Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi. I didn't post links and those interested in this subject can just do a google search.

I had never really looked into the Great Schism between the Orthodox and Roman church and would like to ask was this actually benficial to Christianity as a whole and could this have also led to an even greater Reformation in the centuries after that? There may be a lot of Christians unaware of this rather large milstone in Christian history and I myself never realized how hugh this really was.

Where would Christianity be today if this event had not happened. Let's try to keep this thread civil and informative, no bashing of either these 2 denominations or any other. Thanks and peace

Results 1 - 10 of about 43,300 for GreatSchism of 1054.

Following the rule of Charlemagne, Christianity spread throughout Europe which served as a unifying force for the continent. This was in part due to the Great Schism of 1054 where two competing religious authorities, Pope Leo IX of the Roman Catholic Church, and Patriarch Michael I of the Eastern Orthodox faith, excommunicated each other in a dispute over authority..............

The major event that is often cited as the separation of the East and West is the Great Schism of 1054. Actually at the time it was seen as simply another temporary schism between the two regions. But this one never resolved as the two Churches drifted farther apart. Also, though the date seems to be an easy reference, it must be seen as wider political and theological context which lead to the division.............

The cardinal excommunicated the patriarch who, in turn, excommunicated the cardinal. The main point of contention was the use of leavened bread during the celebration of Mass, according to MacMillan Publishing's

 

[squint]

1 Cor. 11:
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

John 7:43
So there was a division among the people because of him.

Obviously The Word is WORKING!

enjoy!

squint

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think we could go back to the time when the Filioque was introduced and used as to the start of the schism.

But if you wish to stick to the great schism then maybe look at when there was a dispute as to who was Pope and why.

 

[jckstraw72]

if the Schism had never happened we'd still have one Church, and that'd be pretty durn awesome.

 

[E.C.]

HThe cardinal excommunicated the patriarch who, in turn, excommunicated the cardinal. The main point of contention was the use of leavened bread during the celebration of Mass, according to MacMillan Publishing's

Ok, for starters: wrong!

Three main parts that lead to the Schism.
1) The Photian Schism. Took place in the 9th century and had a lot to do with Patriarch Photius of Constantinople being a layman before being patriarch.
2) Papal Supremacy. The East and her four patriarchs had seen Rome with "papal primacy" which basically mean that Rome was a sort of older brother, not a lord over-er. One of the Roman popes (not sure which) had said that his office is to be supreme over all Christians. Bishops, priests and patriarchs included.
3) Filioque. Filioque in Latin means "and the Son" which was added to the Nicene Creed in the earlier half of the 5th century via local Council of Toledo as a means to help combat Arianism. However, it was determined at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea 325 and Constantinople 381 respectively) that the Creed is not to be changed without the approval of an Ecumenical Council.

We can't really start unless the correct information is supplied.

 

[E.C.]

if the Schism had never happened we'd still have one Church, and that'd be pretty durn awesome.

Provided that everything remained orthodox and Orthodox.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

ALL history is interpretive. Catholics and Orthodox inevitably see the causes for the schism in a different light, just as people of faith and people of no faith see the causes of the schism in a different light.

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, the schism did not happen in 1054, it did not begin in 1054, and it did not come to completion in 1054. The schism was not between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome. The schism occured between those Christians loyal to the Pope and those Christians whose hierarch was one of the four other ancient Patriarchates. The schism was the complex fruition of distances in language, culture, time, and interpretation of the apostolic tradition.

A comparative ananlyssis of the paradigms of Eastern Christians and those from the West reveals a great many significant differences in thought and practice- yet diversity was common to the ancient Christian body.
The true sticking point between East and West is the INTERPRETATION of the role of the Roman Pope.

Schisms has occured long before the so called Great Schism. Most notable is the schism between the five Ancient Patriarchates and the Christians who came to be (wrongfully) known as monophysites, ie the Oriental Orthodox.

I am not convinced that the differences between West and East can be or should be simply patched up by unilateral or mutual concessions- though I do long for unity with my Catholic brethren.
Peace
Iakovos

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

bump......this is mainly for Christians that may not understand the schism that occurred between the Orthodox and CC.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Any other thoughts on how the Great Schism damaged Christianity?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

May I join in?

Forgive me...

 

[namericanboy]

May I join in?
Forgive me...

Bro., your more than welcome..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

May I join in?

Forgive me...

Of course my brother!!! Mi casa su casa

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Matthew 21:13 And He is saying unto them, "It has been written, the House of Me a House of prayer shall be being called'; ye yet it are making a den/cave/sphlaion <4693> of robbers.

Zech 14:21 Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to YHWH of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the House of YHWH of hosts.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

From the Orthodox Christian POV ~ Schisms do not damage Christianity. Christianity is viewed as still whole, with less people following Christianity.

This comes from the POV that there is only one... Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church... it cannot be otherwise.

The one is undamaged no matter how many break away... does that make sense?

Forgive me...

 

[mont974x4]

Anything that gets people away from religion and false teaching is a good thing.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

From the Orthodox Christian POV ~ Schisms do not damage Christianity. Christianity is viewed as still whole, with less people following Christianity.

This comes from the POV that there is only one... Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church... it cannot be otherwise.

The one is undamaged no matter how many break away... does that make sense?

Forgive me...

Yes. In fact I couldn't have put it any better. Thanks brother!!!

http://christianforums.com/t6871750&page=4

Matt 16:18 `And I yet to thee am saying, that thou art Peter/petroV <4074>, and upon this, the rock/petra <4073> I shall be building of Me the assembly, and gates of Hades not shall be prevailing of her;

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Anything that gets people away from religion and false teaching is a good thing.

Anything that is not the revealed religion of Christ God.

Forgive me...

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Anything that gets people away from religion and false teaching is a good thing.

Right teaching would qualify as religion
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh
&#8211;noun
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Source:
[URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion[/URL]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

bump for newer Christians that may want to no more about the greatest Division to happen before the Reformation.........

 

[BigNorsk]

People always seem to think that divisions happen when someone walks out the door. But the basic division happened much before that, the Bible even speaks of the same type of thing, maybe even the very division.

1Co 3:1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,
1Co 3:3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
1Co 3:4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not being merely human?
1Co 3:5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.
1Co 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.

The whole system as it developed of Apostolic succession with people pointing to one Apostle or the other and a supposed succession of Bishops was the real split, and for many it traces back to the earliest days.

I don't know when the instructions of Paul to have multiple Bishops in each town was first contravened, but it seems very early indeed and as soon as people started to look to their Apostle as proof they were correct, the schism had already occurred for the fact that all was Christ was lost.

Marv

 

[mont974x4]

People always seem to think that divisions happen when someone walks out the door. But the basic division happened much before that, the Bible even speaks of the same type of thing, maybe even the very division.

1Co 3:1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,
1Co 3:3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
1Co 3:4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not being merely human?
1Co 3:5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.
1Co 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.

The whole system as it developed of Apostolic succession with people pointing to one Apostle or the other and a supposed succession of Bishops was the real split, and for many it traces back to the earliest days.

I don't know when the instructions of Paul to have multiple Bishops in each town was first contravened, but it seems very early indeed and as soon as people started to look to their Apostle as proof they were correct, the schism had already occurred for the fact that all was Christ was lost.

Marv

Nice insight. Thanks