XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox   
   From: theswain@sbcglobal.net   
      
   Steve Hayes wrote:   
      
   > On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:26:47 -0500, L   
   >   
   > >Steve Hayes wrote:   
   >   
   > For the record, since this is before the period we were originally   
   discussing,   
   > the "filioque" was introduced in Rome itself some time after 1000.   
      
   Probably under Benedict VIII, but do remember that Leo IX approved of it in   
   the ninth century, and   
   Photius in the 870s created a nice little schism with ROME over it, claiming   
   that the clause showed   
   Rome's overstepping its bounds, as he thought it had in not supporting him for   
   the Partiarchy over   
   his rival Ignatius.   
      
   > "Byzantium" is an anachronism, a term introduced by tendentious Western   
   > historians with an axe to grind. The city was then called Constaninople, and   
   > it, and its church, regarded themselves as Roman. They would have been post   
   > surprised to discover that some people of a later age regarded them as not   
   > Roman but "Byzantine".   
      
   I see this is a sore spot.  But let me point out that for example Gildas the   
   Wise says that the   
   Roman British Celts are the New Israel, but that didn't make them Jews.  Or   
   the rulers of Kiev once   
   claimed themselves to be the Third Rome, but that didn't make it so, did it?   
      
      
      
   > Those who promoted the "filioque" were Franks. The   
   > schism of 1054 was caused by ignorant Frankish legates from the Pope of Rome   
   > excomunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople for allegedly removing the   
   > "filioque" from the Symbol of Faith. Such was their ignorance that they were   
   > not aware that it was not originally part of the Symbol of Faith, but had   
   been   
   > added by the Council of Toledo.   
      
   Filioque predates the Franks.  It starts with Augustine, and is added to the   
   creed at Council of   
   Toledo in 447.  No this wasn't an ecumenical council, but nonetheless, one can   
   not claim it was a   
   recent issue.  It is further promulgated when the Visiogoths finally convert   
   from being Arian to the   
   Roman brand of Christianity at the third synod of Toledo in 589.  The Franks   
   are busy in France and   
   haven't become much of a force yet.  And I don't disagree that the Schism of   
   1054 lacked the benefit   
   of our hindsight and historical knowledge and ability to read multiple   
   languages--an ability that   
   few had in 1054.   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   > Until 1054 the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and   
   > Jerusalem were in communion with each other, and were part of what the Symbol   
   > of Faith refers to as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". Thus   
   any   
   > who were in communion with the bishops of any of those cities were regarded   
   as   
   > being part of the Orthodox Church.   
      
   I see, so basically you're defining the Orthodox church simply by the   
   acceptance or rejection of the   
   filioque clause--those who do not have it or reject it are Orthodox and those   
   who accept it are   
   not.  The problem I have with this is that it ignores pretty much all other   
   theological, political,   
   and practical (things that are in "praxis") differences between East and West.   
      
      
      
   >   
   >   
   > The spat in 1054 was originally between Rome and Constantinople only.   
   > Alexandria, for example, was still in communion with Rome, and indeed with   
   > Canterbury and York.   
   >   
      
   Considering that the church in Alexandria in the eleventh century had probably   
   not heard of   
   Canterbury and York, only in the most mystical way could one say that they   
   were "in communion."  But   
   more to the point, as I'm now saying for the third time, the Old English   
   Creed, the creed as recited   
   in the Anglo-Saxon church which you claimed was considered Orthodox contains   
   the filioque clause.   
   By your definition, this means it is not Orthodox.  The same is true of the   
   Irish church of the same   
   period.   
      
   >   
   > The other point, which is more germane to this thread, was that there were   
   > changes in Western Eucharistic theology at about this time (11th-12th   
   > centuries) which may have been related to the Grail stories that became   
   > popular at the same time. I really cannot see the relevance of Bede or   
   Aelfric   
   > to this.   
   >   
      
   Because they are not.  I invite you to reread the thread and the posts where I   
   have reacted to you.   
   I have had one point, one point only that you seem not to grasp.  In your   
   discussion on this you   
   claimed that the Irish and Anglo-Saxon churches were "Orthodox" and I have   
   been at some pains to get   
   you to realize that this is not true.  That is where Bede and Aelfric come   
   in.  Awake yet?   
      
      
      
   ljs   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)