Who split from whom - Catholic versus Orthodox?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s remember here that up until the Fall of Rome, in effect, the Emperor held the ultimately authority. The true divisions came as the Western Church began to evolve to fill the power vacuum left by the loss of Imperial authority in the West. The Eastern Church remained pretty firmly under the Imperial thumb, whereas the Western Church, out of necessity, accrued significant temporal powers. Heck, until the establishment of stable Germanic kingdoms, the Church was the only effective government the West even had.
 
Why doesn’t Antioch hold primacy then? Is successor of Peter not protos anymore? Or did he cease to exist? Constantinople’s claim to primacy has no real valid reason anymore. +
 
I agree with that statement however, I think that Pope meddling in affairs of Church (after all, Church does not mean only clergy but all Catholics) is not as bad. Church meddled in politics, and I don’t see anything wrong in that really. I see Papacy having much better claim to primacy or supremacy than claims of Emperors, but that’s very individual I guess.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I agree with that statement however, I think that Pope meddling in affairs of Church (after all, Church does not mean only clergy but all Catholics) is not as bad. Church meddled in politics, and I don’t see anything wrong in that really. I see Papal claim to primacy or supremacy having much better claim than claims of Emperors, but that’s very individual I guess.
Click to expand...
It became incredibly problematic when the Church shifted its focus from the Carolingian ideal (the Christian king as the benefactor and protector of the Church) to the Church trying to stand over top of the Christian princes. Right or wrong really depends on how you feel about the temporal versus spiritual role, but Rome’s insistence that it held authority over Christian kings, and over Eastern Christians, created the major schisms; first the split with the East, and then the Protestant Reformation.

The Carolingian state, to my mind, was as close to a perfect Christian civilization as Christendom ever approach, but it did require that Rome ape some of the Eastern concepts of the Priest King; granting the temporal emperor significant spiritual influence. To some extent, I can even understand why Rome went the way it did; the Carolingian Empire faded pretty quickly back in to chaos within a few generations of Charlemagne’s death, but the Church picked some spectacularly ill-informed battles with the Christian kings, and while it won a few of those battles, particularly among the German and English rulers, there came to be a long memory of Rome’s interference in temporal affairs.

Rome made a tragic error, because it was those German princes which basically held their territories within the Catholic fold, and when the Church began stepping on too many toes, and particularly and after the Avignon era, it lost spiritual credibility, and along with it political credibility. Sure, the Church managed to entrench itself in the Mediterranean kingdoms, but at the loss of England and a very large portion of Northern Europe. And of course, it’s insistence that it have some degree of authority over the Eastern Church ultimately lead to that schism.
 
Well, it was mutual in the sense that a new religious body didn’t suddenly pop into existence, as in the case of Protestantism.

Because it was schism, what you have are apostolic churches cutting off communion from each other.

So there are two other ways of phrasing the question:
(1) Who’s fault was the mutual split?
(2) Who, if either, retains the true Church?

As for (1), the fault was chiefly pride… and differing cultures, legitimate theological differences, and slightly different (but deciding) ecclesiastical perspectives (role of Emperor, what does “Universal Church” mean, etc.) So the fault was on both sides.

As for (2), you have to decide what makes for full communion in Christ’s Church. The Orthodox posits that it’s not communion with anyone per se, but retaining the orthodox faith (as they understand it). The Catholic Church says, yes, there is a center of communion: Peter in Rome.

So in the Catholic point of view, Orthodox left communion with Peter – the chief Apostle and successor, the Bishop of Rome (Pope). In the Orthodox point of view, the Roman Catholic Church really left orthodoxy and not communion with any particular church, since there is no ONE primary church in Orthodoxy that makes full communion.

In actuality, though, the split was Rome vs. Constantinople, and those churches influenced by the Byzantine East.

I’m Catholic so naturally, I have my perspective.

But I would posit that the Orthodox’s position, or any other Eastern communion (Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox)'s position, is circular. Because what you have is “True Church” —> orthodox faith —> “True Church” —> orthodox faith. That is, the true church is evident by the true councils, which suggests the true church, and so on. But the Assyrian church could claim the same. Or the Oriental Orthodox. All accept different councils, each with its own “orthodoxy.”
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
Rome’s insistence that it held authority over Christian kings, and over Eastern Christians, created the major schisms
Click to expand...
Yes, so did Rome’s insistence to not divorce King Henry VIII, or Jesus speaking about letting masses eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, or proclaiming Himself Son of God. Outcomes in schisms are unfortunate as ever, yet in themselves don’t prove action was wrong. Church is there to protect truth and faith, not to please as many as possible and have influence nor majority of members. Those things are all nice but not the goal, just the means.

What ill-informed battles do you have in mind, if I may ask?
 
Excellent point. Orthodox Church basically recognizes Ecumenical Councils only those that are approved by Church and Church as those who approve of Ecumenical Councils. Therefore without one you can not prove the other and without that you can not prove the first one and you go in circles.

Catholics clearly have the authority of the outside- historical documents (Gospels in historical context) proves primacy of Peter, historical documents (writings of Church Fathers) prove Rome has that primacy and power over other Churches inherited from Peter. Church guided by Rome approves of Bible as infallible divine source of revelation. Ecumenical Councils are only those defined so by Pope of Rome. This basically proves that if prerequisite of Bible being true witness to Christian tradition applies, Catholicism applies.
 
The fight with Frederick II comes to mind. While both sides took unreasonable actions, the propaganda that Frederick’s people spread about the Papacy seems a pretty clear progenitor of the later attacks on Rome by the Hussites and other pre-Reformation reformists, and ultimately the Reformation itself. The Church tried to tip the scale too much in its own direction. I’d put the battle against Henry II in the same category. And let’s remember here that neither of these men were bad rulers. They were as devout as any Christian kings of the era, and did nothing that previous kings had not done (let’s remember here, these were men invested by the Church as the rightful kings of their realms, annointed as such). There was a significant shift from the Carolingian ideal, and it was a shift that to some extent took a good many kings by surprise, and while doubtless the Popes in question had their reasons, the fights the Church picked served no one particularly well, and set the stage for the Reformation.
 
Rome also had some notorious forgeries, like the Donation of Constantine. So the Church wasn’t above playing dirty pool.
 
Devout does not mean perfect. There were many devout people (St. Photius for example) who were not obedient enough to authorities or did not consider them to be authorities. If Popes would not pick fights Church would retain it’s influence, but it would lose status as Church of Christ. If mission of Popes would be to be sort of freemasons or leading religion in wikipedia charts, they’ve failed. Luckily enough that is not true. I agree Church did some errors in politics here and there but majority of those listed fights had their very good reasons. To let nobles control church positions is, what I would argue, prime cause of reformation. That was not Papacy’s direct fault, but I think it could have been prevented. I would however argue that if Papacy did not stand against secular interference in Church matters, either we would be in schisms or disunited while in communion, or reformation would have happened sooner.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Devout does not mean perfect. There were many devout people (St. Photius for example) who were not obedient enough to authorities or did not consider them to be authorities. If Popes would not pick fights Church would retain it’s influence, but it would lose status as Church of Christ. If mission of Popes would be to be sort of freemasons or leading religion in wikipedia charts, they’ve failed. Luckily enough that is not true. I agree Church did some errors in politics here and there but majority of those listed fights had their very good reasons. To let nobles control church positions is, what I would argue, prime cause of reformation. That was not Papacy’s direct fault, but I think it could have been prevented. I would however argue that if Papacy did not stand against secular interference in Church matters, either we would be in schisms or disunited while in communion, or reformation would have happened sooner.
Click to expand...
The Church had had no problem bequeathing that kind of authority on Charlemagne, and let’s remember here that Churchmen were basically the civil servants of that era. The Church was only the institution of any significance pushing out literate men schooled in law, accounting, advanced agricultural techniques and the like. The compromise made with Charlemagne was a recognition that a Bishop wasn’t merely a spiritual authority, but were, in effect, Ministers of the Crown in the Carolingian state. That being the case, I think princes had every reason to want to assure the right men were granted those significant temporal powers. And as I say, Rome had little issue with it in the 8th and 9th centuries, and indeed, had worked very hard to groom the Frankish princes for the role of the new Western Emperors.

But the Papacy, in my view, gained a taste for power as the Carolingian state crumbled. Part of it was necessity of salvaging what could be salvaged from the disintegrating empire, but it’s my view that Rome began to crave after a much larger temporal role. It’s hard not to view Innocent III’s career as a Pope trying to become the King of Kings in the West.
 
they were civil servants, but being servant of God comes before being servant of state. Charlemagne had enough influence but he never tried to corrupt the Church or usurp it’s powers, or in any way hinder it’s mission. I think that putting Church so high in state while maintaining to be separate things was what resulted in such confusion and so many conflicts. While it was sincere attempt from secular power to hold to Church values and Church trying to support state, there were times when Church was forcing state to hold values and state tried to get support of the Church.

I have no knowledge about Innocent III, I’ll catch up on that when I get the time, but one Pope’s mistakes (secular and disciplinary at that, not dogmatic) should not discredit entire Church.

As Carolingian State crumbled there was a vacuum of power and Church would step in, as obvious choice. I do think that sometimes power was not executed way it was meant though.
 
Last edited:
I’m impressed at your knowledge on the topic and your ability to express it.

I think we’ve read some of the same books, but your recall is amazing. Much better than mine.

Thanks for your contributions.
 
I don’t see how Henry II or Frederick II were in any way trying to corrupt the Church. Both men, were by all accounts, loyal and sincere Christians. In Henry’s case, his only crime was that Thomas Becket proved a rather difficult man (even Becket’s defenders at the time thought him pretty severe and peculiar). Beckett’s murder was a tragedy, but no one at the time seriously believed Henry actually wanted him killed, but Alexander III still censured him for the actions of foolish and wayward knights. And again, Henry wasn’t doing anything that previous English and Continental rulers hadn’t done, but the shift wasn’t in the princes, it was in the Church’s view of its own role.
 
I’d like to add that I have a sneaking admiration for the Carolingian period, or at least Charlemagne’s reign. The Church had been grooming his family for some time, and in Charlemagne they found the right match of intelligence, military prowess and religious sincerity. I really believe that if there was a perfect period of Church and State in union, it was between Charlemagne and Rome. Unlike the Byzantine emperors, trapped in their Eastern ritual and already beginning to ossify even in the 8th century, the Carolingian Empire was marvelously dynamic. So many pine for the days of the Christian Roman Emperors, but I view the Carolingian state as one of Europe’s first great accomplishments.
 
That and the two codes of canon law for the East and West are together called the code of canon law for the universal church. More skewing?
 
Papacy was not above playing dirty- it’s true. Problem about Donation of Constantinople is that most Popes who quoted from it sincerely believed it to be true hence the confusion. I still think that investing power over Church in hereditary monarchies is a bit off. Perhaps intentions of Henry nor Frederick were not trying to corrupt Church but as we saw from historical standpoint, investing power over Church in hands of nobles, high or low, did not pay off. I think Papacy was right about investiture, being servant of state is under being servant of God and if state sought support of Church it should respect it’s integrity- but yes that should work both ways too I guess.
 
Even Roman Catholic theologians, with support from the Vatican, admitted this potentially revolutionary admission in the 2016 Chieti Statement:

"Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East [my emphasis].

Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue
between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church

SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM:
TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING
IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

Chieti, 21 September 2016

Source: Official Site of the Holy See
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Church sees a synergy between papal primacy and episcopal collegiality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top