Who was really to blame for the east-west schism and can it be reversed?

[jas84173]

I am curious, because I have read into it a lot and it seems like both the Latin west and Greek east both seemed to have caused it, thus I don’t really see there being a side who was in the right or the wrong. I know in the past half century a lot of progress has been made to repair relations between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, who both claim to be the true Church Christ established. I was curious as to what exactly the two differ on in regards to theology? Is it possible that some day the two would be in communion with each other again? I know this would most likely result in some Papal authority being given however I think even in the time before the Churches split the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals, I believe after the schism the Patriarch of Constantinople took that role. I was just curious to thoughts. I know it probably wouldn’t happen in our lifetime but it would be nice to see the two become one again.

 

[Omaestre]

Here is a well thought out recent Orthodox perspective on the schism and why the two churches seem impossibly far from each other today.

youtube.com/watch?v=hOoKTYm8WH8

I don’t think reunification will come through human efforts, we seem so very apart. Not just liturgically but in our beliefs as well.

As for blame, well it depends on who you ask. The consensus is that nobody expected the Schism to be permanent, but if anything but a nail in the coffin and ensured bad blood for centuries, to the point of magnifying even small issues, it was the sack of Constantinople in the 4th crusade.

It can be said that the Greeks did cause a massacre by an unruly mob first, but the retribution that the Latin’s performed was equally abhorrent towards fellow Christians, if not worse due to the perpetrators having official backing of both the secular states and the Church.

 

[Zakon]

Here is a well thought out recent Orthodox perspective on the schism and why the two churches seem impossibly far from each other today.

youtube.com/watch?v=hOoKTYm8WH8

I don’t think reunification will come through human efforts, we seem so very apart. Not just liturgically but in our beliefs as well.

As for blame, well it depends on who you ask. The consensus is that nobody expected the Schism to be permanent, but if anything but a nail in the coffin and ensured bad blood for centuries, to the point of magnifying even small issues, it was the sack of Constantinople in the 4th crusade.

It can be said that the Greeks did cause a massacre by an unruly mob first, but the retribution that the Latin’s performed was equally abhorrent towards fellow Christians, if not worse due to the perpetrators having official backing of both the secular states and the Church.

The massacre of Latins in Constantinople by the Greeks also happened because 1st and 2nd Crusade massacred Greeks and other Orthodox in Antioch and Jerusalem. Also Latin princess that ruled Constantinople was favoring Latin population in the city, so Greeks took revenge when they got rid of her. Then in 1204 Latins took revenge on Greeks. And it goes like this all the way to 2nd world war, even Yugoslav civil war in 1990s, and even today in Ukraine.

 

[Zakon]

I am curious, because I have read into it a lot and it seems like both the Latin west and Greek east both seemed to have caused it, thus I don’t really see there being a side who was in the right or the wrong. I know in the past half century a lot of progress has been made to repair relations between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, who both claim to be the true Church Christ established. I was curious as to what exactly the two differ on in regards to theology? Is it possible that some day the two would be in communion with each other again? I know this would most likely result in some Papal authority being given however I think even in the time before the Churches split the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals, I believe after the schism the Patriarch of Constantinople took that role. I was just curious to thoughts. I know it probably wouldn’t happen in our lifetime but it would be nice to see the two become one again.

Rome introduced new Creed (added Filioque) in 1014 (pope was forced during Mass by the German emperor) without consulting the 4 other Patriarchates. So even if Filioque was theologically right, it was introduced unlawfully. With the help of politics schism then only escalated. The two excommunications Rome and Constantinople exchanged 40 years later are ridiculous.

 

[Omaestre]

The massacre of Latins in Constantinople by the Greeks also happened because 1st and 2nd Crusade massacred Greeks and other Orthodox in Antioch and Jerusalem. Also Latin princess that ruled Constantinople was favoring Latin population in the city, so Greeks took revenge when they got rid of her. Then in 1204 Latins took revenge on Greeks. And it goes like this all the way to 2nd world war, even Yugoslav civil war in 1990s, and even today in Ukraine.

You are right, and assigning blame in general is a fruitless effort, no forgiveness let alone reconciliation can come of it.

The facts are that a lot of the gaps that once kept East and West apart are no longer there. Such as language, culture, freedom of movement, politics and shear stubbornness in reluctance to talk.

Unfortunately it does seem as if the theological and ecclesiastical differences are more like a chasm, and open wound I only believe God in his mercy can heal.

In practical terms, the one option I think may work, is a nuclear option. Declare all councils held since 1054 as local councils for both East and West and have one big reconciliatory ecumenical council where all doctrinal and theological drifts are discussed.

This would have to be something of a 10-50 year process.

A miracle alone will make it happen.

Lord have mercy.

 

[Tomdstone]

Is it possible that some day the two would be in communion with each other again?

I think it could happen if Rome made a few changes. But Rome does not want to budge from its position.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This is a vastly complicated issue … going back a thousand years.

A thousand years.

Over the interpretation of … “proceeding from the Father and the Son”?

And so many peripheral issues have “evolved”.

Pray over it.

 

[Wesrock]

The Filioque was widely acknowledged by western synods prior to 1014 even if it wasn’t adopted into Roman recitation of the Creed (and the west would disagree over whether it was added wrongly) and should have been settled in 1274 at the Second Council of Lyon. It was accepted by two Patriarchs of Constantinople before the second was forced to resign, and then again later at Florence, but again seemed frustrated by the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople which quickly followed.

Unfortunately, the terrible, atrocious actions by Latins against the Greeks during previous Crusades proved a major hurdle and deepened the split tremendously.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I think it could happen if Rome made a few changes. But Rome does not want to budge from its position.

Is that what this is all about?

Positions?

Sort of like a labor negotiation over hours?

Or one union is in charge of painting the vertical face of a curb.

And a different union is in charge of painting the horizontal curb surfaces?

 

[jas84173]

So basically what we had was a case of the Bishop of Rome not being vocal about the change regarding filoque to the Bishops in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem? I assume it has more to do with other historical issues such as the collapse of western Rome caused the Pope to become much more powerful in a political sense. Another issue in reconciling would be that the council of Trent would basically be null in void. The Eastern Orthodox Churches don’t have a set in stone Canon which was only really brought on in the Roman Catholic Church as a response to the reformation movement. Typically Orthodox Bibles have more books than even Catholic Bibles but it also depends on the specific Orthodox Church. For example 4 Maccabees appears in an appendix in Greek Bibles, and 2 Esdras ( 4 Esdras in the appendix of the Latin Vulgate appears in Slavonic Orthodox Bibles. Also generally all Orthodox Bibles include 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras( 3 Esdras in appendix of Latin Vulgate), and the Prayer of Mannesseh and also Psalm 151. Note in the Latin Vulgate Ezra and Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras. So it would be interesting to see what would happen regarding what is considered scripture. Possibly the two could reconcile to just accept all books present in the Septuagint as Canon.

 

[Dorothy]

With God all things are possible

 

[Zakon]

The Filioque was widely acknowledged by western synods prior to 1014 even if it wasn’t adopted into Roman recitation of the Creed (and the west would disagree over whether it was added wrongly) and should have been settled in 1274 at the Second Council of Lyon. It was accepted by two Patriarchs of Constantinople before the second was forced to resign, and then again later at Florence, but again seemed frustrated by the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople which quickly followed.

Unfortunately, the terrible, atrocious actions by Latins against the Greeks during previous Crusades proved a major hurdle and deepened the split tremendously.

Western local synods are inferior to Ecumenical Synods. Even Synod of Constantinople 880 that was confirmed by 5 Patriarchates condemned Filioque. This Constantinople 880 synod was removed by Rome in 11th century from it’s list of synods and Rome went back to Constantinople 867 Synod.
Before that st. Pope Leo III in 803 nailed Creed without Filioque on Peter’s tomb and said that he did that for the protection of the Orthodox faith. (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei)
Rome did not have power to enforce removal of Filioque in places like France and Germany, but it kept Italy free from Filioque until around 1014 when Rome fell in to Germanic influence, including Germanic theology. French and Germans wanted to challenge Greeks on who has right to be Roman Empire, and accusing Greeks for heresy (Not having Filioque) was just another way to go, and they used Rome for that.

What happened centuries after at Lyon and Florence is story for it self. West was using political weakness of Greeks to force them in to union.

 

[Omaestre]

What happened centuries after at Lyon and Florence is story for it self. West was using political weakness of Greeks to force them in to union.

This really depends on who you ask, one could argue that the East was in a politically week spot ever since the first crusades where the Alexios asked for help to begin with. It was bound to fall sooner or later. I think even if the unity would have happened the Muslim horde’s onslaught would have been too great to resist effectively.

Many eastern hierarchs accented to the union and some were genuinely willing to sacrifice everything for unity.

Regardless of history, it is clear that none of us will tell history from the others perspective, and most importantly none of us need to carry secular politics into the area of our faith.

We need a council where Bishops of East and West meet and objectively look at what exactly is enough to actually condemn one side of being heterodox, what actually constitutes as a significant deviation from the faith of the apostles and what can be interpreted as acceptable local tradition.

 

[EIF5A]

Are the Orthodox ready to accept the dogmas declared by papal infallibility?

Since the Orthodox Church highly venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary, perhaps the Immaculate Conception can be accepted. Papal infallibility seems to be a greater hurdle…

If anything, I think the Orthodox are less likely to “budge” than Catholics…

But as someone already said, with God all things are possible.

Imagine when Jesus returns at/near the end of time and there are two Churches…

 

[Zakon]

Are the Orthodox ready to accept the dogmas declared by papal infallibility?

Since the Orthodox Church highly venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary, perhaps the Immaculate Conception can be accepted. Papal infallibility seems to be a greater hurdle…

If anything, I think the Orthodox are less likely to “budge” than Catholics…

But as someone already said, with God all things are possible.

Imagine when Jesus returns at/near the end of time and there are two Churches…

Orthodox Church declared this June on Crete that there is only One Church and that Her unity cannot be perturbed. The Crete’s Council said that those who are outside the Orthodox Church have only historical name church, but not ontological.
So Orthodox Church today is teaching that churches like Catholic or Anglican have potential to be the Church if they accept Orthodox Church’s teaching and communion.
So Crete’s Council was actually a step back for ecumenism. And to think that most anti-ecumenist churches like Sofia, Moscow and Tbilisi were not even present.

On the other hand Rome did show good will to compromise, for example in 1995 Rome signed (forgot the document’s name) a document which largely denies Filioque. Few days ago Rome’s delegation signed a document which denies papal authority in pre-schism Church.

So something might even happen with this unity thing.

 

[Casilda]

Who was really to blame for the East-West schism and can it be reversed?

I was curious as to what exactly the two differ on in regards to theology?

Is it possible that some day the two would be in communion with each other again?

I know it probably wouldn’t happen in our lifetime but it would be nice to see the two become one again.

Blame? Egotistical men

Differ in theology? I studied Eastern Orthodoxy and it just reminded me of my cradle faith, Latin Catholicism. I was on the fence for a long time, actually gave up trying to convert to EO or revert to LC. I did transfer into an EC church, best of both.

Schism healed? I do not believe that is possible with either hierarchy, but I already see it amongst a few faithful, and even fewer clergy.

Don’t hold your breath. It ain’t gonna happen.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I am curious, because I have read into it a lot and it seems like both the Latin west and Greek east both seemed to have caused it, thus I don’t really see there being a side who was in the right or the wrong. I know in the past half century a lot of progress has been made to repair relations between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, who both claim to be the true Church Christ established. I was curious as to what exactly the two differ on in regards to theology? Is it possible that some day the two would be in communion with each other again? I know this would most likely result in some Papal authority being given however I think even in the time before the Churches split the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals, I believe after the schism the Patriarch of Constantinople took that role. I was just curious to thoughts. I know it probably wouldn’t happen in our lifetime but it would be nice to see the two become one again.

I blogged about this a while back, for what it’s worth.
Could this lead to Orthodox-Catholic unity on the papacy and beyond?

 

[Tomdstone]

Is that what this is all about?

Positions?

Sort of like a labor negotiation over hours?

Or one union is in charge of painting the vertical face of a curb.

And a different union is in charge of painting the horizontal curb surfaces?

Differences were hammered out in the Council of Florence. Since then, more differences have arisen and similarly need to be examined and resolved. IMHO, it has nothing to do with “painting the horizontal curb surfaces” I don’t know why a Roman Catholic would think that the east west schism has anything at all to do with “painting the horizontal curb surfaces”. “Painting the horizontal curb surfaces” seems to me to be irrelevant to the questions of what are the issues dividing the Eastern and Western Churches.

 

[commenter]

Orthodox Church declared this June on Crete that there is only One Church and that Her unity cannot be perturbed. The Crete’s Council said that those who are outside the Orthodox Church have only historical name church, but not ontological.
So Orthodox Church today is teaching that churches like Catholic or Anglican have potential to be the Church if they accept Orthodox Church’s teaching and communion.
So Crete’s Council was actually a step back for ecumenism. And to think that most anti-ecumenist churches like Sofia, Moscow and Tbilisi were not even present.

On the other hand Rome did show good will to compromise, for example in 1995 Rome signed (forgot the document’s name) a document which largely denies Filioque. Few days ago Rome’s delegation signed a document which denies papal authority in pre-schism Church.

So something might even happen with this unity thing.

The problem is that there is no one who can really speak for Orthodoxy, comparable to the Pope. Constantinople has a status of history, but Moscow claims far more adherents, and thus, possible “leadership”. Are the Orthodox churches growing closer together, or are they gradually drifting apart from each other - particularly those branches in the West?

 

[Casilda]

The problem is that there is no one who can really speak for Orthodoxy, comparable to the Pope. Constantinople has a status of history, but Moscow claims far more adherents, and thus, possible “leadership”. Are the Orthodox churches growing closer together, or are they gradually drifting apart from each other - particularly those branches in the West?

They have the Ecumenical Patriarch
ec-patr.org/default.php?lang=en