Granted, of course, that we had not been in “full communion” for a few centuries prior to Florence, but … well, I don’t want to quibble about whether or not there was a full schism before Florence, so suffice it to say that the Council made the situation much, much worse.
Actually not sufficient. It was really the fall of Constantinople that made things much, much worse.Granted, of course, that we had not been in “full communion” for a few centuries prior to Florence, but … well, I don’t want to quibble about whether or not there was a full schism before Florence, so suffice it to say that the Council made the situation much, much worse.
Why then are the 11th century events always refered to as the “Great Schism”?Granted, of course, that we had not been in “full communion” for a few centuries prior to Florence, but … well, I don’t want to quibble about whether or not there was a full schism before Florence, so suffice it to say that the Council made the situation much, much worse.
)That’s a mystery for the ages. :emoticon:
I think this is one of the issues the west has to deal with when it comes to the historicity of the claims of Rome. From all appearances the orientals had no idea that these ideas of ‘universal jurisdiction’ and ‘infallibility’ even existed. They don’t question whether it is justifiable to break communion with Rome, only whether Rome and the Greeks are heretics. If Rome had universal jurisdiction and infallibility, why are the orientals (and all those who broke communion with Rome) so silent on the issue? Why don’t they feel a need to defend themselves against romes claims of authority?
Baseless statement. The OO don’t think Latins are necessarily heretical, as I’ve heard the EO carry on about silly, tired things like the filioque.
The very fact that they weren’t concerned with the claims of Rome is what is curious. The fact that they were breaking communion with the vicar of Christ, the one who held the keys and bound and loosed. They fact that they weren’t concerned with breaking communion with Peter is curious. The Protestants on the other hand had very clear opinions of the claims of Rome, and their own counter arguments. It is very curious that none of this is present with the early schisms.
Perhaps because it was more of a geographic incident, rather than a theological one. People attribute a magical “forever in communion with Rome” status to the Maronite Church that, quite frankly, probably never existed - it probably had the same status as the Syriac Orthodox for 8 centuries.
This is so true.It is pretty clear to anyone who studies Church history that any schism is dated by convenience, usually related to some big event that everyone can point to say “this is when that (big event) happened”, like the excommunication of 1054 by the Papal legates, or the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This ignores the complexity of history (e.g., that the Pope that the legates were representing had died while they were on their way to Constantinople; that the Armenians did not formally reject Chalcedon until 506 at the Council of Dvin, etc.), but certainly makes it easier to talk about history and assume that everyone will know what you mean by “the Great Schism”, “the Council of Chalcedon”, etc. What the Great Schism or EO-RC relations have to with the Oriental Orthodox, I don’t know… (sorry to attempt to refocus the thread away from you, Chalcedonian quarrelers…
back at you Non-Chalcedonian
It is very Latin, just like the concepts of universal jurisdiction and infallibility. It is the terminology of Vatican I and Vatican II.
Baseless statement? That response is a bit harsh for “The impression I’ve gotten”. Certainly the actual OO who has posted in this thread hasn’t seen fit to tell me my impressions are “baseless statement(s)”.
If you consider discussing it with a group of Syriac Orthodox bishops, than yes, it is a baseless. As I said, the Syriac Churches do not fervently condemn Rome of anything unlike the EO. While communion would be nice, however, they’re not going to make themselves subject to tyranny and overreaching authority. The only OO Church that would take issue with communion with Rome barring the last matter is the Copts.
It seems you have grossly misunderstood my original comment.
To hopefully be fair to both you and MorEphrem, I’m taking all the statements in this thread to be indicative of how other people see it, since both of you are equally not in the OO communion. I don’t know that intercommunal marriages really count for much, either; there are plenty of such marriages between Copts and Greeks in Alexandria (hence the rule in place as of a few years ago that marriages, baptisms, etc. performed by either will be recognized by both within the Patriarchal territory itself), and while it has brought the two churches closer together, it has not resulted in recognized, open intercommunion across both churches (nor should it).
I can’t help but feel, given the direction you’ve taken this, that you’ve completely misunderstood my original comment.
Yep, as I said, my impression of the OO perspective is that the Bishop of Rome isn’t held in as great importance as he is even within the EO.
