What were the main reason beside the Nicene Creed that caused the Great Schism?

[UnityofTrinity]

Are there any other theological or political causes that created the Great Schism as we know it? If they exist, what are they?

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Filioque I think its just the needle that broke the camel’s back. The Greeks and Latins were at odds on many issues long before that.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think in all major splits there has been a strong element of political influence. The Eastern Church was much more aligned to the Emperor than the Western Church was. Politicians being the same then as now, I suspect the Emperor probably encouraged the split.

 

[Vico]

1054 was two hundred years in the making, even longer is one considers that the dogma of filioque was declared in 447 A.D.

Photius enumerated seven chief grievances:

1. the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son,
2. the insertion of the “Filioque” clause in the Creed,
3. the primacy of the pope,
4. the reconfirmation of those confirmed by Greek priests,
5. the Saturday fast,
6. the use of milk foods during the first week of Lent,
7. the obligation of celibacy on the priests.

From the time of Photius to Michael Cærularius, one new complaint was added against the Latins:
8) the use of azymes (unleavened) rather than artos

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I guess it’s primarily caused by the misunderstandings on both sides and the lack of consideration of the cultural differences back then.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think in all major splits there has been a strong element of political influence. The Eastern Church was much more aligned to the Emperor than the Western Church was. Politicians being the same then as now, I suspect the Emperor probably encouraged the split.

As Vico pointed out, the reasons were really more theological. The schism was actually highly disadvantageous to the Emperors leading to the two failed reunion councils (Lyons II and Florence) where the Emperors basically urged the bishops to accept any terms so long as it would secure military aid for the East. The bishops complied (except for Mark of Ephesus at Florence; he is revered as a saint in the Orthodox Church for his refusal to approve of the council), only to reverse their decisions when they met with considerable opposition from the faithful back in the East who accused them of selling their faith down the river for military aid (which is essentially what they were doing; the people weren’t stupid).

 

[dvdjs]

… the Emperors basically urged the bishops to accept any terms so long as it would secure military aid for the East. The bishops complied (except for Mark of Ephesus at Florence; he is revered as a saint in the Orthodox Church for his refusal to approve of the council), only to reverse their decisions when they met with considerable opposition from the faithful back in the East who accused them of selling their faith down the river for military aid (which is essentially what they were doing; the people weren’t stupid).

This is better than the obviously false statement that you made on this subject a month ago. But I will ask the same question to you as I did to another several weeks ago, who said:

But it was IMMEDIATELY repudiated by all the Greek bishops as soon as they got home.

Given that the union of Florence persisted until after the fall of Constantinople, when the the reigning, united Patriarch was replaced, by act of the Sultan, with an opponent who ended the union, I find it a little surprising. What is the source of the quoted idea and what is the evidence for it?

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is better than the obviously false statement that you made on this subject a month ago. But I will ask the same question to you as I did to another several weeks ago, who said:

Given that the union of Florence persisted until after the fall of Constantinople, when the the reigning, united Patriarch was replaced, by act of the Sultan, with an opponent who ended the union, I find it a little surprising. What is the source of the quoted idea and what is the evidence for it?

How about you tell me this. How did the Catholic Church, in good conscience, take advantage of the militarily weak East in trying to make it conform to every single one of its dogmata in exchange for military support? Or how about how Pope Eugene IV convened Florence because there was an opposing council attempting to depose him, and he saw union with the Greeks as essentially a way to hedge his bets against the Magisterium? How about you tell me why if the Latins considered the union to be enacted and binding that they did not send any military support to their newly reunited Christian brethren, instead allowing them to be overrun by Muslims? Is that what union with the Roman Catholic Church looks like, first she takes advantage of politically disadvantaged Churches, forces them to accept her heterodox dogmata and then throws them under the bus after a union is signed? Perhaps allowing for the explanation that the council was repudiated makes the RCC looks much better in the history books, doesn’t it?

Oh, and as for your claims that the Sultan installed an anti-unionist patriarch, that’s only a half-truth. The unionist Patriarch Gregory III was deposed in 1450 in favor of the anti-unionist Patriarch Athanasius II, three years before the fall of Constantinople. Athanasius II died in 1453, Gennadios Scholarios was enthroned in 1454 after the fall of Constantinople. So what was that about the Sultan deposing the rightful unionist Patriarch? It was his own Byzantine people who did that.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Are there any other theological or political causes that created the Great Schism as we know it? If they exist, what are they?

It’s always seemed to me that it was (besides the filioque) about who they wanted to have primacy. It was the Pope in the West, but the East wanted the Patriarch of Constantinople to be the first among equals. IMHO, the Pope is supported more in tradition and scripture.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

The Pope could not have forced the East to do anything prior and at the time of the schism. Byzantium was still pretty much in its reign of glory while I believe Western Europe was in the Dark Age. Caesaropapism was prevalent in the East, and so therefore spliting away from the Western Christian kingdom was in fact beneficial to the emperor to keeps his control over both secular and spiritual matters of Byzantium.

 

[dvdjs]

Oh, and as for your claims that the Sultan installed an anti-unionist patriarch, that’s only a half-truth. The unionist Patriarch Gregory III was deposed in 1450 in favor of the anti-unionist Patriarch Athanasius II, three years before the fall of Constantinople. Athanasius II died in 1453, Gennadios Scholarios was enthroned in 1454 after the fall of Constantinople. So what was that about the Sultan deposing the rightful unionist Patriarch? It was his own Byzantine people who did that.

Is there solid documentation for an anti-Catholic, anti-union Athanasius II? Bishop Tikhon OCADow, retired doesn’t see it that way. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8005202&postcount=49) Nor do other, scholarly treatments including Siméon Vailhé, “Constantinople, Église de,” in the 1907 DTC 3.2:1402; Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J. The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959), p. 376 n. 3. Any account of the the last days of Constantinople indicate that the final liturgy at Hagia Sophia before the fall was a one of a united Catholic and Orthodox church. Can you prove your claim?

 

[dvdjs]

How about you tell me this. How did the Catholic Church, in good conscience, take advantage of the militarily weak East in trying to make it conform to every single one of its dogmata in exchange for military support? Or how about how Pope Eugene IV convened Florence because there was an opposing council attempting to depose him, and he saw union with the Greeks as essentially a way to hedge his bets against the Magisterium? How about you tell me why if the Latins considered the union to be enacted and binding that they did not send any military support to their newly reunited Christian brethren, instead allowing them to be overrun by Muslims? Is that what union with the Roman Catholic Church looks like, first she takes advantage of politically disadvantaged Churches, forces them to accept her heterodox dogmata and then throws them under the bus after a union is signed? Perhaps allowing for the explanation that the council was repudiated makes the RCC looks much better in the history books, doesn’t it?

How about you stick to the truth and not beg questions: “… make it conform to every single one of its dogmata” etc.

How about you stick to the truth and avoid outright falsehoods: “they did not send any military support to their newly reunited Christian brethren?”

Are you taught this mythologized anti-Catholic history in the EOC in America or did you just make this stuff up on your own?

 

[dvdjs]

Is there solid documentation for an anti-Catholic, anti-union Athanasius II? Bishop Tikhon OCADow, retired doesn’t see it that way. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8005202&postcount=49) Nor do other, scholarly treatments including Siméon Vailhé, “Constantinople, Église de,” in the 1907 DTC 3.2:1402; Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J. The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959), p. 376 n. 3. Any account of the the last days of Constantinople indicate that the final liturgy at Hagia Sophia before the fall was a one of a united Catholic and Orthodox church. Can you prove your claim?

Just to clarify: Is there solid documentation for an anti-Catholic, anti-union recognized Patriarchate of Athanasius II?

 

[Wesley7]

Are there any other theological or political causes that created the Great Schism as we know it?

The addition of the Filioque Clause to the Nicene Creed at the Council of Toledo which was not universally accepted.

 

[Cavaradossi]

How about you stick to the truth and not beg questions: “… make it conform to every single one of its dogmata” etc.

How about you stick to the truth and avoid outright falsehoods: “they did not send any military support to their newly reunited Christian brethren?”

Are you taught this mythologized anti-Catholic history in the EOC in America or did you just make this stuff up on your own?

If you think that the Orthodox were going to achieve some sort of union without accepting Rome’s precious filioque and papal supremacy, then you’re mistaken. The decree of Florence states that the spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father through the Son, which makes the Son cause (αἰτίαν) and principle (άρχήν) of the Holy Spirit. To call the Son either the cause or principle of the Holy Spirit is completely contrary to Orthodox faith, and this is now recognized by both the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox (let us acknowledge how contemporary Catholic theologians say it is inappropriate to use the filioque with the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι or to regard the Son as cause of the Holy Spirit).

And you tell me then, where was the military aid for Constantinople in 1452, when Sultan Mehmed II was building his fortress near Constantinople? Where were the great crusades of old which pushed encroaching Muslims back off of the heels of the Eastern Roman Empire (or perhaps you would rather just talk about the great crusade of 1204 and how successful that one was for producing plunder for Venice; I’ve seen those horses at St. Mark’s by the way, they’re wonderful pieces of pirated loot). If my version of history is mythologized, then yours is a mere fairytale. If you really think so highly of Florence, then enjoy the filioque with the Son as cause of the Holy Spirit and the Pope as the supreme vicar of God upon the earth; I’ll take union (if it ever materializes) at a better price and on far different terms than what amounts to political exploitation.

 

[ahs]

The Great Schism was a long time in the making…even in the mid-late 300’s the Church started seeing some differences pop up and get addressed between East and West.There is a superb book that delves deeply into this subject that can clear up alot of the mud in the water. A Popular History of the Catholic Church by Philip Hughes, published in 1947. (No longer in print…you’ll have to hunt online book sources for it.)
The one I am reading (the title I just mentioned) is a 1-book basic/brief summary, about 300 pages. However, he also wrote an in-depth version that consists of 3 volumes for those who want the fine details and the proofs.

I highly recommend this to anyone with questions about the history of Christianity.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Is there solid documentation for an anti-Catholic, anti-union Athanasius II? Bishop Tikhon OCADow, retired doesn’t see it that way. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8005202&postcount=49) Nor do other, scholarly treatments including Siméon Vailhé, “Constantinople, Église de,” in the 1907 DTC 3.2:1402; Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J. The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959), p. 376 n. 3. Any account of the the last days of Constantinople indicate that the final liturgy at Hagia Sophia before the fall was a one of a united Catholic and Orthodox church. Can you prove your claim?

With all due respect to Patriarch Tikhon, he was a bishop, not a historian. Can you prove your claim, with modern scholarly work, that the union was actually widely accepted and that there was some sort of subversive attempt by the Sultan to end it? The union was a huge political fiasco for the emperor, which bitterly divided the Orthodox faithful. Several unionists Patriarchs were deposed during that time period for anti-unionist Patriarchs, and it was only through the insistence of the Emperors that any sort of union remained. Of course, none of that really matters because, in the end, the Byzantines hedged their bets incorrectly; they didn’t realize that the conciliar movement and Pope Eugene IV were at odds and that Eugene was using them (along with unions signed with other non-Catholic Churches) as political pawns in order to bolster his strength against the final assault of the conciliarists.

 

[dvdjs]

With all due respect to Patriarch Tikhon, he was a bishop, not a historian.

I’ve read a quite a bit by Bishop Tikhon; he is careful, knowledgeable, and a stickler for truth. I can’t say that I agree with everything that he writes, but neither can his comments be glibly dismissed.

Can you prove your claim, with modern scholarly work, that the union was actually widely accepted and that there was some sort of subversive attempt by the Sultan to end it? The union was a huge political fiasco for the emperor, which bitterly divided the Orthodox faithful. Several unionists Patriarchs were deposed during that time period for anti-unionist Patriarchs, and it was only through the insistence of the Emperors that any sort of union remained.

I did not make such a broad claim. Not at all. Of course, there was controversy. (How long between Nicea I and the end of Arianism in Constantinople?). As to the deposition of “several unionist Patriarchs”, I am very skeptical: whom are you counting? Is “several” just one: Anastasius II?

As far as I can tell, the historical record is unclear on him, and even less clear on any conciliar repudiation of the Union. It is clear however, that during the ostensible term of An-II, and after this ostensible repudiation the Union, it was solemnly proclaimed at HS before the fall. It was in effect at the time of the fall; the last liturgy in HS was involved communion of East and West. The controversy persisted until brought to a decisive end under the Sultan. Usual story no alliance with foreign enemies. Was this subversive? At that point probably not. Those that had not apostasized to Islam surely knew what they had to do as dhimmis.

 

[dvdjs]

If you think that the Orthodox were going to achieve some sort of union without accepting Rome’s precious filioque and papal supremacy, then you’re mistaken. The decree of Florence states that the spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father through the Son, which makes the Son cause (αἰτίαν) and principle (άρχήν) of the Holy Spirit. To call the Son either the cause or principle of the Holy Spirit is completely contrary to Orthodox faith, and this is now recognized by both the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox (let us acknowledge how contemporary Catholic theologians say it is inappropriate to use the filioque with the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι or to regard the Son as cause of the Holy Spirit).

Here is the decree of Union in English. I looked over the Latin on-line too. Hard to find what you are talking about.

Excerpts from THE DECREE OF UNION:
SESSION 6 July 6, 1439

LAETENTUR CAELI

Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For the wall that divided the western and the eastern Church has been removed, peace and harmony have returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides with a very strong bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them together in a covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze of grief and a dark and unlovely gloom of long-enduring strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.

Let Mother Church also rejoice. For she now beholds her sons hitherto in disagreement returned to unity and peace, and she who hitherto wept at their separation now gives thanks to God with inexpressible joy at their truly marvelous harmony. Let all the faithful throughout the world, and those who go by the name of Christian, be glad with Mother Catholic Church.

For behold, western and eastern fathers after a very long period of disagreement and discord, submitting themselves to the perils of sea and land and having endured labors of all kinds, came together in this holy ecumenical council, joyful and eager in their desire for this most holy union and to restore intact the ancient love. In no way have they been frustrated in their intent. After a long and very toilsome investigation, at last by the clemency of the Holy Spirit they have achieved this greatly desired and most holy union. Who, then, can adequately thank God for his gracious gifts? Who would not stand amazed at the riches of such great divine mercy? Would not even an iron breast be softened by this immensity of heavenly condescension?

These truly are works of God, not devices of human frailty. Hence they are to be accepted with extraordinary veneration and to be furthered with praises to God. To You praise, to You glory, to You thanks, O Christ, source of mercies, who have bestowed so much good on your spouse the Catholic Church and have manifested Your miracles of mercy in our generation, so that all should proclaim Your wonders. Great indeed and divine is the gift that God has bestowed on us. We have seen with our eyes what many before greatly desired yet could not behold.

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the Holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words.

The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the Holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.

Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

 

[dvdjs]

And you tell me then, where was the military aid for Constantinople in 1452, when Sultan Mehmed II was building his fortress near Constantinople? Where were the great crusades of old which pushed encroaching Muslims back off of the heels of the Eastern Roman Empire (or perhaps you would rather just talk about the great crusade of 1204 and how successful that one was for producing plunder for Venice; I’ve seen those horses at St. Mark’s by the way, they’re wonderful pieces of pirated loot). If my version of history is mythologized, then yours is a mere fairytale.

I haven’t stated a version of history. But you have made claims that are flat out incorrect. Rather than correct them, you make the tired move: shift the subject to 1204. That’s OK. But I still would like to know: is this part of the teaching in EOCs or is this your own thinking?