Why didn’t the mutual lifting of the 1054 Great Schism excommunications automatically mean reunification?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nine_Two said:
You were correct until you got to the point about the Turks pressuring Constantinople to renounce reunion with Rome. Although the Emperor had been Catholic at that time, the Church had not followed him and showed no inclination of doing so. The Turks have nothing to do with the schism.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, however what I understood was from the Muslem history that I had read several years ago and also from reading some of the history of Byzantine and its fall to the Turks in the 1400’s. I do think that the Muslems had something to do with pressuring Christains to reounce Rome as its authority; but not all;as they have to some extent to the present day keep a hard reign on non-Muslems and Christains. To the Turks to have Christains united East and West would undermind their power over the people that live in Muslem countries and would have the effect of maybe getting Muslems to convert to Christianity which they would not like in the least.
 
spina1953 said:
I understand what you are saying, however what I understood was from the Muslem history that I had read several years ago and also from reading some of the history of Byzantine and its fall to the Turks in the 1400’s. I do think that the Muslems had something to do with pressuring Christains to reounce Rome as its authority; but not all;as they have to some extent to the present day keep a hard reign on non-Muslems and Christains. To the Turks to have Christains united East and West would undermind their power over the people that live in Muslem countries and would have the effect of maybe getting Muslems to convert to Christianity which they would not like in the least.
Click to expand...
They didn’t back then, and they certainly don’t now. The Turks allowed Catholic missionaries into their empire to proselytize other Christians. This seems to run counter to the idea that they didn’t want a reunion.
 
dvdjs said:
Well it would be interesting to have a census of who was on what side from the time of Florence until the Ottomans were ruling. Obviously it was not just the Emperor who was “:Catholic”.
Click to expand...
The backlash against Florence began well before 1453.
What is fair to say is that, notwithstanding the in-fighting and shifting allegiances, the Patriarchate remained in union, and solemnly proclaimed it; the last liturgy in Hagia Sophia was a liturgy of the united church. After the Fall, the EP was appointed by the Sultan given broad authority over the Christian millet. The Sultan choose to appoint an EP who,after a change of heart, had become an opponent of the union. I think it is fair to say that if the Turks had chosen a pro-union EP, then the schism would have lost its traction - apart perhaps from Russia.
Click to expand...
Given that Athenasius II replaced Gregory III who had been deposed for his pro-Romanism, I have a hard time believing that he was a member of the Roman Church as well, especially since Rome was attempting to restore Gregory at the same time. It is true that the last Orthodox liturgy came half a year before the fall, but it was only because of the Emperor that this happened, and not because the Orthodox Church itself had accepted union with Rome.
 
dvdjs said:
I am not sure what you are talking about, but it sure isn’t Florence.
Click to expand...
The Council of Florence attempted to unite various Orthodox churches with Rome, and failed on that account.
Nor do I think that the idea of seeing a " sign that the people themselves have accepted becoming Catholic." has any validity.
Click to expand...
That’s nice.
However clumsy the attempts at unification were, what is apparent is that people had some degree of choice to opt out.
Click to expand...
Eventually…sometimes…when it became clear that they could not be forced (see: Emperor Susenyos and the short-lived experiment of Catholic Ethiopia, above).
A situation that was vastly different in the reverse, whenever that occurred.
Click to expand...
Maybe you’re referring here to some part of Byzantine/Chalcedonian history here that I don’t know or care about, but that doesn’t seem to be the case from a quick review of the few historical instances when that was the case:
  • The Malankara Orthodox came to the Syriac Orthodox on their own accord via the Coonan Cross Oath, rather than be forced by the Portuguese to submit to Latin ways and administration.
  • ACROD was formed by similarly disaffected Ruthenians after horrible treatment by the Latin Catholic majority in the USA, particularly one Abp. Ireland of St. Paul, MN.
 
dzheremi said:
T

Maybe you’re referring here to some part of Byzantine/Chalcedonian history here that I don’t know or care about, but that doesn’t seem to be the case from a quick review of the few historical instances when that was the case:
Click to expand...
Yes apparently there is much history that you do not know or care about.
 
Nine_Two said:
The backlash against Florence began well before 1453.
Click to expand...
Yes it did, right off the boat. And there was continuing division and turmoil. However it was most certainly not just the Emperor against the world.
 
dvdjs said:
Yes it did, right off the boat. And there was continuing division and turmoil. However it was most certainly not just the Emperor against the world.
Click to expand...
And this is why I usually don’t engage you. I said nothing of the sort. Further more you’re moving away from the point (am I to understand you aren’t arguing my point?) that the Turks have nothing to do with Orthodox rejection of Rome.
 
Nine_Two said:
And this is why I usually don’t engage you. I said nothing of the sort. Further more you’re moving away from the point (am I to understand you aren’t arguing my point?) that the Turks have nothing to do with Orthodox rejection of Rome.
Click to expand...
Although the Emperor had been Catholic at that time, the Church had not followed him and showed no inclination of doing so. The Turks have nothing to do with the schism.
Click to expand...
Again: Among the Catholics “at the time” was the EP and all who followed the shepherd. I don’t know the head count of who followed whom. The death blow to the union came when Sultan chose to appoint anti-unionisnt EP. I don’t see how one would consider this as having nothing to do with the schism.
 
Does it matter what made the Eastern Orthodox reject Florence besides doctrine? The fact is that they did reject it, and they still reject it (whether that is good or bad is beside the point). Whether the Turkish sultan had an influence or not really doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t cast doubt on the Orthodox position. It is a pointless argument because even if the sultan had an influence, it doesn’t contradict the Orthodox position. From what I have gathered they recognize that the Church isn’t self guided, and that in the history of the Church events are never simple. Sometimes things happened in a less than ideal way, but through it all God is guiding his Church. The whole history of Christianity in the Roman Empire is an example. There were bad emperors and patriarchs, who did bad things, and there were forces working on the Church from outside (Islam is one example) that had an affect. But in the end the Church stands because Gods Grace is its guide. It isn’t because the bishops or the faithful made certain decisions (even if they did).

Whereas a western theological historian might describe the history of theology by going through the history of decrees by councils and by popes, an eastern historian would have to consider clashing forces that have affected the Church. From a western perspective, the Church is much more self directed (or atleast it appears to be from a human or outside perspective). It makes a declaration, and that is final. The Church is on a conquest, and it is ever victorious. Whereas, in the east, the Church is always being tossed about, and sometimes things happen that are contrary to our will, but in the end they might be good.

At the end of the day, you have to make a decision on the truth of the Orthodox position not based on whether the the Turks had an affect or not, but rather on the question of whether the Orthodox position is consistent with tradition.
 
dvdjs said:
Yes apparently there is much history that you do not know or care about.
Click to expand...
It’s more like there’s a lot that doesn’t concern me as an OO, so I don’t make it a priority to get involved in other people’s squabbles. You’ll notice, though, that I included one OO example and one EO example, and both were arguably the result of less-than-stellar behavior by Latins, not any kind of forced union as you seemed to be implying by saying that it’s rarely the case that people have the option to “opt out” when the move is from Catholic to Orthodox and they don’t want to do it (unlike union with Rome, apparently, despite the very clear example I had just given of Latin shenanigans in Ethiopia and how they royally ticked off basically the entire country).
 
dzheremi said:
It’s more like there’s a lot that doesn’t concern me as an OO, so I don’t make it a priority to get involved in other people’s squabbles. You’ll notice, though, that I included one OO example and one EO example, and both were arguably the result of less-than-stellar behavior by Latins, not any kind of forced union as you seemed to be implying by saying that it’s rarely the case that people have the option to “opt out” when the move is from Catholic to Orthodox and they don’t want to do it (unlike union with Rome, apparently, despite the very clear example I had just given of Latin shenanigans in Ethiopia and how they royally ticked off basically the entire country).
Click to expand...
You can get even more from Fr Taft who recounts our missteps and misdeeds in great detail, while always waiting in vain for the merest sign of reciprocity.
 
dvdjs said:
Yes it did, right off the boat. And there was continuing division and turmoil. However it was most certainly not just the Emperor against the world.
Click to expand...
It actually was pretty much this way. The Emperor was so distrusting of the bishops that one of his conditions for the election of a new Patriarch was that he would have to uphold the union. This is how Metrophanes was elected to replace Patriarch Joseph in the first place, because the other front-runners for the position of Ecumenical Patriarch (among whom, a prominent candidate was none other than St. Mark of Ephesus) refused to consent to these terms.
 
dvdjs said:
What is fair to say is that, notwithstanding the in-fighting and shifting allegiances, the Patriarchate remained in union, and solemnly proclaimed it; the last liturgy in Hagia Sophia was a liturgy of the united church. After the Fall, the EP was appointed by the Sultan given broad authority over the Christian millet. The Sultan choose to appoint an EP who,after a change of heart, had become an opponent of the union. I think it is fair to say that if the Turks had chosen a pro-union EP, then the schism would have lost its traction - apart perhaps from Russia.
Click to expand...
Of course, had the Emperors not made supporting the union a condition of becoming EP from 1441 until the fall of Constantinople, then the Union would have had no traction at all, for the Georgians, the Russians, and the Three Eastern Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem opposed the union.
 
Cavaradossi said:
Of course, had the Emperors not made supporting the union a condition of becoming EP from 1441 until the fall of Constantinople, then the Union would have had no traction at all, for the Georgians, the Russians, and the Three Eastern Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem opposed the union.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But the least bit not self-evident. The Czar had his own reasons for opposition and they were political. Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were not without political pressures. Hard to know what hte church would have done absent all the politics.
 
dvdjs said:
Again: Among the Catholics “at the time” was the EP and all who followed the shepherd. I don’t know the head count of who followed whom. The death blow to the union came when Sultan chose to appoint anti-unionisnt EP. I don’t see how one would consider this as having nothing to do with the schism.
Click to expand...
Again: Athenasius II, the EP of the time was not Catholic.

The death blow to “union” came when the Emperor was no longer around to force it.
 
dvdjs said:
Perhaps. But the least bit not self-evident. The Czar had his own reasons for opposition and they were political. Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were not without political pressures. Hard to know what hte church would have done absent all the politics.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting the Greek Emperors reasons were not political?

His entire reason for converting was to get military aid from the West.
 
livingwordunity said:
What if a future deal were offered where the Patriarch of Constantinople could be eligible, as the Eastern Catholic cardinals are, for selection as the next Pope?
Click to expand...
Nine_Two said:
Under the rules presently in place in the Catholic Church any male member of the Catholic Church is eligible for selection. IIRC this rule predates the schism.

However I get the feeling you are suggesting a deal where the Patriarch of Constantinople would hold a very real shot at taking the Papal office as it now stands. I assure you that if he did this, on the basis of that deal alone, he would be immediately stricken from the dyptychs of ever other Church, and his Holy Synod would rise and depose and defrock him (as is their canonical right).
Click to expand...
So, what you are saying is if Rome were to extend a hand it would be bitten off. Do you believe that Jesus wanted the Church to be divided?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top