Elaine,

The wording you speak of is, and the Son. It is the part of the Creed that states the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Easterners believed it should read, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. And that the Son was added to the original, to the chagrin of the absent Eastern fathers.

It seems like a trivial matter but there's actually some deep philosophical ramifications to it.

• How active is the Son in the eternal spiration of the Holy Spirit?

I had heard through the grapevine that a compromise of by the Father through the Son has been proposed. I don't know if that would be enough for western sensibilities.

• Is a child conceived by the father through the mother or by the father and the mother?

Both are true but there's a slightly different emphasis.

Paul

Hi, Elaine —

Thanks for your question.

The Schism between East and West happened for a variety of different reasons. In many ways they just grew apart. In the West, we asked different questions than they asked in the East.

That said, doctrines developed differently but in essence, when it comes down to it, we believe the same things. The only real disagreement is the nature of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

The Pope was asked by the Eastern Church to come and settle a dispute. The Emperor had appointed the Patriarch and the people didn't want him so he reluctantly got dragged into it.
He removed the political appointee and that was that . . . for a while but over the years this fellow was a good politician and he gained the favor of the people. When the Patriarch, whom the Pope had appointed, died this fellow got himself legitimately appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. The Pope recognized the appointment. There was no problem in Rome but the Eastern Patriarch went on a mission to find reasons to try and excommunicate the Bishop of Rome.

The Eastern Patriarch felt the Holy See should be located in Constantinople because that's where the Emperor was. It didn't matter that the Bishop of Rome was the Successor of Peter; they began to believe that the Emperor had a certain power as it related to Church matters.

Among the issues that Constantinople railed against was an addition to the Creed of the words
— And the Son — .  The original Nicene Creed, read:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.

The council of Toledo, Spain, a local Western Council, said, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son and the Council added this for good reason. In the West, there were certain heresies being promulgated that said Jesus was less than the Father so the Bishops in Toledo, addressing those heretics, added these three words to the Creed.

The East, took offense, not because of the three words — but because they weren't included in the decision.

• Well, who cares?

Nobody expected the Eastern Church to adopt the Western formula. In fact, today Eastern Rite Catholics, such as the Melkite's, the Maronites, the Syriac Catholics, all say the Creed the same exact way your friend says the Creed in her Greek Orthodox Church. They are just as Catholic as you or I, but they maintain their Eastern traditions.

My point is: Rome wasn't changing the meaning of the Creed. In fact, in recent decades,
the Vatican and Constantinople hashed out the differences in the Creed and concluded we mean the same thing.

Both ways of saying the Creed are perfectly fine. The Orthodox Christians and Eastern Rite Catholics don't say and the Son — Where as the Latin Rite, or Roman Rite Catholics say
and the Son and there is no substantial difference in what is meant.

Returning to the Schism. It was really caused by a bunch of politically motivated pinheads on both sides. I mean really!

The Papal legates who were sent to Constantinople had the diplomatic agility of a pregnant pole vaulter. On a whim, they showed up at the Cathedral of Hagia Sofia and in the middle of the Divine Liturgy they excommunicated the Eastern Patriarch.

In the mean time, our Orthodox brothers were looking for an excuse. Among their demands were that all Latin priests had to grow beards just like they did in the East. (and we all know how important that issue is to Jesus!)

Believe me, there is plenty of blame to go around for the Schism. It didn't have to happen. In fact, the excommunication which the Papal legates executed on the Patriarch was already null and void. Those legates had been sent by the prior Pope to settle things, one way or another, but in the meantime, that Pope died so these pinheads had no authority.

Sure, there are still some differences between the two Churches.

• Do they mean anything?

The only issue that means anything is the jurisdiction of the Pope.

• The calendar
• the difference in the Creed
• the celibate versus married clergy

don't amount to a hill of beans. The only important issue is the recognition of the Pope as the final authority when push comes to shove. That doesn't mean the Pope is going to be sticking his nose in their business all the time.

One just needs to look at our Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. They are Sister Churches in communion with the Church of Rome. The Pope doesn't appoint Patriarchs or bishops in Eastern Catholic Churches. They have their own code of canon law. They express their traditions as Eastern Christians in union with Rome.

If your Greek Orthodox friend went to an Eastern Rite Liturgy, she wouldn't know the difference, except that the Pope is prayed for once during the Liturgy, just as we do in West.

That said, the only thing that is really keeping us apart is, a not so little sin called, pride.

John