Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

SolomonVII said:

HIEU 104 - Byzantine Empire Course, UC San Diego History Video Tutorials, Matthew Herbst

Click to expand...

No transcripts with footnotes and references?

I'm not sure what "monastic influence" is referred to, but was able to find this which mentions the attendance of two monks from Mt. Athos (use edit to search text):

Full text of "The History of the Council of Florence"

SolomonVII said:

HIEU 104 - Byzantine Empire Course, UC San Diego History Video Tutorials, Matthew Herbst
Byzantine Empire Course by Matthew Herbst on Free Audio Download

Click to expand...

OK, I've taken the time to try and listen to a couple of lectures and am no closer to understanding where this idea of overwhelming support for the union came from, or the powerful monastics who opposed it.
Did you actually attend these lectures?

You mean these "lectures"?

SolomonVII said:

You mean these "lectures"?

Click to expand...

I try not to make being a jerk a habit.

prodromos said:

I try not to make being a jerk a habit.

Click to expand...

First impression set the tone. I have a hard time believing anything more that I could add is not going to be brushed off, simply because I am not Orthodox.

What you will notice about the professor that I have given as providing background is that he truly appreciates Byzantine culture and has a passion for it. He is respectful of the subject.
What you may also notice, if and when you come to the pertinent lectures is how often in Byzantine history the lay orders of ascetics and monks and hermits butt heads with the more official powers that existed throughout Byzantine history, the ordained clergy and the Emperors, and they have come out on top. The officials may have had the power, but to the extent that the holy men were able to win the hearts and minds of a people who valued holiness above all, the final victory was theirs.

There are enough specifics provided in the lectures, but the point I was making was the very general one that the trend was that the lay orders of Byzantium had a very special influence that often ran contrary to the will of the official ecclesiastical classes, and their close ties to the emperor and his/her bureacracy.


It has been a few years since I had listened to this particular series, so I was not even sure that this was the series that provided the background for the very general points I was making. It is not the only one of these courses I have listened to.

There was no small delegation that was sent to Florence, according to number 30 in this series, or the last lecture at any rate. The final vote was 699 to 1, with Mark of Ephesus being the single bishop that could not stomach voting for this kind of union. Once back in Constantine, a holy man and future saint, Georgio aka Gennadius Scholarius, of the Pantokrator monastery, repented completely of his former support, and was instrumental in winning the hearts and minds of Constantinians to the anti-Latin position. Certainly, even with the Ottoman scimitar looming close to their necks, the population of Constantine would not have needed much convincing, for the humiliation of Latin occupation would never be soon forgotten, whatever else the theological reasoning might have been.

My only point was neither particularly pro or anti-Orthodox, nor particularly pro or anti-Catholic. It is too long ago and too irrelevant to invest too much energy and emotion into such an issue, I don't think. My intent was never to delve into the minutaie and blow by blow account of what happened at Florence either.

My only point was to note just how different was the role of the monastics and otherwise lay holy men from what developed in the West.

This particular scholar from the University of San Diego I believe noted several times in the course of his lecture how influential the lay monks and ascetics were in providing an alternate sort of power to that of the officially ordained bishops. I believe it was this professor that pointed out to Maximus the Confessor as one of his examples, and the Iconoclast Controversy as another of how in spite of having all the power, the officials offices of Patriarch and Emperor eventually lost and had to succumb to the moral power of the holy men, who are laity. The contrast to the case of Maximus in the West that somebody else had used was the fate of Savonorola. Even as he lost, Maximus the Confessor won, while Savonorola lost all the way down.

I don't think that I was being particularly insulting to the Orthodox by pointing this out, or being particularly misinformed either.

Sometimes I enter in discussion of women's issues, and over the years what I have discovered is that it does not really matter what I say, but it is the mere fact that I enter into the discussion with an intact penis that feminists find most offensive. To dare to have an opinion is considered a breach of etiquette in those circles, unless one has a vagina tucked up there somewhere.
I kind of feel that I haven't got the right stuff here either, and just the fact that I am saying anything at all will be sure to offend Catholics and Orthodox in equal measure.
Anyway, this is as close as I can come to giving some footnotes on the Herbst Byzantine course that I listened to probably over two years ago.

Thekla said:

I'm not sure what "monastic influence" is referred to, but was able to find this which mentions the attendance of two monks from Mt. Athos (use edit to search text):

Full text of "The History of the Council of Florence"

Click to expand...

Thks for that link sis.
There was a thread started by a RC concerning that Council over here, if you or others are interested.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7403751/
Why do Orthodox NOT accept the Council of Florence?

BuckeyeStu said:

Hello Christian brethren,

I am not trying to ruffle any feathers or launch a theological debate and I apologize in advance if this topic has been beaten into the ground. But I am new here and have an honest historical question, Why do the Orthodox not accept the Council of Florence?

The Council was attended and endorsed by:

The Roman(Byzantine) Emperor- historically had been the key figure in Eastern Christianity(Caesaropapism).

The both the current Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople(who died shortly after) and his successor.

Representatives of the other 3 Patriarchial sees of the Pentarchy(Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem).

The Metropolitan of the Russian Church.


Now of the 700 reps of the Orthodox Church only Mark of Ephesus refused to agree to to the to reunion at Florence. How can a single from bishop from Ephesus nullify the an entire ecumenical council? After all there were even 3 bishops who refused to agree to the first council of Nicaea and they were rightfully excommunicated and exiled. What makes Florence a different situation than Nicaea?

Again I am not here to start a theological dispute and just need held with a historical question. Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

buzuxi02 said:

The council of Florence was not a free council. The Orthodox party was under house arrest for approximately 14 years. The Patriarch of Constantinople actually died of old age before he ever signed the acts of the council. After the council of Florence, local churches began holding their own councils rejecting Florence starting with the Jerusalem church.

The council of Ephesus did not become 'ecumenical' till two years later in 433 a.d. In 433 Patriarch John of Antioch reconciled with St Cyril of Alexandria. John of Antioch and the antiochan party held a rival council in Ephesus, when Cyril started without them. The epistle of Cyril to John known as the agreement of union written in 433 was recieved by the 4th ecumenical council which acknowledged the antiochan usage of the 2 natures of Christ.

The Assyrian church was not found by Nestorius or their followers. Nestorianism was anathemized in the third council and as persecution against them increased, a remnant of nestorians traveled outside the borders of the empire and found refuge in the assyrian church. The nestorians influenced the Assyrian theology somewhat but they always held to the antiochan school of influence which emphasized the 2 natures of Christ and less on the oneness of the hypostatic union (the oneness of the hypostasis is what Cyril emphasized which was the emphasis of the alexandrian school).

Chalcedon was the most attended council with 630 bishops present. It anathemized Dioscorus the patriarch of alexandria. After the council monophysites still occupied patriarchates. The Alexandrian church became divided over the ethnic greeks and ethnic egyptians (copts), the greeks for the council while the egyptians against it, but for about 100 years after chalcedon, it was still one church counting the same patriarchs.

The 5th ecumenical council was meant to reconcile the factions, but failed so the monophysite adherents were eventually anathemized. What people dont realize is that the patriarchate of Alexandria is still there and is still Orthodox, but hardly known since the greek alexandrians faithful to chalcedon were ousted in the 1950's and most of the Orthodox under Alexandria are now outside Egypt made up of immigrant communities and converts from missionary work in Africa .
The Coptic patriarchate is the splinter group of egyptians which broke off, the last bishop of the unified Alexandrian church was deposed and ousted for promoting monophysitism, the ethnic egyptians continued recognizing him as their leader till his death, after that they began electing their own bishops, the coptic bishops were never part of the diptychs and never commemorated in the empire. Soon after Alexandria fell to the muslims, the majority of copts over time converted to Islam.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by prodromos

I try not to make being a jerk a habit.
​

Click to expand...

Glad to hear that

SolomonVII said:

First impression set the tone. I have a hard time believing anything more that I could add is not going to be brushed off, simply because I am not Orthodox.

What you will notice about the professor that I have given as providing background is that he truly appreciates Byzantine culture and has a passion for it. He is respectful of the subject.
What you may also notice, if and when you come to the pertinent lectures is how often in Byzantine history the lay orders of ascetics and monks and hermits butt heads with the more official powers that existed throughout Byzantine history, the ordained clergy and the Emperors, and they have come out on top. The officials may have had the power, but to the extent that the holy men were able to win the hearts and minds of a people who valued holiness above all, the final victory was theirs.

There are enough specifics provided in the lectures, but the point I was making was the very general one that the trend was that the lay orders of Byzantium had a very special influence that often ran contrary to the will of the official ecclesiastical classes, and their close ties to the emperor and his/her bureacracy.


It has been a few years since I had listened to this particular series, so I was not even sure that this was the series that provided the background for the very general points I was making. It is not the only one of these courses I have listened to.

There was no small delegation that was sent to Florence, according to number 30 in this series, or the last lecture at any rate. The final vote was 699 to 1, with Mark of Ephesus being the single bishop that could not stomach voting for this kind of union. Once back in Constantine, a holy man and future saint, Georgio aka Gennadius Scholarius, of the Pantokrator monastery, repented completely of his former support, and was instrumental in winning the hearts and minds of Constantinians to the anti-Latin position. Certainly, even with the Ottoman scimitar looming close to their necks, the population of Constantine would not have needed much convincing, for the humiliation of Latin occupation would never be soon forgotten, whatever else the theological reasoning might have been.

My only point was neither particularly pro or anti-Orthodox, nor particularly pro or anti-Catholic. It is too long ago and too irrelevant to invest too much energy and emotion into such an issue, I don't think. My intent was never to delve into the minutaie and blow by blow account of what happened at Florence either.

My only point was to note just how different was the role of the monastics and otherwise lay holy men from what developed in the West.

This particular scholar from the University of San Diego I believe noted several times in the course of his lecture how influential the lay monks and ascetics were in providing an alternate sort of power to that of the officially ordained bishops. I believe it was this professor that pointed out to Maximus the Confessor as one of his examples, and the Iconoclast Controversy as another of how in spite of having all the power, the officials offices of Patriarch and Emperor eventually lost and had to succumb to the moral power of the holy men, who are laity. The contrast to the case of Maximus in the West that somebody else had used was the fate of Savonorola. Even as he lost, Maximus the Confessor won, while Savonorola lost all the way down.

I don't think that I was being particularly insulting to the Orthodox by pointing this out, or being particularly misinformed either.

Sometimes I enter in discussion of women's issues, and over the years what I have discovered is that it does not really matter what I say, but it is the mere fact that I enter into the discussion with an intact penis that feminists find most offensive. To dare to have an opinion is considered a breach of etiquette in those circles, unless one has a vagina tucked up there somewhere.

I kind of feel that I haven't got the right stuff here either, and just the fact that I am saying anything at all will be sure to offend Catholics and Orthodox in equal measure.

Anyway, this is as close as I can come to giving some footnotes on the Herbst Byzantine course that I listened to probably over two years ago.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that post.
I don't believe you offended either of the 2 East/West Denominations.
But then again, they could believe you did.

Matthew 8:11
I am saying yet to ye, that many from east and west shall be arriving and shall be being reclined with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of the heavens.


.

Thekla said:

Re: the monastics - they have long held an essential role in the east. As they do not live in the world, they have a particular disposition and role (as the "spiritual army") in maintaining the true teachings. The refusal to accept the Council of Florence in the east (and there are other Councils which are not counted as they did not stand) was as much due to the 'laity' as the monks as well as bishops and priests (and the recognition that it was attended for purposes other than "theology", as well as the particular rather dodgy conditions - a de facto imprisonment). We all, in the EO, are charged with keeping the faith once delivered.

Click to expand...

Thank goodness for the monks...

Thank goodness for the monks...

Click to expand...

Yes indeed.

According to some sources, it is a Monk that guards the Ark of the Covenant.....interesting!

Wonders of the African World - Episodes - The Holy Land - Retellings

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Geneva, Arial, sans-serif]According to Ethiopian tradition, the Ark of the Covenant is preserved in the ancient holy city of Aksum. For centuries, the great relic was kept in the Church of Mary of Zion, where the emperor Iyasu is recorded as having seen it and spoken to it in 1691. Now it is kept in the Chapel of the Tablet, which was built beside the church during the reign of the last emperor Haile Selassie.

The relic is entrusted to a single guardian, who burns incense before it and recites the Biblical Book of Psalms. No one else can approach it, including the high priest of Aksum. The guardian is not only a monk, but a virgin as well, and he serves the Ark until he appoints a successor as his own death approaches.
[/FONT]





.

Seriously?

I guess this thread hasn't been idle for as long as some of the threads you bump, but really, must you?

Why not?

Rick Otto said:

Why not?

Click to expand...

After 411 posts and over 6 years of life, do you have anything to add that hasn't already been said? Not to be snarky, just at some point it seems that the only purpose of resurrecting these contentious threads is to restart the conflict.

Conflict is bad?

tz620q said:

After 411 posts and over 6 years of life, do you have anything to add that hasn't already been said? Not to be snarky, just at some point it seems that the only purpose of resurrecting these contentious threads is to restart the conflict.

Click to expand...

Acts 17
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. 17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.

Contentions are a fruit of the flesh, but see the fruit of the flesh is determined by the doctrinal error of the person putting forth a contention. Those that are true to Christ's doctrine will not be charged with dissension, or contention of whom only God is the final judge, but beware that your teaching and doctrinal positions agree with scripture. Jude also prompts us to contend for the faith against such which includes the libertine's free will fight against the commands and revealed words of God. Those who practice contentions and dissensions are proven unrepentant, all they want to do is dispute about words promoting contrary and strange teachings of men and they will not inherit the kingdom of God since they do not know the real true Christ but only one of their own imagining.

Gal 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[c] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Rick Otto said:

Conflict is bad?

Click to expand...

Among the brethren? Certainly it is.

Discussion is good, and iron sharpens iron. And of course because we have different beliefs represented here, there are going to be disagreements about what is true.

But if one were to stir up conflict just for the sake of stirring up conflict (please note that I said "if" - I cannot see another person's heart - God alone judges) ... if a person desires simply to sow discord among the brethren, they need to remember that such an act is an abomination before God.


Prov. 6

16 These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
17 A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.


Seeing as how the passage goes from "six things The Lord hates" to "seven are an abomination" with the inclusion of sowing discord among the brethren, I think it ought not be taken lightly.

sdowney717 said:

Acts 17
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. 17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.

Contentions are a fruit of the flesh, but see the fruit of the flesh is determined by the doctrinal error of the person putting forth a contention. Those that are true to Christ's doctrine will not be charged with dissension, or contention of whom only God is the final judge, but beware that your teaching and doctrinal positions agree with scripture. Jude also prompts us to contend for the faith against such which includes the libertine's free will fight against the commands and revealed words of God. Those who practice contentions and dissensions are proven unrepentant, all they want to do is dispute about words promoting contrary and strange teachings of men and they will not inherit the kingdom of God since they do not know the real true Christ but only one of their own imagining.

Gal 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[c] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

I agree. I was looking at the characters involved in the 1054 Schism, Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerularius. They both showed that arrogance and pride ruled their thinking over the humility that should have lead them.

sdowney717 said: ↑
Acts 17
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. 17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.

Contentions are a fruit of the flesh, but see the fruit of the flesh is determined by the doctrinal error of the person putting forth a contention. Those that are true to Christ's doctrine will not be charged with dissension, or contention of whom only God is the final judge, but beware that your teaching and doctrinal positions agree with scripture. Jude also prompts us to contend for the faith against such which includes the libertine's free will fight against the commands and revealed words of God. Those who practice contentions and dissensions are proven unrepentant, all they want to do is dispute about words promoting contrary and strange teachings of men and they will not inherit the kingdom of God since they do not know the real true Christ but only one of their own imagining.

Gal 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[c] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

tz620q said:

I agree. I was looking at the characters involved in the 1054 Schism, Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerularius. They both showed that arrogance and pride ruled their thinking over the humility that should have lead them.

Click to expand...

tz620q said:

I agree. I was looking at the characters involved in the 1054 Schism, Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerularius. They both showed that arrogance and pride ruled their thinking over the humility that should have lead them.

Click to expand...

Pride goeth before the fall..........

Pro 16:18
Pride goes before destruction,
And a haughty spirit before a fall.

not content to let this thread die LLoJ?

That necro...