Some Differences Between the Eastern Church and that of the Latins: An Unpublished Work of Saint Cyril Lucaris

Nikolaos Mannis, Educator

Graduate of the Department of Pedagogy and Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

 

 

Continuing the effort to bring to light all the elements concerning the venerable person of Saint Patriarch Cyril Lucaris, [1] we present for the first time another unpublished text of his.

This is the work “Some Differences Between the Eastern Church and that of the Latins; and an Orthodox Analysis Thereof.” This work also is preserved in the Patriarchal Library of Jerusalem, specifically in the codices transferred from the Lavra of Saint Sabbas, numbered 91 (fols. 420–444) and 381 (fols. 296–315). [2]

The text begins with the observation that several Orthodox believers have begun to think that the Eastern Church is in error in those matters in which it does not agree with the Latins. This occurs either because the proponents of this view were suitably nurtured from childhood by attending Latin schools, or because they wish to appear as knowledgeable and important, or because they believe that the Greeks are now immersed in ignorance and that the Westerners, as those possessing the light of learning, cannot possibly be in error; or finally, because no teacher has been found to present to them the truth regarding the differences between the Easterners and the Latins.

After referencing the causes, Saint Cyril proceeds to analyze the differences that exist with respect to the following three matters: the procession of the Holy Spirit, the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Divine Eucharist, and the doctrine of purgatorial fire. He has already analyzed the greatest difference with the Latins (the Primacy of the Pope) in his previous treatise “On the Origin of the Church”; therefore, this present work is considered, in a certain sense, as its continuation.

Concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, Saint Cyril, after stating that the difference between the Orthodox and the Latins pertains to whether the All-Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son (Filioque), presents the argumentation of the latter, which he then refutes as follows:

a) To the Latin argument that “what the Father has, the Son also has” (therefore, since the Father causes the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Son also causes it), Saint Cyril points out that this leads to a paradox. For by this same logic — “what the Father has, the Holy Spirit also has” — then the Holy Spirit begets the Son, which is absurd!

b) To the Latin argument that if “the Son does not cause the procession of the Spirit as the Father does, then the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused,” Saint Cyril replies that this opinion does not resolve the supposed confusion, but rather creates it. This is because the Latins do not distinguish the mode of existence of the Persons of the Holy Trinity (from the unbegotten Father, the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds).

Continuing, he sets forth the main reasons for which the Orthodox reject the Filioque:

a) Because it was never the faith of the Church, but on the contrary, constitutes a condemnable innovation.

b) Because through this confusion—on the part of the Latins—between the common (essence and energy) and the incommunicable (mode of existence) properties of the Holy Trinity, a second principle is introduced into the Holy Trinity.

In the continuation of the work, Saint Cyril refers to the use of unleavened bread “in the mystery of the Eucharist.” On this issue, he had written in much greater detail in a letter to his friend and fellow student at the University of Padua, Radu Vodă Mihnea (1574–1626), ruler of Wallachia. [3]

In that letter, he examines the main argument used to justify the use of unleavened bread, employed by the “papolaters” [4] (as he characterizes the Latins), which is the following: since Christ celebrated the Passover of the Law, He therefore used unleavened bread.

However, Saint Cyril Lucaris once again states that Christ at the Mystical Supper did not celebrate the Passover of the Law, and therefore did not use unleavened bread. For the Evangelist John clearly informs us, on the one hand, that the Lord held the Supper “before the feast of the Passover,” [5] so that “when the Jews were about to celebrate it, He also was about to be sacrificed upon the Cross,” since “the Passover was nothing other than the slaughter of the lamb”; on the other hand, that at the Supper, “a piece of bread” [6] was used—meaning leavened bread! Therefore, the Latins are once again denounced as Innovators.

The third difference to which he refers is the myth of purgatorial fire (purgatorium). The Latins claim that the soul of every departed person is immediately judged: if he is righteous, he goes to Paradise; if he is sinful, he goes to Hell; and if he is repentant but did not have time to perform works of righteousness, he goes to “purgatorial fire,” where he will be punished for a certain period of time and afterward will enter Paradise. Memorials, alms, etc., are performed on behalf of those found in purgatory.

Saint Cyril points out that the Orthodox, on the contrary, believe that after death the soul of each person is either blessed or punished. However, if it is found in an intermediate state, [7] it awaits the future judgment, hoping in the mercy of God through the help of memorials, almsgiving, etc. But not in the sense that in this state there exists any material fire or other punishment and penalty. For this reason, the so-called “particular judgment,” in the sense given to it by the Latins in order to justify purgatory, is rejected.

On this matter, Saint Cyril had also referred in his fourth anathema, which he issued—then as Patriarch of Alexandria—against the Latins and Latin-minded individuals at Târgoviște in Wallachia (present-day Romania) in the year 1615. At this point, a very important observation should be made, one which has escaped the attention of all researchers of Lucaris. In the published version of these anathemas, [8] the editor Dositheos of Jerusalem arbitrarily omitted the contentious passage, because he himself, unfortunately, was a supporter of the doctrine of purgatorial fire! [9] Taking this occasion, therefore, we restore here the text of the fourth anathema (with the omitted part in bold): “Fourth: Whoever says that when a Christian dies, his soul is immediately judged and does not await that universal judgment of which the Lord Himself speaks to us in the Holy Gospel, let him be anathema. And likewise, whoever says that our Lord Jesus Christ, when He comes to judge, does not come for the souls but comes to decide concerning the bodies, let him be anathema.” [10]

Continuing, Saint Cyril observes that all the interpretations of the passages of Holy Scripture cited by the Latins to support their doctrine of purgatorial fire are distorted! He even refers to a characteristic apostolic passage, to which he gives the correct interpretation.

For the edition of the present work as well, I once again used both codices of Saint Sabbas in a comparative manner, correcting the errors (whether orthographic or semantic) of each by means of the other, though relying primarily on codex 381, which contains fewer scribal errors (we remind that these codices are not autographs of Saint Cyril Loukari). [11]

 

***

 

Some Differences Between the Eastern Church and that of the Latins; and an Orthodox Analysis of These

 

There are some unknown individuals who, being ignorant, are easily led astray by the sweet words of the Latins and by their false accounts; and for this reason, they conclude that the Greeks are in error in those matters in which they do not agree with the Latins. I do not say this concerning those who were born and raised in their religion, but rather concerning those whom the Eastern Church—their mother, the Catholic Church [12]—has regenerated; yet, ignorantly, they reject her and proclaim her to be in error. But they do this not because they truly find her to be so, but for the following reasons:

A. Either because from a young age they were taught this way by the Latins, and they adopted their doctrines.

B. Or because they wish to appear before the Easterners as if they know something, and thereby hope to be regarded as important by them.

C. Or because they believe that learning has disappeared from the Greeks, and is now possessed by the West; and with this, they assume that the Latins cannot possibly be in error.

D. Or even because they have not yet found anyone among the Easterners to convince them of the truth and to teach them properly concerning our doctrines—especially the differences between Easterners and Westerners.

If you consider the first reason, do not be surprised that he says, “This is how I learned, this is how I was taught; thus I profess.” He errs only in this: that he does not wish to discern the truth, having stripped himself of all passion, but hardens himself in falsehood, lest it be shown that he has learned wrongly—which is not the truth.

If you consider the second reason, know that darkness is always darkness; and the jackdaw is always a jackdaw, [13] no matter how much it boasts, or tries to appear otherwise, or adorns itself with foreign feathers.

If you consider the third reason, it is true that learning has vanished from the Eastern Church—but not faith and truth. For wherever learning has abounded in these times, faith has been darkened, and truth no longer governs.

If you consider the fourth, they are right in saying that the Eastern Church is poorly governed—I do not deny it. And may God correct it, not man, for truly no man is able.

Therefore, since it is from one of these causes that they are stirred up to oppose our Church—and chiefly on account of the three longstanding differences between the Easterners and the Latins, namely: the procession of the Holy Spirit; the use of unleavened versus leavened bread; and purgatory—and since I was requested to note a few things concerning these matters, let no one make a judgment before reading what we are about to write on this paper, even if it be but little, for we had not the time to write more.

Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit:

All nations today agree in believing that God is one and only. Christians, in turn, agree among themselves in believing that the one God is tri-hypostatic: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this, the Easterners and the Latins have no disagreement, for both sides believe in the Holy Trinity. However, when each Person is considered individually, and the Father is found to be unbegotten, the Son begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, they contend with one another—specifically on this point: whether the Holy Spirit, who is found to proceed from the Father, proceeds from the Father alone, or proceeds also from the Son together with the Father.

The Easterners say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The Latins say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son; and on this point there is great contention.

If you ask the Latins, “Why do you say from the Father and from the Son?” they will answer with the following reasons:

First, that whatever the Father has, the Son also has; therefore, since the Father has causality, He has given also to the Son the power of causality. And causality applies to nothing else within the inner life of the Godhead except to the All-Holy Spirit.

Second reason, that the Trinity may be distinguished—for if the Son does not cause the procession of the Spirit just as the Father does, then the hypostases of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are confused, since they cannot otherwise be distinguished except as cause and caused.

Thus do the Latins answer. However, they are in error, because their first reason is clearly shown to be unsound. For if the Son is the cause of the Spirit on the basis that “whatever the Father has, the Son also has,” then the Holy Spirit must likewise be the cause of the Son. For undoubtedly, whatever the Father has, the Holy Spirit also has. But just as it is not valid to say that the Spirit is the cause of the Son, so also it is not valid to say that the Son is the cause of the Spirit.

The second reason likewise does not hold, for although it is true that within the Godhead relation — that is, being cause and being caused — does indeed distinguish, yet it is not the only distinction. For the mode of existence also distinguishes. Hence we say that the Son is from the Father by generation, and the Spirit is from the Father by procession. And both generation and procession are modes of existence. And with this, the earlier and general arguments of the Latins fall apart. And I say no more, for to the prudent these things are many; moreover, I do not have permission to say further.

If you ask the Easterners, “So then, do you say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone, and not also from the Son?” they reply thus: Because this was never held by our Church. Only the innovators, the Latins—who always introduce new things into the Church—did this, and added, “and from the Son.” Therefore, we regard it as a Latin addition.

For if we say that the Spirit is also from the Son, we introduce two principles in the Godhead —
which may God forbid us to dogmatize! And let anyone who wills, judge this matter accordingly.

In the Godhead, as we have said, the three Persons are distinguished. For the Father is one, the Son is another, and the Holy Spirit is another —even though the three are one in essence. Still, we say one and another. I therefore ask the Latin: Is the active procession a personal property, or a common one? You cannot say it is common, for it is agreed that it is personal. And if the active procession belongs to the Father alone, then we Easterners have what we seek: that we make the Father alone the cause of the Spirit.

If it is, according to the Latins, both from the Father and from the Son, then there are two causes of the Spirit: the Father and the Son.

If there are two causes, then there are also two principles. And those who think thus fall into a great error, which the Easterners, avoiding, believe and hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Whether you seek proof of this by testimonies and citations, or by reasoned arguments, it would have been easy to set it forth more extensively here, if time had allowed. Yet even these few things, when heard, suffice for one well taught to judge rightly. There remains now what concerns the other matters—namely, unleavened and leavened bread.

The members of the Eastern Church reproach the Latins for using unleavened bread in the Mystery of the Eucharist. The Latins, for their part, say that the Easterners do well in using leavened bread. However, they object in return, saying that it is wrong for them to be censured by the Easterners, since they also do rightly in offering unleavened bread, making no distinction whether it be unleavened or leavened.

This difference can only be distinguished by the words of the Gospel. Indeed, since the Easterners are superior solely by relying on the words of the Gospel, the Latins consider us as mere artisans and sophists—a slight confusion, which, by the grace of Christ, the discourse now descending shall resolve. Nevertheless, we say that the Easterners are superior. For the Latins themselves admit: “Our Church, whether with leavened or unleavened bread, does rightly and considers it indifferent.” Whereas the Eastern Church declares that it does not accept the unleavened bread at all, nor does it in any way approve of it.

For the Apostles offered with leavened and risen bread. [14] However, there appeared a Pope, called Pope Alexander [I], and he handed down the use of unleavened bread to the Latins, on such an account: as some say, he was a participant in the heresy of Apollinaris, who dogmatized that the body of the Lord was without a soul—as do also the Armenians. The Latins today say that they offer unleavened bread because Christ used unleavened bread at the Supper—which is not true, as shall be shown.

The Easterners do not accept the use of unleavened bread, because they say that Christ celebrated the Supper with leavened bread. And this is their foundation, based on the words of the Gospel. However, from this arises the following difference: whether Christ, in fact, performed the Mystical Supper with leavened or with unleavened bread. And the Latins attempt to demonstrate it with the following reasoning:

Because Christ celebrated the Jewish Passover at the time of Passover, according to the Law, leavened bread could not be found, but only unleavened; therefore, they say, Christ also had unleavened bread. This is the reasoning the Latins hold, this they repeat, this they cry out—not another; but they are found to be greatly in error. First, because Christ did not celebrate the Passover at the time when unleavened bread was required, but rather at a time when leavened bread could still be found. For the Law ordained that the Passover be kept on the 14th of the month, that is, at the end of the 14th, and that the 15th be called the first of unleavened bread, and only then would the Passover be celebrated, when leaven would no longer be present. But Christ celebrated the Passover earlier—namely, at the beginning of the 14th of the month; and He did so twenty-four hours in advance, for when the Jews were about to keep the Passover, He was about to be sacrificed upon the Cross.

And mark this well: the Passover was nothing other than the slaughter of the lamb, and the Supper which was held was called the general (universal) Passover—not the unleavened bread. Therefore, when Christ sent the disciples to prepare the Passover, He sent them chiefly for the lamb, because upon Him rested the whole order of the Passover—for the lamb prefigured Christ, the one true Lamb, who was willingly sacrificed on the Cross. And because the whole order of the Passover was centered on the lamb, and because this took place outside the required time (as we said), it happened without unleavened bread. This the Evangelist informs us of—indeed, all of them—for everywhere they say that He took bread. And “bread” is not what unleavened bread is called, strictly speaking. Let them say and do what they will: unleavened bread is not simply called bread. Only leavened bread is plainly called “bread” without doubt; and elsewhere it is even called psomion [a piece of bread]. And I do not even bring forth here the words of the Evangelists, especially those of the holy, glorious, all-praised Apostle and Evangelist John, who everywhere says it, and crushes their heads many times—and the Latins are ashamed to cast him aside, though they nearly have done so, just to win the argument. Therefore, I omit the many other things. But one thing I want you to put in your mind: know that darkened wisdom blinds the Latins in their error. And even if Christ celebrated the Supper with unleavened bread, He would have done so with the kind of unleavened bread that the Jews use. If then the Latins use unleavened bread because Christ did so, let them tell me why they do not make it in the manner the Jews do—instead, they make it with a mold, a kind of unleavened bread that is lifeless and without substance, such that Christ would not have been able to dip it and give it to Judas. For it could not have stood. Therefore, even if Christ did celebrate with unleavened bread, nonetheless the Latins transgress in this matter. And they are always found to be in error and in delusion. Whoever wishes to know: the Eastern Church does not accept unleavened bread, because Christ did not perform the Supper with unleavened bread. It does not accept it because it does not wish to Judaize. It does not accept it because it does not follow the heresy of Apollinaris. [15] Rather, it accepts the leavened bread, true bread, the psomion, as the Evangelists call it [16]—for this alone nourishes our souls and strengthens our hearts. As for those who think otherwise, we renounce them from the Church as innovators, for bringing in things other than what Christ, the Truth, and the Church of Christ have delivered. And these things, I think, are sufficient for those who think rightly.

It is not enough that the Latins fight against us Orthodox in those things which are written, but they also fight us with things which are found neither in the New Testament nor in the Old, nor has even the slightest word been spoken concerning them. And such is the matter of purgatorial fire. And so that each may understand the matter, behold, I will lay out their opinion and our opinion separately, and let whoever has understanding be the judge.

The Latins say that when each person dies, as soon as his soul departs, he is immediately judged. And if he is found to be righteous, his soul at once departs to the Kingdom. If he is found to be sinful and unrepentant, he is immediately sent to hell. If he is found to be confessed and repentant, yet has not done good works to make satisfaction for his evil deeds, he enters into a fire called purgatory, and there he is punished and tormented for a time, until God appoints that he may come out, and then he passes into paradise. And for those who are in purgatory, Liturgies are offered, and almsgivings, and other good works, in order that they may be released more quickly. This is the opinion of the Latins—one that is not good.

The Easterners, that is, those of the Catholic Church, say that when a man dies, if he is righteous, he is blessed; if he is condemned, he is punished. If he happens to be in an intermediate state, he stands in a place awaiting the future judgment and the decision of the righteous Judge—if God should show mercy and compassion, that he might be saved. However, this place, so to speak, is not one of punishment, nor penalty, nor of material fire, as the Latins claim. And for such persons, supplications, prayers, and almsgivings are offered. Thus do the Easterners believe.

We do not speak of a particular judgment—that is, that souls are judged immediately after death. For if judgment were to take place at that time, there would be no longer any need for Christ to come again to judge. Nor do we speak of fire and punishment. For if the soul were to make payment there and be punished after the body, then the mercy and loving-kindness of God would be rendered idle—which things are absurd and contrary to piety. All the passages of Scripture which the Latins have to support their error, they distort. And though Scripture does not speak at all of a purgatory, they twist it to fit their own opinion. I leave aside the rest, as they are clearer still. But I bring forth that saying of Paul (to the Corinthians), in which many boast that the doctrine of purgatory is affirmed—which let each one judge whether it be true. Paul says: “Now if anyone builds upon this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” [17] Here Paul is speaking of teachers and pastors of the Church, and of the teaching of the Gospel—the true teaching, and the teaching contrary to the Gospel. And in discussing this, he uses a metaphor from the materials of an architect: if the material is solid, he says, it stands; if it is rotten, it collapses. He compares good material to gold, silver, and precious stones; bad material to grass, wood, and straw. This is the meaning of the Apostle in this passage—not that he wishes to show here a purgatory. For this passage contains many things completely inconsistent with the doctrines of purgatory.

And first of all, it is inconsistent in that the Latins call purgatorial fire a true fire, like the one we see. But Paul is speaking of a metaphorical fire. And from allegories, no dogma can be derived.

Secondly: it is inconsistent in that Paul says it is the wood, the grass, and the stubble that are burned—whereas the Latins burn the architects themselves in the purgatorial fire.

Third: Paul says that gold, silver, and precious stones are also cast into the fire. But the Latins speak only of wood, grass, and stubble—that is, of sins. [sic]

Fourth: Paul says that in that fire each man’s work becomes manifest. But the Latins say that purgatory is in a dark place beneath the earth, which no one knows exactly where it is.

Fifth: Paul understands “the day” to refer to the future judgment at the Second Coming. But the Latins interpret it as the time of purification.

Fourth: Paul says that in that fire, each one’s work is made manifest. But the Latins say that purgatory is in a dark place beneath the earth, where no one knows exactly where it is.

Fifth: Paul understands “the day” to refer to the future judgment at the Second Coming, whereas the Latins interpret it as referring to the time of purification.

The true purpose and meaning of this testimony in no way refers to purgatory. It pertains solely to the teaching of the teachers, each of whom must pass through the scrutiny of the All-Holy Spirit—to give account for how he taught, how he preached, and how he built. But the Latins distort and twist this passage in order to prove something that it does not contain.

As for us and the Latins—each one concerning his own doctrines: when they are unwilling to follow ours, we, by the grace of Christ, stand firm and steadfast in those things which we have received from our Mother, the Church, and from her Bridegroom, our Lord Jesus Christ—Who may enlighten the world not to believe in things external, nor in fleeting vanity, but in the truth—
through which we are destined to be saved and to be blessed. Amen.

 

NOTES

1. See Nikolaos Mannis, "Saint Cyril Lucaris: His Newly Discovered Synaxarion and the Unpublished Treatise 'On the Origin of the Church,'" in Dodekanisos no. 28 [Jan.–June 2022], pp. 455–484.

2. See Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Hierosolymitic Library, vol. 2, St. Petersburg 1894, pp. 166–168 and 512–515.

3. First published in Dositheos of Jerusalem, Tome of Love, Iași 1698, pp. 547–552.

4. Ibid., p. 548.

5. John 13:1–2.

6. John 13:26–27, 30.

7. A general overview of the subject in Konstantinos Dyovouniotis, The Intermediate State of Souls, Athens 1904.

8. Dositheos of Jerusalem, Tome of Love, Iași 1698, pp. 552–554.

9. Synodus Bethlehemitica adversus Calvinistas hæreticos, Paris 1676, p. 301. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, Ioannis Karyophyllis, Alexandria 1918, p. 16. Later, Dositheos appears to have rather revised his positions. On this, see the special study on Saint Cyril Lucaris (cf. Nikolaos Mannis, Saint Cyril Lucaris…, Dodekanisos no. 28 [Jan.–June 2022], p. 461, note 18).

10. The complete text is provided by Ioannis Matthaios Karyophyllos (a Uniate Archbishop of Iconium—not to be confused with his later namesake, the very Orthodox teacher Ioannis Karyophyllis) in his book Condemnation of the Confession of Faith (Rome 1632, p. 131), while the manuscript tradition also supports this (see for example Christ Church MS 49, f. 104r–105v).

11. Nikolaos Mannis, op. cit., p. 461.

12. In the writings of the Saints (according to the Creed), Catholic Church is called the Orthodox Church in the East—the one, unique, and true Church of Christ.

13. See the famous fable of the great Aesop, “The Jackdaw and the Birds”, according to which the jackdaw (κολοιός, in ancient Greek), knowing that in the contest Zeus proclaimed for the most beautiful bird it would come out the ugliest, gathered the fallen feathers of the other birds and stuck them upon itself! In vain, however, for the truth was revealed…

14. In the Concise Dictionary of the late Emmanuel Kriaras we read concerning the word ἀνεβατός: (Applied to dough or bread) leavened with sourdough, leavened.

15. Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (patriarch 1052–1056), whom Saint Cyril has in mind and follows, writes (in his well-known letter on the question of unleavened bread to the Archbishop of Granda) characteristically: “Those who partake of the unleavened are in danger of secretly falling into the heresy of Apollinaris. For he dared to say that the Son and Word of God took from the Virgin only a body without soul and mind, affirming that divinity sufficed in place of soul and intellect. Likewise, those who offer unleavened bread offer dead flesh, not living.” (P.G. 120, 777). In turn, Peter of Antioch has in mind and follows Saint John of Damascus (see Against the Armenians on Unleavened Bread, P.G. 95, 388–396).

16. John 13:26–30.

17. 1 Corinthians 3:12–13.

 

Source: Δωδεκάνησος, No. 33 (July-December 2024), p. 357-370.

Online: https://periodiko-dodekanisos.gr/periodika/dodekanisos_2024_lg.pdf