Unity and Division
In the present undertaking, the novelty consists primarily in the author’s hope to achieve a fairer balance than can usually be found in textbooks of Church History, between the Eastern and Western visions of the historical past.
Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD 450 – 680, John Meyendorff
This book is the second in the series I am covering on Church History, the first spanning AD 33 – 200. Yes, you will note a gap here. When I contacted the publisher about this gap, apparently the author who was intended to write that section passed away before this section could be completed.
Of course, the period from 200 – 450 is an important slice of Church history: three Ecumenical Councils, and the situation leading to Chalcedon. With this said, this volume will cover the Council of Chalcedon and the difficulties and the split that followed in its wake.
This period remains crucial for our understanding of the Church today… the Church, inseparable of its Tradition, cannot solve its present problems without constantly referring to these decisive, formative centuries.
One can see from the opening quote taken from the Introduction of the book that the author hopes to present a fair assessment of this history. He expands on this hope further in the Introduction:
Defensive against all things Western, these [Eastern Orthodox] authors…tend to identify Orthodoxy exclusively with things Eastern and Byzantine, and to simply overlook not only the historical shortcomings of Byzantine Christendom, but also the authentic and truly Orthodox achievements of Western Christianity.
What he does not note in the Introduction, but I have found equally true: those from the Western tradition finding in the Pope of Rome the single and unilateral authority over West and East – all Christendom. Let’s just say that there are plenty of biases to go around (to say nothing of Protestant biases which begin basically a thousand years later).
Meyendorff makes a point about the biases many in the West have toward Byzantium and the Christian East – looking at the East through the Cultural lens of the Western Enlightenment. As Gibbons would note of the East, it was little more than “a tedious and uniform tale of weakness and misery.”
Yet a critical view of the secular society and culture which came out of the Enlightenment might also at least cause one to question whether Western Christianity has always used the right methods and philosophies to preserve the values of the Gospel.
My two cents: Byzantium, while not always on the upswing, did hold to gold as money for something like 800 years; further, the Eastern Church never had something like the split of the Reformation, albeit I cannot say much about why or why not.
As for the West, I agree with Meyendorff: The Enlightenment, despite the many “goods” that came out of it, offered many “bads.” For example, our secular society. Also, communism and fascism. The Enlightenment, absent God, had nothing for defense against any of these.
Although this volume begins at 450 AD, the author does devote some time to the 150 years or so before this, beginning with Constantine and Theodosius I. This background is necessary if one is to makes some sense of the period covered here.
The official start of the work, however, is the Council of Chalcedon, described by Meyendorff as the first truly “ecumenical” council, as both East and West were appropriately represented. This council also resulted in a split in the Christian East, splitting off what we now refer to as Oriental Orthodox from Eastern Orthodox.
Even here, the split was not fully cemented until the seventh century and the Muslim conquests of the East – especially of the non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox) East. The early decades of these conquests represent the end point of Meyendorff’s history.
Conclusion
Between Byzantium and Rome unity will survive longer, but issues which would eventually cause the schism can already be clearly defined by studying the events discussed in this volume.
This last bit is of interest, as the Schism of 1054 certainly did not erupt out of the blue. The filioque may have been a pretext, but the cause(s), to my understanding, were long in the making.
Regarding the Filioque, an ecumenical council between East and West should be convened and the wording of the Creed should be changed to "...who proceeds from the Father through the Son" to reunite the Church. I think both sides can agree on that, and this time it should be done through a council so there is no unilateral declaration from Rome.
One thing is clear, the Spirit proceeds from (the Father through) the Son on three separate occasions that give life to the Church.
1. Crucifixion. Church is born with Sacraments of Eucharist and Baptism
"(34) But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water" - John 19:34
This is no ordinary water but the Living Water spoken of in Jeremiah 2:13 and John 7:37-39. In Jeremiah 2, God the Father identifies Himself as the Fountain, in John 7 Jesus applies this to Himself and those who believe in Him, and in John 19 Jesus becomes the Fountain. What is the Living Water? The Holy Spirit. Without the Cross, there is no Church.
2. Resurrection. Church is given Authority and Sacrament of Confession
"(22) When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. (23) Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." - John 20:22-23
Jesus breathes onto the leaders of His Church of the New Covenant, recalling Genesis. Jesus makes a new priesthood with the power to bind and loose sins.
3. Pentecost. Church is given Empowerment for its Mission
"(26) But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me." - John 15:26
and
"(2) And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. (3) And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: (4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak." - Acts 2:2-4
In 1. and 2. respectively the Holy Spirit comes as water and breath, but here in 3. He comes as fire. Fire is often symbolic of the presence and guidance of God. Once again God is with His People showing them the way.
John 15:26 is just the perfect concise argument for some version of the Filioque (as mentioned above) that reconciles the concerns of East and West, is it not?
This might be exceeding the bounds of Hallway Christianity, but no Christian can deny that Jesus Christ created a Church. So just apply the above to whatever you believe the Church is in Holy Scripture.
Perhaps this?
"the Church as we see her spread but through all time and space and rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners." - C.S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters
Nicely summarized and my sentiments exactly. May I be so bold as to say that anyone who clings to “my [slice of the] Church is the only true Church” has been overly influenced by his/her culture’s underlying motif?