Filioque

[jas3]

It wasn't the Pope who made the Filioque, it was a vote by the Bishops of the Western Church. He didn't just say "This is what it is and you can do nothing about it." There was an Ecumenical Conference where the Eastern Church got out voted.

Ecumenical councils don't work like that. They aren't legislative bodies where one bishop proposes a theological position and the other bishops vote on it.

Then THEY chose to remove themselves from the Western Church.

That is an anachronistic presentation of the history. Even if we take the claim that Constantinople 869 "made the filioque" at face value, the schism over the issues that Constantinople 869 addressed took place a few years prior to the council and was resolved by the time the council was held. In fact, the East participated in a follow-up council, Constantinople 879, which with papal approval annulled the council of Constantinople 869. The first subsequent movement toward a lasting schism didn't come until almost two centuries after that.

They wanted to keep the tithes in their own countries rather than send the tithes to Rome.

What evidence do you have that any other patriarchate was sending part of its parishes' tithes to Rome? I highly doubt that that was even a consideration for eastern monarchs.

 

[prodromos]

I disagree. The Bishop of Rome was to be considered "first among equals." The way I see it, he had the final vote if there was a tie.

It was a position of honour among, not a position of authority over the other bishops.

It wasn't the Pope who made the Filioque, it was a vote by the Bishops of the Western Church. He didn't just say "This is what it is and you can do nothing about it." There was an Ecumenical Conference where the Eastern Church got out voted. Then THEY chose to remove themselves from the Western Church.

I don't know what Council you are talking about, but my understanding is that the "filioque" entered Roman theology largely due to the efforts of Charlemagne, not due to bishops voting on it.

I also believe that there were political powers at play who wanted to keep the cash in their own Church (s) like the Greek, and Russian Churches including the Oriental and Middle Eastern Churches like Syria and Jerusalem who didn't want to fill the coffers of the Roman Church who held sway over the entirety of Western Europe which was all united under Rome. So like I said, it was both doctrinal for the Greek and Syrilac Churches but more than that I think it was political with every Metropolitan having full autonomy over their nation's Church. They wanted to keep the tithes in their own countries rather than send the tithes to Rome. I don't blame them for that but the first opportunity they had, it was crucial that they break from Rome. For one it's Greek/Syriac vs. Latin which is the older approved writings plus the issue of keeping the tithes within the countries that had established Metropolitans.

I have never seen any evidence that tithes were paid to Rome by any other than Western Christians.

We are still separated a thousand years later basically because of what I see as semantics.

I recommend you read a small book titled "Church, Papacy and Schism, a theoloical perspective" by Philip Sherrard.

 

[rturner76]

Ecumenical councils don't work like that. They aren't legislative bodies where one bishop proposes a theological position and the other bishops vote on it.

What evidence do you have that any other patriarchate was sending part of its parishes' tithes to Rome? I highly doubt that that was even a consideration for eastern monarchs.

I don't have evidence of that admittedly. I've never read anything that confirms it. It was something I thought of in terms of Rome being the central Church with the Eastern Church wanting her own identity apart from Rome. In the East there was no central authority like Rome in the West. My thought was that Western Churches paid Homage to Rome while the individual countries of the East each having it's own Metropolitan with no submission to Roman doctrine. So yes, I admit that I do not know how the finances of the Eastern and Western Churches were structured. I made an assumption about Rome, being central in Western Europe. What responsibilities were expected to be observed again I admit that I really don't know for sure. I guess I started to compare something like a Methodist synod that has a central leadership that the churche's of that synod receiving a donation from the individual churches in the. So, you are right to call me out on my facts.

It was a position of honour among, not a position of authority over the other bishops.

That's right. I've heard it described as "first among equals." So really the Pope is just the "Bishop of Rome" like all other Bishops. I believe what happened was at the time, the Roman Empire had the most influence in Western Europe and so the Bishop of Rome had the most authority in the West. I believe the remanents of the Roman Empire being so vast, the Bishop of Rome had the most influence in the Western Church.

I don't know what Council you are talking about, but my understanding is that the "filioque" entered Roman theology largely due to the efforts of Charlemagne, not due to bishops voting on it.

From my understanding based on an online search: The Filioque clause was added to the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD to combat Arianism, the belief that Christ was not divine.

I have never seen any evidence that tithes were paid to Rome by any other than Western Christians.

I believe that. I think it was more homage than cash in terms of tithing. But I do believe there was money sent to Rome from various Churches. If for nothing else, to gain influence in The Church proper. However even with that theory, I can't point to records that indicate other Churches were sending to Rome other than how rich the Church in Rome became

I recommend you read a small book titled "Church, Papacy and Schism, a theoloical perspective" by Philip Sherrard.

Thank you for the reference. I will look this up and see if I can find a free version. I try to avoid paying cash for Christian books but I will if it seems crucial to my spiritual development.