Cause of the schism

[godenver1]

We're learning about the Russian revolution in history, and my history teacher, trying to explain a bit of the differences about the RCC and RO churches, said something about that they split due to political reasons and the fall of the Roman Empire played a major part.

I always thought it was religious in reason, especially with the inclusion of the Filioque?

Also, was the split of Russian Orthodox Church in 1589 somewhat major?

 

[GregConstantine]

it was a combination of both (religious and political/cultural). However, many like to downplay the religious reasons because they are uncomfortable with the possibility that the West (ergo, the Roman Catholic Church) was in the wrong for the most part. So they emphasize the political/cultural reasons over the religious or what I'd prefer to call the "doctrinal" reasons.

 

[RKO]

it was a combination of both (religious and political/cultural). However, many like to downplay the religious reasons because they are uncomfortable with the possibility that the West (ergo, the Roman Catholic Church) was in the wrong for the most part. So they emphasize the political/cultural reasons over the religious or what I'd prefer to call the "doctrinal" reasons.

Greg, why does it say you are a "newbie?" Or am I remembering you from CAF?

 

[GregConstantine]

I have no idea why it says that. I've never participated in CAF

 

[Kristos]

We're learning about the Russian revolution in history, and my history teacher, trying to explain a bit of the differences about the RCC and RO churches, said something about that they split due to political reasons and the fall of the Roman Empire played a major part.

I always thought it was religious in reason, especially with the inclusion of the Filioque?

Also, was the split of Russian Orthodox Church in 1589 somewhat major?

The schism of 1054 between East and West (Constantinople and Rome) didn't really involve Russia in any meaningful way except that they were under Constantinople as a "mission" at the time. The schism of 1054 had many reasons, some theological, but when boiled down the failure to reconcile was mainly due to the Pope's claim to power.

1589 wasn't a division at all - it was the establishment of the Russian Patriarch, which would be a natural thing for Orthodox ecclesiology.

 

[E.C.]

The two primary reasons for the Schism were 1) Papal Supremacy and 2) the Filioque.

We weren't exactly on board with the supremacy idea especially since the notion was only really popular with Charlemagne's court and once he took over the West than the popes started to think it was a good idea. We didn't, still don't and never will.

The Filioque, theological aspects aside, wasn't agreed upon because during the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea and Constantinople they decreed that it would require another Ecumenical Council to agree upon any further changes to the Creed. It was inserted in Spain as the result of a Council in Toledo as a way to combat the rampant Arianism in the area and, like every other bad trend in the world, just caught on. Charlemagne was also a little instrumental in its usage in the West.


The Fall of the Western Roman Empire played a part in the sense that it created a huge power vacuum in Western Europe which the pope in Rome was able to fill quite well. The problem that most teachers have is that they're quite ignorant of the theological aspects of the Schism and only talk about the differences that they see: beards vs. no beards, leavened vs. unleavened, etc.

 

[ArmyMatt]

it's funny how politically, Rome is trying to look toward the East more, while they are theologically drifting further away.

 

[E.C.]

You know we can't have EVERYTHING in life!


On the serious side, I think that Rome has enough sense to realize that Christianity is losing it's political, cultural and societal influence in the first world. Sometimes when you have to circle the wagons you don't mind it being with that one step-relative nobody talks about.

 

[Knee V]

The big deal was what the Papacy was evolving into. Most other issues were secondary, even the filioque clause, imho. With the filioque, while we find it problematic, it probably would have been less of an issue had the Pope not tried to force the rest of the church to accept it. Nearly every issue of the split comes back to papal supremacy (and now "papal infallibility" as well).

 

[RKO]

You know we can't have EVERYTHING in life!


On the serious side, I think that Rome has enough sense to realize that Christianity is losing it's political, cultural and societal influence in the first world. Sometimes when you have to circle the wagons you don't mind it being with that one step-relative nobody talks about.

That one made me laugh. But admit it, we annoy you way more than you annoy us!

 

[Knee V]

Additionally, I believe the split can be traced back largely to the Franks coming to power in Western Europe. Once the Franks rose to power and began installing Frankish Popes (as opposed to the Popes being local Italians), the Papacy became a vassal of Frankish power, and the church in Westetn Europe became a political tool for the Franks to expand their power and dominance.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think too many people focus on the actual incident in 1054 and not enough on the Photian Schism, which really is the big precursor. The situation with Photius was huge in creating fever pitch level tension. But I also think people only focus on the filioque and papal claims and don't realize that the language barrier, the forced celibacy in the West, changing the Eucharist from leavened to unleavened in the West, and the overall growing apart in philosophy had been going on for a few hundred years...

 

[prodromos]

I think too many people focus on the actual incident in 1054 and not enough on the Photian Schism, which really is the big precursor.

You mean the Nicholatian schism? Last I heard, St Photius didn't break communion with anybody. The so called schism was largely due to the non canonical meddling of Pope Nicholas.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You are right, of course. I'm simply using the Western term for it, to answer the OP. They call it the "Photian Schism." I agree with you 100%.

You mean the Nicholatian schism? Last I heard, St Photius didn't break communion with anybody. The so called schism was largely due to the non canonical meddling of Pope Nicholas.