Author Topic: Great Schism  (Read 1809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Great Schism
« on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 16:41:38 »
To quote Timothy Ware (aka Kallitos Ware):

One summer afternoon in the year 1054, as a service was about to begin in the Church of the Holy Wisdom' (Hagia Sophia) at Constantinople, Cardinal Humbert and two other legates of the Pope entered the building and made their way up to the sanctuary. They had not come to pray. They placed a Bull of Excommunication upon the altar and marched out once more. As he passed through the western door, the Cardinal shook the dust from his feet with the words: 'Let God look and judge.' A deacon ran out after him in great distress and begged him to take back the Bull. Humbert refused; and it was dropped in the street. (from The Orthodox Church

Thus, the Great Schism.   In reality, it took more time and lots of communication lacks and even some fighting to make it stick.

LightHammer asked on another thread, how officially did the east excommunicated the west.   Firstly, the instigator of the action was Rome with Cardinal Humbert who was carrying directive from Rome.  Constantinople Patriarch Michael Cerularius was excommunicated by Rome.  Cerularius in response excommunicated Humbert and Company.

 Is that the same thing as excommunicating the RCC? Not really, but the die was cast.

In 1484, a Synod of Constantinople which included the patriarchs of all 4 Orthodox Churches repudiated the Council of Florence, an effort to reunify the church.

In 1965, nearly five hundred years later, the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of Constantinople lift the excommunications of the 1054 schism.

Today, we cannot accept RCC communion because, as my priest explained, would confirm a unity that doesn't exist.  Interestingly, in 1484, the Orthodox did accept RCC baptism and those (like me) accepted in the O church need only go through Chrismation (Eastern confirmation) to be recieved into the church.

As for the vacancy of the Bishop of Rome,  not sure how officially declared that one is.  But it seems obvious that if we don't accept RCC communion the RCC would have no authority over any O Christian (which is the underlying dispute of the schism of 1054- which both sides recognized).

Also, Rome established its own priest heirarchy in the East that we did not recognize, so, since we didn't recognize their authority in the east, why would we in the west?

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #1 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 16:57:11 »
To quote Timothy Ware (aka Kallitos Ware):

One summer afternoon in the year 1054, as a service was about to begin in the Church of the Holy Wisdom' (Hagia Sophia) at Constantinople, Cardinal Humbert and two other legates of the Pope entered the building and made their way up to the sanctuary. They had not come to pray. They placed a Bull of Excommunication upon the altar and marched out once more. As he passed through the western door, the Cardinal shook the dust from his feet with the words: 'Let God look and judge.' A deacon ran out after him in great distress and begged him to take back the Bull. Humbert refused; and it was dropped in the street. (from The Orthodox Church

Thus, the Great Schism.   In reality, it took more time and lots of communication lacks and even some fighting to make it stick.

LightHammer asked on another thread, how officially did the east excommunicated the west.   Firstly, the instigator of the action was Rome with Cardinal Humbert who was carrying directive from Rome.  Constantinople Patriarch Michael Cerularius was excommunicated by Rome.  Cerularius in response excommunicated Humbert and Company.

 Is that the same thing as excommunicating the RCC? Not really, but the die was cast.

In 1484, a Synod of Constantinople which included the patriarchs of all 4 Orthodox Churches repudiated the Council of Florence, an effort to reunify the church.

In 1965, nearly five hundred years later, the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of Constantinople lift the excommunications of the 1054 schism.

Today, we cannot accept RCC communion because, as my priest explained, would confirm a unity that doesn't exist.  Interestingly, in 1484, the Orthodox did accept RCC baptism and those (like me) accepted in the O church need only go through Chrismation (Eastern confirmation) to be recieved into the church.

As for the vacancy of the Bishop of Rome,  not sure how officially declared that one is.  But it seems obvious that if we don't accept RCC communion the RCC would have no authority over any O Christian (which is the underlying dispute of the schism of 1054- which both sides recognized).

Also, Rome established its own priest heirarchy in the East that we did not recognize, so, since we didn't recognize their authority in the east, why would we in the west?


Thanks trifecta but thats not exactly what I asked.

I understand our common history with regard to the schism. You of course know that I would argue that it was Constantinople's taking advantage of the imperial perrogatives of the Emperor that led to the schism. The arguments are both ancient and redundant between us.lol

What I wanted to clarify (a simple reference to a universal Orthodox council or statement by the Patriarch of Constantinople speaking on behalf of the entire Orthodox world) was whether or not the "official" view of the Orthodox Church was that Rome was in heresy.

I'm already aware that some Orthodox (clergy and laity) believe that Rome is in heresy. What I'm looking for is verification that such is the official Orthodox view. I understand that some Orthodox believe in toll houses but there has never been a universal declaration of dogma that make such an official Orthodox view.


Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #2 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 17:22:01 »
Well, I mentioned the 1484 Synod of Constantinople. 

But if you want to get more specific:

Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarch 1848:

4. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. . . .

5, xv. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy,

As I said in the other thread, today we prefer to focus on our similarities,
as we often do on these board. ::smile::

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #3 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 17:59:56 »
Well, I mentioned the 1484 Synod of Constantinople. 

But if you want to get more specific:

Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarch 1848:

4. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. . . .

5, xv. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy,

As I said in the other thread, today we prefer to focus on our similarities,
as we often do on these board. ::smile::

The Synod of 1484 condemned the Council of Florence and the proposals for reunion put out by the Pope. I didn't think that ecumenically defined Rome as in heresy? Could you link me to the minutes and decrees?

The Eastern Patrirch of what exactly? Is this Antioch? Serbia? Macedonia? I ask because from my understanding of orthodox ecclesiology a single patriarch does not constitute an official view of the Orthodox Church. I may be wrong but I thought there had to be universal consensus for it to be an Orthodox posistion as opposed of being the position of some Orthodox Christians.

Sorrying if I seem petty but this is important to my ecumenical studies.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #4 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 18:06:34 »
Well, I mentioned the 1484 Synod of Constantinople. 

But if you want to get more specific:

Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarch 1848:

4. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. . . .

5, xv. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy,

As I said in the other thread, today we prefer to focus on our similarities,
as we often do on these board. ::smile::

Also it seems that Synod of Constantinople 1484 does not constitute a universal representation of the Orthodox Church.

"However the decrees of the 1484 synod were not universally implemented and cases of inter-communion between Catholics and Orthodox went on in the regions subjected to the Venetian Republic until the 18th century."

John Meyendorff  The Orthodox Church : Its past and its role in the world today

This is one theologian so I don't expect him to be conclusive alone but thats why I'm coming to you. I know alot of Orthodox, most I've encountered for reasons other than theology, believe that Rome is in heresy but that no more constitutes the Orthodox view than the indvidual who believes in toll houses does.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Great Schism
« Reply #4 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 18:06:34 »



Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #5 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 18:12:34 »
Hey I found stuff on the Synod (1484) here.

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic_2.html

Lets split up. If you could find me some other stuff that would be cool too.

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #6 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 18:13:11 »

The Synod of 1484 condemned the Council of Florence and the proposals for reunion put out by the Pope. I didn't think that ecumenically defined Rome as in heresy? Could you link me to the minutes and decrees?
This is end of the last attempt to unify the Churches.   I don't know if they used the word heresy, but this was written to separate themselves from the RCC.  If there is ONE church, then if they are saying they are not in that one church, what is the implication. 

Quote

The Eastern Patrirch of what exactly? Is this Antioch? Serbia? Macedonia? I ask because from my understanding of orthodox ecclesiology a single patriarch does not constitute an official view of the Orthodox Church. I may be wrong but I thought there had to be universal consensus for it to be an Orthodox posistion as opposed of being the position of some Orthodox Christians.

Sorrying if I seem petty but this is important to my ecumenical studies.

Sorry, LH, I mistyped.  I should have said Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs.
Here are the signers (there are members of the Holy Synods  who signed too).

May, 1848, Indiction 6.

+ ANTHIMOS, by the Mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, new Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.

+ HIEROTHEUS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Alexandria and of all Egypt, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.

+ METHODIOS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of the great City of God, Antioch, and of all Anatolia, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.

+ CYRIL, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.

Note that is from all four patriarchs.



Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #7 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 18:31:51 »
LH,

Meyendorf is right (as always).  This example shows that history is not about just about written documents, but you asked for them.   

Folks in the east (especially the Far East) put less value on written documents than traditions.  Meyendorf gives  an example of this.  Traditions take time to change, especially at a time when mass communication was non-existent.

Actually, we have never said officially that Protestants are in heresy.  Actions speak louder than words.
We don't let them in communion.  Now, lots of writers have explained why this is so.

As for toll houses, that is not an official doctrine of the church.  We are allowed to disagree on certain issues,
but we subscribe to the historic faith of the church, as described (but not limited to)  in the Bible and ecumenical councils of the church.



« Last Edit: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 18:35:48 by trifecta »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #8 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 18:36:26 »
Quote
This is end of the last attempt to unify the Churches.   I don't know if they used the word heresy, but this was written to separate themselves from the RCC.  If there is ONE church, then if they are saying they are not in that one church, what is the implication. 


A break in communion does not equate to heresy. Constantinople in the 1484 Synod suggests that the customs of the Latins alove are grounds for schism. Furthermore there has been schisms between Moscow and Constantinople before that did not necessitate heresy. The Church never implies heresy it is always very clear. What seems to be clear is that a few Orthodox clergy and laymen for a bunch of other reasons feel that we are in heresy while the bishops of the Orthodox church have failed to come to universal consensus on this.

Whether or not the Orthodox officially or unofficially claims that we are in heresy isn't a personal concern, I'm resolved upon this Rock, I would just like to see something as clear as when refuted the ancient heresies.

The beef between the Rome and Constantinople seems to be more of a beef between Latins and Greeks as opposed to theology as of now.

Quote
Sorry, LH, I mistyped.  I should have said Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs.
Here are the signers (there are members of the Holy Synods  who signed too).

May, 1848, Indiction 6.

+ ANTHIMOS, by the Mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, new Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.

+ HIEROTHEUS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Alexandria and of all Egypt, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.

+ METHODIOS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of the great City of God, Antioch, and of all Anatolia, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.

+ CYRIL, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.

Note that is from all four patriarchs.

The number of patriarchs is not what makes a council ecumenical in Orthodox ecclesiology is it? I thought the universal consensus of every single bishop did?


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #9 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 18:43:51 »
LH,

Meyendorf is right (as always).  This example shows that history is not about just about written documents, but you asked for them.   

Folks in the east (especially the Far East) put less value on written documents than traditions.  Meyendorf gives  an example of this.  Traditions take time to change, especially at a time when mass communication was non-existent.

Actually, we have never said officially that Protestants are in heresy.  Actions speak louder than words.
We don't let them in communion.  Now, lots of writers have explained why this is so.

As for toll houses, that is not an official doctrine of the church.  We are allowed to disagree on certain issues,
but we subscribe to the historic faith of the church, as described (but not limited to)  in the Bible and ecumenical councils of the church.





I'm all for traditional practices but as we've seen before those change even among the Orthodox. On the one hand the Synod of Constantinople says and does one thing while Orthodox and Catholic intercommunion in Italy or the agreement to reunion by Constantinople a few years earlier in return for support against the Ottomans seems to paint a picture of relativity where an official universal decree of heresy is lacking.

In the Catholic Church a priest can deny communion to pro choice politicians, a laymen who has missed a holy day of obligation or even a cardinal who talks too much during sedevacante. Neither constitutes heresy. 

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #10 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 18:55:31 »
I'm reading Alexander Schmemann. He's saying that there's no real consensus among Rome's status beyond the fact that she is out of communion with the Orthodox.

It must be admitted at the offset that contemporary Orthodox theologians are far from having reached any agreement on this matter, and that those views which they have put forward in recent years on the significance of our divisions often appear to be mutually exclusive. These views range from a complete denial of the existence of any vestigia Ecclesiae outside the boundaries of the Orthodox Church, rejecting even the validity of the Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, to a kind of justification of the divisions in Christendom based on the doctrine of Chalcedon. The diversity of these theories, I would suggest, is due to the fact that Orthodox ecclesiology is as yet almost totally undeveloped. The uncertainty of the Orthodox position on this point is a serious drawback, for those who would attempt a study of the problem before us to-day are thereby deprived of premises clearly defined by a consensus of Orthodox theological opinion. For this reason, I cannot attempt more than a very brief outline of a subject which, to be treated exhaustively, would require a large book.

Alexander Schmemann

"Unity", "Division", "Reunion" in the light of Orthodox Ecclesiology


Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #11 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 19:09:23 »
LH,

Once again, you are insisting on an official document that says the RCC is in heresy.   Let's remember that you guys excommunicated us for not adopting the filioque, which we said clearly is heretical, as shown in the document above.

  While some mistakenly continued communion with Rome, they were not saying that the filioque was a good thing.  Similarly, as you say, whether a priest gives communion to a pro-choice politician is a matter of choice of the priest; it is not a matter of doctrine.  Priests who give communion to these are not pro-choice.  Similarly, the issue of receiving RCC communion at that time is not because some Os agreed with the filioque.

No our  traditions don't change.  We may take our time to evaluate issues that come up, but that is not the same thing.

I think a document signed by all the ecumenical patriarch and the holy synods is evidence enough.  No, not every single bishop must agree.  We have expelled our share of bad clergy, but we do have a consensus.

BTW, Schmemann was great. 

Hope this helps.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #12 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 19:31:30 »
Quote
LH,

Once again, you are insisting on an official document that says the RCC is in heresy.   Let's remember that you guys excommunicated us for not adopting the filioque, which we said clearly is heretical, as shown in the document above.

Cardinal Humbert excommunicating a Patriarch of Constantinople is as valid as the arch-deacon of Baltimore trying to excommunicate the Archbishop of Washinton D.C.lo Come now it was clearly more complicated than a rogue angry cardinal.

Furthermore Rome excommunicated one Patriarchate not the entire East who excommunicated Rome on their to follow Constantinople. So unless you're under the jurisdiction of Constantinople you techincally excommunicated us.

Lastly the filioque was added to the western profession hundreds of years before the schiscm so if its really heresy then the Church must have been united with heresy until an unathorized Cardinal released her with an invalid excommunication bull.

Quote
No our  traditions don't change.  We may take our time to evaluate issues that come up, but that is not the same thing.

Was the Roman emperor always the viceregent of Christ before Constantine? I don't criticize time we also tend to be a bit slow. It takes years for us to even canonize saints.lol I'm still waiting for Servant of God Augustine Tolton to make the cut.

Quote
I think a document signed by all the ecumenical patriarch and the holy synods is evidence enough.  No, not every single bishop must agree.  We have expelled our share of bad clergy, but we do have a consensus.

Forgive my maticulousness (is that a word???). I appreciate your patience. I would've considered the Synod of Constantinople as a closed case then I ran across Meyendorff who states that the synod wasn't ecumenically recieved.

Then Schmemann is saying that even today there is lack of consensus on whether our sacraments are valid or if we're in/out of heresy. Those who view our sacraments as valid can not also believe that we are in heresy as the two are incompatible in Orthodox theology (as I understand it).

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #13 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 20:08:22 »
Okay, my friend, I think this will be my last post on this. 

I'll miss some of your points, but here is goes.

Note Meyendorff's examples are about the validity of the action of those *outside* the Orthodox.
No one in our church is debating the filioque, icons, real presence or for that matter, abortion and
the truth of the resurrection.  The issues that Meyendorff was talking  are communication with
those who don't believe in all these things and are not in our church.

While I am rather liberal on the issue of communication with the heterodox, we are not talking about issues of theology really, but how much we need to compromise in the world.  Therefore, usually these are the purview of local council, not ecumenical concern.  Maybe we should change that, but to do so would
open lots of cans of worms.

As for the Synod of Constantinople, as in the ecumenical councils, it often takes time for
the people to catch up with the decision of the councils.  There was quite a struggle with
icons, for example, after the 7th ecumenical council ended (this was the one has
encouraged worship using icons).  On the other hand, the decision of the Council of Florence
was never accepted the people and was ultimately discarded.  So, no single pattern applies
over history.  (This makes history so interesting, and I believe God works through history).

Nevertheless, all the  O churches today don't allow RCC communion.  The synod of Constantinople
has won out.  Can that change?  I think so, but that doesn't mean that our view of the filioque
will change.   Hope you can see the difference.


Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #14 on: Mon Apr 01, 2013 - 20:09:37 »
Lighthammer:

You cannot map Roman Catholic mores onto the Orthodox.  There is no single unifying bishop or administrative body (such as the Roman magisterium) to make statements that are universally authoritative for all Orthodox.  We are not Roman Catholics.  So, to demand a single document or conciliar proclamation is to beg the question and assume that such is necessary.

That Orthodox are not in communion with Rome is universally accepted among all the Patriarchal Sees.  But whether that excommunication is based on schism or heresy is, in many ways, beside the point.  The filioque is a heresy.  Universal papal jurisdiction is schismatic.  Both result in excommunication.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Great Schism
« Reply #15 on: Tue Apr 02, 2013 - 13:34:44 »
Lighthammer:

You cannot map Roman Catholic mores onto the Orthodox.  There is no single unifying bishop or administrative body (such as the Roman magisterium) to make statements that are universally authoritative for all Orthodox.  We are not Roman Catholics.  So, to demand a single document or conciliar proclamation is to beg the question and assume that such is necessary.

That Orthodox are not in communion with Rome is universally accepted among all the Patriarchal Sees.  But whether that excommunication is based on schism or heresy is, in many ways, beside the point.  The filioque is a heresy.  Universal papal jurisdiction is schismatic.  Both result in excommunication.

Alright I'm picking up what you guys are putting down. I have a few discrepencies with the filioque (obviously) but I won't bother you all with that.


 

     
anything