The Orthodox-33 A.D or 1054 A.D?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthewmatt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matthewmatt

Guest
I’ve never really understood this but did the Orthodox Church used to be in union with the Catholic Church before the schism? protestants tell me that the Orthodox had always been at odds with the Catholic Church and just officially broke away at 1054. So what is the deal about the Orthodox when were they formed and is their any Proof that they were in union with the Catholic Church before 1054? I like to have when i show my protestant friends.

Thanks!
 
I would go to www.ancientfaith.com and look for Fr Tom Hopko’s podcasts. He has been going through the Church, century by century. I think I just finished listening to the 8th century.
The Roman Catholic “expert” on the Eastern Church is Fr. Tate.
His books are sold in St Vladimir’s Orthodox seminary. I have heard him speak, I think you would find him informative.

From what I have listened to so far, and I think Fr Hopko has been fair in his take on things…at least he says “to their credit” when he refers to the RCC.

I think that there were problems that became worse over time, eventually leading to the schism.
 
Hi Matthew. There are three major splits in world Christianity: (1) The schism of the Nestorians following the condemnation of Nestorius at the council of Ephesus in 431 AD, which is the ultimate source of the Assyrian Church of the East centered in the Persian Empire, primarily in what is now Iraq. (2) The schism following the council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, which led to the creation of separate factions which were “Chalcedonian” (these accepted the Christological formula promulgated in the Tome of Leo, and include the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church and its Eastern Catholic counterparts) and “non-Chalcedonian” (these are the Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian and Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox, the Indian Orthodox, the Syriac Orthodox, and the Armenian Orthodox). (3) The “Great Schism” between the Eastern and Western Churches of the Western/Latin and the Eastern/Greek halves of the historic Roman Empire. This last one is conventionally dated to 1054 AD, but it is important to note that none of these dates are anything more than a convenience, and the East had known about at least some of the things that the West was doing for centuries without ceasing communion with them (and vice-versa). It was only when the mutual excommunications were delivered (in 1054 AD at the Hagia Sofia in Constantinople, to which the Eastern patriarchs responded in kind soon after) that we can really say that the two were definitively out of communion.

So it does not really make sense to talk about any of these dates as though they map out precisely the history of the churches, but more a basic outline. For instance, while it is convenient to talk about the formation of the Assyrian Church of the East in relation to the aftermath of the council of Ephesus in 431, the truth is that some time before that they held the first East Syrian council known as the Synod of Isaac in 410 AD, followed by the Synod of Dadisho’ in 424. These were East Syrian councils, signaling that Seleucia-Ctesiphon had an autonomy that, while not yet to be defined against the backdrop of anti-Nestorianism (e.g., the Christological argument that the East Syrians would eventually lose), meant that they did not depend on the approval of Rome or Constantinople, but instead defined themselves as a uniquely Persian church. In fact, one of the political forces driving these early East Syrian councils was the suspicion under which the Christians in the Persian empire lived: as a Christian minority in a majority Zoroastrian milieu, their bishops were regularly arrested and imprisoned as alleged sympathizers or agents of the Byzantines, who were the enemies of the Persians. So in calling their own councils they showed emperor Yazdgird that they were free of foreign influence. (Unfortunately in time that would make them essentially free of orthodox influence, too.)

Various people have proposed similar reasons for the EO/OO split, as well (a sort of “ethnic revolt” by the non-Greeks of the empire…pfffffffffffffffffffffft), and for the EO/RC split (compounded centuries of misunderstandings as the Greek-speaking East and Latin-speaking West became less and less able to understand each other). I don’t know about that, but I do know that it was a long estrangement leading eventually to a painful divorce. Think about it: The liturgy in the West was originally changed from Greek to Latin under Pope Victor circa late 2nd century AD (he ruled from 189 to 199). The Filioque was originally proposed in a local council in Toledo in the fifth century. Certainly from just these two examples we can see that there were many, many centuries throughout which the Greek East and the Latin West could be said to be developing along their own paths, but we do not say that one spread from the other, only that they developed differently.

tl; dr version: 1054 AD is the traditional/lazy date of the “Great Schism”, but does not signify the beginning of a new church any more than any other particular date in early Christian history. Both churches are apostolic and hence date back to the time of the apostles. Neither is older or younger than the other, they just accuse each other of having invented new/discarded old dogmas. Even if this is true, it does not change apostolic history wherein Peter and Paul went to Rome and Antioch, and the other apostles and disciples to their own places (Thaddeus/Jude to Mesopotamia and Armenia, St. Thomas to India, St. Mark to Egypt, St. Paul to Athens, etc).
 
The strife between the Eastern and Western halves of the Church is very ancient, much more so than the pious legend of 1054 AD (nothing actually happened in that year of great importance). The Greek-speakers dominated the first seven ecumenical councils, but as the Greek world declined and the Latin world re-ascended, the stress grew.

One can trace some of the stress back to the earliest schisms; the Acacian schism, the Monophysite schism, the Nestorian schism, etc. etc., which almost always arose in the East; tensions escalated around the time of the Quinisext council, which drew up disciplinary canons for the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils, and was solely Greek; it is to this day accepted by the Orthodox but not by Catholics, as it attempted to force the custom of Greek-speaking churches (i.e. no azymes) on the Latin Church. At this point, one can see a definite distancing.

I believe he schism was irreversible, I believe, around 870 AD, when the Latin Church and the Greek Church held two different “Eight Ecumenical Councils” within a decade of each other in the same city: the Fourth Councils of Constantinople of 869 and 879. However, the schism wasn’t fully consummated until the middle of the 15th century with its attendant councils, and the fall of Constantinople to the Turks (alternate dating to the Sack by the Crusaders). The schism progressed over a long period of time, and was not precipitated as easily or quickly as any one event, such as the Cerularius excommunications of 1054, would lead history to believe - nothing in history is that simple.

The churches had been on diverging paths for centuries. They didn’t carom off of each other in one instant. To look at the root of this is the study of a lifetime, of hundreds of books: the political style of Byzantium, the heresies and how they were responded to, the great figures and Emperors, the Crusades, the Mohammedan threat, etc.

Forty years after that date, the Emperor, I believe, Alexius Komnenus of Byzantium (I finally got that straight after remember the Alexiad was written by a Komnena) wrote the Pope asking for help against the Saracen; the First Crusade was preached, and began in 1099 (it would be another 200 years before Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders due to myriad factors, not the least of which was Byzantine duplicity and court intrigue). If the schism was complete by that time, would Pope Urban have preached the Crusade, and so many of the Latins have gone to fight it, often bankrupting themselves? Doubtful. The fact seems to be, that at most levels of society (even today, for that matter), many were unaware that the churches had diverged at all: they were common Christians in a common Christendom. The schism started at the higher levels of society, amongst the rulers, theologians, heresiarchs, and intelligentsia, and trickled down.

Sorry for the disjointed post, as I attempted to touch on the main pertinent points of an extremely complex, long, and interesting topic in a short internet post. There have been scores of books written that one would have to read and synthesize, in order to even begin to form an image of what happened, from disciplines ranging from theology, to politics, to military history.

To answer your main question: parts of the Greek and Latin churches had been in communion and out of communion with each other constantly, since the time of the Acacian schism, with a hard date for “all communion ending” being impossible to set. There are parts of the Church - the Oriental, for example - which had broken communion in the 5th century, and the Egyptian, which broke communion around the same time. The breaking point in Greek-Latin relations is much harder to pin down; there was for ages tension between the two parts of the Church, but there is no day that one can point to and say, “Here, the two main halves of Christendom have been torn asunder”, as one can with reasonable accuracy for the Monophysites (the Latrocinium/Second Council of Ephesus, 449 AD, which condemned Pope Leo the Great and his Tome), or the Protestants (the Wars of Religion/“Sometime in the 1520s”).
 
The difference between the Orthodox and other “break-away” groups like the Lutherans and Anglicans is that the Orthodox kept the Apostolic faith they inherited.
 
From even a either perspective, you can find both sides granting 33 A.D. to the other. For instance, you find stuff like this referring to the Orthodox and Catholic rightful claim to a valid priesthood, and thus ordination leading back to Christ.On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church–profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacrament, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops–cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. (Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, 1993, #13)
 
No one questions that both go back to the Apostolic Age - I believed what was being asked is, “when did they diverge, or when did the stress begin? did the Orthodox have a Protestant-friendly faith in opposition to Roman Papalism as early as Nicaea?”. The answer is no - they’re both Catholic, in the Protestant sense of the word “Catholic”.
 
The same would be said by the Oriental Orthodox who does not need another 4 councils to preserve their faith, they only need 3 and kept their apostolic faith.

The Eastern Orthodox would claim just the same.
ConstantineTG said:
The difference between the Orthodox and other “break-away” groups like the Lutherans and Anglicans is that the Orthodox kept the Apostolic faith they inherited.
Click to expand...
 
tensions escalated around the time of the Quinisext council, which drew up disciplinary canons for the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils, and was solely Greek; it is to this day accepted by the Orthodox but not by Catholics, as it attempted to force the custom of Greek-speaking churches (i.e. no azymes) on the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
NPNF2, Vol 15, p357, contains the following quotes from **Hefele **(A Roman Catholic scholar):

“Nearly a century later Pope Hadrian I. distinctly recognized all of the Trullan decrees in his letter to Terasius of Constantinople and attributes them to the Sixth Synod: “All the Holy Six Synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a lamb being pointed to by the precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images.” Here the reference is unmistakably to the Trullan canon LXXXII.”

“**That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost entirely by Greeks. They specifically pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.”

So trullo was accepted by Pope Hadrian 1. Whatever latter popes decided.
I believe he schism was irreversible, I believe, around 870 AD, when the Latin Church and the Greek Church held two different “Eight Ecumenical Councils” within a decade of each other in the same city: the Fourth Councils of Constantinople of 869 and 879.
Click to expand...
No, no, no. Both councils were attended by the Pope of Rome, John VIII sent legates that approved the 8th Council of 879, and canceled the one of 869. See Francis Dvornik(roman catholic scholar) book, the Photian schism:
books.google.fr/books?id=X_A8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+photian+schism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PjW-T-rBKKq50QWz7qEW&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=the%20photian%20schism&f=false
One can trace some of the stress back to the earliest schisms; the Acacian schism, the Monophysite schism, the Nestorian schism, etc. etc., which almost always arose in the East
Click to expand...
Pelagianism? Vigilius out of communion with the Fathers of the 5th oecumenical council? Donatism? The so called Meletian schism with Rome and Damasus having it wrong about the true Patriarch of Antioch, who presided the 2nd oecumenical council?
 
marlo said:
The same would be said by the Oriental Orthodox who does not need another 4 councils to preserve their faith, they only need 3 and kept their apostolic faith.

The Eastern Orthodox would claim just the same.
Click to expand...
And so?

By the way, your quote about the Filioque:
St. Basil’s Against Eunomius - Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts…
Click to expand...
is simply a forgery, see here:
persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_2000_num_58_1_1989 The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the Filioque Reconsidered, page 156
 
marlo said:
The same would be said by the Oriental Orthodox who does not need another 4 councils to preserve their faith, they only need 3 and kept their apostolic faith.

The Eastern Orthodox would claim just the same.
Click to expand...
The problem is, whatever later reconciliations and theologic gymnastics used to reconcile their theologies later, they stopped short of the generally recognized minimum of orthodoxy - the first four councils (the Trinity and all of the Christological ones). Full orthodoxy is the first seven; the fullness of all truth is twenty-one.
 
I usually say both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches came from the apostles and that none is really “older” than the other.

Besides if Protestants were to assert the legitimacy of the Orthodox, they would have to accept a priesthood, bishops and sacraments…are they ready to do that? Is it really helpful for them to use Orthodoxy as an argument?
 
Khalid said:
The problem is, whatever later reconciliations and theologic gymnastics used to reconcile their theologies later, they stopped short of the generally recognized minimum of orthodoxy - the first four councils (the Trinity and all of the Christological ones). Full orthodoxy is the first seven; the fullness of all truth is twenty-one.
Click to expand...
You would have to prove it.
 
Matthewmatt said:
I’ve never really understood this but did the Orthodox Church used to be in union with the Catholic Church before the schism? protestants tell me that the Orthodox had always been at odds with the Catholic Church and just officially broke away at 1054. So what is the deal about the Orthodox when were they formed and is their any Proof that they were in union with the Catholic Church before 1054? I like to have when i show my protestant friends.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Several points can be made working our way back in time…

~ 325 a.d., The Nicene creed makes it an article of faith that we believe in “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”

How is “Catholic” defined?

~180 a.d. Bp Irenaeus, a disciple of Bp Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle, uses “Catholic Church” but “catholic” isn’t understood in a generic sense.

Here’s why.

In “Against Heresies”

Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3 Irenaeus names the Church as the Catholic Church for the 1st time, which he is defending.

“For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: Oh! The depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! Romans 11:33 But [the superior skill spoken of] is not found in this, that any one should, beyond the Creator and Framer [of the world], conceive of the Enthymesis of an erring Æon, their mother and his, and should thus proceed to such a pitch of blasphemy; nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Æons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm

Q: How does Irenaeus define the Catholic Church?

“Against Heresies”, Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3
  1. “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with** this Church**, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
Q: yeah but which “Church” is “this Church” that has pre-eminent authority, that all the Churches everywhere must agree with? Here’s his answer
  1. "the apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded* Anacletus*; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes.
[snip] for space

To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. *Alexander *followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."

Note:

Therefore, “the Church” = The “Catholic Church” = all Churches in union with Rome

That’s why Irenaeus lists all the popes of Rome down to his time, so there is no mistaking which Church is “this Church” i.e. the “Catholic Church” he is speaking of, and that all Churches everywhere must agree with, specifically on account of its pre-eminent authority. And he writes where he received this teaching
  • the apostles Peter and Paul
  • apostolic tradition faithfully handed down to his time
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

**~107 a.d. **When Ignatius of Antioch, also a disciple of St John the apostle uses the name “Catholic Church” , that’s why he refers to Rome as the Church that holds the presidency.
 
The Orthodox Church was formed in 1054 AD when it split from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the only Church that has been in existence since 33 AD.
 
Matthewmatt said:
I’ve never really understood this but did the Orthodox Church used to be in union with the Catholic Church before the schism? protestants tell me that the Orthodox had always been at odds with the Catholic Church and just officially broke away at 1054. So what is the deal about the Orthodox when were they formed and is their any Proof that they were in union with the Catholic Church before 1054? I like to have when i show my protestant friends.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.htm

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.htm

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/does_the_orthodox_church_predate_the_catholic_church.htm

There was no communion named the Orthodox Church prior to the schism. The faith of the Church was called orthodox,but the Church was called catholic. Nor was there a communion named the Christian Church,as the protestant scholars call the early Church.

scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#scripture_II

"[T]he Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).
 
There was no communion named the Orthodox Church prior to the schism. The faith of the Church was called orthodox,but the Church was called catholic. Nor was there a communion named the Christian Church,as the protestant scholars call the early Church.
Click to expand...
We still are the only Catholic Church:

The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
 
That’s getting in to semantics - the name needed to be changed because of the schism, and is the very definition of “denomination” (Latin for being given a new name, or taking a new name): the Greek part of the Catholic Church which became the Orthodox Catholic Church took a new name, and by that definition is a denomination.

Not that I’d typically use such a semantic argument, but - fight semantics with semantics. Unlike several posters in this thread, I believe both have apostolic foundation and apostolic faith, and full theologic, if not ecclesiastic, orthodoxy (i.e. first seven councils), if not the fullness of the faith (all twenty-one).

Riddle me this: the Orthodox Church, if I recall correctly, subscribes to Conciliar Church Government based on the Pentarchy. But, there is no way that any of the Four Patriarchates (nor Moscow) could ever call an Ecumenical Council, thus, leaving the Orthodox with an orthodox faith, but no valid method nor form of Church Government (and thus, in a sense, leading to the raskolniy and similar), being paralyzed in ancient tradition (not the case, as Orthodoxy has changed greatly since Barlaam of Calabria and Palamas duelled) or having no authority in order to enact even disciplinary changes with full canonical standing and force.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top