Will Orthodox and Catholics Reconcile?

[Contarini]

Why can’t the East admit their forebears were wrong to leave the Church and now take the lead in righting a tragic schism. With 20/20 hindsight, we today see the West was right on the filioque … and correctly used scripture to point up the value of amending the Creed, to combat the heretics of that day.

Who are “we”?

I don’t see anything of the sort, and I’m a Western Christian! The best that can be said is that there are reasonable arguments for the Filioque, and that Lossky and others have way overstated its heretical implications. I’m not even sure about that–I found Lossky’s argument quite impressive when I actually read it–but other Orthodox theologians like David Hart think Lossky is all wet, so there’s certainly room for doubt.

But there is *no *consensus that the West was right. Insofar as there is a consensus among theologians and church historians, it’s that the West was clearly wrong in adding the Filioque to the Creed. That really isn’t that hard a conclusion to come to. What was so wrong with Leo III’s position? Why did the later Papacy need to change it?

That I would hope “we” could agree on (but apparently not). The theological merits of one view or the other present a much more abstract and difficult question.

Edwin

 

[JDZwiers19]

If we did need a Pope, there would have been a lot of scrambling around after the schism making new canons to deal with a changed situation. Check the historic record, there was nothing like that. It isn’t like the Orthodox were at a loss about what had to be done and how to do it without a Pope. There weren’t even any discussions.

There was no crises, because the Pope literally did nothing. In the east it was business as usual. Most Orthodox probably didn’t even really understand the implications of the schism until the crusades, when foreign armies were marching across the land and arresting or expelling the Orthodox bishops.

First of all there were many smaller schisms that ended with a council that pretty much accepted the position the pope held from the start. The Pope never elected bishops for two reasons, #1 It would have been impossible due to the vast distances and #2 The Emperors liked to keep that privilege for themselves (which was a major point of friction between them and the pope). Just because something didn’t happen in the early Church does not mean the Pope didn’t have the God given authority over it. The Early Church was still finding its feet, so to speak, and the struggle for papal primacy has never really ended. The Pope has always been at odds with political powers of the times. The Pope’s glory days (around the time of the early crusades) were short lived.

Plus the crusades had many tragic occurrences of renegade crusaders hurting relations between the two Churches but the Pope was usually on the side of the Byzantines. And when you guys suggest that the Pope somehow orchestrated events like the sacking of Constantinople or the refusal to return property to the Church and Empire you are being very disingenuous.

 

[Nine_Two]

If distance was a big deal that prevented the Pope from appointing Bishops in the East, why didn’t the Emperor have issues appointing the Pope for several hundred years?

And when you guys suggest that the Pope somehow orchestrated events like the sacking of Constantinople or the refusal to return property to the Church and Empire you are being very disingenuous.

No one made that argument. Guilty conscience?

 

[Contarini]

I’m curious as to what leads you to that reading of it?

edit: I can’t find anything that says the Cathari/Novatians made any distinction.

Indeed. The question isn’t whether they did. The question is whether the canon is requiring them to accept remarriage after divorce, or just remarriage after the death of a spouse.

Bear in mind that from the traditional Western perspective, a “remarriage” after divorce isn’t marriage at all, so to our ears the text sounds like it’s just talking about remarriage after widowhood.

The more I think about it, though, the less sure I am that I’m right. I just find this whole “second marriage is all the same thing whether after death or divorce” idea very hard to get my head around. I have always thought of this as a strange confusion into which early Christian rigorists fell.

I’d like to know more about how the West came to make such a sharp distinction between the two things. As a Protestant, I always thought that Scripture was clear on the point, and no doubt that has shaped how I approach the patristic evidence.

(I was brought up in a very strict tradition of Protestantism which considered remarriage after divorce to be adultery, period.)

Edwin

 

[brb3]

Who are “we”?

Insofar as there is a consensus among theologians and church historians, it’s that the West was clearly wrong in adding the Filioque to the Creed. That really isn’t that hard a conclusion to come to.

Point 1 … modern historians.

Point 2 … not factual. As you know the Church doesn’t go about adding things w/o good reason. It generally doesn’t deal with issues dogmatically — until it sees a clear need to combat heretical shepherds, which are ‘excessively’ sowing tares among the wheat.

 

[Contarini]

Point 1 … modern historians.

Modern historians what? Modern historians agree that the Filioque is correct? Historians, as historians, have nothing to say about that question. It’s a theological issue, not a historical one.

Point 2 … not factual. As you know the Church doesn’t go about adding things w/o good reason.

First of all, I’m not a member of the Roman Communion, so I do not simply identify that Communion with “the Church.” Hence, your statement begs the question. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church doesn’t add things w/o good reason. Therefore, if Rome did so, that indicates that Rome does not necessarily speak for the Church!

Certainly Western Christians had “good reason” to add the Filioque in the sense that it was an understandable response to the Spanish situation, given the Western view of the Trinity. But when Leo III realized that this practice risked a schism with the East, he backed away from it.

What I am questioning is the change between the policy of Leo III and that of Benedict VIII (or whichever Pope added the Filioque to the Creed). What was Benedict VIII’s good reason for changing the policy of his predecessor?

It generally doesn’t deal with issues dogmatically — until it sees a clear need to combat heretical shepherds, which are ‘excessively’ sowing tares among the wheat.

Right. And there was such a need in Spain. There’s no reason to fault the Third Council of Toledo. I believe that the use of the Nicene Creed in the West was fairly new in the sixth century anyway. It was a local response to a local heresy. But what was the heresy in 1014?

Edwin

 

[Nine_Two]

Indeed. The question isn’t whether they did. The question is whether the canon is requiring them to accept remarriage after divorce, or just remarriage after the death of a spouse.

Bear in mind that from the traditional Western perspective, a “remarriage” after divorce isn’t marriage at all, so to our ears the text sounds like it’s just talking about remarriage after widowhood.

The more I think about it, though, the less sure I am that I’m right. I just find this whole “second marriage is all the same thing whether after death or divorce” idea very hard to get my head around. To be honest, until quite recently (teaching a class on Orthodoxy this past semester) I didn’t realize that the Orthodox lumped the two together. I thought that only the early rigorists did that.

I’d like to know more about how the West came to make such a sharp distinction between the two things. As a Protestant, I always thought that Scripture was clear on the point, and no doubt that has shaped how I approach the patristic evidence.

(I was brought up in a very strict tradition of Protestantism which considered remarriage after divorce to be adultery, period.)

Edwin

I would assume if the Novatians didn’t make a distinction and the Bishops of the Council only say they must recognize second marriages then the Bishops also lack that distinction. If they only wanted them recognized after death I would think they would say as much.

The problem with these discussions is that it is always made out that Orthodox are accepting of divorce - we aren’t. Divorce is a horrible thing, that is why there is a heavy penance imposed. Not only does it affect the two involved, but it affects the entire community, friends and family of the divorcees, the list goes on. Even without Christ’s condemnation of the practice it is obvious that it is an evil thing.

Remarriage is something that is allowed - on a limited basis - because of human frailty and sinfulness, not to encourage it but to prevent greater sin.

I was speaking to a Catholic recently (I know you aren’t Catholic), and someone whose marriage had ended in divorce after one week came up in conversation. This person happened to be Orthodox but had only been dating the other person for six weeks. The Catholic whom I was talking to (and whom I’d had an earlier conversation about Marriage rules) commented that this was the sort of case in which an annulment should be used.
Of course I have to question why? These two individuals both agreed to marry, of their own free will, believing it was the right thing to do, and went through with the wedding fully intent at the time on living a married life. Now obviously this marriage was pretty much doomed from the start, but it makes me question why is something like an annulment better in this situation? It seems exactly like a loophole to have divorce without calling it divorce.

 

[Nine_Two]

Point 2 … not factual. As you know the Church doesn’t go about adding things w/o good reason. It generally doesn’t deal with issues dogmatically — until it sees a clear need to combat heretical shepherds, which are ‘excessively’ sowing tares among the wheat.

So you’re saying the fact that the church added it makes it a good idea? That doesn’t prove anything.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m curious what good reason the Church had for adopting the Marian dogmas?

 

[josephdaniel29]

If the CC is correct that the Orthodox walked away why did the majority of the see’s stay together

That is a question that, as far as I’m concerned I’ve never heard a good answer to. If Rome was considered the measure of Orthodoxy why did the other ancient patriarchates have no qualms about breaking communion with Rome? Also, in at least the case of Alexandria and Antioch it happened twice, once after Chalcedon when the Oriental bishops left and once after the Great Schism. Of course that’s not even mentioning the other minor schisms (such as the Meletian schism).

In my mind it just doesn’t add up.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josie_L]

If the CC is correct that the Orthodox walked away why did the majority of the see’s stay together… If the CC was correct why the even worse splintering with Protestantism…Why didn’t Protestantism come from the Orthodox side ?.Seems to me just applying logic that correction was brought to an erring church that went unheeded and we see the results …Thank God in spite of the flesh, the gospel is still reaching the unsaved and the kingdom of God grows daily…

Well, if you would like to know, here’s an answer:

Wasn’t Rome left alone after all the other Churches split:

It was not really a 4 to 1 split. It was rather a 1 to 1 split – a split between Constantinople and Rome alone. The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem at this time were not the native bishops of these places, but rather Byzantine Greeks who were appointed by the Emperor of Constantinople. So, it was not like they had the freedom or incentive to remain in communion with Rome on their own. Rather, they followed the lead of the Patriarch of Constantinople and did whatever he said to do. They were not autocephalous patriarchs as they were in earlier centuries. In 1054, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were Muslims cities; and the Christian communities there were a) very tiny and b) composed almost entirely of Byzantine Greeks who were vassals of Constantinople.

Wasn’t the Protestant split the fault of the Catholics the same as in 1054?

It’s true we had some bad popes around that time. But it was not really a reform, but an introduction of novel heresy at the hands of what we today would call a bunch of liberal university professors. Luther would never have succeeded if he was not backed by Prince Frederick of Saxony, who liked Luther’s anti-Papal ideas because they served to undermine Prince Frederick’s obligations to the King of Germany, who was also the Holy Roman Emperor. For, the authority to be Holy Roman Emperor came from the Pope (who had to crown him), and if Christ did not recognize a Papacy (as Luther said) then the Holy Roman Emperor / King of Germany had no authority over Prince Frederick to ask for taxes from him, and so Frederick could rule Saxony as he pleased. And many other German princes followed Frederick’s example to gain their political independence from the German king as well, and THIS is how northern Germany (along with Sweden and Norway) became Lutheran. It was not the common people’s idea. And the same is true of Protestant England. The common people in all these places wanted to remain Catholic, but were forced by law to become Protestants. Dr. Eamon Duffy, for example, has written an excellent and very well documented book about the Protestant take-over of England called “The Stipping of the Altars,” which illustrates in great detail how the common people tried their best to remain Catholic.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.htm

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Edwin,

The flaw in your argument is that the schism happened in slow motion, with East and West gradually moving away from each other. After the end of the seventh century, Rome was not part of the Empire and thus had much less direct involvement with the Byzantine Church, but there was still a long process of estrangement. If you were to leap from 600 to 1100, you would notice a difference in Rome’s role in the Eastern Church. But that doesn’t mean that there was a huge difference between 1054 and 1055.

Edwin

Some might think so, but I have mentioned four points:

• naming bishops
• regulating liturgies
• canonizing saints
• declaring dogmas

And I might have added:

• calling councils

Can anyone show where these things were normally done for the eastern church by the bishop of Rome before the schism?

To put the question into perspective, in western Europe when there were separations from Rome, some adjustments had to be made, and these show in either laws (such as the Act of Supremacy, and similar legislation in the smaller Lutheran states) or covenants of some sort among the group as they organized themselves, where the church body actually lays out a set of governing rules, who does what.

There is nothing like that in Orthodoxy. On the contrary in fact, what we find is that the specific powers of the Papacy each usually have a definitive law, or canon, which can be traced back to a specific date. The modern Code of Canons is literally peppered with canons spelling out in clear language the powers to be exercised by the Pope.

We know for instance, that the papacy monopolized the canonization of saints some time in the 11th or 12th century (I forget, probably the 12th) and this can be pinned down rather precisely if one wishes to look for it.

And what if there is no difference in how Orthodoxy governed itself between the years 1054AD and 1055AD? Wouldn’t it be very telling if there was at least ONE canon somewhere? One decree anywhere that said “now that we no longer have a Pope, we need to do XXXXX (you name it) some way, and we have decided that XXXX will do it from this time on.”

Nothing there. It doesn’t even seem to have occured to anyone of a need. Everyone knew what they had to do and just kept doing it.

So what was the change in Rome’s role in the eastern church from 600AD until 1054AD? In the west it seems the See’s influence was growing (the establishment of missions in Britain and the German/Scandinavian lands, for instance) but what of the east? What specifically can we say it gradually stopped doing in the east in those 450 years before the schism?

 

[JDZwiers19]

If distance was a big deal that prevented the Pope from appointing Bishops in the East, why didn’t the Emperor have issues appointing the Pope for several hundred years?

No one made that argument. Guilty conscience?

No one makes it explicitly because it would be a flat out lie. But by bringing up such events as an excuse to attack the papacy without clarifying you are implying that. This happens all the time. However you are accurate if you are suggesting that events like this lead to separation. Hatred devolved between Latins and Greeks and theological differences became an excuse more than a cause.

 

[Hesychios]

No one makes it explicitly because it would be a flat out lie. But by bringing up such events as an excuse to attack the papacy without clarifying you are implying that. This happens all the time. However you are accurate if you are suggesting that events like this lead to separation. Hatred devolved between Latins and Greeks and theological differences became an excuse more than a cause.

May I ask … what is the lie?

 

[JDZwiers19]

That is a question that, as far as I’m concerned I’ve never heard a good answer to. If Rome was considered the measure of Orthodoxy why did the other ancient patriarchates have no qualms about breaking communion with Rome? Also, in at least the case of Alexandria and Antioch it happened twice, once after Chalcedon when the Oriental bishops left and once after the Great Schism. Of course that’s not even mentioning the other minor schisms (such as the Meletian schism).

In my mind it just doesn’t add up.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Two reasons: First the eastern church was the toy of the emperor who had a strangle hold of the eastern half of the empire. The rise of the Patriarch Constantinople was purely political and was a slap in the face to apostolic tradition. Second reason is that it was later oppressed by Muslim rulers who were notorious for meddling in the politics of the eastern church. The last thing they wanted was the Eastern bishops to have strong ties with the west.

 

[Nine_Two]

No one makes it explicitly because it would be a flat out lie. But by bringing up such events as an excuse to attack the papacy without clarifying you are implying that. This happens all the time. However you are accurate if you are suggesting that events like this lead to separation. Hatred devolved between Latins and Greeks and theological differences became an excuse more than a cause.

So you’re saying you just made up a strawman then. Why?

 

[JDZwiers19]

May I ask … what is the lie?

It is a lie when Orthodox accuse the papacy of orchestrating the crimes committed by the crusaders against the Byzantines. I am not accusing anyone on this thread of flat out lying but when you don’t acknowledge that for the most part the Pope was committed to restoring all the land and property back to the empire and the eastern church you are indirectly implying that the Pope was behind the bad behaviour. Again this is not an accusation aimed at anyone in particular but an observation of an overall trend.

 

[josie_L]

I would assume if the Novatians didn’t make a distinction and the Bishops of the Council only say they must recognize second marriages then the Bishops also lack that distinction. If they only wanted them recognized after death I would think they would say as much.

The problem with these discussions is that it is always made out that Orthodox are accepting of divorce - we aren’t. Divorce is a horrible thing, that is why there is a heavy penance imposed. Not only does it affect the two involved, but it affects the entire community, friends and family of the divorcees, the list goes on. Even without Christ’s condemnation of the practice it is obvious that it is an evil thing.

Remarriage is something that is allowed - on a limited basis - because of human frailty and sinfulness, not to encourage it but to prevent greater sin.

The Coptic Orthodox do not permit remarriage, in fact, I just read that an Egyptian Court ruling would allow (as a constitutional right) Copts to remarry, but Pope Shenouda III had this to say about it:

"Bishop Armia, secretary to Pope Shenouda, said in a statement that while the Coptic Orthodox Church respects the Egyptian judiciary and its rulings, “there is no force on earth that can force the Church to violate the teachings of the Bible and Church laws, based on ‘What God has joined together let no man separate.’”

and

“Coptic MP Ibtessam Habib told the media that the Bible represents the Coptic constitution and is firm on the sanctity of marriage. “This ruling will only serve to increase the number of divorces among Copts,” she cautioned.”

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10060102.html

 

[Nine_Two]

It is a lie when Orthodox accuse the papacy of orchestrating the crimes committed by the crusaders against the Byzantines. I am not accusing anyone on this thread of flat out lying but when you don’t acknowledge that for the most part the Pope was committed to restoring all the land and property back to the empire and the eastern church you are indirectly implying that the Pope was behind the bad behaviour. Again this is not an accusation aimed at anyone in particular but an observation of an overall trend.

I’m still confused as to why you need to bring this up if it is so wrong. No one said it.

I’m tempted to make an argument off this, but that would be off topic.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Coptic Orthodox do not permit remarriage, in fact, I just read that an Egyptian Court ruling would allow (as a constitutional right) Copts to remarry, but Pope Shenouda III had this to say about it:

"Bishop Armia, secretary to Pope Shenouda, said in a statement that while the Coptic Orthodox Church respects the Egyptian judiciary and its rulings, “there is no force on earth that can force the Church to violate the teachings of the Bible and Church laws, based on ‘What God has joined together let no man separate.’”

and

“Coptic MP Ibtessam Habib told the media that the Bible represents the Coptic constitution and is firm on the sanctity of marriage. “This ruling will only serve to increase the number of divorces among Copts,” she cautioned.”

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10060102.html

And this has what effect on Canon 8 of Nicea?