Filioque

[Xeno.of.athens]

Which speaks to my view that Papal Supremacy IS THE REASON of the schism, not the filioque

I asked copilot (out of curiosity) and it gives a list of reasons which I guess reflects what people have written in its data sources (books, the web, and other things)

"Theological reasons for the schism between Orthodox and Catholic?"

Copilot​

The schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, also known as the Great Schism of 1054, was driven by several theological, ecclesiastical, and cultural differences [What Caused the Great Schism of 1054?]. Here are some key theological reasons:

1. Filioque Clause: The Western Church added the phrase "and the Son" (Filioque) to the Nicene Creed, indicating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The Eastern Church rejected this addition, insisting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone [Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia].
2. Papal Primacy: The Western Church asserted the Pope's authority as the supreme head of the Church, while the Eastern Church believed that authority should be more collegial, decided by a council of bishops [Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia].
3. Eucharistic Bread: Disagreements over whether the Eucharistic bread should be leavened or unleavened [Catholic Church vs. Orthodox Church: The Main Differences - GreekReporter.com].
4. Iconoclasm: The Eastern Church experienced periods of iconoclasm (the destruction of religious images), which the Western Church did not support [Catholic Church vs. Orthodox Church: The Main Differences - GreekReporter.com].
5. Language Differences: The Western Church used Latin, while the Eastern Church used Greek, leading to misunderstandings and cultural divergence [What Caused the Great Schism of 1054?].

These theological differences, along with political and cultural factors, led to the formal split between the two branches of Christianity [What Caused the Great Schism of 1054?].

 

[Philip_B]

Which speaks to my view that Papal Supremacy IS THE REASON of the schism, not the filioque

Did you mean presumed supremacy

 

[concretecamper]

Did you mean presumed supremacy

Did I stutter?

 

[The Liturgist]

Which speaks to my view that Papal Supremacy IS THE REASON of the schism, not the filioque

Of course, that is undeniable.

 

[concretecamper]

Of course, that is undeniable.

Thank you

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you

I never disagreed with your premise to begin with. The fact is that the actions of the Pope in attempting to impose his will on a brother bishop, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was a violation of numerous ancient canons including Canons VI and VII of Nicaea, and the Apostolic Canons concerning the prerogative of bishops within their own dioceses.

 

[concretecamper]

I never disagreed with your premise to begin with. The fact is that the actions of the Pope in attempting to impose his will on a brother bishop, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was a violation of numerous ancient canons including Canons VI and VII of Nicaea, and the Apostolic Canons concerning the prerogative of bishops within their own dioceses.

It all comes down to Authority, or the attribute of pride that rejects it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The fact is that the actions of the Pope

I reckon it wasn't just "the Pope" - probably the many Curias and Popes over centuries. It started long ago, with Papal primacy:

Some earliest references to the primacy of the bishop of Rome can be found in the writings of renowned Christian figures such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon. In their writings, these Church Fathers recognized the unique position of the church in Rome, which was believed to have been founded by Peter and Paul. Therefore, the bishop of Rome was regarded as the successor of Peter, who, in accordance with the New Testament, was designated by Jesus as the leader of his church.​

​

In addition, given the city's political and cultural importance as the capital of the empire, the growing Christianization of the Roman Empire further strengthened the bishop of Rome's authority. During the Council of Nicaea in 325, the bishop of Rome was specifically recognized as having special authority, and subsequent ecumenical councils like Constantinople I (381) and Chalcedon (451), affirmed the bishop of Rome as the first among equals among the church's patriarchs. [History of papal primacy - Wikipedia]​

​

Primacy developed into supremacy, as a development of doctrine. Papal supremacy is a dogmatic belief of the Catholic Church -

this doctrine asserts that the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter, holds supreme authority over the entire Church. It was definitively affirmed at the First Vatican Council in 1870 through the document "Pastor Aeternus," which declared the Pope's supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church. This teaching is foundational to Catholic ecclesiology. [History of papal primacy - Wikipedia]​

It may be impossible for any ecumenical dialogue to proceed to union without affirming jurisdictional supremacy to the papacy.

 

[Lukaris]

From what I recall there were centuries of various tensions over the Filioque. The Eastern Church never accepted it but tolerated it in the Western Church. In 1054, the West tried to force the Filioque on the East and the break was complete even if the breakdown took more time.


I just want to clarify though re what I said above. It is a broad summary of how I understand that Orthodoxy held to a correct Trinitarian doctrine ( John 15:26). There were dirty deeds done on both sides so it is not that the Roman Catholic Church is the “bad guy “ and the Orthodox Church the “good guy.” It is just, I believe, the Orthodox Church held to the correct Trinitarian doctrine by understanding not by any greater virtue.

I believe there is salvation within the Roman Catholic Church but a few different faith understandings prevent communion between the Orthodox and Catholics. I also believe Christians within both of our communions should be wary of the possibility of a cheap, worldly ecumenism that would undermine traditional faith that both of us hold in common ( like in the Apostles Creed for ex.).

 

[Philip_B]

It may be impossible for any ecumenical dialogue to proceed to union without affirming jurisdictional supremacy to the papacy.

It may be impossible for any œcumenical to proceed to union while one side requires the affirmation of the papacy's jurisdictional supremacy.

 

[The Liturgist]

It all comes down to Authority, or the attribute of pride that rejects it.

This authority is collectively held by all bishops, according to the ancient canon laws of the early church. We never see, prior to the eleventh century, popes taking unilateral action with the kind of dictatorial attitude that caused the schism. Indeed, St. Victor, who was not styled Pope, but who was the Bishop of Rome who to his credit was responsible for the Vetus Latina Bible and the translation of the liturgy from Greek into Latin, was reproached by St. Irenaeus of Lyons for overstepping his authority when he sought to unilaterally impose the Paschalion on certain churches in the East that were far outside of his jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Paschalion was adopted ecumenically, but it was done at the Council of Nicaea, and not by any Pope, and indeed, the church of Rome sent only two legates to the Council of Nicaea (and most subsequent ecumenical councils).

 

[The Liturgist]

It may be impossible for any ecumenical dialogue to proceed to union without affirming jurisdictional supremacy to the papacy.

Indeed, I think everyone should affirm the jurisdictional supremacy of His Holiness Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria and His Beatitude Pope Theodore II of Alexandria and All Africa.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It may be impossible for any œcumenical to proceed to union while one side requires the affirmation of the papacy's jurisdictional supremacy.

Yes, and equally when one side requires affirmation of collegiality. Intransigence exists on both sides.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Indeed, I think everyone should affirm the jurisdictional supremacy of His Holiness Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria and His Beatitude Pope Theodore II of Alexandria and All Africa.

Thank you for the humour.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you for the humour.

Oh it gets better. The full title of Pope Theodore II, the Greek Orthodox one, translates as:

“His Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, All Egypt and All Africa, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Prelate of Prelates, the Thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Universe.”

Now the most amusing fact is that despite his superlative styling, Pope Theodore II does not claim Papal supremacy, but rather functions as the leader of the Holy Synod of the Church of Alexandria, just like his Coptic Orthodox counterpart (who also has an impressive title, but perhaps not to that extent), and indeed is a rather close friend and supporter of His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who outranks him in terms of precedence.

 

[Always in His Presence]

What do you think of the Filioque?
if this is a heresy, maybe this is the reason for the fall of Christianity in the west?

Christianity in the West has fallen?

News to me - when did that happen - we are seeing exponential growth!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

“His Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, All Egypt and All Africa, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Prelate of Prelates, the Thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Universe.”

Very expansive title

does not claim Papal supremacy

Very good, with a title that expansive one might think it was boasting.

His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who outranks him in terms of precedence.

another grand title.

The Pope (in Rome) has some official titles

The official list of papal titles, in the order they are dictated by the

Annuario Pontificio​

in 2024, is:

• Bishop of Rome (Episcopus Romanus)
• Vicar of Jesus Christ (Vicarius Iesu Christi)
• Successor of the Prince of the Apostles (Successor principis apostolorum)
• Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church (Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis)
• Patriarch of the West (Patriarcha Occidentis)[4]
• Primate of Italy (Primatus Italiae)
• Metropolitan Archbishop of the Roman Province (Archiepiscopus metropolitanus provinciae Romanae)
• Sovereign of the Vatican City State (Superanus sui iuris civitatis Vaticanae)
• Servant of the Servants of God (Servus Servorum Dei).[3]

[Papal titles - Wikipedia]

Some are a little grand.

 

[The Liturgist]

Very expansive title

Very good, with a title that expansive one might think it was boasting.

another grand title.

The Pope (in Rome) has some official titles

The official list of papal titles, in the order they are dictated by the

Annuario Pontificio​

in 2024, is:​

• Bishop of Rome (Episcopus Romanus)
• Vicar of Jesus Christ (Vicarius Iesu Christi)
• Successor of the Prince of the Apostles (Successor principis apostolorum)
• Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church (Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis)
• Patriarch of the West (Patriarcha Occidentis)[4]
• Primate of Italy (Primatus Italiae)
• Metropolitan Archbishop of the Roman Province (Archiepiscopus metropolitanus provinciae Romanae)
• Sovereign of the Vatican City State (Superanus sui iuris civitatis Vaticanae)
• Servant of the Servants of God (Servus Servorum Dei).[3]

[Papal titles - Wikipedia]

Some are a little grand.

Indeed. However, the Roman Pontiff does not claim to be the Judge of the Universe, which is a fairly dramatic claim to make. I would guess the historical origin of that probably relates to the extremely important role Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria and Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria, who were the only bishops styled Pope at the time, in defeating Arius and Nestorius, respectively - they had St. Damasus and St. Celestine as allies, however, they were the prime movers at the Council of Nicaea (where St. Athanasius was protodeacon - he became Pope after the council when Pope St. Alexander reposed) and the Council of Ephesus respectively. Also there is the historical fact that Pope St. Athanasius determined the contents of the Scriptural canon.

However, it is important to note that the title, as grand as it sounds, would still encompass infinitely less than Pantocrator, which is the title of Christ on His dread judgement seat - the jurisidiction of Christ Pantocrator extends beyond the bounds of the oikumene.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

The Filioque is not heretical.​

“But when the Helper comes, Whom I Shall Send To You from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."

- John 15:26

 

[o_mlly]

What do you think of the Filioque?

Believing that God unites and the devil divides, the Filioque controversy is the devil's doing. And, in reading the posts in this thread, the devil appears to be still at work.

The political tensions between the east and west along with the evil of hubris on both sides caused the split.

The true church of Jesus Christ is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. We should work and pray to restore those attributes; not continue to fuel the fires of division. Let the theologians argue about the mystery of the interior life of the Godhead recognizing, as St. Augustine did, that unless revealed we cannot come to understand the reality of the Trinity.