The Fundamental Difference Between the “East” and “West” (Part V)

The Significance of the Filioque Question

Smaragdus records how the emissaries of Charlemagne complained that Pope Leo III was making an issue of only four syllables. Of course, four syllables are not many. Nevertheless, their implications are such that Latin or Frankish Christendom embarked on a history of theology and ecclesiastical practice which may have been quite different had the Franks paid attention to the “Greeks.” Continue reading “The Fundamental Difference Between the “East” and “West” (Part V)”

The Fundamental Difference Between the “East” and “West” (Part IV)

The Theological Background

At the foundation of the filioque controversy between Franks and Romans lie essential differences in theological method, theological subject matter, spirituality, and, therefore, also in the understanding of the very nature of doctrine and of the development of the language or of terms in which doctrine is expressed. Continue reading “The Fundamental Difference Between the “East” and “West” (Part IV)”

The Fundamental Difference Between the “East” and “West” (Part III)

THE FILIOQUE:

Historical Background

The Franks deliberately provoked doctrinal differences, between the East Romans, (the Orthodox) and the West Romans, (the Roman Catholics) in order to break the national and ecclesiastical unity of the original Roman nation. Because of this deliberate policy, the filioque question took on irreparable dimensions. However, the identity of the West Romans and of the East Romans as one indivisible nation, faithful to the Roman Christian faith promulgated at the Ecumenical Synods held in the Eastern part of the Empire, is completely lost to the historians of Germanic background, since the East Romans are consistently called “Greeks” and “Byzantines.” Continue reading “The Fundamental Difference Between the “East” and “West” (Part III)”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑