Who's fault was the schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter UltimateChikorita
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UltimateChikorita

Guest
Prove me wrong
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(it was because of Constantinople but do any orthos want to argue)
 
Good evening and welcome (belatedly) to CAF!
Ssssoooo are you Eastern? Orthodox? Or Latin Rite? Your Meme and subsequent post is confusing…
 
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: The St. Francis National Evangelical Spiritual Baptist Faith Archdiocese of Canada
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
In all honesty, historically, there was so much back and forth that no one can point at a specific side and say, “It’s your fault!” There was so much political posturing that was outside of theological context that it simply snowballed with the Eastern Emperor and the Frankish and Italian kings and later the Holy Roman Emperor egging on religious supremacy over the other portion of the Church. The initial excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople and his theological adherents by the Pope was specifically geared towards the fact that the Patriarch was advocating that the Pope did not have the authority to allow traditions and rites which were different to those of the Eastern Church. In effect, the excommunication only affected the Patriarch specifically but the Patriarch responded with a much wider sweeping excommunication of Western Bishops. At the time, the mutual excommunications were largely thought of as unimportant and it wasn’t until later that political powers used the excommunications to further the division between the two empires and thus the two Churches.

I would blame the Holy Roman Emperors and the Emperors of Constantinople before I would blame either the Latin or Orthodox Churchs as a whole for the actual Great Schism. The time following that division… well, I think we are both to blame because we simply didn’t want to say “Sorry” and move forward until 1965 when the excommunications were lifted.
 
Last edited:
UltimateChikorita said:
…
Click to expand...
Byzantine Catholic.

If you are thinking of the Catholic-Orthodox exchange of excommunications in 1054, those were lifted however.
“2. Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.”
Click to expand...
“5. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.”
Click to expand...
https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-.../hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html
 
Didn’t someone get punched at that ordeal? I believe a future saint was arrested and sentenced.
 
A Roman Catholic would say it was the Orthodox fault.
An Orthodox would say it was the Roman Catholics fault.
It’s probably both.
 
Yep, there were problems from the get go as soon as Constantine moved the capital…I wonder what would have happened had he stayed in Old Rome? Language, culture, invasions, the list goes on and on and on…
 
Angel_Gabriel said:
Yep, there were problems from the get go as soon as Constantine moved the capital…I wonder what would have happened had he stayed in Old Rome? Language, culture, invasions, the list goes on and on and on…
Click to expand...
If he would have stayed in Rome the empire would have collapsed sooner. It was the move to the East that saved the empire for as long as it did. It also set the stage for the Byzantine Empire to rise and preserve Eastern Christianity as far as it did. The East is where the wealth was.
 
True. I just wonder if the Western Empire could have been preserved from the Arianism that infected it thanks to the Goths. The Eastern Empire could have survived for longer had the plague not destroyed it in the 6th century…it was weak from that and when Islam arrived it didn’t have the strength in numbers to be able to effectively defend itself.
 
Can’t be both. Impossible. The fault is always with the one who takes the wrong side
 
The faulty absolutely lies on both sides. Both sides made choices that made schism inevitable.
 
Angel_Gabriel said:
had the plague not destroyed it in the 6th century…it was weak from that and when Islam arrived it didn’t have the strength in numbers to be able to effectively defend itself.
Click to expand...
I think you are forgetting about the Byzantine Empire.
 
There is no Byzantine Empire…it was the Eastern Roman Empire…the people called themselves Roman. Byzantine was a term that was coined in the 19th century. At any rate it was weakened after the 6th century. It diminished in size considerably following Justinian’s reconquest of Italy. By the time of it’s collapse in 1453 it was basically just the city of Constantinople itself.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps lack of humility and charity on one side, and lack of obedience and humility on the other.

But, isn’t fault-finding looking back? Our Lord admonishes us not to look back - for it is a merciless prison.
 
Ditto, lol…

But, on a serious note;

The fault of the schism remains upon men. Not the Catholic Faith
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top