The Eastern Schism - Causes and Characters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Where does one find a spare bull of excommunication lying around when you are so far from home?
This is one of the things that is particularly troubling about this. At that time, most Pope’s did not write their own documents; but dictated them to a personal secretary. The secretary’s handwriting carried an authenticity for the document as being truly “from the Pope”. Humbert and Leo IX had been friends in France and Leo brought Humbert to Rome and made him his personal secretary. So the handwriting on the bull of excommunication would have seemed authentic, even though Pope Leo IX had died about the time that Humbert arrived in Constantinople.
 
And one other thing.

One often hears references to the holy monks of Mount Athos, the deep spirituality of the Eastern Fathers, the solemnity of the Divine Liturgy compared with the Novus Ordo of the Catholic mass, etc., etc. To be fair, there is much validity in these comments.

And yet, for all this talk of sanctity, one does not see Caerularius acting in humility, turning the other cheek, willing to be wronged, etc.

And let’s say, for the sake of this discussion, that Catholics have been 100% at fault in all of their interactions with the Orthodox.

Okay. How many times did Jesus tell us to forgive? Seven? Does Eastern spirituality include forgiving others in more than just theoretical terms?

The staggering amount of minutiae over canons, councils, and crusades that is constantly cited in these threads suggests to me that some will never let this stuff go. It’s almost as if these events just happened last month and that their parents and grandparents were among the casualties of the sacking of Constantinople last week.

Folks, it was 1,000 years ago. :sad_yes:

The Joint Declaration reads in part:
  1. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.
Excesses. Unforeseen consequences. On both sides.

I’m 100% certain that Catholics think its way past time to put this all behind us.

When will our Eastern brothers ***choose ***to do the same? 🤷
 
And one other thing.

One often hears references to the holy monks of Mount Athos, the deep spirituality of the Eastern Fathers, the solemnity of the Divine Liturgy compared with the Novus Ordo of the Catholic mass, etc., etc. To be fair, there is much validity in these comments.

And yet, for all this talk of sanctity, one does not see Caerularius acting in humility, turning the other cheek, willing to be wronged, etc.

And let’s say, for the sake of this discussion, that Catholics have been 100% at fault in all of their interactions with the Orthodox.

Okay. How many times did Jesus tell us to forgive? Seven? Does Eastern spirituality include forgiving others in more than just theoretical terms?

The staggering amount of minutiae over canons, councils, and crusades that is constantly cited in these threads suggests to me that some will never let this stuff go. It’s almost as if these events just happened last month and that their parents and grandparents were among the casualties of the sacking of Constantinople last week.

Folks, it was 1,000 years ago. :sad_yes:

The Joint Declaration reads in part:
  1. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.
Excesses. Unforeseen consequences. On both sides.

I’m 100% certain that Catholics think its way past time to put this all behind us.

When will our Eastern brothers ***choose ***to do the same? 🤷
If you are ready to put behind you all claims to papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction and every other new dogma proclaimed since the schism and submit along with us to the faith and creed of the seven ecumenical councils, then I promise we will all rejoice and join you joyfully.
 
If you are ready to put behind you all claims to papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction and every other new dogma proclaimed since the schism and submit along with us to the faith and creed of the seven ecumenical councils, then I promise we will all rejoice and join you joyfully.
Sure.

Just as soon as you show me from scripture, from the writings of the Fathers, and from plain old logic and common sense why these are either not present from the beginning or not legitimate developments of doctrine.
 
Sure.

Just as soon as you show me from scripture, from the writings of the Fathers, and from plain old logic and common sense why these are either not present from the beginning or not legitimate developments of doctrine.
And you make my point. By “putting this behind us” what you really mean is we should just surrender what we believe and accept Roman Catholicism in it’s entirety as it is. 🤷
 
After reading this, my sense of the state of affairs is this:

CATHOLICS: We’re really sorry for all the things we did to you. Please come home.

ORTHODOX: We’re really sorry for the things you did to us, too. And thanks, but no thanks.

Thus endeth the dialogue.
That’s not really fair. They already think they are home.
 
That’s not really fair. They already think they are home.
Thank you. We are not separated because of what either side “did” to each other. It’s something deeper. Here is what Patriarch Bartholomew said.

We confirm not with unexpected astonishment, but neither with indifference, that indeed the divergence between us continually increases and the end point to which our courses are taking us, foreseeably, are indeed different. Our heart is opposed to the specter of an everlasting separation. Our heart requires that we seek again our common foundations, and the original starting point that we share. So that, retrospectively we can discover the point and the reasons for our divergence that led to separate courses, and be able, by lifting blame, to proceed thereafter on the same road leading to the same common goal.

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive. The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.
 
And you make my point. By “putting this behind us” what you really mean is we should just surrender what we believe and accept Roman Catholicism in it’s entirety as it is. 🤷
Yup :sad_yes:

And if you present Church Councils and Sacred Tradition it turns into Sola Scriptura really fast, lol.
 
Just one last question before I drop this thread from my reading list
That will be interesting; or more specifically, it’ll be interesting to see what becomes of this thread afterwards. :cool:

Much as I platonically love our separated brethren, I get the impression that some of them don’t understand that the thread was started by you, as distinct from being *about *you. (Hopefully I’ll be gently corrected if I’m wrong about that. :))
 
Thank you. We are not separated because of what either side “did” to each other. It’s something deeper. Here is what Patriarch Bartholomew said.

We confirm not with unexpected astonishment, but neither with indifference, that indeed the divergence between us continually increases and the end point to which our courses are taking us, foreseeably, are indeed different. Our heart is opposed to the specter of an everlasting separation. Our heart requires that we seek again our common foundations, and the original starting point that we share. So that, retrospectively we can discover the point and the reasons for our divergence that led to separate courses, and be able, by lifting blame, to proceed thereafter on the same road leading to the same common goal.

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive. The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.
And “ontologically different” means in what does the Church of Christ subsist. It is unfortunate the the Russian Orthodox Church refuses to participate in discussions prior to the elimination of the eastern Catholic sui iuris churches.
 
Well, I don’t see that as the subject of this thread either; but since you brought it up, I’m rather confused by what you just said. If I remember correctly, the Orthodox Churches that aren’t in the dialogues are the Serbian Patriarchate and the Jerusalem Patriachate. :confused:
 
Well, I don’t see that as the subject of this thread either; but since you brought it up, I’m rather confused by what you just said. If I remember correctly, the Orthodox Churches that aren’t in the dialogues are the Serbian Patriarchate and the Jerusalem Patriachate. :confused:
I was wrong about this, there has been a change. This year only Patriarchate of Bulgaria was absent.

Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue – From 1990 (the 6th):

I. Uniatism
Freising (1990)
Balamand, Lebanon (1993)
Emmitsburg, Baltimore, USA (2000)

II. The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church, Conciliarity and Authority in the Church.
Belgrade, Serbia (2006)
Ravenna, Italy (2007)

III. The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium
Paphos, Cyprus (2009)
Vienna, Austria (2010)

IV. Synodality and Primacy
Amman, Jordan (2014)
 
Much as I platonically love our separated brethren, I get the impression that some of them don’t understand that the thread was started by you, as distinct from being *about *you. (Hopefully I’ll be gently corrected if I’m wrong about that. :))
I get the distinct impression that he doesn’t want to hear the answers he is getting.
 
Thank you. We are not separated because of what either side “did” to each other. It’s something deeper. Here is what Patriarch Bartholomew said.

We confirm not with unexpected astonishment, but neither with indifference, that indeed the divergence between us continually increases and the end point to which our courses are taking us, foreseeably, are indeed different. Our heart is opposed to the specter of an everlasting separation. Our heart requires that we seek again our common foundations, and the original starting point that we share. So that, retrospectively we can discover the point and the reasons for our divergence that led to separate courses, and be able, by lifting blame, to proceed thereafter on the same road leading to the same common goal.

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive. The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.
I can see some indication of the problems between the Churches in these remarks from ***Metropolitan Hilarion **Alfeyev who believes that Catholics are in a crusade against Orthodoxy: ***
An interview with Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of Volokolamsk, the chairman of the Russian Orthodox Department of External Church Relations (excerpt) 2014
It is no secret that the “Uniatism” was and is a special project of the Roman Catholic Church, aimed to convert the Orthodox to Catholicism. With the help of the secular authorities, the “Uniates” have acted for many centuries to the detriment of the Orthodox Church, capturing Orthodox churches and monasteries, converting ordinary people to Catholicism and oppressing the Orthodox clergy in all possible ways. This was the case in the Polish Lithuanian Principality after the 1596 Union of Brest, and this was the case at the end of 1980s and the beginning of 1990s in western Ukraine.

In the present civic confrontation, the Greek Catholics have taken one side, entering into active cooperation with the Orthodox schismatic groups. The head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, together with the head of the so-called Kiev Patriarchate, paced the U.S. State Department offices, calling the American authorities to interfere in the situation and to put Ukraine in order. The Greek Catholics have in fact launched a crusade against Orthodoxy.

ncregister.com/daily-news/the-pan-orthodox-council-ukraine-crisis-and-christian-unity/#ixzz2yu19NFAo

orientale-lumen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-pan-orthodox-council-ukraine-crisis.html
 
Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue – From 1990 (the 6th):

I. Uniatism
Freising (1990)
Balamand, Lebanon (1993)
Emmitsburg, Baltimore, USA (2000)

II. The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church, Conciliarity and Authority in the Church.
Belgrade, Serbia (2006)
Ravenna, Italy (2007)

III. The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium
Paphos, Cyprus (2009)
Vienna, Austria (2010)

IV. Synodality and Primacy
Amman, Jordan (2014)
I can see some indication of the problems between the Churches in these remarks from ***Metropolitan Hilarion *Alfeyev who believes that Catholics are in a crusade against Orthodoxy: **
An interview with Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of Volokolamsk, the chairman of the Russian Orthodox Department of External Church Relations (excerpt) 2014
It is no secret that the “Uniatism” was and is a special project of the Roman Catholic Church, aimed to convert the Orthodox to Catholicism.



My experiences over the years have convinced me that many people sorely need to read the dialogues you referred to earlier – particularly the first one, which can be found here: “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion”

(And that “many people” includes a lot of our fellow Catholics. Just think how different the mentality in the aforementioned document is from the mentality of many Catholic on the net!)​
 
So, after the sack of Constantinople, the Latin Patriarchate was established - essentially forming a branch office of Rome right in the heart of the eastern empire, and because of this…what? The East was justified in schism?
Nice try, but it is an ancient principle that the one guilty of the schismatic act (the formation of a rival lineage of bishops definitely counts as such an act) is the one who cuts himself off from the Catholic Church.
Now to back up a few years…Caerularius lived about 150 years earlier. So, it seems like the schism was a done deal long before the events you describe.
History shows that it is not so black and white. If it were, the synod of Constantinople would not have provisionally added Pope Innocent II to the diptychs decades later while awaiting his synodic letter which they expected to receive as was customary.
 
Nice try, but it is an ancient principle that the one guilty of the schismatic act (the formation of a rival lineage of bishops definitely counts as such an act) is the one who cuts himself off from the Catholic Church.
Now I’m confused. The Catholic Church cut itself off from itself by establishing the Latin Patriarchate? Or was this established by some group other than Rome? I’ve missed the connection, I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top