east and west split

[RedSoxFan45]

I posted this in another forum a while back and did not get a response.

Why is it when the east and west split, most of the churches didn’t go with Rome? It seems most of the ancient churches are still orthodox. Is this because of geography? I know many orthodox churches have a conterpart now in the catholic church, but from what ive read this ussally occured later on.
Thanks for the help.

 

[Trishie]

With the [Roman] Catholic Church, the Orthodox church has direct continuity with the earliest Christian communities founded in the Eastern Mediterranean by Christ’s apostles. However Eastern Christians were willing to accept the pope only as first among patriarchs.

The split between Catholic and Greek Orthodox split was gradual. In 800AD, the Pope crowned Charlemagne Emperor of the Roman Empire in Constantinople, disregarding the reigning Empress. In 1054 two Roman Cardinals visited the Patriarch of Constantinople carrying the pope’s refusal to recognize the election of Photius as patriarch of Constantinople. Photius in turn challenged the right of the papacy to rule on such issues and denounced the filioque clause as Roman innovation.

In the 5th Century, St. Augustine’s theology developed different theology in the West than existed in the East; and by the 7th Century, most of Europe had discarded the Greek language. All these occurrences led to estrangement, leading to division between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Catholic Churches. In the 13th Century, Western Crusaders sacked Constantinople, which didn’t help the cause of unity.

When the papacy defined itself as infallible (First Vatican Council, 1870), the gulf between East and West deepened. Only consequent to the Second Vatican Council (1962 - 65) has there been serious attempts at mutual reconciliation.

 

[rightandreason]

Here is a good book on the subject. Its not too long, but gives a pretty good summary of the division. Its a bit more complicated than most people make it out to be. You can’t summarize it in a couple of paragraphs.

 

[Robertwilliam]

Here is a good book on the subject. Its not too long, but gives a pretty good summary of the division. Its a bit more complicated than most people make it out to be. You can’t summarize it in a couple of paragraphs.

I notice the title is " The EASTERN Schism."
Orthodox would take exception to that. I feel the schism was on BOTH sides. Maybe the title should be The East-West Schism:shrug:

 

[Genesis315]

In regards to particular Churches it was probably pretty even (about the same amount of bishops on each side–the geography is greater in the Western side, but I think it was less populated). Of course, more Patriarchates were in the East. Generally it seems the dividing line was the imperial divide–those in the eastern empire stayed with Constantinople supported by their emperor.

 

[Cluny]

**
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightandreason View Post
Here is a good book on the subject. Its not too long, but gives a pretty good summary of the division. Its a bit more complicated than most people make it out to be. You can’t summarize it in a couple of paragraphs.
I notice the title is " The EASTERN Schism."
Orthodox would take exception to that. I feel the schism was on BOTH sides. Maybe the title should be The East-West Schism**

---

Runciman is generally recognized as being an objective scholar, despite the title of the book.

Much the same thing can be said about Dvornik’s book THE PHOTIAN SCHISM, in which he speaks very highly of St. Photius.