Monday, September 20, 2010

Thomistic Glosses on Greek Church Fathers

Mirror link

N.B. St. Thomas does not address all of these quotes directly or in their entirety.

St. Dionysius the Areopagite
Whether any created intellect can see the essence of God? (Yes)
On the Divine Names 1:4: the superessential Illimitability is placed above things essential, and the Unity above mind above the Minds; and the One above conception is inconceivable to all conceptions; and the Good above word is unutterable by word—Unit making one every unit, and superessential essence and mind inconceivable, and Word unutterable, speechlessness and inconception, and namelessness—being after the manner of no existing being, and Cause of being to all, but Itself not being, as beyond every essence...
ST I, q. 12, art. 1, ad 3: God is not said to be not existing as if He did not exist at all, but because He exists above all that exists; inasmuch as He is His own existence. Hence it does not follow that He cannot be known at all, but that He exceeds every kind of knowledge; which means that He is not comprehended.

On the Divine Names 1:5: It is superior to every expression and every knowledge, and is altogether placed above mind and essence,—being such as embraces and unites and comprehends and anticipates all things, but Itself is altogether incomprehensible to all, and of It, there is neither perception nor imagination, nor surmise, nor name, nor expression, nor contact, nor science...
ST I, q. 12, art. 1, ad 1: This authority "speak[s] of the vision of comprehension."

Whether a name can be given to God? (Yes)
On the Divine Names 1:5: "the superessential Deity is shown to be without Name, and above Name."
ST I, q. 13, art. 1, ad 1: "The reason why God has no name, or is said to be above being named, is because His essence is above all that we understand about God, and signify in word."

Whether affirmative propositions can be formed about God? (Yes)
On the Heavenly Hierarchy 2:3: "the negations respecting things Divine are true, but the affirmations are inharmonious..."
ST I, q. 13, art. 2, ad 1: "Dionysius says that the affirmations about God are vague or, according to another translation, 'incongruous,' inasmuch as no name can be applied to God according to its mode of signification."

Whether the human intellect can attain to the vision of God in His essence? (Yes)
Letter 1 to Gaius: His pre-eminent darkness is both concealed by every light, and is hidden from every knowledge. And, if any one, having seen God, understood what he saw, he did not see Him, but some of His creatures that are existing and known. But He Himself, highly established above mind, and above essence, by the very fact of His being wholly unknown, and not being, both is super-essentially, and is known above mind.
ST III-S, q. 92, art. 1, ad 4: God is light (John 1:9). Now illumination is the impression of light on an illuminated object. And since the Divine essence is of a different mode from any likeness thereof impressed on the intellect, he (Dionysius) says that the "Divine darkness is impervious to all illumination," because, to wit, the Divine essence, which he calls "darkness" on account of its surpassing brightness, remains undemonstrated by the impression on our intellect, and consequently is "hidden from all knowledge." Therefore if anyone in seeing God conceives something in his mind, this is not God but one of God's effects.

Letter 5 to Dorotheus: The Divine gloom is the unapproachable light in which God is said to dwell. And in this gloom, invisible indeed, on account of the surpassing brightness, and unapproachable on account of the excess of the superessential stream of light, enters every one deemed worthy to know and to see God, by the very fact of neither seeing nor knowing, really entering in Him, Who is above vision and knowledge...
ST III-S, q. 92, art. 1, ad 5: "Although the glory of God surpasses any form by which our intellect is informed now, it does not surpass the Divine essence, which will be the form of our intellect in Heaven: and therefore although it is invisible now, it will be visible then."

ST :

ST :

ST :

St. John of Damascus
Whether any name can be applied to God substantially? (Yes)
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:9: Each then of the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy.
ST I, q. 13, art. 2, ad 1: "Damascene says that these names do not signify what God is, forasmuch as by none of these names is perfectly expressed what He is; but each one signifies Him in an imperfect manner, even as creatures represent Him imperfectly."

Whether the name of Image is proper to the Son? (Yes)
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:13: "The Son is the Father's image, and the Spirit the Son's, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after His own image."
ST I, q. 35, art. 2, ad 1: "Damascene and the other Greek Doctors commonly employ the term image as meaning a perfect similitude."

Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son? (Yes)
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:8 [PG 94:832B]: "And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son."
ST I, q. 36, art. 2, ad 3: The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.

ST :

ST :

ST :

Saturday, September 04, 2010

How Can Filioque Be False?

Mirror link

How can the Filioque clause be heretical when all the Latin Fathers from St. Hilary onward{1}--with whom the Greek Fathers were in communion over the centuries and with whose consensus the Greek Fathers cannot, as a whole, disagree on a matter of divine and Catholic faith--taught that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds, qua hypostasis, from the Father and the Son?{2}

Notes & References
{1} Gill, Fr. Joseph, and B. L. Marthaler "Filioque." New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. p. 720. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 4 Sept. 2010.
{2} For fairly detailed proof that the Latin Fathers unanimously teach a hypostatic, not merely energetic, procession from the Father and the Son, see "Filioque." Catholic Patristics. 7 Oct. 2010. 10 Jan. 2011 <>.

Which Is It?

Which is it?

(1) The West should not have added Filioque to the Creed without an Ecumenical Council, since only an Ecumenical Council has the authority to edit the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.


(2) Under no circumstances can anyone or any organ effect any change whatsoever on the Creed of 381, per Canon Seven of the Council of Ephesus.

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Why God Led Me To Rome Instead of Constantinople

Stay tuned for version 3.0 (2011) of part 1 of "Why God Led Me to Rome Instead of Constantinople."

Update 12/27/2017: This is an under-construction sketch, part of a project showing that the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church, has the Four Marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. G.K. Chesterton said, "The difficulty of explaining 'why I am a Catholic' is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true." I say, "The difficulty of explaining 'why I am not Eastern Orthodox' is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Eastern Orthodoxy is not true."

One: Among the Orthodox there is neither "unity of government" (no visible center, just "independent, national churches, united only in their opposition to Rome") nor "unity of faith ... the official creeds ... teach contradictory doctrines on many important points, and in many cases their official teaching is contradicted by their liturgies" (Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, 103).

Because the Eastern Orthodox Church does not have an infallible magisterium,{1} it has been unable to definitively solve issues such as the following{2}: the procession of the Holy Ghost; the nature of the primacy of the Pope; the validity of Catholic Baptism; the canon of Sacred Scripture; whether there is a real distinction in God between His essence and energy; the form of the Eucharist; the immediacy of retribution; Purgatory; and other issues. Fr. Jugie adds, "The Græco-Russian Church, throughout the long centuries of schism, not only has not been able to resolve in a definitive way any of the questions controverted with the Catholic Church, but also it has presented on each of these questions the spectacle of continual variations in its official declarations as well as in the teaching of its theologians. Among the opinions upheld by these latter on each point, the Catholic thesis always figures with a considerable, and sometimes preponderant, number of representatives. A detailed demonstration of this conclusion would require a large volume."{3} As St. Robert Bellarmine says, "The Thirteenth Mark [of the Church] is the Confession of our Adversaries. Truly, the force of truth is so great, that it even compels our adversaries to give testimony to it now and again, according to that which is read in Deuteronomy [32:31]: 'The Lord our God is not as their gods, and our enemies are judges.'"{4}

{1} Fr. Martin Jugie, A.A. (†1954), Theologia dogmatica Christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica dissidentium IV:525-529.
{2} Op. cit., 538-539.
{3} Fr. Martin Jugie, "Will Union Be Easy for the Orientals?" (Peekskill, NY: Graymoor Press, 1949), 8-9.
{4} On the Marks of the Church, trans. Ryan Grant, 122.

Holy: The Catholic Church abounds in examples of those who have exercised the virtues of faith, hope, charity, prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude to a heroic degree (cf., exceeding "what is ordinary even among those who live virtuously ... in the excellence of [the] act and the intensity of the habit from which it comes" and "numerous in proportion to the opportunities for action" [K. V. Truhlar in NCE XIV:554]. The Orthodox do not have faith, because they do not submit their intellect and will to God revealing and the Church proposing, and they do not have charity, because they are separated from the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6), "and if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:3). The "phenomenon of religious orders is found--on any significant scale--only in the Catholic Church" [Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P., Figuring Out the Church]. The Catholic Church has a "practical monopoly" on "major miracles" such as the well-authenticated, objectively scientifically tested immediate/complete/permanent healing of properly diagnosed organic lesions directly attributable to the posthumous intercession of a person who has lived a life of heroic virtue ("On Non-Catholic Miracles").

Catholic: "The schismatic churches of the East, even when considered as one church, are in no sense Catholic or universal in their diffusion. They are limited almost entirely to Asia Minor, Egypt, Abyssinia, and eastern Europe" (Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, 103). On the other hand, the Catholic Church has "a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues" (Revelation 7:9). Behold the fruits of the missions of the Catholic Church! The Orthodox Church is comparatively lacking in terms of missions (Fr. Martin Jugie, Theologia dogmatica Christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica dissidentium IV:593). As Fr. Nichols says regarding heroic holiness, there should also be here "a stream, not a trickle" (Figuring Out the Church).

Apostolic: "In some cases [the Orthodox] may have a material succession of bishops from Apostolic times, but this avails them nothing, since they lack both unity and Catholicity--two essential marks of the true Church. In no case do they have legitimate succession; there is no transmission of jurisdiction because they have withdrawn from communion with Rome, the center and source of all jurisdiction" [Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, 103-104]. Since the time of Photius and Michael Cerularius, there have been many Catholic occupants of the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Kiev, Serbia, Tarnovo, Ohrid, Moldavia, Armenia, etc., but no "Orthodox" Popes.

Constantinople Not an Apostolic See

Heretical Patriarchs of Constantinople
-three Arians: Eusebius of Nicomedia (339-342), Eudoxius of Antioch (360-370), Demophilus (370-380)
-one Semi-Arian: Macedonius (342-346, 351-360; †364)
-one Nestorian: Nestorius (428-431; †451)
-five Monophysites: Acacius (472-489), Fravitas (489), Euphemius (489-495), Timothy I (511-518), Anthimus I (535-536)
-six Monothelites: Sergius I (610-638), Pyrrhus (638-641, 654), Paul II (641-653), Peter (654-666), John VI (712-714)
-seven iconoclasts: Anastasius (730-754), Constantine II (754-766), Nicetas I (766-780), Paul IV (780-784), Theodotus I Cassiteras (815-821), Antony I Cassimatis (821-836), John VII Grammaticus (836-842)
-one Calvinist: Cyril I Lucaris (1612, 1620-1623, 1623-1633, 1633-1634, 1634-1635, 1637-1638)
-if Catholicism is false, then even more Patriarchs of Constantinople were heretics, because they accepted distinctively Catholic dogmas (e.g., Filioque, papal primacy):
John XI Beccus (1275-1282; †1297); Joseph II (1416-1439); Metrophanes II (1440-1443); Gregory III Mammas, a renowned wonderworker (1443-1451; †1459) [Ecumenical Patriarchate website]; Dionysius II (1546-1555) [Ecumenical Patriarchate website; AASS 8:I:228C-230B (254-256); Simeon Vailhé in DTC 3.2:1424-1425 (page 75 of the PDF)]; Neophytus II (1602-1603, 1607-1612) [Ecumenical Patriarchate website; ]; Raphael II (1603-1607) [AASS 8:I:237C-238A (263-264); Simeon Vailhé in DTC 3.2:1426 (page 75 of the PDF)]; Cyril II Contares (1633, 1635-1636, 1638-1639) [Ecumenical Patriarchate website; AASS 8:I:242B-243D,243F-244F (268-270)], and Athanasius V (1709-1711) [Siméon Vailhé in DTC 3.2:1432 (page 78 of the PDF)
-one with Anabaptist tenets: Cyril V (1748-1751, 1752-1757)
-Emperor John Cantacuzene (r. 1347-1354) professed papal primacy [Fr. Gill]
-Emperor John V Palaiologos (†1391) converted to the Catholic faith
-Emperor John VIII Palaiologos (r. 1425-1448) became Catholic
-Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos (r. 1449-1453) became Catholic
-"the [Catholic] monastery of the Amalfitans on Mount Athos ... was still in existence in 1196, when the superior witnessed, in Latin, a deed of one of the other monasteries" [George Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate 189]

Heretical Patriarchs of Alexandria
-Theophilus I (385-412) was an Origenist until 400.{1}
{1} "Until 400 Theophilus of Alexandria was an acknowledged Origenist. His confident was Isidore, a former monk of Nitria, and his friends, 'the Tall Brothers,' the accredited leaders of the Origenist party." -- Fr. Ferdinand Prat, S.J. "Origen and Origenism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 9 Apr. 2011 <>.
-Monophysites were Dioscorus I (444-451; †454), Timothy III the Cat (460-475, 477-482), Peter III Mongus (477, 482-490), Athanasius II (490-496), John II (496-505), John III (505-516), Timothy IV (517-535), Theodosius I (535-536)
-Cyrus (631-643) was a Monothelite
-if Catholicism is false, even more Patriarchs of Alexandria were heretical: Patriarch Athanasius III of Alexandria (1276-1316) was Catholic for a time; Patriarch Philotheus of Alexandria (1435-1459) sent a Letter to Pope Eugene IV of Rome in which he says that anyone who does not accept the Council of Florence is a heretic [Fr. Gill, The Council of Florence 323; Mansi XXXI-2:1703-1704 (page 300 of the PDF)]
-no anti-union synod of 1443 [Fr. Gill, The Council of Florence 354], nor was there an anti-union synod in 1450 [ibid. 376 n. 3]

Heretical Patriarchs of Antioch
-Paul of Samosata (260-268; †275), Eulalius (331-332), Euphronius (332-333), Paulinus (330), Stephen I (342-344), Leontius the Eunuch (344-358), Eudoxius (358-359), John I (428-442)
-Monophysites were Peter the Fuller (469-471, 476, 458-488), John II Codonatus (476-477), and Severus (512-518; †538)
-Palladius (488-498) and Flavian II (498-512) accepted Chalcedon but also accepted the Henoticon
-Monothelites were Anastasius III (620-628), Macedonius (628-640), and Macarius (656-681; †685)
-if Catholicism is false, even more Patriarchs of Antioch were heretical: Simeon II (1245–1268) and Theodosius IV (1269–1276) [Fr. Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, 1198-1400 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979), n. 18 on 274 and 181]; Patriarch Dorotheus II of Antioch (1436-1454), represented by Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev, accepted the Ecumenical Council of Florence;

Heretical Patriarchs of Jerusalem
-St. Maximus III (333-348) started out Arian
-Juvenal (422-458) was Monophysite until 451
-Origenists were John II (386-417) and Eustochius (552-564)
-Martyrius (478-486) accepted the Henoticon
-if Catholicism is false, then even more Patriarchs of Jerusalem were heretics, since they announced their loyalty to and explicit desire for communion with the Catholic Church: Lazarus (1334-1368), Joachim (1431-1450) represented by Metropolitan Dositheus of Monembasia, Abraham I (1468), James III (1492-1503?), and Mark III (1503) [DTC 8.1:1003-1004 (pages 501-502 of the PDF)]
-in 1583-1584 Patriarch Sophronius IV of Jerusalem (1579–1608) "would willingly have renounced his schism if he had not been prevented by his entourage" [Dr. Ludwig von Pastor, Lives of the Popes XX:498]

Kiev and Moscow, "The Third Rome"
-"Russia's attitude toward Rome, from the introduction of Christianity until the beginning of the thirteenth century, was unchangingly sympathetic, except for some minor misunderstandings which occurred near the end of the twelfth century" [Fr. Koncevicius 179]
-Princess St. Olga of Kiev was Catholic [Fr. Koncevicius 17-22; cf. Nicholas Brianchaninov]
-St. Vladimir the Great was Catholic [Fr. Koncevicius 23-32]
-St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves (†1074) and the Holy Fathers of the Kiev Caves were Catholic until at least the 13th century [Bollandists; Fr. Mauricio Gordillo, S.J.; cf. Fr. Joseph Koncevicius]
-the writing against unleavened bread ascribed to Metropolitan Nicephorus I of Kiev (1104-1121) is probably a forgery [Fr. Koncevicius 68], or at worst a temporary misunderstanding [ibid., 48-50]
-the Abbess St. Parasceva of Polotsk died in Rome in 1239, and was canonized by Bl. Pope Gregory X in 1273 [Bollandists: 10:XI:262-264 (298-300 of the PDF), 277 (313); 10:XII:420 (454); Fr. Koncevicius 53 citing Msgr. Pelesz I:420]
-Catholic Metropolitans of Kiev prior to the Council of Florence include Nicetas (1122-1126), Michael II (1130-1145), Constantine I (1156-1159), Theodore (1161-1163), Nicephorus II (1182-1198) Clement Smoliatich (1147-1154), John IV (1164-1166), and Peter Akerovych (also his patron St. Michael of Chernigov) (1241-1246) [Fr. Koncevicius; Fr. John Stilting, S.J.; Fr. Gordillo]
-the Pochayiv Monastery was Catholic from 1720-1831; did it start out Catholic? The answer depends on the date of its foundation, which I have not yet found out with certainty. The Polish Wikipedia article:
1198? [W. Osadczy: Święta Ruś. Rozwój i oddziaływanie idei prawosławia w Galicji. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2007, s. 391-393]
1219? [Rożko W.: Peczerni monastyri Wołyni i Polissia. Łuck: Wołynśka Knyha, 2008, s. 86-87]
1240? [Urszula Anna Pawluczuk: Życie monastyczne w II Rzeczypospolitej. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, 2007, s. 42-43].
The Lavra's official website says "In late autumn 1197 [Methodius] constructed a little chapel on one of the Pochayiv hills. In 1219 there was laid a foundation for a monastery with a temple of the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord Jesus Christ" and on another page says, "The monastery was founded in 1240." I will cross-check Ohienko, Фортеця православ'я_я на Волині. Свята Почаївська лавра, 12-23. The Ukrainian Wikipedia biography of Methodius of Pochayiv (Мефодій Почаївський) says he lived from 1091-1228 (cf. Ohienko 17).
-even Alexander Nevsky was Catholic at least for a while starting in 1248; his father Yaroslav II of Vladimir died Catholic in 1246, and Alexander's brother Prince Andrey II Yaroslavich (†1264) was likewise Catholic [James J. Zatko, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History / Volume 8 / Issue 01 / April 1957, 46-51]
-their contemporary, Daniel I Romanovych of Galicia (†1264) was Catholic from 1248-1256 [Fr. Mann talks about Daniel in vol. 14; cf. Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P., Rome and the Eastern Churches 340 and Fr. Gill Byzantium and the Papacy, 1198-1400 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979), 74 n. 99 (272), 82 nn. 12-14 (274), 84]
-Peter of Kiev (1308-1326) who resided in Moscow starting in 1325, may have been Catholic for a time [Fr. Stilting; Andrew Shipman]
-Theognostus of Kiev (1328-1353) was an anti-Palamite, and so were a considerable number of Orthodox bishops and theologians through the centuries [Fr. Martin Jugie, A.A.]
-it was solely because of Grand Duke Basil II (1425–1462) that Holy Union of Florence did not take effect in Moscow, "not because of religious scruples, or because he disagreed with the dogmas of the Church, but for political reason. His chief aim was to remain absolute dictator in civil and ecclesiastical affairs" [Fr. Koncevicius 123; cf. Shipman; Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J.; Fr. Kon]
-except for anti-Catholic Jonah of Kiev (1503–1507), the Metropolitans of Kiev (Vilnius line) were Catholic from 1439-1521 (Isidore to Joseph Soltan), and Gregory Tsamblak (1414-1420), the rival claimant to the Orthodox Metropolitan Photius of Kiev (1408-1431), was Catholic [Fr. Stilting; DTC]
-these metropolitans were Gregory II the Bulgarian (1458-1472), Michael Drucki (1474-1480), Symeon (1481-1488), Jonah Glezna (1492-1494), Macarius (1495-1497), Joseph II Bolgarynovich (1498–1501), and Joseph III Soltan (1508-1521)
-Metropolitans of Kiev (Vilnius line) have been Catholic from 1595 to 1805 following the Holy Union of Brest; rival Orthodox line starting with Job Boretsky in 1620
The Pochayiv Monastery

Alleged Counter-Examples proposed by Orthodox: Old Rome
-None of these entail the falsification of the dogma of papal infalliblity, for none of them involves the Pope binding the whole Church to error in a definitive/final/irrevocable manner [cf. Fr. Berry, The Church of Christ, 270-272]
-"Our true glory is this: that for one bad Pope we can point to a hundred good ones; and that the worst of the Popes was never permitted to err in defining and promulgating anything that pertains to Catholic faith and morals" [Cardinal Capelecatro, The Life of Saint Philip Neri, Apostle of Rome 257]
-St. Marcellinus (296-304): the fall of St. Marcellinus is uncertain [Johann Peter Kirsch]
-St. Liberius (352-356): fall of Pope St. Liberius is uncertain [Fr. John Chapman, O.S.B.; Fr. René François Rohrbacher]
-Vigilius (537-555):
-Honorius I (625-638): [Fr. Chapman; Fr. Paul Bottala, S.J.; Dr. Warren Carroll II:252-254]
-John XXII (1316-1334): [; Dr. Carroll III:371-373]
-Sixtus V (1585-1590):

The Serbian Church
-Catholic archbishops, including St. Sava I [Bollandists; Fr. Jugie IV:373; Donald Attwater, Saints of the East (P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1963), 143-144; George Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate 189-190]
-Stefan Nemanya (Simeon the Myrrh-Gusher of Mt. Athos; †1199) was Catholic [Bollandists; Fr. Jugie IV:373; Fr. Horace Kinder Mann XII:33-34; Fr. Joseph Lins in CE XIII:732)
-Stephen the First-Crowned (1196-1228) and Vukan (1202-1204) were Catholics
-The Serbian Church went into schism starting during the reign of Stefan Uroš I (1243-1276) [Fr. Joseph Lins in CE XIII:732-732], but Stefan Uroš II Milutin of Serbia (1282–1321), considered a saint by the Orthodox, professed papal primacy in his Profession of Faith for Pope John XXII (1316-1334),{6} during the reign of Nicodemus I (1316-1324).
{6} Fr. Martin Jugie, A.A. Theologia dogmatica Christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica dissidentium IV:373.
-Stefan Uroš III Nemanjić a.k.a. Stefan Dečanski, considered a saint by the Orthodox, briefly came into union with the Catholic Church in 1323 [Fr. Joseph Lins in CE XIII:733]
-Stefan Uroš IV Dušan (1331-1355), considered a saint by the Orthodox, "acknowledged the Catholic faith, asked for legates and for nomination as Captain General against the Turks" [Fr. Joseph Gill Byzantium and the Papacy, 1198-1400 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979), 238 n. 27 cf. 208 n. 28; cf. Fr. Jugie IV:373]
St. Sava and his holy father Symeon

The Bulgarian Church
-Basil I of Tarnovo (1186-1232) was Catholic since 1204, and Joachim I of Tarnovo (1232-1246), considered a saint by the Orthodox, was Catholic until 1235 [M. Lacko in NCE II:680; cf. Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P., Rome and the Eastern Churches 331]
-Catholic archbishops of Ohrid include Athanasius I (1596-1598), Porphyrius Palaeologos (1624-1627), Abraham Mesaps (1629-1637), Meletius I (1637-1643), and Athanasius II (1653-1660) [Leo Allatius, De consensu utriusque Ecclesiæ p. 1092, cited by Siméon Vailhé in DTC 2.1:1196 (page 595 of the PDF); cf. Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P., Rome and the Eastern Churches 334]
-Tsar Kaloyan of Bulgaria (1197-1207) professed papal primacy to Innocent III (Theiner, Vetera monomenta Slavorium meridionalium, I, 15-16]

The Georgian Church
-"in 1065 St. George the Hagiorite, Abbot of the Iberian monastery on Mt. Athos, asserted in the presence of Emperor Constantine X the ancient belief in the inerrancy of the Roman Church" [Cyril Toumanoff in NCE VI:155]
-the Georgian monks of Mt. Athos were in communion with Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) [Carroll III:169]; Pope Innocent III of Rome took them under his protection (Letter XIII:40 in PL 216:229BC and Letter XVI:168 in PL 216:956D-958A) [Thomas Shahan]
-the schism of the Georgian Church from the Catholic Church was not known until "between 1224 and 1240" [Cyril Toumanoff in NCE VI:155; cf. R. Janin in DTC 6.2:1258-1259], during the time of Queen Rusudan (r. 1224-1245) the Catholicoi-Patriarchs of All Georgia Arsenius III (1222-1225), George IV (1225-1230), and Arsenius IV Bulmaisisdze (1230–1240), who was followed by Nicholas II (1240-1280)
-"one of the titles officially accorded to the king of Georgia by the contemporary Mamluk Court of Egypt was 'Supporter of the Pope'" [Toumanoff, ibid.]
-Queen Ketevan (1560-1624) went to Mass with and confessed to Catholic missionaries [John M. Flannery, The Mission of the Portuguese Augustinians to Persia and Beyond (1602-1747) (Brill, 2013), 221-224]
Queen Ketevan

The Armenian Church
-King Leo II of Armenia (r. 1198-1219) was Catholic [Carroll III:147 citing Fr. Mann XIII:27-29,59]
-"Pope [St.] Gregory VII corresponded with the Armenian Catholicos Gregory II before the Crusades. Leo II's coronation as king of Lesser Armenia by a papal legate (1199) restored unity with Rome until 1375" [J. A. Devenny in NCE 3:733]
-Fr. Gill [Byzantium and the Papacy 241 ]also says that Union continued until 1375 
-St. Nerses IV the Gracious, Catholicos of Armenia (1166-1173), was Catholic
-St. Nerses of Lambron, Archbishop of Tarsus (1176-1198), was Catholic
-King Hethum II (†1307) "sent John of Monte Corvino to Pope Nicholas IV with his testimony of submission (1289)" [N. M. Setian in NCE I:702]
-During the time of Catholicos Constantine II the Woolmaker (1286-1289; 1307-1332), "a synod at Sis in 1307 undertook dogmatic and disciplinary reforms in accord with Roman prescriptions" [ibid.]
-King Oshin (1307-1320) "held a council at Adana in 1316 that received encouragement from Pope John XXII (1316–34)" [ibid.]
-King Leo V (r. 1374-1375) died a Catholic in Paris in 1393 [ibid.]
-Catholicos Constantine V of Cilicia (1430–1439) was Catholic [ibid.]
-Catholicos Gregory IX Mousabegian (1439-1446) was Catholic [ibid.]
-Catholicos Stephen V Salmastetsi (1547-1567) "made a profession of faith in Rome (1548-50)" [ibid.]
-Catholicos Michael I (1567-1576) "sent an envoy to the court of Paul IV, who helped found an Armenian printing press in Rome" [ibid.]
-Pope St. "Pius V gave the Armenians the church of St. Mary of Egypt" [ibid.]
-Pope "Gregory XIII, in his bull Romana Ecclesia, praised the faith of the Armenians" [ibid.]

St. Nerses the Gracious

The Romanian Church
-Romania was Catholic (evangelized initially by Roman Catholic missionaries) before it defected to the Eastern Schism
-"small but unstable unions of the Romanian Orthodox with the Church of Rome" before the 17th century [R. Roberson in NCE XII:337-338]
-Prince Lațcu of Moldavia (r. 1367-1375) was Catholic [Fr. Joseph Lins in CE XIII:228]
-Prince Alexander I of Moldavia (1400-1432) and Prince Mircea I of Wallachia (1386-1418) sent an embassy to the Council of Constance regarding coming into union with the Catholic Church [Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P., Rome and the Eastern Churches 335]
-Metropolitans Damian (1436-1447) and Joachim of Moldavia (1447-1452) were Catholic [ibid. 336]
Mircea the Elder 

The Albanian Church
-"Union with Rome persisted in some mountainous districts until the 17th century; it was supported by national opposition to the Greek and Slav hierarchy, by some archbishops of Ohrid, and especially by the populace in the Chimarra district that repeatedly petitioned during the 16th and 17th centuries to have clergy sent there from Rome" [M. Lacko in NCE I:214]

The Egyptian Church
-the monks of Mt. Sinai were in communion with Pope Honorius III (1216-1227) as of 8/6/1217 and 12/4/1233 [Fr. Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy 52 citing A. L. Tautu, Acta Honorii III et Gregorii IX (Rome, 1950), n. 17 and n. 122]

The Ethiopian Church
-Emperor Zara Yaqob (r. 1434–1468) sent delegates to the Ecumenical Council of Florence, where they accepted the Union [Jean-Baptise Piolet in CE I:76]
-Emperor Susenyos (r. 1606-1632) was Catholic [ibid.]
-Emperor Iyasu I (r. 1682-1706) was Catholic as of 1702 [ibid.]

The Photian Schism
-Photius changed his mind about the legitimacy of Saturday fasts, beardless clergy, etc. based on whether Rome accepted him as Patriarch of Constantinople [PG 102:604-605D; John Bekkos, De pace ecclesiastica. Translated from the Greek text in V. Laurent and J. Darrouzès, eds., Dossier Grec de l’Union de Lyon (1273-1277) (Paris 1976), pp. 435-437]

The Second Council of Lyons (1274)

The Council of Florence
-the untenable rejection of the union by Mark of Ephesus [Fr. Gill, Personalities of the Council of Florence, 61-62]:
Mark [of Ephesus] was impervious to argument. The Latin spokesman had quoted, besides scripture, a most imposing array of Latin Fathers who taught the “and from the Son” and an equally impressive list of Greek Fathers who wrote of the Holy Spirit as proceeding “through the Son” or either from the Father and “flowing,” “bursting forth,” “issuing,” etc., etc. “through” or “from” the Son, or “from Both.” After the end of the public sessions Bessarion, George Scholarius, Isidore, Gregory, and Dorotheus pressed the parallelism. They started from what was an axiom for the Greeks, for Mark as much as for any of the others—all saints are inspired by the same Holy Spirit and so teach the same truth even in different words. Their conclusion was, the “from” of the Latin saints” means the same as the “through” of the Greek. Mark should have been forced to the same conclusion. He accepted the axiom; he could not deny the testimonies from the Greek Fathers, because he was confronted with the codices that contained them; what he did, perforce, was to accuse the Latins of presenting garbled and deliberately falsified quotations that could not be checked because he, Mark, with most of the Greeks knew no Latin. Not a few Latin treatises, however, especially those of that greatest advocate of the Filioque, St. Augustine, had long been translated into Greek, and there were, of course, some of the Greeks, like Scholarius, who knew Latin well and who tried to disabuse him. But he would not be disabused. The Latins were heretics, and that was that.