T
theCardinalbird
Guest
schism themselves from the Church?
Last edited:
- Status
F
Fauken
Guest
The two main ones that comes to mind are the Filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son) and the Church’s interpretation of Papal Primacy (the Orthodox believe he is a first among equals).
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
But weren’t these things believed by the Apostles? and handed down through the generations of the Church?
Also, what events drove to the formal split of these two Churches?
Last edited:
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
The ultimate reason is geographical isolation and loss of communication following, and even before, the fall of Ravenna in 751 AD. The West had lost practical significance for those in the East, and vice versa, with each branch going their separate ways. The proximal cause, the “last straw” is explained in just about every history book that deals with the topic. You can read the Wikipedia article on the Great Schism to get a general idea:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Great_Schism
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Books and books upon books could be written on the topic.
Simplistic answers won’t do. For example, even though Papal Primacy seems to be the dividing point between Catholics and Orthodox, that wasn’t really the specific reason that ignited the original schisms.
When it comes down to it, lack of communication and geography – as another poster said – are the real reasons. Latin West and Greek East had different languages, cultures, and traditions that, while not contradictory, allowed for the worst of human nature: division and arrogance.
Many factors could be listed. Among them, there was a centralization of religious authority in the Successor of Peter in Rome, which gathered the West more easily, while there was a subsequent centralization of political authority in Constantinople, which in turn made that city the energizing center of Eastern Christianity, which gathered the East more easily.
The East as a whole didn’t always or universally reject Petrine Primacy in Rome. I think there is a good argument to be made that it was later Byzantine* theologians in Constantinople who advanced alternative theories of Roman primacy, rather than the original theory recognized in both West and East – that Rome was the seat of the churches because of its apostolic foundation in Peter. St. Maximus the Confessor, a Byzantine, recognized as much, as did non-Byzantine Eastern Christians, like the Syriac tradition (the Maronite Church never separated from Rome).
And so what was really an issue between Rome and Constantinople became reflected in the tendencies of West vs East, as each of these centers was influential in its respective regions. For example, other ancient patriarchates (like Antioch and Alexandria) came under Constantinople/Byzantine influence at different points.
Also, it does no good to simplify the history by saying the Catholic Church “left” the Orthodox Church, or that the Orthodox Church “left” the Catholic Church. Type in church history on Google Images, and you’ll find several Orthodox timelines that show the “Roman Catholic Church” falling away from (their view) original Church. It’s better for dialogue if we remember that Catholicism and Byzantine Orthodoxy both represent ancient traditions, and they were both in communion originally. From the Catholic point of view, Orthodox churches have valid succession, so they are simply lacking the fullness of unity — as they lack communion with Rome, the chief church.
Simplistic answers won’t do. For example, even though Papal Primacy seems to be the dividing point between Catholics and Orthodox, that wasn’t really the specific reason that ignited the original schisms.
When it comes down to it, lack of communication and geography – as another poster said – are the real reasons. Latin West and Greek East had different languages, cultures, and traditions that, while not contradictory, allowed for the worst of human nature: division and arrogance.
Many factors could be listed. Among them, there was a centralization of religious authority in the Successor of Peter in Rome, which gathered the West more easily, while there was a subsequent centralization of political authority in Constantinople, which in turn made that city the energizing center of Eastern Christianity, which gathered the East more easily.
The East as a whole didn’t always or universally reject Petrine Primacy in Rome. I think there is a good argument to be made that it was later Byzantine* theologians in Constantinople who advanced alternative theories of Roman primacy, rather than the original theory recognized in both West and East – that Rome was the seat of the churches because of its apostolic foundation in Peter. St. Maximus the Confessor, a Byzantine, recognized as much, as did non-Byzantine Eastern Christians, like the Syriac tradition (the Maronite Church never separated from Rome).
And so what was really an issue between Rome and Constantinople became reflected in the tendencies of West vs East, as each of these centers was influential in its respective regions. For example, other ancient patriarchates (like Antioch and Alexandria) came under Constantinople/Byzantine influence at different points.
Also, it does no good to simplify the history by saying the Catholic Church “left” the Orthodox Church, or that the Orthodox Church “left” the Catholic Church. Type in church history on Google Images, and you’ll find several Orthodox timelines that show the “Roman Catholic Church” falling away from (their view) original Church. It’s better for dialogue if we remember that Catholicism and Byzantine Orthodoxy both represent ancient traditions, and they were both in communion originally. From the Catholic point of view, Orthodox churches have valid succession, so they are simply lacking the fullness of unity — as they lack communion with Rome, the chief church.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
Short answer: they didn’t.
The Filioque was the flashpoint, certainly. But the formal break came from the west, when the Papal Legage illicitly dropped a Bull of Excommunication on the Holy Table at the Hagia Sophia during the Divine Liturgy
(gee, what could go wrong? You think that will lead to bad blood, maybe?).
Note that the popes had been fighting the Filioque as heretical for hundreds of years before adopting it.
It actually took hundreds of years to get around to actual schism, with intercommunion remaining common until the Council of Florence and its ugly aftermath.
The nature of the papal role only comes later–pretty much everything that the EO dispute about papal authority only came into being post-schism (with the notable exception of the notion that the pope could unilaterally alter a creed defined in an Ecumenical Council).
hawk
The Filioque was the flashpoint, certainly. But the formal break came from the west, when the Papal Legage illicitly dropped a Bull of Excommunication on the Holy Table at the Hagia Sophia during the Divine Liturgy
(gee, what could go wrong? You think that will lead to bad blood, maybe?).Note that the popes had been fighting the Filioque as heretical for hundreds of years before adopting it.
It actually took hundreds of years to get around to actual schism, with intercommunion remaining common until the Council of Florence and its ugly aftermath.
The nature of the papal role only comes later–pretty much everything that the EO dispute about papal authority only came into being post-schism (with the notable exception of the notion that the pope could unilaterally alter a creed defined in an Ecumenical Council).
hawk
A
AlNg
Guest
Why did the Eastern Orthodox Church
It was the Roman Church that caused the schism by excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople, His All Holiness Michael Cerularius, and all of his followers, i.e., all Eastern Orthodox. What were some of the grounds given for the excommunication: Here are a few of the reasons given (not all):
Already answered:
Correct.
It was the Roman Church that caused the schism by excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople, His All Holiness Michael Cerularius, and all of his followers, i.e., all Eastern Orthodox. What were some of the grounds given for the excommunication: Here are a few of the reasons given (not all):
- The Eastern Orthodox believed in the creed as it was stated in earlier Councils, i.e., without the filioque. The Roman Church insisted on changing the creed and inserting the filioque phrase.
- The Roman Church condemned them for having a married clergy.
- Their priests have beards.
and some others.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
would you say the Church was wrong in adopting the Filioque?The Filioque was the flashpoint, certainly. But the formal break came from the west, when the Papal Legage illicitly dropped a Bull of Excommunication on the Holy Table at the Hagia Sophia during the Divine Liturgy
Note that the popes had been fighting the Filioque as heretical for hundreds of years before adopting it.
It actually took hundreds of years to get around to actual schism, with intercommunion remaining common until the Council of Florence and its ugly aftermath.
The nature of the papal role only comes later–pretty much everything that the EO dispute about papal authority only came into being post-schism (with the notable exception of the notion that the pope could unilaterally alter a creed defined in an Ecumenical Council).
hawk
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Rumblings of schism began in the sixth century and it was openly recognized with the Latin sack of Constantinople in the 13th.
For virtually every group that has separated from the Catholic Church, papal over-reach will fall somewhere on virtually all of their lists of grievances.
For virtually every group that has separated from the Catholic Church, papal over-reach will fall somewhere on virtually all of their lists of grievances.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Excellent post.
While Greeks chafing at Roman leadership is almost as old as the church, it really picked up after the loss of Greek influence in the 13th through 15th.
I think that absence combined with the sting from loss of the Papal States is what led to the ecumenical tragedy of Vatican 1
While Greeks chafing at Roman leadership is almost as old as the church, it really picked up after the loss of Greek influence in the 13th through 15th.
I think that absence combined with the sting from loss of the Papal States is what led to the ecumenical tragedy of Vatican 1
D
dochawk
Guest
That’s dicey, with several conflicting answers.
The Creed is in greek, and lost pieces when translated to latin.
Particularly, there are something like six different words that translate to “proceed” in Latin and English. The greek word used means “proceed in origin”. The meaning expressed by the Filioque, though, is that the Spirit proceeds temporally through the Son. The notion that the Spirit originates in the Son is an abomination, if not outright heretical, in the west, too.
So even though the same latin verb gets used for both, and thus the conjunction, you have a flat-out disaster if you translate it back into Greek with the same verb originally used.
So, at best, when considering that the entire church didn’t use language, at best the Filioque was very bad judgment. “Through the Son” would have been more accurate.
It popped up in Spain and France in response to yet another Arian heresy outbreak (YAAHO ?). The popes tried to get the local bishops to knock it off, and then suddenly caved.
The Eastern objection isn’t so much to the notion of temporal processing, but the idea that a single bishop could change something from an Ecumenical Council.
hawk
- Status