Posted on 07/01/2005 2:22:18 AM PDT by kosta50
Not really.
The acts and canons of synods in the west were sent to Rome for approval.
Missionaries sent from Rome, such as Sts. Augustine and Boniface and Cyril and Methodius, had little trouble keeping in contact with Rome so that Rome could answer dilemmas.
The Council of Toledo in AD 447 had already professed the Filioque (and Pope St. Leo stated that the Council of Constantinople's Creed was as of then still unknown in the West).
Rome was well aware of the Filioque, since her great Popes, like St. Leo, St. Hormisdas, St. Gregory, and St. artin all taught it.
The Roman Empire throughout this time period was in possession of Africa, Rome, Venice, Romangna, Dalmatia, Calabria, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, the Balearics, and the Spanish Littoral. France, Spain, and England were ruled by Germanic princes who acknowledged Roman overlordship.
So Constantinople was well aware of what was going on in Rome and the West, and Rome was well aware of what was going on in the west.
"So Constantinople was well aware..." SO, THE SLANDERER RETURNS.
You may very well be right on this one. I thought I had remembered that this was one of the issues that the Latins in Bulgaria were using against the Greeks, but looking back at St. Photius' encyclical, I don't see it mentioned.
It could be that this was a point that was of concern to the East and not to Rome. This is not surprising, since the Orthodox were geographically closer to the Armenians, and had linked their use of unleavened bread with an Apollinarian Christology.
Well, at least you've kept your promise not to speak to me anymore. Yelling, crying, shouting, etc. don't count.
But seriously, by Greeks you refer to our four patriarchates against your measly pathetic one that's headquartered in that backwater cesspool of a town called Rome.
Decisions in the Church have never been made by a vote of patriarchates. Take a look at the following map and tell me where the majority of the Church was:
"You may very well be right on this one..." Well., it looks as if he may be right as to the dating of the controversy on the azymes, but not as to the issue itself.
Someone changed the Tradition as to the matter of the eucharistic bread because it started with one type of bread, leavened or unleavened. That start, according to Canon 32 of the Council in Trullo, was the Liturgy of St. James, Protobishop of Jerusalem and Brother of the Lord. Either all of the eastern sees outside of Armenia and Rome changed the Tradition or else Rome and the Armenian sees changed the Tradition. The Tradition was one to begin with and there was teaching, on all sides, as to the reason for either azymes or leavened bread. As you correctly point out, Apollinarian Christology in Armenia was feared by the bishops who met in Trullo.
Our Lord said he would build His Church on the Rock of St. Peter the Holy Apostle, that being his Faith, and that the "gates of hell would not prevail against it." If either azymes or leavened bread are the novel practice and the other is the more ancient one, and yet both obtain in the same one Church, that's chaos and the gates of hell have prevailed.
Our Lord used unleavened bread, it being the Passover. There can be no older practice than this. Yet can it not be possible that all that the only necessity is that bread is used?
"Real erudite argument."
Thank you. I liked it and see no need to inspect it. Nifty map. I like the way you managed to cut out the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. That was slick. Also, the West was larger in extent but not in population or in commercial might or in book larnin'. Nor was its military prowess much to brag about until about a century later. And Rome had become a backwater town because when St. Constantine moved the Senate to Constantinople, Rome lost a lot of clout.
"Yet can it not be possible that all that the only necessity is that bread is used?"
Lowest common denominator you mean? I call that creeping false ecumenism. The Church is ONE. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God.
Azymites and the Orthodox cannot both be right on this, anymore than they can on whole bunch of other issues.
I did not cut out those patriarchates, the Muslims did; as they did North Africa and most of Spain.
Also, the West was larger in extent but not in population or in commercial might or in book larnin'.
Who cares about commercial might or book larnin'? I will take issue with you in terms of population. Russia was very sparsely populated. Constantinople may have been a grand city but the rest of the eastern Empire had reverted to a rural economy. Then there is the question of the number of bishops; after all, all bishops are equal, right?
After we decide this we can answer the question: sweet wine or dry?
BREAD IS BREAD!
"I did not cut out...Muslims did..." And you say I could fix the Chicago elections? Dhimmitude was bad, but not that bad. Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem continued to function. It's true, hoever, that North Africa and Spain pretty much went down the tubes. Spain came back, but not under an Orthodox flag. The Patriarchate of Carthage never really did recover.
"let us use what our Lord used" OK. That gets us back to the Liturgy of St. James. It's not something St. James himself concocted you know.
The question we should ask is, if unleavened bread was used at the Last Supper, why not for the Eucharist? I would suggest to you that one reason for this is the same reason as the Nicene Pascha is always after and thus outside of Jewish Pesach. The Jews do their thing and we do our thing.
I have answered this before, it just was not that important. The early Church used whatever bread was available. As you have noted, the Armenians have always used unleavened bread.
It is unthinkable that if our Lord had used leavened bread during the Passover that the evangelists would have passed over (no pun intended) this in silence. To insist that leavened bread was used at the Last Supper is to anachronistically read back a latter usage.
YOUR STATEMENT IS NOT PROVEN & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, Petrosius. "As you have noted, the Armenians have always used unleavened bread." Petrosius, I did NOT say the Armenians ALWAYS used azymes. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Then when did they start?
When did azymes begin to be used in Armenia? Beats me. In Rome? Beats me.
I have a suspicion that as to Rome, Protodeacon Alcuin of York may have had a hand in it. He was the Novus Ordo man of his day.
Any Armenians out there that can answer this?
" Any Armenians out there that can answer this?"
Ask St. Gregory the Illuminator, St. Blase, and the Holy Fourty Martyrs of Sebastea.
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.