Devide Between Churces

[ThomasPeter]

im doing a speech on the orthodox church and would like to know this... what are the main points taht separate the two churches (roman and orthodox)? i know of the Filique and the papal problems. is taht it though? either way, could you tell me what about the idea of the Filique they dont like (why they dont believe it.) and what about the pope do they not folow? [i]any[/i] help you can give would be helpful. thanks!
tom

[Adeodatus]

The main thing separating us is the role of the Pope. The Pope, as successor of Peter, has a 'primacy'. He is a "first among equals". The Orthodox are willing to say that he has a "primacy of honour", but not go on to affirm with Catholics that he has a "primacy of jurisdiction". They think he (the Pope) has the same authority in the West that their own Patriarch (of New Rome, Constantinople) has in the East. The Catholic position is that whatever jurisdiction the Patriarch has in the East, the Pope has a similar jurisdiction throughout the whole world. The issue is more complicated because it is not just about power and jurisdiction. It is also about faithfulness to a commisiioning by Christ, to be "servant of the servants of Christ".

The "Filioque" is about the Holy Spirit's procession. Catholics and Orthodox teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [i]principaliter[/i], i.e. principally. Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [i]through[/i] the Son. But Catholics can phrase their belief as "from and the Father [b]and[/b] the Son". This "and" makes the Orthodox think that we see the Son as 'another Father', which we do not say or believe.

This should not have become a divisive matter, but for complex historical reasons, Spain, and later the Frankish empire adopted the 'Filioque' (and from the Son) formula and tried to put pressure on Rome to adopt it too. The Popes initially resisted, saying that the Filioque was true, but that you can't just add things to the Creed. 200 years later, they did add these words to the Creed, but only because it expressed a Faith implicitly found in the Creed. The East at that time knew that the Latin West taught the Filioque and did not object. The whole Church was still united in one Faith. It was only around 1054, when East and West split from each other (the Great Schism), that the East (now called 'Orthodox') started complaining about the Filioque. The eastern Fathers before this had had no problems with the Filioque so it curious why this happened. There were subsequently 2 reunion Councils (Lyons and Florence), and especially at Florence the Orthodox had the opportunity to really examine this issue and they concluded that the Western Fathers before the Schism are their Fathers too, and that Western saints before the Schism are truly their saints too. This helped them to accept the Filioque, but they were still unhappy about Rome unilaterally adding it to the Creed. To solve that problem, the Council of Florence added it to the Creed, making it clear that it added nothing new, but was explaining what was believed in by both sides anyway. The eastern side later repudiated the acts and decrees of the Council of Florence, so the dispute still lingers.

Personally, I don't think there are grounds now for disagreeing. It seems clear that the Eastern fathers and the Scriptures teach the Filioque. But part of the problem is language. In Greek 'and from the Son' means that the Son is like another Father, whereas in Latin, 'and from the Son' does not imply that the Son independently breathes the Holy Spirit. So leaving out Filioque in Greek makes more sense, and keeping it in Latin makes more sense.

The other disputes the Orthodox most frequently mention are Marian doctrines (the Orthodox agree with them, but don't think some of them should have been defined by the Pope unilaterally), and original sin (they see St Augustine as a real innovator here).