A Question Regarding the Great Schism

[Augustus24]

At the time of the Great Schism, were there any western groups that did not accept Papal domination?

Also, were there any eastern groups that DID accept Papal domination?

If there were, what happened to these groups?

 

[ConstantineTG]

At the time of the Great Schism, were there any western groups that did not accept Papal domination?

Also, were there any eastern groups that DID accept Papal domination?

If there were, what happened to these groups?

The Maronites did not sever communion with Rome. Nor did the Italo-Albanians, I believe.

 

[Richca]

At the time of the Great Schism, were there any western groups that did not accept Papal domination?

Also, were there any eastern groups that DID accept Papal domination?

If there were, what happened to these groups?

Hi Augustus24,
According to the wikipedia article on the Eastern Catholic Churches, three of these Churches have never broke communion with the Bishop of Rome: (1) Maronite Catholic Church (2) Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (3) Italo-Albanian Catholic Church. These three churches exist today.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi Augustus24,
According to the wikipedia article on the Eastern Catholic Churches, three of these Churches have never broke communion with the Bishop of Rome: (1) Maronite Catholic Church (2) Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (3) Italo-Albanian Catholic Church. These three churches exist today.

This is a bit of a misunderstanding on the part of whoever wrote it on Wikipedia. The Syro-Malabar Catholics. The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church did not exist until the 18th century, long after the Great Schism occurred. They were originally in communion with the East Syrians/Nestorians (there was also a section of the Syriac Indian Nasranis who were in communion with the Oriental Orthodox via Edessa, the community known as the “Malankara Orthodox”, some 3 million).

So it is, in a sense, right to say that they didn’t break communion with Rome at the time of the Great Schism…because they didn’t exist then.

 

[Augustus24]

The Maronites did not sever communion with Rome. Nor did the Italo-Albanians, I believe.

Maronites are in Lebanon right?

Do they have a counterpart Eastern Orthodox Church? Did they experience any pressure from the Orthodox east to sever ties with Rome?

How about in the west, were there any western groups that agreed with the East in the Great Schism?

 

[dzheremi]

The Maronites are a Syriac/Oriental Church, not Byzantine/Eastern, and hence do not have an Eastern counterpart. Their closest counterpart would be the Syriac Orthodox Church, as they are both West Syrians (cf. East Syrians/Nestorians in Iraq and India – the “Chaldeans” and “Syro-Malabar”, who both came out of the Nestorian church).

 

[Richca]

This is a bit of a misunderstanding on the part of whoever wrote it on Wikipedia. The Syro-Malabar Catholics. The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church did not exist until the 18th century, long after the Great Schism occurred. They were originally in communion with the East Syrians/Nestorians (there was also a section of the Syriac Indian Nasranis who were in communion with the Oriental Orthodox via Edessa, the community known as the “Malankara Orthodox”, some 3 million).

So it is, in a sense, right to say that they didn’t break communion with Rome at the time of the Great Schism…because they didn’t exist then.

Well, according to the wikipedia article, the Syro-Malabar catholics trace their origin to St Thomas the apostle.

 

[ltwin]

Well, according to the wikipedia article, the Syro-Malabar catholics trace their origin to St Thomas the apostle.

Yes, but Wikipedia also says the Syro-Malabar Christians didn’t really have any connection to the West until the arrival of the Portuguese. Prior to that time, the Syro-Malabar Christians were in communication with the Church of the East. Portuguese missionaries introduced Catholicism to the area and a segment of the Syro-Malabar Christians accepted the authority of the Pope. Some others didn’t.

 

[dzheremi]

All native Indian Christians trace their origins to St. Thomas, as St. Thomas was the evangelist to the Indians, cf. St. Mark for the Copts, St. Thaddeus of Edessa for the East Syrians (i.e., the Syrians within the Persian Empire), Sts. Cyril and Methodius for the Slavs, etc. This says nothing about the historical details of the establishment of any particular church.

 

[mardukm]

At the time of the Great Schism, were there any western groups that did not accept Papal domination?

Also, were there any eastern groups that DID accept Papal domination?

If there were, what happened to these groups?

No one group I am aware of accepted papal domination at that time, Western, Eastern or Oriental. I think what happened was that there was an admission of the doctrinal primacy of Rome, and so some groups allowed those disciplines that directly reflected on doctrine to be revised according to Rome. But I don’t imagine it was a matter of domination, but of mutual acceptance of conditions. As far as the Orientals were concerned, there were groups within the individual Churches that accepted Rome’s direction on these matters, while others refused the changes to their traditions and thus refused communion. I believe the Coptic Church was as a whole the most resistant to the changes to its traditions.

When considering this issue, I am always reminded of the Bulla for the Copts at Florence, which explicitly asserted that its prescriptions would not have any force until the Coptic Synod accepted it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JerryZ]

At the time of the Great Schism, were there any western groups that did not accept Papal domination?

Also, were there any eastern groups that DID accept Papal domination?

If there were, what happened to these groups?

WOAHHH
“Papal Domination” sounds ominous my friend is the title “Servant of the Servants of the Lord” or servus servorum Dei in Latin, depicts the image of a “dominator” to you?

Seems to me that people that decided they knew better than the Church decided to leave it.

Henry VII created his anglican church, Calvin and Luther did the same making their respective churches and the result is there for all to see, 20 thousand plus denominations and growing.
Surely you can contrast that fact with Jesus words to Simon Bar-Jonah:

Matthew
16:18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

CHURCH not CHURCHES/DENOMINATIONS

When the Apostles came together and were arguing weather circumcision should be mandated for the converted gentiles or not, who settled the question? Was it Not Peter?
If this was not so what would be the meaning of the handing of the Keys to him?
And those keys, did that charge die with Peter? I guess Jesus should have said “I give you the keys for my Church but when you die THAT’s it”
A free for all!
That would not work with the promise that His Church would last to the end of times would it?
And I guess that the issue of the circumcision being required for baptized gentiles has more importance than a priest deciding he has a better understanding of the Church doctrines or a king deciding he is the head of the Church.
Do you see the fallacy of the argument? I pray that you do!

 

[Peter_J]

At the time of the Great Schism, were there any western groups that did not accept Papal domination?

The Hussites, I guess.

 

[Rawb]

My history is fuzzy, but while we Orthodox count the Schism from Rome from about 1054, the Schism from England didn’t begin until about 1066.

England didn’t accept the new Papal claims, and the Duke William II of Normandy claimed he had right to the throne of England. The French were loyal to the Pope, so he blessed the invasion (a rather loaded word, but I can’t think of another). The Normans went in and fought the native English. The Last Orthodox King of England, King Harold II, died defending his country on October 14th, 1066. The now King William then replaced all the Orthodox Bishops with Norman ones who obeyed the Pope and reformed the Liturgy. King Harold’s dying instructions were that his daughter, Princess Gytha, should be sent to Kiev to marry a Russian Duke, which she did. Hundreds fled the new England with their priests, taking up residence in Constantinople.

 

[yawsep1569]

there was also a section of the Syriac Indian Nasranis who were in communion with the Oriental Orthodox via Edessa, the community known as the “Malankara Orthodox”, some 3 million).
.

I’ve heard this revisionist history before and find it pretty amusing.

 

[dzheremi]

The existence of the Malankara Orthodox Church is revisionist history? Notice I’m not saying anything of how they came into existence, only that they do, in fact, exist.

 

[Peter_J]

My history is fuzzy, but while we Orthodox count the Schism from Rome from about 1054, the Schism from England didn’t begin until about 1066.

England didn’t accept the new Papal claims, and the Duke William II of Normandy claimed he had right to the throne of England. The French were loyal to the Pope, so he blessed the invasion (a rather loaded word, but I can’t think of another). The Normans went in and fought the native English. The Last Orthodox King of England, King Harold II, died defending his country on October 14th, 1066. The now King William then replaced all the Orthodox Bishops with Norman ones who obeyed the Pope and reformed the Liturgy. King Harold’s dying instructions were that his daughter, Princess Gytha, should be sent to Kiev to marry a Russian Duke, which she did. Hundreds fled the new England with their priests, taking up residence in Constantinople.

Interesting. Although I’m familiar with some of the history you’re talking about, I wasn’t really aware that it relates to Orthodoxy.

 

[Ghosty]

Interesting. Although I’m familiar with some of the history you’re talking about, I wasn’t really aware that it relates to Orthodoxy.

There is no evidence that the Church in England was anything other than supportive of the Pope. In fact even the link provided states that they were unusually supportive of Rome. The accusations of Schism were a made up pretext for Norman invasion, not based on any actual stance of England. Again, even the Orthodox wiki mentions this fact. Why would Harold have been distraught at the supposed excommunication if he was holding out defiantly against the Pope?

I suspect this is mostly revisionism that was originally used to support the Anglican Church and was later adopted by some “Western Orthodox” in England.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Rawb]

Interesting. Although I’m familiar with some of the history you’re talking about, I wasn’t really aware that it relates to Orthodoxy.

Well, remember that every group has their interpretation of history. Obviously Romans are going to disagree with what is said here. To me it’s very telling that the princess went to marry a Russian, and that when the people fled England they went to Constantinople, and that the Bishops were changed. At the same time I’m sure the Romans could find evidence to support their view.

 

[mardukm]

Interesting. Although I’m familiar with some of the history you’re talking about, I wasn’t really aware that it relates to Orthodoxy.

I’m not sure how it relates to Orthodoxy. Distinct Catholic doctrines such as the filioque and Purgatory were confessed in England several centuries prior to Harold. We can only suppose Harold maintained these common English beliefs.

EDIT: I suppose it can be conceived as “Orthodox” in the sense of being Orthodox in communion with Rome before the Schism - the way Eastern Catholics are today(?).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

EDIT: I suppose it can be conceived as “Orthodox” in the sense of being Orthodox in communion with Rome before the Schism - the way Eastern Catholics are today(?).

Seems a little contrived, considering that before the schism Orthodox were in communion with Rome.