P
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
dronald
Guest
Can I chime in just to ask a question from a non-Apostolic point of view?
What difference does it make in what type of bread is used? Is God bound by certain types of bread as if the Eucharist is any of our doing?
Thanks.
What difference does it make in what type of bread is used? Is God bound by certain types of bread as if the Eucharist is any of our doing?
Thanks.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
It is relevant to note that according to the Gospel of St. John the Eucharist was not instituted at the Passover Meal, because he notes that the Jews did not enter the Pretorium after the arrest of Christ “lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover,” John 18:28. Most modern liturgical historians argue that the Eucharist was instituted at a Jewish Fellowship Meal, the Chabura.4th Century - Unleavened bread is used in the Western Eucharist; leaven bread is used in the East.
I only got this far before realising it is without historical merit. The West didn’t use unleavened bread until the 8th to 9th centuries.
It is also significant to note that the word used to describe the bread used at the institution of the Eucharist in the other Gospels and in I Corinthians by St. Paul is “artos,” which means leavened bread in Greek.
That being written, I am not one who believes that this difference is what modern ecumenists call “Church dividing.”
Fr. John
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
All right. I made a mistake. It was late at night, I was tired and have a problem with an aching back and should have been more careful. I am not so proud that I am unwilling to publicly apologize when I make a mistake. Therefore, I officially apologize for my mistake and beg forgiveness. Now, let us move on to the real issues on this thread.Did you read the article on Medjugorje, Father? I think not.
First, it was not authored by Mark Bonocore. Second, it was written by someone who was, at one time, a supporter of Medjugorje but who has come to recognize the problems surrounding these alleged appearance of Mary. The Catholic Legate linked to the writer’s site in support of the Catholic Church’s position. Your notation of this link on the Catholic Legate’s website suggests two things:
Now, a few words about your apparent attempt to discredit Mr. Bonocore by connecting him to Medjugorje. First, a broad Google search of the website (site:www.catholic-legate.com/ Medjugorje) reveals that there is not a single article referencing these alleged apparitions hosted there. Thus, it does not appear that Mr. Bonocore has made any statements pro or con concerning the events in Herzegovina.
- It appears that without actually following the link and reading the article, you assumed that it would be pro-Medjugorje and jumped at the chance to besmirch Mark Bonocore’s reputation by connecting him to something discredited by the Church. More on this in a moment.
- If true, then your lack of objectivity in a simple matter such as this seriously undermines your credibility as a PhD and professor of history for if you have approached Catholic-Orthodox history with the same presuppositions you have just displayed, why would anyone be able to trust your claims regarding Church history? Haven’t you just proved the very point that Mr. Bonocore raised in his second email posted above?
Second, the Roman Catholic Church interprets the command against bearing false witness as a broad prohibition against misrepresenting the truth in one’s relation with others.
It appears that you have either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented Mr. Bonocore’s position with regard to Medjugorje. There does not appear to be any reason for you to have mentioned the Medjugorie article at all unless you were seeking to discredit Mr. Bonocore personally by demonstrating that he is associated with other discredited events.
I hope this is not the case, and that you have not committed a sin against your brother in Christ in a public forum - in which case a public apology would be in order. No, I have intentionally chosen words and phrases such as “it appears”, and “if true” because I do not wish to speak with certainty regarding your motivations. I’m simply pointing out how things look from where I sit.
I look forward to your clarifications.
Fr. John
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Read page 217-218 and 238 of The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler. This is the first volume published in English of a series of International Handbooks of Catholic Theology under the general editorship of Cardinal Christoph Schnborn, Archbishop of Vienna.
The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler (page 217-218)
The main information you want is in section 3.6.2. The “Fruits of the Earth and Work of Human Hands”, at the bottom of page 217, but there is also relevant information just prior to that
The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler (page 238)
Read section 3.8.3. The Fraction, Agnus Dei and Commingling.
It speaks of the West’s former traditional use of leavened bread for the eucharist.
Primary Readings on the Eucharist
This goes into the reason why the West introduced unleavened bread for the eucharist around the 800’s
Fr. Joseph Jungman – in his book The Mass of the Roman Rite – states that:
"In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on, all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural considerations – all favored this development.
Fr. Jungman goes on to say that,Code:"Still, the new custom did not come into exclusive vogue until the middle of the eleventh century. Particularly in Rome it was not universally accepted till after the general infiltration of various usages from the North" [Joseph Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, pages 33-34]
“. . . the opinion put forward by J. Mabillon, Dissertatio de pane eucharistia, in his answer to the Jesuit J. Sirmond, Disquisitio de azymo, namely, that in the West it was always the practice to use only unleavened bread, is no longer tenable” [Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, page 33]
Now, the fact that the West changed its practice and began using unleavened bread in the 8th and 9th century – instead of the traditional leavened bread – is confirmed by the research of Fr. William O’Shea, who noted that along with various other innovative practices from Northern Europe, the use of unleavened bread began to infiltrate into the Roman liturgy at the end of the first millennium, because as he put it,
“Another change introduced into the Roman Rite in France and Germany at the time * was the use of unleavened bread and of thin white wafers or hosts instead of the loaves of leavened bread used hitherto” [Fr. William O’Shea, The Worship of the Church, page 128].*
Moreover, this change in Western liturgical practice was also noted by Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus in his book, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, because as he said:
“The Eucharistic bread has been unleavened in the Latin rite since the 8th century – that is, it is prepared simply from flour and water, without the addition of leaven or yeast. . . . in the first millennium of the Church’s history, both in East and West, the bread normally used for the Eucharist was ordinary ‘daily bread,’ that is, leavened bread, and the Eastern Church uses it still today; for the most part, they strictly forbid the use of unleavened bread. The Latin Church, by contrast, has not considered this question very important.” [Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, page 162]
In reading some of these quotes, I don’t see how they are inconsistent with is what is in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Since the West acknowledges both leavened and unleavened historically, it doesn’t make any difference if in the 9th century there was call for exclusively unleavened bread. That wouldn’t make it a novelty. No? In some of my research from memory, part of the fear of using unleavened bread was the appearance of appearing too “Jewish,” because that’s what was used for Passover. But, just as with the issue of iconography, which had to lose the stigma in the early Church of being idolatrous, once the Church established distance from the stigma, it became more widely accepted. Even some of the quotes you cite above had to concede that leavened bread was “for the most part” used in whatever historical sample they examined. Bottom line, it seems there is evidence and historians willing to admit that unleavened bread was indeed used in authentic Christian Churches even early on.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
What do you think of this quote fromIt is also significant to note that the word used to describe the bread used at the institution of the Eucharist in the other Gospels and in I Corinthians by St. Paul is “artos,” which means leavened bread in Greek.
The Latin divines found an abundance of passages in Scripture where unleavened bread is designated as artos. Cardinal Humbert remembered immediately the places where the unleavened loaves of proposition are called artoi. If the writers of the letter had been familiar with the Septuagint, they would have recalled the artous azymous of Exodus 29:2. (Msgr. James Loughlin, 1907)
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
RandyCarson, I noticed that you acknowledge you’re speaking to a priest by using the word “Father” to address him so I gently ask that you write to him in a bit more of a respectful manner. Someone once told me that “It’s always best to assume innocence”. Thank you, 1Tim2:15MomDid you read the article on Medjugorje, Father? I think not.
First, it was not authored by Mark Bonocore. Second, it was written by someone who was, at one time, a supporter of Medjugorje but who has come to recognize the problems surrounding these alleged appearance of Mary. The Catholic Legate linked to the writer’s site in support of the Catholic Church’s position. Your notation of this link on the Catholic Legate’s website suggests two things:
Now, a few words about your apparent attempt to discredit Mr. Bonocore by connecting him to Medjugorje. First, a broad Google search of the website (site:www.catholic-legate.com/ Medjugorje) reveals that there is not a single article referencing these alleged apparitions hosted there. Thus, it does not appear that Mr. Bonocore has made any statements pro or con concerning the events in Herzegovina.
- It appears that without actually following the link and reading the article, you assumed that it would be pro-Medjugorje and jumped at the chance to besmirch Mark Bonocore’s reputation by connecting him to something discredited by the Church. More on this in a moment.
- If true, then your lack of objectivity in a simple matter such as this seriously undermines your credibility as a PhD and professor of history for if you have approached Catholic-Orthodox history with the same presuppositions you have just displayed, why would anyone be able to trust your claims regarding Church history? Haven’t you just proved the very point that Mr. Bonocore raised in his second email posted above?
Second, the Roman Catholic Church interprets the command against bearing false witness as a broad prohibition against misrepresenting the truth in one’s relation with others.
It appears that you have either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented Mr. Bonocore’s position with regard to Medjugorje. There does not appear to be any reason for you to have mentioned the Medjugorie article at all unless you were seeking to discredit Mr. Bonocore personally by demonstrating that he is associated with other discredited events.
I hope this is not the case, and that you have not committed a sin against your brother in Christ in a public forum - in which case a public apology would be in order. No, I have intentionally chosen words and phrases such as “it appears”, and “if true” because I do not wish to speak with certainty regarding your motivations. I’m simply pointing out how things look from where I sit.
I look forward to your clarifications.
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
I think that from the Catholic point of view it doesn’t matter. I say that because the Catholic Church has many different Churches & Rites within it and some use Leavened Bread and some use Unleavened Bread.Can I chime in just to ask a question from a non-Apostolic point of view?
What difference does it make in what type of bread is used? Is God bound by certain types of bread as if the Eucharist is any of our doing?
Thanks.
I think that from the Orthodox point of view it matters because Jesus chose to use Leavened when he instituted the Holy Sacrament and there is no reason not to continue to the ancient practice using the same type of bread Our Lord Jesus used. The Leavened Bread symbolizes that Christ has come and fulfilled the Old Testament Covenant…with Christ, we are enlightened and have the fullness of Truth whereas the Old Testament Covenant was devoid of leaven and devoid of the fullness of Truth.
D
dronald
Guest
Thank you.I think that from the Catholic point of view it doesn’t matter. I say that because the Catholic Church has many different Churches & Rites within it and some use Leavened Bread and some use Unleavened Bread.
I think that from the Orthodox point of view it matters because Jesus chose to use Leavened when he instituted the Holy Sacrament and there is no reason not to continue to the ancient practice using the same type of bread Our Lord Jesus used. The Leavened Bread symbolizes that Christ has come and fulfilled the Old Testament Covenant…with Christ, we are enlightened and have the fullness of Truth whereas the Old Testament Covenant was devoid of leaven and devoid of the fullness of Truth.
So is God incapable of using unleavened bread if everyone believes it’s been changed and the proper steps are taken by the Priest?
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I am glad we found something more worthwhile than monophysitism, namely, azymes. Some posters earlier suggested that Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist with leavened bread and that the Last Supper was not the night of the Passover (Nissan 15). However, this is a problematic claim because all the Synoptic accounts agree that it was the Passover meal. Matthew says, “Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?” (Matthew 26:17), which is as unambiguous as it can get.
If it is denied that the Last Supper was the night of the Passover, then we have to admit that three of the Gospels are wrong. This is unacceptable because Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture because it has God for its author. Therefore, we have to find some other solution. The best Christian solution acknowledges that the word “passover” is used very loosely and can also refer to the other sacrifices eaten over the whole course of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Therefore, the example from John cited by Fr. Morris need not be taken to mean that Jesus was crucified prior to Passover in open contradiction of the Synoptics. Regardless of what “most scholars” say (who do not revere the word of God), there is a solution that does not involve saying the Gospels erred.
If it is denied that the Last Supper was the night of the Passover, then we have to admit that three of the Gospels are wrong. This is unacceptable because Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture because it has God for its author. Therefore, we have to find some other solution. The best Christian solution acknowledges that the word “passover” is used very loosely and can also refer to the other sacrifices eaten over the whole course of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Therefore, the example from John cited by Fr. Morris need not be taken to mean that Jesus was crucified prior to Passover in open contradiction of the Synoptics. Regardless of what “most scholars” say (who do not revere the word of God), there is a solution that does not involve saying the Gospels erred.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
I have been asked to respond to Mark Bonocore’s Timeline. I did late last night, but for some reason, I must not have posted it correctly because it is not on the thread. That is just as well because I was very tired and probably did not a good job of responding.
My first point is that although Mr. Bonocore argues that his Timeline is true because his knowledge of history is true. I do not know what qualifies him to make judgments on historical matters, but have given my credentials elsewhere so will not wast space repeating them here. No serious historian, Catholic, or otherwise, argues that the papacy as it has existed since Vatican I in 1870 existed during the early period of Church history. All historians agree that the modern papacy is the product of a long and coplex development.
Every historian that I have ever read on this subjects attributes the rise of the papacy to its role as the ruler of Rome and central Italy. Essentially as a result of the vacuum left by the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Germanic invasions, the Bishop of Rome began to assume the role of ruler of central Italy. This development was made official by Pepin the Short, the King of the Franks who invaded Italy and granted rule over Rome and central Italy to the Pope with the Donation of Pepin in 756. This led to very significant changes in the thinking of the Popes. Because their status as the ruler of Rome and central Italy, the Pope became a medieval absolute monarchs, over time, the Popes were unable to keep the two ways of administration separate, the conciliar system mandated by the Ecumenical Councils and the absolutism of a medieval prince. As a result the Popes began to think of the Bishops as a price thinks of his subjects. During the centuries which followed the Popes extended their authority over all the Bishops in the West.
Meanwhile, in 800 Pope Leo III, crowned Charlemagne the Emperor or Rome thereby establishing a rival empire to the Empire in Constantinople on his own authority. Charlemagne and his court thereupon began to assert their independence of Constantinople. This independence extended to spiritual matters. As a result Charlemagne and his successors sought to establish a specifically Western and Latin theology and to accuse the East of heresy. One of the major aspects of this effort was championing addition of the filioque clause to the Creed. At first the Popes resisted the Holy Roman Emperors, because at that point they agreed with the East that no one has the authority to change the text of the Creed as it was written and approved by the Ecumenical Councils. Pope Leo III had the Creed engraved on two large silver plates, one in Greek and one in Latin without the filioque and hung in St. Peter’s in 809. Although Pope Leo III had forbade its insertion into the Creed, his decree was ignored in the Holy Roman Empire, a sign that even in the West papal authority was originally only limited. However, finally the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire prevailed. In 1014 the Creed was chanted with the filioque in Rome for the first time at the coronation of Emperor Henry II by Pope Benedict VIII.
At the same time the movement for mandatory celibacy was growing in the West. I believe that historians have failed to recognize the importance of this difference with the East that kept the ancient practice of ordaining married men to the office of Priest and Deacon. It is significant that the first time that the East specifically criticized the West was at the Council in Trullo in 692, when the council passed Canon XIII which condemned the requirement in the West that married clergy refrain from sexual relations with their wives.
CONTINUED
My first point is that although Mr. Bonocore argues that his Timeline is true because his knowledge of history is true. I do not know what qualifies him to make judgments on historical matters, but have given my credentials elsewhere so will not wast space repeating them here. No serious historian, Catholic, or otherwise, argues that the papacy as it has existed since Vatican I in 1870 existed during the early period of Church history. All historians agree that the modern papacy is the product of a long and coplex development.
Every historian that I have ever read on this subjects attributes the rise of the papacy to its role as the ruler of Rome and central Italy. Essentially as a result of the vacuum left by the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Germanic invasions, the Bishop of Rome began to assume the role of ruler of central Italy. This development was made official by Pepin the Short, the King of the Franks who invaded Italy and granted rule over Rome and central Italy to the Pope with the Donation of Pepin in 756. This led to very significant changes in the thinking of the Popes. Because their status as the ruler of Rome and central Italy, the Pope became a medieval absolute monarchs, over time, the Popes were unable to keep the two ways of administration separate, the conciliar system mandated by the Ecumenical Councils and the absolutism of a medieval prince. As a result the Popes began to think of the Bishops as a price thinks of his subjects. During the centuries which followed the Popes extended their authority over all the Bishops in the West.
Meanwhile, in 800 Pope Leo III, crowned Charlemagne the Emperor or Rome thereby establishing a rival empire to the Empire in Constantinople on his own authority. Charlemagne and his court thereupon began to assert their independence of Constantinople. This independence extended to spiritual matters. As a result Charlemagne and his successors sought to establish a specifically Western and Latin theology and to accuse the East of heresy. One of the major aspects of this effort was championing addition of the filioque clause to the Creed. At first the Popes resisted the Holy Roman Emperors, because at that point they agreed with the East that no one has the authority to change the text of the Creed as it was written and approved by the Ecumenical Councils. Pope Leo III had the Creed engraved on two large silver plates, one in Greek and one in Latin without the filioque and hung in St. Peter’s in 809. Although Pope Leo III had forbade its insertion into the Creed, his decree was ignored in the Holy Roman Empire, a sign that even in the West papal authority was originally only limited. However, finally the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire prevailed. In 1014 the Creed was chanted with the filioque in Rome for the first time at the coronation of Emperor Henry II by Pope Benedict VIII.
At the same time the movement for mandatory celibacy was growing in the West. I believe that historians have failed to recognize the importance of this difference with the East that kept the ancient practice of ordaining married men to the office of Priest and Deacon. It is significant that the first time that the East specifically criticized the West was at the Council in Trullo in 692, when the council passed Canon XIII which condemned the requirement in the West that married clergy refrain from sexual relations with their wives.
CONTINUED
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE
Before the schism, no Pope exercised the authority to unilaterally make infallible declarations on doctrine or to overrule a general council. In every case of major doctrinal controversy, the matter was settled by an Ecumenical Council. The closest thing that can be cited as an example of a papal declaration resolving a doctrinal dispute was the Tome of Leo. However, the Church did not accept the Tome of Leo without studying it first to determine its fidelity to orthodox doctrine. At the first council called to deal with Eutyches and the heresy of Monophysitism, the Council of Ephesus of 449, later known of as the Robber Council, Dioscorus the refused to allow it to be read. Pope St. Leo was only able to have the decrees of the Robber Council set aside because emperor and other Patriarchs called another council at Chalcedon in 451, to reconsider the matter, because he lacked the personal authority to overrule an Ecumenical Council, which Ephesus 449 claimed to be. However, the Holy Fathers meeting at Chalcedon did not accept the Tome just because it was written by Pope Leo. Instead they sent the document to a committee headed by Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. After Patriarch Anatolius and his committee determined that the Tome of Leo was orthodox, it was sent back to the Council for approval.
The same Council approved Canon IX which took away from Rome the authority to appoint neighboring Bishops to mediate disputes between a Bishop and his Metropolitan given to Rome by the Council of Sardica in 343. Instead Chalcedon gave the Patriarch of Constantinople the authority to hear all appeals from clergy involved in disputes with their Bishop or Metropolitan. The Council of Chalcedon also passed Canon 28, which recognized the equality of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Pope. Although Rome objected to this canon, the East ignored his objection and followed the canon. Thus it is obvious that the Council of Chalcedon did not recognize the infallibility or universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Of course, it is also true that at that point in history, Pope Leo made no such claim. It was not until 1870 that the Catholic Church recognized the right of the Pope to infallibly and unilaterally make declarations on the doctrine of the Church speaking “ex cathedra.”
CONTINUED
Before the schism, no Pope exercised the authority to unilaterally make infallible declarations on doctrine or to overrule a general council. In every case of major doctrinal controversy, the matter was settled by an Ecumenical Council. The closest thing that can be cited as an example of a papal declaration resolving a doctrinal dispute was the Tome of Leo. However, the Church did not accept the Tome of Leo without studying it first to determine its fidelity to orthodox doctrine. At the first council called to deal with Eutyches and the heresy of Monophysitism, the Council of Ephesus of 449, later known of as the Robber Council, Dioscorus the refused to allow it to be read. Pope St. Leo was only able to have the decrees of the Robber Council set aside because emperor and other Patriarchs called another council at Chalcedon in 451, to reconsider the matter, because he lacked the personal authority to overrule an Ecumenical Council, which Ephesus 449 claimed to be. However, the Holy Fathers meeting at Chalcedon did not accept the Tome just because it was written by Pope Leo. Instead they sent the document to a committee headed by Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. After Patriarch Anatolius and his committee determined that the Tome of Leo was orthodox, it was sent back to the Council for approval.
The same Council approved Canon IX which took away from Rome the authority to appoint neighboring Bishops to mediate disputes between a Bishop and his Metropolitan given to Rome by the Council of Sardica in 343. Instead Chalcedon gave the Patriarch of Constantinople the authority to hear all appeals from clergy involved in disputes with their Bishop or Metropolitan. The Council of Chalcedon also passed Canon 28, which recognized the equality of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Pope. Although Rome objected to this canon, the East ignored his objection and followed the canon. Thus it is obvious that the Council of Chalcedon did not recognize the infallibility or universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Of course, it is also true that at that point in history, Pope Leo made no such claim. It was not until 1870 that the Catholic Church recognized the right of the Pope to infallibly and unilaterally make declarations on the doctrine of the Church speaking “ex cathedra.”
CONTINUED
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
There are several other examples that show that according to the practice of the ancient Church that the supreme authority in the Church was an Ecumenical Council, not the Bishop of Rome. The next Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553, removed Pope Vigilius from office and threatened to excommunicate him if he did not accept its condemnation of the Three Chapters. However, Pope Vigilius reconsidered and accepted the declaration of the council against the Three Chapters.
The next Council, Constantinople III, in 680 did not hesitate to condemn Pope Honorius I for teaching heresy. Thus, it is clear that the 7 Ecumenical Councils did not accept papal infallibility or the authority of a Pope to veto the acts of an Ecumenical Council.
Thus the 7 Ecumenical Councils did not recognize papal infallibility, nor did they recognize universal papal jurisdiction. Instead, the councils decreed that each Patriarch, first called Metropolitans, would administer their own territory subject to no higher power except that of an Ecumenical Council. We see this in Canon VI of Nicaea I in 325, which affirmed the independence of Alexandria and Antioch and restricted the authority of Rome to the West. The 2 Ecumenical Council, I Constantinople in 318 raised Constantinople to the level of the other Metropolitans. The 3rd Ecumenical Council Ephesus in 431 raised Jerusalem to the level of a Metropolitan. This created the Pentarchy, which divided the Church into 5 Patriarchates. Canon VI of the Council of Antioch in 341 decreed that each Bishop must place himself under the authority of the Primate of the province. The canon recognized the authority of the local Bishops to administer their diocese, but also required that he do nothing of consequence without the approval of the Primate. However, the canon also required that the Primate, first called Metropolitans and later Patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem and Popes in Rome and Alexandria. However the canon also decreed that the Metropolitan must not do anything without the consent of the Bishops under his authority. This led to the development of the Holy Synod presided over by the Patriarch and consisting of the Bishops of the Patriarchate. Canon XX of the same council decreed that the Holy Synod meet at least twice a year. Thus at the time that Rome was acquiring unilateral authority in the West, the rest of the Church was following the conciliar model established by the Apostolic Council recorded in Acts 15.
As long as the Popes confined the growth of their power to the West, the Eastern Patriarchs did not consider it their right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Patriarch of the West. However, when the Popes began to try to extend their authority over the East the inevitable conflict led to schism.
This first took place in the case of St.Photius the Great. After St. Photius became Patriarch of Constantinople after the deposition of Patriarch Ignatius, both the supporters of St. Photius and ex-Patriarch Ignatius asked papal legates who were in Constantinople for a council to reaffirm the decisions of the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II in 787 to mediate the dispute. The papal legates recognized St. Photius as the legitimate Patriarch, because of irregularities in the election of Ignatius. However, despite the decision of his legates, Pope Nicholas I refused to recognize St. Photius as the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople. However, at that point he lacked the authority to remove an Eastern Patriarch. After change in emperors, the pro-Ignatius party was able to persuade the new emperor to call a council in 869,which recognized Ignatius as the legitimate Patriarch. It is very significant that this council, which Rome considers the 8th Ecumenical Council make no mention of the authority of Rome. After Ignatius died in 877, St. Photius again assumed the Patriarchal throne. A new council, which met in 879 revoked the decisions of the council of 869.
CONTINUED
The next Council, Constantinople III, in 680 did not hesitate to condemn Pope Honorius I for teaching heresy. Thus, it is clear that the 7 Ecumenical Councils did not accept papal infallibility or the authority of a Pope to veto the acts of an Ecumenical Council.
Thus the 7 Ecumenical Councils did not recognize papal infallibility, nor did they recognize universal papal jurisdiction. Instead, the councils decreed that each Patriarch, first called Metropolitans, would administer their own territory subject to no higher power except that of an Ecumenical Council. We see this in Canon VI of Nicaea I in 325, which affirmed the independence of Alexandria and Antioch and restricted the authority of Rome to the West. The 2 Ecumenical Council, I Constantinople in 318 raised Constantinople to the level of the other Metropolitans. The 3rd Ecumenical Council Ephesus in 431 raised Jerusalem to the level of a Metropolitan. This created the Pentarchy, which divided the Church into 5 Patriarchates. Canon VI of the Council of Antioch in 341 decreed that each Bishop must place himself under the authority of the Primate of the province. The canon recognized the authority of the local Bishops to administer their diocese, but also required that he do nothing of consequence without the approval of the Primate. However, the canon also required that the Primate, first called Metropolitans and later Patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem and Popes in Rome and Alexandria. However the canon also decreed that the Metropolitan must not do anything without the consent of the Bishops under his authority. This led to the development of the Holy Synod presided over by the Patriarch and consisting of the Bishops of the Patriarchate. Canon XX of the same council decreed that the Holy Synod meet at least twice a year. Thus at the time that Rome was acquiring unilateral authority in the West, the rest of the Church was following the conciliar model established by the Apostolic Council recorded in Acts 15.
As long as the Popes confined the growth of their power to the West, the Eastern Patriarchs did not consider it their right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Patriarch of the West. However, when the Popes began to try to extend their authority over the East the inevitable conflict led to schism.
This first took place in the case of St.Photius the Great. After St. Photius became Patriarch of Constantinople after the deposition of Patriarch Ignatius, both the supporters of St. Photius and ex-Patriarch Ignatius asked papal legates who were in Constantinople for a council to reaffirm the decisions of the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II in 787 to mediate the dispute. The papal legates recognized St. Photius as the legitimate Patriarch, because of irregularities in the election of Ignatius. However, despite the decision of his legates, Pope Nicholas I refused to recognize St. Photius as the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople. However, at that point he lacked the authority to remove an Eastern Patriarch. After change in emperors, the pro-Ignatius party was able to persuade the new emperor to call a council in 869,which recognized Ignatius as the legitimate Patriarch. It is very significant that this council, which Rome considers the 8th Ecumenical Council make no mention of the authority of Rome. After Ignatius died in 877, St. Photius again assumed the Patriarchal throne. A new council, which met in 879 revoked the decisions of the council of 869.
CONTINUED
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE
Meanwhile Latin missionaries had clashed with Eastern missionaries in Bulgaria over their addition of the filioque to the Creed, at that time against the wishes of Rome. This led to a controversy over the filioque. At the Council of Constantinople of 879 that reinstated St. Photius the papal legates agreed that the filioque should not be added to the Creed. St. Photius wrote a work called the Mystology of the Holy Spirit, that criticized the doctrine of the filioque clause. There is a theory that there was a second schism between Rome and Constantinople under St. Photius. However, the historian, Francis Dvornik’s work on the subject shows that this legend is a myth.
Peace between Constantinople lasted until 1054 when the formal schism began. Pope Leo IX allowed the Normans, who had conquered Southern Italy to force the Byzantine Churches there to conform to Latin customs. Patriarch Michael I Cerularius then forced the Latin Churches in Constantinople and wrote a defense of Eastern customs. Pope Leo IX sent a delegation led by Cardinal Humbert of Constantinople. However, before the Cardinal reached the capital city, Pope Leo died. That is very important because when a Pope dies, his authority as a papal legate ceases. However, Humert did not follow canon law and return to Rome. Instead, he insulted the Patriarch during their first meeting by failing to treat him with the respect due a Patriarch. Thereafter, since the arrogant Cardinal had no authority, anyway, Patriarch Michael ignored him. However, the emperor who wanted reunion of the Churches asked Cardinal Humbert to participte in a public discussion of the differences between East and West. The Cardinal’s haughty attitude offended the clergy and people of the imperial city. For example, Humbert told the married clergy that their wives were whores and their children bastards. When a monk defended married clergy, Humbert replied that he sounded like someone from a brothel not a monk. After that incident, the Cardinal had made himself very unpopular in Constantinople. Finally, Cardinal Humbert marched into the Agia Sophia Cathedral and laid a Bull excommunicating Patriarch Michael. The feeling against Humbert was so inflamed by his arrogance that Patrirch Michael had no choice but to excommunicate the Cardinal thereby beginning the schism.
It is important to note that the excommunication actually only broke Communion between Rome and Constantinople and really did not effect the other 3 Patriarchs. However, the Crusades completed the schism. In 1098 when the Crusaders captured Antioch, they threw out of office the Greek Orthodox Patriarch and put a Latin Bishop in his place. The next year the Crusaders took Jerusalem and did the same thing to the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, appointing a Latin Bishop in his place. The attempts of the Crusaders to force the Eastern Orthodox to submit to the papacy, completed the schism.
CONTINUED
Meanwhile Latin missionaries had clashed with Eastern missionaries in Bulgaria over their addition of the filioque to the Creed, at that time against the wishes of Rome. This led to a controversy over the filioque. At the Council of Constantinople of 879 that reinstated St. Photius the papal legates agreed that the filioque should not be added to the Creed. St. Photius wrote a work called the Mystology of the Holy Spirit, that criticized the doctrine of the filioque clause. There is a theory that there was a second schism between Rome and Constantinople under St. Photius. However, the historian, Francis Dvornik’s work on the subject shows that this legend is a myth.
Peace between Constantinople lasted until 1054 when the formal schism began. Pope Leo IX allowed the Normans, who had conquered Southern Italy to force the Byzantine Churches there to conform to Latin customs. Patriarch Michael I Cerularius then forced the Latin Churches in Constantinople and wrote a defense of Eastern customs. Pope Leo IX sent a delegation led by Cardinal Humbert of Constantinople. However, before the Cardinal reached the capital city, Pope Leo died. That is very important because when a Pope dies, his authority as a papal legate ceases. However, Humert did not follow canon law and return to Rome. Instead, he insulted the Patriarch during their first meeting by failing to treat him with the respect due a Patriarch. Thereafter, since the arrogant Cardinal had no authority, anyway, Patriarch Michael ignored him. However, the emperor who wanted reunion of the Churches asked Cardinal Humbert to participte in a public discussion of the differences between East and West. The Cardinal’s haughty attitude offended the clergy and people of the imperial city. For example, Humbert told the married clergy that their wives were whores and their children bastards. When a monk defended married clergy, Humbert replied that he sounded like someone from a brothel not a monk. After that incident, the Cardinal had made himself very unpopular in Constantinople. Finally, Cardinal Humbert marched into the Agia Sophia Cathedral and laid a Bull excommunicating Patriarch Michael. The feeling against Humbert was so inflamed by his arrogance that Patrirch Michael had no choice but to excommunicate the Cardinal thereby beginning the schism.
It is important to note that the excommunication actually only broke Communion between Rome and Constantinople and really did not effect the other 3 Patriarchs. However, the Crusades completed the schism. In 1098 when the Crusaders captured Antioch, they threw out of office the Greek Orthodox Patriarch and put a Latin Bishop in his place. The next year the Crusaders took Jerusalem and did the same thing to the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, appointing a Latin Bishop in his place. The attempts of the Crusaders to force the Eastern Orthodox to submit to the papacy, completed the schism.
CONTINUED
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE
There is one last matter that I must mention, that is the accusation of caesaropapism that runs through the Timeline. It is true that the East had a different attitude towards the state than the West. The Eastern Orthodox view of Church state relations was based on the words of Christ, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” St. Mark 12:17. In theory that meant that the state was supreme in temporal matters, and the Church supreme in spiritual matters. It is true that there were times when the emperor dominated the Eastern Church. However, when the emperors went too far and tried to interfere in purely spiritual matters, the Church stood up to the Emperor, as it did during the iconoclasm conflict.
In the West the Popes eventually accepted the attitude that the Pope has authority over the secular state as well as the Church. This comes partially from the role of the Pope as ruler of central Italy. This is trend is also manifested by the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 which set up a rival to the Eastern Roman Empire something that the Bishop of Rome had no right to do as it was a purely secular matter. Throughout the middle ages, there was almost constant conflict between the Popes and the Holy Roman Emperors. This reached its zenith with the decree Unam Sanctam issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 which declared that all must accept papal authority. The Pope wrote, “We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal,” “For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgment if it has not been good,” and finally, “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Despite these claims, Boniface was unable to enforce his authority over Philip IV who had him arrested the next year. The pontiff died in captivity.
However, the irony is despite the tendancy of the Popes to see themselves above the state, is that they based their claims to authority on the myth that Constantine had given them this power. At about the time that the Popes were claiming more and more power for themselves a document surfaced called the Donation of Constantine, which claimed that Pope Sylvester I had cured the emperor of leprosy. In gratitude, the emperor transferred authority over the Empire and the Church to the Pope and his successors. The Donation of Constantine played a major role in the development of papal claims to absolute authority over the Church. However, during the Renaissanc, Lorenzo Valla successfully showed that the document was a forgery. Besides, Constantine had no authority to grant the Bishop of Rome authority over the other Bishops of the Church. Thus it is ironic that although the Eastern Orthodox Church is accused of caesaropapism because the Popes claimed that they received their authority over the Eastern Church from an emperor.
Thus, I think that I have shown that things are not quite as simple as Mr. Bonocore Timeline would have it. Basically the schism between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy was a clash between two very different conceptions of how the Church should manage its affairs, the conciliar model of the East verses the Papal model of the West. I personally believe that the conciliar model is more faithful to the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church than the Papal mode, which in my opinion concentrates too much authority in the hands of one man.
Fr. John W. Morris
There is one last matter that I must mention, that is the accusation of caesaropapism that runs through the Timeline. It is true that the East had a different attitude towards the state than the West. The Eastern Orthodox view of Church state relations was based on the words of Christ, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” St. Mark 12:17. In theory that meant that the state was supreme in temporal matters, and the Church supreme in spiritual matters. It is true that there were times when the emperor dominated the Eastern Church. However, when the emperors went too far and tried to interfere in purely spiritual matters, the Church stood up to the Emperor, as it did during the iconoclasm conflict.
In the West the Popes eventually accepted the attitude that the Pope has authority over the secular state as well as the Church. This comes partially from the role of the Pope as ruler of central Italy. This is trend is also manifested by the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 which set up a rival to the Eastern Roman Empire something that the Bishop of Rome had no right to do as it was a purely secular matter. Throughout the middle ages, there was almost constant conflict between the Popes and the Holy Roman Emperors. This reached its zenith with the decree Unam Sanctam issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 which declared that all must accept papal authority. The Pope wrote, “We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal,” “For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgment if it has not been good,” and finally, “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Despite these claims, Boniface was unable to enforce his authority over Philip IV who had him arrested the next year. The pontiff died in captivity.
However, the irony is despite the tendancy of the Popes to see themselves above the state, is that they based their claims to authority on the myth that Constantine had given them this power. At about the time that the Popes were claiming more and more power for themselves a document surfaced called the Donation of Constantine, which claimed that Pope Sylvester I had cured the emperor of leprosy. In gratitude, the emperor transferred authority over the Empire and the Church to the Pope and his successors. The Donation of Constantine played a major role in the development of papal claims to absolute authority over the Church. However, during the Renaissanc, Lorenzo Valla successfully showed that the document was a forgery. Besides, Constantine had no authority to grant the Bishop of Rome authority over the other Bishops of the Church. Thus it is ironic that although the Eastern Orthodox Church is accused of caesaropapism because the Popes claimed that they received their authority over the Eastern Church from an emperor.
Thus, I think that I have shown that things are not quite as simple as Mr. Bonocore Timeline would have it. Basically the schism between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy was a clash between two very different conceptions of how the Church should manage its affairs, the conciliar model of the East verses the Papal model of the West. I personally believe that the conciliar model is more faithful to the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church than the Papal mode, which in my opinion concentrates too much authority in the hands of one man.
Fr. John W. Morris
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Christians certainly do not believe that. Some newer Protestant sects believe the bible is literally inerrant in every way, but Christians as a whole do not, neither Catholic or Orthodox. The gospels are eye witness accounts and are prone to human error in their observances. The subject in question illustrates this (John says “It was just before the Passover Festival”, he doesn’t say it had just started, or that it was early in the festival, but before.If it is denied that the Last Supper was the night of the Passover, then we have to admit that three of the Gospels are wrong. This is unacceptable because Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture because it has God for its author.
Another example is the tomb - John says Mary Magdalene encounter two angels, while Matthew says they encounter just one. There are quite a few examples like this.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Inerrency is a Protestant belief. St. John Chrysostom points out that the relatively minor inconsistencies in the Gospels actually authenticate them, because they show that we have four differing accounts that differ on minor details, but agree on all major points. Any historian can tell you that two or more eyewitness accounts never agree on all the minor details. If they do there is something suspicious going on, like collaboration. What we have in the 4 Gospels is four different accounts from different points of view about the life of Christ.Christians certainly do not believe that. Some newer Protestant sects believe the bible is literally inerrant in every way, but Christians as a whole do not, neither Catholic or Orthodox. The gospels are eye witness accounts and are prone to human error in their observances. The subject in question illustrates this (John says “It was just before the Passover Festival”, he doesn’t say it had just started, or that it was early in the festival, but before.
Another example is the tomb - John says Mary Magdalene encounter two angels, while Matthew says they encounter just one. There are quite a few examples like this.
The Gospel of St. John is a more theological account that was written long after the other 3 Gospels towards the end of his life at the end of the 1st century. John is a theological account. He does not mention the institution of the Eucharist, but in the 6th chapter tells us the meaning of the Eucharist. Christ is the new Passover Lamb. That is why John tells us that Christ was crucified at the same time that the Jews were slaughtering the lambs for their Passover. The Eucharist takes the place of the old Passover. Instead of eating of a real lamb, we partake of the Lamb of God. Unlike the old Passover which was eaten with dead bread, that is bread without living leaven, the new Passover is eaten with living bread made with living yeast that has become the Body of Christ. However, even Catholic historians agree that the ancient Roman Church used leavened bread for the Eucharist. I should mention that the word that is translated bread in the accounts of the Institution of the Eucharist in the Gospels of Sts. Matthew, Mark and Luke as well as St. Paul’s statements on the Eucharist in I Corinthians use the word “artos” which in Greek specifically means leavened bread.
Liturgical historians tell us that the Liturgy of the Eucharist evolved from the Jewish meal of fellowship, not just the Passover meal, just as the Liturgy of the Word evolved from the Jewish synagogue service.
However as I have already written, I do not believe that what kind of bread is used for the Eucharist is a “Church dividing” issue.
Fr. John
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
From New Advent:Regarding the events and peoples ~ 1054.
Part 1 of 3Then came the Patriarch Michael Cærularius, who in 1053 — that is at a time when not only was there no tension between the emperor and the pope, but the Norman invasion of Sicily just then occurring made it peculiarly desirable that they should unite to oppose the common enemy — caused letters to be written and brought to the notice of the pope, in which he renewed the old condemnation of the Latins for fasting on Saturdays, consecrating the Holy Eucharist in unleavened bread, and requiring clerical celibacy. Also at Constantinople, he invaded the churches built for the use of the Westerns, where the Latin Rite was used, and ignominiously handled the Blessed Sacrament there reserved, on the plea that, being consecrated in unleavened bread, it was not truly consecrated. Again there was a saint on the throne of St. Peter, and St. Leo IX in a temperate letter contrasted the violence offered by Michael to the Latin Church at Constantinople with the pope’s cordial approval of the many monasteries of the Greek Rite in Rome and its neighbourhood. Further, at the request of the Emperor Constantine Monomachus, who by no means shared the patriarch’s bitter spirit, St. Leo sent two legates to Constantinople to arrange matters. There was nothing, however, to be done, as the emperor was weak, and the patriarch was allowed to carry all before him. So the legates returned home, having first left on the altar of St. Sophia a letter in the pope’s name by which Michael Cærularius and one or two of his agents were deposed and excommunicated. Of course the excommunication touched only the persons named in the document, and not the whole Byzantine Church; indeed the excommunication of a whole Church is an unknown and unintelligible process. If the whole Church or patriarchate from that time fell away from unity, and has remained out of it ever since, it was because, and in so far as, its members of their own initiative adhered to Michael and his successors in breaking off relations with Rome.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Continued from above
Part 2 of 3This fact, however, must remind us of the mistake we should make were we to regard the vagaries of a patriarch like Michael Cærularius as the adequate cause of so persistent and far-reaching an effect. Undoubtedly, he had with him in his secession, if not the whole population of his patriarchate, at all events a party strong and influential enough to compel the submission of the rest. This party was the one to which we have referred as formed and consolidated by Photius. In a less pronounced form it is traceable back to the secular struggle between the Greek and Latin races for universal dominion; and since the time of Photius its antipathies had been further stimulated by the growth of Western kingdoms hostile to the empire and by the amicable relations in which their rulers stood to the Roman bishops. This then was the main cause of the separation which has endured so long, and still endures, but to estimate it at its full strength we must take into account the accompanying negative cause. For, though Photius in one of his letters claimed for his see that it was “the centre and support of the truth”, and though his followers would have us seek our standard of doctrinal purity exclusively in the prescriptions of the first seven oecumenical councils, St. Leo IX, in his letter to Cærularius enumerated nineteen of the latter’s predecessors as having fallen under the condemnation of these seven councils, while Duchesne (Eglises séparés, p. 164) calculates that in the interval of 464 years which separates the accession of Constantine the Great from the celebration of the Seventh Council (787), Constantinople and its ecclesiastical dependencies had been in schism for 203 years. This means that the sense of unity, so strong in the West, had in the East, owing to the perversity of emperors and patriarchs, no fair chance of striking deep roots among the people, and so could seldom offer effectual resistance to the forces making for schism.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Continued from above.
From Britannica
There’s always at least 2 sides to a story. And the truth is to be found mostly somewhere in between.
From Britannica
I am not a historian but an investigator.In 1054, when Pope Leo sent three legates to Constantinople to negotiate an alliance with the Byzantine Empire, Cerularius again obstructed Constantine’s and Leo’s efforts by refusing to meet with the legates. In the midst of these negotiations, however, Pope Leo died, and one of his legates, the French cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, took advantage of the papal vacancy to retaliate against Cerularius. On July 16, 1054, Humbert entered Constantinople’s cathedral, Hagia Sophia, and excommunicated Cerularius and his clergy. In response, Cerularius convened a Holy Synod and excommunicated all the legates. Constantine’s efforts to effect a reconciliation failed, and the schism between Rome and Constantinople was final.
Cerularius continued to flex his political muscles, ultimately constraining Constantine to support the schism. He had less control, however, over Constantine’s successor, Emperor Isaac I Comnenus, who dethroned Cerularius in 1058 and drove him into exile. Cerularius died soon thereafter.
There’s always at least 2 sides to a story. And the truth is to be found mostly somewhere in between.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.