The Great Schism

[Wolf_Says]

So I have been doing some research as to the Great Schism, because I will admit I was completely ignorant as to how the Orthodox Church was different from the Catholic Church.

I had heard all my life that they were "still a part of the Church" and had a legitimate priesthood and bishops, a valid mass and sacraments.

Then, when my wife converted to Catholicism, I heard in RCIA that "we are all on a large ship heading towards heaven, Catholics are facing forward while Orthodox are facing backwards." (this was used to paint a picture on the differences)

I have found that the Great Schism really came down to 2 things.

1) The Orthodox Church rejected the papacy, believing that the pope is not infallible and that no 1 man should be head of the Church on earth.
2) The addition to the Nicene Creed "And the Son" in regards to the Holy Spirit.

There was also the issue of language and culture that created barriers that caused alot of misunderstandings around the time and the final split happened in 1050s AD when the Pope (bishop of Rome) excommunicated the Bishop of Constantinople and all who held his office, and visa-versa the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope and all who held his office.

The two Churches split and have since grown separately, until recently when Pope Francis ended the excommunication with the current Bishop of Constantinople, and once again vise-versa he ended the excommunication with the Pope.

This is the few things that I have since found out, but I would like to extend my hand to my Orthodox brethren and say "Hello!"

 

[Philip_B]

Hi Wolf,

I am not the kind of catholic that I think you had in mind, and I am not the kind of Orthodox you had in mind, however I have done a fair bit of work on the subject of the Filioque and the Great Schism.

The Great Schism happened in 1054, when Pope Leo excommunicated Michael I Cerularius the Patriarch of Constantinople. He sent emissaries to deliver the bull of excommunication to the Patriarch in Hagia Sophia. However before the bul had been delivered the Pope died. When the bull was delivered, the Patriarch of Constantinople, unaware of the Pope's death excommunicated him.

A major event of the Second Vatican Council, known as Vatican II, was the issuance by Pope Paul and Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople of the Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965. At the same time, they lifted the mutual excommunications dating from the 11th century. The act did not result in restoration of communion.​

Since then there has been some renewed effort to fix this breach in the life of the Church. Benedict made great efforts, and I was excited to see in Laudate Si Pope Francis had quoted the current Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew in a very positive way.

There are two core issues (I say core because lots of people will throw more in if they can).

1. The Filioque Clause (and the Son). If you want me to give you more on the history I most definitely can. The 1st Council of Constantinople agreed to the Nicene Creed, which was defended by Popes up until at least 850. In 1014 the filioque clause was used for the first time in Rome. And the Orthodox objected, believing on the Council had the power to change the creed of the councils.
2. The nature of the authority that the Primacy of the Pope implies. Is the Popes authority absolute in the sense of a military commander, or a secular head of state, or is his authority conciliar, as in first among equals

The other issue that also comes into play here will be the Procession of the Holy Spirit. I personally hold the view that if western Christians had a better hold of what Augustine actually said, and what Aquinas actually said, we would be a whole lot better off.

I hope that helps

 

[JM]

Some Reformed Reading on the Subject:

A Pastoral Case for the Filioque Clause

The Great Schism of 1054 by Stephen Nichols

filioque – R. Scott Clark

Keep the Filioque

Reasons Why the Filioque Should Be Maintained

 

[Philip_B]

Some Reformed Reading on the Subject:
A Pastoral Case for the Filioque Clause
The Great Schism of 1054 by Stephen Nichols
filioque – R. Scott Clark
Keep the Filioque
Reasons Why the Filioque Should Be Maintained

There are a couple of errors in the Nichols article. The Third Council of Toledo was in 589. The Creed in the text of the council records appears twice, both times as stated by the 1st Council of Constantinople, without the filioque inserted. There is in the council records an affirmation of an understating of double procession, and given that Isidore and Leander were both followers of Augustine that is hardly surprising. The Iberian Church had a strong connection to North Africa. It is probably worth understanding what Augustine said in his work on the Trinity, as he has often been misrepresented.

Whilst in general I don't think the wikipedia is always the most reliable source, the article on the controversy does have some balance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Filioque_controversy (note also this article make the generally and oft repeated error about the Third Council of Toledo inserting the clause)

In order to check what I am saying about the Third Council of Toledo, you can check the document here http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm. It is in Latin. If you [CTRL]+[F] and search for the word filioque you will draw a blank. If you then search for the words 'Ex patre procedentem' you will find two references, both of which are the creed from the First Council of Constantinople.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

So I have been doing some research as to the Great Schism, because I will admit I was completely ignorant as to how the Orthodox Church was different from the Catholic Church.

I had heard all my life that they were "still a part of the Church" and had a legitimate priesthood and bishops, a valid mass and sacraments.

Then, when my wife converted to Catholicism, I heard in RCIA that "we are all on a large ship heading towards heaven, Catholics are facing forward while Orthodox are facing backwards." (this was used to paint a picture on the differences)

I have found that the Great Schism really came down to 2 things.

1) The Orthodox Church rejected the papacy, believing that the pope is not infallible and that no 1 man should be head of the Church on earth.
2) The addition to the Nicene Creed "And the Son" in regards to the Holy Spirit.

There was also the issue of language and culture that created barriers that caused alot of misunderstandings around the time and the final split happened in 1050s AD when the Pope (bishop of Rome) excommunicated the Bishop of Constantinople and all who held his office, and visa-versa the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope and all who held his office.

The two Churches split and have since grown separately, until recently when Pope Francis ended the excommunication with the current Bishop of Constantinople, and once again vise-versa he ended the excommunication with the Pope.

This is the few things that I have since found out, but I would like to extend my hand to my Orthodox brethren and say "Hello!"

Hello! Happy to meet you!

The anathemas were lifted, but the Orthodox do not acknowledge Catholic Sacraments. There are many, many more issues now, and those two alone, the Pope and the Filioque, are both extremely serious.

The ship analogy is good. The Catholics, imho, follow the Zeitgeist, the Orthodox stick to the ancients.

 

[Philip_B]

Hi Wolf, I have just put some material together on the blog here.
http://www.christianforums.com/xfa-blog-entry/filioque.199809/
Hope it helps

 

[Wolf_Says]

Hello! Happy to meet you!

The anathemas were lifted, but the Orthodox do not acknowledge Catholic Sacraments. There are many, many more issues now, and those two alone, the Pope and the Filioque, are both extremely serious.

The ship analogy is good. The Catholics, imho, follow the Zeitgeist, the Orthodox stick to the ancients.

Why does the Orthodox Church not acknowledge Catholic Sacraments? We have the same 7 as far as I am aware. Both a valid priesthood and bishops through the laying of the hands in apostolic teaching.

 

[prodromos]

The Great Schism happened in 1054, when Pope Leo excommunicated Michael I Cerularius the Patriarch of Constantinople. He sent emissaries to deliver the bull of excommunication to the Patriarch in Hagia Sophia. However before the bul had been delivered the Pope died. When the bull was delivered, the Patriarch of Constantinople, unaware of the Pope's death excommunicated him.

A couple of points;
The bull of excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbert was unlikely to have been written by Pope Leo but more likely by Cardinal Humbert under Leo's authority. The bull of excommunication is such a litany of errors and false claims that it seems much more likely to have been written out of anger and passion, which reflects Humbert's temperament.
The council of bishops in Constantinople excommunicated the papal legates (Cardinal Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine and Peter of Amalfi) but did not mention the pope. It was only later that the pope's name was removed from the dyptichs. Patriarch Michael I Cerularius did not personally excommunicate anyone.

 

[prodromos]

Why does the Orthodox Church not acknowledge Catholic Sacraments? We have the same 7 as far as I am aware. Both a valid priesthood and bishops through the laying of the hands in apostolic teaching.

We would say that the Catholic Church has strayed from apostolic teaching.

 

[JM]

Why does the Orthodox Church not acknowledge Catholic Sacraments? We have the same 7 as far as I am aware. Both a valid priesthood and bishops through the laying of the hands in apostolic teaching.

Politics.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Why does the Orthodox Church not acknowledge Catholic Sacraments? We have the same 7 as far as I am aware. Both a valid priesthood and bishops through the laying of the hands in apostolic teaching.

Because the Orthodox don't believe Sacraments are valid outside the Body of Christ. Sacrament, you must remember, is just a Latin translation of "mystery": for us, a Sacrament's validity has very little to do with whether you perform the right rituals and follow the right procedure and so on, from our perspective, Mysteries are performed by God, not man, and God works them through His Church; there is a right ritual and a wrong ritual, but whether the ritual is wrong or right has nothing to do with the validity of the Mystery (for instance, we see immersion and the correct way to perform baptism, and the sprinkling as completely wrong, but we do not think either has a bearing on the validity of baptism).

So Catholics, though we don't agree with them on a lot of points of ritual, might more or less follow the right ritual, but there's a lot more than that to a Sacrament. Just following the right ritual doesn't effect a Sacrament anymore than following Moses's motions will part the Red Sea.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Because the Orthodox don't believe Sacraments are valid outside the Body of Christ. Sacrament, you must remember, is just a Latin translation of "mystery": for us, a Sacrament's validity has very little to do with whether you perform the right rituals and follow the right procedure and so on, from our perspective, Mysteries are performed by God, not man, and God works them through His Church; there is a right ritual and a wrong ritual, but whether the ritual is wrong or right has nothing to do with the validity of the Mystery (for instance, we see immersion and the correct way to perform baptism, and the sprinkling as completely wrong, but we do not think either has a bearing on the validity of baptism).

So Catholics, though we don't agree with them on a lot of points of ritual, might more or less follow the right ritual, but there's a lot more than that to a Sacrament. Just following the right ritual doesn't effect a Sacrament anymore than following Moses's motions will part the Red Sea.

Well thank you for explaining that, however I have to point out 1 thing. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Church have a valid priesthood, following apostolic teachings passed down from the apostles. I agree that God is the one who makes the Sacraments valid. And since Jesus gave the power to the apostles, which has been passed down through the laying of hands, how would the Catholic Church not have valid sacraments?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Well thank you for explaining that, however I have to point out 1 thing. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Church have a valid priesthood, following apostolic teachings passed down from the apostles. I agree that God is the one who makes the Sacraments valid. And since Jesus gave the power to the apostles, which has been passed down through the laying of hands, how would the Catholic Church not have valid sacraments?

Because they aren't in the Church, they were excommunicated, or what have you. Even if you're ordained, you can't perform Sacraments if you're kicked out of the Church. God doesn't give you some superpower to perform Sacraments, it's an office; if you get fired, you lose the office; it's not a special ability you keep for all time. Doesn't matter if the hands were laid on you, that's a legalistic way of looking at it, it's not about performing the ritual correctly; ritual is very important, but ultimately the validity of the Sacrament has nothing to do with ritual, it has to do with God performing it; God performs Sacraments through his Church, and he has designated mediums in this just like Moses was a designated medium for the miracles performed by God through him; Moses could only perform miracles so long as he was a communicant with God and God actively willed those miracles.

 

[Philip_B]

kicked out of the Church

What did lifting the excommunications achieve?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

What did lifting the excommunications achieve?

Warmed relations a bit.

 

[Philip_B]

-31° to -30° ?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

-31° to -30° ?

It varies heavily, but relations between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope are extremely warm, as in hot enough to make many in the Church uncomfortable (especially Mount Athos, who strongly opposed lifting the anethemas). On the other extreme, the RCC is seen about as bad as more extreme Protestants view it.

 

[Philip_B]

It seems like it is a long way to go. We have a Pope who is very Oecumenical, and we have an Oecumenical Patriarch, One Lord, One Baptism, One God and Father of us All. Why does it have to be so hard?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It seems like it is a long way to go. We have a Pope who is very Oecumenical, and we have an Oecumenical Patriarch, One Lord, One Baptism, One God and Father of us All. Why does it have to be so hard?

Because the idea that you can have conflicting dogma yet be One Church is a Reformation idea, not a Traditionalist one.

 

[Philip_B]

Can we have the core beliefs and then the second tier of beliefs, or does everything have to be in the core?