East/West Schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter utunumsint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

utunumsint

Guest
Hi,

I was hoping to get some reading suggestions on the History of the East West Schism.

I’m currently going through a consice history of the Papacy, and I find it facisnating to see the relations between Rome and the Eastern Empire / Patriarch of Constantinople, the struggles over the use of the term Unviersal bishop, the eastern heresies such as Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, to name only a few on the Eastern side. Then before and during the dark ages, the issue of the filioque, the early papal resistance to including it in the creed (one of the Leo’s and on other pope thought it was orthodox, but superfluous), follow by a string of useless and wicked Popes in the 800s to 1000s, with only a few good examples. Popes meddling in affairs of the Eastern Patriarch over which they were not properly informed.

What a mess!!! 🙂

I can’t help but think that a great deal of these issues had to do with different sets of technical terminology, but also over hugely politicised issues.

Anyway, I was hoping to get a non-polemical Eastern perspective (and Western Catholic as well if anyone can suggest anything) on some of these historical issues. I’m really not that sure why it matters much. Also, does anyone have any links to Photius’ works against the filioque, and any good Catholic sources for it at the time of the controversy?

God bless,
Ut
 
utunumsint said:
Hi,

I was hoping to get some reading suggestions on the History of the East West Schism.

I’m currently going through a consice history of the Papacy, and I find it facisnating to see the relations between Rome and the Eastern Empire / Patriarch of Constantinople, the struggles over the use of the term Unviersal bishop, the eastern heresies such as Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, to name only a few on the Eastern side. Then before and during the dark ages, the issue of the filioque, the early papal resistance to including it in the creed (one of the Leo’s and on other pope thought it was orthodox, but superfluous), follow by a string of useless and wicked Popes in the 800s to 1000s, with only a few good examples. Popes meddling in affairs of the Eastern Patriarch over which they were not properly informed.

What a mess!!! 🙂

I can’t help but think that a great deal of these issues had to do with different sets of technical terminology, but also over hugely politicised issues.

Anyway, I was hoping to get a non-polemical Eastern perspective (and Western Catholic as well if anyone can suggest anything) on some of these historical issues. I’m really not that sure why it matters much. Also, does anyone have any links to Photius’ works against the filioque, and any good Catholic sources for it at the time of the controversy?

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
I have not read this particular book yet, but I have heard great things about it. It’s called His Broken Body. It was written by an Orthodox priest, but it is supposedly very fair to both sides.

I hope that helps.

In Christ,
Andrew
 
the schism is just an argumentive state is not like the filioque is all that evil but it has a way of spawning an overanalytical veiw of gods mysteries. immaculate conception is irrelavent when you consider the eastern teaching on original sin. its easy to argue about grace notes but using them as a power trip is a whole other kind of evil.
 
crowcounty said:
the schism is just an argumentive state is not like the filioque is all that evil but it has a way of spawning an overanalytical veiw of gods mysteries. immaculate conception is irrelavent when you consider the eastern teaching on original sin. its easy to argue about grace notes but using them as a power trip is a whole other kind of evil.
Click to expand...
But what about Monothelitism? One could argue the same thing about this issue, and yet the Eastern bishops were ready to separate from Western church over this issue. One could argue it was only over terminology.

God bless,
Ut
 
I found the epilogue to The first seven ecumenical councils (325-787): their history and theology by Leo Donald Davis (1983) to be an interesting summary on controvery beginning after the first seven ecumanical councils. (You may be able to preview it online at google books.)

The issue of a council being ecumenical has been contentious, as different councils are considered ecumenical between Roman Catholic and Orthodox.

Acording to the named book, the West accepted only seven councils as ecumenical until 1073-1085.
 
Harpazo said:
I have not read this particular book yet, but I have heard great things about it. It’s called His Broken Body. It was written by an Orthodox priest, but it is supposedly very fair to both sides.

I hope that helps.

In Christ,
Andrew
Click to expand...
I have it, and have read it. It is excellent. The conclusion: The Catholic Church must become more orthodox, and the Orthodox Church must become more catholic. Amen! Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top