What divided East and West in the Great Schism?

[wmscott]

First off let me apologize if I have opened a can of worms, My intent was not to create a finger pointing session or hard feelings. I genuinely want to know. So if I have read correctly, the differences are more centered on Church hierarchy, traditions, and customs. That with regards to scripture, salvation, and the like, we are fairly in line with each other. have I misinterpreted?

 

[nicky_st_leo]

Orthodoxs believe that everything that is Western is heretic, the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic churches are wrong, the Pope is the Antichrist, Rome is “whore of babylon” only they are right, only byzantine tradition is right they also have to change their attitude, we are no longer in 1054

This is an absurd caricature of the Orthodox.

Correct. I listed only a very few of the issues. There was a harsh letter published recently in which two Orthodox bishops gave their outlook on the situation.

lastampa.it/2014/04/15/esteri/vatican-insider/en/translate-to-english-accuse-di-eresia-al-papa-da-due-vescovi-ortodossi-fyvTzgPXICGuU8sVcIRX4O/pagina.html
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf

I told you so

 

[RyanBlack]

I told you so

Those two bishops do not speak for all Orthodox.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

There are many issues:

Your list is in desperate need of distinctions. By the admission of everyone involved - Orthodox and Catholic - not all items you list constitute barriers to full union.

1. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the universal jurisdiction and the infallibility of the Roman Pope. But they are willing to grant him a primacy of honor in a reunited Church.
2. filioque.

These two actually are dogmatic issues and could therefore be barriers to union. Some Orthodox - not Catholics - would also add original sin and, by extension, the Immaculate Conception.

1. The Eastern Orthodox allow divorce and remarriage under certain restricted conditions, citing the practice of the early Church.
2. Questions have been raised about the modern Catholic liturgy and the leniency of the Catholic fasting requirements.

These are serious differences and disagreements but are not necessarily dogmatic barriers. They do not belong in the same category as the above items.

Tomdstone:

According to the EO, ordinarily, Baptism should be done by triple immersion and not by sprinkling.
6. EO allow for married priests and do not require celibacy of their priests as a general rule.
7. EO believe that icons are more appropriate than statues and they have certain rules which must be followed by monks who create these sacred icons. They do not allow more modern representations in their icons, but only allow the traditional formulation.
8. The sign of the cross is to be made from the right to the left as was the case from ancient times.
9. Unleavened bread is not permitted, but leavened bread must be used for the Sacrament.

These don’t belong in a list of this nature at all. They are merely different customs that prevent no barrier to union whatsoever. Latins can have an all-celibate priesthood; that doesn’t and wouldn’t stop all eastern Christian churches from ordaining married men. Which direction one makes the Sign of the Cross in is immaterial. The East should keep its icons and the West its statues, etc. And remember: Latins often pour to baptize; we don’t “sprinkle.”

If that is true, then why do not Roman Catholics change their teachings on these points so that they would not be issues blocking the reunion between East and West?

The dogmatic issues - #1 and #2 - are major quibbles (as are a few other matters from the Orthodox point of view).

The other items in your list are different customs that are not barriers to unity, so neither side needs to change when it comes to them.

If the filioque is not a huge issue, then why doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church drop it from its creed in the interest of promoting harmony between East and West?

Not a bad point - I think that would go a long way.

Perhaps the reason they don’t do that, though, is that it would be only a symbolic gesture. Removing it from the Creed wouldn’t change the fact that the Latin Church professes as dogma the belief which “filioque” is said to be expressing.

Since the eastern Catholic churches don’t use the filioque anyway - and aren’t expected or supposed to - then removing it from the Latin Church’s creed wouldn’t solve that underlying dogmatic issue.

 

[Aramis]

Orthodoxs believe that everything that is Western is heretic, the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic churches are wrong, the Pope is the Antichrist, Rome is “whore of babylon” only they are right, only byzantine tradition is right they also have to change their attitude, we are no longer in 1054

This is an absurd caricature of the Orthodox.

Sadly, it’s actually a strongly held belief of a surprising number of Orthodox clerics. So, no, it’s not absurd. I’ve heard that very attitude from several OCA clerics. Including the bits about the antichrist and the whore of babylon. Many of those clerics are former protestants, not cradle Orthodox, but it’s a VERY real stripe within Orthodoxy, especially Russian Orthodoxy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not true. Sure there are differences and disagreements on territory where there is overlap - but the same was true for the Catholic Church, why else were there German, Irish, Italian parishes one block from each other?

Not true. Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim the right to be anywhere on earth, but not to have 10 bishops over the same territory, although this does happen to both for various reasons. The Greek Orthodox aren’t in Ukraine by the way, the Ukrainian Orthodox are - although divided into 3 groups.

These few Russian Orthodox are off the mark, just as some Latin Catholics keep trying to claim worldwide jurisdiction but keep limiting the Eastern Catholic Churches from doing the same.

Some do some don’t. This generalization absurd.

Good thing its not a serious concern to anyone.

Are you unaware of Avignon, the Frankish overtaking, the suppression of local Latin Rites - Sarum, Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic, etc; and the suppression of Eastern Catholic Churches, which even extends to today in some areas - including the USA (see how married Eastern priests were treated by Latins)?

I think you have indirectly confirmed what I said. Orthodoxy is, indeed, territorial in its nature, and that’s a very important part of what it is to be Orthodox. It’s less so for those subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but very much so with Moscow. There are, indeed, territorial disputes between the two, and they’re not friendly disputes, either. In Ukraine there are Ukrainian Orthodox who recognize the Patriarch of Moscow as the head of their church, and there are Ukrainian Orthodox who recognize the Patriarch of Constantinople instead. The “Russian” patriarchate does not recognize the right of the “Greeks” to be in Ukraine at all.

I am aware that some claim indirect suppression of those Catholic rites like Gallican, Sarum, Ambrosian, but they all still exist, and nobody is suppressing them, tiny and very local though they are. They are differentiated from the regular Latin Rite (and not by a lot) only in liturgical practice, rather like the Anglican Use which the Vatican recently not only accepted but encouraged for former Anglican parishes.

The Latin Church does not exclude the Eastern Catholic Churches territorially from anywhere, and encourages them to continue. The Eastern Catholic churches have dioceses that overlap with Latin dioceses all over the United States, though they are smaller in population and larger in territorial extent. I am, for example, living within the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy (diocese) of Parma and simultaneously within the Latin diocese of Springfield/Cape Girardeau. My Archdiocese is St. Louis. The Eastern Churches can and do use the Latin basilica in St. Louis for liturgies. Not surprising that they would want to, since the basilica is Byzantine in design.

The Eparchy of Parma is multi state in extent. The diocese of Springfield/Cape Girardeau is about 1/4 of a state in extent. By way of further example, in order for an Eastern Catholic to become a parish member in a Latin parish, he has to have the consent of both the Eastern pastor and the Latin pastor. This is in order to encourage continued membership in the Eastern parish. The Eastern Catholic bishops have governance over their diocese in the same way the Latin bishops have governance over theirs. Eastern bishops are equal to Latin bishops in every way. There is no suppression of the Eastern Catholic Churches, though I think some believe that because long ago some secular rulers encouraged one over the other and today, in much of Europe and in the U.S. there is some shifting between the two on the part of parishioners. Generally speaking, there is no discouragement in one going from a Latin parish to an Eastern parish, but the Latin Church in no way encourages movement in the other direction. A person wouldn’t have to be on this forum very long to realize that continuing in an Eastern Catholic Church is encouraged by Latin Catholics, not discouraged.

The only real dispute among Catholic Churches of which I am aware is a particular Eastern Church that does not approve of its members marrying outside of its ethnic group. The Catholic Church does not accept that as a valid limitation and refuses to condemn such marriages.

There are Eastern Catholic cardinals, and Eastern bishops are eligible for election to the papacy, just as Latins are.

Some Ukrainian Orthodox are Greek in the sense that their ultimate patriarch is the Patriarch of Constantinople, not that of Moscow. All are, of course, divisions of Eastern Orthodoxy as opposed to Oriental Orthodoxy.

There were, at one time, nearly exclusively “Irish” or “German” or “Polish” parishes in the U.S. That was due to cultural and linguistic differences. Some were eventually merged when all could speak English. Not ten miles from where I sit there was what was once an “Irish” church and a “German” church. The Irish could almost all speak English when they got here. The Germans couldn’t. Both parishes are now for all nationalities. There is, however, in what was once the “Irish” church, a Hispanic Mass on Sunday for those Hispanics who can’t speak English. I do go to that Mass now and then, and am welcome to do so, though I’m not Hispanic. Some Hispanics go to the English Masses. There’s no real division.

 

[Tomdstone]

These don’t belong in a list of this nature at all. They are merely different customs that prevent no barrier to union whatsoever.

If so, why were the issues of celibacy and azymes mentioned in a bull of excommunication that papal legates placed at the Altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054?

 

[Ridgerunner]

If so, why were the issues of celibacy and azymes mentioned in a bull of excommunication that papal legates placed at the Altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054?

Some historian could correct me on this, but it is my recollection that the Pope had actually withdrawn that bull before it was placed there. But the legates didn’t know it. Again, stretching my memory perhaps to the breaking point, I think the Pope that issued it was already dead when it was placed there. It took a long time back then to get from Rome to Constantinople.

Also, I believe the Patriarch of Constantinople had excommunicated all Latins very shortly before that happened. In any event, it was almost a simultaneous event. My impression is that the whole thing was more political than anything else, and was prompted by a number of things, theological differences probably being among the least of them.

 

[Aramis]

If so, why were the issues of celibacy and azymes mentioned in a bull of excommunication that papal legates placed at the Altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054?

The bull was done by delegation - the Pope gave them a blank bull, which the legates filled. Unfortunately, the legates were rather ignorant in some aspects.

Azymes have been used by the Italo-Albanians, whose metropolitan is the pope, for the entire history of them as a discrete group. And they’ve retained married clerics, too.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think you have indirectly confirmed what I said. Orthodoxy is, indeed, territorial in its nature, and that’s a very important part of what it is to be Orthodox. It’s less so for those subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but very much so with Moscow. There are, indeed, territorial disputes between the two, and they’re not friendly disputes, either. In Ukraine there are Ukrainian Orthodox who recognize the Patriarch of Moscow as the head of their church, and there are Ukrainian Orthodox who recognize the Patriarch of Constantinople instead. The “Russian” patriarchate does not recognize the right of the “Greeks” to be in Ukraine at all.

There seems to be some confusion here. In Ukraine, there is only one Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is in union with the rest of Orthodoxy, and that is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is an autonomous Church within the Russian Orthodox Church. The other two major bodies there are the UGCC (which as the name implies, is in union with Rome), and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate, which is considered by the Orthodox to be a schismatic body (in other words, it is not in union with any Orthodox Church, including Moscow and Constantinople). There is no Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine which is under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, though there do exist diaspora communities of Ukrainians outside of Ukraine which for historical reasons are under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Furthermore, I must remark that what you call “territorial” we simply know to be the ancient constitution of the Church. There cannot be two bishops with ordinary jurisdiction occupying a see in any particular geographical area, and hence only one bishop and one autocephalous church superstructure should have jurisdiction over any given geographical area.

This principle is in fact normative within the Latin church itself. Imagine for a second if the Archbishop of Mexico City attempted to establish a parish and ordain priests in Houston without the consent of the Archbishop of Galveston-Houston. Such an action would likely be illicit, as the Archbishop of Mexico City has no ordinary jurisdiction within Houston, save the worldwide ordinary jurisdiction enjoyed by all cardinals. Similarly, within Orthodoxy, such actions would be illicit. The difficulty lies in that the territorial boundaries between dioceses and patriarchates can sometimes be imprecise (especially true of the question of who should have jurisdiction over the diaspora), and that this sometimes can cause conflicts, especially in cases where both parties might have a solid canonical claim to some place.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There seems to be some confusion here. In Ukraine, there is only one Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is in union with the rest of Orthodoxy, and that is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is an autonomous Church within the Russian Orthodox Church. The other two major bodies there are the UGCC (which as the name implies, is in union with Rome), and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate, which is considered by the Orthodox to be a schismatic body (in other words, it is not in union with any Orthodox Church, including Moscow and Constantinople). There is no Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine which is under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, though there do exist diaspora communities of Ukrainians outside of Ukraine which for historical reasons are under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Furthermore, I must remark that what you call “territorial” we simply know to be the ancient constitution of the Church. There cannot be two bishops with ordinary jurisdiction occupying a see in any particular geographical area, and hence only one bishop and one autocephalous church superstructure should have jurisdiction over any given geographical area.

This principle is in fact normative within the Latin church itself. Imagine for a second if the Archbishop of Mexico City attempted to establish a parish and ordain priests in Houston without the consent of the Archbishop of Galveston-Houston. Such an action would likely be illicit, as the Archbishop of Mexico City has no ordinary jurisdiction within Houston, save the worldwide ordinary jurisdiction enjoyed by all cardinals. Similarly, within Orthodoxy, such actions would be illicit. The difficulty lies in that the territorial boundaries between dioceses and patriarchates can sometimes be imprecise (especially true of the question of who should have jurisdiction over the diaspora), and that this sometimes can cause conflicts, especially in cases where both parties might have a solid canonical claim to some place.

There are Ukrainian Orthodox who consider themselves under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, not Moscow. Moscow does not consider their presence legitimate in Ukraine. Whether that causes confusion or not, territoriality is part of the self-concept.

There is no particular reason for it to be confusing. As mentioned before by me and others, within the Catholic Church there are, indeed, overlapping jurisdictions, just not within the same rite. So, there is no Latin overlap in my diocese (Springfield/Cape Girardeau) but there is with the Byzantine C.C. I am also living within the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Parma. Neither considers the presence, jurisdiction or the structure of the other illegitimate. The example of the archbishop of Mexico and that of Houston is not a proper comparison because they’re both Latin.

Those Orthodox under the Kyiv patriarchate may be considered schismatic and illegtimate by Moscow, but they don’t consider themselves so.

The point is, again, that Eastern Orthodoxy is territorial in its nature, notwithstanding that Constantinople and Moscow consider themselves part of the same church (but not Kyiv or any part of the Catholic Church). You, yourself, in your last line say so, adding reasons for it. One can say it’s due to this or to that, but the plain fact is that it’s true.

If that’s a feature of Eastern Orthodoxy, then it is and, as a Latin Catholic, it’s none of my business except as it may affect such things as reunion. But territoriality as currently conceived by Eastern Orthodoxy is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of union between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, since the latter does not grant to the former the right to be all over the world, which it already is. That was my point, and my only one; that territoriality, as conceived by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy are fundamentally incompatible and, as such, constitute a serious barrier to union. Those who talk about reunion often do not take that into account, but should.

 

[wynd]

Not a bad point - I think that would go a long way.

Perhaps the reason they don’t do that, though, is that it would be only a symbolic gesture. Removing it from the Creed wouldn’t change the fact that the Latin Church professes as dogma the belief which “filioque” is said to be expressing.

Since the eastern Catholic churches don’t use the filioque anyway - and aren’t expected or supposed to - then removing it from the Latin Church’s creed wouldn’t solve that underlying dogmatic issue.

Which raises another question: Are Eastern Catholics required to believe the Filioque, even if it’s not in their Creed?

 

[RyanBlack]

Which raises another question: Are Eastern Catholics required to believe the Filioque, even if it’s not in their Creed?

Yes.

 

[Nine_Two]

There are Ukrainian Orthodox who consider themselves under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, not Moscow.

Evidence please. Never heard about this before, nor is it an issue I’ve ever heard of Moscow bringing up - which they almost certainly would.

 

[SyroMalankara]

There are Ukrainian Orthodox who consider themselves under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, not Moscow. Moscow does not consider their presence legitimate in Ukraine. Whether that causes confusion or not, territoriality is part of the self-concept.

There are no Ukrainian Orthodox under Constantinople in Ukraine.

There is no particular reason for it to be confusing. As mentioned before by me and others, within the Catholic Church there are, indeed, overlapping jurisdictions, just not within the same rite. So, there is no Latin overlap in my diocese (Springfield/Cape Girardeau) but there is with the Byzantine C.C. I am also living within the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Parma. Neither considers the presence, jurisdiction or the structure of the other illegitimate. The example of the archbishop of Mexico and that of Houston is not a proper comparison because they’re both Latin.

You are misinformed a bit if you think there is any real difference - the Catholic Church in the US has multiple overlaps; for example, the Melkite Eparchy, the Romanian Eparchy, and the Ukrainian Eparchy all three Byzantine Rite have national jurisdiction; the Chaldeans have two Eparchies and the Syro-Malabar one national Eparchy - both East Syriac Rite. The Syriac Eparchy and the Syro-Malankara Exarchy are both national - both West Syriac Rite. The Maronites have two Eparchies - West Syriac Rite. Etc…

Those Orthodox under the Kyiv patriarchate may be considered schismatic and illegtimate by Moscow, but they don’t consider themselves so.

the SSPX considers itself legitimate also.

The point is, again, that Eastern Orthodoxy is territorial in its nature, notwithstanding that Constantinople and Moscow consider themselves part of the same church (but not Kyiv or any part of the Catholic Church). You, yourself, in your last line say so, adding reasons for it. One can say it’s due to this or to that, but the plain fact is that it’s true.

?? You haven’t proven any difference between Catholic and Orthodox in this regard, except Catholics allow for the overlap to exist by adjusting the rule, and without making a big fuss.

But territoriality as currently conceived by Eastern Orthodoxy is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of union between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, since the latter does not grant to the former the right to be all over the world, which it already is.

I don’t think Orthodoxy, in theory, minds Catholics being all over the world in the event of reunion - just that there should be a local bishop not 5 in one area, despite Ritual practice.

That was my point, and my only one; that territoriality, as conceived by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy are fundamentally incompatible and, as such, constitute a serious barrier to union. Those who talk about reunion often do not take that into account, but should.

The solutions by Rome/Eastern Catholics and Orthodox vary, but this is no barrier at all to reunion, and will be worked out. For a simple solution, see how the Oriental Orthodox deal with it.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Which raises another question: Are Eastern Catholics required to believe the Filioque, even if it’s not in their Creed?

ECs are required to believe it is not heretical for the Latins to state it, and that it is another way to say the same thing - clarified by the Latins for the Latins in reaction to the Arian heresy.

 

[josie_L]

ECs are required to believe it is not heretical for the Latins to state it, and that it is another way to say the same thing - clarified by the Latins for the Latins in reaction to the Arian heresy.

Do the EC hierarchy believe it is heretical?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Do the EC hierarchy believe it is heretical?

Simple answer: no

Complex answer: not in the Latin context, if translated to Greek it can be.

 

[josie_L]

not in the Latin context, if translated to Greek it can be.

I already knew that, however, due to the way you phrased your last post, you made it seem as if they believed it was (“required to believe that it isn’t heretical”).

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are misinformed a bit if you think there is any real difference - the Catholic Church in the US has multiple overlaps; for example, the Melkite Eparchy, the Romanian Eparchy, and the Ukrainian Eparchy all three Byzantine Rite have national jurisdiction; the Chaldeans have two Eparchies and the Syro-Malabar one national Eparchy - both East Syriac Rite. The Syriac Eparchy and the Syro-Malankara Exarchy are both national - both West Syriac Rite. The Maronites have two Eparchies - West Syriac Rite. Etc…

the SSPX considers itself legitimate also.

?? You haven’t proven any difference between Catholic and Orthodox in this regard, except Catholics allow for the overlap to exist by adjusting the rule, and without making a big fuss.

I don’t think Orthodoxy, in theory, minds Catholics being all over the world in the event of reunion - just that there should be a local bishop not 5 in one area, despite Ritual practice.

The solutions by Rome/Eastern Catholics and Orthodox vary, but this is no barrier at all to reunion, and will be worked out. For a simple solution, see how the Oriental Orthodox deal with it.

My point demonstrated yet again.

I did not say the only jurisdictional divisions in the U.S. Catholic Church were Latin and Byzantine. There are others. The Latin Catholic Church does not dispute territoriality with the Eastern Catholic Churches, and sees no difficulty with having more than one bishop within a geographical area, corresponding to the particular Catholic Church and rite.

Orthodoxy is different. You or another Orthodox poster defended territoriality by saying one couldn’t have, say, 5 bishops within one geographical area.

The point being that territoriality and exclusiveness within that territory is important to Orthodoxy, unlike with the Catholic Church, where it is not. Because the two are very incompatible, I cited that as a potential barrier to union between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that people often don’t recognize. ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en

I will concede that in a manner of speaking there are no Greek Orthodox within Ukraine. However, the Kyiv Patriarchate, which Moscow refuses to recognize, was initiated by the Patriarch of Constantinople. If you were to say that means the Kyiv Orthodox are not “Greek”, I would not, at this point, dispute it in the sense that the Kyiv Patriarchate considers itself autocephalous now. kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/moscows-plan-for-ukraines-church-335254.html

Orthodoxy is very much territorial, however, and the Russian perhaps most of all. I recall reading, for example, that the Patriarch of Constaninople gave the Orthodox Church in Estonia autocephalous status, which would make it equal to the Russian church. However, Moscow disputes that and claims it is part of the Moscow Patriarchate notwithstanding the action of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Catholic views of territoriality and those of Orthodoxy are quite different, and are a source of serious challenge to union in the future. The Latin Church is spread all over the world. Orthodoxy claims it should be limited to the City of Rome and the countryside surrounding it. We have seen that repeated by Orthodox on here (not Greek, though) many times. That claim is impossible for the Catholic Church to accept.