A new look at the Schism

[Monica4316]

Recently I’ve been reading about the Schism… and I noticed something new, that I’ve never paid much attention to before. It really changes how I see the Schism and the historical events surrounding it… I was wondering what you all think

Before, when I was doubting the Catholic Church, I saw it like this: the Patriarchs of the East wanted to uphold the orthodox faith, and the Pope was trying to gain more power and inventing new doctrines.

But then, I came across some information…

• the Filioque was used by all the Latin Fathers and several of the Eastern Fathers… and it is not heretical in Latin. The Greek has two words for “proceeding”, implying different things. The Latin “procedit” still allows for the Father to be the ultimate source of procession.
• Many of the ECFs talked about original sin…
  forums.canadiancontent.net/christian-discussion/62101-doctrine-original-sin-church-fathers.html
• This means that when they talked about the sinlessness of Mary, her sinlessness includes being free from original sin: staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm
• And here’s something new I found:

In 1054, Roman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome’s claim to be the head and mother of the churches

That Rome is the head and mother of all churches, can be seen in many quotes by the early Church Fathers. But “Ecumenical Patriarch”, seems to come from the “Universal Bishop” title that the Patriarchs of Constantinople tried to keep for themselves since the time of Pope Gregory the Great.

However, Pope Gregory was very much opposed to it… his argument was that “Universal Bishop” means that other Bishops aren’t real Bishops… and it’s a NEW title that divides the Church. **He himself knew he had authority as Bishop of Rome and spoke about how the other Bishops and Sees are subject to him, and he said they are aware of that. ** He treated the Papacy as the historical view, and Constantinople’s argument as an invention. This was around the 7th century.

Later, Pope Adrian said the same thing, and added that all the Fathers have always placed Rome first, and Constantinople would be wise to do the same and the Patriarch shouldn’t keep this title for himself.

Then, Pope Boniface III said the same thing to Patriarch Cyriacus II of Constantinople

But the Patriarchs of Constantinople didn’t want to renounce the title.

This continued into the Schism, when the Papal legates travelled to Constantinople to ask Michael Cerularius to recognize Rome’s primacy and renounce the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch”.

The other Patriarchs in the East sided with Constantinople cause they were appointed by Constantinople at that time, it wasn’t like in the early Church. It wasn’t 1 vs 4, but 1 vs 1.

The Orthodox Patriarch still has this title. But isn’t it an invention? Pope Gregory spoke against there being a “Universal Bishop” , yet he also spoke of other sees being subject to his, because of Peter. The Petrine argument seems to be based on history and tradition.

thoughts? (I can provide sources if anyone wants)

 

[mjs1987]

The church is a hierarchy. The belief is that the pope is supreme over those that are in a subsidiary position to him. This means that they are not allowed to challenge his authority and to take power that is due to the pope. This means that a bishop cannot claim to be a universal bishop and he cannot have his own way on doctrine and authority. Part of the papal authority is the ability to remove and appoint bishops, resolve disputes, and to have supremacy over doctrine. The Eastern Catholics believed that the previous church councils such as Nicaea, Chalcedon, Trullo, and Ephesus all carved out areas of authority for Eastern bishops that were not subjected to higher authority. They believed that the Patriarch of Constantinople was equal in power and authority to the Roman Pope.

A major issue the great schism was that the eastern church patriarchs tended to come under the controls of Byzantine emperors. Caesaropapism was an attempt by emperors to take control of the church. This was a big reason for the tensions between east and west. Authority was critical because the church did not want the secular rulers to have more power than the ecclesiastical. In the western church, bishops actually had secular power because of the fall of Rome and the chaos that ensued during the Germanic invasions. The east, the Byzantine empire was not in the same situation and the Byzantine rulers wanted to increase their power and avoid a defeat to the Germanic tribes and the rising Islamic threat.

Filioque was an issue of authority. The eastern church believed that Rome didnt have the ability to put the filioque in the Nicene Creed while the Roman church believed in the primacy of Peter in these issues. Other issues were that the Eastern Church did not practice priestly celibacy and believed that Popes could not forcibly tear apart the marriages of priests in the eastern church.

The schism was not even based on this though. It was much like the English Reformation in that it came down to terrible diplomacy that led to a break between the two. If only the pope and his legates could have found a way to keep Michael I happy and been more delicate diplomatically the split would not have happen. The church needed to launch a defense of papal supremacy yet at the same time the church could not tolerate its bishops being treated the way they were at Constantinople. In the end though, the theological and ecclesiastic differences were difficult to overcome. From celibacy to unleavened bread to authority to filioque, the two regions believed that their interpretation of church councils was the correct one and that the other should give in to their point of view. This was not likely to happen. The cultural divide between east and west only became greater as Rome fell and Germanic tribes came to dominate the west. It was not until Charlemgane really that western Europe recovered from the fall of Rome. This meant Constantinople felt that it had the upper hand in power during councils and negotiations and were not too pleased to work out issues with a Roman church they viewed as being too Jewish and too Roman.

In the schism, we saw the failure of the

 

[Genesis315]

The Filioque issue was worked satisfactorily at the two reunion Councils (Lyons II and Florence), but then repudiated. Similarly, the Orthodox, in their own pan-Orthodox Councils taught things like the Catholic understanding of original sin and even indulgences. However these things were repudiated during the 19th and early 20th centuries when there was a movement to purge things considered too Latin.

Here’s an article which discusses indulgences in a couple pan-Orthodox Councils.
pravoslavie.ru/english/041125153738.htm

Notice that the practice lasted until the 1950s in some places.

And here is a pan-Orthodox Council from the 1600s which appears to base itself heavily on the Council of Trent:
catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

Things like the Catholic understanding of original sin, transubstantiation, and purgatory (but without using the word) are taught here.

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

 

[Nine_Two]

While it is true that the title Ecumenical Patriarch was always opposed by Rome, it was never a “binding” title, that is it was granted by the Church of Constantinople and had no real meaning outside of that See, much as Rome and Alexandria’s title of “Pope”.

The Patriarch of Constantinople always recognized Rome as being First Among Equals, and of holding a Primacy, however they never recognized a supremacy, nor did any other Patriarchate. The mission to Constantinople led by Humbert fell apart specifically because Rome tried to force the filioque on Constantinople, which as you recognize, and which the recent popes have recognized, is heretical in Greek (which would make Cardinal Humbert a heretic, and would of course make Constantinople’s reaction that much more understandable, and possibly even correct, although even I an Orthodox believer doubt it was the best course of action at the time).

Finally the Patriarch of Constantinople has never had the authority to appoint any other Patriarchs. During the Ottoman period he did have temporal power over them in his role as ethnarch, but not even then could he appoint them.

 

[Monica4316]

While it is true that the title Ecumenical Patriarch was always opposed by Rome, it was never a “binding” title, that is it was granted by the Church of Constantinople and had no real meaning outside of that See, much as Rome and Alexandria’s title of “Pope”.

would you say that the title came from the previous title the Patriarch of Constantinople held, - Universal Bishop? How are the two related?

The Patriarch of Constantinople always recognized Rome as being First Among Equals, and of holding a Primacy, however they never recognized a supremacy, nor did any other Patriarchate.

I think this is debateable. For example, while Pope Gregory was against any Bishop putting himself first, - he also said that the other Bishops and Sees are subject to the Apostolic See at Rome. He also said that Councils need to be ratified by the Bishop of Rome. That seems like supremacy to me…and he linked this to Peter. Many other early Popes and ECFs mention this too. I’m not saying that’s how it is, but that the point you made is debateable, and it’s not so simple

The mission to Constantinople led by Humbert fell apart specifically because Rome tried to force the filioque on Constantinople, which as you recognize, and which the recent popes have recognized, is heretical in Greek (which would make Cardinal Humbert a heretic, and would of course make Constantinople’s reaction that much more understandable, and possibly even correct, although even I an Orthodox believer doubt it was the best course of action at the time).

Perhaps the filioque was part of it, and most likely trying to force it on the East wasn’t the best course of action. But it’s also that Constantinople didn’t want to recognize the authority of Rome. Does Rome have this authority? …that’s what I’m trying to figure out from history but I am finding a lot of support for it…

Finally the Patriarch of Constantinople has never had the authority to appoint any other Patriarchs. During the Ottoman period he did have temporal power over them in his role as ethnarch, but not even then could he appoint them.

I found this:

“It was not really a 4 to 1 split. It was rather a 1 to 1 split – a split between Constantinople and Rome alone. The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem at this time were not the native bishops of these places, but rather Byzantine Greeks who were appointed by the Emperor of Constantinople. So, it was not like they had the freedom or incentive to remain in communion with Rome on their own. Rather, they followed the lead of the Patriarch of Constantinople and did whatever he said to do. They were not autocephalous patriarchs as they were in earlier centuries. In 1054, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were Muslims cities; and the Christian communities there were a) very tiny and b) composed almost entirely of Byzantine Greeks who were vassals of Constantinople.”

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.htm

(Sorry I should have said Emperor of Constantinople, not Patriarch)

what would you say about that information?

God bless

 

[Nine_Two]

would you say that the title came from the previous title the Patriarch of Constantinople held, - Universal Bishop? How are the two related?

The two titles are one and the same, however they did not have any acceptance outside of the Metropolitan See.

I think this is debateable. For example, while Pope Gregory was against any Bishop putting himself first, - he also said that the other Bishops and Sees are subject to the Apostolic See at Rome. He also said that Councils need to be ratified by the Bishop of Rome. That seems like supremacy to me…and he linked this to Peter. Many other early Popes and ECFs mention this too. I’m not saying that’s how it is, but that the point you made is debateable, and it’s not so simple

The Pope was first, and while a council needed to be ratified by Rome to be binding on Rome, the same was true for any council and any Church. many councils which were “binding” on Rome were never ratified by the other sees, as a result they weren’t considered ecumenical. Carthage and Hippo are examples of these.

Perhaps the filioque was part of it, and most likely trying to force it on the East wasn’t the best course of action. But it’s also that Constantinople didn’t want to recognize the authority of Rome. Does Rome have this authority? …that’s what I’m trying to figure out from history but I am finding a lot of support for it…

Constantinople never recognized Rome as having supremacy. It was always highly respected and was, until this time, seen as a bastion of orthodoxy, and therefore Rome’s words carried weight, however Rome never had the right to impose its will on the other Metropolitan Sees.

I found this:

“It was not really a 4 to 1 split. It was rather a 1 to 1 split – a split between Constantinople and Rome alone. The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem at this time were not the native bishops of these places, but rather Byzantine Greeks who were appointed by the Emperor of Constantinople. So, it was not like they had the freedom or incentive to remain in communion with Rome on their own. Rather, they followed the lead of the Patriarch of Constantinople and did whatever he said to do. They were not autocephalous patriarchs as they were in earlier centuries. In 1054, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were Muslims cities; and the Christian communities there were a) very tiny and b) composed almost entirely of Byzantine Greeks who were vassals of Constantinople.”

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.htm

(Sorry I should have said Emperor of Constantinople, not Patriarch)

what would you say about that information?

God bless

Sorry I misread what you wrote the first time, I went back and read it and you said Constantinople, not Patriarch of, however there are still issues with it. First it seems to be suggesting that because they were appointed by the Emperors (which I’m not sure if that was the case by this time) that any opinion they had was invalid, the fact is for several hundred years Rome was appointed by the Emperor. Also the Emperor had no control in any of those Sees by that time as the cities had all been conquered by Muslim armies, even if the Emperor could appoint he couldn’t maintain control after that. Additionally even when the Emperor did appoint it was more of a vetting, the Holy Synod selected the Bishop the Emperor just approved them. The same system existed in Western Europe until very recently, with kings holding varying amounts of control over the appointment of Bishops.
Finally I will say it is correct it was 1 vs. 1, not for the stated reasons but because what we call the “Great Schism” was simply a visible portion of a much greater series of events and marked a break between the heads of the Roman Church and the Church of Constantinople, not only did the faithful continue to concelebrate for some time, but the other three Churches still held communion with the heads of both Churches for some years after.

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks for the reply!

well I’m talking about what Pope Gregory said in his letter when he was warning Constantinople about using the title “Universal Bishop”… it does suggest that the Bishop of Rome has supremacy (though he is not the “Universal” or “only” Bishop… other Bishops are not his representatives, but representatives of Christ also)

Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, seeking occasion from another cause, held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he despatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness. Moreover he forbade the deacon who attended us the most pious Lords for the business of the Church to celebrate the solemnities of mass with our aforesaid fellow-priest.

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the LORD’S voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep. To him it is said, Behold Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not. And thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop…

Here is more of what Pope Gregory said:

The reason alleged for this preeminence was that the Roman Bishop was the successor and vicar of St. Peter, CHIEF of the Apostles [ii:46] to whom had been committed the “cura et principatus” of the whole Church, and on the stability of whom, as on a ROCK, the Church had been firmly established [Epp v:37; vii:37].

“Wherefore, although there were many Apostles, yet in respect of the principate the See of the PRINCE of the Apostles ALONE has grown strong in authority” [vii:37].

As the successor, then, of the CHIEF of the Apostles [Peter], the Pope claimed a DIVINE RIGHT OF PRIMACY [iii:30 – “Apostolica sedes Deo auctore cunctis praelata constat ecclesiis”].

The decrees of councils would have NO FORCE “WITHOUT the authority and consent of the Apostolic See” [ix:156; cf. v:39,41,44].

Appeals might be made to the Pope against the decisions even of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and such decisions might be reversed by sentence of the Papal court [see pg 203ff in this volume].

All bishops, moreover, even the patriarchs, were subject to correction and punishment by the Pope, if guilty of heresy or uncanonical proceedings. “If any of the four patriarchs had done such a thing,” he wrote again to a bishop who had disobeyed his orders [ii:50], “such contumacy could not have been passed over without the gravest scandal.”

"As regards the Church of Constantinople," he said once more [ix:26], "WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE? Why, both our Most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople, continually acknowledge it."

 

[TEX]

Recently I’ve been reading about the Schism… and I noticed something new, that I’ve never paid much attention to before. It really changes how I see the Schism and the historical events surrounding it… I was wondering what you all think

Before, when I was doubting the Catholic Church, I saw it like this: the Patriarchs of the East wanted to uphold the orthodox faith, and the Pope was trying to gain more power and inventing new doctrines.

But then, I came across some information…

• the Filioque was used by all the Latin Fathers and several of the Eastern Fathers… and it is not heretical in Latin. The Greek has two words for “proceeding”, implying different things. The Latin “procedit” still allows for the Father to be the ultimate source of procession.
• Many of the ECFs talked about original sin…
  forums.canadiancontent.net/christian-discussion/62101-doctrine-original-sin-church-fathers.html
• This means that when they talked about the sinlessness of Mary, her sinlessness includes being free from original sin: staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm
• And here’s something new I found:

That Rome is the head and mother of all churches, can be seen in many quotes by the early Church Fathers. But “Ecumenical Patriarch”, seems to come from the “Universal Bishop” title that the Patriarchs of Constantinople tried to keep for themselves since the time of Pope Gregory the Great.

However, Pope Gregory was very much opposed to it… his argument was that “Universal Bishop” means that other Bishops aren’t real Bishops… and it’s a NEW title that divides the Church. **He himself knew he had authority as Bishop of Rome and spoke about how the other Bishops and Sees are subject to him, and he said they are aware of that. ** He treated the Papacy as the historical view, and Constantinople’s argument as an invention. This was around the 7th century.

Later, Pope Adrian said the same thing, and added that all the Fathers have always placed Rome first, and Constantinople would be wise to do the same and the Patriarch shouldn’t keep this title for himself.

Then, Pope Boniface III said the same thing to Patriarch Cyriacus II of Constantinople

But the Patriarchs of Constantinople didn’t want to renounce the title.

This continued into the Schism, when the Papal legates travelled to Constantinople to ask Michael Cerularius to recognize Rome’s primacy and renounce the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch”.

The other Patriarchs in the East sided with Constantinople cause they were appointed by Constantinople at that time, it wasn’t like in the early Church. It wasn’t 1 vs 4, but 1 vs 1.

The Orthodox Patriarch still has this title. But isn’t it an invention? Pope Gregory spoke against there being a “Universal Bishop” , yet he also spoke of other sees being subject to his, because of Peter. The Petrine argument seems to be based on history and tradition.

thoughts? (I can provide sources if anyone wants)

The schism is a disaster with fault on both sides. We would do better to find a quick solution rather than pointing fingures. The bottom line is the Bishop of Rome is the first among equals and will be the ecumenical pontif after reunification, but does that mean the Pope can appoint or dismiss Eastern bishops–it shouldn’t. Does it mean that the Pope can add words to the creed or reverse the order of the sacrements unilaterally? It shouldn’t. Pope Saint Gregory did speak a certain primacy for the Bishop of Rome…very similar to what the Orthodox still claim for the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, but are you suggesting that Pope Gregory would agree with the power that Pius IX had for example…I think Pope Gregory would scratch his head at some modern Catholic practices and "t"raditions.

Here is a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:

“We would have to say, then, that the patristic age ended with the changed intellectual climate marked by the Migrations and by the hostile spread of Islam; as an outward sign of the latter, we can point to the pope’s turning to the Carolingian Empire, by which the old ecumenism was finally destroyed and—together with the creation of the church-state—the new self-understanding of the West, the fundamental constellation of the Middle Ages, was created.”

That is from his book Principles of Catholic Theology. Bottom line: both the East and West made errors that produced the schism, but history, as I see it–and I am a westerner, shows that far more mistakes were made on the western side of things–but as I wrote–let’s focus on solutions…not the blame game!

 

[Erich]

Recently I’ve been reading about the Schism… and I noticed something new, that I’ve never paid much attention to before.

I just came across this link, which also is something new that I’ve never paid much attention to before.

Of course, as you’ll see, there’s a good reason for that!