Posted on 07/01/2005 2:22:18 AM PDT by kosta50
XXVIII. ECCLESIOLOGY
The commotion about union of the churches makes evident the ignorance existing as much among the circles of the simple faithful as among the theologians as to what the Church is.
They understand the catholicity of the Church as a legal cohesion, as an interdependence regulated by some code. For them the Church is an organization with laws and regulations like the organizations of nations. Bishops, like civil servants, are distinguished as superiors and subordinates: patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, bishops. For them, one diocese is not something complete, but a piece of a larger whole: the autocephalous church or the patriarchate. But the autocephalous church, also, feels the need to belong to a higher head. When external factors of politics, history, or geography prevent this, a vague feeling of weak unity and even separation circulates through the autocephalous churches.
Such a concept of the Church leads directly to the Papacy. If the catholicity of the Church has this kind of meaning, then Orthodoxy is worthy of tears, because up to now she has not been able to discipline herself under a Pope.
But this is not the truth of the matter. The catholic Church which we confess in the Symbol (Creed) of our Faith is not called catholic because it includes all the Christians of the earth, but because within her everyone of the faithful finds all the grace and gift of God. The meaning of catholicity has nothing to do with a universal organization the way the Papists and those who are influenced by the Papist mentality understand it.
Of course, the Church is intended for and extended to the whole world independent of lands, nations, races, and tongues; and it is not an error for one to name her catholic because of this also. But just as humanity becomes an abstract idea, there is a danger of the same thing happening to the Church when we see her as an abstract, universal idea. In order for one to understand humanity well, it is enough for him to know only one man, since the nature of that man is common to all men of the world.
Similarly, in order to understand what the catholic Church of Christ is, it suffices to know well only one local church. And as among men, it is not submission to a hierarchy which unites them but their common nature, so the local churches are not united by the Pope and the Papal hierarchy but by their common nature.
A local Orthodox church regardless of her size or the number of the faithful is by herself alone, independently of all the others, catholic. And this is so because she lacks nothing of the grace and gift of God. All the local churches of the whole world together do not contain anything more in divine grace than that small church with few members.
She has her presbyters and bishop; she has the Holy Mysteries; she has the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Within her any worthy soul can taste of the Holy Spirit's presence. She has all the grace and truth. What is she lacking therefore in order to be catholic? She is the one flock, and the bishop is her shepherd, the image of Christ, the one Shepherd. She is the prefiguring on earth of the one flock with the one Shepherd, of the new Jerusalem. Within her, even in this life, pure hearts taste of the Kingdom of God, the betrothal of the Holy Spirit. Within her they find peace which "passeth all understanding," the peace which has no relation with the peace of men: "My peace I give unto you."
"Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... to the Church of God which is at Corinth ...." Yes, it really was the Church of God, even if it was at Corinth, at one concrete and limited place.
This is the catholic Church, something concrete in space, time, and persons. This concrete entity can occur repeatedly in space and in time without ceasing to remain essentially the same.
Her relations with the other local churches are not relations of legal and jurisdictional interdependence, but relations of love and grace. One local church is united with all the other local Orthodox churches of the world by the bond of identity. Just as one is the Church of God, the other is the Church of God also, as well as all the others. They are not divided by boundaries of nations nor the political goals of the countries in which they live. They are not even divided by the fact that one might be ignorant of the other's existence. It is the same Body of Christ which is partaken of by the Greeks, the Negroes of Uganda, the Eskimos of Alaska, and the Russians of Siberia. The same Blood of Christ circulates in their veins. The Holy Spirit enlightens their minds and leads them to the knowledge of the same truth.
There exist, of course, relations of interdependence between the local churches, and there are canons which govern them. This interdependence, though, is not a relation of legal necessity, but a bond of respect and love in complete freedom, the freedom of grace. And the canons are not laws of a code, but wise guides of centuries of experience.
The Church has no need of external bonds in order to be one. It is not a pope, or a patriarch, or an archbishop which unites the Church. The local church is something complete; it is not a piece of a larger whole.
Besides, the relations of the churches are relations of churches, and not relations which belong exclusively to their bishops. A bishop cannot be conceived of without a flock or independent of his flock. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Church is the body of Christ, not the bishop alone.
A bishop is called a patriarch when the church of which he is the shepherd is a patriarchate, and an archbishop when the church is an archdiocese. In other words, the respect and honor belongs to the local church, and by extension it is rendered to its bishop. The Church of Athens is the largest and, today, most important local church of Greece. For this reason the greatest respect belongs to her, and she deserves more honor than any other church of Greece. Her opinion has a great bearing, and her role in the solution of common problems is the most significant. That is why she is justly called an archdiocese. Consequently, the bishop of that church, because he represents such an important church is a person equally important and justly called an archbishop. He himself is nothing more than an ordinary bishop. In the orders of priesthood—the deacon, the presbyter, and the bishop—there is no degree higher than the office of the bishop. The titles metropolitan, archbishop, patriarch, or pope do not indicate a greater degree of ecclesiastical charism, because there is no greater sacramental grace than that which is given to the bishop. They only indicate a difference in prominence of the churches of which they are shepherds.
This prominence of one church in relation to the others is not something permanent. It depends upon internal and external circumstances. In studying the history of the Church, we see the primacy of prominence and respect passing from church to church in a natural succession. In Apostolic times, the Church of Jerusalem, without any dispute, had the primacy of authority and importance. She had known Christ; she had heard His words; she saw Him being crucified and arising; and upon her did the Holy Spirit first descend. All who were in a communion of faith and life with her were certain that they walked the road of Christ. This is why Paul, when charged that the Gospel which he taught was not the Gospel of Christ, hastened to explain it before the Church of Jerusalem, so that the agreement of that church might silence his enemies (Gal. 2:1-2).
Later, that primacy was taken by Rome, little by little. It was the capital of the Roman Empire. A multitude of tried Christians comprised that church. Two leading Apostles had lived and preached within its bounds. A multitude of Martyrs had dyed its soil with their blood. That is why her word was venerable, and her authority in the solution of common problems was prodigious. But it was the authority of the church and not of her bishop. When she was asked for her view in the solution of common problems, the bishop replied not in his own name as a Pope of today would do, but in the name of his church. In his epistle to the Corinthians, St. Clement of Rome begins this way: "The Church of God which is in Rome, to the Church of God which is in Corinth." He writes in an amicable and supplicatory manner in order to convey the witness and opinion of his church concerning whatever happened in the Church of Corinth. In his letter to the Church of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-bearer does not mention her bishop anywhere, although he writes as though he were addressing himself to the church which truly has primacy in the hierarchy of the churches of his time.
When St. Constantine transferred the capital of the Roman state to Byzantium, Rome began gradually to lose her old splendor. It became a provincial city. A new local church began to impose itself upon the consciousness of the Christian world: the Church of Constantinople. Rome tried jealously to preserve the splendor of the past, but because things were not conducive to it, it developed little by little its well-known Papal ecclesiology in order to secure theoretically that which circumstances would not offer. Thus it advanced from madness to madness, to the point where it declared that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on doctrine, even if because of sinfulness he does not have the enlightenment of sanctity the Fathers of the Church had.
The Church of Constantinople played the most significant role throughout the long period of great heresies and of the Ecumenical Councils, and in her turn she gave her share of blood with the martyrdom of thousands of her children during the period of the Iconoclasts.
Besides these churches which at different times had the primacy of authority, there were others which held the second or third place. They were the various patriarchates, old or new, and other important churches or metropolises. There exists, therefore, a hierarchy, but a hierarchy of churches and not of bishops. St. Irenaeus does not advise Christians to address themselves to important bishops in order to find the solution to their problem, but to the churches which have the oldest roots in the Apostles (Adv. Haer. III, 4, 1).
There are not, therefore, organizational, administrative, or legal bonds among the churches, but bonds of love and grace, the same bonds of love and grace which exist among the faithful of every church, clergy or lay. The relationship between presbyter and bishop is not a relationship of employee and employer, but a charismatic and sacramental relationship. The bishop is the one who gives the presbyter the grace of the priesthood. And the presbyter gives the layman the grace of the Holy Mysteries. The only thing which separates the bishop from the presbyter is the charism of ordination. The bishop excels in nothing else, even if he be the bishop of an important church and bears the title of patriarch or pope. "There is not much separating them [the presbyters] and the bishops. For they too are elevated for the teaching and protection of the Church .... They [the bishops] surpass them only in the power of ordination, and in this alone they exceed the presbyters" (Chrysostom, Hom. XI on I Tim.).
Bishops have no right to behave like rulers, not only towards the other churches but also towards the presbyters or laymen of the church of which they are bishop. They have a responsibility to Oversee in a paternal way, to counsel, to guide, to battle against falsehood, to adjure transgressors with love and strictness, to preside in love. But these responsibilities they share with the presbyters. And the presbyters in turn look upon the bishops as their fathers in the priesthood and render them the same love.
All things in the Church are governed by love. Any distinctions are charismatic distinctions. They are not distinctions of a legal nature but of a spiritual authority. And among the laymen there are charisms and charisms.
The unity of the Church, therefore, is not a matter of obedience to a higher authority. It is not a matter of submission of subordinates to superiors. External relations do not make unity, neither do the common decisions of councils, even of Ecumenical Councils. The unity of the Church is given by the communion in the Body and Blood of Christ, the communion with the Holy Trinity. It is a liturgical unity, a mystical unity.
The common decisions of an Ecumenical Council are not the foundation but the result of unity. Besides, the decisions of either an ecumenical or local council are valid only when they are accepted by the consciousness of the Church and are in accord with the Tradition.
The Papacy is the distortion par excellence of Church unity. It made that bond of love and freedom a bond of constraint and tyranny. The Papacy is unbelief in the power of God and confidence in the power of human systems.
But let no one think that the Papacy is something which exists only in the West. In recent times it has started to appear among the Orthodox too. A few novel titles are characteristic of this spirit, for example, "Archbishop of all Greece," "Archbishop of North and South America." Many times we hear people say of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the "leader of Orthodoxy," or we hear the Russians speaking of Moscow as the third Rome and its patriarch as holding the reins of the whole of Orthodoxy. In fact, many sharp rivalries have begun. All these are manifestations of the same worldly spirit, the same thirst for worldly power, and belong to the same tendencies which characterize the world today.
People cannot feel unity in multiplicity. Yet this is a deep mystery. Our weakness or inability to feel it originates from the condition of severance into which the, human race has fallen. People have changed from persons into separated and hostile individuals, and it is impossible for them now to understand the deep unity of their nature. Man, however, is one and many; one in his nature, many in persons. This is the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and the mystery of the Church.
XXIX. PSEUDO-BISHOPS
It is imperative that Christians realize that the Church has sacramental and not administrative foundations; then they will not suffer that which has happened to the Westerners who followed the Pope in his errors because they thought that if they did not follow him, they would automatically be outside the Church.
Today the various patriarchates and archdioceses undergo great pressures from political powers which seek to direct the Orthodox according to their own interests. It is known that the Patriarchate of Moscow accepts the influence of Soviet politics. But the Patriarchate of Constantinople also accepts the influence of American politics. It was under this influence that the contact of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the similarly American-influenced, Protestant, World Council of Churches was brought about, and its servile disposition toward the Pope started to take on dangerous dimensions and even to exert over-bearing pressure upon the other Orthodox churches.
America thinks that it will strengthen the Western faction against communism if, with these artificial conciliations, it unifies its spiritual forces. But in this way the Church becomes a toy of the political powers of the world, with unforeseeable consequences for Orthodoxy.
Are the Orthodox people obliged to follow such a servile patriarchate forever? The fact that this patriarchate for centuries held the primacy of importance and honor in the Christian world cannot justify those who will follow it to a unifying capitulation with heresy. Rome also once had the primacy of importance and honor in the Christian world, but that did not oblige Christians to follow it on the road of heresy. The communion with and respect for one church on the part of the other churches remains and continues only as long as that church remains in the Church, that is, as long as it lives and proceeds in spirit and truth. When a patriarchate ceases to be a church, admitting communion with heretics, then its recognition on the part of the other churches ceases also.
The Orthodox people must become conscious of the fact that they owe no obedience to a bishop, no matter how high a title he holds, when that bishop ceases being Orthodox and openly follows heretics with pretenses of union "on equal terms." On the contrary, they are obliged to depart from him and confess their Faith, because a bishop, even if he be patriarch or pope, ceases from being a bishop the moment he ceases being Orthodox. The bishop is a consecrated person, and even if he is openly sinful, respect and honor is due him until synodically censured. But if he becomes openly heretical or is in communion with heretics, then the Christians should not await any synodical decision, but should draw away from him immediately.
Here is what the canons of the Church say on this: "... So that if any presbyter or bishop or metropolitan dares to secede from communion with his own patriarch and does not mention his name as is ordered and appointed in the divine mystagogy, but before a synodical arraignment and his [the patriarch's] full condemnation, he creates a schism, the Holy Synod has decreed that this person be alienated from every priestly function, if only he be proven to have transgressed in this. These rules, therefore, have been sealed and ordered concerning those who on the pretext of some accusations against their own presidents stand apart, creating a schism and severing the unity of the Church. But as for those who on account of some heresy condemned by Holy Synods or Fathers sever themselves from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before synodical clarification, but they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church's unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church" (Canon XV of the so-called First and Second Council).
I find St. Augustine's sermons particularly compelling. Of course, I'm a Westerner by education, so there may be something in his way of talking that appeals to me, but he is often a more engaging homilist than our own storied St. John Chrysostom is.
The problem with St. Augustine is his speculative theological writings, which were often exercises in applying Platonism and Neoplatonism to the articulation of Christian doctrine. Similar speculative writings in the East were rehashed, critiqued, rejected or ignored when wrong -- St. Augustine didn't have the benefit of this, and on many points he *became* the consensus patrum for the West.
Things got even more complicated with the arrival of Thomas Aquinas -- some of his most verbal opponents were the partisans of what had become Augustinian thought. Sometimes this almost strikes me as a dispute between the "establishment" Platonist Catholics and the "upstart" Aristotelean Catholics.
There are virtually hysterical condemnations of St. Augustine in some tiny corners of Orthodoxy, but they do not reflect main-stream Orthodox belief. He is a saint and Father of the Church. Like all saints, he should be venerated, commemorated, and prayed to. Like all Fathers, he should be read and studied -- understanding him within the context of the overall consensus patrum, interpreting his writings accordingly, embracing what is in that consensus and rejecting or modifying what is not. There is absolutely no Father whom the Church treats any differently.
Let me understand you correctly - are you saying that Patriarch Alexy has said that under certain circumstances, Catholics may receive Holy Communion in the Russian Orthodox Church and vice versa???
Are you a member of the ROC?
You know, that says it all. If we can see each other as Christians is the key. Not as Roman Catholics, not as Orthodox, not as Evangelicals, but simply as Christians.
If we can be united in Christ and do charity in His name perhaps the good and merciful Lord will forgive our inability to find a common formula.
That's why it is best that we don't discuss our differences, our historical issues, our perceptions of each other, even our theology in great depth, but rather concentrate on what we as Christians can do.
I know that some will find this smacking of Luther's "there is no salvation outside of Christ" (and not outside of the Church), but the fact is we are too imperfect to be united except through Him. As you know, divisions started almost immediately after the Penetecost, which defined +Paul's ministry, appealing to brothers for unity and rejection of sexual and other excesses. And, in view of that, nothing has changed, because human nature hasn't changed.
The more I read about the Unidivided Church the more I realize that they tended to minimize their differences in understanding and perception and maximize their need to be united in Christ, which is why -- despite many misunderstandings and all -- kept the Church undivided for so long. And it is that Patristic Church that we must learn to emulate.
I think this is what Pope Benedict meant when he called for "union." Only time will tell. In the meantime, it is best that we set aside out doctrinal and other differences and "picket together," as you say, as Christians.
Extracted from a response of the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR: "We have already mentioned our hierarchy’s 1971 Decree condemning the Soviet Patriarchate of heresy for its decision to enter into communion with the Papacy." This extract will be found in "WORSE THAN ANY HERESY": The Apostasy and Fall of the Soviet Patriarchate by Fr. Nikifor. Orthodox Chrisitian Witness, March 8, 1982.
As to my jurisdiction, are we into jurisdictions at FR? I have asked nobody to declare his/her jurisdiction. It tarnishes communication and, so I am told, has even produced banishments of the more Orthodox minded Roman Catholics who used to post at FR. So let's not get into a jurisdictional free-for-all. I have stated my concern. And I think the above should be of concern to everyone at FR. As I said earlier, maybe I'm wrong. If someone would care to show me how the above is inaccurate, I am ready to hear.
"Orthodox Christians insist on their right to freely confess their faith in the Orthodox Church as the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church without conceding the so-called "branch theory" and definitively reject any attempts to dilute Orthodox ecclesiology.
The Orthodox Church excludes any possibility of liturgical communion with the non-Orthodox. In particular, it is considered impermissible for Orthodox to participate in liturgical actions connected with so-called ecumenical or inter-confessional religious services. In general, the Church should determine the forms of interaction with the heterodox on a conciliar basis, stemming from its teachings, canonical discipline and ecclesiastical expediency.
Nonetheless, the possibility of cooperation with the heterodox is not excluded, for example, in helping the unfortunate and by defending the innocent, in joint resistance to immorality, and in participating in charitable and educational projects. It may be appropriate to participate in socially meaningful ceremonies in which other confessions are represented. In addition, dialog with the non-Orthodox remains necessary to witness Orthodoxy to them, to overcome prejudices and to disprove false opinions. Yet it is not proper to smooth over or obscure the actual differences between Orthodoxy and other confessions."
All else is rumoring by those who are attempting to derail reunion between the ROCOR and the MP.
All of the documents can be read here:
Thank you for the information.
P.S. Just a quick reaction to the documents you showed us. What I did not see, but I may have missed it, is a resolution to the problem of the alleged heresy of the MP, one that would fit the conditions set forth by the Canon of St. Basil concerning reception of heretical jurisdictions returning to the fold of Christ.
Sir,
I didn't say anything about Erastianism. All I said was Caesarpapism was common during the first 1000 years of Christianity in the East. Since there are no more Caesars, it may be more difficult to say that this is a current trend. I would say they are synonymous. And according to my dictionary, Caesarpapism is when the Caesar, the emperor, of the Eastern Roman Empire tried to influence ecclesiastical decisions. My original post still stands.
Regards
You flatter me, sir.
But do dogmatic differences really exist or are they only apparent because of the different theological languages that we use.
To summarize my views on this, our separation may very well be from our own human failings.
Is it not possible that the Greeks are making the same mistake when looking at the Latin explanations of Filioque?
Unfortunately, the answer here is irrelevant. Try to understand that, to the Orthodox, the ultimate question remains, can the Church ignore the stance of the Councils and other Bishops of Rome speaking on behalf of the Church. If the answer to that is "No," then the filique has been long rejected. It is Rome's acceptance of it in spite of the Councils and other Bishops that creates the problem.
It turned out that what I would call a public school would be called a state school in England, and what I would call a private school in America would be called a public school in England.
I've heard this expressed as the difference between Greek and Latin, with Greek being the language of philosophers and Latin being the language of the law and bureaucrats. In the Greek, there is a concept that one is expected to grasp; in the Latin, everything is formal, clearly categorized, and soundly delineated. That's one heck of a difference to argue across.
Why should there be any tension? We have already agree that the Filioque be dropped from the Creed in joint celebrations, as it is when said in Greek.
The largest part of the problem is that the Orthodox still see the only dogmatic question as being total obedience to the Bishop of Rome, and it is ultimately impossible for us to have total obedience to anyone other than Jesus Christ.
Even before 1054 there was never complete unanimity within the Church. Why need we insist on it today in order to come together in the worship of the one true God?
Ask me that question again but this time pretend (for the sake of argument alone) that you are an American Episcopalian asking that same question of me.
The answer is that the answers to some questions put us too far apart to still allege that we are one.
Erastianism is more narrow in meaning. It only covers the state controlling ecclessiastical affairs. It does not cover, as Caeseropapist does, the reverse sort of situation, ecclesiastical hierarchs acting as secular rulers.
Did you click on the link I gave you? Whether or not you agree with them, there are some very interesting essays there on Orthodox Christian monarchism.
It is Rome's acceptance of it [Filioque] in spite of the Councils and other Bishops that creates the problem.
Unfortunately I think that you are attempting to portray the acceptance of Filioque as a late novelty introduced by the pope alone. As St. Maximus has shown, there is universal attestation of its use by the Latin Fathers and it has never been questioned by the western bishops. If, as you claim, all bishops are equal then you must give equal weight to their opinions as you do to the Greek.
As to the statement "in spite of Councils," the First Council of Constantinople was addressing a very specific problem in the Greek east. It never addressed the specific Latin usage. As I stated before, I think part of the problem is that the Greeks are insisting that Latin formulations be fitted into Greek categories. This does injustice to the difference in the two languages. It also gives insult to the universal and unreserved acceptance to the First Council of Constantinople by the Latin bishops. Do you really wish to imply that the Latins are lying when they state this? You also ignore the testimony of the Greek bishops of the time that for a thousand years the usage of Filioque by Latin writers was not considered grounds for separation.
Heresy is a serious charge and I think that the burden of proof must be on those who make it. Unfortunately it seems that the Greeks come to the table with the presumption of guilt rather than a presumption of innocence. If there are two ways in interpret a statement, Christian charity, as well as justice, should assume the orthodox interpretation unless there is firm evidence to the contrary.
The largest part of the problem is that the Orthodox still see the only dogmatic question as being total obedience to the Bishop of Rome.
Then why are we spending so much time on Filioque? Oh, yes, Graves and kosta50 think that we are worship the Devil.
Ask me that question again but this time pretend (for the sake of argument alone) that you are an American Episcopalian asking that same question of me.
I do not want to imply that there are no boundaries. The situation with the western Protestants is quite different. The original reformers came out of the Latin theological tradition. Indeed, they were trained in Catholic universities are were quite conversant in Latin. There was no misunderstanding because of language; they knew what we were saying and made sure we knew what they were saying. Nor were we disagreeing about some very technical language. They clearly and deliberately rejected some very basic Christian truths.
On a personal note, I will be away for 24 hours so if I do not respond immediately have patience.
This is tautological and therefore logically invalid. You are presuming heresy before having proved it.
it's not up to the Orthodox to prove that Orthodoxy is Orthodox.
No one would question that Orthodoxy is Orthodox, but is it, orthodox, the two are not the same.
An innovation is always considered heretical until proved otherwise.
As St. Maximus has shown, the use of the formula Filioque (outside of the Creed) is attested by all the Latin Fathers and can hardly be considered an innovation. Or do you not consider the testimony of the Latin Fathers as of equal value as that of the Greek Fathers?
For the sake of any following discussion, and in order to avoid having to always repeat myself, whenever I refer to the use of Filioque I am only referring to its use by Latin writers and not its insertion into the Creed, unless otherwise stated.
Presumption is actually a legal concept. The status quo or the accused is presumed innocent or correct until proven guilty. I took an Anglo-Saxon legal concept and adapted it to illustrate the concept of Orthodoxy to help you understand why the Orthodox do indeed, and rightly, pre-judge the Latin position on filioque as heretical.
Or we could simply go with what a Latin saint, Vincent of Lerins, said in his ever-memorable "Commonitory". According St. Vincent, antiquity trumps universality and consent, unless there is a sign of disagreement within antiquity itself. But, again according to St. Vincent, antiquity is Orthodox and novelty is ALWAYS heresy.
"No one would question that Orthodoxy is Orthodox, but is it, orthodox, the two are not the same."
This distinction won't fly until after the 9th century. Not until the 9th century were miniscules employed and used in the West. Orthodoxy is orthodox. And Christian orthodoxy will only be found within the Orthodox Church.
I noticed that the papal coronation oath (ascribed to the 7th century, as published on the 'net by a sedes vacantist?), employs both miniscules and majiscules. To render the oath a la 7th century, however, one would need to publish it sans miniscules, i.e. all caps.
According St. Vincent, antiquity trumps universality and consent, unless there is a sign of disagreement within antiquity itself.
This is my whole point which you seem to constantly ignore, the universal testimony of the Latin Fathers shows that the use of Filioque in the West was the status quo and shows at least that there was disagreement within antiquity. I would go further, however, and maintain that because of differences in language the Greek formulation just did not address what the Latin Fathers were trying to say.
Not withstanding the question of minuscules, we must still distinguish between two different meanings of "orthodox." The first meaning is that of "right teaching," the second is that of a proper name assumed by a particular church. The use of this name no more guarantees that the Orthodox Church possesses the "right teaching" than that a church which assumes the name of "the True Church of Christ" is indeed the true Church of Christ.
There are lots of groups who use the word "Orthodox" in their name and have no relation or connection whatsoever to the rest of us.
Not until Augustine of Hippo was there ANYONE among the Latin fathers who taught or even suggested the filioque heresy. It is therefore a novelty and thus heresy, if only because of that. This too was been covered with great thoroughness by St. Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Florence. The Latin bishops there had no reponse to make other than scholastic proofs as opposed to patristic evidence. Don't take my word for it. Read Ostroumoff's history of the council.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.