipulated that he’s necessary, so he’s always had them – they were never assembled together. Still, you may think, he exists because of his parts – because they exist and are ordered so as to compose him. Any given proper part is not him, but something else, though a part of him. But the point is that he exists because of other things, namely, his parts.
Some will be tempted to think it’s enough that this God is necessary – that he exists no matter what, or “in all possible worlds.” But it is conceivable that there should be many necessary beings, and that some should exist because of others. So if we want an ultimate explanation of why there is anything, the source must not only be necessary, but also independent – that is, not necessary because of another. It must be a se.
In all of this, the Thomist and I agree. I agree that an ultimate source can’t have parts. He’re where, it seems to me, things go wrong.
The Thomist thinks that if this source had in it any multiplicity of any kind, then it would not be indepenedent. Why? Realism about universals.
What if God is both wise and powerful? The believer in properties says this means that God has the property of wisdom, and the property of power. The realist about universals says this means that God “participates in” on “instantiates” the universals wisdom and power. The Aristotelian about universals also thinks of them as in the things, and so as something like a parts, components, or ingredients of things. So, if God has distinct properties, then he has something like parts – or in any case, he has his essential properties because of other things – because of, in this case, the universals wisdom and power. He isn’t, then, independent, as his existence depends on these other things. The only way out, the Thomist says, is to deny that God has any distinct properties – and that there are distinctions of any kind in God. That’s the traditional theory of divine simplicity.
But it’s not clear that is the only way out.
Some monotheistic fans of abstracta such as universals will say that aseity only requires that God not depend on any other concrete beings. This will leave God as the Greatest Possible Being. Are abstracta also necessary and a se? They can reply: so what? That doesn’t put them at all in God’s league, as he’s also omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and so on. Abstracta are powerless shadows by comparison.
Must we think that God is the free creator of all else? The present theory rules out that. But arguably, the biblical and traditional requirement is that God alone made the heavens and the earth. As to things which couldn’t possibly be created (abstracta), it’s no deficiency in God if he didn’t create them.
Realists who aren’t Aristotelians about universals will say that it is simply a mistake to think of a thing’s properties as parts or components of it. Parts are parts. But having properties, they think, is bearing a unique relation to some universal. A partless being, they will urge, may bear such a relation to countless universals. God does that, and because he has the properties (yes, plural) that he does, he’s the greatest being there could be.
Others will move the realm of abstracta inside God himeslf. He doesn’t depend, they will urge, on anything outside himself. Does this work? I doubt it. But it is a view with a long history, and can be developed in various ways, and some smart people still hold versions of it. God will be the ultimate source of all other things, either by free creation, or by… whatever relation he bears to the abstracta.
For my part, I don’t believe in abstracta. For non-theological reasons, I think that positing them introduces at least as many problems as it solves. I do believe things are similar, and I do believe in something like what philosophers now call individual properties – but I don’t grant that they are second-class substances. I think they’re just ways substances are, or modes of them.
God exists, and is wise and powerful. This means, roughly, that he knows a lot about important matters, and that he can intentionally do a wide range of actions. (Those are vague terms, expressing vague concepts.) There’s no need, in my view, to suppose this means God is essentially related to distinct, eternal “universals” of wisdom and power – be they parts of his, or denizens of the proverbial “Platonic heaven.” What thing(s) make(s) it true that God is wise and powerful? God – that’s all.
But isn’t his wisdom distinct from his power? Yes, those are distinct (and essential) aspects of God. They are ways he is, and ways he must be. Does this mean he has parts? No. But is he then, as Thomists would have it, utterly simple? No – his wisdom is a different intrinsic mode or aspect of him than his power. But he doesn’t have parts – modes aren’t things, but only ways things are, and so are not parts.
On any of these alternate views, including my nominalist view at the end, God will be a being. But he’ll also be necessary and independent of any other (concrete) being.
Is such a being qualified to provide an explanation for why there are any beings? It seems to me, yes. Why does he exist? Because he’s independent and necessary – to realize that, is to realize why he exists. Why then do other things exist? In my view, because he freely decided to create them. Believers in abstracta need to say something further here, about how the abstract depend on God, or why it doesn’t matter that the abstracta are independent of him.
Now, Thomists think that any source of all beings, any provider of an explanation for why there are beings at all, can’t be itself a being, so it must be “Being Itself.” And they think they can well account for the truth of claims like “God is powerful and wise” while denying that there’s any difference between God’s power and God’s wisdom, and while holding that God is devoid of any internal distinctions.
How is divine simplicity possible (conceivable without contradiction) at all? Good question. And how can this possibly be compatible with the Trinity – the tradition of a triune, tri-personal God? Another good question. And these won’t be answered by appealing, as Thomists tirelessly do, to the prestige of the Great Men who have believed in divine simplicity.
We’ll discuss these other parts of the Thomist agenda in other posts. It takes time to work through this behemoth of a system.
Scotth1960 said:
Dear NiceneChristian: Can you please comment on the following words from Thomas Aquinas from and Eastern Orthodox Christian perspective. Please comment on his use of St. Athanasius the Great and of St. Cyril (he doesn’t say whether this is Cyril of Jerusalem or Cyril of Alexandria). He also cites Epiphanius. The Latinists (papist) sometimes falsely appeal to the Greek and Latin Church Fathers in support of their errors (heresies). Thank you kindly. Sincerely, In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington
“CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM by Thomas Aquinas, O.P., translated by Peter Damian Fehlner, F.I.
http:// dhspriory.com/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm
Part Two Chapter 31. That to believe the Holy Spirit is from the Son is necessary for salvation.
“It frequently happens that when disputants disagree, the points on which they disagree are not necessary for salvation. Lest anyone think that believing the Holy Spirit to be from the Son is not necessary to the faith by which we are saved, it should be shown from the texts of the Greek Doctors that such is necessary for faith and salvation.
“For Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: “In accord with the command of the Apostle (Titus 3:10): After a first and second correction, avoid a heretic, even those you might see flying through the air with Elijah or walking dryshod on the water like Peter and Moses; unless they profess that the Holy Spirit is naturally existing from God the Son, as the son also is naturally God begotten eternally and existing of God and Father; you are not to receive them.” And again: “Have no communion with those who blaspheme and deny that the Holy Spirit is God from the nature of God the Son.”
“Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.” So too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”
“It is, therefore, clear that in no way are they to be tolerated who deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
Chapter 32. That the Roman Pontiff is the first and greatest among all bishops.”
“The error of those who say that the Vicar of Christ, the Pontiff of the Roman Church, does not have a primacy over the universal Church is similar to the error of those who say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. ….”
God save us in Christ Jesus: Amen. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington October 6/19, 2011 AD
Click to expand…
Aquinas is presumptuous and wrong in saying that these quotes prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, for they say no such thing. It says that Jesus Christ has the Holy Spirit but it does not say ANYTHING about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son.
EDIT: That last quote by Epiphanius is not quoted in the Church Fathers because I did a search for it.
Last edited: Oct 19, 2011
Scotth1960
Senior Member
Feb 2, 2011
4,060
6
0
Oct 19, 2011
#3
NiceneChristian said:
Aquinas is presumptuous and wrong in saying that these quotes prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, for they say no such thing. It says that Jesus Christ has the Holy Spirit but it does not say ANYTHING about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son.
EDIT: That last quote by Epiphanius is not quoted in the Church Fathers because I did a search for it.
Dear NiceneChristian: If Epiphanius did not saying, did Thomas Aquinas make this up? Or was he simply mistaken? Or did he intentionally lie? How can a liar be consider a saint of the RCC? Or was Aquinas merely misinformed? I was misinformed about the Filioque, because I did not pay attention to John 15:26. I undoubtedly had read and studied the 4 gospels many times over the years, but the verse John 15:26 did not sink into my heart and mind until I read Fr. Gillquist’s germinal book “Becoming Orthodox”. That was the verse which first converted me to believing the Orthodox Faith according to the unaltered Nicene Creed. I need to continue to work out with fear and trembling so God shall save me. I need to receive baptism and chrismation. I have already confessed my sins. That’s where I am so far. I have changed my behavior with God’s help. God has been merciful to me and I’ve been set free from some bad habits and sins. Lord have mercy. (PS I guess there is some truth and good things in Aquinas, but his theology is largely different from the apophatic theology of the Orthodox East. He has an attitude about him like he “knows it alll”, “considers it all” (all questions, all answers), and teaches it all. The very title “Summa Theologiae” suggest his vain attempt for ultimate comprehensiveness in Christian theology.).
Well, we all have pride. And I guess there are things about me that are similar to Aquinas. Anyway, I’m more like Luther, because of my Lutheran background.). God save us all. In Erie Scott Harrington
You must log in or register to reply here.
steamcommunity.com
HIP: Cultural Melting Pots | Empires of Conquest
Description
Discussions2
Comments198
Change Notes
Want to join the discussion? You need to sign in or create an account.
Date Posted: Dec 26, 2017 @ 8:38pm
Posts: 1
Start a New Discussion
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
More discussions
2
About Outremer’s culture group.
duckpissedman [has Crusader Kings II] Dec 26, 2017 @ 8:38pm
About French + Greek
So, i believe we should use this discussion feature. I would like to contribute to this mod in the form which i can, and that could be by imagining what could be going on in a scenario like the one discussed in real life.
(Note that i’m taking into account that the scenario in which this culture is probably going to appear is in Italy. If there is a eventuality in which a Frank dominates the Byzantine empire like in the 4rth crusade bookmark, it is more historicaly plausible that the dominators be absorbed in the local culture, so there should be no new culture spawning in Byzantium)
I point out that, as far as i know, the Greeks used to refer to themselves as “Rhomaiõn” or romans, that is because they believed to be the continuation of the Roman Empire. But it seems like the western world did not used the same name, i say this based on, for example, the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas “Contra errores graecorum” (Against the Errors of the Greeks) which is clear that the Saint calls them Greeks, instead of Romans.
It could be more historicaly plausible for the Greek population dominated by Frankish Rulers to be called Grec (Greek, in French).
There are scenarios which we could imagine happening in real life which can help guide us in the development of this mod. It could be that:
1 – Fraconization: the frankish rulers impose their language and customs upon the dominated population similar to the process of Arabization in the Arab World, where the rulers do not become absorbed in the local culture, like what happened with the germanic invaders of Italy, but the rulers effectly impose their culture on the dominated. The thing here is that the new culture should be in the LATIN culture group to be more historicaly plausible. The problem also is that if this is the case, than the name of the new culture should be Grec instead of Romaios. This represents a Westernization of the culture.
2 – Frankish rulers become Romans in their own language: the franks ruling over the Greeks (or Romans) start to become absorbed in that culture, but they retain some aspects of their previous culture, that’s why it would be a new culture instead of the rulers culture converting to the old dominated culture. In this case, the name Romaios would be apropiated for the new culture, and for it to be historicaly plausible the new culture should be in the BIZANTINE culture group.
————————————————————————————————————————
If we want to dwell deeper in this line of thought we could try to answer this question: which of these 2 options would be more historicaly plausible?
We could look at what happened in real life to answer this question, but first let me make this clear: I’m no historian and I probably don’t know what I’m talking about.
As far as i know there’s some greek (or Griko) speaking comunities in Italy to this day, but the general pattern is that they became absorbed in the dominant power’s culture, historicaly: italianized.
From wikipedia:
“Although many of the Greek inhabitants of Southern Italy were entirely Italianized during the Middle Ages (for example, Paestum was by the 4th century BC), pockets of Greek culture and language remained and survived into modernity partly because of continuous migration between southern Italy and the Greek mainland. One example is the Griko people, some of whom still maintain their Greek language and customs.
For example, Greeks re-entered the region in the 16th and 17th century in reaction to the conquest of the Peloponnese by the Ottoman Empire. Especially after the end of the Siege of Coron (1534), large numbers of Greeks took refuge in the areas of Calabria, Salento and Sicily. Greeks from Coroni, the so-called Coronians, were nobles, who brought with them substantial movable property. They were granted special privileges and tax exemptions.
Other Greeks who moved to Italy came from the Mani Peninsula of the Peloponnese. The Maniots were known for their proud military traditions and for their bloody vendettas, many of which still continue today. Another group of Maniot Greeks moved to Corsica.”
So based on this i believe that the Franconization option is the one more plausible to happen in a frankish domination scenario.
Last edited by duckpissedman; Dec 26, 2017 @ 8:43pm
Showing 1-1 of 1 comments
Torshian [developer] Dec 27, 2017 @ 4:19am
Thanks for the feedback. I’ll update the group types (Outremer and Grecque to Latin Group) in the next update, meanwhile funnily enough it turns out that there were several mistakes in the pictures in the description of the mod, so Romaios should be Grecque and it was Griko that was Romaios, so that’s been sorted out 🙂
Search Results
Web results
His Life & Works — THOMISTICUM – The Theological Institute of St …
thomisticum.com/his-life/
Towards the end of his life, St. Thomas confided to his faithful friend and …. the council his treatise “Contra errores Graecorum” (Against the Errors of the Greeks).
Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and the Critiques of Joachimist Topics …
https://brill.com/abstract/book/9789004339668/B9789004339668_006.xml
In 1263, in the Contra Errores Graecorum, he addressed the decision of the council … the Fourth Lateran and posits that Joachim followed an error of the Arians, …
Trinity and Economy in Thomas Aquinas — Southern Equip
equip.sbts.edu › Publications › Journals › The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
For, as he puts it, “every occasion of error should be avoided.”19. This links up with ….. 5 So Contra Errores Graecorum, in Opera Omnia (vol. 40A; Leonine ed.
Contra Errores Graecorum – Wikipedia
wikien4.appspot.com/wiki/Contra_Errores_Graecorum
Translate this page
Jun 3, 2017 – Summa contra Gentiwes; Contra Errores Graecorum; Commentaries on … Graecorum, ad Urbanum IV Pontificem Maximum (Against de Errors …
John-Jerome of Prague and the Errores Graecorum: Anatomy of a …
http://www.academia.edu/…/John-Jerome_of_Prague_and_the_Errores_Graecorum_Anato...
John-Jerome of Prague and the Errores Graecorum: Anatomy of a Polemic against ….. There are four errors of the Greeks, Ruthenians, Wallachians and of the other … In 1252 an anonymous Dominican scholar had composed a Tractatus contra … Humbert of Romans, Thomas Aquinas, Bernard Gui, Matthew of Aquasparta …
Summarizing the Summas, or, the Simplicity of Saint Thomas Aquinas …
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/…/summarizing-the-summas-a-visceral-reaction-and-a...
Oct 8, 2009 – When you mentioned Aquinas’ ecclesiastical views, I remembered his CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM (Against the errors of the greeks).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Filioque_controversy
The Orthodox believe that the absence of an explicit mention of the double procession of the Holy Spirit is a strong indication that the filioque is a theologically erroneous doctrine.[4]
The third ecumenical council, held at Ephesus in 431, which quoted the creed in its 325 form, not in that of 381,[5] decreed in its seventh canon:
“ “It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized”.[6] ”
While the Council of Ephesus thus forbade setting up a different creed as a rival to that of the first ecumenical council, it was the creed of the second ecumenical council that was adopted liturgically in the East and later a Latin variant was adopted in the West.
4. Kärkkäinen 2010, p. 276.
5. Extracts from the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius
6. Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). “Council of Ephesus”. Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company., 7th canon
Why the Filioque is a heresy.
You are here: Home / Sermon Resources / Theology / Apologetics / Why the Filioque is a Heresy
Why the Filioque is a Heresy
May 31, 2010 By admin
by Fr. John Romanides
Apart from the specific teaching of our Lord regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit (as recorded in John 15:26), the understanding of this Mystery is been seriously muddled by at attempt to defend the Credal addition (and the Son) which is unscriptural, as legitimate over many centuries. Though this addition has become the theological patrimony of western Christian theology, it is by no means a complicated issue, nor an insurmountable barrier in Christian unity. Return to the Scriptures, and start there – don’t end there attempting to proof-text novel theological concepts.
The Filioque is a heresy, because it confuses the hypostatic properties of the Father, i.e. His being cause, with those of the Son and, as a result, introduces a kind of Semi-Sabellianism. This is the case if the notion of being cause belongs both to the Father’s and to the Son’s hypostasis, but not to the Spirit’s. If the Father and the Son as hypostases are the cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit, then, according to Photios, we have two principles in the Godhead, or, if they think of the Father and the Son as one cause, then, as we said above, we have Semi-Sabellianism, i.e. the identification of the incommunicable, hypostatic properties of the Father and the Son. If the cause is identified with the essence and not with the hypostaseis, then the Holy Spirit is a creature, because the doctrine that the essence is the cause of another person is the doctrine of the Eunomians, since they identified the cause of the existence of the Son with the essence of the Father and attempted on this basis to demonstrate that the Son is a creature.
RELATED Christians Without Noetic Prayer
Consequently, if the Father’s and the Son’s essence is the cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is a creature. Again, He is a creature, if the cause of the Spirit’s existence, or His procession, is a common energy of the Father and the Son, of which the Spirit is lacking. This is the case, because, as Orthodox and Pneumatomachians argue, the lack of even one energy common to the Father and to the Son from the Spirit would demonstrate the created nature of the Spirit. The one doctrine leads to Semi-Sabellianism and the other to Eunomianism, or to the heresy of the Pneumatomachoi where the Spirit becomes a creature.
Today, the Latins (i.e., Roman Catholic theologians) are obliged, if they wish to revise the foundation of their theology, not only to take seriously the theology of the Fathers, which constituted the basis of the decisions of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, but also to revise the Trinitarian terminology, which is based on Augustine’s doctrine.
HT: Mystagogy
Source: An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics, pp. 33-35.
Saint Euphrosynos Cafe.
The Filioque Done Right
Moderator: Maria
Post Reply
Advanced search
52 posts
Page 7 of 8
Previous
1
…
4
5
6
7
8
Next
sedevacantist
Newbie
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri 12 February 2016 10:24 pm
Jurisdiction: Traditional Catholic
Re: The Filioque Done Right
Quote
Postby sedevacantist » Tue 12 September 2017 8:38 pm
Maria wrote:
sedevacantist wrote:
d9popov wrote:
Dear Sedevantist,
In short: there is a difference between eternal procession and temporal procession. When Orthodox Fathers state that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son,” they are speaking about temporal procession, not eternal procession. The Creed is speaking about eternal procession, so “and the Son” is not appropriate in the Creed. The ancient patristic consensus (Rome and all of the East) was to NOT have the Filioque in the Creed. The East remained faithful to that ancient patristic consensus, whereas the West perverted the Catholic consensus and fell away from the Catholic Church. If you do not clearly understand the difference between eternal and temporal procession, then you will misunderstand the entire issue. Please read the following carefully:
SAINT GREGORY PALAMAS AND THE COUNCIL OF 1351 IN CONSTANTINOPLE (THE “NINTH ECUMENICAL” COUNCIL)
[The Holy Spirit] proceeds from the Father. He is co-beginningless with the Father and the Son as being outside time, but not without beginning, as Himself also having the Father as root, source, and cause, not as generated, but as proceeding; for He also came forth from the Father before all ages immutably and impassibly, not by generation, but by procession, being indivisible from the Father and the Son, as proceeding from the Father and resting in the Son, having union without confusion and division without division. He is God and is Himself from God, not one thing insofar as He is God, but another insofar as He is the Paraclete; He is the self-subsistent Spirit, proceeding from the Father and sent, that is manifested, through the Son, the cause of all that came into being, since They were perfected in Him; the same equal in honor with both the Father and the Son, without ingenerateness and generation. He was sent from the Son to His own disciples, that is, He was manifested. For how otherwise would He Who is not separated from Him be sent by Him? How otherwise, pray tell, would He come Who is everywhere? Wherefore, He is sent not only from the Son, but also from the Father and through the Son; and He comes from Himself when He is being manifested. For the sending, that is the manifestation, of the Spirit is a common action. He is manifested, not according to essence, for no one has ever either seen or declared the nature of God, but according to the grace, power, and energy that is common to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. For the hypostasis of each, and whatever belongs to it, is peculiar to each of these. Not only is the super-essential Essence, which is entirely nameless, inexpressible, and incapable of participation, since it is above every name, expression, and participation, common to Them all, but also the grace, the power, the energy, the radiance, the kingdom, and the incorruption, and in general everything according to which God communicates and is united by grace with both holy angels and holy men. Departing from His simplicity neither on account of the distinction and difference of the hypostases, nor on account of the distinction and variety of powers and energies, we thus have one all-powerful God in one Deity [θεότης, theótēs]. For neither from perfect hypostases, could there ever come about any composition, nor could what is potential, because it has power or powers, ever truly be called composite by reason of potentiality itself.
Dear D9, if what you say is correct about temporal procession then can you provide church fathers speaking about this difference?
so for example the following quote, if you say St Cyril is speaking of temporal procession instead of eternal , can you provide proof?
Cyril of Alexandria
“Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and
Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy
Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
Dear Sedevacantist,
Remember that I was a “cradle Catholic” who attended Dominican University in San Rafael and Holy Names University in Oakland, California, where I studied theology every semester that I attended those two colleges under Dominican Friars.
If you read carefully, you will see that Saint Cyril of Alexandria clearly states, “Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God.” This clause definitely refers to the life of the Holy Spirit within us, which is a temporal procession. The Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us (temporal procession) at our Baptism and Holy Chrismation by the power of the Priest in the Holy Sacraments (Holy Mysteries). It is the Holy Spirit Who is the Heavenly King, Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, and the Giver of Life, Who is everywhere present and fillest all things. It is the Holy Spirit Who initiates our very Life in Christ. It is the Holy Spirit Who purifies, illuminates, and sanctifies us. Without Him, we cannot enter Paradise.
And this is also why “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” will not be forgiven in this life nor in the next.
Dear Maria
doesn’t really answer my question, I would need a church father that makes the distinction…for example …stating The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son only in the temporal procession…
I can’t find that..
scott,
Not without beginning?
The Holy Spirit is eternal. And so is the son.
Otherwise he is not God.
Craig and Water: Know that the Filioque as it came to be known in Thomas Aquinas “Contra Errores Graecorum” and by the time of Anselm of Canterbury “De Processione Spiritus Sancti” and Peter Lombard “The Sentences: Book I: The Holy Trinity”, and by Peter Damian on the procession of the Holy Spirit, was not the same Filioque as in Saint Maximos the Confessor or the other Western saints, including Augustine of Hippo (354-43), Augustine expressed Filioque without heretical intent, but starting with Charlemagne (742-814) and what he made of Filioque, it came to be expressed with heretical and schismatic intent, as Charlemagne’s “anti-Greek” (with the racial slur “Byzantine”), as in James Likoudis’ racist diatribe “Ending the Byzantine Greek schism” (by Greek, Likoudis means pagan, non-Christian, and anti-Roman, and anti-papal, something the East Romans never were, and “Byzantium” is a Westernist fiction, yes, this is the original name of the city, but now it is used for propaganda purposes by the Frankish papalists against the city of Constantinople which is New Rome.). Earlier Popes of Rome, with full authority from Christ in Saint Peter, accepted Constantinople and her Patriarch as sister cities in Christ, with the Patriarch the Roman empire brother of the Pope of Rome.
Since the Filioque was originally intended to express “through the Son”, and as “through the mediation and intercession OF THE SON, AND THE SON, in temporal SENDING (PROCESSION) in TIME (NOT an eternal procession of the Spirit FROM THE SON IN ETERNITY), this schism did not happen until Rome BECAME CAPTIVE OF THE FRANKISH, NON-ROMAN, NON-CATHOLIC theology of Charlemagne and Alcuin of York, and ALCUIN OF YORK was a schismatic who followed THE FILIOQUE HERESY in order to provoke a FRANKISH SCHISM of CHARLEMAGNE against OLD ROME the POPE OF ROME, Leo III, and Leo III RELUCTANTLY crowned Charlemagne as a “Western” emperor out of necessity, no fault intended by Leo III, but it led to the WESTERN FRANKISH CAPTIVITY of the WEST ROMAN PAPACY of ROME. Thus Filioque, which was benign, became MALIGNANT in THOMAS AQUINAS (“CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM”), and what was INNOCENT in AUGUSTINE of HIPPO was IGNORANT in THOMAS AQUINAS (OP. CIT., “GRAECORUM”, IBID.). Thus LYONS and FLORENCE are HERETICAL SCHISMATIC COUNCILS OF PERVERSON (FRANKISH) of the CATHOLIC FAITH and a FILIOQUE unknown to Augustine, with a HERETICAL intent. Unknown by the United Roman Catholic FATHERS OF EAST AND WEST (325-880 AD). After 880 AD, Papal Rome became THOROUGHLY FRANKISH and NON-ROMAN and NON-CATHOLIC (NON-ORTHODOX).
http://www.christopherklitou.com
DIFFERENCES WITH THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT
The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are titles adopted to distinguish the two churches after their separation. If we take away their titles we can simply call them the Church in the east and the Church in the west and that’s how it was in the very beginning: one Church, one faith until the Great Schism of 1054. Everything before the Great Schism was common to both east and west. They shared the same Holy Scripture, the same Church Fathers, the same Saints, the same doctrines, the same priesthood, the same Sacraments. Until the Great Schism, the Orthodox Church shared the same Trinitarian Theology as the Roman Catholic Church. This changed with the introduction of the “filioque” (SEE BELOW “THE FILIOQUE”).
When we are asked to explain the differences between the two churches, we usually mention the Pope, the insertion of the Filioque and certain dogmas like purgatory and the Immaculate Conception, but the differences are in fact far more numerous and quite profound. The main reason for the schism is usually considered to be the insertion of the Filioque in the Creed which in some places was inserted centuries before the Schism. Like the Filioque, a great many other differences existed long before the Great Schism of 1054 and many more developed after. Also, in modern times, since Vatican II, that major, if not tragic attempt, to “update” Roman Catholicism, the differences between Orthodoxy and the followers of the Pope have widened. Some of these differences are external practices which can easily be rectified or ignored because they are not based on dogmas such as how we cross ourselves. Whether we cross ourselves from right to left or left to right, whether we use one, two, three or four fingers is not something that would keep us apart. To be fair we also have changed the way we cross ourselves over the centuries. Originally from the times of the Apostles we used only our thumb making the sign of the cross on our foreheads, then we used two fingers and it was only in the ninth century that we adopted the use of the three fingers. The things that have kept us apart for a thousand years are more serious because they have to do with faith, dogmas and our relationship with God and how we understand who God is.
Both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church approach this understanding of God in different ways. The Orthodox Church does not seek to reconcile faith and human logic. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics, biology, chemistry or philosophy lend support to the teachings of the Church, she does not refuse them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man’s intellectual accomplishments. She does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science. Orthodoxy teaches that the knowledge of God is planted in human nature and that is how we know Him to exist. But who God is, is beyond our understanding and whatever we know of him is only what he himself has revealed to us and unless God speaks to us, human reason cannot know more. The saving knowledge of God comes by the Saviour. Speaking to His Father, He said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou has sent”. (John 17: 3)
Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. From the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, blended Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine by suggesting that rational thinking and the study of nature, were valid ways to understand truths pertaining to God. According to Aquinas, God reveals himself through nature, so to study nature is to study God. The ultimate goals of theology, in Aquinas’ mind, are to use reason to grasp the truth about God and to experience salvation through that truth. Aquinas believed that faith and reason were both necessary for one to obtain true knowledge of God. From that period till now, the Latins have never wavered in their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion. Roman Catholicism teaches, also, that, in the Age to Come, man will, with his intellect and with the assistance of grace, behold the Essence of God. The Fathers declare that it is impossible to behold God in Himself. Not even divine grace, will give us such power. The saved will see, however, God as the glorified flesh of Christ.
One of the things that distinguishes the Orthodox faith is that it has remained unaltered from the time of Christ and the Apostles. The Orthodox Church of the twenty first century believes precisely what was believed by Orthodox of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries. Of course there have been external changes like vestments, monastic habits, new feasts, canons of Ecumenical and Regional Councils, etc, also certain differences in religious customs are obvious from one Orthodox country to another, but nothing has been added or subtracted from her Faith, their has always been “one faith, one Lord, one baptism”. (Eph. 4: 4)
The teachings of the Church are derived from two sources: Holy Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, within which the Scriptures came to be, and within which they are interpreted by the divinely inspired Fathers of the Church, whether they be Greek, Latin, Syriac or Slavic. Their place in the Orthodox religion cannot be challenged. Their authority cannot be superseded, altered or ignored. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, unable to show a continuity of faith and realizing how they have changed the apostolic doctrines over the centuries, came up with another doctrine in the 19th Century called “Doctrinal Development”.
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an “original deposit” of faith, a “seed,” which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs. Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II. The Roman Catholic Church thus believes that the Holy Spirit, through the popes develops, changes, adds, and subtracts various aspects of Scriptural interpretation, early Christian analyses, and apostolic Tradition. They believe that each new system of doctrines and replacements of previous beliefs, such as Vatican I, Vatican II, etc., are superior in intellect and spiritual enlightenment to the previously-accepted church traditions and papal decisions. Furthermore, all future changes, according to this new dogma, will supercede Vatican II and minimize or nullify previous papal pronouncements on doctrine. All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of “papal infallibility” and “the immaculate conception” of the Virgin Mary are justifiably presented to the faithful as necessary to their salvation.
Orthodoxy does not believe that Christ’s New Testament Church should or can change arbitrarily by the Holy Spirit. The Bible and the early Church both taught that the written and oral traditions of the apostles must be adhered to without change or variation in any way. The Holy Spirit struggled with the Church against heresy and false doctrines for centuries and the early Christians suffered martyrdom for this Faith. This is the Faith that Orthodoxy has inherited and will continue to abide by and defend until the coming of Christ.
scott,
Interesting but not accurate. Her we go again with the either/or dichotomy. It is not the early fathers or reason, but both.
The statement: “The Roman Catholic Church thus believes that the Holy Spirit, through the popes develops, changes, adds, and subtracts various aspects of Scriptural interpretation, early Christian analyses, and apostolic Tradition. They believe that each new system of doctrines and replacements of previous beliefs, such as Vatican I, Vatican II, etc., are superior in intellect and spiritual enlightenment to the previously-accepted church traditions and papal decisions. ” is not true. ” replacements of previous beliefs,” Not true.
Interestint that “Orthodoxy does not believe that Christ’s New Testament Church should or can change arbitrarily by the Holy Spirit. ”
The Holy Spirit is God. Orthodoxy trying to tell God how to run the church? Sounds preposterous!
John S. Romanides. http://www.romanity.org
However, both Photios and John VIII’s letter to Photios mentioned above testify to this pope’s condemnation of the Filioque as doctrine also. Yet the Filioque could not be publicly condemned as heresy by the Church of Old Rome. Why? Simply because the Franks were militarily in control of papal Romania, and as illiterate barbarians were capable of any kind of criminal act against Roman clergy and populace. The Franks were a dangerous presence in papal Romania and had to be handled with great care and tact.
Gallic Romania and Italic Romania (including papal Romania) are for the Romans one continuous country, identical with East Romania. The conquering movements of the Franks, Lombards, and Normans into the free sections of Romania are seen from the Roman viewpoint as a united whole, and not from the viewpoint of the Germanic European conquerors, who see the Romans as happy to be conquered and liberated from the so-called “Greeks”, or now, “Byzantines”, so that once conquered, they are of no concern to the Romans of free Romania.
9.) That the above is the correct framework for understanding the historical context of the Filioque controversy and the place of the roman popes with this conflict, from the time of Pepin till the descent of the descent of the Teutonic or East Franks into the papal scene in 962-963, and their removal of the Romans from their papal ethnarchy finalized in 1009, can be seen in a.)the doctrinal positions of Anastasios the Librarian, the chief advisor of the pro-Frank Nicholas I and also of John VIII, in preparation for the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879, representing the newly restored Roman power over the Papacy, and b.) in the attitudes toward the Filioque of anti-Pope Anastasios the Librarian (855-858) and Pope Leo III.
********************************************************
It is obvious that Anastasios the Librarian did not at first understand the Frankish Filioque, since on this question he reprimands the “Greeks” for their objections and accuses them of not accepting Maximos the Confessor’s explanation that there are two usages of the term; the one whereby procession means essential mission, wherein the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (in which case the Holy Spirit participated in the act of sending, so that this is a common act of the whole Trinity), and the second, whereby precession means casual relation wherein the existence of the Holy Spirit is derived. In this last sense, Maximos assures Marinos (to whom he is writing), that the West Romans accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds casually only from the Father and that the Son is not cause.
There is every reason to believe that this reflects the position of Nicholas I on the question.
However, this was not the position of the Franks who followed, not the West Romans on the question, but Augustine, who can easily be interpreted as teaching that the Holy Spirit receives not only His essence, but His existence from the Father and the Son.
But this also means that the Romans in the West could never support the introduction of the Filioque into the Creed, not because they did not want to displease the “Greeks,” but because this would be heresy. The West Romans knew very well that the term procession in the Creed was introduced as a parallel to generation, and that both meant causal relation to the Father, and not energy or mission.
It was perhaps as a result of the realization that the Franks were confused on the issue and were saying dangerous things that led Anastasios to a serious reappraisal of the Frankish threat, and to the support of the East Roman position, as clearly represented by Photios the Great and John VIII at the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879.
This interpretation of the Filioque, given by Maximos the Confessor and Anastasios the Librarian is the consistent position of the Roman popes, and clearly so in the case of Leo III. The minutes of the conversation held in 810 between the three apocrisari of Charlemagne and Pope Leo III, kept by the Frankish monk Smaragdus, bear out this consistency in papal policy. Leo accepts the teaching of the Fathers, quoted by the Franks, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as taught by Augustine and Ambrose. However, the Filioque must not be added to the Creed as was done by the Franks, who got permission to sing the Creed from Leo but not to add to the Creed.
When one reads these minutes, remembering the Franks were a dangerous presence in Papal Romania capable of acting in a most cruel and barbarous manner if provoked, then one comes to the clear realization that Pope Leo III is actually telling the Franks in clear and diplomatic terms that the Filioque in the Creed is a heresy.
What else can Leo’s claim mean but that the Second Ecumenical Synod, and the other synods, left the Filioque out of the Creed neither by oversight nor out of ignorance, but on purpose by divine inspiration?
This theological position is that of Pope Hadrian I (772-795) also and of the Toledo Synods where the Filioque is not in the Creed but is in another context.
10.) Once the Franks secured their hold on Papal Romania, the Papacy became like a “mouse caught in the paws” of its traditional enemy-the cat. The Franks knew very well what they had captured. They began developing theories and church policy which would put this Roman institution to good use for the fostering of Frankish control over territories formerly under the control of the Romans, and of aiding in new conquests. The West Franks continued in the steps of Charlemagne, but in a weak manner. The Romans regained full control of the papacy after 867, but then the East Franks entered the papal scene beginning in 962, with the known results.
The attitudes of the West and East Franks toward the Papacy and the Filioque were different, the first being mild, and the second fanatically hard. One of the important reasons for this is that, after 920, the new reform movements gained enough momentum to shape the policies of the East German Franks who took over the Papacy. When the Romans lost the Papacy, the Filioque was introduced into Rome for the first time in either 1009, or at latest by 1014.
scott,
Fantasy.
Water: I have read all of your previous posts.
Try answering all of my previous questions.
Water, The Western argumentum ad silentium states that because Christ in John 15:26 did not say the Holy Spirit does not not proceed from the Son, He must have meant the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, even though He did not say it. The whole of Scripture speaks against adding to the words of the Lord, and Filioque is an addition. Saying He only (alone) said “from the Father” is not an addition, but taking Christ at His word in John 15:26, and this is not Protestant.
scott,
No one has ever suggested that “because Christ in John 15:26 did not say the Holy Spirit does not not proceed from the Son, He must have meant the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, even though He did not say it.”
REad my other comment on either/or.
History of the Filioque controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Second Council of Lyon (1274) accepted the profession of faith of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos in the Holy Spirit, “proceeding from the Father and the Son”[104] and the Greek participants, including Patriarch Joseph I of Constantinople sang the Creed three times with the Filioque addition. Most Byzantine Christians feeling disgust and recovering from the Latin Crusaders’ conquest and betrayal, refused to accept the agreement made at Lyon with the Latins. In 1282, Emperor Michael VIII died and Patriarch Joseph I’s successor, John XI, who had become convinced that the teaching of the Greek Fathers was compatible with that of the Latins, was forced to resign, and was replaced by Gregory II, who was strongly of the opposite opinion.
The council required Eastern churches wishing to be reunited with Rome to accept the Filioque as a legitimate expression of the faith, while it did not require those Christians to change the recitation of the creed in their liturgy.
The council of Lyons also condemned “all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one. “[8][105][106]
The 1583 Synod of Jerusalem condemned those who do not believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone in essence, and from Father and Son in time. In addition, this synod re-affirmed adherence to the decisions of Council of Nicaea I in AD 325.
Council of Jerusalem in 1672 AD
Main article: Council of Jerusalem (1672)
In 1672, an Eastern Orthodox council was held in Jerusalem, presided by patriarch Dositheos Notaras. Council re-affirmed procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone.[108]
104. Denzinger, 853 (old numbering 463)Latin text English translation
105. The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism – Google Books. Books.google.com. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
106. Constitution II of the Second Council of Lyons
107. Cross & Livingstone 2005, Florence, Council of.
108. Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I: The History of Creeds
scott,
Some Orthodox along the way had some good sense.
Clearly Michael Paleologus was a heretic who lacked all sense of truth. Filioque does not make sense as it is not true.
The whole Church is based on Christ and His Second Ecumenical council and her faith “who proceeds from the Father”, unaltered and infallible.
Water: Since Christ does not say in John 15:26 that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son”, why does the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis I, say that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son”? Does Christ know what He is saying in John 15:26, and if so, why does anyone need to say “Filioque” “and the Son”? If Filioque is true, John 15:26 is in error, and you know what a big thing it is to contradict Christ in John 15:26.
scott,
Spoken like a true Protestant.
Ad hominem character slander is not a valid argument for anything. Stick to the facts. I stick with the facts. Your reasoning is faulty. I am not a Protestant. The Protestants believe Filioque.
scott,
You don’t get it.
orthodoxwiki.org/filioque
Filioque
Filioque is a Latin word meaning “and the Son” which was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Church of Rome in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the Great Schism between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the Holy Spirit thus states that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
Its inclusion in the Creed is a violation of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which forbade and anathematized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879-880. This word was not included by the Council of Nicea nor of Constantinople. The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (dia) the Son. This was the position of St Maximus the Confessor. On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (aition) of the Spirit. The heterodox reading sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the Orthodox Church consider this latter reading to be a heresy.
The description of the filioque as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great Father and Pillar of the Church, St. Photius the Great, in his On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. He describes it as a heresy of Triadology, striking at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.
scott,
Do you ever read my posts? 431 forbade addition to the Nicene creed which was silent about procession. Adding “who proceeds from the Father” is an addition to the Nicene creed.
Not an eternal “cause” scott.
Clearly Photius does not understand filioque.
Water, Clearly you understand neither Filioque nor Photius.
Ephesus forbad any additions or deletions from the Creed of Nicea 325 AD and Constantinople 381 AD. Get your facts right. The popes of Rome accepted this Creed. Yet you say you accept what the popes say. Not when they endorse the Creed without Filioque. Filioque was never in the Church’s Creed and never will be, and the gates of hell will never prevail against Peter’s Church, and Peter is against Filioque: He fully endorsed John 15:26 as he was there when John heard those words. Matthew 16. The infallibility of Peter depends upon rejection of Filioque.
scott,
Get your facts right.
Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), ….. reads …
“The holy Council decrees that no one should be permitted to offer a different Creed of Faith, or in any case, to write or compose another, than the one defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea …As for those who dare either to compose a different Creed or Faith, or to present one, or to offer one to those who wish to return to recognition of the truth, whether they be Greeks or Jews, or they be members of any heresy whatsoever, they, if bishops or clergymen, shall be deprived as bishops of their episcopate, and as clergymen of their clericate; but if they are laymen, they shall be anathematized.”
So any change from Nicea, including “who proceeds from the Father” comes under the anathema, in your reading, not just the filioque.
The Church in an ecumenical council never said Constantinople I and its addition to the Creed of Nicaea was anathema. The Creed of Constantinople is the Creed of Nicaea. There is no difference. By your illogic, you should then be a Monophysite and only accept the first three councils and reject Chalcedon and the rest.
scott,
The council of Ephesus 431 A.D. was an ecumenical council, and it said: “The holy Council decrees that no one should be permitted to offer a different Creed of Faith, or in any case, to write or compose another, than the one defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea …As for those who dare either to compose a different Creed or Faith, or to present one, or to offer one to those who wish to return to recognition of the truth, whether they be Greeks or Jews, or they be members of any heresy whatsoever, they, if bishops or clergymen, shall be deprived as bishops of their episcopate, and as clergymen of their clericate; but if they are laymen, they shall be anathematized.”
So any change from Nicea, including “who proceeds from the Father” comes under the anathema, in your reading, not just the filioque.
Water: First of all you have not proven how you know that is the genuine text of Ephesus, and secondly, even if it authentic, it does not mean what you think it means. The whole Church received the Creed completed at Constantinople in 381 AD, and no bishops rejected that Creed. This was not an addition to the Nicene Creed, but the second part and completion of the Nicene Creed. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that, and not bring up false objections. Also, the bishop of Rome endorsed Constatninople I, so you should too. Many things the modern Catholics (Franks) say is Catholic is not Catholic. James Likoudis’ spurious angry polemic book, “Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism”, has many quotes from the Church Fathers’ in Aquinas’ “Contra Errores Graecorum” where Likoudis states and admits they are “not found”. So his citing of the Fathers to try to prove Filioque is spurious, when they are “not found” and he is not even sure of some of his sources.
scott,
That is my whole point! That there is no fundamental problem for the church to add to the Nicene creed! That “proceeds from the Father” is an addition no less than “proceeds from the son”!
The fact that you cannot acknowledge that is astounding.
Water. “Proceeds from the Father” is not an addition to the Creed, but a completion. It is astounding that you cannot see the distinction and that you care nothing that the papacy acknowledged these words. But now the modern papacy contradicts the earlier papacy and the earlier ecumenical council. The Creed of Constantinople is merely the Completion of the Nicene Creed. It took 2 councils to complete the Nicene Creed. The third council approved of the first 2 councils. Filioque is against the 3rd council. “Proceeds from the Father” is an acknowledgment of the Scripture John 15:26, and the Creed of Nicea 325 AD would be incomplete if they didn’t explain the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the place of the Church, baptism, and the life of the world to come. Constantinople I is the Nicene Creed perfected and completed, not added to. Whoever says otherwise is lying to you. If you follow Lyons and Florence you are being led astray.
scott,
Nice try.
Another lie. From you. You have been deceived. May the Holy Spirit enlighten you and deliver you from papal mythology. It is a great sin against the Body of Christ. The papacy used to be Orthodox, but has become a Frankish wild animal and fox Filioque feudal authoritarian secular government, a kingdom of a political leader, instead of a papacy of truth and love. It is now politics, not theology. It is now authoritarian, not apostolic. Nice try telling me so many false statements. I am not buying your approach. Instead of dealing with the facts, you talk about me.
scott,
Animosity.
Water:
Phatmass Church Scholar Emeritus 2004-2006
Apotheoun
Chummy Commoner
1,501
14,836 posts
Eastern Catholic
Report post
Posted September 14, 2007 (edited)
Eastern Christians reject the filioque because it involves a Sabellian confusion of person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) and essence ([i]ousia[/i]) in God.
Clearly, neither the Son nor the Spirit can receive their eternal origin from the divine essence, because the divine essence is absolutely common to all three divine persons. That said, the Son is eternally generated from the Father’s person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and the Holy Spirit proceeds ([i]ekporeusis[/i]), not from the divine essence, but from the person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) of the Father, who alone is the source, cause, and principle of divinity.
Moreover, in the Triadology of the Eastern Fathers the Son and Spirit are distinguished from each other by their unique mode of origin (i.e., their [i]tropos hyparxeos[/i]) from the Father. The Son receives His eternal origin by generation ([i]gennesin[/i]); while — on the other hand — the Holy Spirit takes His origin, not by generation, but by procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) from the Father.
Now since I explained the theology of the East on this issue in another thread, I thought that I would repost that comment below:
[quote]Eastern Triadology, unlike the Scholastic philosophical theology of the West, is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle ([i]arche[/i]), source ([i]pege[/i]), and cause ([i]aitia[/i]) of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their subsistence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are — as a consequence — [i]homoousios[/i] with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word [i]homoousios[/i] itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the term [i]homoousios[/i] involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) from the Father alone by generation ([i]gennatos[/i]), and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father’s person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and not from the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the hypostatic procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin of the Holy Spirit, because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father’s person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and not from the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), which — as I already indicated — is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, “Logos Apodeiktikos” I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal subsistence and their co-essential nature
Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) proceeds from Father and the Son “as from one principle,” thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son, by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.[/quote] Edited September 14, 2007 by Apotheoun
scott,
…. “the Roman tradition expresses and embraces two distinct but equally valid truths –i.e., both the Father as the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit’s procession (“ekporeusis”) and the consubstantial communion of Father and Son resulting in the procession of the Spirit in a collective sense (“proienai”), ….. For, when the 4th Lateran Council declares that “…the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally.,” this does not mean, ….., that “…the adverb ‘equally’ indicates that in whatever way He proceeds from the Father, in the same manner He proceeds from the Son.” Rather, it merely refers to the collective sense of procession from Father and Son (“proienai”) and does not deny or threaten the Father as the sole Cause of the procession (“ekporeusis”). Likewise, the 11th Council of Toledo (not to be confused with the 3rd Council of Toledo, which first proclaimed Filioque) ….., when it says that the Spirit “is called the Spirit, not only of the Father nor only of the Son, but equally of the Father and of the Son,” this is merely a reference to their Personal consubstantial communion –the collective context of procession. Likewise, when it declares that the Spirit “proceeds not from the Father into the Son nor from the Son to sanctify creatures; but He is shown to have proceeded from both equally, because He is known as the Love of the sanctity of both,” this is not a denial of the Father as the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit, but a denial of the Arian position that the Son is merely a temporal participant in the Spirit’s procession “
That is not fair. It is not an Arian position. It is the Church’s position, and Christ’s. The Filioque fuses and confuses the Father and Son and makes the essence of the Trinity the cause of the Spirit, and not the Father alone, thus making the Spirit a son of the Father and Son’s essence, denying the sole monarchy of the Father. This is all clear in Aquinas’ “Contra Errores Graerocum” which is heretical.
Water: If the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect, as the Father is perfect, and the Holy Spirit is perfect, no eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the perfect Son of God, since the Son of God is perfect without needing to have the Holy Spirit to proceed from Him eternally, since the Son of God is perfect, and perfectly equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, there is no longer a sole Monarchy of the Father within the Trinity, but a Dyarchy of the Father and the Son, in which the Holy Spirit is left out of equality with the Father and the Son, and there is not a three way love in the Trinity, but only a two way love of Father and Son together, thus subordinating the Holy Spirit to the divine common essence of the Father and Son together, thus denying the distinctions of the three persons in the Trinity, and shifting the unity of the Trinity way from the Unity and Monarchy of the Father, and setting up within the Trinity a Binity of Father and Son.
scott,
You get lost in your own logic.
The Church’s infallible anathema against the West’s Filioque heresy and their prideful rationalism in it, from the prideful Charlemagne, can only be removed by their repentance, or they will be lost in their own Filioque.
scott,
Sounds like history in reverse gear.
Filioque is history in reverse gear, and a sin of the papacy against the papacy, of the later papacy against the earlier papacy and against saint Peter, Leo XIII against Leo III, John Paul II against John VIII, Pius IX against Gregory. You yourself admitted and wrote that popes can err.
scott,
From your point of view. You need a reason for the break with Rome, a theological one, and historically that was the one they used.
Water. It was Rome that broke from the Church in 1014/1054 AD, and they needed a theological reason for the break with Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. And they excuse they used for their schism was Filioque. They still use this doctrinal excuse for their error. They added other errors to Filioque, and their lack of wine in the eucharist and azymes is another of their more serious soul-destroying errors. In this Rome has excommunicated itself from the Catholic Church and become a semi-Sabellian Judaizing sect. Imitating the Jewish Passover instead of using leavened bread. Not knowing the Greek New Testament, they made this error. God save them.
scott,
Revisionism.
My statements. From Christ. From Revelation (Bible and tradition). Peace. Gospel truth. Honesty. Facts. History. From the Church. Ecumenical councils. Your statements. From Charlemagne. Religion, Revisionism., Hypocrisy. Propaganda. Frankish papacy.
scott,
Propaganda.
Filioque is propaganda. Catholicism is true in most things, but to continue to defend its errors is propaganda. Some among the Orthodox have been found to be heretics, like Sergius Bulgakov. Condemned by the Church. May God deliver me from sin and from any heresy. May I believe only the truth and Orthodoxy. Now and ever and unto the ages of the ages. God bless you Water. God’s love go with you.
scott,
Can I ask you a question? What was your attitude to Catholicism when you were a protestant? What denomination were you?
OrthodoxChristianity.net
Response to Following Text of a Catholic:
1, Jesus Christ is right. John 15:26 is right. Acts 2:33 is right. Photius is right. Gregory II is right.
2. Heretic John Bekkos is wrong.
3. Cyril of Alexandria is right. Catholics misunderstand him and misquote him.
Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« on: November 30, 2017, 03:44:15 AM »
Wiki says “The basis of John Bekkos’s quarrel with his contemporaries was a disagreement with them over the implications of a traditional patristic formula, that states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (in Greek, διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ). Already in the ninth century, this expression was being pushed in two different directions: Latin writers saw it as implying the Augustinian doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque); Greek writers, especially from the time of Patriarch Photios onward, saw it as consistent with the view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Bekkos originally agreed with the Photian view, but his reading of the Greek fathers, and of medieval Greek writers like Nicephorus Blemmydes and Nicetas of Maroneia, caused him to change his mind. Much of John XI Bekkos’s debate with Gregory II was a debate over the meaning of texts from St. Cyril and other fathers, whose wording (the Spirit “exists from the Son”; the Spirit “fountains forth eternally” from the Son, etc.) Bekkos saw as consistent with the Latin doctrine, while Gregory of Cyprus interpreted such texts as necessarily referring to an eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit through or from the Son. This thirteenth-century debate has considerable relevance for current-day ecumenical discussions between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.”
1. The two texts of relevance are the dogmatic confession of St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople at Nicaea II, “το Πνευμα το αγιον, το κυριον και ζωοποιον, το εκ του Πατροσ δια του Υιου εκπορευομενον.” the Church believes “in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God.” A plain and explicit statement proving the doctrine of St. Augustine, for this can only refer to the divine Essence. Firstly, the Saintly Patriarch said the hypostasis of the Spirit, the same Who Proceeds from the Father, proceeds through the Son. Second, St. Tarasius also says He Who Proceeds through the Son is acknowledged to be Himself God by nature, which clearly refers to the divine hypostasis of the Spirit. If, as some of the Greeks hold, Patriarch Tarasius wished to say something absurd like, “Although the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the Father, yet we must dogmatically confess only that (allegedly) the grace and energies and these alone of the Spirit are mediated through the Son”, he would have done so. That’s not what he said. [Original text and Greek here http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.in/2009/08/filioque.html%5D
2. The two texts of St. Cyril ” the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son.” and [/i]”in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.”[/i] These texts are so wondrously clear that to add anything to them by way of commentary is to subtract from them.
Gregory II is wrong, and Patriarch Bekkos is right. He and many others of the learned Greeks were able to convincingly show after lengthy study that hypostatic procession of the Spirit mediated through the Son (i.e. the eternal act of spiration of the Spirit from the Father, where the Spirit receives His divine hypostasis, is eternally through the Son) is clearly the teaching of the Greek Fathers, in admirable agreement with the Latin Fathers.
OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2017, 12:35:58 PM »
Speaking of the false union of lyons, when the patriarch of constantinople accepted the so called unia, the monks of mount athos removed his name from the diptychs, excommunicating him from the Church, in return the emperor send some latins to the holy mountain to enforce the unia by the sword, the rest of the story is well known, how the Lord and His Mother intervened and repudiated both, the latins and the monks who accepted the unia. Their accursed corpses are located even today in a cave, so their dreadful look can serve as a remainder of what took place.
And the holy martyrs, who refused the unia were glorified by God in another miraculous event.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 12:39:26 PM by Vanhyo »
thesplendorofthechurch.com
In this post, i provide analysis and harmony/synthesis/consensus of the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and ecumenical Councils with a special focus on refuting a nasty Eastern Orthodox member claims that are contrary to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I do this in full charity and my views should not be seen as an impediment to dialogue but a response to the attacks of this Eastern orthodoxy member who is a vile anti-Catholic. Note he cannot debate me online but instead asks for a phone debate!
Andrew said;
“now you are just being silly the Greek fathers are the most hostile towards your nonsense. You treat the Fathers like Protestants treat scripture you proof text…. But ecumenical councils spoke on this already and called the filioque HERESY…. You’re acting like a clown I told you I’m driving you keep sending these long messages surely we can do a phone debate?”
My response;
Andrew Herbst,
you profess the Orthodox heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE and NOT from both the Father and the Son. First, i have to tell you that this is the controversy that led to the Greek Schism and you are merely repeating this,talking about what you believe in your faith and NOT the Apostolical faith.
You said that the Greek Fathers are hostile towards me but you did not indicate any while you also hinge on the claim that Councils anathematized the filioque which is false from you. As far as i know Greek Fathers all agree with me;First let us begin with the Latin Fathers before we go to the Greek Fathers and the councils.
The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints? The teaching of Catholic Church, unlike that of the Eastern Orthodox Church, does justice to the Greek and Latin Fathers. Should we expect any different of a Church that follows the teaching of St. Photios, who, despite his great virtues and learning, misunderstood the West, knew no Latin, and failed express the truly Catholic tradition, for he did not include the Latins, St. John of Damascus, and ante-Nicene saints among the Church Fathers? What we will refer to as Photian monopatrism, first appears, not in any orthodox writer, but in the work of the Nestorian Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia, an arch-heretic of the Antioch school whose writings and person were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) in 553.(ironically this council is the one of the Councils you suggested anathematized the Filioque)!
Looking at the Greek Fathers, first we need to make it clear that the Eastern Orthodox have not preserved the true understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, ever since what started as a dispute over misunderstood words became hardened into a theology incompatible with the sacred Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; now the Orthodox, at the very most, will grant, following Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot of Constantinople, that the υπόστασις (hypostasis) of the Spirit is eternally energetically manifested through the υπόστασις of the Son. The Orthodox maintain the Patristically impossible position that the Father and the Son do not, together, spirate the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. Filioque is necessary in order to fully explain the distinction between the Person of the Son and the person of the Holy Spirit, to preserve the correct τάξις (order); the Trinity of Persons are distinguished by the relations of origin, as Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople and Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa teach. Since the Holy Spirit is a υπόστασις and given that He proceeds in some way from the Son, He must proceed as υπόστασις from the Son, which is to say His υπόστασις is from the Son. In other words, the υπόστασις of the Holy Spirit proceeds (is) from the Son eternally, but the primordial/unoriginate source of His divine hypostasis is the Father alone, for the Father alone is the (unoriginate) πηγή (source) and αἰτία (cause) of divinity. The Holy Spirit receives from the Son the being and oυσία (ousia = nature) of the Father, which the Son receives as Only-Begotten.
Andrew, you also claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “THROUGH THE SON” but your forget that ‘through’ signifies cause or productive principle; and from the fact that the Son sent the Holy Spirit to creatures there is evidently collected that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son from eternity.
Another of the Greek Fathers is Blessed Athanasius who says in his Creed, “The Holy Spirit is not made nor created nor generated by the Father and the Son, but proceeds.” Note that Athanasius did not say ‘from the Father through the Son’.
The other Greek Father is St. Basil, whom the Greeks put before almost all the others. So he says in book.2 against Eunomius, “Now this is obscure to all, that no operation of the Son is separated from the Father, nor is there anything in reality which is present to the Son and alien to the Father. For all that is mine, he says, is yours and yours mine. How then does he attribute the cause of the Spirit to the onlybegotten alone?” Note that Basil was writing against Eunomius who was not disputing about the gifts but about the substance of the Holy Spirit, and he wanted the Son alone to be truly the cause of the Holy Spirit and Basil succeeded in refuting him proving that not only is the Son the cause of the Spirit but the Father too, because everything the Son has the Father has.
“From the Son” and “through the Son” are different ways to express the true doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. According the Catechism of the Catholic Church §248,The Greek formula directly expresses the order according to which the Father and Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit, and implies their equality as principle. The Latin formula directly expresses the equality of the Father and Son as principle, and implies the order. The great Byzantine Fathers and Doctors had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque.
Before you continue in vain arguing that Filioque is false, learn that there are three personal properties, taking properties in the strict sense of a relation of origin constituting a divine person: the property of the Father–paternity–is γέννησις (generation), the property of the Son is filiation, and the property of the Holy Spirit is procession, i.e., passive spiration. Saint Basil the Great of Caesarea says in Epistle 214:4, “In God, whatever appertains to nature is common … but the Person is known by the character of paternity, or filiation, or sanctifying power.“ Sts. Gregory the Wonderworker of Neocaesarea, Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation), Eulogios, and John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption) teach the same truth.
Thus when you claim that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, you rob the Son of a role in the eternal hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit but Greek Father Gregory of Nyssa would refute your claims. In Sermon 3 on the Lord’s Prayer, the Cappadocian Father says, “the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His” [Rom 8:9]. Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be “of the Spirit,” nor does this relative order become reversed.”
Again in “Against the Macedonians on the Holy Spirit” 6 , St. Gregory says that the Son, with the Father, gives existence to the Holy Spirit and Athanasius adds that: “David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: ‘For with You is the font of Life;’because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit.”
Now turning to the councils, i will repeat what i already told you. At the first ecumenical council of Nicaea, Gelasios of Cyzicus testifies in History of the Council of Nicaea 2:22 that Bishop St. Leontios of Caesarea declared on behalf of the Holy Fathers assembled there that “the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him.“ Thus from antiquity the Church believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded in some manner from the Son, although Eastern Orthodox apologists would, through a Palamite lens, interpret “gushing forth” as referring to an energetic procession or manifestation, rather than a statement about the τρόπος ὑπάρξεως of the υπόστασις of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Son.
At the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I) in 381,the Holy Fathers against the Greeks who claimed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son alone-assembled at the Second Ecumenical Council wanted to affirm the ὁμοούσιος of the Holy Spirit with the Father, not the precise τρόπος ὑπάρξεως (mode of coming to be) of the Holy Spirit. Thus they considered the εκπόρενσις of the Holy Spirit from the Father as the sole unoriginate πηγή (source) and αἰτία (cause) of divinity, and were not immediately concerned with the relation of origin between the Holy Spirit and the Son.
In 431 Canon VII of Ephesus prohibits additions to the Creed “defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea,” the creed composed in 325; it does not prohibit adding to the Creed that the holy fathers of Constantinople I composed in 381, which did not attain ecumenical status until Rome ratified Constantinople I later on. That is why St. Cyril recites the Nicene Creed of 325 in Epistle 17 (Page 77:117) and the holy fathers of Ephesus read the Nicene Creed of 325, not the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, at the 6/22/431 opening of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.
At the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon), it is more obvious when we consider the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 regarding the Nicene Creed of 325, to which several explanatory statements were added by the 381 Council of Constantinople I,“This wise and saving Symbol of Divine grace would have sufficed to the full knowledge and confirmation of the faith; for it teaches thoroughly the perfect truth of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and presents to those who receive it faithfully the Incarnation of the Lord.”
It is clear, then, that the holy Fathers of the seven ecumenical councils considered expository clauses licit in cases of new heresies.
Further at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) in 553,Session 1,the Fathers said;
“We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John [Chrysostom] of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and their writings on the true faith.”
The Fifth Ecumenical Council followed “in every way” the “writings on the true faith” of the aforementioned Holy Fathers, meaning that it endorsed the Triadology of each of these God-bearing Church Fathers. But we have seen that Sts. Athanasius the Great (Doctor), Basil the Great (Doctor), Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril (Doctor of the Incarnation), and even others like Hilary (Doctor), Augustine the Great (Doctor of Grace), and Leo the Great (Doctor) taught that the Holy Spirit derives His existence from the Father and the Son.
At the end of this discourse, we can see who has the facts right between me and you. Also note that for up to the time of the schism Greece flourished with learned and holy men, so that all the general Councils were celebrated among the Greeks; but after the schism for almost 800 years they have had no Council, no holy man famous for miracles, very few learned men. But the Latins at this time have had twelve general Councils and innumerable particular ones. Again in each age there have been men very famous for miracles, new orders of religious, many learned men.
The Greeks have been convicted in Councils, they have been converted to our faith four or five times, and perhaps even more often,and they have always returned to their vomit.
The Latins have always in disputations remained superior in the same faith and doctrine; lastly among the Latins very powerful kingdoms and empires still flourish, but the empire of the Greeks has been overthrown by the Turks, the enemies of Christ; and it has been almost destroyed, and all of them live in very wretched servitude, and are compelled to carry the very heavy yoke of captivity. Woe to them for abandoning the true faith.
The cause of their fall is their stubbornness in error about the procession of the Holy Spirit, Constantinople was taken, the Emperor killed, and the empire wholly extinguished by the Turks on the very feast of the Holy Spirit.
The Catholic response to the Western Franks:
The Franks have been convicted in Councils, especially Constantinople I 381 AD and Ephesus 431 AD, and their wild animal and fox of Charlemagne, Filioque, is testimony against them, for Charlemagne lied and said the “Greek” had removed the Filioque from the original Creed of Constantinople I 381 AD. In their quest to “remain superior” the Latins have gained the whole world but lost their souls. They have made agreements with Hitler and Napoleon. They have been complicit in the slaughter of Serbian Orthodox Christians by the Catholic Croatian Nazi Ustashe in World War II. By their fruits ye shall know them.
scott,
scott,
Thanks for that. Truly illuminating. I certainly cannot express it any better.
Note: “the primordial/unoriginate source of His divine hypostasis is the Father alone, for the Father alone is the (unoriginate) πηγή (source) and αἰτία (cause) of divinity. ”
Also: “How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints?”
And also: “It is clear, then, that the holy Fathers of the seven ecumenical councils considered expository clauses licit in cases of new heresies.”
As to the response: “The Catholic response to the Western Franks:
The Franks have been convicted in Councils, especially Constantinople I 381 AD and Ephesus 431 AD, and their wild animal and fox of Charlemagne, Filioque, is testimony against them, for Charlemagne lied and said the “Greek” had removed the Filioque from the original Creed of Constantinople I 381 AD. In their quest to “remain superior” the Latins have gained the whole world but lost their souls. They have made agreements with Hitler and Napoleon. They have been complicit in the slaughter of Serbian Orthodox Christians by the Catholic Croatian Nazi Ustashe in World War II. By their fruits ye shall know them.”, this is only a racist and political diatribe that is slanderous and bigoted. It refutes none of the issues raised, but is a slogan used to smear the church.
Oops! Correction! What Pope Leo XIII said, not Pope Leo III. My mistake.
Water, The pope of Rome was not in Rome but was a Pope of Avignon at some time.
scott,
You can dig up all the excuses you like, it doesn’t work.
There is no excuse for your words. You ignore the facts of history to your own ignorance and detriment.
Water, You quote Scripture selectively, and appeal to Matthew 16 alone for the papacy. You do not read and bring in the other Scriptures. You do not read John. The power to bind and to loose, the keys of the kingdom, and to forgive sins, belongs to all of the Apostles of Christ, and not to Peter alone over the other apostles. Apparently you do not believe Christ’s other words. You do not follow the example of the Gospels and of Paul, and you say “I am of Cephas” (Peter) and you forget Paul’s Scripture. “Is Christ divided?”. “Was Paul (or Peter) crucified for you?”.
scott,
You’ve got a fever. Matthew 16 is the prime quote, I was not attempting to give a comprehensive treaties on papal authority!
The keys to the kingdom are given to Peter alone. To Peter alone does Jesus say “Look after my flock”. To Peter alone does Jesus say “upon this rock I will build my church”.
I do not say “I am of Cephas! The Catholic church is the church of Peter, Paul, John and all the other apostles.
Those who divide the church are Luther, Calvin, a multitude of other protestant sects, as well as your friend Photios.
The church fathers disagree with you when you say that the bishop of Rome does not have primacy.
Pope John VIII (879-880 AD) did not blame either Patriarch Photius or Patriarch Ignatius for any schism whatsoever, so the Catholic Church does not say Photius caused a schism. The Pope of Rome accepted Photius, and his synod restored the unity of the Church between Rome and Constantinople. Ignatius, Photius, and John VIII therefore embraced each other as brethren.
Saint Peter was bishop and patriarch of Antioch long before he was bishop and patriarch of Rome. Therefore Antioch is also in Saint Peter along with Rome. Therefore the Patriarch of Antioch also has the Primacy and Keys of Saint Peter, and Antioch in Peter is also in Apostolic Succession from Saint Peter. There is no subordination of any bishop to another bishop: all apostles of Christ and all bishops of Christ are collegial and equals in Christ, and Acts 15 shows the collegiality and conciliarity of the Catholic Church, where they say as one “It seemed to the Holy Spirit and to US”, nor “To the Holy Spirit and I, Peter”.
See Johan A. Meijer’s writing A Successful Council of Union on blessed Saint Pope John VIII and his council, 879-880 AD.
A successful Council of Union: A theological analysis of the Photian Synod of 879-880 ([Analekta Vlatadon]) Unknown Binding – 1975
by Johan A Meijer (Author)
Be the first to review this item
Series: [Analekta Vlatadon]
Unknown Binding: 293 pages
Publisher: Patriarchikon Hydrima Paterikon Meleton] (1975)
Language: English
ASIN: B0006CQZOC
scott,
You are really tying yourself up in knots.
There is NO support from the church fathers that Antioch is equivalent to Rome.
There is plenty of support that the bishop of Rome has primacy, whatever you may have to say about it.
A pope of Rome, John VIII and his ecumenical council (879-880), which you do not mention, and which you do not like, because it destroys your theory that Photius caused a schism, because Pope John VIII said that Photius was not the cause of any schism. Pope John VIII fully accepted both Patriarch Ignatius and Patriarch Photius, and they both accepted Pope John VIII, and Ignatius and Photius accepted each other.
The 8th council imho is one of the strongest historical reasons for Orthodoxy.
scott,
Photius’ ideas were seized upon later by some Orthodox zealots to effect the schism.
Water said:
scott,
You are really tying yourself up in knots.
There is NO support from the church fathers that Antioch is equivalent to Rome.
There is plenty of support that the bishop of Rome has primacy, whatever you may have to say about it.
Scott said:
Water, You are really tying yourself up in knots.
There is NO support from the church fathers that Antioch is NOT equivalent to Rome.
There is plenty of support against Filioque, purgatory, immaculate conception of Mary (Thomas Aquinas), azymes, iconoclasm, and so on. And for Orthodoxy.
scott,
There is no support in the church fathers that Athens is NOT equivalent to Antioch. Does that mean that it is? That is how stupid your assertion is.
There is certainly plenty of support for filioque from the Latin fathers and others for centuries before the schism took place, and everyone was happy about that. It is only after things had gone sour politically that filioque was used as an excuse for the break with Rome.
Total nonsense. Leo III forbad Filioque, not Constantinople.
scott,
Forbad is not the word, he agreed with it but advised against its inclusion in order not to offend the Orthodox.
But anyway, that’s not what I am talking about.
Water said: scott,
Photius’ ideas were seized upon later by some Orthodox zealots to effect the schism.
Scott said:
Water, The schism was caused by Pope Benedict VIII (and HRE Henry II), Pope Nicholas I, Charlemagne, Alcuin of York, Ratramnus of Corbie, Paulinus of Aquileia, Theodulf of Orleans, Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and other partisans of Filioque. Augustine of Hippo did not make Filioque an issue for schism: he was speculating about it to defend Christ’s divinity, not making it an issue necessary for salvation, which Aquinas did in Contra Errores Graecorum. So Aquinas is in schism from Augustine.
scott,
You do have some weird and wonderful ideas. Aquinas does not necessarily speak for the church.
Sometimes I err on the side of charity. Wishing to be at peace with all men, and open to the spirit of goodness that calls all men, whether they be saved men by God’s grace, or unsaved and heretics, there remains in all men the image and likeness of God, and a natural goodness; it is just that in impenitent sinners and criminals and heretics, this image is muted, and the light of goodness has grown dim. Even in us as baptized Orthodox Christians in the Orthodox Church, newly illuminated by God’s grace and love and mercy and holiness in Christ Jesus, the temptation to sin is still there. But it is sin to equate the traditions of the ungodly with those of the Orthodox. The heterodox followers of modern Rome err in some ways that we Orthodox do not err. We have the Gospel and the Fathers and the traditions of the undivided Catholic Church with us. We are Catholic. Catholicism and Protestantism today are heterodox and schismatic, having Filioque and individualism and modernism as their main signs. We have an overlay, I have a past which I need to lay aside for Christ. To receive the true Christ, we need to lay aside the writings and ideas of the Orthodox, and acquire the mind of Christ, acquire the Holy Spirit, and be at peace with all, and hold fast to the writings of the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy, Photios, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. But I erred somewhat when I said there is beauty and holiness and glory of God in those of Catholicism, Protestantism, and even heretics. What I was getting at is even rank heretics like the heretical followers of Herbert W. Armstrong, say some things and write some things that are correct. But these are few. Their Binitarian polytheism smells of Filioque, Mormonism Seventh-Day Adventism, Arianism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Catholics and the Protestants, having inherited from Holy Orthodox and the Orthodox Church much of the Holy Gospel, have, except for the Filioque, papal jurisdiction, sola scriptura and sola fide, and azymes, retained a degree of Orthodoxy and holiness which we commend in them; they must, like me, however, return to the Orthodox Church to be saved. While we leave to God and Christ to judge whether any outside the Orthodox Church may yet be saved, I know that if I forsake Orthodoxy I will be lost myself. I am barely where I need to be. But I have hope and patience and peace and joy, since Christ is with me and in me and has forgiven me in baptism. I thank God for the unspeakable gift of His Holy Mysteries. God save us in the Orthodox Church. God bring you back to the fullness of the Gospel and Patristic unchanging Apostolic Succession tradition, which exist only in the (Russian) Orthodox Church (and those of the Greek Old Calendarists, Romanians, Bulgarians, and all the Orthodox faithful who are not falling back to modernism, unbelief, schism, and new calendarism). God bring you to Orthodox, and save you from Papism and Protestantism. This is the truth. All our love to you from Christ Jesus. God bless you always and save you. Lord have mercy. Scott (Andrew in Christ) Russian Orthodox Christian, Erie Pennsylvania.
scott,
Obviously we differ slightly here.
Dear Craig: Please tell us your story as a fellow Orthodox. I believe it is time for me as a convert to Russian Orthodoxy, to Christ in ROCOR, to stop the dialogue between us Orthodox and the heterodox, and this is for their sake, as well as ours, for they do not always seem open to Orthodoxy. We must be careful and pray, and fast at times, and be on guard for the false devices of non-Orthodox traditions of men which would (could) infect our Orthodox minds as with a virus, a wild animal and fox of Filioque, and the traditions of Augustine which have so separated the Eastern part of Catholicism from the Western, who were once in Western Catholicism, even with Augustine in spite of some of his faulty and heterodox statements, he was Orthodox, but we are too easily distracted if not led stray by the craftiness of men and blown tro and fro by every wind of doctrine, wherein they lie in wait to deceive, and steer us off course from THE RUDDER, our Rudder, the Orthodox Church, the pillar and ground of the Truth (Christ Himself), the One Ship Holy Catholic & Apostolic of Christ (from Saint Andrew, Saint John, and all the Apostles). Please tell me your story of how you became Orthodox and which books by which writers converted you from Western Christianity to the holy Greek Orthodox Church (in many nations). Can you tell us more? What’s your testimony in Christ? God bless you and your Church and family and all who are with you. Amen.
Tall order.i am not opposed to it but have not worked myself up to it even after 5 years of blogging. I will see if i can
The thing, Craig, I believe, is not to talk to others in any way about one’s conversion to Christ in holy Orthodoxy, but to direct oneself inwardly (by prayer and fasting), and outwardly (by church attendance, confession, repentance, receiving Eucharist), and to be converted all the time to Christ, and to begin producing fruits good works (Eph. 2:10) mete for repentance (Eph. 2:8-9), which was by God’s mercy alone, and not by any good works or personal merit or righteousness at all in any of us in ourselves (Titus 3:5). While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. We need to lay our lives on the line to be there in America for our fellow American Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ. God bless you.
My paths and misdeeds have led me to the existence I have known. I have remained looking for God, but at times making mistakes and getting into various sins. From this, I have come into a state of singleness where I have not, not yet at least, for a companion to share the life in Christ with as a man-woman relationship in Christ. To each his own. Some come to Christ and remain as they are; some find a lady in Christ to share life with.
I wish all of you peace and love and Christ’s presence and joy, whether you life brings you singleness or marriage. I wish all the best for all of us. And better knowledge and living out of the Scriptures in the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit. LORD have mercy on us all. God bless all of you who have talked to me. Written. Take care.
Oops! I said by mistake to acquire the mind of Christ, we have to lay aside the writings of the Orthodox. I meant, I was thinking heterodox, but typed Orthodox. My unconscious mistake. A serious difference. Pardon me, dear Saviour.
Water said:
scott,
Show me in the early fathers the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son but not eternally so. That should not be very difficult for you since you say that this is what they taught.
If you want to know what the Orthodox say, read>
Aristeides Papadakis. Criisis in Byzantium. The FIlioque and the Patriarchate of Gregory II. Crestwood, NY: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Siecienski, A. Edward. (2010). The FIlioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ostroumoff, Ivan N. (1971). The History of the Council of Florence. Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery.
Photios, Saint. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, trans. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers.
Farrell, Dr. Joseph P., Ph.D., trans. (1987). Saint Photios. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
For the Roman Catholic view of Thomas Aquinas and James Likoudis, see: Likoudis, James. (1992). Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism. New Rochelle, NY: Catholics United For the Faith, Inc.
Water:
“The worship of the Church at the close of the first one thousand years had substantially the same shape from place to place. The doctrine was the same. The whole Church confessed one creed, the same in every place, and weathered many attacks. The government of the Church was recognizably one everywhere. And this one Church was Orthodox.
“1054: How the West was lost.
“Tensions began to mount in the latter part of the first millennium. They were reaching the breaking point as the second one thousand years began … While various doctrinal, political, economic, and cultural factors were at work to separate the Church in a division that would be the East and the West, two giant issues emerged above others: (1) should one man, the Pope of Rome, be considered the universal Bishop of the Church? and (2) the addition of the novel phrase “filioque” to the Church’s creed” [pages 51, 54]. Gillquist, Fr. Peter E. (1989). Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. 1st ed. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, Inc.].
scott,
That does not answer my question.
Everything we have and need is in Christ. To Him alone be honor and power, the kingdom the power and the glory, in the visible Church, which exists both in East and West. The leaders of the West are in schism because of Filioque. If they drop Filioque and acknowledge it is heresy, that would be step one, along with renunciation of azymes, and doing Eucharist and baptism in the proper way, perhaps then, if they do this, we would say that the Church would welcome them back; if our hierarchs require anything more, I would say I would follow whatever lead they the Church tells me. The leaders of the Church pray for the unity of all. So far, the West has not approach the Church to repair this schism from the Church, from us, in the Church. May the Lord forgive me when I make a mistake and sin. Let me no longer do or say that which He would forbid me from saying or doing. Amen.
scott,
You are not dealing with the underlying issue.
Water: ISTM, the underlying issues are hermeneutics: methods, & sources.
What books or Church Fathers’ writings do you have access to?
I don’t have a large collection of Church Fathers’ writings in books.
I have some. Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Jerome, Vincent of Lerins, and the Apostolic Fathers (and a few other Fathers).
But I do not know which Church Fathers spoke directly on the procession of the Spirit, whether temporal or eternal.
I know Maximos the Confessor is a kind of mediator between Western and Eastern views.
Since your problem is with your view of Photios, I view it a benefit to your understanding that you actually read and study Photius before you even begin to make an opinion on what he says.
If the standard by which all other Fathers are judged is by what Augustine of Hippo alone says, we have a problem here of methods and hermeneutics and standards, let alone epistemoloy and the source of Fathers as guides to NT theology. Yes, Augustine is a Father, but there are other Fathers. Like Ambrose Jerome and John Chrysostom. I suggest you read John of Damascus, for he answers your questions on the procession of the Holy Spirit.
scott,
I highly recommend “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by J.A. Jurgens. It is an outstanding summary of the writings of the fathers, with a doctrinal index.
I by no means rely on St Augustine alone.
My question is simple. A simple answer is all that is required.
W.A. Jurgens
Water: What is the underlying issue? And how do you know it is the underlying issue? What evidence is there it is the underlying issue? By what standard do you say the church fathers do not agree with Photius, if you have not read Photius? Have you read Photius and carefully compared him to the fathers? My source for addressing the issue of what the Fathers said is “The History of the Council of FLorence”, Ivan N., Ostroumoff. I suggest you read that book if you need an answer on the difference between “and the Son” (Filioque) and “through the Son” in the fathers.
scott,
Why don’t you just answer my question?
Water: If you want to hear the Orthodox Church answer on what the Church Fathers mean by “through the Son”, see: Ostroumoff, Ivan N. (1971). A History of the Council of Florence. Translated from the Russian by Basil Popoff. Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery.
scott,
I am more interested to hear what the church fathers have to say about it.
Church fathers? I think they are available online at CCEL. Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Water: All of the Fathers, East and West, say that Christ said the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26). Not one Father, East or West, said that Christ said “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Name one Father, East or West, who bases his argument for a procession of the Spirit “from the Son” on a denial that Christ said only “from the Father”? Neither Christian Scripture nor Christian tradition allow us to add words to Scripture and tradition which Christ did not say, and saying “And the Son” is precisely something Christ did not say; therefore, a true Christian, as a sheep of Christ listening to his Good Shepherd, Christ the LORD GOD and Saviour of all men, of all men (women, people) who believe in Christ (John 3:16-18, ff.) will not say “Filioque”, “who proceeds from the Father “And the Son”. It is that simple.
scott,
Read the article.
Water: What reason is there for reading the article? Does the article address the question, “Where in the Bible does Jesus Christ say “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”? Why are you avoiding answering that question? None of the Church Fathers said, “Jesus Christ said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son”. God bless you. Scott.
There really is no Scripture in which Christ says directly, “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”; and, absent from any evidence from our LORD Himself or from His Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Son”, we should not believe the rationalism that is behind the Filioque tradition of men. It is simply wrong to hold this dogma as “necessary for salvation” (Thomas Aquinas, “CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM”), and this Filioque is the wild animal and fox of Charlemagne and the Franks, not of the earlier popes of Rome Gregory I, Leo III, and John VIII. The truth is that simple.
“THE SYNODICON ON THE HOLY SPIRIT”. To be read on the second day of Pentecost. “A confession and proclamation of the Orthodox piety of the Christians, in which all the impieties of the heretics are overthrown and the definitions of the Catholic Church of Christ are sustained. Through which the enemies of the Holy Spirit are severed from the Church of Christ”. [page 125.].
“THE ACCLAMATIONS”.
“TO those who confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, with no intermediary, just as the Son is begotten from the Father alone, with no intermediary, according to the testimony of God the Word Himself to His apostles at the season of His Passion for the salvation of the world when He said, “But when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, Who proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me”, [John 15:26] and to those who accept unaltered this divine testament of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, ETERNAL MEMORY”. [page 130.]. Saint Photios. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, trans. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers, Inc.].
I think there may be many types of Christians, I mean to say, of Christian experiences. In Orthodoxy, there seems to be more ecumenist and modernist forms of Orthodox believers, and more traditionalist and liturgically experienced Orthodox. It is probably true to say that many if not most Orthodox in America are converts, coming into Orthodoxy from the outside, in non-Orthodox Christians traditions, or even from unbelief and non-church, or Jewish and other religions backgrounds. Some may be traditionalist Catholics like St. Piux X Society Archbishop Lefebvre Catholics concerned with the approach of Vatican II, some Eastern Rite Catholics who made the move to enter Orthodoxy. Some are mainline Lutherand and Assemblies of God Pentecostal charismatics like myself, who come from a mixed LCA/ELCA and A/G background. I also attended some UMC and PCUSA church services. Out of curiosity, I even attended some Catholic charismatic and Jehovah’s Witnesses meetings, and I have dialogued a couple of times with Mormons. (I would not consider becoming Mormon, but I consider their beliefs odd but very interesting. Their errors are serious, but their culture is quite conservative and somewhat admirable).
scott,
I had a Mormon friend, very likeable and sociable, but also business minded and focused on his community, like many Jews I thought.
My experience with Assemblies of God not very positive overall, very categorical and anti Catholic, almost impossible to dialogue with. Angry is a good word.
My experience with Orthodox Christians also mixed, many of them insular and narrow minded, entrenched in their beliefs, not very good at reasoning.
My experience with Catholics is mixed. Most of them are friendly and open to dialogue, and very open to the good things in other traditions. I am that way toward whatever is true and good in any religions; I draw the line against those who alter add to or take away from the Creed of the Catholic Church, 381 AD. The Orthodox Church preserves this intact. Ancient Rome preserved it with Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII. Beginning with Pope Nicholas I, Rome stepped away from the unity and catholicity of the Catholic Church. God bless you. Some Orthodox do things I would say I disagree with. There is good and bad in every soul, and a line of conflict runs through all of us. It is no surprise our relationship with other Christians should be mixed, as we ourselves in ourselves are all mixed, and the light of and in us has to fight off our own darkness. It is easier to try to see the darkness in others than to confront the darkness within oneself. We are all equally human. God loves us all equally. Some of us have fallen into some heresies and errors, and sins, too. I know I have. God save us all. God save me. Too.
Chapter 6- The Dark Ages
In Western historiography, the centuries between the 6th and the 11th are usually referred to as “The Dark Ages”. It was a period of time for which we have very few sources, which, nevertheless, still give us enough information to form an idea of the situation in Western Europe at the beginning of the Medieval era (for example, the works of Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D., of so-called Fredegar in 660 A.D., of Paul the Deacon in 780 A.D. etc.) It was a Europe that was wallowing in ignorance, where the knowledge that had accumulated over the 1500 years of Hellenic and Hellenic-Roman civilization were rapidly disappearing. Hellenic education vanished in Gaul around 500 A.D. and in Spain around 600 A.D. [1] Even the renowned Isidore of Seville (who was later acknowledged as one of the leading experts on the medieval West) had no knowledge of the Hellenic language.
The works of the great philosophers and poets had disappeared altogether: in 750 A.D., nobody had access to Aristotle or Aeschylus, for the simple reason that those who could minimally read and write could be counted on one’s fingers… Subsequently, the copying and preservation of manuscripts was not in the least feasible. Besides, the barbaric chieftains of the Longobards, the Franks and the Teutons had no interest in anything else, beyond waging wars. Charlemagne’s reign was the one, minor exception, as he had housed a few educated persons in his court. From that point on, Western historians made a lot of fuss over nothing, when referring to “Carolingian renaissance” and other, similar pompous statements. Upon the demise of Charlemagne, the promotion of literacy in Francia and Germania ceased once again. Also lost for many centuries was the Romans’ technical knowledge, such as the construction of roads and bridges. In 820 A.D., Charlemagne’s biographer, Einhard, wrote with evident pride about how his king succeeded in building a bridge over the river Rhine – an otherwise routine job for Roman technology.
Aristotle remained unknown in the West, up until the 13th century; thus, “discovering” him set off a revolution in Western European thought. As a matter of fact, the naive western Europeans of that period had come to believe that they held in their hands a mighty weapon, with which they could promote philosophical and theological thought much further than the point the “Greeks” had taken it.
It was at this precise junction that the arrogance of Scholasticism also appeared, to which the Latin church became attached for entire centuries, having acknowledged it as the supreme theological achievement of the human spirit. The fact that in Constantinople Aristotle had never become obsolete and the Hellenic-speaking Fathers of the Orthodox Church had, over the centuries, created a high-quality synthesis of Hellenism and Christianity, were overlooked by Western historians, as mere “fine print”.
It would be of considerable interest to take a look at the state Western Europe was in during this period, from the scant sources that we mentioned previously. By 590 A.D., during the time of Gregory of Tours’ writings, the Hellenistic tradition had vanished in the territory of Gaul. In the ten books of Gregory’s “Historiae Francorum”, not even a trace of Hellenic literature appears to exist. An endless alternation of slaughters and lootings permeates his entire work, thus giving an impression that distressed even the author. Everything around him is crumbling and disappearing, while he strives – almost desperately – to salvage for the coming generations the events of his time. This is what he writes in his introduction: “In the cities of Gaul, literary writing has lessened to such a degree, that it has essentially disappeared altogether. Many are those who complain of this, not only once, but again and again….. ‘What an impoverished period this is’, they are heard saying. If, among our people, there is not a single one who can write in a book the things that are happening today, then the promotion of education is truly dead for us.” [2]
Nevertheless, the writings of Gregory of Tours at least indicate that he had several Latin sources at his disposal: a translation of Eusebius’ “Chronicles”, Orosius, Sidonius, Apollinarius et al. [3] Thus, his “History of the Franks” does possess a certain infrastructure, a certain logical sequence, and the events are set out in a relatively orderly manner. Although the Hellenic-Roman civilization was no longer preserved around him, still, its remembrance and its literary style have been preserved. Gregory is the last known Roman historian in Gaul …
A few decades later, things became much worse. In the Frankish “Chronicle” by Fredegar (practically the sole existing source for 7th century France), which was composed around 660 A.D., the reader finds it hard to find his way among the fragmented narrations of the author. Various Frankish courts succeed one another; freaks of nature (floods, meteorites, etc.) are intertwined with the narration of a certain diplomatic mission; the small and insignificant are mingled with the large, without any attempt to classify anything critically, and the author frequently stands in awe and wonder at the incomprehensible things of a far broader world, of which he knows nothing. When reading Fredegar, one is given the impression that mankind has gone back 1500 years, to the times before Homer, to the time when man had not yet put the world around him in order and could not yet form an overall picture and a logical sequence to what was going on around him. Everything is reminiscent of Greek mythology – a pre-historic period, where man is merely prey to certain unreasoning powers, incapable of resisting or comprehending what is happening to him. And it is not at all strange that Western European mythology relates to this precise period: the legends of the Nibelungen, of King Arthur, etc. And yet! This pre-historic era had ended for Europe, 1200 years earlier, when the Hellenic spirit had shone forth, from Ionia (Asia Minor) and Attica (mainland Hellas). And now, 7 whole centuries after Christ, Western Europe was forced to go back so many centuries and start from zero, on account of the barbarians’ predominance in Western Romania…
In Gaul, (which is of special significance, on account of the role it would play during Charlemagne’s time), the 7th century ends with the total collapse of the last administrative establishment that was left: the Church. Between 670 and 790 A.D., a vast emptiness is observed in the bishoprics. For nearly 150 years, no bishops can be found in formerly flourishing cities such as Marseilles, Nimes, Limoges, Bordeaux, Antibes, Geneva, Arles, and many more. According to Pirenne, this emptiness was so prevalent, that it could not be attributed to a circumstantial disappearance of historical sources. More likely, it should be attributed to a common, deeper reason. [4] It appears that the cities and urban life in general had degenerated to such a degree that in the end, they were no longer in a position to even maintain a bishop. This also constituted the final blow that finished off the Hellenic-Roman civilization in that territory. The decline of the urban way of life was accompanied by the collapse of the system of economy and commercial transactions. There is an abundance of bibliography on this subject (mainly by French historians) and it would be totally out of the scope of our study to repeat the findings detailed therein. At any rate, the picture that is formed is one of a western Europe that has returned to a closed, self-contained economy, whose outcome was a significant decline in its living standards. Where there used to be Roman ships on regular trading routes between Alexandria and Rome or Syria and Marseilles, now each region kept to itself and had to be content with local produce. Products such as papyrus and silk vanished in the West and were transformed into an exclusive privilege of free Romania.
However, the point that made the difference between free Romania (a.k.a. “Byzantium”) and the West even more revealing was their numismatic circulation. While Constantinople continued to circulate its golden coin (the “solidus”), in 7th and 8th century France, money had essentially ceased to be in circulation. In 8th century contracts, prices were often written in units of cereals or cattle.[5]
This meant that money had ceased to circulate and the economy had regressed back to the stage of bartering, of exchanging commodities. This was a primitive stage that Europe had left behind, as far back as 600 B.C. with the first appearance of Hellenic coins, and it caused immense difficulties in the economy of the land. In order to understand the difference between the Frankish and the Romanian perception on this matter, it suffices to remind the reader that Constantinople had maintained its gold “coin” unadulterated from the time of Constantine the Great, up until 1078 A.D. During these 750 years, this “coin” comprised the only reliable currency throughout Europe, and even beyond it (e.g., the Arabian Caliphates). The Solidus, which was its Latin name, contained a steady 4.48 grams of gold and was the established currency for international transactions; it was the “Dollar of the Mediaeval period”, as it was aptly named. Services, salaries, produce, taxes and at times even ransom payments to enemies, were all covered by “currencies” that had a steady value, for eight whole centuries. It was the longest-surviving example of numismatic stability in the entire history of Europe.
So far, we have focused on a description of Western Europe during the “Dark Ages” for two reasons: Firstly, because in this way, the contrast to the “Byzantine”(Eastern Roman) Empire is presented more vividly, given that it continued to maintain and cultivate the Hellenic-Roman civilization under conditions of financial prosperity that were totally unknown to the West. Secondly, because it was during this very period of barbarism and darkness that saw the birth of the extremely audacious Frankish allegations on the superiority of their theology and culture. As we shall see, these allegations were accompanied by a systematic forgery of History as well as by a relentless slandering of the free Romans. The vilification of “Byzantium” was considered a necessity, as it would veil the extent of Western Medieval barbarism, given that the very existence of Romania’s civilization (with the inevitable comparisons that it evoked) was contrast enough to the barbarism of the West. The Western ideological form eventually prevailed in Europe, from that time and up until this day, thanks to the military supremacy of the Franks. It is therefore important to bear in mind the cultural (or, rather, the primeval) setting in which the self-awareness of the Western civilization that confronted the Hellenic-Roman one was born.
It was precisely this Frankish ideological setting that guided many Western historians in their evaluation of the middle ages of “Byzantium”. These historians attempted once again to impose their own experiences and their own worldview throughout Christian Europe. Hence, they likewise gave the name “dark ages” to an analogous period of the Eastern Roman Empire. However, given that the Empire had lived moments of triumph during the 6th century (the construction alone of the impressive Church of the Holy Wisdom of God –Haghia Sohia- ruled out the element of darkness …) and given that it had also given birth to some of the most illustrious names of the middle ages, during the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries (Photius, Cyril, Methodius, Constantine Porphyrogennetus, Michael Psellus), the Frankish concept of “dark ages” had to be limited to two centuries only: the 7th and the 8th.
Of course darkness was to be found during those years only in the minds of the petty rulers who had sprung forth out of the “gloom-and-mould-covered Bavarian woods”, to recall Pericles Yannopoulos’ expression. The defending Roman Empire watched its territories dwindle after the impressive onslaught of the Arabs, but it still, nonetheless, managed to keep them in check and thus preserve its civilization.
There was of course an intellectual recession during this period, possibly attributed to the fact that the Empire primarily focused on military organization (the military “Themes” appeared in the 7th century, in charge of which they had placed generals). It was a period of regrouping for the state, which had not only lost the West, but also Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa. The financial consequences were enormous. By losing Egypt, the Empire was losing its traditional supply of grain. At the same time, as Pirenne had underlined, the Saracen pirates who had dominated the Mediterranean Sea had cut off all communications between the sections of the once “Roman lake”. For the first time after 900 years, the Mediterranean had ceased being an open route of communication and was now being transformed into an impervious border between hostile nations.
Perhaps the greatest catastrophe was brought on by the Iconomachy, which kept the State divided for 120 years. It is a fact that we do not have very much information from this period. Few sources have been saved to date, the most complete one being Theophanes’ “Chronography”. All the same, this situation probably does not relate as much to the cultural decline of letters, as it does to the Iconomachy conflict, where each side would destroy the works of the other as soon as it rose to power. This was a form of civil war that left countless ruins in its path.
Nevertheless, the picture that emerges from within contemporary research testifies at least to a continuity and not a lapse in education during these centuries. The University of Constantinople continued to operate. We know of professors such as George Cherovoscos and Stephanos Alexandreus who taught grammar, Aristotle and Plato during the mid 7th century. [6] According to Lemerle, who had made exhaustive attempts to reconstruct the educational program of those centuries, one does not observe any discontinuation in both elementary and secondary education; not even any remarkable changes to the structure or the program, from the end of the 6th century, through to the beginning of the 9th.
From the year 700 onwards, we lack information on higher education. Most likely there was a crisis, without this however implying that higher education had ceased to exist. The biographies of Tarasius (Patriarch 806 – 815), of Nikephoros (Patriarch 806-815) and of St. Theodore Studite bring to light certain data on the existence of higher education in the middle of the 8th century. Nikephoros studies were (in the following order): grammar, rhetoric, astronomy, geometry, music, arithmetic and he completed his education with philosophy. As Lemerle believed, this would have been the uppermost education standard of that era. [7]
In fact, Nikephoros’ Biography, which was salvaged, contains a lengthy section where quite large excerpts of Aristotelian philosophy are found. This proves that the study of Aristotle never ceased in Constantinople, even during the “dark ages”. A few decades later, a grandiose revival of letters recommenced in the Empire, with Photius as the most prominent personage, who, in his “Library” had cited and commented on some 280 books, which he had read himself. This revival would obviously not have been possible, if all these works had not been salvaged and studied in Constantinople. Finally, we must not forget that it was during these “dark ages”, that the most sublime of all poetic works of mediaeval times was written, in our language: the Akathest Hymn*.
*[A special hymn of praise and thanks, written in honour of the Holy Virgin and offered in a standing position in church, and “not seated” (=akathest)]
It is understandable, how the above portrait cannot be compared to the Frankish-governed Western Romania, where complete illiteracy obstructed the replication and preservation of manuscripts. Even the “educated” Franks of Charlemagne’s time did not possess those authors by which classical civilization is defined: neither Homer, nor Aeschylus, nor Sophocles, nor Thucydides, nor Demosthenes, nor Euclid, while of Plato’s twenty six works, they were aware of only one, “Timaeus”. [8] Besides, it is characteristic that Charlemagne, albeit son and grandson of a Frankish king, was nevertheless illiterate, and it was only during his old age that he attempted to learn to read and write.
The cultural abyss that separated Romania from Francia was not limited only to literacy and to financial prosperity. It extended to every kind of human activity. When princess Theophano (niece of Emperor John Tsimiskis) married Otto II and went to Germany, the Germans became utterly scandalized because she bathed and wore garments made from silk. One German nun had actually insisted that she had seen in a vision that these atrocious habits would be sending her to hell. [9] A few years later, her cousin Maria Argyre shocked the Venetians, when she brought forks to Venice for the first time. [10] Equally abysmal was the difference between the two worlds, with regard to the place of women. One characteristic event suffices to depict the cultural gap that existed between Romania and the West: in 1125, in the hospital of the monastery of Pantocrator in Constantinople, the resident male physicians served together with one female physician, four female assistant doctors and two female reserve assistants. [11] During the same period, some Western theologians did not think highly of women.
These barbarians, therefore, were the ones who decided to build a “Western Europe”, both in opposition to Romania, and in order to impose their own “civilization” on the Romans. As of the 9th century, they began to pester the Romans with a series of works entitled “Contra errores Graecorum” (Against the Errors of the Greeks), in which they supposedly “proved” the countless dogmatic and other errors of the “Greeks”. Nowadays, the descendants of those barbaric tribes are striving to persuade the still unconvinced neoRomans that we all share the same “common cultural heritage”, therefore we are supposedly obliged to agree to concessions, even in matters pertaining to our national rights, for fear of displeasing them. The progressive westernization of Hellas has obviously made the acceptance of such demands a lot easier.
It is often said that the main contribution of “Byzantium” to humanity was the preservation of ancient Hellenic works of poetry, philosophy, etc. Although this is correct, “Byzantium” did offer much more than this, and it also created a superb synthesis of Hellenism and Christianity. Nevertheless, with the constant repetition of this phrase, we are perhaps forgetting another absolutely essential dimension of the matter, namely: why did the works of classical education disappear in the West but were preserved in the East? If, according to the Western view, Romans and barbarians had merged and finally formed the Western European civilization, how is it that the Hellenic-Roman works were lost in the West? When two nations merge, the new synthesis contains elements from both sides. In fact, when one of the two is obviously superior in culture to the other, it is to be expected that its education will dominate over the other’s education. We know that, to a large extent, something like this had indeed occurred, during the synthesis of the Romans with the Hellenes, which produced the Hellenic-Roman civilization.
The great tragedy of European History lies in the fact that the clash between Romans and barbarians in the West did not bring about the same results. The Hellenic-Roman civilization rapidly disappeared during the 6th and 7th centuries, as we saw above. There is only one explanation for this, and our understanding of it constitutes a central point for the understanding of the genesis of the western civilization. Quite simply, Romans and barbarians never did merge in the West. They remained isolated, because barbarians were, with very few exceptions, incapable of embracing the Hellenic-Roman civilization; incapable of appreciating anything beyond certain external ritualistic elements. The more profound knowledge of human nature, of the world, of the end of History, and all that the wisdom of the Hellenic-speaking Fathers of the Church had to offer, were considered (and continue to be considered) by them to be nothing more than “Byzantinisms”, that is, pointless and incomprehensible theological conversations. The Romans’ hopes that the Germanic tribes would eventually accept this acculturation stumbled on the arrogance and the political scheming of the Franks. On the dilemma of “Romanity or barbarity”, Western Europe favoured barbarity, from the very beginning of mediaeval times. Thus, instead of entering a new era of prosperity, revitalized by the new tribes that were entering its cultural sphere, Western Europe instead tumbled back into prehistoric darkness and was forced to start from scratch.
From there onwards, the barbarians slowly began to set up their own civilization, starting from nil, from primitivism. Most of them soon disappeared. Names, whose very mention spawned fear during the 5th and 6th centuries are nowadays nothing more than sounds without any hypostasis: the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Erules, Vandals, Gepides, Swebes, Longobards and many others, all disappeared without leaving any trace, with one exception: the Franks. The Franks not only managed to wipe out the Hellenic-Roman civilization in the parts of Romania that fell under their occupation; they even managed to survive to this day, as the protagonists of Western European History. This is the reason that Western Europe is what it is, and not a continent based on the Christian, Hellenic-Roman civilization. And more than this: the Franks succeeded in usurping the very name “Europe”, severing it from the only civilized nation of the time – the Romans. Through persistent and long-term attempts, they actually managed to also convince many Romans that only the Franks and their descendants belong in “Europe”, and that the Romans are something foreign, something inferior. When this plan is successfully fulfilled, there will be no differing opinion left to reveal the distortion of History and the crimes of Western Europeans against the highest civilization that our continent has ever borne. Even worse, all the complex-ridden Romans will themselves be rushing to destroy their own civilization, imploring Westerners to give them certificates of “Europeanism”, thus irrevocably depriving humanity of the potential to discover a life far different to that of the mass, neurotic and alienated existence that the West has to offer…
These simple observations would have been redundant, had the Westerners not succeeded in altering the true picture to such an extent that nowadays it is considered a tautology that the Western civilization was born from the Hellenic-Roman one. It is therefore necessary to repeat a few, simple truths, so that this confusion can be dispersed once and for all. And above all, we need to remember that the reason ancient works in the West were lost, is only because someone destroyed them. The “someone” was not the Romans – on the contrary, we know that the free Romans of the East were the only ones who preserved them. Those works were destroyed by the barbarians, the Franks and the others. Thus, when we say that “Byzantium” preserved the works of antiquity, the significance of this observation is not that these works were salvaged by the free Romans; this would be only natural and self-evident. The important thing is that certain others, certain non-Romans – the barbarian ancestors of Western Europeans – preferred to clash with the Hellenic-Roman civilization and to destroy and obliterate these works.
The choice to destroy everything “foreign”, everything unfamiliar, remained a basic trait of the West in all of its contacts with other civilizations. However, those who are surely better qualified to comment on this observation would be the Incas, the Aztecs, and North American Indians …
scott,
Read Rodney Stark: “Bearing False Witness”
Chapter 7 The first appearance of the “Greeks”
In the 8th century the word “Greeks – Graeci” appears for the first time as the national name used to define the Hellenic-speaking denizens of the Roman Empire. In the past, the word had been used to express the word “Hellenes” in Latin. [13] Afterwards, however, it was lost as a national name, since the national significance of the word “Hellene” disappeared. The name “Graeci” (and its derivatives Greek, Grec, etc.) was established once again after the 8th century in all of the Western European tongues for describing the Hellenic-speaking Romans. Let us examine a little more carefully, from within the sources, how this neologism came to be.
In Chapter 3 we mentioned how the subjects of the “Byzantine” Empire considered themselves Romans and how the Empire continued to call itself Roman, until its termination by the Turks. This was exactly what all the other peoples also knew them to be, who had any kind of contact with the Empire up until the 8th century. For example, the Arabs, who had conquered vast territories after 630 AD, were quite aware that they were conquering Romans (“Roum” in Arabic, as in Turkish too, later on). Even today, 1300 years later, there are, according to their own estimates, about 1.200.000 Orthodox Christians living in Syria and Lebanon, who speak Arabic, but declare themselves to be “Roum Ortodox”. Not Syrian or Lebanese (after all, these are not considered ethnic differences within the uniform Arabic nation) but “Roman Orthodox” – descendants of the conquered Romans of the 7th century – who managed to preserve their religion and national identity for 1300 years, and who still shed a tear today, whenever they encounter another Roman…
It was only natural that we were also named “Romans” by the barbaric peoples who settled in Western Romania. Thus, the Frankish Chronicle by Fredegar mentions Phocas (602 – 610) as a “Roman patrician” who acceded to power in 602. [14] Further down, the Chronicle praises Heraclius, the vanquisher of Persians, with a rare display of splendour: “The Emperor Heraclius was impressive in appearance, handsome, tall, braver than the others, and a great warrior. He would often kill lions at the hippodrome and wild boars in remote locations …” [15] This was the period when the Christian World continued to be unified, with the Roman Emperor as its head.
Even after Heraclius’ death, the Empire continued to be called “Roman”. In section IV, 66 by Fredegar, we read that Heraclius “was succeeded by Constantine’s son, during whose reign the Roman Empire was savagely looted by the Saracens”. However, neither in Fredegar’s Chronicle nor in those of his Holdovers (who kept records up until 760) do we meet (not even once) the word “Greeks” as reference to the “Byzantines”. It is obvious that up until 760, the Franks had not yet decided to falsify History by naming the free Romans of the Empire “Greeks”. On the contrary, they acknowledged that the Empire was one, and that Rome belonged to it, as can be seen in Fredegar’s Holdover (paragraph 37) where he recounts the wars between Franks and Longobards in 754, following Pope Stephen’s appeal to the Franks for aid. (More details on these events will be given in the next chapter.) Throughout this Chronicle, one can still discern a respect and a friendly climate in the references to the Empire. While Fredegar’s Holdovers never used the word Graeci, twenty years later, in 780, things began to change. The Franks with Charlemagne have now subjugated the Longobards and have created a kingdom that extends over present-day France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Northern Italy. In “History of the Longobards” by Paul the Deacon, who resided in the court of Charlemagne, certain curious neologisms began to make their appearance. Quite inexplicably, the free Romans began to be called “Greeks”.
The narration up to the time of Heraclius presents no problems: “Heraclius, son of Heraclionus, assumed the governance of the Roman nation.” [16] In fact, Tiberius, who acceded to the throne in 578, is clearly referred to as the “fiftieth emperor of the Romans”, in an uninterrupted succession from the Octavian Augustus. [17] Then, all of a sudden, the “Greeks” make their appearance around 650: “When the Greeks arrived in those days to plunder the sanctuary of the Holy Archangel [Michael], which was situated on mount Garganus, Grimwald [duke of the Longobards] attacked them with his army and slaughtered them.” [18] Further along, however, when referring to Constantine IV, he writes that “the governance of the Empire of the Romans was undertaken by Constantine, son of emperor Constantius, who reigned over the Romans for seventeen years.” [19] He repeats the same words for Constantine’s successor, Justinian II, who “undertook the government of the Romans and maintained it for ten years.” [20].
Needless to say that in all these references to the Romans of Italy, Paul the Deacon maintains their proper name, regardless whether they are the rebelling subjects of the Longobards (for example Padua in 599 [21]) or free citizens who had preserved their property (for example Classis, which “was restored to the Romans by command of Liutprand” in 724 [22]).
Paul the Deacon’s “History of the Longobards” contains certain glaring contradictions, which have been exploited for centuries by Western propaganda. Thus, when Emperor Constas goes to Italy (662) and begins his new liberating war against the Longobards, Paul the Deacon writes that the Longobards sent a messenger who “was arrested by the Greeks and brought to the Emperor”. [23] In other words, the Romans are suddenly transformed into Greeks. They remained “Greeks” for as long as they remained in Italy, where the author describes scenes of great tribulations for the citizens of Rome and of Southern Italy. “Even the sacred vessels and the treasures belonging to the churches of God were transported far away, by the avarice of the Greeks, through an imperial command.” [24] And further down: “When the Beneventines and their provinces were rid of the Greeks, king Grimwald decided to return to his palace in Ticinum.” [25]
Oddly enough, after all of these events, the narrative continues to refer to Romans and to an emperor of the Romans in Constantinople, up until the reign of Leo II in 695. In other words, for as long as the Roman army under Emperor Constas was warring against the Longobards and freeing the enslaved Romans, it was not (according to Paul the Deacon) a Roman army, but a Greek army. As soon as the emperor returned to Constantinople, he became a Roman once again. These descriptions would have all been regarded as quite amusing, if they had not been written wittingly, and, even worse, if they had not been embraced by almost all the Western historians. However, given that these had been written wittingly, and because, as we know today, the adopting of forged national names always serves darker objectives, it is necessary to provide some kind of interpretation.
In our opinion, there is only one possible interpretation for this contradiction. It is the one that Romanides suggested. At some point after 750, the Franks conceived a colossal imperialist plan: the creation of an empire that would include Italy and, of course, the city-legend: Rome. In order to minimize the obstacles, they had to cut off the Romans of Italy from their capital, Constantinople, as well as from their fellow countrymen in the rest of the Roman Empire. So they started, gradually but systematically, to use the term “Graeci” in order to differentiate the Hellenic-speaking Romans from the Latin-speaking Romans. [26] What used to be an instrument of Frankish imperialism, ended up a commonly accepted historical “truth”, to the point that today the Christian Roman Empire is often called “Greek Empire” in Western histories – and of course the descendants of the Hellenic-speaking Romans are called “Greeks” everywhere.
Forty years after Paul the Deacon’s death, the falsification was complete. Einhard, who wrote Charlemagne’s biography around 830, did not hesitate to call Constantine VI a mere “emperor of the Greeks”. [27] However, even in general, the entire Roman Empire was nothing but Greek, according to Einhard. In his description of the boundaries of Francia after Charlemagne’s conquests, he writes that “[he] annexed the whole of Italy, which extends … from Aosta to Southern Calabria, at the point where the boundaries between the Greeks and the Beneventines are.” [28] From that time on, every Western source has been referring to the Hellenic-speaking Romans as “Greeks”, even up to the present day.
After everything that has been exposed in the 3rd chapter and this one, the political motivations that dictated the invention of various names for the Romans by the Westerners must have become evident:
In the 8th century, they needed to cut off the Latin-speaking Romans from the Hellenic-speaking Romans in order to conquer Italy unobstructed. So they invented the name “Greeks”. In the 16th through to the 19th century, they had to prevent the Romans from re-establishing their Empire. Thus, they nicknamed it “Byzantine”, given that there was no-one who would demand its re-establishment.
This is why we stressed in the introduction that the national names were devised wittingly by the Western Europeans, as the ideological means of annihilating Romanity.
In the next chapter we shall follow closely the political and religious events of the second half of the 8th century, when the great rift between West and Romanity was forming. This is a particularly important period, which has not, however, been sufficiently covered by Hellenic bibliography. [29] For this reason, we will need to go into more detail than we did in previous chapters, so that we may be able to study in detail how the Franks managed to cut off all connections with the Roman Empire and come up with that fictitious interpretation of History that prevails in Europe to this day.
scoot,
The word “Greeks” is all over the new testament.
Chapter 8 – Charlemagne and the autonomizing of the West from Romanity
It was in the 8th century that the rift between the Roman Empire and Western Europe was finalized. The Franks now felt powerful enough to demand for themselves the leadership of the “Christian World”. According to the medieval convictions however, which appeared to be deeply rooted in the majority of the population, the Roman Emperor was still at the summit of the known World. Thus, the need arose for Charlemagne, the most renowned king of the Franks, to be crowned emperor of the Romans in 800, in order to legitimise his authority.
In the pages that follow, we will follow more attentively the events that led to the permanent separation of Western Europe from the Roman Empire, between 750 and 800 AD. It is our personal opinion, that this period is especially decisive in the shaping of the Western European conscience and Western civilization. It was during these 50 years, that the West chose the confrontation with Romanity, a confrontation that has never ceased, even in our time. And it was during Charlemagne’s reign, that the West became united into a powerful state, which has since comprised a vision for Western Europeans, as well as “proof” of their “common cultural roots” that they continue to invoke to this day. It is by no means a coincidence that the first attempt for the re-unification of western Europeans (the EEC of the Six) was embarked on by those countries whose territories corresponded exactly to the dominion of Charlemagne…
The beginning of the 8th century found Italy divided between the Longobards and the free Romans, whose capital was Constantinople. Ravenna was the administrative centre of Roman Italy and the free territories included Southern Italy along with Sicily, Naples and the Ravenna – Rome passageway with the so-called. Venice and Istria continued to be Roman.
The wars between Romans and Longobards were incessant, and the Empire would occasionally send an army to defend its territories, but it is a fact that from 580 AD, when the Avars, the Persians and the Arabs reached closer to the walls of Constantinople, the emphasis on defence turned to the East. Consequently, it was for purely geopolitical reasons that the Western provinces were neglected to a certain degree. The vacancy in power that ensued in the West allowed for (if not imposed) the appointment of the Church as a point of support for the suffering Romans. The Pope took initiatives and became involved in the political game, in an attempt to secure the survival of his fellow countrymen. Thus, in 594 AD, Pope Gregory I requested the Emperor’s permission to seal a peace pact with the Longobards himself, despite the contrary political will of Constantinople, which had favoured a military defeat of the barbarians. The 7th century provides us with many more examples of this kind of initiative by the Pope.
To the Westerners and the Western-oriented historians, it was these initiatives that signalled the beginning of the rift between the Empire and the Pope; a rift that would finally lead to the Schism and an open hostility between the Empire and the West. The reality, however, is quite different. In order to comprehend the Pope’s role during the 7th and 8th centuries, we have but to turn to examples with Roman Patriarchs and archbishops of more recent History. One such example is the Patriarch of Constantinople, during the period of the Turkish occupation. Apart from the religious role, his role had also been a national one. He was the Ethnarch of all the subjugated Romans, who tended -with whatever means he had at his disposal- to the betterment of the fates of the entire Race. A second such example is the archbishop of Cyprus during the British occupation, before 1960. This is how we should evaluate the Pope’s role during those difficult years, when the barbarians had fenced in the Romans from all sides. The secular objectives and the territorial claims that characterize papal history in the pursuant centuries are the result of the seizure of the papal throne by the Franks in the 11th century, and we should in no way ascribe these characteristics to the Romanian Popes of the 8th century.
Developments in Italy took an unpleasant turn in the middle of the 8th century. In 751, the Longobards subjugated Ravenna and in the following year they reached the outer walls of Rome. Pope Stephen (752 – 757) attempted to close a deal with them, like his predecessors had also done, and when he failed, he asked for help from the Emperor Constantine V. Help however, during this crucial moment that threatened the very existence of Rome, was late in coming. According to the Liber Pontificalis (Book of the Pontiffs), “when Stephen realised that help was not going to come from the imperial throne, he remembered the actions of his predecessors Gregory I, Gregory III and Zachariah” and “enlightened by Divine Grace”, he sent a message to Pipin, king of the Franks. [30]
Pipin responded affirmatively and invited the Pope to Francia. During the meeting that took place in 754, Pipin promised to help and to protect the Holy See, while the Pope on his part gave his blessing to Pipin as king, and gave his sons the title of patrician. [31] We need to stress here that the title of patrician was not of any particular importance and it was bestowed from time to time on various barbarians.
The following year, Pipin did in fact go down to Italy and vanquished the Longobards. Upon his departure, however, the latter violated their agreements and began to besiege Rome anew. The Pope sent new, desperate appeals to Pipin, who returned to Italy, scattered the Longobards, and delivered the Roman territories to the Pope. Emperor Constantine V immediately sent his ambassadors, demanding the return of the territories to the Empire. Pipin, however, refused to do this, pointing out – unlike what the former Frankish rulers upheld – that he had not acted on behalf of the Empire. Thus, the lands of the former exarchate were left under the political jurisdiction of the Pope.
For Western Europe, this was a decisive moment in its History, since this was the way that the Papal state was created, which has been preserved in various forms to this day, playing a leading role in the political developments of the continent. The founding of the Papal state is usually described with expressions such as “the revolution of Italy in the 8th century”. Historians agree that Rome, deeply disappointed by Constantinople’s indifference, had decided to defect once and for all from the East.
It is highly unlikely that the Romans of 755 could have seen things in the way that we see them today. In their eyes, the Pope, being a genuine Roman Ethnarch, did what he could for the safety of the Orthodox Romans, amid the desperation in the Longobard-besieged city. He turned to the Orthodox nation of the Franks, in order to save Rome from subjugation; in fact, not just Rome, but the entire exarchate. In other words, he also wished to free the Romans who had been conquered by the Longobards. After all, we must not forget that Franks and Romans had allied in the past, in the 6th century, when the Franks had helped the Romans, not only against the Goths, but also against the Longobards. It was perfectly normal for the Pope to turn to them, when he saw no help coming from Constantinople. When examining the situation through this prism, we discern no secular ambitions by the Pope, nor are there any imperialist plans for domination over Western Europe, as Western historians usually assert. All these problems came much later, after the 11th century, and it would be wrong to place them in the middle of the 8th century.
It is also evident (and this is something that all historians accept), that Constantinople did not have any serious concerns about the developments in Italy. The occupation of Ravenna was seen as a temporary event, which would soon be reversed. The conflict between Romans and Longobards was riddled with such episodes during the 7th and 8th centuries. Pipin’s handing over of the former exarchate to the Pope and not to the Empire was most certainly an annoyance, as surmised from the consecutive delegations that were sent to Pipin during that period.
It was the Emperor’s decision to strengthen relations with the Franks, in the hope of neutralizing any potential extremist tendencies of expansionism from their part. Thus, in 757 he sent the chief delegate Georgios to Pipin, together with a huge church organ as a gift. It was the first time that Francia had laid eyes on an organ and the impression it made remained historical. [32] At the same time, he suggested marriage between Leo, the Emperor’s son, to Pipin’s daughter Gisela, although this proposition was never realised. In retrospect, we can say that this policy had a very limited outcome, as the Franks continued their expansion even after Pipin’s death.
It is noteworthy, how the main Roman source for that period, Theophanes’ “Chronography”, contains only a vague knowledge of what was taking place in the West during the decade of 750 (and even there, we find a chronological confusion, since Theophanes places Pope Stephen’s delegation to Pipin in 723 – 724). [33] At any rate, this limited information supports the view that we outlined above. Theophanes refers to Stephen as “the late reposed” and he also justifies the Pope’s action.
Beyond Theophanes, there is not a single other Hellenic-speaking source available for the events in Italy, as D. H. Miller has verified, who has systematically researched this period. [34] Thus, we are obliged to draw the details of these events from the Liber Pontificalis and the Frankish Codex Carolinus, where the Pope’s correspondence with the Frankish king is kept. The latter however is of uncertain genuineness. For instance, it mentions an epistle sent by Pope Stephen to Pipin where the former asks Pipin to now rid him of the “Greeks” also, so that the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God may be freed from the infectious deceitfulness of the Greeks. [35]
It makes one wonder why the Roman Pope, who had only recently asked for help from the Roman Emperor Constantine V, and who continued to date all his documents according to the year of the Emperor’s reign, would speak thus vehemently against the “Greeks”. But as we shall see further down, there are many other strange things in the Frankish sources of this period. They cease to be strange, as soon as we perceive the successive forgeries made a posteriori by ruthless Frankish diplomacy.
In 757, Stephen was succeeded by his brother Paul I. The orchestrated propaganda of the Codex Carolinus continued. In a letter to Pipin, the new Pope condemned the “Greeks” as heretics, even though he did not explain what their heresy was. He calls them nefandissimi, odibiles, perversi (impious, odious, perverse). [36] Roman sources are unaware of such a stance by the Pope. We need to remember that Emperor Constantine V had released new persecutions against the Iconophiles during this period, and with the Synod of Constantinople in 754, he had also ascribed to Iconomachy the character of an official dogma for the first time. Monks from the East had come to Rome seeking refuge with the Pope, who had remained steadfastly Orthodox and an iconophile. Could this have been the reason for the condemnation of the “Greeks”?
It seems hard to believe. Were that the case, the Pope would not have condemned the “Greeks” in their totality, but only the specific heretical views of the Emperor. Disagreements between Pope and Emperor were quite a few in the centuries prior to 750, and Orthodox History acknowledges that quite often, the Pope was right. One superb example was Pope Martinus I, who, albeit tortured and exiled, refused to succumb to Constantinople’s Monotheletism in the 7th century. Martinus was proclaimed a saint by the Orthodox Church, and he continues to be commemorated to this day. But never did a Pope express himself in this way for the totality of the Romans of the East.
Furthermore, in 8th century Rome, there were 10 “Greek” (i.e. Hellenic-speaking) monasteries, out of a total 38 monasteries within the city, where the people sought refuge from the Arab yoke or from the Iconomachy persecutors. [37] Was it ever possible for the Pope to condemn the “Greeks” in their entirety, when he had so many “Greek” monks under his jurisdiction, and moreso, when it is a known fact that Paul I himself had donated his homestead to the “Greek” citizens of Rome in 761, having ratified the donation by a Synodic bull which had been signed by all the cardinals, and which had the name of the donor inscribed in Hellenic lettering? [38] Finally, we should note that Pope Paul hailed from an old, renowned family of Rome. [39] It would not have been possible for him to begin calling his fellow countrymen, the Romans of Constantinople, “Greeks”, at a time when every Roman knew that no “Greek” nation existed in the East.
In short, to summarize the situation, there is no logical explanation for these expressions by Pope Paul I. Since these words have not been confirmed by any other source, in our opinion, we can consider them as posterior concoctions by the Frankish industry for historical falsifications. This of course is a matter that needs to be examined by experts; nevertheless, we need to make a parenthesis here, to remind the reader that History according to the Franks is rife with falsifications during this period.
For instance, the so-called “pseudo-Isidorian ordinances” (a collection of canons and papal decrees which were circulated by the Franks at the beginning of the 9th century) are renowned. These include –no less- 94 spurious papal decrees, as well as the infamous “Donation of Constantine”. As noted by V. Stephanides, “no other falsification in the history of mankind has been conducted with such artfulness, and no other forgery has brought about such huge results. The cited forgeries were not composed from mere figments of the imagination, but from elements taken from a painstaking study of theological and canonical sources, which, after being slightly distorted and re-coordinated, produced the desired result.” [40]
Furthermore, a few decades later, it was observed that the biographies of popes John VIII, Martin I and Adrian III (872 – 885), had been removed from the Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis), “an unprecedented kind of omission”, as noted by Loungis. [41]
Obviously, these popes had no place in History (as falsified by the Franks), given that they had sent congratulations to the imperial army which had driven out the Arabs from Southern Italy. In fact, Pope John VIII had prompted the commanders of the army to go to Rome, to defend the Romans there. [42]
Subsequently, it was not at all strange that the Franks retroactively erased his biography, which obviously must have also included other evidence that would have revealed the Frankish forgeries.
At any rate, an in-depth examination of Frankish forgeries would demand a particularly voluminous research that would leave modern-day readers speechless. With this in mind, we need not search any further, to understand why, during that same period of time, the Romans of the East had begun –otherwise inexplicably- to be referred to as “Greeks” in both the Codex Carolinus and in Paul the Deacon’s “Historiae Langobardorum”. Obviously, it was a predetermined political decision that dictated such a falsification.
Pipin died in 768 AD and his kingdom was divided between his sons Charles and Charlemagne, according to the German custom. The latter died three years later, whereas the former reigned for 46 years and became known in History as Charles the Great or Charlemagne.
In the very first year of the two brothers’ reign, the new Pope, Stephen III, convened the Lateran Synod (769), mainly in order to solve the problem of the presence of a claimant of the papal throne. This Synod, however, acquired a special interest, in light of later developments. For one thing, it was the first synod to take place in Rome, in which Frankish bishops -12 in number – participated, along with 39 Roman bishops (a detail which, incidentally, also proves that the distinction between Romans and Franks was still evident in 769 AD). [43]
With the Lateran Synod, the Pope had also aspired to incorporate the Franks in the Orthodox camp. By offering them for the first time the honour of participating in the Synod, he hoped to keep them more committed to him in view of future Longobard expansionist aims. History, however, proved him wrong, as the Franks soon afterwards embarked on their own expansionist wars, without showing any respect towards Orthodoxy or the Romans.
Nonetheless, this synod also had a secondary significance. One of its important decisions was the unconditional support of the veneration of icons (in fact, epistles by the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, which were in favour of the veneration of icons, were recited during the synod). At the same time, however, as in every synod, the confirmation of acceptance of the decisions of preceding Ecumenical Synods was repeated. It was underlined that the correct faith is defined only by Ecumenical Synods, and the Symbol of Faith was recited. [44] The Frankish bishops unanimously agreed with all these decisions and declarations. The Christian Church continued to be one and indivisible, even in 770 AD, with the exception of Constantinople’s stance on the Iconomachy issue.
However, scarcely twenty years had gone by, when the Franks changed their stance altogether, rejecting everything that they had accepted during the Lateran Synod. They disregarded the unalterable status of the Symbol of Faith, by adding the “filioque” clause. They rejected the exclusivity of the Ecumenical Synods for defining the dogma, by officially recognizing the arbitrariness of every secular leader or Pope, something that led the Latin church into authoritarian adventures in the centuries that followed. They also rejected the veneration of icons, even after Constantinople had reverted in favour of icons. Having embarked on such actions, they began ever since to assert (and they continue to do so) that they were the ones who had preserved the correct Christian faith, as opposed to the Romans, whom they began to systematically slander for many centuries, with their “Contra Errores Graecorum”. But let us take a closer look, to see what exactly happened.
Despite the contrary opinion adopted by some historians, it was not the Iconomachy that caused the religious conflict between the Franks and the Empire. A few years after the Lateran Synod, the situation changed in Constantinople and an iconophile Empress, Irene, convened the 7th Ecumenical Synod (Nicaea, 787). As we know, this Synod fully restored the veneration of icons. What was the Franks’ reaction to this? Instead of hailing the return of the “heretical Greeks” to the orthodox faith, they composed a reply, “Capitulare adversus synodum”, which rejected the decisions of the Nicene Synod.
This was the time when Charlemagne’s military successes gave birth to dreams of world domination in the Frankish court. Indeed, the Franks now felt powerful enough to cast aside every pretense: they were not in the least interested in any orthodox faith – even the condemnation of the Iconomachy in 769 meant nothing more to them than a means of conquering Italy. They were not even interested in the Pope, as long as he held a different opinion: when Pope Adrian received the “Capitulare”, it must have shocked him. He would not have expected this kind of a reaction, given that his representatives had participated in the 7th Ecumenical Synod, his epistles had been recorded in the Synod’s Minutes, and the Patriarch Tarasius himself had pointed out how exceptionally focused Adrian was, on the ancient traditions of the Catholic (=universal) and Apostolic Church.[45] He immediately composed a reply, known as “Hadrianum”, and sent it to Charlemagne. In it, he refuted, point by point, all the Frankish positions, adhering to the orthodox decisions of that Ecumenical Synod. Charlemagne, however, had already made his own decisions. Instead of accepting the Pope’s clarifications and rejoicing – as all Orthodox normally do to this very day – over the victory of the icons, which decision had been co-signed by all five Patriarchates, he instead instructed his advisers to compose a new theology. This is how the renowned “Libri Carolini” came to be, which expressed the Frankish theological positions, as opposed to the Orthodox ones, in both Rome and in Constantinople.
Disputes and revolutionary changes occur very rarely in world History. Usually, the flow of events is so continuous, that one cannot easily discern where one era ends, and another one begins. In the Libri Carolini, however, a historian is entitled to acknowledge the huge rift that occurred in European History. If there was one moment during which the separation of Western Europe from Romanity was finalized, it was the decade of 790. The reasons for the separation should not be sought –as many believe- in geographical reasons or linguistic differences. The Romans of Italy and the Romans of the East continued to be Romans, whether they spoke Latin, or Hellenic. Nor were there any religious causes, given that the dispute over icons had been resolved (albeit temporarily) after the Synod of 787. Nor should one look for the reason of the separation in the supposed abolition of the Western Roman Empire in 476, as we explained in Chapter 4. Finally, even the “founding” of the papal state in 756 did not cause the rift between the West, Rome and the East.
It becomes clear, from everything that we described, that the Rome-Constantinople dispute was a temporary one and that it was settled by the Ecumenical Synod of 787. And in our opinion, it is odd, how acknowledged historians such as Karayannopoulos assert that after the 7th Ecumenical Synod “any bridging between the pope and Byzantium was no longer possible, hence the pope was forced to turn once again to the Franks.” [46] These historians have embraced the Western view that “the proliferation of the Byzantine dominion throughout the south of Italy (after the battles between Franks and “Byzantines” in 787) worried pope Adrian very much”. [47] It seems, however, that the “very much” was apparently not that “much”, since Adrian went ahead and participated in the Nicean Synod, when he could have refused the invitation on the pretext that Rome no longer belonged to the Empire; that it was independent. In fact, the “very much” proved to be rather “less”, since, in spite of his “worrying”, Adrian (with the “Hadrianum” that we mentioned earlier) preferred to oppose those who would have protected him from “Byzantine expansionism” – the Franks.
Instead of regurgitating the Frankish propaganda, it would be far simpler to examine the Roman view, which, if anything, possesses a greater hermeneutic capability (and fewer logical contradictions) regarding the events of the period 750 – 800 AD. The picture that will be formed by the Roman viewpoint is still mostly unknown. However, the general axis around which the mosaic fragments are to be pieced together is known to us, and it is none other than the one we described in this chapter.
Let us now see exactly what took place after Charlemagne’s decision to confront the Roman Empire and the Pope. Already in 787, after the Franks had permanently prevailed in Northern Italy, and having placed Central Italy under their “protection”, they turned upon the South. Their first target was the independent Longobard ducat of Benevento, although of course their ultimate objective was to completely annex Southern Italy, so that any Roman resistance would be eliminated.
This disturbed Constantinople. Until that moment, it could only observe –weakened as it was– the gradual loss of the Ravenna exarchate; however, it looked as though Campania and Apulia continued to be a non-negotiable line of defence for the Empire. Thus, imperial forces landed in Calabria and allied with Benevento. [48] From 787 – 788, direct conflicts began between the imperial army and the Franks, with Southern Italy as the envied prize. Diplomatic relations between Constantinople and Charlemagne were cut off for ten years, and one of the miracles that took place during this cessation was the most famous marriage by proxy that the middle ages had ever known, namely, between the Emperor Constantine VI and Charlemagne’s daughter, Rotrude.
In 794, Charlemagne convened an oversized Frankish Synod in Frankfurt, which legalized the recent theological arbitrariness of his court. During this synod, the veneration of icons was condemned as a non-Christian practice, the title of “Ecumenical” for the Nicene Synod of 787 was rejected, and the “filioque” was inserted in the Symbol of Faith. Many other actions of Constantinople were also condemned, such as the Emperor’s requirement to preside over the Synods as an “iso-apostle” etc. [49] In general, we can say that the Franks had chosen confrontation at a political level, and were now trying to “adorn” their plans with self-designed religious differences. This is the reason that their arguments have no special value. As Romanides had aptly observed, what we have here is an example of a “newly formed group of Germanic tribes, who began to teach the Romans, before actually acquiring any education themselves.” [50]
One way or another, the sources that the Frankish theologians could resort to were scant : only whatever had remained after the 300 years of destructions and darkness that we described in Chapter 6. Judging by what their references reveal, they relied mainly on the work of Pope Gregory I, as well as the summaries of works that had been preserved by Isidore of Seville. [51] On the contrary, the Nicene Synod (as Western historians also accept) had access to countless sources; some from the Patriarchal library and others which had been brought along by the Synod’s participants from their Metropolises.
References to the sources, as well as to the impressively exhaustive cross-referencing of excerpts, can be found in the Minutes of the Nicene Synod, which have survived to this day. [52]
One of the innovations that was introduced by the Franks at the Synod of Frankfurt, became a critical point of friction in the dispute between the Orthodox Church and the Latin one; the slogan –so to speak- of the religious conflict between the West and Orthodoxy. We are referring to the “filioque”. This tiny addition of three words (“and the Son”) in the Symbol of Faith inspired thousands of pages to be written, however, the interested reader should refer to those who are more specialized than us on the theological arguments of the two sides. We will, however, mention some historical elements on its genesis, since they belong to the time period that we are analyzing.
To begin with, we should note that even in this matter, the Franks had created a myth that has prevailed up to this day, even though it is historically unfounded. In other words, the view that the “filioque” was the source of the difference between the Roman Catholic and Hellenic Orthodox Church is still dominant.
This myth must, finally, be eradicated. The truth is that all the Roman Popes were opposed to the “filioque”, from the moment that it was inserted in the Symbol of Faith by the Franks. In fact, Pope Leo III (796 – 816), who had firsthand experience of the Franks’ pressures on this matter, did something that revealed the true extent of the papal reaction to the arbitrary Frankish acts.
He arranged so that the orthodox Symbol of Faith (without the “filioque”) be inscribed on two silver plaques (one in Latin and one in Hellenic), which he then affixed high up on a wall in the cathedral of St. Peter, so that it could be read clearly by all the faithful. Leo had hoped that the Franks would not dare desecrate the most sacred centre of Western Christianity.
In 809, the Franks went ahead and officially recognized the “filioque”, with the Synod of Aachen. Given that the Pope continued to uphold the Orthodox tradition, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Rome headed by the monk Smaragdus, in the hope of changing the Pope’s stance. In the Minutes of this meeting, which have been preserved to this day, it is quite evident that Leo categorically refused to be swayed. [53] Leo’s successors also continued to oppose the “filioque”, until the Franks violently seized the Patriarchate of Rome and permanently enthroned their own Pope (probably around 1009 onwards). [54] It was only after a Frank ascended the papal throne, that the Popes began to support the “filioque” and to oppose the Orthodox position of the remaining four Patriarchates. This was the reason that the Orthodox Romans ceased referring to the Church of Rome as “Roman Catholic” after it was besieged by the Franks: it was neither Roman (in the national-cultural sense of the term), nor of course was it “Catholic”, as it was now severed from the “catholic” (Greek, means ”Overall”) Body of the Christian Church. It has since been referred to as “Latin”, and this is the only term befits it.
Let us now move on, to the famous coronation of Charlemagne in Rome, as “emperor of the Romans” on Christmas day of 800 AD. The events preceding and during the coronation have been the subject of exhaustive research by medieval historians, therefore we only need to make a brief mention of it. Besides, after everything that has been exposed so far, our view is that this coronation represented the conclusion, not the beginning, of the anti-Roman policy of the Franks.
Pope Adrian died in 796 and was succeeded by Leo III. Charlemagne arranged to secure the subjugation of the new Pope, by sending him a series of instructions and obliging him to thenceforth date his documents, starting from the date of the Frankish occupation of Northern Italy. [55] The Pope was also pressured into giving up the keys to St. Peter’s cathedral, along with the banner of the city of Rome, to Charlemagne.
Western historians believe that this act was proof of the Pope’s preference to the Franks and not to the Empire. This allegation would have had some sort of basis, if the papal state were truly independent. But independence was nonexistent, as Charlemagne’s armies loomed above the heads of the Romans of Italy. Even Gibbon had observed this, when he very accurately noted that: “Charlemagne’s power and politics annihilated an enemy (the Longobards), and imposed a master on the Romans”. [56] Besides, the Franks behaved as though they were the legal owners of the former exarchate. As mentioned in the Codex Carolinus, Charlemagne ripped out the mosaics from the palace in Ravenna and took them to Aachen to adorn his own palace. [57]
In 799, certain relatives of the former Pope Adrian, attacked, abused and imprisoned Leo. With the help of friends, he managed to escape and eventually reached Saxony, where he asked for Charlemagne’s help. The latter decided to take Leo’s side. At the same time, it is certain that he saw before him a unique opportunity to further promote his objectives. Thus, in the negotiations that followed, Charles most probably demanded quid pro quo from the Pope, even though the Western sources do not mention anything of the kind. Leo, whose very life now hinged on Charlemagne’s support, could not refuse him anything.
The events that followed are well-known: Leo returned to his throne, while Charles (entirely “by coincidence”) announced that he wished to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the Birth of Christ in Rome. During the Christmas service in St. Peter’s cathedral, the Pope crowned Charlemagne, anointed him with oil, and the spectators acclaimed him as their emperor. Charles began to mint golden coins with his face engraved on them, along with the monogram of the Pope. The 25th of December 800 is considered in the West as the date of “re-establishment” of “the Western Roman Empire”. In the Frankish chronicles of that time, Charlemagne is listed as the 68th emperor, after the Roman Emperor Constantine VI. [58]
Charlemagne’s successors were to bear the title of “emperor” in the various compositions of the state (the better-known one being the “Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic Nation”), up to the beginning of the 19th century. In fact, the Germans continued to enumerate their emperors, beginning from Octavian Augustus and up to Francis II (1806), who was considered the 120th Roman Emperor. [59] The Franks developed a somewhat washy, theoretical interpretation for the arbitrary action of Charlemagne, which they nevertheless imposed for twelve centuries, up until our time. The formulation of this theory has been preserved in the Chronicle of Laureshein (9th century) and we quote it herebelow:
“Given that the title of emperor ceased to exist among the Greeks, and because their Empire was ruled by a woman (meaning Irene), both Pope Leo and the rest of the Fathers who were assembled in Rome, as well as the entire Christian fold, believed that it was their duty to acclaim the Frankish king Charles as their emperor, who was the ruler of Rome, where the Caesars of all the other parts of Italy, Gaul and Germany were also based. And since God had entrusted all of the aforementioned countries to him, it seemed proper for him to also assume the title of Emperor, with the help of God and the prayers of all Christians”. [60]
In actual fact, the exact title that was given to Charlemagne during his coronation was not made known. He himself never dared to sign anything as “Emperor of the Romans” (“Imperator Romanorum”), which was the title of the emperors of Constantinople. After 800 AD, he simply added the title “Romanorum gubernans imperium” (=governor of the empire of the Romans) to the existing title of “rex Francorum” (=king of the Franks) and “rex Langobardorum” (=king of the Longobards). [61] This form of title was unknown in the Roman imperial tradition.
Later on, the Franks asserted that with his ‘voluntary’ choice to crown Charlemagne, the Pope had supposedly transferred the imperial crown from the East to the West, from the Greeks to the Franks. Invoking this famous theory of “translatio imperii” (=shifting of the imperial status), later popes, such as Innocent III, attempted to impose and to validate their theocratic aims on the emperors of the West. [62] But the sombre Western tales of never-ending conflicts between popes that directed entire armies and the authoritarian Franco-German rulers will not preoccupy us here.
What does concern us is whether Leo’s actions were indeed voluntary. We read Gibbon’s view previously; Theophanes in turn, characteristically wrote that Leo returned to his throne (after the events of 799) and that thereafter, Rome was placed under Frankish control: “(Leo), when appealing to Charles, the king of Franks for support, had rigorously defended him from his enemies and he (Charles) reinstated him once again on the same throne, while Rome was thereafter placed under the rule of the Franks”. [63] In other words, for Theophanes, who wrote just 14 years later, these two events had a cause-and-effect relationship. Leo’s reinstatement also signified Rome’s subjugation to the Franks.
The theories about a supposed independent decision were so naïve, that they could not convince any Roman of the East. Theophanes concludes: “(Leo) rewarded Charles, by crowning him king of the Romans inside the church of the Holy Apostle Peter, anointing him with oil from head to toe and vesting him with royal garb and crown”. [64] The simple logical deduction of any unprejudiced researcher, that Leo recompensed Charles for his personal help by crowning him king in Rome, is already found in Theophanes’ work and there is no need for us to resort to intellectual “acrobatics” or complicated scenarios in order to discern the truth.
Equally indicative is a phrase by Einhard, Charlemagne’s adviser, which we will come back to, further down. For the period after 800 AD, Einhard wrote: “….(despite the peace treaty of 812), the power of the Franks always seemed suspicious in the eyes of the Greeks and the Romans”. [65] In other words, he admits that those who the Franks called “Romans” (the Latin-speaking Romans) fostered hostile feelings for the Franks. How was it possible then, for them to acclaim Charles as their emperor? Charlemagne was nothing more to them than a foreign conqueror. He was not a Roman, nor did the Romans want him as their king.
But it appears that all these self-evident facts are not enough to convince Western historians, so that we can eventually do away with expressions of the type “re-establishment of the Western Roman Empire”. Having lived for many centuries with the conviction that they are members of the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation”, Western Europeans find it difficult -and in the long run refuse – to recant the falsification of History that their ancestors had concocted. This is why we stressed in the introduction of our study that the historical “landmark” that they used as their beginning, continues to be entirely different to ours, and their different cultural tradition does not allow them to restore the historical truth, to this very day.
To conclude our commentary on Laureshein’s Chronicle, we also need to point out the remarkable logical error that the cited excerpt contains. His basic argument was that because of the Greeks’ lack of an emperor, it was decided to proclaim Charlemagne as their emperor. But then, that would have made Charlemagne “emperor of the Greeks”!
These are the kinds of comical errors that the Franks fall into, when they attempt to falsify History and rename the Romans of the East “Greeks”, in order to differentiate them from their fellow- Romans of Italy.
The reaction of the Roman Empire to Charlemagne’s coronation was, of course, a hostile one. Charlemagne was seen as the usurper of a title that belonged only to the Roman Emperor of Constantinople. In order to subdue their reactions (or to complete his expansionist plans, depending on how one interprets the events), Charlemagne dispatched an official delegation in 802, to ask for the hand of the empress Irene in marriage, so that “the dawn and the dusk” might be united, to quote Theophanes’ famous expression. [66] The overthrow of Irene from power in October of the same year, however, postponed every such prospect.
The battles between Romans and Franks recommenced in 804 around the Roman provinces of Venice and Dalmatia, given that the Franks’ expansionism had by now reached the Balkans. After repeated clashes, the two sides signed a peace treaty in 812, according to which the two provinces were to remain Roman. Constantinople in turn acknowledged the Frankish demands in Croatia, and its delegation addressed Charlemagne as “king”. It is not easy to opine exactly what this concession meant for Constantinople, as no related comments were found in the sources. [67] At any rate, Frankish power began to wane after Charlemagne’s death in 814, and the whole issue of the successors’ titles did not particularly preoccupy Constantinople until the following century.
After his death, Charlemagne became the greatest legend of medieval Western Europe and his accomplishments would inspire countless works of literature. The top-ranking one among them is the great epic of the 12th century that marked the beginning of French literature, “Chanson de Roland” (Roland’s song). To Western Europeans, he continues to be the greatest sovereign in their History to this day, and his reign supposedly constitutes proof of the common descent of all the peoples that are presently called “Westerners”. This obviously is the reason that the majestic building of the European Union Council bears his name. Equally characteristic is the fact that there is a legislated “Charlemagne Prize” which is awarded (in Aachen) to those who contribute towards the European unification idea. This prize, which bears the name of an enemy and a conqueror of Romanity, has been even awarded to a top-ranking Hellene politician who played a leading role in our entry to the EEC. It appears that the historical amnesia which is slowly spreading throughout Hellenism will cause us to willingly accept as members of “our heritage” all of the historical enemies of Romanity, as long as our Western European partners ask us to …
In concluding the last chapter of our study, we would like to point out that what is impressive in the events of 750 – 812 is the fact that the Roman reaction to Frankish expansionism was purely a defensive one, not to mention a passive one. It was not the Romans who decided to sever their relations with the West, but the opposite. The Westerners, the Franks, wanted in every way to break off all political and cultural ties, and confront the Roman Empire. This is why their later propaganda – that a merging of Romans and Franks supposedly produced the Western European civilisation – is an outright, impudent falsity. Every single aggressive act originated from the side of the Franks, who did not hesitate to use every possible means, including military violence, blackmailing the Pope, destruction of buildings, falsification of documents, altering national names, and all this, in order to subjugate, not “merge” with the Romans of Italy. But even in general, when reading the sources of that era, one is given the impression that the rift was stressed far more by the Franks than it was by the Romans. Theophanes glided over the event of Charlemagne’s coronation in just two lines, to return to the more pressing problems of the Empire with the Arabs.
It was of course the Franks’ prerogative to clash with the Empire. Since however they chose to secede and create their own cultural tradition, it is an extremely audacious falsification of History to call their nation the “Roman Empire”, to call the Romans “Greeks”, and to maintain that the “Byzantines” destroyed the Hellenic-Roman civilisation, whose true heirs are supposedly the Westerners.
If, at a theological level, the great rift between the West and Romanity must be sought among the Libri Carolini texts, then at an everyday level, it should be found in the military occupation of Central Italy, the Exarchate, and in the attacks against the South. That was when the Romans learned from first-hand experience the ruthless disposition of the Franks, and it was this knowledge that left its permanent mark on the character and the orientation of Romanity. Even from the very beginning of the 9th century, Einhard, Charlemagne’s adviser and biographer, had described the Romans’ sentiments after the repeated aggressive actions of the Franks: “When he (Charles) accepted the title of emperor, he aroused many suspicions (with the emperors of Constantinople), as it was quite likely that he was planning to take over the imperial power (…) The prowess of the Franks always looked suspicious in the eyes of the Greeks and the Romans. This is also where the Greek proverb comes from, and which continues to be quoted, even today (in 830): If a Frank is your friend, then he is definitely not your neighbour”. [68]
This proverb very eloquently sums up the Romans’ impression of their “acquaintance” with the Franks. The Romans were therefore given the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the primitive arrogance of the Westerners, long before the Schism and the “Crusades”; and it was long before the Turkish occupation, that the Westerners had decided on their hostile stance towards us. The immense rift between the West and Romanity had been a conscious decision of the Franks, who were in fact very much aware of the consequences of their actions, as the aforementioned excerpt from Einhard reveals. Thus, the first appearance of a “European awareness” coincides with the decision of the Franks to be severed from the Roman Christian World and to seek conflict with the Hellenic-Roman world. As we had also underlined in the introduction, the notion of a “Western Europe” was born in the 8th century, precisely within this opposition towards Romanity and because of this opposition.
This is why any discussions on whether “Byzantium” (and its successor, Hellas) belong to Western Europe or not, are totally redundant.
However, for those who may still have certain doubts about the true disposition of the Franks towards the Romans, these have been preserved for the coming generations by Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, who came to Constantinople in 969 as a delegate of the Franco-German emperor, Otto I. His adventuresome meeting with the emperor Nicephorus Phocas was extremely revealing. When Phocas pointed out that Otto did not have the right to marry (as he wished) a royal-by-birth princess of Constantinople because “you are not Romans, but Longobards”, then Liutprand, instead of attempting to enhance his role by presenting arguments that supported the Romanity of the barbarians, exploded into a volley of abusive language, which has left its mark in History. Let us cite an indicative excerpt of this response:
“The fratricidal Romulus, after whom the Romans were named, came to be known in Chronography as “a whore’s offspring”, a bastard in other words, who founded an asylum (author’s note: he means Rome) in which he welcomed debtors, fugitives, slaves, murderers and criminals worthy of the death penalty, and gathered around him a swarm of such people, whom he then named “Romans”. It was from these so-called “nobles” that those whom you call world rulers – in other words ‘emperors’ – originate. However, we the Longobards, Saxons, Franks, Lotharingians, Bavarians, Swebes, and Burgundians, have so much contempt for them, that whenever our anger is aroused against our enemies, we do not direct any other insults at them, except one word: Roman! And under this very name of “Roman” we include every kind incivility, cowardice, avarice, debauchery, infidelity and generally every kind of malice”. [69]
Naturally, this text by the official envoy of the Franco-German emperor speaks for itself about the sentiments of all Westerners against us. It also provides us with the useful piece of information that up until 969, the Franks had obviously still not decided to become “assimilated” with the Romans. The falsification of History must therefore be attributed to a later era … [70]
Therefore, it was neither the Turkish occupation nor the “Crusades” that were the cause of separation between Hellenism and the West; these events merely exacerbated the existing differences between them. The differences however were pre-existent and were attributed to very tangible reasons, which our ancestors had already experienced, during the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries.
On the dilemma of “Romanity or barbarity”, Western Europe had already made its choice in the 8th century, and the consequences of this choice have since sealed world History, to our day.
Epilogue
The gaping void between Romanity and the West, whose beginnings we described in our study, continued with unabated intensity in the centuries that followed. Romanity had become familiar with the West and its anti-Roman disposition, from the 8th century. In the centuries that followed, the Franks did nothing to allay the fears of the Romans. On the contrary, they continued to maintain an uncompromising stance, demanding our complete subjugation whenever the opportunity arose.
Military conflicts were followed by an exchange of insults (as in the case of Liutprand’s delegation in Cremona), to again be followed by more military conflicts. At the same time, on a cultural level, various Western authors had begun to write (as of the 9th century) endless treatises entitled “Contra errores Graecorum” against the Romans. Day by day, the two worlds drew further apart from each other. The Schism of 1054 was nothing more than another characteristic verification of the Franks’ refusal to renounce their theological arbitrariness. Later on, new barbaric tribes from the North completed the subjugation of the Romans of Southern Italy.
After 1800 years of an illustrious presence, Hellenism was now irrevocably uprooted from the Italian peninsula.
At the end of the 11th century, the conquering disposition of the Westerners took on an undisguised form, with their so-called “Crusades”. Already with the first “Crusade”, the ulterior motive of certain Latin sovereigns had become evident, and this was perceived by Constantinople. As Anna Comnene wrote in her work “Alexiad”, the objective of the Westerners was none other than the conquest of the Regnant City (Constantinople), which they considered to be the natural conclusion of their expedition. [71] One of the leaders of the “Crusade”, Bohemund, did not hide his mortal hatred for Romania, and had expressed his dedication to the plan for its annihilation, in a passionate letter addressed to the emperor Alexius, which is quoted by Anna Comnena. [72]
The climax of the conflict came in 1204, when thousands of hungry vagabonds from every corner of Western Europe abandoned their hovels and embarked on a journey (supposedly) for the Holy Lands. But “something” happened along the way, and the destination was altered. The civil conflicts between the Romans of this era allowed for all these troglodytes to enter Constantinople and sack it. In a state of shock, our ancestors watched the Western “soldiers of Christ” bring mules into the Holy Bema of the Haghia Sophia’s sanctum, and their animals slipping on the floors, leaving their excrements and blood on the Holy Altar, while a whore that the Latins had brought along with them climbed onto the patriarch’s throne and began to dance and commit other unspeakable improprieties. [73] The slaughtering and the destruction that followed constitute the blackest page of Western European History.
God only knows how many precious works of art, whose only copies were preserved in Constantinople, vanished forever from the cultural heritage of mankind.
The Frankish regime that followed after 1204 caused an unbridgeable chasm between the Romans and the Westerners. Our ancestors had by now felt first-hand and throughout all the empire, the Latins’ disposition, which could be summed up as the complete annihilation of the Roman civilisation and the Hellenic language. In contrast to the Turkish occupation that followed, which had permitted the Romans to keep their language and religion (and therefore their identity), Western domination had all the distinctive marks of genocide.
Besides, wherever it did finally prevail, the Roman conscience was uprooted in the most violent manner possible. One such example is Southern Italy, which was definitely Hellenic for 1800 years. (The sombre history of the heroic but futile resistance of the Romans of Southern Italy from the 11th century to the 16th century is unfortunately still awaiting its author).
It is worth mentioning that as soon as the Romans regained the City in 1261, the Pope hastened to offer those who fought against the emperor Michael Paleologos the same absolution of sins that he had given to the “crusaders” who fought against the Moslems. [74] One must realise that these views were not only adopted by the political-military leadership of the West. The same sentiments were fostered by “enlightened” intellectuals such as the great forerunner of humanism, Petrarch. Here is what he wrote in the middle of the 14th century: “The Turks are enemies. But these here, the Greeks, are schismatics and even worse than the enemies, so, it is preferable that the Turks occupy Jerusalem instead of the Greeks”. [75] And elsewhere: “as for these frauds and Greeklings, I cannot wait to see this Empire, this font of heresies, to be destroyed by our own hands”. [76]
All the above are of course a part of the “common European heritage” that links us to our Western European partners …
The fact remains, that the fierce resistance of the Romans, neutralized all the western attempts to eradicate the Hellenic-Orthodox civilization, the one after the other. Thus, in the 14th century, the Franks proceeded to draft a “final solution” (to use the expression of a well-known German ruler against the Jews). The plan, which had been submitted by the Dominican monk Brocardus to the King of France Philip VI, included the total annihilation of the Romans through a mass kidnapping of children, the violent renouncement of Orthodoxy and a compulsory subjection to the Latin dogma, the burning of all books that defended the Eastern Christian dogma, and the prohibition of the Hellenic language, along with the recognition of Frankish domination. [77] The Romans however refused this “help” from the West, and chose the lesser between the two evils, namely the Turks.
History vindicated them triumphantly, since, 400 years later they managed to overthrow their conquerors, having preserved both the Hellenic language and their Orthodox faith. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same for the millions of our fellow Romans of France and Italy, who were irretrievably lost, after being conquered by the Western barbarians …
After severing itself from Romanity, the West pursued its own course. This was the famous course that led to the crimes of the Holy Inquisition, to the horrors of slave trading, to colonization and racism, the price of which was paid by millions of innocent victims all over the world. The promises offered by humanism for a “golden age” that would dawn with the predominance of rationalism and the progress of science, were tragically extinguished in the Auschwitzes and the Hiroshimas that the supremely “civilised” Western countries led us into.
In our day, the impending danger of a complete ecological collapse of the planet comes to refute most ironically that promise of an incessantly increasing consumption, with which the West corrupted every rival civilisation.
The Romans had no part in, nor any connection to, all these crimes of the West. Therefore, they should not be fooled into erasing their different historical tradition and rashly accept that they also share the “common European heritage”.
A heritage of a collective guilt for the destruction of the Hellenic-Roman civilisation, the Holy Inquisition, the genocide of the native Americans, colonization, racism, gas chambers and nuclear bombs is not our heritage, and we do not have the least desire to have it thrust upon us by them.
Our heritage, for the past three thousand years, has been the defence of civilisation against barbarity, the preservation of the Truth which had been revealed to Man at some point in time and was expressed through our language, the preservation of hope for a fulfilled human existence, where “the yearning for that sea” that the poem speaks of will find an ocean in the “balance of goodness”, and where the true word will be in equilibrium with the expectation of eternity.
Because Romans know that their destination is to live within eternity, to participate in the never-ending feast where “everything is filled with light, both in heaven and earth and the underworld …”
This is the heritage that the Romans can present, opposite the savagery of the West. And this is the reason why the dilemma “Romanity or barbarity” continues to be as vivid as it was 1500 years ago …
FOOTNOTES
[1] See Mango (1973), p. 684.
[2] Gregory of Tours, p. 63.
[3] See introduction by Lewis Thorpe in Gregory of Tours, p. 27-30.
[4] See Pirenne (1980), p. 196.
[5] See Pirenne (1980), p. 243.
[6] See Lemerle (1983), p. 77.
[7] as above, p. 118.
[8] See Cook & Herzman (1983), p. 32.
[9] See Runciman (1979), p. 335.
[10] as above, p. 335.
[11] See Runciman (1979), p. 267.
[12] http://www.doaks.org/WomeninByzantium.html
[13] The word is Hellenic in origin. As a race, the Greeks used to inhabit Epirus and were afterwards called ‘Selloi’, from where the term Hellenes originates. It is noteworthy, that, while the Latin name Graeci referred to the Hellenes from ancient times, in the Greek language it is unknown as an ethnic name: throughout all of Hellenic literary works, it is encountered only once, in Aristotle’s «Meteorologika». No ancient Hellene had ever called himself ‘Greek’. Later, upon the conquest of Hellas by Rome, the word (especially the nickname Greekling) began to have a negative inference in the Latin language, and it was with this inference that it was used once again nationally from the 8th century onwards.
[14] See Fredegar, IV, 23.
[15] as above., IV, 65
[16] See Paul the Deacon, IV, p. 177.
[17] as above., ΙΙΙ, 12, p.108.
[18] as above., p. 200.
[19] as above., V, 30, p. 234-35.
[20] as above., V, 11, p. 258.
[21] n IV, 23, p. 167.
[22] In VI, 24, p. 285.
[23] as above., V, 7, p. 220.
[24] as above., V, 11, p. 224.
[25] as above., V, 16, p. 226.
[26] Romanides (1982), p. 205-206.
[27] See Einhard, III, 19, p. 74.
[28] as above., ΙΙ, p. 69.
[29] And yet, it is impressive when one considers how the first neo-Hellenic book on byzantine history, «Byzantine Studies» by Sp. Zambelios in 1857, placed the beginnings of the neo-Hellenic nation and its differentiation from the West in the 8th century and the formation of the Frankish empire!
[30] Liber Pontificalis, 1. 444. See Herrin (1989), p. 372.
[31] See Herrin (1989), p. 374.
[32] See Herrin (1989), p. 381.
[33] See Theofanes, p. 402-403.
[34] See Miller (1975).
[35] Codex Carolinus, 11, 506. 38. See Herrin (1989), p. 380.
[36] Codex Carolinus, no 32, no 34. See Herrin (1989), p. 383.
[37] See Mango (1973), p. 695.
[38] See Sp. Zambelios, «Byzantine Studies», Athens, 1857, p. 311.
[39] See Herrin (1989), p. 371.
[40] See Stephanides (1948), p. 274. For an alternate view of the origin and the significance of these decrees, see J. Romanides (1981), p. 20-25. Romanides stresses that the Roman Popes benefited from the decrees, to the detriment of the Frankish rulers.
[41] See Loungis (1989), p. 192.
[42] Latin Patrology Migne, vol. 126, 899. See Loungis (1989), p. 193. Pope John VIII had also done other ‘unheard of’ things. In 873 he forced the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious to free Methodius, the Thessalonian missionary of the Slavs, whom the Franks had kept imprisoned in Moravia for three whole years (See Obolensky, vol. Α’, p. 242). He afterwards persistently defended the right of the Slavs to perform their church services in their own language, thus coming to very acute confrontations with the Franks who upheld the theory of three sacred languages (Hebrew, Hellenic, Latin) (as above., p. 244). As we are all aware, the Frankish view was finally imposed throughout all of Western Europe, which resulted in church services being held, from Finland and as far south as the Cyclades islands, in the totally incomprehensible Latin tongue, even as late as the 1960 decade. The ‘worst’ thing of all that he did, was in 879, during the patriarchy of Photios, when he had participated in the 8th Ecumenical Synod in Constantinople (which is not recognized by Papists today) and he condemned all those who did not accept the 7th Ecumenical Synod of Nice in 787 (in other words, the Franks, who, as we shall see further down, had rejected it during Charlemagne’s time in 794). See J. Romanides, (1981), p. 19-20. Later (in the 12th century) the Frankish forgers concocted a certain fabled excommunication of Photios by John VIII and they based on it a whole series of theories on the «Schism of the heretic Greeks» as far along as the 20th century. The exposing of this fraud occurred just recently, in 1948, by the famous historian F. Dvornik in his classic work «The Photian Schism». A simple perusal of this book is enough to shock every naive neo-Hellene, with regard to the ideological means that the Western Europeans had implemented against us…
[43] See Herrin (1989), p. 393.
[44] Mansi 13. 764 A-C. See Herrin (1989), p. 394.
[45] Mansi 12. 999, 12. 1055-71, 12. 1077-84, 12. 1086B. See Herrin (1989), p. 419.
[46] Karayannopoulos (1978), Vol. Β’, p. 171-172.
[47] Loungis (1989), p. 159.
[48] See Loungis (1989), p. 159.
[49] See Herrin (1989), p. 436-330.
[50] Romanides (1975), p. 293.
[51] See Herrin (1989), p. 438, 440. Following years of extensive researching the Libri Carolini, L. Wallach concludes that the only Hellenic source that was used for their composition was Epiphanios of Salamis («Epistle» to John of Jerusalem, year 392). References to other Hellenic-speaking Fathers that are found in the Libri Carolini have been copied from the Latin translation of the Minutes of the Nicene Synod and not any other independent source. Thus we see the comical phenomenon of –for example- the rejecting of Pope Adrian’s Synodica, to the point that the latter invokes saint Gregory of Nyssa in support of the icons, when the author of the Libri Carolini had no idea of who Gregory of Nyssa was! For extensive details, see Luitpold Wallach, «Diplomatic Studies in Latin and Greek documents from the Carolingian Age», Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1977, p. 82-85.
[52] Mansi 13. 33A-37C, 13. 9E, 13, 20C, 13. 53E, 13. 72A-D. See Herrin (1989), p. 421-422.
[53] See Herrin (1989), p. 463-464. Also see Romanides (1975), p. 292-293.
[54] It appears that the first time a non-Roman Pope ascended the throne was in 983, when the Franco-German king Otto II imposed a Longobard, Peter of Pavia, as Pope with the name John IV. See Romanides (1981), p. 26.
[55] See Herrin (1989), p. 453.
[56] Gibbon, XLIX, τόμ ΙΙΙ, p. 23.
[57] Codex Carolinus, 67. See Gibbon, XLIX, τόμ ΙΙΙ, p. 25, υποp. 67.
[58] Karayannopoulos, as above., p. 185, sub-par. 252.
[59] See Karageorgios (1987), p. 164.
[60] Annales Laureshamenses, 33. See Karayannopoulos (1978), vol. Β’, p. 184-185.
[61] See Pirenne (1980), p. 233.
[62] See Karageorgios (1987), p. 393.
[63] Theophanes, p. 472.
[64] Theophanes, p. 473.
[65] Einhard, 16, p. 71.
[66] Theophanes, p. 475.
[67] See Herrin (1989), p. 466.
[68] Einhard, 16, p. 71. It is noteworthy that this saying was familiar, both to the Franks themselves, for Einhard to have quoted it in Greek in his text!
See Christou (1989), p. 114.
[69] Liutprandus, «Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana», Becker publications, Hannover-Leipzig, 1915, in Karageorgos (1987), p. 507-509. Karageorgos quotes the full text (in Latin and Hellenic) of Liutprand’s book.
[70] Ever since they decided to ‘merge’ the term Roman was replaced by the term Greek (Grec) as an abusive term. Thus the word «grec» came to be synonymous to the word «impostor» in French, even in our day.
[71] Anna Comnena, Book Χ, p. 311.
[72] as above., Book ΧΙ, p. 368.
[73] Here is how the eyewitness Niketas Choniates describes the scene: «… mules and covered beasts of burden were brought in, even as far the sanctum of the temple, while slipping and unable to stand on their legs on account of the slipperiness of the polished stones, and were prodded with knives, thus desecrating the sanctuary floor with their excrement and blood. But also a woman of multitudinous sins, …. a pole for demons, a workshop of unspeakable sorcery and of loud incantations, in total contempt of Christ, sat upon the synthronon (the priests’ thrones inside the sanctum) and deposited upon them a severed limb, and twirling around many times, she would move her feet around it». See Ν. Χωνιάτης, «Ιστορία», Corpus Historiae Byzantinae, έκδ. Bekker, Βόννη, 1835, p. 759.
[74] See Runciman (1979), p. 137.
[75] Epistolae de Rebus Senilium 7, Opera Omnia, Basle 1555, vol. 2, p. 912. See Christou (1989), p. 117.
[76] V. Rossi, «Petrarea, Le familiari», 3, Florence, 1937, 120. 85-88. See R. Browning, «Greeks and others from antiquity to the Renaissance», in Browning (1989), p. 26.
[77] See the analytical presentation by Brocarytus in Simopoulos (1990), p. 247-250. Also see Yannakopoulos (1966), p. 21
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Listed are the works that this book refers to only.)
a) Hellenic language
=Ahrweiler-Glykatzi Helen, «The political ideology of the Byzantine empire», «Η πολιτική ιδεολογία της βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας», translation by Τ.Drakopoulou, Psychogios Publications, 3rd edition, Athens, 1988.
=Valetas G., «Of Romanity», «Της Ρωμιοσύνης» Philippotis publications, 2nd edition, Athens, 1982.
=Baynes N. H. and Moss H. St. L. B., «Byzantium: an introduction to the Byzantine civilization», «Βυζάντιο: εισαγωγή στο βυζαντινό πολιτισμό», translation by D. Sakkas, Papadimas Publications, 3rd edition, Athens, 1986.
=Buckler Georgina, (1986), «The Byzantine Education», «Η Βυζαντινή Εκπαίδευση», in Baynes & Moss « Byzantium: an introduction to the Byzantine civilization».
=Yannakopoulos Κ., «Byzantine East and Latin West», translation by K. Kyriazi, Estia, Athens, 1966.
=Dimaras Κ. Θ., «Neo-Hellenic Enlightenment», Hermes, Athens, 1977.
=Gregoire Henri, (1986), «The Byzantine Church», in Baynes & Moss « Byzantium: an introduction to the Byzantine civilization».
=Theophanes, «Chronography», C. de Boor publications, Leipzig, 1883, 1885.
=Karageorgos Vasilis, «The Holy Roman Empire: Medieval period», Volume. Α’, St. Vasilopoulos publications, Athens, 1987.
=Karayannopoulos John, «History of the Byzantine State», 2 volumes, Sakkoulas publications, Thessaloniki, 1978.
=Kakrides J. Th., «The ancient Hellenes in neo-Hellenic folk tradition», Educational Institute of the National Bank, Athens, 1979.
=Korais Adamantios, «The Complete Works», vol. Α1, supervision by G. Valetas, Dorikos publications, Athens, 1964.
=Lemerle Paul, «The first Byzantine humanism», translation by M. Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, Educational Institute of the National Bank, Athens, 1983.
=Lignades Tasos, «Collapsing», Akritas, Athens, 1989.
=Louggis Telemachos, « Byzantine domination in Italy», Estia, Athens, 1989.
=Obolensky Dimitri, «The Byzantine Commonwealth», 2 volumes, translation by Yannis Tsevremes, Vanias, Thessaloniki, 1991.
=Paparrigopoulos Constantine, «History of the Hellenic Nation», 6 volumes, supervision by P. Karolides, Eleftheroudakis, 6th edition, Athens, 1932.
=Politis Linos, «Poetic Anthology», 8 volumes, Dodoni, Athens, 1980.
=Prokopios, «Pro Wars», Teubner publications, Leipzig, 1963.
=Runciman Steven, «Byzantine Theocracy, translation by J. Roelides, Domos, Athens, 1982.
=Runciman Steven, «Byzantine Civilization», translation by Despina Detzortzi, Organization for the Publication of Educational Books, Athens, 1979.
=Romanides John, «Romanity, Romania, Roumeli», Ponaras publications, 2nd edition, Thessaloniki, 1982.
=Simopoulos Kyriakos, «Xenocracy, Anti-Hellenism and Vassalage», Athens, 1990.
=Stefanides Β., «Ecclesiastic History», Athens, 1948.
=Christou Pan., «The adventures of the Hellenes’ national names», Kyromanos publications, 2nd edition, Athens, 1989.
=Chrysos Evangelos, «Byzantium and the formation of Mediaeval Europe: a research program» in «Byzantium and Europe». Minutes of the 1st International Byzantinological Meeting held at Delphi, 20-24 July 1985, Athens, 1987.
b) Other languages
=Anna Comnena, «Alexiad», English translation E.R.A. Sewter, Penguin, Middlesex, England, re-printed 1985.
=Browning Robert, «The continuity of Hellenism in the Byzantine world: appearance or reality», στο «Hellas Old and New», ed. By T. Winnifrith and P. Murray, London, Macmillan, 1983, reprinted by Browning «History, Language and Literacy in the Byzantine World», Variorum Reprints, Northampton, 1989.
=Bury J. B., «History of the Later Roman Empire, from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian», 2 volumes, Dover Publications, New York, 1958.
=Charanis Peter, «Some remarks on the changes in Byzantium in the seventh century», Recueil des travaux de l’ Institut d’ Etudes Byzantines, VIII, 1 (Melanges G. Ostrogorsky I), Belgrade, 1963, reprinted by Charanis «Studies on the demography of the Byzantine Empire», Variorum Reprints, London, 1972.
=Cook W. and Herzman R., «The medevial world view», Oxford University Press, New York, 1983.
Drew Katherine Fischer, «The Lombard Laws», University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1973.
=Einhard, «Vita Caroli», English translation by Lewis Thorpe in «Two lives of Charlemagne», Penguin, 9th reprint, Middlesex, England, 1983.
=Fredegar, «Chronicorum liber quartus cum continuationibus», publication and English translation by J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., London, 1960.
=Gibbon Edward, «The decline and fall of the Roman Empire», 3 volumes, Modern Library, Random House, χ.χ.
=Gregory of Tours, «Historiae Francorum», English translation by Lewis Thorpe, Penguin, 3rd reprint, Middlesex, England, 1982.
=Herrin Judith, «The Formation of Christendom», Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1989.
Mango Cyrill, (1973), «La culture grecque et l’ Occident au VIIIe siècle», Settimane di Studio, XX, Spotelo, 1973, reprinted by Mango «Byzantium and its Image», Variorum Reprints, London, 1985.
=Mango Cyrill, «Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome», Charles Scribaer’s Sons, New York, 1980.
=Mantouvalou Maria, «Romaios-Romios-Romiossyni. La notion de Romain avant et apres la chute de Constantinople», Scientific Yearbook of the Athens University School of Philosophy, 28, 1985.
=Miller D. H., «Byzantino-Papal relations during the Pontificate of Paul I: Confirmation and completion of the Roman revolution of the eighth century», Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1975, σ. 47-62.
=Paul de Deacon, «Historia Langobardorum», English translation by William D. Foulke, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1907.
=Pirenne Henri, «Mohammed and Charlemagne», English translation by Bernard Miall, Barnes & Noble, Totowa, New Jersey, ανατύπωση 1980.
=Romanides John, «The Filioque», Legacy, 7, Β’, July 1975.
=Romanides John, «Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: «an interplay between theology and society», Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1981.
=Theophanes, «The Chronicle of Theophanes», publication and English translation by Harry Turtledove, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1982.
=Toynbee Arnold, «A Study of History», revised and abridged by the author, Weathervane Books, New York, 1972.
=Toynbee Arnold, «The Hellenics and their heritages», Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1981.
=Wallace-Hadrill J. M., «The barbarian West: the early Middle Age A.D. 400-1000», Harper & Row, New York, 2nd reprint, 1962.
APPENDIX: MAPS
Part 2 // Contents
File created: 12-11-2007.
Last update: 18-02-2018.
Thomas Aquinas
This article or section needs a cleanup to bring it to a higher standard of quality. Recommendation:
See talk page.
More detailed comments may be noted on the talk page. You can help OrthodoxWiki by editing it, especially to conform to the Style Manual and the suggestions in How to write a great article.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was an Italian Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian in the scholastic tradition. He gave birth to the Thomistic school of philosophy, which was long the primary philosophical approach of the Roman Catholic Church. He is considered by the Catholic Church to be its greatest theologian and one of the thirty-three Doctors of the Church.
Contents
1 Biography
1.1 Early years
1.2 Career
1.3 Death and canonization
2 Writings
2.1 Some major works
3 Aquinas and the Orthodox Church
4 Modern criticism
5 References
6 See also
7 External links
Biography
Early years
The life of Thomas Aquinas offers many interesting insights into the world of the High Middle Ages. He was born into a family of the south Italian nobility and was through his mother Countess Theadora of Theate related to the Hohenstaufen dynasty of Holy Roman emperors. He was born early in 1225 at his father Count Landulf’s castle of Roccasecca in the kingdom of Naples. Landulf’s brother, Sinibald, was abbot of the original Benedictine monastery at Monte Cassino, and the family intended Thomas to follow his uncle into that position; this would have been a normal career-path for a younger son of the nobility.
In his fifth year he was sent for his early education to the monastery. However, after studying at the University of Naples, Thomas joined the Dominican order, which along with the Franciscan order represented a revolutionary challenge to the well-established clerical systems of early medieval Europe. This change of heart did not please the family; on the way to Rome, Thomas was seized by his brothers and brought back to his parents at the castle of San Giovanni, where he was held a captive for a year or two to make him relinquish his purpose. According to his earliest biographers, the family even brought a prostitute to tempt him, but he drove her away.
Finally the family yielded and the Dominicans sent Thomas to Cologne to study under Albertus Magnus; he arrived probably in late 1244. He accompanied Albertus to the University of Paris in 1245, remained there with his teacher for three years, and followed Albertus back to Cologne in 1248. For several years longer he remained with the famous philosopher of scholasticism, presumably teaching. This long association of Thomas with the great philosopher theologian was the most important influence in his development; it made him a comprehensive scholar and won him permanently for the Aristotelian method.
Career
In 1252 Aquinas went to Paris for the master’s degree, but met with some difficulty owing to attacks on the mendicant orders by the professoriate of the University. Ultimately, however, he received the degree and entered upon his office of teaching in 1257; he taught in Paris for several years and there wrote some of his works and began others. In 1259 he was present at an important chapter of his order at Valenciennes. At the solicitation of Pope Urban IV (therefore not before the latter part of 1261), he took up his residence in Rome. In 1269-71 he was again active in Paris. In 1272 the provincial chapter at Florence empowered him to found a new studium generale at such place as he should choose, and he selected Naples.
Aquinas had a mystical experience while celebrating Mass on December 6, 1273, after which he stopped writing, leaving his great work, the Summa Theologiae, unfinished. When asked why he had stopped writing, Aquinas replied, “I cannot go on…All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me.” He died on March 7, 1274.
Contemporaries described Thomas as a big man, corpulent and dark-complexioned, with a large head and receding hairline. His manners showed his breeding; he is described as refined, affable, and lovable. In argument he maintained self-control and won over opponents by his personality and great learning. His tastes were simple. His associates were specially impressed by his power of memory. When absorbed in thought, he often forgot his surroundings. The ideas he developed by such strenuous absorption he was able to express for others systematically, clearly and simply. Because of the keen grasp he had of his materials, in his writings Thomas does not, like Duns Scotus, make the reader his associate in the search for truth, but teaches it authoritatively. On the other hand, the consciousness of the insufficiency of his works in view of the revelation which he believed he had received was a cause of dissatisfaction for him.
Death and canonization
Early in 1274 the Pope directed him to attend the Second Council of Lyons and, though far from well, he undertook the journey. On the way he stopped at the castle of a niece and there became seriously ill. He wished to end his days in a monastery and not being able to reach a house of the Dominicans he was taken to the Cistercians. He died at the monastery of Fossanova, one mile from Sonnino, on March 7, 1274.
Aquinas had made a remarkable impression on all who knew him. He was placed on a level with the Apostle Paul and Augustine, receiving the titles doctor angelicus (Angelic Doctor) and doctor communis (Common Doctor).
In 1319, the Roman Catholic Church began investigations preliminary to Aquinas’s canonization; on July 18, 1323, he was pronounced a saint by Pope John XXII at Avignon. At the Council of Trent only two books were placed on the Altar, the Bible and St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae.
Writings
The writings of Thomas may be classified as:
(1) exegetical, homiletical, and liturgical;
(2) dogmatic, apologetic, and ethical; and
(3) philosophical.
Category (1) includes:
Commentaries on Job (1261-65), Psalms i – li, and Isaiah
Catena aurea (1475)- a running commentary on the four Gospels, constructed on numerous citations from the Church Fathers
Commentaries on Song of Solomon and Jeremiah
reportata, on John, on Matthew, and on the epistles of Paul, including, according to one authority, Hebrews i.-x.
Officium de corpora Christi (1264).
Numerous other works have been attributed to him.
Category (2):
In quatuor sententiarum libros
Quaestiones disputatae
Quaestiones quodlibetales duodecim; Summa catholicae fidei contra gentiles (1261-64);
Summa theologiae – his magnum opus.
Also: Expositio in librum beati Dionysii de divinis nominibus; Expositiones primoe et secundoe decretalis; In Boethii libros de hebdomadibus Proeclaroe quoestiones super librum Boethii de trinitate
Category (3): Thirteen commentaries on Aristotle, and numerous philosophical opuscula of which fourteen are classed as genuine.
Some major works
De Fallaciis, 1244
De Propositionibus Modalibus, 1244-1245
On Being and Essence (De Ente et Essentia), 1254-1256
The Principles of Nature, 1255
Disputed Questions, 1256-1272
On Truth (De Veritate), 1256-1259
Concerning the Teacher
On the Power of God, 1265-1267
Contra Impugnantes Dei Cultum et Religionem, 1257
On the Trinity of Boethius, 1257-1258
Super Boethium de Hebdomadibus, 1258
Summa contra Gentiles, 1258-1264
On Kingship: To the King of Cyprus, 1265-1266
Summa Theologiae, 1265-1272
On Spiritual Creatures, 1266-1269
De Perfectione Vitae Spiritualis, 1269
Contra Pestiferam Doctrinam Retrahentium Homines a Religionis Ingressu, 1270
De Aeternitate Mundi Contra Murmurantes, 1270
The Unicity of the Intellect, 1270
De Substantiis Separatis, 1272-1273
Compendium of Theology, 1273
De Mixtione Elementorum ad Magistrum Philippe, 1273
Two Precepts of Charity, 1273
De Natura Materiae et Dimensionibus Interminalis
De Natura Verbi Intellectus
Catena aurea
First Treatise on Univerals
Commentary on the Logic of Aristotle
(“Bibliography”, 1990)
Aquinas and the Orthodox Church
Orthodox theology has had a complex relationship with Aquinas’ work. For a long time, Aquinas and scholastic or schoolbook theology was a standard part of the education of Orthodox seminarians. His philosophy found a strong advocate in the person of at least one Patriarch of Constantinople, Gennadius Scholarius.
In the twentieth century, there was a reaction against this “Latin captivity” of the Orthodox theology (Florovosky), and Orthodox writers have emphasized the otherness of Scholasticism, defining Orthodox theology in contradistinction to it. The criticisms have focused on, inter alia, the theological poverty of Scholasticism, nature, grace, the beatific vision, and Aquinas; defense of the Filioque.
However, more recent scholarship has distinguished between Aquinas and the manner in which his theology was received and altered by the Schoolmen who came after him. Aquinas may be seen as the culmination of patristic tradition, rather than as the initiator of a tradition discontinuous with what came before. Vladimir Lossky, e.g., in praising the existential Thomism of the Catholic philosopher Etienne Gilson, refers to “the authentic Thomism of S. Thomas …, a thought rich with new perspectives which the philosophical herd, giving in to the natural tendency of the human understanding, was not slow in conceptualizing, and changing into school Thomism, a severe and abstract doctrine, because it has been detached rom its vital source of power.” The recent work of Anna Williams and others has pointed to the importance of deification in Aquinas and his similarity with St Gregory Palamas.
Modern criticism
Some of Thomas’s ethical conclusions are at odds with the majority view in the contemporary West. For example, he held that heresy should be punished by death, in ST II:II 11:3, an opinion now repudiated by the Catholic Church, but for many years held and practiced. He also maintained the intellectual inferiority of women and their subjection to men on that account (ST I:92:1), which is why he opposed the ordination of women (ST Supp. 39:1). He also said masters have the right to strike their slaves to punish them. (ST II:II 65:2)
Conflict between Aquinas’s view and the majority contemporary ethical view make Aquinas’s position philosophically questionable if and only if the contemporary ethical view can be philosophically shown to be the correct one. However, since some of his teachings have been repudiated even by the Church, the contemporary view would seem to have been shown correct in at least those cases.
Twentieth century scholars have focused on Aquinas’ moral theology. Philosophers such as Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, and Alasdair MacIntyre have stressed the role of virtue in morality as an alternative to Utilitarianism and Kantian deontology. Some moral theologians have instead stressed the point of moral action as deification, rather than virtue.
Modern readers might also find the method frequently used to reconcile Christian and Aristotelian doctrine rather strenuous. In some cases, the conflict is resolved by showing that a certain term actually has two meanings, the Christian doctrine referring to one meaning, the Aristotelian to the second. Thus, both doctrines can be said to be true. Indeed, noting distinctions is a necessary part of true philosophical inquiry. In most cases, Aquinas finds a reading of the Aristotelian text which might not always satisfy modern scholars of Aristotle but which is a plausible rendering of the Philosopher’s meaning and thoroughly Christian.
Many biographies of Aquinas have been written over the centuries, perhaps the most notable is that by G. K. Chesterton.
References
“Bibliography of Additional Readings” (1990). In Mortimer J. Adler (Ed.), Great Books of the Western World, 2nd ed., v. 2, pp. 987-988. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Bradley, Denis J.M. Aquinas on the Twofold Human Good. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1997. (The author is an archpriest in the Orthodox Church in America.)
Lossky, Vladimir. Review of E. L. Mascall’s Existence and Analogy in Sobornost (1950): 295-97.
“Thomas Aquinas” (1908). In Samuel Macauley Jackson (Ed.), The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, v. 11, pp. 422-427. New York: Funk and Wagnalls.
Toy, Crawford Howell and Broydé, Isaac (1906), “Aquinas, Thomas”. In The Jewish Encyclopedia, v. 2, pp. 38-40. New York: Funk and Wagnalls.
Williams, Anna N. The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
See also
Scholasticism
External links
by Aquinas:
Summa contra Gentiles
Summa Theologica
The Principles of Nature
On Being and Essence (De Ente et Essentia)
Catena Aurea (partial)
Corpus Thomisticum – the works of St. Thomas Aquinas (Latin)
about Aquinas:
Catholic Encyclopedia article
Biography of Aquinas by G. K. Chesterton (Warning: protected by copyright outside of Australia)
On the legend of St. Albert’s automaton
St Thomas of Aquinas Selected Prayers and poems
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
bio and ideas at SWIF/University of Bari/Italy
Category:
Articles needing cleanup
Categories > OrthodoxWiki > Articles needing cleanup
I dont reazon so well sometimes
Craig, You seem more reasonable and capable of reason to me, in your irenic spirit, than you yourself may realize. We all make mistakes and we all know the Bible tells us all we have sinned. Even if one has only sinned a little, or a lot like me, it is all: we all need God’s mercy, whether or sins and lack of reason is many, or few. I feel you are trying to get along with Calvinists and Reformed which is good. In my experience, they stubbornly defend Calvinism no matter how many Scriptures you share with them, and they don’t care much to even think or begin to think about the real meaning of John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tm. 2:4, and it comes down to Calvinism with its self-satisfied sense of logic and reason saying “World does not mean world in John 3:16”. World means “the elect only”; we are never going to take 2 Peter 3:9 seriously. The MKJV of Calvinist Jay P. Green Sr. Modern King James Version, even adds the words in italics “of us” in 2 Peter 3:9.
I don’t have a hatred of Calvinism, I look to the prayers of the Optina Elders and think of our commonalities.
For what it is worth, I have a hatred of Calvinism. I hate no one. I am tempted in politics to thoroughly dislike our current President. (And he happens to be something of a Calvinist himself). I have seen what Calvinism has done to some Calvinists. In my experience, there are two kinds of Calvinists, at least. Non-doctrinal, non-Dogmatic Calvinists, liberals who are Reformed by accident, not on purpose and who do not care for or care to know TULIP and Calvin’s writings, just have only known Reformed and Lutheran traditions, its all they know, they don’t question it or study the Bible to see whether or not it’s true. They are good people, most of them, the Calvinists. Most of them are not theologians, and they don’t defend TULIP. They aren’t apologetic or combative. They are simple believers, like my parents, of beloved memory, who followed Christ just for the joy of singing in the choir, Lutheran ELCA and Presbyterian PCUSA and they did not nitpick theology.
Being well-read as I have become is both a blessing and a curse.
One can either obsess and study theological issues and controversies a bit too much, or not study them any of them at all and remain in subject abject ignorance it seems as it were. But in all things C.S. Lewis is exactly right: C.S. Lewis is exactly right. But some Calvinists insist Mere Christianity is TULIP and WCF and nothing else, and in this I beg to differ strongly with them.
My experience has been with some of them: They have said: “You are predestined to hell” and another said, “You are lost” because I rejected Calvinism.
This is no way to be it seems to me.
Some Protestants question where anyone who questions “sola fide” or “TULIP” are even believers in God or even Christian at all. They seem to obsess on this and make these doctrines of these two Reformers, Luther and Calvin, the “whole essence and meaning of mere (true) Christianity).
I feel there is much more to EO Orthodoxy, than merely rejecting FILIOQUE. But it is NECESSARY to do so, since this is the main obstacle to the reunion of non-Orthodox with Orthodoxy. The main hindrance in the Trinitarian doctrine of God. Theology proper.
There is much I value from both Luther and also Calvin (as much as I reject Calvin’s hatred of Servetus).
(Servetus was no friend of mine, but I feel Calvin went too far in the name of combatting heresy).
My intention remains to speak the truth in love, and to hate heresy, hate Calvinism, but loved the Reformed, who a re great and good people most of them and don’t do things like I have done.
As a sinful Lutheran I made a lot of mistakes. I was all messed up. I still have to fight off temptation. Christ was merciful to me, so I have sympathy for all Christians, including Calvinists and Catholics.
In Orthodoxy, I value the writings of Saint Photius and Saint Mark of Ephesus. I also value Saint Gregory Palamas, but I don’t comprehend him as much as I should, since he is such a keen saint who was very much more pious than I am; Photius and Mark were also most holy men of God. I had been a man of the world and a man troubled by sins. I have come to Christ to taste the fountain of immortality. I have many faults, the worst of these I really need much mercy from Christ God.
I value these saints, the three holy pillars of holy Orthodoxy.
I have sympathy for people, but no sympathy for Calvinism. But the Puritans are pious souls, and there is much good in them in spite of the heretical nature of their Calvinism.
As for how I feel above all about this, and why I feel keen to have such antipathy for Calvinism itself, including Filioque, but for no Calvinists (I forgive those who said harsh things about me. I view it a symptom of their mental illness. So since I have some illnesses like that, too, I forgive them. I have much in my past where I was indeed lost, until God found me, I found Christ through and in Orthodoxy).
“Never, O Man, is that which concerns the Church put right through compromises: there is no mean between truth and falsehood. But just as what is outside the light will be necessarily in darkness, so also he who steps away a little from truth is left subject to falsehood” (Saint Mark of Ephesus, +1443).
“Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are but two sides of the same coin. They may present different faces, but the underlying substance is the same” (Carlton, Clark. (1999). The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic should know about the Orthodox Church. Salisbury, Massachusetts: Regina Orthodox press; page 184.).
Dear Craig brother in Christ;
As new members of the Body of Christ, the Orthodox Church, we perhaps share some somewhat different and somewhat the same backgrounds from Western non-Orthodox Christianity. Therefore a dialogue and understanding between Eastern Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (non-Oriental) and Western Chalcedonian Catholicism and Protestantism seems something we may happen to retain interest in.
Craig, what was your denominational background and Western church experience before you came to The Orthodox Church?
I was mainline liberal Protestant.
Not much memory of Christianity or “church” before age 10, 11.
Not much joy in Lutheran Sunday school. Remember not liking being there as a child. Not feeling like an atheist, what child would, but not understanding much about Jesus, whether for or against. Still just young.
Not much of a sense of sin and fallenness and dreams (and hormones) until age 13, 14, 1973-1974.
Real sense of struggle between moral agnosticism (no actual atheism) and Protestant evangelicalism, 1974-1978.
LCA Lutheran Church in America experience, 1971-1981.
ELCA experience, 1978/79-1994.
A/G Assemblies of God, Springfield, MO, circa 1978-1983.
Leaving Pentecostalism and Lutheranism, circa 1983-1984, 1985.
Much influence of the journey evangelical evangelical catholic writings of Peter E. Gillquist, 1978/1979-1989.
Becoming Orthodox, 1989.
Reformed Christianity, Francis A. Schaeffer, 1980-1984. Collected Works of Francis A. Schaeffer. Dr. Schaeffer emphasized Evangelicalism and Inerrancy, not Calvinism.
Later came to despise Calvinism and TULIP, and bad experiences in attempted dialogues with staunch Calvinists, many of whom made personal attacks against me, ad hominem.
When I questioned Dordt and TULIP and Five Points and Sola Fide.
Used to adhere to Book of Concord, Lutheranism, for a while.
Outgrew my Lutheran confessionalism when I learned more about Scripture and Luther. Never have been anti-Catholic, finding much good in Roman Catholicism, but differing from negative things about Catholicism, and learning more of the EO view of the Roman church.
Main problem of Catholicism: Thomism, Aristotelianism. merger of faith with false rationalism, misuse of reason by mere intellectualism. Orthodoxy follows neither intellectualism nor anti-intellectualism, and is not anti-science. Some of Catholicism in the name of Aristotle was anti-science in its cosmology and metaphysics and the Galileo affair. As a Catholic, Luther thought Copernicus was a blasphemer for his heliocentric views. Go figure.
God bless you Craig.
Attended over the years Catholic weddings and funerals. Protestant weddings and funerals, UMC United Methodist Church PCUSA Presbyterian Church in USA services. A/G Assemblies of God. ELCA. Lutheran. Jubilee ’83, 1983, Hilton Hotel, Pittsburgh, PA, Coalition For Christian Outreach, Pittsburgh, PA, Rev. Dr. John Guest, Evangelical Anglican, convert to Christ through Billy Graham Evaneglistic Association.
“Craig, what was your denominational background and Western church experience before you came to The Orthodox Church?” I was a Reformed Baptist, though I was baptized ECLA Lutheran and attended an ELCA church for a couple of years when I first became a Christian (I was brought up without religion.)
As for more about my background, you might find this video interesting as I address these things. Let me know what you think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZmyT8LNMqQ
I think there is a common ecumenical Christian core in Chalcedonian Christology in: R. Catholicism (and O. Catholicism, E., B. Catholicism), E. Orthodoxy, and Protestantism (Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed/Calvinist, Arminian/Methodist/Wesleyan), and much of Pentecostalism (and not the same things on Oriental Orthodox (non-Chalcedonians), and a common Trinitarian thought in Nicene Creed (except for Filioque controversy), Apostles Creed, and Athanasian Creed (except for Filioque part), the view of the Trinity is the same except for Filioque, and the view of Christology of East and West is Chalcedonian. The only issues between East and West stem from certain views gleaned by some from Saint Augustine of Hippo. Augustine is the most controversial figure in Church history, except for of course Origen, Origen who is much more problematic and wrong than anything that is amiss in blessed Augustine, who was mostly Orthodox/Catholic, or intended to be so. Origen was a philosopher, and had pagan views on some things. Not so from Augustine, but Augustine’s shortcoming come from the philosophy that trained him from non-theological concepts that influenced Augustine a bit too much when he tried to form a theology.
Water said: scott,
I had a Mormon friend, very likeable and sociable, but also business minded and focused on his community, like many Jews I thought.
My experience with Assemblies of God not very positive overall, very categorical and anti Catholic, almost impossible to dialogue with. Angry is a good word.
My experience with Orthodox Christians also mixed, many of them insular and narrow minded, entrenched in their beliefs, not very good at reasoning.
Water: I have had a few dialogues with peoples of various religions.
When I was in a state of error and sin, as a lapsed Lutheran, I had a fruitless dialogue with Jehovah’s Witnesses, who tried to convince me the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was not in the Bible, but was invented and made up by the pagan Greek philosopher Plato. They said, “We had the truth”. I quipped, “Well, the Truth has me”. Not a very good time for me. I was committing many sins at the time. My life has had some immorality and I consider it the grace and mercy of Christ I have made it through my errors, and the HOLY SPIRIT sent down His Word in the book THE RUDDER and healed me, saved m,e, of my sin and immorality. I no longer have the same sinful desires. I still have to struggle against sinful thoughts, there is no magic pill that cures temptation to think sinfully, but the Spirit of the Father has been good to me.
In my experience, the people who act like they are logical for believing in the five points of Calvinism and sola fide like to violate the rule of sound logic against ad hominem statements against others and when I questioned Calvinism’s doctrines, the one Calvinist I wrote to said “You are lost” when I questioned “Sola fide”.
I give into temptation in politics, and agree with my family. We all think President Trump is an idiot. I know I am being illogical. Since that is a half-truth. The man is also obviously very intelligent. In many ways, we are just like him. I have had some immorality and problems. About women. But God has cleansed me and I leave this all to him. In singleness, I have issues, and it is okay to seek a normal relationship and be married. Some don’t have opportunity to find love, and either state, singleness, or marriage has problems and issues. And many who marry become adulterous, as there have been some adulterous unmarried people like myself. My past I made some mistakes, and I had alot of emotional turmoil. I think Americans were able to look the other way with Trump, but seemed to be not so nice toward mrs. Clinton, somewhat because of her husband, somewhat because she is pro abortion, which I agree was her only major fault. But I agree with those who are against Roe V. Wade that Judge Kavanaugh was a poor defense against Democrats who favor “a woman’s right to choose” when Mr. Kavanaugh treated a woman so poorly, at least that is probably true since there is no good reason to doubt Dr. Ford’s testimony. I am a lot like many conservative Republicans, I used to be a Religious Right Republican, but I changed party to Democrat because of Trump, we say we are pro life, but we err in our sexual conduct. I feel once they have a judge in SCOTUS who is beyond reproach morally when it comes to women, it may be the US law will provide for safe legal abortions for all U.S. woemn only when the mother’s lives are medically necessary to have abortion to save her life, and in no other cases.
scott,
I am really glad you have moved past Sola Fide and all that.
As far as sexual addiction goes, I think is a bit like alcohol addiction and all addictions.. There is a book by Mary Karr who was converted to Christianity through a friend who suggested she ask God in the morning to “keep her dry that day” and say “thank you” at the end of the day, which she grudgingly did, and she did not drink for 30 days, leading to her conversion, even though she had tried everything else before. So I think prayer and thanksgiving are the clue with addictions.
God bless you whether or not you happen to accept or agree with anything you happen to say. We are all responsible to follow the truth wherever it leads us; in the end God will say the whole truth to all of us, and He alone will judge all. We happen to differ on Filioque and some consider my words at times to be a rant. I admit, I am zealous for Orthodoxy’s rejection of Filioque, for which I feel no shame; I am sorry if I go a bit over the top in my antipathy for Charlemagne. I view him as the main reason much of the West went astray, much more to blame than anything in Martin Luther or in Pope Nicholas I, who was a product of his times, and had ambition so he was led astray by pride; we all have pride and I am no one to judge or condemn anyone, though I take a right to have opinions on other people; I feel I am fair-minded and not overly critical of anyone. For one thing, Charlemagne himself in spite of his heresy of Filioque which he enforced so much by his sword, Charlemagne led to love and learning and science and enlightenment of the West for and through studious reading and the Scriptures, something for which a thoroughly commend and admire him, and give him justly due credit. For whatever my own moral faults, or his, may God bless us all, and in the end, we should not be surprised God Himself will remedy for the West the errors begun by Charlemagne. God save them and us and bring us all together in Christ. John 17. Amen.
“The seven Ecumenical Councils have such importance for the Orthodox Church that it has been possible for some of her representatives to define her as “the Church of the Seven Councils” (1). No Western Church regards Ecumenical Councils with quite this degree of seriousness, nor does any single out these particular seven in the way the Orthodox Church does” (page 165: “The significance of the Ecumenical Councils”, by William Nicholls, in: Marty, Martin E., & Peerman, Dean G., eds. (1965). New Theology No. 2. New York: The Macmillan company.).
Notes.
1. Ware, Timothy. (1963). The Orthodox Church. New York: Penguin Books; page 43.
“Never, O Man, is that which concerns the Church put right through compromises: there is no mean between truth and falsehood. But just as what is outside the light will be necessarily in darkness, so also he who steps away a little from truth is left subject to falsehood” (Saint Mark of Ephesus, +1443).
“Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are but two sides of the same coin. They may present different faces, but the underlying substance is the same” (Carlton, Clark. (1999). The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic should know about the Orthodox Church. Salisbury, Massachusetts: Regina Orthodox press; page 184.).
“Why are the ungodly exalted and lifted up as the cedars of Lebanon (Psalm 37:35), to defile the peaceful worship of God? (Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848: page 216, Clark Carlton, The Truth.).
“There is simply no way to assert the Filioque without subordinating the Spirit” (Carlton, The Truth; page 67.).
The Filioque – Frankish fire: strange fire kept for the day of judgment, the day of the wrath of God, the day of ire.
Filioque – an ingressive fox, An aggressive fox of Charlemagne, entrenched demonically and rationalistically upon the West; a deadly venomous psychology, a human philosophy, an evil “habit strength” (Clark Leonard Hull).
Filioque – a repeated error, a humanistic error of Augustine’s reign of error: a philosophy (psychology) of man in the West.
Filioque: Augustine’s reign of Charlemagne’s domain.
Filioque: the inverse of the Truth.
Filioque, a wild animal and fox of insanity. The epitome of Western humanist-nominalist impiety: The misuse of the papacy, the first Protestants.
Charlemagne’s wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Filioque, fox of Charlemagne: human pride, human vanity.
Filioque: clearly a heresy.
Filioque, a heresy hidden in plain sight; like a pocket mouse.
Proud philosophy: a reign of evil in the house.
There is no house
For such (Filioque) innovation
In pure & clear Orthodoxy,
No house for innovations in theology
Or any new reinterpretation
Of the old & ancient Faith “Which was once delivered unto the saints” (Saint Jude 1:3 KJV King James Version).
Filioque is the source of modern postmodernism, modern atheism, secular humanism and vain egocentric human subjectivity.
Filioque: interoceptive horse of pride.
Filioque! Interoceptive human pride, oh proud vanity of the fallen human heart! Filioque, such an inner & outer darkness , darkness of the dark night of the soul.
Filioque: Charlemagne’s Western schism of the proud race of Franks, purveyors of false light of reason so-called: egocentric rationalism: Thomas Aquinas’ vain Aristotelian pagan philosophy.
Charlemagne: Filioque: The Germanization of medieval Western Christendom. Babylonian captivity of the unholy and godless “holy Roman Empire”, which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, but an evil scheme of the evil antichrist king of the Franks, Charlemagne.
It is totally necessary for salvation that every soul reject the Filioque.
Filioque: demonic angel of the bottomless pit of Charlemagne;
Pure human lust & pride of life, proud vanity of worldly reason, proud vanity of human sin.
Filioque: from Lucifer, the father of lies.
Filioque: iteration of the abomination of desolation by Charlemagne; the Carolingian deception regarding the Filioque: clear heresy: a wild animal and fox of Semi-Sabellianism. Filioque, from Satan’s domain: prince of the power of the air: The Filioque affair; Antichrist’s iterative miscalculation.
Well, the above is rather odd. And Augustine is a Father of the Church Catholic, attested as such by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. His writings on original sin were lauded by the Third Ecumenical Council at the urging of St. Cyril of Alexandria with whom St. Augustine corresponded. The Filioque is an important issue but the above is rather bombastic, to put it mildly.
My main question, however, is directed to Walter: would you please provide the citation of your primary source text in that passage alleged to be from Ss. Cyril and Methodius concerning the relationship of the Roman Pontiff to the Ecumenical Council? The reason I ask is twofold. First, the form in which your citations are provided make it clear that you have simply copied them all from a list of passages found in other texts or websites rather than selecting from your own study of the primary texts a representative sample of teaching on the primacy of the Popes.
As to that specific passage, you are free to try for yourself, but I’ve tried for years to pursue the actual source of that text. It always leads in circles and it is almost certainly spurious. That the Bishop of Rome is the Archbishop of all the Churches, the Successor of Peter, the Head of all the Churches of God- that’s all fine. Every synod has an archbishop who sits as primate, and this order is realized hierarchically with a universal primate in the person of the Bishop of Rome. The question is whether he has a plenitude of ordinary power and thus has in his own office the authority to overrule an Ecumenical Council. He was not. Whereas your reference to the alleged words of Ss. Cyril and Methodius lack any reputable source, here is a passage directly cited from the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council- when the Council rendered its sentence upon the Roman Pontiff, Vigilius, who resisted its judgment on the orthodoxy of the Three Chapters:
—
And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.
And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles: It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that you abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.
But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.
Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon: A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong as a well-founded kingdom; and again in Ecclesiastes he says: Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.
So also the Lord himself says: Verily I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
—
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm
As you can see, an Ecumenical Council commemorated as authoritative by both Rome and the Orthodox teaches explicitly that the sentence passed by the Council is superior to that passed by the Roman Pontiff. Not only that, but the Council Fathers state that there is not “any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbor…” This citation directly and provably from the primary source, in a Council to which we are both magisterially bound, and specifically addressed to the question of how the primacy of the Successor of Peter relates to the authority of the Ecumenical Council is far superior to your unsourced and unsourcable claimed passage from Ss. Cyril and Methodius.
Water and Spirit: You say Photius’ ideas split the Church. First of all. It is impossible to split the Church, the Church is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic, and She is Infallible and cannot be split into any factions or divisions of schisms or heresies. The gates of hell (mouth of heretics) cannot, shall not, prevail against Her (Matt. 16:18). Secondly, ideas cannot split the Church. Thirdly, Photius did not split the Church. There was a schism between Photius and Pope Nicholas I, because Nicholas I was a schismatic heretic who left the Orthodox Catholic Church over his Filioque heresy in 867 AD. This was the foreshadowing of Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 and Filioque, and Leo IX in 1054 and Filioque. Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII resisted Filioque addition to the Creed of the Orthodox Catholic Church and thus remain Orthodox Catholic Saints. Pope John VIII in 882 was martyred and was a good Pope.
Craig, I heard an Orthodox apologist saying that good information about Orthodoxy should be purposely withheld from outsiders because making information obscure causes people to value it more which essentially sounds like he is saying that Orthodoxy is only for the elite. As a Protestant who fears that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are man centered religions, this sounds like an outgrowth of humanism since it seems logical to conclude that if we must earn salvation then people would become arrogant about who deserves to be educated on their faith or join it, making God more angry and distant from us. Do you agree with this sentiment? It sounds like this is one reason that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have been outdone by Protestants in terms of evangelism, which would be evidence to Protestants that God is either hateful or that their theology has corrupted their sense of charity. I am afraid to approach Roman Catholics generally, for instance, because in my experience they do believe they are above us and have temperamental attitudes to outsiders. They tout their intellectuals/academics as evidence of their superiority but it seems to me to also suggest they believe in man’s knowledge and greatness in being able to understand the things of God that the bible says are not supposed to be his, since they say we are shallow as Protestants for being simple and clear to others. A large portion of Roman Catholic and Orthodox resources seem catered to academics and their general coldness likely stems from their intellectualism which again reimburses Protestant fears that the religions teach a humanist perversion of the grace gospel preached by evangelicals. Even the attempt to explain apophaticism by the Orthodox seems to use humanist philosophy to explain things that they say are not understandable properly through those means. That is also hypocritical if my assumptions are true, since they condemn Roman Catholics for doing the same thing.
Personally, I think anything about the sacraments should be withheld unless one is a catechumen. However, this is for practical reasons. During covid shutdowns, the fact people knew we communed meant local law enforcement prevented churches from communing members. Orthodox share the cup. As for a gnostic intellectual super class of Christian, I reject this and so does Orthodoxy.
Dear Craig: I sympathize with anyone who comes into Eastern (or Western Rite) [Chalcedonian] Orthodoxy from Evangelical and Protestant traditions of any kind. I have less sympathy for Calvinism, for I viewed Lutheran theology as more balanced and full than Calvinism, which I could not accept: but I learned much about Lutheran theology which later I could no longer accept. For John 15:26 and Acts 2:33, and later, Deuteronomy 4:2 and Proverbs 30:5-6 and other personal reasons. What I was like needed reforming by Orthodoxy!