a layman's thoughts ~ Roman Catholicism, the West and the infusion of Scholasticism and Roman legalism

  Glory to God!



    In reading some history on the Church of Christ and the schism, it seems to me that the idea of a papacy over the Church or the addition of the filioque was something that the early Church did not have in its understanding. The only authority in the Church can only be the Holy Spirit. This same Holy Spirit has been leading the Church from its inception. It is a Living big "T" Tradition or the life of the Church. Can a Pope have supreme rule over the Church in this sense?

    If we look at the end of the Roman Empire in the West around 476A>D> if memory serves. We see the influx of Germanic philosophies come in and slowly begin to change the theology. The filioque was not part of the original Creed. So we have to ask why was it inserted? Philosophies like Platonism and Augustianianism might seem sound in the scholastic sense, but the Church is not any old institution. It is beyond any category that man can create or beyond any rational understanding. It simply is a transcendent mysterion or mystery. If we try to define it, we will minimize it. And if we minimize it, we are not maximizing it as it should be, something eternal and transcending of our reason. Church is not a social hall for Jesus nor any old assembly hall. It is a hospital for the spiritually and physically sick, which incorporate themselves within the Body of Christ. We can't make the Church a top 10 list or "These are the essentials of our Church" because the Church is not a top 10 essentials idea. If anything it is from 1 to infinity, that would be a more correct list. The Church cannot be minimalistic.

   Anytime we bring any schema into the Church or view it through any particular philosophical lens, we make it earthly. We make it a fallen institution, which it cannot be. We are fallen as members, but not the Church. As the Church in Heaven is whole and undivided so is the Church on earth. Yes, its earthly members may be divided as people, but there can be no idea of a fragmented church. That is what we call denominationalism or fragments. The Early Church did not know of such a thing. It was whole and in need of nothing. It could never be fragmented. This is a human invention. It still is so today as Christ said that gates of Hades would not overcome it.

   So why the filioque and why the papacy? As a broken empire, the Roman Church was coming out of an influx of new philosophies (Germanic/barbarian) and the Roman legal system. To redefine the church under these new ideas does not sound very crazy, it may have seemed quite logical at the time. In the East there was one Roman Empire remaining, it was secure and stable until its fall in 1453. This did not happen in the West. And with this new influx came a new definition in the Roman Church. Additions were made that were not well theologically thought out, at least, this was a novel scholastic theology. And a juridical conceptual idea from Roman Law and government especially the idea of Pope as a kind of Emperor of the kingdom of the church. This would lead to some strange ideas of God's justice or to salvation itself. Does God need to be satisfied by some legal Roman concept? Is salvation internal or external? Can there be two bishops over the same Church without one of the bishops becoming the vicar of the other? Pope and the local Bishop? Can the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son? What proceeds from the Holy Spirit? Is not the Holy Spirit co-equal? Is it not better to say that spiration or coming forth belongs to the Father alone? The same way that water proceeds from the spring or thought from mind. It is the water that proceeds from the spring. The same way that it is the thought that proceeds from the mind. Therefore spring and mind have the quality of giving forth.

   Theology in the East was considered mystical, an experience of God via His 'uncreated' energies. It was the transcendent experience of God and not scholastically studied or of man's reason or conjecture on God. Not that reason is bad, but reason no matter how well studied can never scale what is not explainable. God is above this and we are better describing God in what He is not rather than what He is... apophatic Theology or negative theology. The Early Fathers did not rely on their thoughts or trust them when it came to things about Him, but spoke of God by communing with God. They received these answers by their nous and not by their thoughts and logic. Man's logic only fixes things for a short time, the solution is temporary, always, and will not last. This is why man's thoughts and logic are not eternal and why God is eternal.

   We also should not base our theology on any human conception or "ism" and especially on any one or two particular isms. Too much or sole emphasis on any one saint or philosopher will lead in the wrong direction. The Church has posted road signs as to lead us to God, but the road signs should never be considered as ends in themselves. The purpose of dogmas, canons, Creeds, Liturgy, sacraments, etc. has been to lead us to God in Christ, to commune with Him in His Body. These have never been meant to replace God or as a goal in themselves, but only to their purpose--- Communion with God.

Even the Saints are not an end in themselves but only to Whom they point to. This is crucial to an understanding of the Church. Theology is not conjecture or of the imagination or feelings, but something much higher. Any feeling we may have no matter how strong should not be trusted without good discernment. We would be wise to not trust our feelings or our logic when it comes to matters of divine importance and The Church. History has shown us this lesson of the flighty nature of feelings or passions. It has proved over and over again that man's logic is only a temporary fix and solution to the problems of the world. We would be wise to remember our own history.

  So the West and its novel ideas, Germanic philosophies, scholastic, humanistic ideas, etc., would now begin to shape and define the church in the West. It would cease to be connected to its Mother and move off in a different direction and understanding. With this, we would begin to see the Protestant Reformers like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others move to re-shape it into what, in their idea, it used to be, but as if from a fuzzy painting and 16th century philosophy and tradition and not from the Tradition of the early Church as lived by the Saints, the Church Fathers, and the Apostles.

   P>S>

Note:

The Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes no man-made "Isms" and has been very careful to keep these separate from The Church of Christ. The Orthodox Church has always regarded herself as pre-denominational.


I would like to thank:
Clark Carlton
Jordan Bajis
Father Photios
Lawrence Janic
and others...

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the intercession prayers of the Theotokos, Saint Peter, St. Demetrios Myrrh streaming, St. Paisios of the Holy Mountain and all the Saints. And for a good account before the awesome judgment seat of Christ. Glory to God!