Perspective on East-West 1054 Great Schism

[sirach2v4]

I’m reading into the second ( of five) volumes of (historian) Yaroslav Pelikan’s History of the Christian Tradition: the development of doctrine.

The schism occurred in 1054, when the Pope excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius.

The schism has two main roots. A point covered many times in these forums is the doctrinal issue of the use of the “filioque” [and the Son]. The issue is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father [the Eastern position], or from the Father and the Son [the Western position].

The second root was about the ecclesiology of the church, or, who is in charge. The East claims that only an ecumenical council, not the Pope, could update the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, which was developed in some [Eastern] councils.

Pelikan makes the observation that the Latin and Greek theologians didn’t communicate their ideas to each other well, because they didn’t understand the other’s language. It took centuries, for example, for even a limited amount of Augustine’s writings to be translated into Greek.

And, he says, the Greeks complained that Greek was a better language than Latin to express the complex theological ideas that were in dispute.

So, a schism actually occurred in 1054, but it was based on theological disputes that started in the fourth century.

Pelikan also asserts that Eastern theology and doctrine was more developed than in the West (which the Greeks referred to as the land of the setting sun – as if that proved anything).

 

[Zekariya]

Proceeds
Greek: ekporeusis (from Greek Creed)
Latin: procedit (from Latin Creed)
Proienai is the Greek equivalent of the Latin procedit.

Cause
Greek: Aition
Latin: Principium

This author has a good understanding of this topic. If you can read the full article in the link, you will understand this more.

At this point, it may be very helpful for us to distinguish between two important Greek words. Above, we discussed the semantic differences between the Greek term “ekporeusis” (i.e., to proceed from a sole Source, Principal, or Cause) and the unequivalent Latin term “procedit” – the term unwittingly used by the West to translate Constantinople I’s “ekporeusis”, and so the root of the semantic confusion. However, there is yet another Greek term for “proceeds”, which is “proienai”, and this term, which is equivalent to the Latin term “procedit”, is used quite often among Eastern (especially Alexandrian) fathers to refer to the Spirit’s procession from both Father and Son. For, when the Greek fathers use “proienai”, they are not referring to the Father’s monarchy at all, but to the same, collective sense of the Spirit’s procession (involving both Father and Son) as expressed in the Western tradition.

…]

The Roman position has never changed: The Father is the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit; but, with that taken for granted, one may also validly speak of the Spirit proceeding from both Father and Son in a collective sense – that is, with the Father acting as Cause (Aition / Principium) and the Son acting as eternal, essential Participant in the Father’s spirating of the Spirit – the Spirit of Sonship, which of course requires the Personal existence and participation of a Son.

At this point, it may be very helpful for us to distinguish between two important Greek words.* Above, we discussed the semantic differences between the Greek term “ekporeusis” (i.e., to proceed from a sole Source, Principal, or Cause) and the unequivalent Latin term “procedit” – the term unwittingly used by the West to translate Constantinople I’s “ekporeusis”, and so the root of the semantic confusion.* However, there is yet another Greek term for “proceeds”, which is “proienai”, and this term, which is equivalent to the Latin term “procedit”, is used quite often among Eastern (especially Alexandrian) fathers to refer to the Spirit’s procession from both Father and Son.* For, when the Greek fathers use “proienai”, they are not referring to the Father’s monarchy at all, but to the same, collective sense of the Spirit’s procession (involving both Father and Son) as expressed in the Western tradition.* We will explore this aspect of the Eastern fathers’ theology below.* But, for now, let us merely focus on the distinction and address what is recounted in the relatively recent document promoted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which is entitled Filioque: A Clarification.

]This is the context in which the The Catechism of the Catholic Church is speaking (as quoted above by Cyril Quattrone) when it asserts that the Spirit “has His nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principal and through one spiration”. That one Principal of the Spirit is the Father, and the Father alone. It is only in the collective sense of the Personal, consubstantial communion between Father and Son that the Spirit proceeds from both.

Full article: catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx

 

[Zekariya]

And, indeed, once one steps away from a narrow Byzantine perspective and realizes that the Roman tradition expresses and embraces two distinct but equally valid truths – i.e., both the Father as the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit’s procession (“ekporeusis”) and the consubstantial communion of Father and Son resulting in the procession of the Spirit in a collective sense (“proienai”), we can suddenly read the other Western expressions presented by Cyril Quattrone in their true and intended light. For, when the 4th Lateran Council declares that “…the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally”, this does not mean, as Mr. Quattrone assumes, that “…the adverb ‘equally’ indicates that in whatever way He proceeds from the Father, in the same manner He proceeds from the Son.” Rather, it merely refers to the collective sense of procession from Father and Son (“proienai”) and does not deny or threaten the Father as the sole Cause of the procession (“ekporeusis”). Likewise, the 11th Council of Toledo (not to be confused with the 3rd Council of Toledo, which first proclaimed Filioque) in no sense declares, as Mr. Quattrone misinterprets it, that “…in whatever way the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, He also proceeds from the Son.” This is not what Toledo XI says at all. Rather, when it says that the Spirit “is called the Spirit, not only of the Father nor only of the Son, but equally of the Father and of the Son”, this is merely a reference to their Personal consubstantial communion – the collective context of procession. Likewise, when it declares that the Spirit “proceeds not from the Father into the Son nor from the Son to sanctify creatures; but He is shown to have proceeded from both equally, because He is known as the Love of the sanctity of both”, this is not a denial of the Father as the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit, but a denial of the Arian position that the Son is merely a temporal participant in the Spirit’s procession – that the Son merely receives the Spirit after the procession (from the Father) comes about, as opposed to this taking place in the context of an eternal communion between Father and Son. It is of course quite disturbing (from the Western perspective) that modern Eastern Orthodox (i.e., Photian) theology comes very close to advocating this same Arian view by refusing to incorporate the Son’s participation in the Spirit’s eternal procession in any way. We will discuss this further below.

But, Cyril Quattrone also cites a (somewhat distorted) statement from St. Augustine, in which that father is presented as saying (emphasis Mr. Quattrone’s):
But the Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son and then proceed from the Son for our sanctification, but He proceeds from Both at the same time, although the Father has given this to the Son, just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from Himself, so He also proceeds from the Son. (On the Trinity, xv:27)

Now, as with the other citations above, when Augustine says that the Spirit “does not proceed from the Father into the Son”, this is not a denial of the Father’s monarchy or His role as the Spirit’s sole Source or Cause (Aition / Principium). For, as we’ve already presented, Augustine clearly taught that the Father is the sole “Principium” (Augustine’s word) of the Spirit. Indeed, in this very same section of his On the Trinity, Augustine clearly writes (emphasis mine [the author])…

For the Father alone is not from another, and therefore He alone is called unbegotten, not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the usage of disputants, who employ such language as they can on so great a subject. And the Son is begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from Both [Father Son]. But He [the Spirit] would be called the Son of the Father and of the Son, if – a thing abhorrent to the feeling of all sound minds – Both had begotten Him. Therefore the Spirit of Both is not begotten of Both, but proceeds from Both. (On the Trinity, xv; 26)

Full article: catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx

 

[Zekariya]

Here, Augustine uses ‘begotten’ as a synonym for ‘spirates’ – a reference to the Spirit’s one spiration (from the Father). And this is what Augustine says just before the quote presented by Mr. Quattrone, thus establishing the context of what Augustine means when he says that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son “at the same time”. The reference is to the eternal, consubstantial communion between Father and Son (the context of a collective procession – “proienai”), not to the procession from the Father alone (“ekporeusis”) as the Spirit’s ultimate Cause or Source. Augustine’s statement that the Spirit “does not proceed from the Father into the Son” is clearly not a denial of “the Father giving the procession” but is intended to dispute the Arian error that the Son is merely a temporal recipient of the Spirit – the same error that the 11th Council of Toledo condemns above. For, when viewed in context, what Augustine is referring to is how the Spirit does not proceed from Father and Son in the sense that a child proceeds from a human father and mother. His full quote reads:

…the Holy Spirit is not said to be begotten, but rather to proceed; since if He, too, was called a Son, He would certainly be called the Son of both, which is most absurd, since no one is son of two, save of father and mother. But far be it from us to surmise any such thing as this between God the Father and God the Son. Because not even a son of men proceeds at the same time from both father and mother; but when he proceeds from the father into the mother, he does not at that time proceed from the mother; and when he proceeds from the mother into this present light, he does not at that time proceed from the father. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds at once from both; although the Father has given this to the Son, that He should proceed, as from Himself, so also from Him. (On the Trinity, xv; 27)

Full article: catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m reading into the second ( of five) volumes of (historian) Yaroslav Pelikan’s History of the Christian Tradition: the development of doctrine.

The schism occurred in 1054, when the Pope excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius.

The schism has two main roots. A point covered many times in these forums is the doctrinal issue of the use of the “filioque” [and the Son]. The issue is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father [the Eastern position], or from the Father and the Son [the Western position].

The second root was about the ecclesiology of the church, or, who is in charge. The East claims that only an ecumenical council, not the Pope, could update the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, which was developed in some [Eastern] councils.

Pelikan makes the observation that the Latin and Greek theologians didn’t communicate their ideas to each other well, because they didn’t understand the other’s language. It took centuries, for example, for even a limited amount of Augustine’s writings to be translated into Greek.

And, he says, the Greeks complained that Greek was a better language than Latin to express the complex theological ideas that were in dispute.

So, a schism actually occurred in 1054, but it was based on theological disputes that started in the fourth century.

Pelikan also asserts that Eastern theology and doctrine was more developed than in the West (which the Greeks referred to as the land of the setting sun – as if that proved anything).

First, the schism didn’t actually occurred in 1054. The truth is, no one can really put a solid date when the actual break happened. Latins communed in Greek Churches, Greeks communed in Latin Church, all the way up until the Fall of Constantinople in the 13th century. Also, the Pope did not excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople. The legate, Cardinal Humbertus, was the one who excommunicated the Patriarch under authority from the Pope. The problem is the Pope had died by the time the excommunication was issued, so Cardinal Humbert had no authority to excommunicate someone in behalf of a Pope if there is no Pope at the time. Patriarch Michael excommunicated Cardinal Humbert, but not the Bishop of Rome, so there was no real break in communion between the two Patriarchal Churches.

Second, the authority to change the Creed was agreed upon by all (including Rome) in the Second Ecumenical Council. It is not a notion out of thin air that the East believed, it is a canon set in stone by the entire Church.

I wouldn’t say that Greek is the best language to communicate the faith, I think that is just polemics. However, because Scripture is in Greek, and a great majority of the early Church Fathers spoke Greek and wrote in Greek, Greek then became the de facto language for discussing and understanding the faith. Even today in many Bible commentaries I listen to or read, there is a greater appreciation of what is written if it is understood in the original Greek context. But that is not because of something inherent in Greek, just the fact that Scripture itself was written in Greek and in the Greek context.

 

[sirach2v4]

Thanks for all the comments so far. A book is limited first in its size, then by the horizons of the historian.

So, the detail in preceding posts about the actual excommunication is interesting, to say the least.

Yes, Pelikan reports the difference in attitude of the West versus the East in regard to patriarchal churches, a problem which persists to this day.

Pelikan is my source for the information or opinion about the controversy about Greek being a better language in which to discuss the deep aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity, in particular.

This all makes me regret that I never undertook the study of the ancient, classical languages.

In my youth, I already decided that I would know well how to live a life that was 500 or 1000 years in length – particularly all the things I have wanted to study.

I forgot to mention my solution to the problem of all these theological debates which lingered over the centuries: I would have locked all the theologians in a room with reduced food rations, until they figured out what they all could agree on.

 

[Zekariya]

Lo, plainly He calls the Holy Ghost Spirit of Truth. But that He and none other than He is the Truth, hear Him again saying, I am the Truth. The Son by Nature then being and being called Truth, see how great Oneness with Him the Spirit hath. For the disciple John saith somewhere of our Saviour, This is He that came by water and blood and the spirit, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit That beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. Therefore also, the Holy Ghost indwelling in our inner man, Christ Himself is said to dwell therein, and so it is. And indeed the blessed Paul most clearly teaching this, says, But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Apply, sir, a quick ear to what is said. Having named the Spirit of Christ That dwelleth in us, he straightway added, If Christ be in you, introducing the exact likeness of the Son with the Spirit, Which is His Own and proceeding from Him by Nature. Therefore He is called the Spirit of adoption also, and in Him we cry Abba, Father. And as the blessed John somewhere says, Hereby know we that He dwelleth in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.

• St Cyril of Alexandria, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Book 2

For observe, when calling the Comforter “the Spirit of truth,” that is, His own, He says that He comes from the Father. For as the Spirit naturally belongs to the Son, being in Him and proceeding through Him, so also He belongs to the Father. But the qualities of Their Substance cannot be distinct, where the Spirit is common to both. Let not then any of those who are accustomed impiously to employ the language of folly lead us to the perverted opinion that the Son, executing as it were a kind of ministerial service, vouchsafes the Spirit that is received from the Father to the creature. For some have not scrupled perversely to say this. But it is more consistent to believe that since the Spirit belongs to Him, as He also certainly belongs to God the Father, He sends Him to His holy disciples to sanctify them. For if they think that in making the Son in this also a minister and servant to us, they form and utter a shrewd conception, surely it follows that we say to them: Ye fools and blind; do you not perceive that you are going back, and diminishing the glory of the Only-begotten, when you string together miserable sophistries from the ignorance that is in you? For if the Son ministers the Spirit from the Father, being ranked as a servant, surely it is necessary to admit that the Spirit is utterly different in Essence from Him, and perhaps His superior and far above Him, if the case be as you in your ignorance suppose. For if the Son does not proceed from the Father, that is, from His Essence, as you think, surely the Spirit when compared with the Son would be regarded as superior to Him. What then say we, when we hear Christ himself saying of the Spirit: He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine and shall declare it unto you?

• St Cyril of Alexandria, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Book 10

When then “He,” that is the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He shall guide you into all the truth. See how free from extravagance the expression is: note the soberness of the phrase. For having told them that the Comforter would come unto them, He called Him the Spirit of Truth, that is, His own Spirit. For He is the Truth. For that His disciples might know that He does not promise them the visitation of a foreign and strange power, but rather that He will vouchsafe unto them His Presence in another form, He calls the Comforter the Spirit of Truth, that is, His own Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is not in truth alien from the Substance of the Only-begotten, but proceeds naturally from it, having no separate existence from Him so far as identity of nature is concerned, even though He may be in some sort conceived of as having a separate existence. The Spirit of Truth then, He says, will lead you to complete knowledge of the truth. For as having perfect knowledge of the truth, of which He is also the Spirit, He will make no partial revelation of it to those who worship Him, but will rather engraft in their hearts the mystery concerning it in its entirety. For even if now we know in part, as Paul says, still, though our knowledge be limited, the fair vision of the truth has gleamed upon us entire and undefiled. As then no man knoweth the things of a man, according to the Scripture, save the spirit of the man which is in him, in the same way, I think, to use the words of Paul, none knoweth the things of God save the Spirit of God which is in Him.

• St Cyril of Alexandria, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Book 10

 

[Zekariya]

The Comforter then, that is, His own Spirit, being omnipotent and omniscient, glorifies the Son. And how does He glorify Him? Surely what His Spirit knows and is able to effect, Christ knows and is able to effect. And if, as He says, the Spirit receives of Him, the Spirit Himself being omnipotent, surely He Himself has a power which is universal. And we must in no wise suppose that the Comforter, that is, the Spirit, is lacking in innate and inherent power in such a way that, if He did not receive assistance from without, His own power would not be self-sufficient to fully accomplish the Divine designs. Any one who merely imagined any such idea to be true about the Spirit would with good reason undergo the charge of the worst blasphemy of all. But it is because He is Consubstantial with the Son, and divinely proceeds through Him, exercising universally His entire activity and power, that Christ says, “He shall receive of Me.” For we believe that the Spirit has a self-supporting existence and is in truth that which He is, and with the qualities predicated of Him; though, being inherent in the Substance of God, He proceeds and issues from it and has innate in Himself all that that nature implies. For the Divine Substance is not His by participation or by relation, still less is It His as though He had a separate existence from It, since He is an attribute of It. For just as the fragrance of sweet-smelling flowers, proceeding in some sort from the essential and natural exercise of the functions or qualities of the flowers that emit it, conveys the perception thereof to the outer world by meeting those organs of smell in the body, and yet seems in some way, so far as its logical conception goes, to be separate from its natural cause, while (as having no independent existence) it is not separate in nature from the source from which it proceeds and in which it exists, even so you may conceive of the relation of God and the Holy Spirit, taking this by way of illustration. In this way then the statement that His Spirit receives something from the Only-begotten is wholly unimpeachable and cannot be cavilled at. For proceeding naturally as His attribute through Him, and having all that He has in its entirety, He is said to receive that which He has. And if this meaning is conveyed in language that is obscure, far from being offended at it, we should with more justice lay the blame on the poverty of our own language, which is not able to give expression to Divine truths in a suitable way. And what language is adequate to explain the ineffable Nature and Glory of God? He says then that the Comforter “will receive of Mine, and will show it unto you;” that is, He will say nothing that is not in harmony with My purpose; but, since He is My Spirit, His language will be in every way identical with Mine, and He will show you of My Will.

• St Cyril of Alexandria, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Book 11

For that the Spirit impresses the Saviour’s Image on the hearts of those who receive Him surely does not admit of question; for Paul plainly exhorteth those who had fallen through weakness into observance of the Law, in the words: My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you. For he says that Christ will not be formed in them save by partaking of the Holy Spirit, and living according to the law of the Gospel. Therefore, as in the firstfruits of creation, which is made regenerate into incorruption and glory and into the Image of God, Christ establishes anew His own Spirit in His disciples. For it was necessary that we should also perceive this truth, namely, that He brings down and grants the Spirit unto us. Therefore, also, He said: All things, whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine. And as the Father hath, of Himself and in Himself, His own Spirit, so also the Son hath the Spirit in Himself, because He is Consubstantial with Him, and essentially proceeded from Him, having by Nature in Himself all the attributes of His Father.

• St Cyril of Alexandria, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Book 12

 

[Zekariya]

If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Ghost, so that he used through him a power not his own and from him received power against unclean spirits and power to work miracles before men and shall not rather confess that it was his own Spirit through which he worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.

• St Cyril of Alexandria, The Council of Ephesus, Anathemas Against Nestorius, Anathema IX
  ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ix.x.html

 

[sirach2v4]

First, the schism didn’t actually occurred in 1054. The truth is, no one can really put a solid date when the actual break happened. Latins communed in Greek Churches, Greeks communed in Latin Church, all the way up until the Fall of Constantinople in the 13th century. Also, the Pope did not excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople. The legate, Cardinal Humbertus, was the one who excommunicated the Patriarch under authority from the Pope. The problem is the Pope had died by the time the excommunication was issued, so Cardinal Humbert had no authority to excommunicate someone in behalf of a Pope if there is no Pope at the time. Patriarch Michael excommunicated Cardinal Humbert, but not the Bishop of Rome, so there was no real break in communion between the two Patriarchal Churches.

Second, the authority to change the Creed was agreed upon by all (including Rome) in the Second Ecumenical Council. It is not a notion out of thin air that the East believed, it is a canon set in stone by the entire Church.

I wouldn’t say that Greek is the best language to communicate the faith, I think that is just polemics. However, because Scripture is in Greek, and a great majority of the early Church Fathers spoke Greek and wrote in Greek, Greek then became the de facto language for discussing and understanding the faith. Even today in many Bible commentaries I listen to or read, there is a greater appreciation of what is written if it is understood in the original Greek context. But that is not because of something inherent in Greek, just the fact that Scripture itself was written in Greek and in the Greek context.

Points 1 and 2: Pelikan does not portray history in these two ways. And, neither do the various sources that he cites.

Re: Greek. Again, I posted what I read, because I thought these matters were interesting. I am glad that people have provided additional and contrasting insights.

Pelikan’s books in this history of doctrine series are heavily annotated and so he has reasons for what he says. Otherwise, what would he know more than anybody else?

Thanks, ALL

 

[Abu]

There was no sufficient reason for the fact of Photius plunging the East from fidelity into schism as discussed below.

Catholic Apologetics Online
1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope. Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, “An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.”
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-2.php?t=139&n=1268

1254. What is the Greek Orthodox Church?
There are some 16 different Orthodox Churches existing independently of one another. After the first really definite break with Rome when Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, left the Catholic Church in the ninth century, the Eastern Church followed in the path of all schismatical Churches, splitting up into further divisions. Eight of these separate sections of Orthodoxy have their own Patriarchs, namely, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Bulgaria, Rumania, Russia, and Servia. The others lack definite rule. The term “Greek Orthodox Church” is popularly applied to any or all of these Churches; but strictly speaking it should be reserved for that section of Orthodoxy which acknowledges the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is really one of the smaller sections, for the Bulgarians, Rumanians, Russians and others of Slav nationality, are Greeks in no sense of the word. But it is clear that there is no one united Orthodox Church at all, any more than there is one united form of Protestantism. However, since the schismatic Orthodox Churches began with the rebellion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople against Rome in the ninth century, we can allude to all the Orthodox Churches as belonging to the Greek Schism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Points 1 and 2: Pelikan does not portray history in these two ways. And, neither do the various sources that he cites.

Re: Greek. Again, I posted what I read, because I thought these matters were interesting. I am glad that people have provided additional and contrasting insights.

Pelikan’s books in this history of doctrine series are heavily annotated and so he has reasons for what he says. Otherwise, what would he know more than anybody else?

Thanks, ALL

I just thing the argument for a certain language to transmit the faith is a rather silly argument. While I noted that the original texts for the New Testament, and a great majority of early Christian writing was in Greek, it wasn’t solely on the language that would unlock the mysteries and secrets of these writings. A lot of it is in context, and context isn’t always kept in the text. For example, today when we say 9/11, everyone knows what that is. But 1000 years from now, a reader looking at two people who keep saying 9/11 will miss what they are referencing if that reader is not aware of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. So it doesn’t matter if the reader knows English or not.

As for the year of the Great Schism, many other writers have come up with arguments pointing out that the East-West Schism really is a difficult event to give a specific date and time for when it actually occurred. As I pointed out, communion was still given to the laity on both side well after the mutual excommunications. And the issue of East and West can be traced as far back as the establishment of Constantinople as the new capital of the Roman Empire. While the issue wasn’t as serious back then, the relationship between East and West was at a steady decline from that point on.

 

[Mickey]

After the first really definite break with Rome when Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, left the Catholic Church in the ninth century.

Wow! That is way off the mark. This Australian radio station in very misinformed.

 

[Schism_hater]

But it is clear that there is no one united Orthodox Church at all, any more than there is one united form of Protestantism.

Really? I can rattle off a dozen or so theological differences between, say, a Baptist and an Episcopalian. I’d like to see someone here give one substantive theological difference between, say, Russian Orthodoxy and Greek Orthodoxy.

That statement is simply false and destroys any credibility of the source.

 

[Nine_Two]

Really? I can rattle off a dozen or so theological differences between, say, a Baptist and an Episcopalian. I’d like to see someone here give one substantive theological difference between, say, Russian Orthodoxy and Greek Orthodoxy.

That statement is simply false and destroys any credibility of the source.

Sadly this fiction seems to come from the inability of some to understand that the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox are distinct movements. Then they have a tendency to count schismatic groups within either communion as proof they are disunited, while of course writing off their own schismatic groups (such as SSPX) as anomalies.

 

[Abu]

The groups of national Orthodox Churches are independent of one another with regard to authority or jurisdiction, with no recognition of the Vicar of Christ as instituted by Christ.

785. I know very little about Eastern Rite Churches separated from Rome and would like to know at least something of them.
The Catholic Church has to conduct her ecumenical activities on two fronts, one with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the other with the various Protestant Churches of Western Christendom. Normally, English-speaking Catholics are more in contact with the latter and correspondingly unfamiliar with Eastern Orthodoxy. The first thing to be noted is that not all Eastern Rite Churches are separated from Rome. There are about twenty groups of Eastern Orthodox Churches existing as national Churches in a state of separation from Rome and independently of one another as regards authority or jurisdiction. So we have the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Syrian, or Russian, or Rumanian, or Bulgarian, etc. As contrasted with these twenty separated groups, there are nine or ten different Eastern Rite Churches which are in union with Rome, acknowledging Papal Supremacy. These are popularly spoken of as the “Uniate Eastern Churches” and members of them are recognised by the Pope as Catholics every bit as much as Western or Latin Rite members of the Catholic Church.
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=15&n=787

 

[Nine_Two]

The groups of national Orthodox Churches are independent of one another with regard to authority or jurisdiction, with no recognition of the Vicar of Christ as instituted by Christ.

785. I know very little about Eastern Rite Churches separated from Rome and would like to know at least something of them.
The Catholic Church has to conduct her ecumenical activities on two fronts, one with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the other with the various Protestant Churches of Western Christendom. Normally, English-speaking Catholics are more in contact with the latter and correspondingly unfamiliar with Eastern Orthodoxy. The first thing to be noted is that not all Eastern Rite Churches are separated from Rome. There are about twenty groups of Eastern Orthodox Churches existing as national Churches in a state of separation from Rome and independently of one another as regards authority or jurisdiction. So we have the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Syrian, or Russian, or Rumanian, or Bulgarian, etc. As contrasted with these twenty separated groups, there are nine or ten different Eastern Rite Churches which are in union with Rome, acknowledging Papal Supremacy. These are popularly spoken of as the “Uniate Eastern Churches” and members of them are recognised by the Pope as Catholics every bit as much as Western or Latin Rite members of the Catholic Church.
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=15&n=787

Yes, you should stop using that as a source. It is clearly written by people who have no idea what they are talking about (or worse, are being misleading on purpose in order to stop inquiry into Orthodoxy).

 

[Abu]

Vicar of Christ
A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep” (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.
newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

It is high time to face the facts of reality and listen to Christ who founded His Church on St Peter – His Supreme Vicar with His authority to teach on faith and morals.

Having commissioned Peter as His first Vicar, Jesus instructed the eleven and proclaimed: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you until the consummation of the world.” (Mt 28:18-20). A teaching authority founded by God must be worthy of God – certain in truth, infallible. Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing, and the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.

The Sacred Scriptures are available as defined, and free from error only on the authority of Christ’s Church.

The inability to even offer any realistic excuse for rejecting Christ’s Supreme Vicar and His Church after six centuries of fidelity is glaring.

 

[Mickey]

Yes, you should stop using that as a source. It is clearly written by people who have no idea what they are talking about (or worse, are being misleading on purpose in order to stop inquiry into Orthodoxy).

Indeed!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What does not get mentioned on these boards much in regards to this issue is what is truly meant by Ecumenical council from which it first appears after the fourth century compared to today Orthodox’s opinion of what constitutes an Ecumenical council.

The original understanding of what consisted of an Ecumenical council pointed to the participation of the existing Emperor’s who were ecumenical by name.

Do today’s Orthodox view still keep the Emperor’s in mind when addressing the ecumenical councils? Who had a stake in church movements within the empire.

In the West we are no longer under any secular governing authority and are free from Emperor’s and secular rulers over the Church.

The Roman Catholic Church has returned to the ante-Nicene period when the Church of Rome was free from secular powers, although persecuted. She is no longer in the post-constantinople (post-Nicene) period when ruled over by both Eastern and Western Emperors.

So to call for an ecumenical council today, would not be the same as the first 7 ecumenical councils, that had an Emperor’s presence felt at every council.

So long as the Roman Pope is free, there is no such thing as an ecumenical council, because what made it ecumenical was the Emperor who possessed the title ecumenical.

Something to consider