The spread of the Schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monica4316

Guest
Hello, I know the excommunications happened around the 11th century, but I read that they were only done personally to the people involved and that most ordinary people weren’t even aware this occurred. The source said that it took centuries for the Schism to actually spread and that particularly in more removed places like Russia, they lived for a longer time as if in the pre-Schism church. My question is, does anyone know when the view to separate from Rome actually reached Russia and particularly Novgorod? I read that there was an attempted invasion of Novgorod by the West and at the time it seems a lot of such events were political effects of the Schism, but does this mean the people in Novgorod understood there’s a Schism and wanted canonical separation from Rome? Although if they saw Rome as heretical is that an indication? I am not a historian and I’m not sure how to find an answer to my question… Thank you
 
In 988 Vladimir the Great of Kievan Rus was baptized as a Catholic, but joined the patriarchate of Constantinople rather than Rome. Kiev and Constantinople had been building ties since the 9th century, and while western Europe at the time was little more than the splintering remains of the former Carolingian Empire, the Byzantine Empire time was reaching the peak of its power, conquering Eastern Europe, southern Italy, the Crimea, the Caucasus, Syria and Palestine.

In 1012, Constantinople removed the Pope’s name from its diptychs because Rome started using the Filioque in its liturgy, which was Constantinople’s traditional way of declaring schism.

In 1054, Cardinal Humbert was sent by Pope Leo IX to negotiate with Constantinople a response to the Norman conquest of southern Italy. Pope Leo IX died, and over a year went by before another Pope was elected. During this period without a Pope, Cardinal Humbert acted unilaterally and, on his own (lack of) authority, he attempted to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch of Constantinople in turn excommunicated Humbert. But these purported excommunications only extended to a few individuals, not entire churches or territories.

In 1136, Novgorod became a republic independent of Kievan Rus, but remained loyal to Constantinople’s patriarchate and continued to use the Byzantine liturgy. Novgorod fought off a series of invasions by Sweden and the Holy Roman Empire in the 13th and 14th century, and was finally conquered by Moscow in 1478.

In 1285, Constantinople revoked the Council of Lyons of 1274 and anathematized all who held to it, which would have been the first formal church wide excommunication by one side. Since Russia was under Constantinople’s patriarchate, this would have been the first time Russia broke communion with the west.

In 1439, the Council of Florence attempted to negotiate reunion between Rome and the eastern churches, but Prince Vasilly II of Moscow rejected the terms of the union as soon as his bishops returned.

In 1448, Russia gained de facto independence from Constantinople as its own patriarchate, since Constantinople was little more than a shell of the former Byzantine Empire, a status that was formally approved by Constaninople in 1589.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_the_Rus%27_Khaganate

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veliky_Novgorod#Novgorod_Republic
 
Thank you for the reply… I’m struggling to understand something in particular relating to this.

I am a convert from Orthodoxy… I see many reasons to believe in the Catholic Church and the Papacy. This websites explains them quite well… catholicbridge.com/orthodox/index.php

Also I know our faith is not based on private revelations but there are miracles and revelations that directly support Catholic doctrines… Like Our Lady of Lourdes calling herself the Immaculate Conception and Our Lady of Good Success prophesying about the dogmas of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception. Also there are other miracles in support of Purgatory and prophesies from Blesseds about a future Pope and the reunion of the East and West with the Pope etc…I know our faith is based on public revelation but I’m saying this because of something I’ll bring up next…

I read about an Orthodox Saint Procopius of Ustiug. His life was written later but he is said to have died in the early 1300s, right at the beginning. Apparently the manuscripts from the 16th century say this but they also mention the 12th and the 15th centuries and its unclear. But in one source, I read he came to Novgorod from maybe Germany around 1240.

He was Latin rite Catholic and a merchant. He loved the Eastern liturgy and joined the Eastern church. He became a “fool for Christ” and a miracle worker. There are many miracles described during and after his life.

When I read this I became scared that I was mistaken about the Church… Yet what about all support I just described for the Catholic Church? The issue is that from a Catholic perspective, going from Catholic to Orthodox is seen as going into Schism… And it seems he became so holy.

One idea I was thinking is that apparently a Latin psalter was found with him when he died and apparently he prayed it throughout his life. Apparently they later found it was arranged according to Roman tradition. I thought maybe the Schism wasn’t really developed in Russia and Novgorod at the time he came there, and he never meant to be in schism, maybe he just wanted to be Eastern? (Which is different of course).

In one Orthodox source it said he was baptized Orthodox in Novgorod… But I don’t know if that’s accurate? If the schism wasn’t really developed there at the time, were the people there already against Rome? Was there a schism of belief even if not officially, or does it only matter what happened officially, and did that come later for Russia?

I generally struggle with scruples and fear and as I considered all this I was tempted to just give up altogether. There’s so much evidence for Catholicism yet I can’t fit in this account. I thought maybe I’m missing something? Does anyone have any advice?

I really hope this doesn’t cause anyone like me to doubt… I mean, there truly are many reasons to believe in Catholicism. (For example, one of the articles talks about how the East accepted divorce around 600 AD because of pressure from the Emperor, but the Pope was against it and the Church has always been against divorce. But the Orthodox allow it).

Maybe the fact that Procopius of Ustiug kept praying the Latin psalter points to something… Maybe for him it wasn’t about a schism. But I’m wondering if anyone has any thoughts or.more historical information because the uncertainty in all this is causing a struggle for me… Thank you
 
I found an article just now about how early on the Russians actually did not baptize Latins who wanted to be in their church… One thing I can’t figure out is if they saw them as being in communion?

There are stories of others and they were not baptised. So its unclear if Procopius was or not - a source talks about that, but he would be the only one, and his life was written centuries later… Its unclear. I’m trying to see if for them it was like joining another church in schism from Rome or if it was like joining a different rite that’s in communion (even if politically there were difficulties).

I guess this relates to another more general question about there being miracles outside of Catholicism. God can give actual graces to anyone, and the Orthodox church is the closest to us and they have a valid Eucharist… So the idea of there being other miracles doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. But the Church does say about the schism… When I read about these Orthodox saints who used to be Catholic, it can be confusing how to understand it all. Its different than someone who was just raised in Orthodoxy and didn’t have exposure to Catholicism and couldn’t have known much about it… Although, maybe not, because how much theology about the Pope did people even know back then? Perhaps it was more political for the ordinary lay people… I don’t know. But then we have these wonder working Orthodox saints who were Catholic. And on the flip side we have Catholic miracles supporting Catholicism and converts from Orthodoxy who showed real sanctity and heroic virtue, like the Russian Catholic martyrs from the 1900s. What could a theological response to this be? Do we just leave it in God’s hands? I get scrupulous about things and this sort of uncertainty can be confusing for those with scruples. I can keep thinking that we don’t know what happened, maybe this one didn’t intend schism, maybe another one didn’t have access to theology at that time, but in the end I just don’t know. I don’t want to doubt the Catholic Church… I do believe in it, but I’m confused how to interpret something like this. Does anyone have any thoughts? I am not at all advocating doubting Catholicism and I hope this hasn’t confused someone else… There are many reasons to believe in Catholicism. This must fit in somehow and I hope God guides to the correct understanding…

Maybe this just has to do with the heart of the person, which we don’t know? For example - schism is bad, but maybe the time was very confusing back then and the schism happened slowly and on and off and people maybe didn’t have resources to know much about it all… These were just ordinary people to start with, not scholars. They felt God in the Byzantine liturgy because He is there in the Eucharist and it is a beautiful rich liturgy. I’m not supporting the Schism at all or in support of being separated from Rome… I mean maybe at the beginning there was no real separation, and later on the people had no means to assess the situation? Its not like they could study the early Church Fathers at the local library. The people at the top of the hierarchy would know more, but someone who’s a regular lay person, maybe they didn’t have the same knowledge? I’m not advocating schism at all but the Church says God looks at us according to what we know, not what we don’t… Could that explain it? Maybe I’ll never understand and I know certain things should be left to God and the Church…

I hope that doesn’t sound prideful as if I know more than these Orthodox saints. I’m just looking for a way to connect these accounts with Catholic teachings. Maybe I’m wrong and its another way that they fit. I’ve had fears that I’m wrong altogether. I hope God guides me to the right understanding, because I really know very little.
 
One thing to keep in mind is that the Roman Catholic Church never excommunicated Russia or any of the other Eastern Orthodox churches. To this day, Eastern Orthodox Christians are permitted to receive communion in Catholic churches. The recent Vatican document Dominus Iesus affirmed that the Eastern Orthodox churches can rightfully be called churches, and that elements of sanctification and truth can be found in those churches.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

The area around Russia and Novgorod has a long and complicated history of its people choosing between Orthodox and Catholic. It is possible that Procopius had no idea there even was a schism, since Constantinople only formally declared schism in 1285, and Novgorod was an independent Republic lying between Byzantine Moscow and Catholic Sweden. Simply converting to the Byzantine liturgical Rite at the time was not a declaration of schism. Both Rites were accepted in the Catholic Church.
 
PluniaZ said:
In 988 Vladimir the Great of Kievan Rus was baptized as a Catholic, but joined the patriarchate of Constantinople rather than Rome. Kiev and Constantinople had been building ties since the 9th century, and while western Europe at the time was little more than the splintering remains of the former Carolingian Empire, the Byzantine Empire time was reaching the peak of its power, conquering Eastern Europe, southern Italy, the Crimea, the Caucasus, Syria and Palestine.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding that Kievan Rus was evangelized by Sts Cyril & Methodius, greek brothers from Constantinople.
 
Monica4316 said:
I really hope this doesn’t cause anyone like me to doubt… I mean, there truly are many reasons to believe in Catholicism. (For example, one of the articles talks about how the East accepted divorce around 600 AD because of pressure from the Emperor, but the Pope was against it and the Church has always been against divorce. But the Orthodox allow it).
Click to expand...
Perhaps you didn’t see it in the other thread you started.
Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: A Forgotten History

Catholics like to pretend that their Church never allowed divorce, but it is completely false.
 
PluniaZ said:
In 1012, Constantinople removed the Pope’s name from its diptychs because Rome started using the Filioque in its liturgy, which was Constantinople’s traditional way of declaring schism.
Click to expand...
Bolded text is utter nonsense.
 
PluniaZ said:
One thing to keep in mind is that the Roman Catholic Church never excommunicated Russia or any of the other Eastern Orthodox churches. To this day, Eastern Orthodox Christians are permitted to receive communion in Catholic churches. The recent Vatican document Dominus Iesus affirmed that the Eastern Orthodox churches can rightfully be called churches, and that elements of sanctification and truth can be found in those churches.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

The area around Russia and Novgorod has a long and complicated history of its people choosing between Orthodox and Catholic. It is possible that Procopius had no idea there even was a schism, since Constantinople only formally declared schism in 1285, and Novgorod was an independent Republic lying between Byzantine Moscow and Catholic Sweden. Simply converting to the Byzantine liturgical Rite at the time was not a declaration of schism. Both Rites were accepted in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
thanks for the response! I’m thinking about these points simply because I know the age we are living in is different… back then, there was no printed press, media, etc. The Schism of course spread eventually but it must have been in a way I don’t know about, different than it would today. I’ll keep thinking about this question… perhaps only God knows:shrug: I’ll pray for Him to guide my thinking!
 
prodromos said:
Bolded text is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
“Chartophylax Nicetas (of Maronea) claimed that in 1009 there was a “schism between the two Sergii” (Patriarch Sergi us and Pope Sergi us IV), which may have resulted from Pope Sergius’s inclusion of the filioque in his synodal letter to Constantinople, although the exact reason for the break remains unknown. It is possible that earlier popes had not been commemorated in Constantinople because of their use of the filioque (Pope Gregory V in 996 , Sylvester II in 999) but the schism between the two Sergii was significant-after 1009 the popes were never again commemorated in the diptychs at Constantinople (except during the Latin occupation and brief periods of unia following Lyons and Florence).”

Source: Siecienski, History of the Filioque

So yes, actually, removal of the Pope’s name from the diptychs in Constantinople is interpreted by historians and scholars as declaring schism.
 
PluniaZ said:
“Chartophylax Nicetas (of Maronea) claimed that in 1009 there was a “schism between the two Sergii” (Patriarch Sergi us and Pope Sergi us IV), which may have resulted from Pope Sergius’s inclusion of the filioque in his synodal letter to Constantinople, although the exact reason for the break remains unknown. It is possible that earlier popes had not been commemorated in Constantinople because of their use of the filioque (Pope Gregory V in 996 , Sylvester II in 999) but the schism between the two Sergii was significant-after 1009 the popes were never again commemorated in the diptychs at Constantinople (except during the Latin occupation and brief periods of unia following Lyons and Florence).”

Source: Siecienski, History of the Filioque

So yes, actually, removal of the Pope’s name from the diptychs in Constantinople is interpreted by historians and scholars as declaring schism.
Click to expand...
It is no more declaring schism than excommunication of someone for serious sin is casting them out of the Church. It is disciplinary
 
PluniaZ said:
In 988 Vladimir the Great of Kievan Rus was baptized as a Catholic, but joined the patriarchate of Constantinople rather than Rome. Kiev and Constantinople had been building ties since the 9th century, and while western Europe at the time was little more than the splintering remains of the former Carolingian Empire, the Byzantine Empire time was reaching the peak of its power, conquering Eastern Europe, southern Italy, the Crimea, the Caucasus, Syria and Palestine.

In 1012, Constantinople removed the Pope’s name from its diptychs because Rome started using the Filioque in its liturgy, which was Constantinople’s traditional way of declaring schism.

In 1054, Cardinal Humbert was sent by Pope Leo IX to negotiate with Constantinople a response to the Norman conquest of southern Italy. Pope Leo IX died, and over a year went by before another Pope was elected. During this period without a Pope, Cardinal Humbert acted unilaterally and, on his own (lack of) authority, he attempted to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch of Constantinople in turn excommunicated Humbert. But these purported excommunications only extended to a few individuals, not entire churches or territories.

In 1136, Novgorod became a republic independent of Kievan Rus, but remained loyal to Constantinople’s patriarchate and continued to use the Byzantine liturgy. Novgorod fought off a series of invasions by Sweden and the Holy Roman Empire in the 13th and 14th century, and was finally conquered by Moscow in 1478.

In 1285, Constantinople revoked the Council of Lyons of 1274 and anathematized all who held to it, which would have been the first formal church wide excommunication by one side. Since Russia was under Constantinople’s patriarchate, this would have been the first time Russia broke communion with the west.

In 1439, the Council of Florence attempted to negotiate reunion between Rome and the eastern churches, but Prince Vasilly II of Moscow rejected the terms of the union as soon as his bishops returned.

In 1448, Russia gained de facto independence from Constantinople as its own patriarchate, since Constantinople was little more than a shell of the former Byzantine Empire, a status that was formally approved by Constaninople in 1589.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_the_Rus%27_Khaganate

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veliky_Novgorod#Novgorod_Republic
Click to expand...
Do you mean to say that this entire mess started because somebody basically decided to make himself the Pope? :mad:
 
Monica4316 said:
… But then we have these wonder working Orthodox saints who were Catholic. And on the flip side we have Catholic miracles supporting Catholicism and converts from Orthodoxy who showed real sanctity and heroic virtue, like the Russian Catholic martyrs from the 1900s. What could a theological response to this be?
Click to expand...
I’ll chance a response: that the patriarchs in the East and West should resolve their differences and end this millennium old scandal! It’s a problem that they created and make the people suffer unnecessarily.
 
prodromos said:
It is no more declaring schism than excommunication of someone for serious sin is casting them out of the Church. It is disciplinary
Click to expand...
It could also be an early attempt at declaring autokephali. In that case only the local bishop would be remembered within the church, except for the occasional prayer for the Pope and all the Patriarchs by the Russian Patriarch during a pontifical church wide Liturgy or something like that. One cannot know without studying the context. Its not as if Rome is declaring union is no more, by excluding the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, Catholicoi and Metropolitans in their Liturgies. Why would the reverse be any less or more?
 
Monica4316 said:
Thank you for the reply… I’m struggling to understand something in particular relating to this.

I am a convert from Orthodoxy… I see many reasons to believe in the Catholic Church and the Papacy. This websites explains them quite well… catholicbridge.com/orthodox/index.php

Also I know our faith is not based on private revelations but there are miracles and revelations that directly support Catholic doctrines… Like Our Lady of Lourdes calling herself the Immaculate Conception and Our Lady of Good Success prophesying about the dogmas of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception. Also there are other miracles in support of Purgatory and prophesies from Blesseds about a future Pope and the reunion of the East and West with the Pope etc…I know our faith is based on public revelation but I’m saying this because of something I’ll bring up next…

I read about an Orthodox Saint Procopius of Ustiug. His life was written later but he is said to have died in the early 1300s, right at the beginning. Apparently the manuscripts from the 16th century say this but they also mention the 12th and the 15th centuries and its unclear. But in one source, I read he came to Novgorod from maybe Germany around 1240.

He was Latin rite Catholic and a merchant. He loved the Eastern liturgy and joined the Eastern church. He became a “fool for Christ” and a miracle worker. There are many miracles described during and after his life.

When I read this I became scared that I was mistaken about the Church… Yet what about all support I just described for the Catholic Church? The issue is that from a Catholic perspective, going from Catholic to Orthodox is seen as going into Schism… And it seems he became so holy.

One idea I was thinking is that apparently a Latin psalter was found with him when he died and apparently he prayed it throughout his life. Apparently they later found it was arranged according to Roman tradition. I thought maybe the Schism wasn’t really developed in Russia and Novgorod at the time he came there, and he never meant to be in schism, maybe he just wanted to be Eastern? (Which is different of course).

In one Orthodox source it said he was baptized Orthodox in Novgorod… But I don’t know if that’s accurate? If the schism wasn’t really developed there at the time, were the people there already against Rome? Was there a schism of belief even if not officially, or does it only matter what happened officially, and did that come later for Russia?

I generally struggle with scruples and fear and as I considered all this I was tempted to just give up altogether. There’s so much evidence for Catholicism yet I can’t fit in this account. I thought maybe I’m missing something? Does anyone have any advice?

I really hope this doesn’t cause anyone like me to doubt… I mean, there truly are many reasons to believe in Catholicism. (For example, one of the articles talks about how the East accepted divorce around 600 AD because of pressure from the Emperor, but the Pope was against it and the Church has always been against divorce. But the Orthodox allow it).

Maybe the fact that Procopius of Ustiug kept praying the Latin psalter points to something… Maybe for him it wasn’t about a schism. But I’m wondering if anyone has any thoughts or.more historical information because the uncertainty in all this is causing a struggle for me… Thank you
Click to expand...
Great to hear of your conversion to Catholicism. 👍🙂

Just to say, it is more appropriate to say that Our Lady declared herself to be the Immaculate Conception, because Our Lady said, “I am the Immaculate Conception”, which means that God created her to be the Immaculate Conception.

Looking forward to reading the link you have provided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top