- The Latin Church, centered at Rome, gradually lost Greek due to historical reasons. However, the Greek and Latin Fathers were always understood to be of equal authority. We see this in St. Thomas, whose Catena Aurea quotes freely from all Fathers Greek and Latin. (Because of this assumption, the Latin Church eventually regained Greek).
- Thus in the west it was thought that, whatever differences existed between the Fathers, not only can they be reconciled, but whatever they agree upon is infallible. “No one in matters of faith and of morals may interpret the sacred Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers” (Trent, Decree Concerning the Use of Sacred Books). “Fathers” was assumed to mean both Latin and Greek.
- In particular, this assumption of equality is shown in the decree of Florence, which acknowledges that the Greek and Latin Fathers used different terms for the Procession of the All-Holy Spirit, but dogmatically defined that they meant the same thing (Denz. 691).
- The Seven Ecumenical Councils, all of them in Greek, were always received in the west, but according to the Latin Fathers, since all actions of the Councils needed to be translated into Latin. This is seen in the three interpolations into the Latin Nicene Creed, understood in the context of the three Latin creeds.
- Those among the Greeks, however, who adhered to schism with Rome (contrasted with the more irenic among them, who followed St. Maximos), began, starting with Photios, to regard the Latin Fathers to be of lesser authority than the Greek. Thus the alleged “heresies” of Rome – the Papacy, the Filioque, the Saturday Fast, no beards, the Azymes, Purgatory – are often actually a rejection of the Latin Fathers, whose writings are the proofs for all of these “heresies.” These excesses became acute in particular when the Greek political power was under threat from Rome.
- It is true that at times throughout history, Latins did disparage Greek practices that were in fact based on the Greek Fathers, but this never gained official sanction. Despite the awful trends of Latinizations, Roman dogmatic theology always assumed the equality of all Fathers.
- Insofar as a Greek adheres to the errors of Photios – that the Latin Fathers are of lesser authority – he adheres to schism with the consensus of the Fathers. Insofar as any Greek confesses the equal authority of the Latin Fathers, he is on his way to communion with Rome.
- Thus the term “Greek Schism” is employed to describe the historical cause of the schism from a doctrinal perspective – it is the Greeks who must come back to a consensus of the Fathers and confess that the Latin and Greek are of equal weight.
I agree in principle that Latin and Greek Fathers are of equal authority. I also take St. Maximus to be normative for the churches of East and West, with his teaching on the procession of the Spirit being the formula according to which communion can be re-established between the Apostolic See and the patriarchal churches of the East. But it should be said that at Florence, the Latin theologians generally denied the authenticity of the letter of Marinus to which you refer above. Moreover, the Dominican theologians who came to dominate the Council, as Fr. Kappes (a Catholic theologian) has shown, were subordinationist in their teaching on the Spirit’s procession, against those theologians in the West who offered a more fruitful path to full communion. It is arguable that Scotus and Bonaventure interpreted the Spirit’s procession in a manner fully compatible with the teaching of the Church Fathers of East and West. Unfortunately, St. Thomas’ arguments for the Filioque (with which most of the Franciscans disagreed) imply that the difference between the Son and Spirit is the number of persons involved in the production of the latter, which is incompatible with the teaching of the Patristic consensus (of both East and West) on this subject.
There are a very interesting couple of articles here on Augustine’s theology of the Spirit, reconciling it with the teaching of Ss. Maximus and Photios and distinguishing it from St. Boethius’ teaching:
https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2019/04/14/the-filioque-a-brief-opinion/
But I agree that more work needs to be done from an Orthodox perspective on the Latin tradition of the Fathers. I’m told that some good work has been done in French Orthodox theology. It’s unfortunate that Florovsky’s planned volume on the Latin tradition was never completed, leading to the unfortunate misunderstanding of “Christian Hellenism” as referring solely to the Byzantine tradition. Florovsky deeply revered the Latin Fathers, particularly St. Augustine whom he called the “greatest Father of the Church Universal”, an assessment with which I largely agree.
Hey Brother always appreciate your thoughts. It’s good to hear an Orthodox say that the Latin and Greek both have the same authority, but thank you for pointing out some of the greater complexities of Florence. I will take a look at the source you mentioned. I had never heard that Florovsky revered St. Augustine. I have never heard Orthodox in fact allowing St. Augustine to be of equal weight with the Greek Fathers, much less calling him “the Greatest Father.” Is there any issues you take with Augustine?
I think the issue I’d take with his theology concerns predestination- I’ve heard that he softened on this later in his life, though. That said, most assessments fail to recognize that Augustine’s greatest contributions never centered on his ideas of predestination. He contributed enormously to Christian theology concerning grace, a theology of history expecting triumph for the Kingdom, ecclesiology (Florovsky’s theology cannot be understood except through the lens of Augustinian ecclesiology) and so on. His work against Pelagius was recognized by St. Cyril of Alexandria who pressed successfully for its reception at the Third Ecumenical Council. Christologically, Augustine was crucial as his work was taken in and appropriated by St. Leo the Great and the Fourth Ecumenical Council.
Thanks brother. I did not know about Augustine’s reception by the Councils. As far as I know, whatever excesses are possible with using the saint’s writings, they have been clarified with a great deal of precision by the Holy See especially at Trent (notwithstanding the De Auxiliis controversy).
For Orthodoxy the liturgical life is an authoritative source of Holy Tradition. . This does not sound to me like any kind of lessening of respect for the Church Fathers.
Troparion — Tone 3
You were the Church’s instrument / in strengthening the teaching of true doctrine; / you shone forth from the West like a sun dispelling the errors of the heretics. / Righteous Leo, entreat Christ God to grant us His great mercy.
Troparion — Tone 8
O Champion of Orthodoxy, and teacher of holiness, / The enlightenment of the universe and the inspired glory of true believers. / O most wise Father Leo, your teachings are as music of the Holy Spirit for us! / Pray that Christ our God may save our souls!
Kontakion — Tone 3
Seated upon the throne of the priesthood, glorious Leo, / you shut the mouths of the spiritual lions. / With divinely inspired teachings of the honored Trinity, / you shed the light of the knowledge of God upon your flock. / Therefore, you are glorified as a divine initiate of the grace of God.
That being said St Leo’s understanding of the papacy is not the same as what came to be in the time of Pope Gregory the VII. St Leo understand’s St Peter and therefore his own role in the image of Christ’s humility. St Gregory reimages St Peter making him the image of a German prince and wielding authority as such. (see his letters). We are made in the image of God and reimaging the character and mode of operations of the saints is no joke but changes the faith since the saints themselves are understood to be in image of Christ God. How are we supposed to come out from our fallen perception of what is good and into a knowledge of what true virtue is apart from having before us a proper example of holiness? St Leo also understands his own position not as a vicar for an absent Christ or absent St Peter, but as participating in what Christ and St Peter are already doing in the Church. A basic difference between Scholastic and Patristic theology is that the latter is causal in a materialistic, rational way and the latter is participatory.
To my sister in Christ Anna,
Thanks for your comments here. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Would you confess that the Latin Fathers have equal authority to the Greek?
I should have said “Pope Gregory” above as I certainly don’t consider him a saint.
I’ll look forward to the day that the Orthodox East listens to their own Maximos…
In fairness, brother, there are some Orthodox who follow Maximos, some who follow Photios, and some who say they can be reconciled. There is no official Orthodox teaching on the Filioque. All of the councils concerning this matter have failed to provide any Orthodox Christian with a universally authoritative doctrine on the question.
We must always remember that the basis of the Greek schism is the desire of the Bishop of Constantinople to first become a Patriarch, and then the head of the Church because the Western Roman Empire had fallen and the Eastern still stood. Therefore it was thought by these men that they should be the head of the Church as Constantinople was the capital city of the remaining Eastern Roman Empire.
Once this course had been determined upon, the Greek Patriarch (remembering that he is a political patriarch
and not an apostolic patriarch) religious reasons had to be found and exploited to oust the Pope from his role as head of the Church by divine right (You are Peter). Consequently all the arguments are at base an attempt to deny the Petrine authority of Rome in favor of Constantinople.
We must remember that the last Emperor officially commanded and proclaimed the reunion of the Orthodox with the Church, and at the fall of Constantinople both Latin and Greek masses were being celebrated. Nevertheless, Mark of Ephesus before the demons took him at his terrible death, roared that he would never submit and convinced the former Orthodox to again go into schism, reestablishing the schism. And this situation continues to this day – a political desire of the East to be great in the face of Rome’s divine foundation.
Great point brother. Yes this political aspect is the most ignored by the Greeks.
But I thought the East *didn’t* think Rome had fallen. That’s why the Byzantine emperors considered themselves Roman emperors. At least, that’s what my husband always told me. He wrote his doctoral thesis on Basil II and Basil’s immediate successors, so his focus was on imperial political thought and strategy.
Even in the West, the idea that Rome had fallen did not gain currency until the early Renaissance. For a 12th-century scholar like John of Salisbury, there was no rupture between his age and classical antiquity. For Petrarch, on the other hand, there *was* a definite rupture. That attitude informed the whole Renaissance worldview — the sense of recovering something lost (classical culture) as opposed to continuing in an unbroken tradition.
This has nothing to do with theology. But it’s pretty interesting for art history. 🙃
Yeah the politics here do have a massive impact on the theology. The tension between what is “Roman” has been a very strong influence on the Greek schism between Old Rome, New Rome, Third Rome and Other Rome (Serbia).
Timothy,
I have two questions for you. First, shouldn’t the teachings of the Greek fathers carry more weight than the Latin fathers, since the Greek fathers could read the New Testament as it was written? It seems intuitive that those for whom koine Greek was the vernacular would have a better understanding than those reading it in translation. To give a specific example, I have heard it hypothesized (by Roman Catholics, oddly enough) that Jerome’s “in quo omnes peccaverunt” in Romans 5:12 lead to a distorted understanding of Original Sin amongst certain Latin fathers.
Second, given that Orthodox often view it as crossdressing, I am curious where to find the Latin fathers’ defense of shaving you mention in point number 5. It was ironic to see in your interview with Reason and Theology three bearded Roman Catholics and one clean shaven Orthodox man!
God bless, and thank you for your insightful writings on the schism. Your familiarity with both Churches makes your articles a breath of fresh air compared to most apologetics.
Hi Daniel,
No, the Greek Fathers should not be given more authority than the Latin. The reason is that the authority of the faith comes first through oral tradition and the divine mysteries. Then it is translated into Greek and other languages. Greek was also not the original language orally, even though it became such when the NT was written. The early Church was dealing with an oral tradition and the Old Testament, which, in both Greek and Latin, is a translation. If the Greek language itself should be given more weight, then why did all the heresies (at least in the patristic period) from the Greeks? But we won’t blame Greek itself for this issue, since there are many other factors.
On the other hand, I would certainly give the Greek Fathers a certain weight in terms of the particular Greek emphases, for example in the orthodox questions of their day, which were not dealt with by the Latins. Whereas the question of free will is more of a Latin question, to which I would give more weight. Thus I think even though in principle there is no more weight in Latin than in Greek, there is a certain weight that I would place on certain particular questions.
You might be interested in my book which goes into things like this, including the question of the “in quo” translation, which was used by Augustine and then quoted by Trent for the dogma of Original Sin. https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Holy-Bible-Traditional-Catholics/dp/0578624265/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=holy+bible+traditional&qid=1582807884&s=books&sr=1-1
Considering the Latin Fathers’ defense of shaving, I don’t know of anything I can point except to show that the Roman culture (as opposed to the Greeks) prized shaving as the ideal of masculinity. Just google the sculptures for Plato and Aristotle and compare them with Cicero, Virgil and Horace. There’s clearly a centuries-old cultural tradition concerning beards and shaving on the Roman and Greek sides, which should not be something that divides brothers.