• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • About
    • Confession of Faith
    • Internet Promise
    • Affiliate Disclaimer
  • Articles
  • Podcast
  • Resources
  • The Crisis: A Hypothesis
    • Timeline
  • Our Lady of Victory Press
  • Contact
  • Donate

The Meaning of Catholic

Uniting Catholics against the enemies of Holy Church

The Greek Schism is the result of rejecting the Latin Fathers pt. 2

St. Augustine of Hippo

The following theses are an elaboration on our first theses on this subject, attempting to explain, from a history of doctrine perspective, the reason for the Greek schism.

1. Every tradition of doctrine within Sacred Tradition has its Fathers. The Assyrians have the council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. The Miaphysites have St. Kryillos. The Greek Chalcedonians have the Three Holy Hierarchs. The Latin Tradition was built on St. Augustine as its greatest Father. Augustine is the Latins’ sine qua non.

2. Thus Augustine forms truly the substance of the Latin Patristic Tradition such that one cannot have the Latin tradition without Augustine any more than one can have the Greek Chalcedonian tradition without the Three Holy Hierarchs.

3. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit at Lyons and Florence are faithful to the Latin Tradition via Augustine. They are of the same substance as Augustine’s doctrine.[1]

4. The Greek Chalcedonians (insofar as they are of the party of Photios), wish to accept the Latin Fathers and Augustine but not the place that Augustine has held to built the west. In other words, they refuse to accept the Latin tradition even as it existed since Augustine, who died centuries before the schism can be dated.

5. In this they are schismatic because they demand that Divine Providence work some other thing than the Latin tradition as it was held and developed with Augustine at the center. The west cannot give up Augustine any more than the Greeks can give up the Three Holy Heriarchs.

6. In order to reject Lyons and Florence, the Greeks must assert one of the following:

6.1. Divine Providence failed to guide the west and their heavy reliance on Augustine is a corruption of their own tradition. Thus Lyons and Florence are faithful to Augustine but unfaithful to the other Latin Fathers. Augustine must not be given the place that the Three Holy Hierarchs hold among the Greeks. Thus the Latin tradition was corrupted from the start and was not guided by the Holy Spirit like the Greek Chalcedonians were.

6.2. Divine Providence did guide the west in their use of Augustine but Lyons and Florence are not faithful to Augustine and the Latin Fathers. Thus when Maximos defends the Latin Filioque he refers to an earlier, orthodox Filioque which is of a different substance than the Lyons-Florence doctrine.

7. Since 6.1 is untenable, the Greeks must assert that Maximos spoke of a non-Augustinian Orthodox Filioque in the west. However, since Maximos lived near Augustine’s birth place in the seventh century and knew Latin, the Greeks must prove one of the following:

7.1 God did guide the west in their use of Augustine, but Augustine was a Trinitarian heretic. However, he made these errors innocently (like other Fathers) and so has achieved sanctity. When Maximos refers to the “unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers” he excludes Augustine. 

7.2 Augustine was absolutely orthodox, and thus Maximos does refer to Augustine’s doctrine. But the Florentine-Lyons dogma is of a different substance than Augustine and the Latin Fathers.

It is historically untenable to state that Maximos refers to a non-Augustinian west. Therefore the Greeks must prove that Florence and Lyons are of a different substance than Augustine. But these assertions are a mess of contradictions from a history of dogma perspective. If Maximos is correct, then Augustine’s Filioque is orthodox. But if Florence and Lyons are faithful to Augustine, then the Filioque is orthodox.

Greek Attempts to Prove the Filioque is a Heresy

Some point out that Maximos was rejected at Florence, and ask rightly, how can Maximos then support the Florentine view? The reason is that Maximos was writing so that Greeks could understand. Florence was making a dogma so that both sides could understand. Gill observes that the Latins rejected Maximos’ words because taken in themselves, they exclude all eternal causality from the Son whatsoever, which would not be faithful to the Fathers. Objective Orthodox can admit that such a doctrine would indeed be unfaithful to the Fathers.

However the Latins had already confessed the monarchy of the Father at Lyons. As Augustine himself says, the Holy Spirit proceeds “principally” from the Father. Thus the mode of generation from the Father and the Son is different for the All Holy Spirit. Nevertheless it is as from one source, since they are not opposed and there is only one source in the Godhead.

Some assert that the Thomistic method of distinguishing persons is different than that given by Damascene. Yet (Eastern Orthodox) Gilbert points out that the Fathers themselves across the Tradition (even among the Greeks) had different methods of distinction for divine Persons. This cuts along the Cappadocian, Antiochian, and Alexandrian traditions of Trinitarian language (manifested later in the Greek, Assyrian, and Miaphysites schisms respectively).

Damascene says that “the mode of generation from the Father is what distinguishes the Son from the Spirit.” Some then state that Thomas, by distinguishing by number of generations, contradicts this. However, in order for this to be a contradiction, one must prove that number is not a species of mode. In other words, if the mode of generation is ineffable, can we not allow number to be a mode of generation?

Orthodox who are objective are willing to admit that “the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son” or “eternally manifests from the Son.” They draw a distinction, however, because they claim the hypostatic property of the Father cannot be communicated to the Son. However, this an attempt to over-extend the Chalcedonian tradition of hypostatic distinctiveness over the whole Tradition. As we said, the Fathers used different ways to come to the same doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. This is what is happening between Augustine and the Chalcedonians (as well as the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of thought). As the modern dialogue between the Chalcedonians and Miaphysites has shown, many of these disagreements can be resolved by allowing a legitimate diversity of exprsssion within the one orthodox faith.

8. Since the Greeks are unable to universally agree on how the Filioque is heresy, and what is the Orthodox doctrine of the Filioque, they sin against charity and choose schism. In this way the division is properly called the “Greek schism.” This is above all seen in their disunity in accepting or not accepting filioquist baptisms. Some Orthodox accept them, others do not.

9. No man can be blamed for holding to and passing on the Tradition of his fathers. This is the virtue of piety. He can only be blamed if he lacks charity and humility toward his brothers, and piety toward other Christian Fathers. The Assyrians held to the teachings of the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, yet did so to the exclusion of the Ecumenical Councils, and thus became heretics and schismatics. The Miaphysites held to their father St. Kyrillos, but did so to the exclusion of Chalcedon, and thus became heretics and schismatics. The Chalcedonian Greeks held to their fathers the Three Holy Hierarchs, yet did so to the exclusion of their Latin brothers, and thus became heretics and schismatics at Lyons and Florence. The Latins held to their father Augustine, yet not to the exclusion of their brethren and their fathers. The Roman Church alone has held charity with the Assyrian, Miaphysite and Chalcedonian Fathers. She has only required that they confess the one orthodox faith. She has not required them to abandon a patristic, traditional, and legitimate diversity of expression.

Timothy S. Flanders
@meaningofcath

 

[1] “It must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a Beginning (principium, Eng. Principle) of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings (principia); but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Beginning relative to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God.” (De Trinitate Book V, Ch. 13-14) “From Him, certainly, from whom the Son had his Divine nature, for He is God of God, He has also, that from Him too proceeds the Holy Spirit; and hence the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself, that He should proceed from the Son also, as He proceeds from the Father. Here, too, in some way may this also be understood, so far as it can be understood by such as we are, why the Holy Spirit is not said to be born, but rather to proceed; since if He, too, was called a Son, He would certainly be called the Son of both, which is most absurd, since no one is son of two, save of father and mother. But far be it from us to surmise any such thing as this between God the Father and God the Son. Because not even the sons of men proceeds at the same time from both father and mother; but when he proceeds from the father into the mother, he does not at that time proceed from the mother; and when he proceeds from the mother into this present light, he does not at that time proceed from the father. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds at once from both; although the Father has given this to the Son, that He should proceed, as from Himself, so also from Him. For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life, while the Father is life, and the Son is life: and hence as the Father, while He has life in Himself, has given also to the Son to have life in Himself; so has He given also to Him that life should proceed from Him, as it also proceeds from Himself. I have transferred this from that sermon into this book, but I was speaking to believers, not to unbelievers…. Lift up your eyes to the light itself, and fix them upon it if you can. For so you will see how the birth of the Word of God differs from the procession of the Gift of God, on account of which the only-begotten Son did not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, otherwise He would be His brother, but that He proceeds from Him. Whence, since the Spirit of both is a kind of consubstantial communion of Father and Son” (De Trinitate, Book 15, Ch. 27)

 

[1]

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Matamoros says

    September 25, 2019 at 6:11 pm

    Excellent article. Catholics need to stop apologizing for Orthodox claims of victimization.. There is a reason why the Catholic Church has always proclaimed “outside the Church, no salvation”.

    Reply
  2. John says

    September 25, 2019 at 7:14 pm

    You assume the textual reliability of the Augustinian texts. However, it has been shown that many of his and other Latin texts on the filioque have been corrupted.

    I must remind you that Pope Leo IX’s excommunication of the Greeks said that the Greeks REMOVED the filioque from the Creed. That is a false statement, and shows that the Pope was not acting by God’s authority.

    In fact, no Papal successor of Leo has ever apologized for that false statement in the excommunication, which shows that none of them had humility or cared for the truth.

    Reply
    • Isa Almisry says

      September 25, 2019 at 9:13 pm

      Not to mention that Leo IX’s letter threatening both the EP and the Archbishop of Ohrid/Bulgaria cites the forged “Donation of Constantine” as proof of his claims.

      Reply
      • TimothyF says

        September 26, 2019 at 9:07 am

        Hi Isa,

        Insofar as the excommunication threatened Kerularios using falsehood, this is unjust – your charge is valid. But are you willing to defend the actions of Kerularios on the other side? The point is that both sides have sinned. But what remains are the issues above, and your answer at the dread judgment seat of Christ. Schism is a sin against charity. In the above articles, I charge the Greek Chalcedonians with schism based on their doctrinal rejection of Augustine, stemming from a lack of charity. Your charity will be the basis for your judgment on the last day.

        With respect,

        Timothy

        Reply
    • TimothyF says

      September 26, 2019 at 9:01 am

      Hi John,

      Are you asserting that Augstine’s doctrine of the Filioque has been lost to history? If so, please reference the sources who prove this. I have never heard this assertion.

      Regarding the excommunication, are you referring to Cardinal Humbert’s document? If so, your charge may be valid. Nevertheless, whatever crimes your Latin brethren have committed against you, you will still need to answer this at the dread judgement seat of Christ: “Unless you forgive men their sins, your Heavenly Father will not forgive you.”

      With respect,

      Timothy

      Reply
  3. Ben Bollinger says

    September 26, 2019 at 2:35 pm

    Timothy, you write:

    “Gill observes that the Latins rejected Maximos’ words because taken in themselves, they exclude all eternal causality from the Son whatsoever, which would not be faithful to the Fathers. Objective Orthodox can admit that such a doctrine would indeed be unfaithful to the Fathers.”

    I don’t think any “objective orthodox” would admit that excluding eternal causality to the Son is “unfaithful to the Fathers,” in fact the whole reason St. Maximus wrote to the Greeks defending the Filioque was because he believed the Latins were *not* ascribing eternal causality to the Son, hence “they do not make the Son the cause of the Spirit, but recognize that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and the Spirit.” Maximus conceded that the Latin wording is ambiguous and can have a heretical meaning if interpreted incorrectly, but Maximus insists that the correct interpretation of the Filioque is orthodox because it does not attribute causality to the Son, given doing this would comprise a unique hypostatic property of the Father, and yet (as you concede) this is exactly what the Latin tradition goes on to do. The fact is this: Latin and Greek Trinitarian theologies (if this is understood as Augustine vs the Cappadocians, which isn’t a totally fair assessment, but it’s the one you seem to pose in this article) are contradictory, and we can’t just pretend otherwise: there is a right and there is a wrong. In the case of Ephesus and Chalcedon, it was clearly established that the Alexandrian tradition was correct and the Antiochene one was wrong. The Antiochenes could keep their terminology (via Chalcedon), as long as it conformed to the Alexandrian theology of the incarnation and theosis. The same applies to the Filioque in St. Maximus’ mind: the Latins can keep their terminology (the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son) so long as it conforms to the Trinitarian theology outlined by the Cappadocians which states that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and Spirit, and that this is a unique hypostatic property that cannot be attributed to any other Person of the Trinity (for more on this, see ch. 4 of Siecienski’s book “The Filioque”). The article you cited by Bekkos which attempts to establish that “the Fathers themselves across the Tradition (even among the Greeks) had different methods of distinction for divine Persons” does not do what you claim. The claim of the article is that St. Maximus can validly be read as supporting the idea that the Son is the cause of the Spirit “because He receives causality from the Father”, however this is exactly what Maximus was trying to prevent! If the Persons of the Trinity can communicate or participate in unique hypostatic properties (such as causation of the Spirit) then this comprises the unique identities of the Trinity. This is hardly an “attempt to over-extend the Chalcedonian tradition of hypostatic distinctiveness over the whole Tradition,” it’s simply an attempt to preserve a coherent and non-contradictory understanding of the Trinity.
    Now, if you have any other evidence showing the Greek Fathers allowed for distinguishing between the Trinitarian Persons by means that correspond to later scholastic theology, or that they in any way would agree with the notion that the Son participates in the causation of the Spirit, I’d love to see it, but in this article you simply (in my view) fail to provide the evidence.

    With the Love of Christ,
    Ben Bollinger

    Reply
    • TimothyF says

      September 26, 2019 at 11:54 pm

      Hi Ben,

      Thanks for your comments brother. I appreciate the irenic tone and your erudition to engage some of the arguments presented here. As regards “objective Orthodox,” I was making a reference to Chalcedonian Mr. Seraphim Hamilton who says that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son based on his reading of the Fathers. He would not, however, call this “causality.” I would, nevertheless, consider this a more objective view than others.

      Could you clarify first, what kind of Chalcedonian Orthodox are you regarding the Filioque? Do you hold that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son? Do you accept Filioquist baptisms? Please clarify what you consider to be orthodox on these matters.

      Then regarding Maximos, do you assert that Maximos was defending Augustine or not?

      Do you agree that Florence and Lyons are faithful to Augustine?

      Regarding Bekkos, the reference is to the entire conversation he has between himself, a Chalcedonian, with another Chalcedonian who thinks the Filioque is heretical. In the end Dr. Gilbert states that Maximos must have been defending Augustine, and he finds ample patristic evidence to reconcile these schools as I am asserting here.

      Regarding Greek Fathers, to my knowledge the Alexandrian tradition holds more weight in this matter (as Maximos himself states) which had a greater influence on the west, whereas the Chalcedonian tradition did not hold this type of emphasis in its terms and distinctions. If you would like quotations, I can give them, but I’m sure you’ve seen these lists.

      in Christ,

      Timothy

      Reply
  4. Scott Harrington says

    September 17, 2020 at 4:21 pm

    The Meaning of Catholic (Orthodox) Orthodox Uniting Against the Enemies of the Holy Church. The Latin schism is the result of rejecting the Greek Fathers. It is the result of accepting Charlemagne (742-814) as the final authority of the meaning of Augustine’s Filioque (at Charlemagne’s robber false council of Aachen [Aix-la-Chapelle] (809). Prior to Charlemagne, no Latin Father or Roman Pope regarded the Greek Fathers as heretics for not accepting Filioque.

    Reply
    • TimothyF says

      September 17, 2020 at 11:20 pm

      Hi Scott. Thanks for your comment brother. I think you raise some good points here but the fact remains that the Roman Church never accepted the Greek Fathers as sub-Fathers, as Photios and his followers did about Augustine and Ambrose. The Western Church reappropriated Greek and the Greek Fathers, whereas the Orthodox did not do the same for the Latin Fathers. Hence the Catholic Church has multiple apostolic rites, and the Eastern Orthodox do not.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • Advent
  • America
  • Audio
  • Authors: Jeremiah Bannister
  • Authors: Kennedy Hall
  • Authors: Nathaniel Richards
  • Catholic Masculinity
  • Christmas
  • Current crisis
  • Greek schism
  • Intro to the Holy Bible (book)
  • Liturgical
  • Moral Theology
  • Muhammadanism
  • Our Lady
  • Podcast
  • Practical
  • Prayer
  • Reference
  • Scientific Debate
  • Spiritual
  • The Protestant Heresies
  • Uncategorized

New Post Notifications

Loading

The Meaning of CatholicFollow

The Meaning of Catholic
Retweet on TwitterThe Meaning of Catholic Retweeted
meaningofcathThe Meaning of Catholic@meaningofcath·
9 Feb

It is time to create an English language version of "Dieu, le Roi" and "Viva Christo Rey!"

JESUS IS KING!

Reply on Twitter 1358932690582573059Retweet on Twitter 135893269058257305915Like on Twitter 135893269058257305967Twitter 1358932690582573059
meaningofcathThe Meaning of Catholic@meaningofcath·
9 Feb

It is time to create an English language version of "Dieu, le Roi" and "Viva Christo Rey!"

JESUS IS KING!

Reply on Twitter 1358932690582573059Retweet on Twitter 135893269058257305915Like on Twitter 135893269058257305967Twitter 1358932690582573059
meaningofcathThe Meaning of Catholic@meaningofcath·
9 Feb

#CatholicTwitter: Please help! This is my ***BURNING QUESTION*** for all IRISH historians or anyone well read on the subject!

PLEASE RT!

Reply on Twitter 1358931981577371657Retweet on Twitter 13589319815773716573Like on Twitter 13589319815773716575Twitter 1358931981577371657
meaningofcathThe Meaning of Catholic@meaningofcath·
8 Feb

#CatholicTwitter: I am in desperate need of contact with an orthodox Catholic who is a historian of Ireland or at least well read in Irish history. Can anyone help me?

Reply on Twitter 1358922756897792003Retweet on Twitter 13589227568977920037Like on Twitter 135892275689779200312Twitter 1358922756897792003
Retweet on TwitterThe Meaning of Catholic Retweeted
VendeeRadioVendée Radio@VendeeRadio·
21 Jan

1/ We have to take back the Roman Empire or its ruins. We love them.
We love Notre Dame de Paris and will rebuild it as many times as needed.
Even more Christendom. Society. We must determine the fashions. We must be the champions. The revolution is a pack of losers and fools

Reply on Twitter 1352321273829994496Retweet on Twitter 13523212738299944964Like on Twitter 135232127382999449614Twitter 1352321273829994496
Load More...

Archives

  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2021 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in