Research on the "East-West Schism"

  • Thread starter Thread starter europe10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

europe10

Guest
I am doing research on the “East-West Schism” that divided medieval Christianity into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches in 1054AD. These branches later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, respectively. It has been recorded that the Church split along doctrinal and theological lines? Could anyone tell me what the doctrinal and theological differences were? Thank you with helping with my research?
 
One of the theological issue was the addition by the latin church of a clause in the Nicene creed. This clause is referred to as the filioque and refers the addition of and the son to a line in the creed.

the original reads:
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.

The Latin Revision reads:
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.

This does not exhaust the theological issues, but this is one of the major ones.

Cheers,
JRB
 
Thank you for the reply. I would like to ask a question and in advance I would like to apologize for my ignorance on this subject. You mentioned that one major theological issue was the addition of the clause “and the Son” to the original version of the Niocene Creed. Could you tell me of what theological significance this was to both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. I personally do not understand the difference. Again, my apologies. I mean no offense.
 
It’s all online. You should really write your own research paper. 😉 Make sure to document those sources!
 
foxscape said:
One of the theological issue was the addition by the latin church of a clause in the Nicene creed. …

the original reads:
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.
Click to expand...
the original reads:
And in the Holy Spirit.
 
dvdjs said:
the original reads:
And in the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
That may be correct however the argument is around the Creed which emerged from Constantinople I, commonly known as the Nicene Creed, and which the Council of Ephesus pronounced anathema upon those who would change.

Don’t confuse the issue for someone who is trying to learn.
 
Nine_Two said:
That may be correct however the argument is around the Creed which emerged from Constantinople I, commonly known as the Nicene Creed, and which the Council of Ephesus pronounced anathema upon those who would change.

Don’t confuse the issue for someone who is trying to learn.
Click to expand...
The truth of this matter is not confusing, and it is important in understanding, for example, certain proscriptions about changing the faith. Statements that are inaccurate are often confusing and can lead to outright false impressions.
 
dvdjs said:
The truth of this matter is not confusing, and it is important in understanding, for example, certain proscriptions about changing the “creed”. Statements that are inaccurate are often confusing and can lead to outright false impressions.
Click to expand...
 
dvdjs said:
The truth of this matter is not confusing, and it is important in understanding, for example, certain proscriptions about changing the faith. Statements that are inaccurate are often confusing and can lead to outright false impressions.
Click to expand...
Canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus proscribes altering the Creed. This is our position, it has been our position since the time of the Council, and it was once the position of the Latins. Go read the Creed as it is inscribed in the Vatican, by St. Leo the Great.
 
Nine_Two said:
Canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus proscribes altering the Creed. This is our position, it has been our position since the time of the Council…
Click to expand...
Do you know against which Creed were they ostensibly proscribing alterations?
 
That may be correct however the argument is around the Creed which emerged from Constantinople I, commonly known as the Nicene Creed, and which the Council of Ephesus pronounced anathema upon those who would change.
Click to expand...
It was actually the Creed of Nicaea that wasn’t supposed to be altered, not the Creed of Constantinople. They’re actually different in some significant ways. 🙂

For example the Creed of Nicaea says that the Father and Son are of one Essence, but the Creed of Constantinople does not. The Creed of Nicaea also has a whole different “last paragraph” insisting on these two being one essence, and the Son being eternal, but again the Creed of Constantinople does not. The Creed of Constantinople not only added parts, but also dropped an equal amount; historically they were completely different Creeds, and Ephesus was referring to the Creed of Nicaea specifically. It wasn’t until later that the Creed of Constantinople became the “normative Creed”, and it was well after the prohibitions against altering or accepting a different Creed from Nicaea.

Peace and God bless!
 
Thank you for these scholarly comments. I am a non-Christian and very new to this topic, so please bear with me if i ask ignorant questions. I am confused as to why the addition of a clause (“and the Son”) to the Nicene creed would lead to a the dispute between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Is it because this clause would somehow call into question the equality of the Holy Trinity? From a non-Christian’s perspective, I thought the Christian God was simultaneously all three…the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost. Could you help me here? (P.S. To Mr. “trophybearer”… I know ***“It’s all online.” ***. That’s why I am here as well as 54 other websites. But I came here for a Christian perspective! I agree with "You should really write your own research paper." I will and that is why I am asking questions.) I thank you all for your thoughtful answers.
 
europe10 said:
Thank you for these scholarly comments. I am a non-Christian and very new to this topic, so please bear with me if i ask ignorant questions. I am confused as to why the addition of a clause (“and the Son”) to the Nicene creed would lead to a the dispute between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Is it because this clause would somehow call into question the equality of the Holy Trinity? From a non-Christian’s perspective, I thought the Christian God was simultaneously all three…the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost. Could you help me here? (P.S. To Mr. “trophybearer”… I know ***“It’s all online.” ***. That’s why I am here as well as 54 other websites. But I came here for a Christian perspective! I agree with "You should really write your own research paper." I will and that is why I am asking questions.) I thank you all for your thoughtful answers.
Click to expand...
The words “And the son” raise the question of whether you have the Holy Spirit coming from just the Father (single procession) or both the Father and the Son (Dual procession), although modern Catholics claim to believe in single procession, it is doubtful that has always been the case.
Regardless of that, from the Orthodox viewpoint the biggest problem with the addition is that it was an addition, anything could have been added and it would have been opposed. According to the Orthodox understanding only an Ecumenical Council had the authority to alter a creed for any reason, while Catholics believe the Pope can unilaterally do so.
 
Ghosty said:
It was actually the Creed of Nicaea that wasn’t supposed to be altered, not the Creed of Constantinople. They’re actually different in some significant ways. 🙂

For example the Creed of Nicaea says that the Father and Son are of one Essence, but the Creed of Constantinople does not. The Creed of Nicaea also has a whole different “last paragraph” insisting on these two being one essence, and the Son being eternal, but again the Creed of Constantinople does not. The Creed of Constantinople not only added parts, but also dropped an equal amount; historically they were completely different Creeds, and Ephesus was referring to the Creed of Nicaea specifically. It wasn’t until later that the Creed of Constantinople became the “normative Creed”, and it was well after the prohibitions against altering or accepting a different Creed from Nicaea.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
These things having been read aloud, the holy Council then decreed that no one should be permitted to offer any different belief or faith, or in any case to write or compose any other, than the one defined by the Holy Fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea, with Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Unless they were anathematizing those who met at Constantinople, they could only have meant the later edition, which is not wholy different than the Nicean Creed.
 
I am doing research on the “East-West Schism” that divided medieval Christianity into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches in 1054AD. These branches later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, respectively. It has been recorded that the Church split along doctrinal and theological lines? Could anyone tell me what the doctrinal and theological differences were? Thank you with helping with my research?
Click to expand...
We will probably wind up re-hacking this thing in front of you, and the stream will be no more decisive or intelligible than past threads, so I suggest you read some of them for starters. 🙂

1] [2]](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=385835) 3] 4] 5]

These are just a very limited random number of them, if you could go back far enough and had the time you would pull up a great deal more.

Good luck!
 
Nine_Two said:
Unless they were anathematizing those who met at Constantinople, they could only have meant the later edition, which is not wholy different than the Nicean Creed.
Click to expand...
They did not mean the later edition. The truth helps dispel confusion.

I like your comment on “wholly different”.
Some thoughts, beyond boilerplate apologetics, on what is meant by “πίστιν ἑπέραν” in canon VII can be read here: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xi.html .
 
I may be alone in this thread in believing the “filioque” was not the reason for the schism. I make no claim to be a historian or a theologian either one. But what I have read persuaded me that the schism was more political and cultural than it was theological.

Since then, however, certain theological and structural differences have been accentuated.

It might be mentioned also that there was another schism; that of the Oriental Orthodox, which are more similar in liturgy and custom to the Eastern Orthodox than they are to the Catholic Church, but are not in the ecclesiastical structure of either. One could almost (but not quite, perhaps) consider the Church of England to be the result of yet another schism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top