XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox   
   From: theswain@sbcglobal.net   
      
   I misreported a fact down there.  Where it says Leo IX, it should be Leo III   
   of the early ninth   
   century--the same one that Charlemagne reinstated.   
      
   Larry Swain wrote:   
      
   > 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)