This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Michael Hardy (talk | contribs) at 22:48, 2 June 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:48, 2 June 2005 by Michael Hardy (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Insertion of filioque
The word "non-canonical" before the insertion of the clause seems to be advocating the Eastern side of the schism. I mean, obviously the Catholics do not think that it is non-canonical, right? I might be wrong... Bratsche 20:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- the Pope claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs, while the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed since he was the spiritual leader of "new-Rome" that he was the head of the Christian Church
Is the above right? I thought the claim of the four Eastern patriarchs was that none of the five patriarchs could claim authority over the whole Christian church. Today, the various Eastern Orthodox hierarchies recognize the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople as only honorary; he has authority over only one of those hierarchical churches. My understanding has been that that has been the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church ever since the schism of 1054. Michael Hardy 22:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)