Who's fault was the schism

[Angel_Gabriel]

Yes, that’s true. But we’re talking about a subject that is spanning centuries…I had to condense it. (And I love mentioning Justinian as he is one of my favorite Emperors and saints (along with his wife Theodora) )

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Didn’t someone get punched at that ordeal? I believe a future saint was arrested and sentenced.

lol… I believe you are referencing St. Nicholas, yes, you may have guess it, it was Santa Claus. Saint (Claus) Nick, punched out an Arian heretic for publicly denying Jesus Christ divinity in a Church council. Santa Claus’s lifespan did not quite make the age of the schism. Although, Santa’s folklore may have continued through this age…

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

The story is that he punched Arius himself. St. Nick had a bit of temper apparently lol! And he did it in the presence of the emperor (Constantine) and was imprisoned for it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Hi, Angel_Gabriel;
Do you find the Church heading towards the schism after Constantine lifted the Imperial persecution laws against the Catholic Church and after Constantine placed an Eastern Patriarch in the new capital Constantinople?

Church history records after the Patriarch of Constantinople was placed by the Emperor. The Patriarch of Constantinople having the backing (wealth, military) of the Emperor’s, begins the path of usurping authority from the existing Apostolic See’s. When the Patriarch of Constantinople start to usurp the authority from the Bishop of Rome, we find bishop’s from both the East and West resisting the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Bishop’s of Rome vie-ing to prevent the secular powers from infecting the whole Church. Hence. Church history finds the battle for authority over the whole Church. When the Imperial supported and new Capital of Rome presides the Patriarch of Constantinople, was the reason why the Patriarch of Constantinople began to “try” and usurp the authority from the Bishop of Rome who all declared the Bishop of Rome who sits in the chair of Peter presiding over the whole Church in love.

The battle of authority, between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and the Bishop’s of Rome begins the path towards the schism. Thus, battle of authority has always been the blame for all schisms as it remains today.

Before the Patriarch was installed at Constantinople by the Emperor. The Church has always professed the Bishop of Rome presiding over the whole Church in the seat of Peter.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Constantine placed an Eastern Patriarch in the new capital Constantinople?

Well the establishment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople didn’t help anything…supposedly it was founded on St. Andrew but it rose to prominence following Constantinople’s rise in power as the new capital.

I will dispute that the Bishop of Rome presided over the whole Church…this notion of Papal Supremacy just didn’t exist then. It was a later development ( and a poorly executed one at that). The Bishop of Rome held importance for certain, but it wasn’t like it is today.

And yes, I don’t agree with how Constantinople and the Emperors took charge of Church matters. We see this playing out now in the Orthodox East. Politics and the Church are often intertwined (Soviet Russia is a prime example).

BasicallyOld Rome was left to defend itself against the Arian Goths (which is how the Filioque eventually ended up in the Creed in the West as it was a heresy that just would not die out there.) while the East (New Rome) ended up dealing with Islam more than the West (Spain is the exception).

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Ahh, Yes Arius the heretic who used the Emperor’s influence to demand that he receive Holy Communion from the Bishop Alexander, and died in a bathroom, defecating his internal organs before he as a known heretic could take Holy Communion.

 

[Dovekin]

My thoughts, completely unasked for.

When Constantine convened the Council of Nicea, the relationship between church and empire changed. The Church adopted a position of teaching authority over the world in a new way, backed by imperial power.

That meshing of political and religious created confusion. Popes in Rome tried to assert their authority based on St Peter, without acknowledging the role the emperor played in uniting Christians. The Emperor, aware of the Empire’s role at Nicea and its effect on the Church, made decisions about what would be best for the Church, such as where its ‘center’ should be.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Yes, which is why I often wonder what would have happened had Constantine stayed in Rome.

 

[abucs]

The other guys are always at fault.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I will dispute that the Bishop of Rome presided over the whole Church…this notion of Papal Supremacy just didn’t exist then.

Then your dispute is not with me, but with those Saints and Martyrs who give witness to the authority of Peter’s Chairs presided by the Bishop of Rome alone. I can agree that the early Church was free from secular powers and the Bishop of Rome’s authority was not viewed in a secular way as it does later when the persecution is lifted. But you cannot refute the faith of the Early Church Father’s pre-Constantinople period, who declared the Bishop of Rome who presides in the Chair of Peter, settling all disputes over the whole Church.

An example from a list too many early Church Father’s to list here;
Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Irenaeus

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

You’re also forgetting that pre-Constant(name removed by moderator)ole there was also heavy persecution of Christianity. The Edit of Milan was put an end to that. I’m not disputing the importance of the Bishop of Rome, I’m only questioning the reach of his authority…he should be the final court of appeals. Primacy not Supremacy…that is what I support.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

You introduce an interesting perspective. But was it not Eastern Catholic Saints with the Bishop of Rome resisting the secular powers from infecting the Church. Thus we have Eastern Catholic Saints removing themselves from their Imperial Patriarchate seats and go into the desert, so as not to be involved with the secular powers infecting them.

Again, It is not until the Emperor seats a Patriarch in Constantinople we find the Church in the battle over authority by secular powers and Imperial placed Patriarchates including heretics, vie-ing for the power and authority from the Bishop of Rome, only after the Patriarch of Constantinople had already usurped the authority from other Apostolic See’s . But that is another history.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

You’re also forgetting that pre-Constant(name removed by moderator)ole there was also heavy persecution of Christianity. The Edit of Milan was put an end to that. I’m not disputing the importance of the Bishop of Rome, I’m only questioning the reach of his authority…he should be the final court of appeals. Primacy not Supremacy…that is what I support.

Yes, the edict of Milan followed the Edict of Toleration by Galerius issued two years earlier in Serdica.

And, I agree with you the subject of “Authority” is the question the begins the path towards the schsim.

I would agree that the reach of the authority presiding in Peter’s Chair does not enter into the realm of secular powers, secular economics, summed up in all things secular. But we dare not attempt to remove that authority and key holder given to Peter by divine rite.

It is from this divine authority given to Peter alone the Bishop’s of Rome must tread lightly and always in Love, that presides over the whole Church things divinely revealed and handed down by the apostles themselves. In other words that divine authority given to Peter to “bind and loose over the whole earth” as Christ reveals. Peter’s authority is exercised within the confines of the body of Christ and Jesus is our head.Protecting the deposit of faith in morals and faith that does not change.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

It is from this divine authority given to Peter alone the Bishop’s of Rome must tread lightly and always in Love, that presides over the whole Church things divinely revealed and handed down by the apostles themselves. In other words that divine authority given to Peter to “bind and loose over the whole earth” as Christ reveals. Peter’s authority is exercised within the confines of the body of Christ and Jesus is our head.Protecting the deposit of faith in morals and faith that does not change.

I agree. However, I do believe that several Bishops of Rome have failed in their duty in the past (mainly due to politics…the Bishop of Rome held a HUGE position of power in the West.) and some recently are truly trying to make amends (Benedict XVI and Francis come to mind). The East is also incredibly stubborn…people still talk about the sack of Constantinople…good grief…

 

[Aulef]

One of the parts stayed with the truth. And the truth doesn’t change. Furthermore, this part is not schismatic because it wants everyone to come to the truth. So this is actually the conciliatory part.

On the other hand, the other part stepped away from truth. This part, which moved away, is the schismatic one.

And let me be very clear. The conciliatory part, which remains in truth, is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church under the guideance and reign of the Chair of Saint Peter until the end of times.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I can understand why you are saying what you are saying, but it is not supported by history. The actual events of the time are complicated and played out over the course of hundreds of years.

 

[otjm]

Whose fault was the schism? Both sides had a hand in the matter.

 

[Delphinus]

A Roman Catholic would say it was the Orthodox fault.
An Orthodox would say it was the Roman Catholics fault.
It’s probably both.

To me, it’s like a divorce. One person may have filed the paperwork, another may have started the fight that began the whole separation, but in reality it takes two to call it quits.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I do believe that several Bishops of Rome have failed in their duty in the past (mainly due to politics…the Bishop of Rome held a HUGE position of power in the West.) and some recently are truly trying to make amends (Benedict XVI and Francis come to mind).

I concur. I take into consideration the different secular circumstances during each Bishop of Rome’s era, when he comes under attack, or when He makes some difficult decisions during Famines, wars and secular powers persuading the Church into the secular Political arena’s.

One example; I am of the opinion that the Bishop of Rome has no business ordaining a secular King (Charlamagne comes to mind). But, I do take into consideration when the Bishop’s of Rome come under the threat of political and military circumstances, the Bishop’s of Rome have risked their necks protecting the flock of Jesus Christ and defending the apostolic faith.

The conversion of pagan nations with secular Monarch’s in the West, begins a political lesson to be learned in all future ages of the Church, so as not to repeat them.

I pray as time heals the wounds of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith, and tensions begin to wane off, and so long as neither Eastern Church’s and the Western Church, never become entangled again with secular political movements, that causes tension and schisms.

Peace be with you.