N
Nine_Two
Guest
Absolutely. The small differences between the Gospels lend to their credibility. They are truly historic works, rather than sanitized works to push an agenda, as many minimalists insist.
- Status
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Some take the doctrine of inerrancy for more than it actually means. Inerrancy from a Catholic context does not mean that every statement in the Bible is true understood according absolutely according to the bare letter, but according to the sense in which it was intended, which is dictated by factors such as idiom and genre. No one teaches, for example, that the speech recorded in the Gospel is a stenographic account. That doesn’t mean any of the Evangelists erred because it is not reasonable to expect an exact record of speech in any kind of narrative. Another common example is the Genesis 1 creation account. The Church does not hold a six-day as a creation as a dogmatic fact (even if that is more or less the patristic consensus) if the six days can be understood as speaking figuratively about the order of creation. However, the admission of basic errors is not possible within Catholic teaching. Pope Leo XIII wrote in his famous encyclical Providentissimus Deus (cited by Dei Verbum of Vatican II as the basis for its own teachings on inerrancy),
The principles here laid down will apply cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labour carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. (PD 20)
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
St. John Chrysostom’s statement about the apparent discrepancies in the Gospels may seem to be a denial of inerrancy but I am not so sure that this is the case. First remember that this is the same Chrysostom who wrote on Genesis,
Don’t worry, dearly beloved; don’t think Sacred Scripture ever contradicts itself. Learn instead the truth of what it says, hold fast to what it teaches in truth, and close your ears to those who speak against it. (Homilies on Genesis 4.8)
You may think that he is speaking only of “important” matters such as the truth of the Incarnation, but the context here is that he is arguing against those who assert from Scripture that there are multiple heavens, instead saying that there is only a single heaven, the “firmament” mentioned in Genesis. Maybe you will say that the existence of only a single heaven is an important dogma that is essential for salvation, but I think most would disagree unless it were the explicit teaching of Scripture.
The place where he speaks about the discrepancies in the Gospels is from his Homily I on Matthew.
“But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.
But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He hath given commandments tending to salvation, that He hath brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.
And if amongst the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all, but one these, the other those, let not this trouble thee. For if on the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in common, and each of them hath also received and declared something of his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and cast on the heap to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test of the truth of their affirmations perfect. (Homilies on Matthew 1.6)
He says in this passage that minor differences in times and places are not important,
but I am not sure that this is a denial of inerrancy on his part. His argument is against those who say that the Scriptures are entirely untrustworthy and riddled with error. First, he would have to establish the truth of Scripture in basic matters before he could begin an argument for total inerrancy. He also says, “But that they are not opposed to each other, this we will endeavor to prove, throughout the whole work. And thou, in accusing them of disagreement, art doing just the same as if thou were to insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech” (1.8), though it is not clear to me whether he intends to extend that to the apparent discrepancies of place and time that he mentioned above. Another significant point is that he only says that there discord “seems to exist in little matters.”
To establish definitively that he intends that there are errors in the Gospels, it would be incumbent on someone with a greater familiarity of Chrysostom’s commentaries than me to show some place where he points out a discrepancy in “little matters” and excludes any possibility of reconciliation. Otherwise, I would be inclined from what I have read that he believed that such discrepancies are only apparent and not actual. Your example of the angels at the tomb is a great example. The presence of two angels does not exclude the presence of one because each angel is only one angel considered by himself. But even if he would admit true discrepancies in “little matters,” I don’t think he would concerning the date of our Lord’s Passion because it is such a significant event.
Don’t worry, dearly beloved; don’t think Sacred Scripture ever contradicts itself. Learn instead the truth of what it says, hold fast to what it teaches in truth, and close your ears to those who speak against it. (Homilies on Genesis 4.8)
You may think that he is speaking only of “important” matters such as the truth of the Incarnation, but the context here is that he is arguing against those who assert from Scripture that there are multiple heavens, instead saying that there is only a single heaven, the “firmament” mentioned in Genesis. Maybe you will say that the existence of only a single heaven is an important dogma that is essential for salvation, but I think most would disagree unless it were the explicit teaching of Scripture.
The place where he speaks about the discrepancies in the Gospels is from his Homily I on Matthew.
“But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.
But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He hath given commandments tending to salvation, that He hath brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.
And if amongst the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all, but one these, the other those, let not this trouble thee. For if on the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in common, and each of them hath also received and declared something of his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and cast on the heap to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test of the truth of their affirmations perfect. (Homilies on Matthew 1.6)
He says in this passage that minor differences in times and places are not important,
but I am not sure that this is a denial of inerrancy on his part. His argument is against those who say that the Scriptures are entirely untrustworthy and riddled with error. First, he would have to establish the truth of Scripture in basic matters before he could begin an argument for total inerrancy. He also says, “But that they are not opposed to each other, this we will endeavor to prove, throughout the whole work. And thou, in accusing them of disagreement, art doing just the same as if thou were to insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech” (1.8), though it is not clear to me whether he intends to extend that to the apparent discrepancies of place and time that he mentioned above. Another significant point is that he only says that there discord “seems to exist in little matters.”
To establish definitively that he intends that there are errors in the Gospels, it would be incumbent on someone with a greater familiarity of Chrysostom’s commentaries than me to show some place where he points out a discrepancy in “little matters” and excludes any possibility of reconciliation. Otherwise, I would be inclined from what I have read that he believed that such discrepancies are only apparent and not actual. Your example of the angels at the tomb is a great example. The presence of two angels does not exclude the presence of one because each angel is only one angel considered by himself. But even if he would admit true discrepancies in “little matters,” I don’t think he would concerning the date of our Lord’s Passion because it is such a significant event.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
This may seem to be a strong statement, but it is the Catholic teaching on the matter. It has been said in this thread that biblical inerrancy is an invention of Protestant Fundamentalism but that could not be further from the truth. The Church has always held to the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15, 2 Peter 1:21) and their inerrancy as a corrolary of that fact. If anything, it is those who contest the doctrine of inerrancy who are influenced by Protestants as it is liberal Protestant scholars who are the originators of this movement. Remember that the doctrine of inerrancy is not a belief that Scripture can never have a figurative sense as its primary meaning, but the firm belief that God, inspiring the Scriptures in all their parts, did not make any mistakes, being in omniscent, nor committed even the slightest falsehoods to the pages of any book of the Bible because he is true and all good. St. Gregory Nazianen writes,
We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, we never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation. (Oration II.105)
The Church teaches that the Gospels are historical accounts, so basic discrepancies in the historical fact of the Gospels cannot be admitted. Is it reasonable to believe that Matthew and John would have made such a mistake as to place the Passion of their Master on two different days? That would be an unthinkable blunder! Therefore, I am bound to reconcile any apparent discrepancies between the two toward the side of the Synoptics who speak very clearly on this matter that the Last Supper was on the first day of unleavened bread. If someone offered a reasonable explanation of how this is compatible with the Last Supper being on Nisan 14, then I would keep an open mind. The only such explanation that I have is that disciples followed a alternative (Essenic) calendar from the Pharisees, but this in not a very clean solution and has its own problems.
We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, we never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation. (Oration II.105)
The Church teaches that the Gospels are historical accounts, so basic discrepancies in the historical fact of the Gospels cannot be admitted. Is it reasonable to believe that Matthew and John would have made such a mistake as to place the Passion of their Master on two different days? That would be an unthinkable blunder! Therefore, I am bound to reconcile any apparent discrepancies between the two toward the side of the Synoptics who speak very clearly on this matter that the Last Supper was on the first day of unleavened bread. If someone offered a reasonable explanation of how this is compatible with the Last Supper being on Nisan 14, then I would keep an open mind. The only such explanation that I have is that disciples followed a alternative (Essenic) calendar from the Pharisees, but this in not a very clean solution and has its own problems.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
St. John Chrysostom’s statement about the apparent discrepancies in the Gospels may seem to be a denial of inerrancy but I am not so sure that this is the case. First remember that this is the same Chrysostom who wrote on Genesis,
Don’t worry, dearly beloved; don’t think Sacred Scripture ever contradicts itself. Learn instead the truth of what it says, hold fast to what it teaches in truth, and close your ears to those who speak against it. (Homilies on Genesis 4.8)
You may think that he is speaking only of “important” matters such as the truth of the Incarnation, but the context here is that he is arguing against those who assert from Scripture that there are multiple heavens, instead saying that there is only a single heaven, the “firmament” mentioned in Genesis. Maybe you will say that the existence of only a single heaven is an important dogma that is essential for salvation, but I think most would disagree unless it were the explicit teaching of Scripture.
The place where he speaks about the discrepancies in the Gospels is from his Homily I on Matthew.
“But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.
But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He hath given commandments tending to salvation, that He hath brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.
And if amongst the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all, but one these, the other those, let not this trouble thee. For if on the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in common, and each of them hath also received and declared something of his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and cast on the heap to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test of the truth of their affirmations perfect. (Homilies on Matthew 1.6)
He says in this passage that minor differences in times and places are not important,
but I am not sure that this is a denial of inerrancy on his part. His argument is against those who say that the Scriptures are entirely untrustworthy and riddled with error. First, he would have to establish the truth of Scripture in basic matters before he could begin an argument for total inerrancy. He also says, “But that they are not opposed to each other, this we will endeavor to prove, throughout the whole work. And thou, in accusing them of disagreement, art doing just the same as if thou were to insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech” (1.8), though it is not clear to me whether he intends to extend that to the apparent discrepancies of place and time that he mentioned above. Another significant point is that he only says that there discord “seems to exist in little matters.”
To establish definitively that he intends that there are errors in the Gospels, it would be incumbent on someone with a greater familiarity of Chrysostom’s commentaries than me to show some place where he points out a discrepancy in “little matters” and excludes any possibility of reconciliation. Otherwise, I would be inclined from what I have read that he believed that such discrepancies are only apparent and not actual. Your example of the angels at the tomb is a great example. The presence of two angels does not exclude the presence of one because each angel is only one angel considered by himself. But even if he would admit true discrepancies in “little matters,” I don’t think he would concerning the date of our Lord’s Passion because it is such a significant event.
Don’t worry, dearly beloved; don’t think Sacred Scripture ever contradicts itself. Learn instead the truth of what it says, hold fast to what it teaches in truth, and close your ears to those who speak against it. (Homilies on Genesis 4.8)
You may think that he is speaking only of “important” matters such as the truth of the Incarnation, but the context here is that he is arguing against those who assert from Scripture that there are multiple heavens, instead saying that there is only a single heaven, the “firmament” mentioned in Genesis. Maybe you will say that the existence of only a single heaven is an important dogma that is essential for salvation, but I think most would disagree unless it were the explicit teaching of Scripture.
The place where he speaks about the discrepancies in the Gospels is from his Homily I on Matthew.
“But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.
But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He hath given commandments tending to salvation, that He hath brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.
And if amongst the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all, but one these, the other those, let not this trouble thee. For if on the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in common, and each of them hath also received and declared something of his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and cast on the heap to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test of the truth of their affirmations perfect. (Homilies on Matthew 1.6)
He says in this passage that minor differences in times and places are not important,
but I am not sure that this is a denial of inerrancy on his part. His argument is against those who say that the Scriptures are entirely untrustworthy and riddled with error. First, he would have to establish the truth of Scripture in basic matters before he could begin an argument for total inerrancy. He also says, “But that they are not opposed to each other, this we will endeavor to prove, throughout the whole work. And thou, in accusing them of disagreement, art doing just the same as if thou were to insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech” (1.8), though it is not clear to me whether he intends to extend that to the apparent discrepancies of place and time that he mentioned above. Another significant point is that he only says that there discord “seems to exist in little matters.”
To establish definitively that he intends that there are errors in the Gospels, it would be incumbent on someone with a greater familiarity of Chrysostom’s commentaries than me to show some place where he points out a discrepancy in “little matters” and excludes any possibility of reconciliation. Otherwise, I would be inclined from what I have read that he believed that such discrepancies are only apparent and not actual. Your example of the angels at the tomb is a great example. The presence of two angels does not exclude the presence of one because each angel is only one angel considered by himself. But even if he would admit true discrepancies in “little matters,” I don’t think he would concerning the date of our Lord’s Passion because it is such a significant event.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Moving on to the usage of unleavened bread in the Last Supper, I firmly believe that Christ celebrated the Supper on the evening of the Passover (Nisan 15) and made use unleavened bread accordingly. I will do my best to offer explanations of the objections brought up on this thread so you will not think that this is a baseless opinion.
Fr. Morris: 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.
John never actually says that Christ was slaughtered at the same time as the lambs for the Passover meal. That is only an inference that you can make if you accept that Christ was crucified before the Passover. I think that since Christ is the antitype of the Passover lamb, it is more fitting for Christ to have celebrated the Last Supper on Passover and died after. The Mosaic Law mandated that the lamb be eaten on Nisan 15 in the evening and that it would all be eaten by morning (Ex. 12:10). Christ offered his body for his disciples to eat on the night of the Last Supper. If the Passover was the following day, the disciples ought to have celebrated the Eucharist the following evening, but the Gospels do not record such an event. Furthermore, Christ is not just another passover lamb, but the fulfillment of that prefigurement. It was more fitting that he would be sacrificed after the passover lambs because they pointed forward to him. If, Christ was sacrificed with the Passover Lambs, that seems to work symbolically, but what happens to the symbolism of the Last Supper? What is so significant about Nisan 14 that would merit the celebration of the Last Supper on that day?
Furthermore, assume for the sake of argument that John does portray Christ’s Passion occurring on Nisan 14. If the Synoptic Gospels portray the Passion on Nisan 15, shouldn’t we go with the Synoptics? If John’s Gospel is the more theological and symbolic one, wouldn’t he have more to gain by switching the date than the Synoptics (all three of them) would? If John is playing around with the chronology to make a theological point, the Synoptics are the ones who determine the actual date of the Last Supper. However, I don’t believe that the Gospels teach differing dates of the Last Supper. If a Nisan 14 Passion has exceedingly superior symbolism to a Nisan 15 Passion, why didn’t Christ just elect to die on Nisan 14 in the first place and spare us these discrepancies.
Fr. Morris: 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.
St. Paul says, “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:7-8). MarcoPolo pointed out that St. Gregory Nazianzen cites this in connection with celebration Easter, although this does not necessarily mean he is referring to the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist rather than a figurative sense. However, St. Paul nowhere connects the use of leaven with the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians. Off the top of my head, all the references in Scripture to leaven have to do with impurity rather than, as I suppose those who use leaven believe, Christ’s divinity. The use of leaven is not bad symbolism, but it has no basis in Scripture and is probably a development.
Fr. Morris: 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.
This may be true in modern Greek, but I am not so sure that it was always so. The Wikipedia article “Artos” states that the word is today only used in the liturgical bread used in the Church. If true, this would easily explain how the misconception would arise that artos only refers to leavened bread given that the Greek Church happens to use leavened bread for its Eucharist exclusively. MarcoPolo rightly pointed out that the showbread was called “artos” (Lev. 24:5): καὶ λήμψεσθε σεμίδαλιν καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτὴν δώδεκα ἄρτους δύο δεκάτων ἔσται ὁ ἄρτος ὁ εἷς. We know that from external sources that these loaves were unleavened (Josephus 3.6.6.) so it doesn’t seem that this distinction was made in more ancient times. The entry in Liddel & Scott also nowhere specifies anything about presence or absence of leaven. The use of the word “artos” says nothing either way.
Fr. Morris: 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.
John never actually says that Christ was slaughtered at the same time as the lambs for the Passover meal. That is only an inference that you can make if you accept that Christ was crucified before the Passover. I think that since Christ is the antitype of the Passover lamb, it is more fitting for Christ to have celebrated the Last Supper on Passover and died after. The Mosaic Law mandated that the lamb be eaten on Nisan 15 in the evening and that it would all be eaten by morning (Ex. 12:10). Christ offered his body for his disciples to eat on the night of the Last Supper. If the Passover was the following day, the disciples ought to have celebrated the Eucharist the following evening, but the Gospels do not record such an event. Furthermore, Christ is not just another passover lamb, but the fulfillment of that prefigurement. It was more fitting that he would be sacrificed after the passover lambs because they pointed forward to him. If, Christ was sacrificed with the Passover Lambs, that seems to work symbolically, but what happens to the symbolism of the Last Supper? What is so significant about Nisan 14 that would merit the celebration of the Last Supper on that day?
Furthermore, assume for the sake of argument that John does portray Christ’s Passion occurring on Nisan 14. If the Synoptic Gospels portray the Passion on Nisan 15, shouldn’t we go with the Synoptics? If John’s Gospel is the more theological and symbolic one, wouldn’t he have more to gain by switching the date than the Synoptics (all three of them) would? If John is playing around with the chronology to make a theological point, the Synoptics are the ones who determine the actual date of the Last Supper. However, I don’t believe that the Gospels teach differing dates of the Last Supper. If a Nisan 14 Passion has exceedingly superior symbolism to a Nisan 15 Passion, why didn’t Christ just elect to die on Nisan 14 in the first place and spare us these discrepancies.
Fr. Morris: 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.
St. Paul says, “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:7-8). MarcoPolo pointed out that St. Gregory Nazianzen cites this in connection with celebration Easter, although this does not necessarily mean he is referring to the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist rather than a figurative sense. However, St. Paul nowhere connects the use of leaven with the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians. Off the top of my head, all the references in Scripture to leaven have to do with impurity rather than, as I suppose those who use leaven believe, Christ’s divinity. The use of leaven is not bad symbolism, but it has no basis in Scripture and is probably a development.
Fr. Morris: 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.
This may be true in modern Greek, but I am not so sure that it was always so. The Wikipedia article “Artos” states that the word is today only used in the liturgical bread used in the Church. If true, this would easily explain how the misconception would arise that artos only refers to leavened bread given that the Greek Church happens to use leavened bread for its Eucharist exclusively. MarcoPolo rightly pointed out that the showbread was called “artos” (Lev. 24:5): καὶ λήμψεσθε σεμίδαλιν καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτὴν δώδεκα ἄρτους δύο δεκάτων ἔσται ὁ ἄρτος ὁ εἷς. We know that from external sources that these loaves were unleavened (Josephus 3.6.6.) so it doesn’t seem that this distinction was made in more ancient times. The entry in Liddel & Scott also nowhere specifies anything about presence or absence of leaven. The use of the word “artos” says nothing either way.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Fr. Morris: 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.
No one says that the Eucharist evolved exclusively from the Passover meal, but I don’t think anyone denies that the Passover is not a significant (if not primary) basis.
There are a few verses from John that seem to contradict the Synoptic accounts. However, they are not so difficult when we read them with the mind that they are not in conflict. Bearing in mind the words of St. John Chrysostom, let us proceed forward with our fingers in our ears against those who say the Synoptics are wrong.
Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper being ended… (John 13:1-2)
Solution: Remember that the Jews reckoned their days from nightfall to nightfall. This fact offers an easy solution. Because the Passover was celebrated in the evening, the actual Passover Day did not occur until the following morning. Presumably, St. John is writing significantly later than the other Evangelists (though some believe he wrote early) when the Jewish customs would have faded in significance for him and he is no longer in Jewish lands. He may be writing according to the Roman system which reckons days as we do. Therefore, when he says, “before the feast of the passover,” he says this because it is the evening of the Feast of the Passover (either the day Nisan 15 or the entire Festival of Unleavened Bread).
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. (John 18:24)
Solution: The easiest solution is that the passover he so called does not refer to the Passover seder. The “they” in this context are priests, who are bound to eat other sacrifices during the festival. I have it on good authority that these other sacrifices can also be referred to as “the passover.” The most clear example is 1 Chronicles 35:8: And his princes gave willingly unto the people, to the priests, and to the Levites: Hilkiah and Zechariah and Jehiel, rulers of the house of God, gave unto the priests for the passover offerings two thousand and six hundred small cattle and three hundred oxen. You see that these are not the seder lambs, but cattle and oxen. It is no stretch to assume that John is making a similar usage of the word.
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! (John 19:14)
Solution: Why does he say it was the preparation of the passover if the Passover had already happened? Some translations render it “preparation for the passover,” further obscuring the probable meaning. The word “preparation” refers to Friday, which was the preparation for the sabbath. The preparation for the passover is then simply the day of preparation (i.e. Friday) that fell during the broader Passover, the entire Festival of Unleavened Bread. If so, the sabbath this year happened to be Nisan 16.
The use of leavened bread for the Eucharist is not wrong, but I don’t think it is what Christ instituted at the Last Supper. Since many Orthodox criticize Roman Catholics for such petty things like making the sign of cross the wrong way or kneeling during mass, it is worth arguing this issue if only to point out that not all current Latin practices are medieval novelties.
No one says that the Eucharist evolved exclusively from the Passover meal, but I don’t think anyone denies that the Passover is not a significant (if not primary) basis.
There are a few verses from John that seem to contradict the Synoptic accounts. However, they are not so difficult when we read them with the mind that they are not in conflict. Bearing in mind the words of St. John Chrysostom, let us proceed forward with our fingers in our ears against those who say the Synoptics are wrong.
Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper being ended… (John 13:1-2)
Solution: Remember that the Jews reckoned their days from nightfall to nightfall. This fact offers an easy solution. Because the Passover was celebrated in the evening, the actual Passover Day did not occur until the following morning. Presumably, St. John is writing significantly later than the other Evangelists (though some believe he wrote early) when the Jewish customs would have faded in significance for him and he is no longer in Jewish lands. He may be writing according to the Roman system which reckons days as we do. Therefore, when he says, “before the feast of the passover,” he says this because it is the evening of the Feast of the Passover (either the day Nisan 15 or the entire Festival of Unleavened Bread).
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. (John 18:24)
Solution: The easiest solution is that the passover he so called does not refer to the Passover seder. The “they” in this context are priests, who are bound to eat other sacrifices during the festival. I have it on good authority that these other sacrifices can also be referred to as “the passover.” The most clear example is 1 Chronicles 35:8: And his princes gave willingly unto the people, to the priests, and to the Levites: Hilkiah and Zechariah and Jehiel, rulers of the house of God, gave unto the priests for the passover offerings two thousand and six hundred small cattle and three hundred oxen. You see that these are not the seder lambs, but cattle and oxen. It is no stretch to assume that John is making a similar usage of the word.
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! (John 19:14)
Solution: Why does he say it was the preparation of the passover if the Passover had already happened? Some translations render it “preparation for the passover,” further obscuring the probable meaning. The word “preparation” refers to Friday, which was the preparation for the sabbath. The preparation for the passover is then simply the day of preparation (i.e. Friday) that fell during the broader Passover, the entire Festival of Unleavened Bread. If so, the sabbath this year happened to be Nisan 16.
The use of leavened bread for the Eucharist is not wrong, but I don’t think it is what Christ instituted at the Last Supper. Since many Orthodox criticize Roman Catholics for such petty things like making the sign of cross the wrong way or kneeling during mass, it is worth arguing this issue if only to point out that not all current Latin practices are medieval novelties.
P
prodromos
Guest
I have tried to respond to this question a number of times but keep getting called away, and I’m now too tired to think clearly (its almost midnight here). If you don’t mind, I’ll post a link to an article on a site dedicated to baking prosphoro for the celebration of the Eucharist. I might add some more information as I find the time in the next day or so.
Leavened versus Unleavened Bread - What’s the difference?
P
prodromos
Guest
I suspect they are just being cautious not to claim something that cannot be known with complete certainty, particularly when there are some who still claim with zeal that Rome has always used unleavened bread (some of the links are from Catholic sources). In any case, my purpose in posting those excerpts is not to debate the issue, but to demonstrate the error in part of Mark Bonocore’s timeline, which in turn reflects badly on the whole.
If he got one part so wrong, why would anyone trust the rest of it?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Modern Orthodox really do not make an issue of these things. I once mentioned the canon that forbade kneeling on Sunday. It was meant to be tongue in cheek. I frankly agree that all the debate about what kind of bread to use for the Eucharist was rather petty. That is not really what divides us, anyway. What really divides us is the whole question of papal authority. The other issues are secondary and can be worked out through a little tolerance for different usage on both sides. However, it is true that many modern liturgical historians argue that the Eucharist was not instituted at the Passover, but rather during a Jewish fellowship meal ro Berarakoth. Read Louis Bouyers’ book Eucharist for a discussion of this issue. The book is written by a Roman Catholic and has the Imprimatur showing that it does not violate Catholic doctrine.
Fr. John
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
No real historian would be so arrogant as to write something like, “Yes, of course my Timeline has a “Roman Catholic bias.” That’s because we Catholics are correct, and we happen to have historical reality on our side. :-” A real historian knows that history is subject to interpretation by the historian. However, in the case of Mr. Bonocore’s Timeline there are real historical mistakes.Mark Bonocore sent the following reply:
Thank you, Randy. I glanced at the [thread] and at a subsequent post by someone named Fr. John. I don’t really have the Time to get into an ongoing message board discussion; but, I would like to reply to Fr. John’s criticism of my Timeline. Could you please post my response below to him:
Well, like Fr. John, I also (unfortunately) do not have the time to get involved in an ongoing debate on these boards; however, I would like to express my great amusement at Fr. John’s comments above.
Mark Bonocore
Fr. John
N
Nine_Two
Guest
You’re bringing up a completely different issue here that was never being considered - whether the bible can have literal and figurative meanings. Of course it is. The issue is factual inerrancy, which is something we don’t believe. I gave you another example where there are very different facts presented, although there are plenty of others. We believe the Bible in inerrant on faith and morals, however eye witness testimony (as we have in the gospels) can and do have errors of fact.
I’m surprised Fr. John didn’t answer this one. If you have any experience with historical documents you know they abound with such basic discrepancies. In fact it is quite suspicious when they agree completely.
You’re assuming that the day of the Last Supper was seen by the gospel writers as being of important note, something they would do their best to make sure was correct. It really wasn’t, which is why they clearly do have a different date.
I’m having a very difficult time understanding where you are coming from. In one sentence you proclaim that it is unthinkable that there should be any testimonial error in the Gospels, then later in the post you say that if there is such an error you will side with the synoptics (Which tradition is correct is beyond the bounds of my point, and frankly I see it as unimportant). Would you mind clarifying. Are you saying they do disagree, or that they can’t disagree (my initial issue)?
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Isaiah 54:9 wrote:
“I am not a historian but an investigator.
There’s always at least 2 sides to a story. And the truth is to be found mostly somewhere in between.”
New Advent is hardly an unbiased historical source. Things are not quite that simple. As you wrote there are at least 2 sides of the story. I recommend that you read the work of a recognized historian such as Steven Runciman’s The Eastern Schism, for a more balanced view. Because of its obvious Catholic bias I would take everything that is posted by New Advent with more than a grain of salt. The account fails to mention some very important facts. Patriarch Michael I closed the Latin Rite parishes in Rome in response to the closing of the Byzantine Churches in southern Italy. After Patriarch Michael I wrote his letter criticizing certain Latin customs in response to the criticism of the Byzantine customs by Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, he had a change of heart, partially because the emperor was eager for an alliance with the papacy against the Normans who had taken Byzantine possessions in southern Italy. Therefore the Patriarch wrote a more conciliatory letter in which, he asked for a delegation to be sent to resolve the differences between Constantinople and Rome.
Unfortunately, the delegation was headed by Cardinal Humbert who was one of the strongest advocates of universal papal authority in Rome. The Cardinal was arrogant and disrespectful when he met with Patriarch Michael. The harsh tone of Leo IX’s letter shocked the Patriarch. The seals look as if they had been tampered with, leading him to believe that the papal letter might not be genuine. Pope Leo’s letter to Patriarch Michael demanded that he obey the Pope on the basis of the Donation of Constantine, which we now know was a forgery. Even if it were not, Constantine had no authority to grant the Bishop of Rome universal jurisdiction over the Church. Then when news arrived that Pope Leo IX had died, the Patriarch refused to have any further dealings with the arrogant Cardinal because once a Pope dies his legates lose their authority to act in his name for obvious reasons.
Then as, I have related, the Cardinal’s superior attitude offended the clergy and people of Constantinople. One does not call the wives of Priests whores and their children bastards or tell a monk that he sounds more like he came from a brothel than a monastery during a public discussion and expect to win friends among the clergy of Constantinople. Finally, acting without any real authority, Cardinal Humbert composed and laid a Bull of Excommunication on the Holy Table of the patriarchal cathedral in Constantinople, beginning the schism.
The letter was filled with errors. It refused to address Patriarch Michael as Patriarch of Constantinople. He accused the Patriarch and his supporters of simony at a time when the Latin Church was filled with simony. It accused the Easterners of encouraging castration, and rebaptizing Latins both of which were incorrect. . Cardinal Humbert also accused the Byzantine Church of allowing priests to marry, which is incorrect. The Eastern Church will ordain married men, but once a man is ordained, he cannot get married. I am married, and could not remarry and remain a Priest if my wife died. He falsely stated that men who shaved were refused Communion, which is ridiculous. Finally, he accused the Eastern Church of omitting the “filioque” clause from the creed. Runciman, The Eastern Schism, p. 48) The total absurdity of Cardinal Humbert’s claims is what leads me to believe that the accusation that the Byzantines desecrated the Catholic Eucharist is also untrue.
Unfortunately, this whole incident did not need to lead to permanent schism, because Cardinal Humbert had no authority to take such drastic action. The next Pope Victor II could have restored Communion by simply disavowing Humbert’s rash action and calling for new discussions to resolve the problems between Constantinople and Rome. Unfortunately, he did not. However, the events of 1054 might have been confined to an argument between Constantinople and Rome, had it not been for the Crusades. When the Crusaders took Antioch in 1098 and Jerusalem the following year, they threw out the Orthodox Patriarchs and replaced them with Latin Patriarchs. That is what made the schism permanent. Neither Antioch nor Jerusalem were directly involved in the argument between Rome and Constantinople. Therefore, although there is no doubt that Patriarch Michael was partially to blame for the schism, there was no justification for the ill treatment of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem by the Crusaders. As Runciman rightly points out, that is what made the schism permanent. I cannot help but blame Rome for not instructing the Crusaders to show proper respect to the Christian authorities in lands they conquered, because at that point of time, Antioch and Jerusalem were still in Communion with Rome. Cardinal Humbert’s excommunication only applied to the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the entire Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the Crusaders brought the entire Eastern Orthodox into the schism from Rome. Had the Crusaders treated the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem with proper respect instead of throwing them out of office and replacing them with Latin Bishops what began as an argument between Rome and Constantinople might have remained an argument between Rome and Constantinople instead of a schism that lasts to this day.
Fr. John
“I am not a historian but an investigator.
There’s always at least 2 sides to a story. And the truth is to be found mostly somewhere in between.”
New Advent is hardly an unbiased historical source. Things are not quite that simple. As you wrote there are at least 2 sides of the story. I recommend that you read the work of a recognized historian such as Steven Runciman’s The Eastern Schism, for a more balanced view. Because of its obvious Catholic bias I would take everything that is posted by New Advent with more than a grain of salt. The account fails to mention some very important facts. Patriarch Michael I closed the Latin Rite parishes in Rome in response to the closing of the Byzantine Churches in southern Italy. After Patriarch Michael I wrote his letter criticizing certain Latin customs in response to the criticism of the Byzantine customs by Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, he had a change of heart, partially because the emperor was eager for an alliance with the papacy against the Normans who had taken Byzantine possessions in southern Italy. Therefore the Patriarch wrote a more conciliatory letter in which, he asked for a delegation to be sent to resolve the differences between Constantinople and Rome.
Unfortunately, the delegation was headed by Cardinal Humbert who was one of the strongest advocates of universal papal authority in Rome. The Cardinal was arrogant and disrespectful when he met with Patriarch Michael. The harsh tone of Leo IX’s letter shocked the Patriarch. The seals look as if they had been tampered with, leading him to believe that the papal letter might not be genuine. Pope Leo’s letter to Patriarch Michael demanded that he obey the Pope on the basis of the Donation of Constantine, which we now know was a forgery. Even if it were not, Constantine had no authority to grant the Bishop of Rome universal jurisdiction over the Church. Then when news arrived that Pope Leo IX had died, the Patriarch refused to have any further dealings with the arrogant Cardinal because once a Pope dies his legates lose their authority to act in his name for obvious reasons.
Then as, I have related, the Cardinal’s superior attitude offended the clergy and people of Constantinople. One does not call the wives of Priests whores and their children bastards or tell a monk that he sounds more like he came from a brothel than a monastery during a public discussion and expect to win friends among the clergy of Constantinople. Finally, acting without any real authority, Cardinal Humbert composed and laid a Bull of Excommunication on the Holy Table of the patriarchal cathedral in Constantinople, beginning the schism.
The letter was filled with errors. It refused to address Patriarch Michael as Patriarch of Constantinople. He accused the Patriarch and his supporters of simony at a time when the Latin Church was filled with simony. It accused the Easterners of encouraging castration, and rebaptizing Latins both of which were incorrect. . Cardinal Humbert also accused the Byzantine Church of allowing priests to marry, which is incorrect. The Eastern Church will ordain married men, but once a man is ordained, he cannot get married. I am married, and could not remarry and remain a Priest if my wife died. He falsely stated that men who shaved were refused Communion, which is ridiculous. Finally, he accused the Eastern Church of omitting the “filioque” clause from the creed. Runciman, The Eastern Schism, p. 48) The total absurdity of Cardinal Humbert’s claims is what leads me to believe that the accusation that the Byzantines desecrated the Catholic Eucharist is also untrue.
Unfortunately, this whole incident did not need to lead to permanent schism, because Cardinal Humbert had no authority to take such drastic action. The next Pope Victor II could have restored Communion by simply disavowing Humbert’s rash action and calling for new discussions to resolve the problems between Constantinople and Rome. Unfortunately, he did not. However, the events of 1054 might have been confined to an argument between Constantinople and Rome, had it not been for the Crusades. When the Crusaders took Antioch in 1098 and Jerusalem the following year, they threw out the Orthodox Patriarchs and replaced them with Latin Patriarchs. That is what made the schism permanent. Neither Antioch nor Jerusalem were directly involved in the argument between Rome and Constantinople. Therefore, although there is no doubt that Patriarch Michael was partially to blame for the schism, there was no justification for the ill treatment of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem by the Crusaders. As Runciman rightly points out, that is what made the schism permanent. I cannot help but blame Rome for not instructing the Crusaders to show proper respect to the Christian authorities in lands they conquered, because at that point of time, Antioch and Jerusalem were still in Communion with Rome. Cardinal Humbert’s excommunication only applied to the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the entire Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the Crusaders brought the entire Eastern Orthodox into the schism from Rome. Had the Crusaders treated the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem with proper respect instead of throwing them out of office and replacing them with Latin Bishops what began as an argument between Rome and Constantinople might have remained an argument between Rome and Constantinople instead of a schism that lasts to this day.
Fr. John
D
dcointin
Guest
Fr. John,
Thank you for your contributions to this discussion!
I would like to ask you for your thoughts about papal primacy itself, as distinguished from supremacy and infallibility. Did St. Peter receive any unique charism that set him apart from the other apostles? Is the Bishop of Rome is in any sense a unique successor to St. Peter? Did the Bishop of Rome exercise a particular care for the orthodoxy and unity of the Church different than the bishops of other sees?
Thank you for your contributions to this discussion!
I would like to ask you for your thoughts about papal primacy itself, as distinguished from supremacy and infallibility. Did St. Peter receive any unique charism that set him apart from the other apostles? Is the Bishop of Rome is in any sense a unique successor to St. Peter? Did the Bishop of Rome exercise a particular care for the orthodoxy and unity of the Church different than the bishops of other sees?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Father,
I have not read Runciman. Oddly enough, I have recently start reading “The New Concise History of the Crusades” by Thomas Madden, whom I understand holds Runciman in high regard.After that, I have in line “The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam” by Jonathan Riley-Smith. And then I guess I need to find Runciman’s 3-volumes…
That aside,
I think it is unfair to dismiss New Advent as unbiased because of their Catholicity. It would be the equivalent of me dismissing your views as balanced because you are Eastern Orthodox. This doesn’t deny that New Advent and you would see the polemics from different angles and perspectives. But my dismissal based on prejudice would not be fair to either one of you. That is unless I start running into frequent inconsistencies from either one of you - at which point one of you would become more “credible” - not completely incorrect - but the weight of the opinions would favor those who are more sober, for lack of a better word.
In fact, it is beneficial to see both extremes in that they would point to those issues that each side is more sensitive about. At which point the more “credible” source will eventually become a better witness.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thank you, Isaiah. I and a number of other Catholics (Eastern and Western) have been taking issue with the Catholic Encyclopedia for quite some time now … but not because of its “Catholicity”.
Now back to regularly scheduled discussion.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
St. Peter occupied a position that would later be called “first among equals.” Although he spoke at Pentecost, there is certainly no evidence that he was superior, had any special authority over the Apostles, or anything even close to the authority claimed by modern Popes. When God gave him special vision on the most important issue before the Apostolic Church, whether or not Gentile converts had to obey the Jewish law, St. Peter did not speak “ex cathedra.” Instead, he reported to the Apostolic Council where the matter was discussed, Sts. Paul and Barnabas gave their testimonies and St. James as the local Bishop announced the decision. That sets the pattern for the
conciliarism that the Eastern Orthodox Church has followed ever since.
Fr. John
D
dcointin
Guest
So if I understand you correctly, St. Peter was first in honor, but not set apart by our Lord for any unique function among the apostles?
Could you also comment on the idea of the Bishop of Rome as a unique successor to St. Peter, and him having a unique care for the unity of the Church?
Could you also comment on the idea of the Bishop of Rome as a unique successor to St. Peter, and him having a unique care for the unity of the Church?
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
I always consult legitimate historians and historical documents, not Eastern Orthodox polemics. New Advent presents a very biased account of church history built on the foundation of Roman Catholic doctrine. I do not claim not to have a bias, but still try to rely on credible sources. I looked at several works by recognized church historians this morning before I wrote my response to the quote from New Advent. Most reports are rather sketchy, except for Runciman who gives the most details.
However, as I thought about the whole thing, I suddenly realized that whatever happened in Constantinople in 1054 had little to do with me, because I am under Antioch. A disagreement between Constantinople and Rome should not have effected the Patriarchate of Antioch, but it did because the Latins conquered the city and removed our Orthodox Patriarch and put Latin Bishop loyal to Rome in his place. That act made the schism more than a disagreement between Rome and Constantinople.
Fr. John
- Status