The Great Schism

Philip_B said:

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

Click to expand...

Core beliefs are called doctrine (teaching), secondary beliefs are called theologoumena (opinion). The second don't have to be uniform, no. Theologoumena include things like Ariel Toll Houses and Traducianism.

Wolf_Says said:

the Patriarch of Constantinople actually recognised the authority of the Pope

Click to expand...

I do think that there is a little leap in this statement. If you look through the accounts of the Great Councils you will realise that there was a bit of nudge for nudge between the Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem). In the initial stages, like the First Council of Nicaea, Rome clearly had the nod, on the basis that it was the seat of Empire, and the Petrine theory was probably secondary. At the First Council of Constantinople, the seat of Empire had changed, and the discussion emerged. Constantinople was recognised as second only after Rome, on the basis of the Petrine argument.

This is a question of Primacy, however I suspect that is not the same as authority. The easiest analogy I can relate is probably the current Anglican problem. The ArchBishop of Canterbury is clearly the Primate of the Anglican Communion, however their are limits in terms of what he can do, as is evidenced by the 'conversation' currently happening around single gender marriage. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, and the Primate of Canada, now both lead Churches where steps have been taken outside the understanding and agreement of the Primates. ECUSA is currently under some sanctions in regard to this, however that has happened in a Conciliar fashion. There was a meeting of the Primates, and it emerged from there.

Our view of the Church and how authority is exercised in the Church has a lot to do with this. Matthew 20:20-28 is probably instructive here, as well as the account of the Council in Acts 15. If you argue that the authority of the Patriarch of the West is like the authority of a Roman Imperial Commander in Chief you will come to a conclusion, if however you argue that authority is Conciliar, then you may come to another conclusion.

We should also remember that the excommunications have now been lifted. https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-.../hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html

This week I have asked my brother, and my sister for help in various matters, that would in no sense imply anything to do with authority, neither mine nor theirs. I think the Church should be more like family, and less like army.

Wolf_Says said:

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!"

Click to expand...

There were a lot of things going on for several centuries prior to the Schism itself. We can start looking back, for example, to the Photian Schism. Also, to an extent the Schism wasn't really final until much later: the Fourth Crusade, the Council of Florence (Basel-Ferrara-Florence), and the Gregory Palamas v. Barlaam controversy.

-CryptoLutheran

Wolf_Says said:

Well then the argument just swings back the other way. Because the Orthodox church and patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. So the same argument could be made for the Orthodox Church, that since they were kicked out, they no longer have valid sacraments.

I am currently doing research into the schism and one of the things I have found out, is that before the split, the bishop of Constantinople actually recognized the authority of the Pope and wrote him a few times asking for help in regards to the novatian heretics.

Click to expand...

They recognized him very much as a mediator, since the See of Rome was historically very respected for never teaching heresy (except under Pope Honorious, who was anthematized). There can be no doubt that the Bishop of Rome, historically, was held as the gold standard for orthodoxy. However, that's not really the same as saying he had universal jurisdiction (which he did not, historically), or that his official teachings on dogma were dogmatically infallible.

prodromos said:

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.

Click to expand...

This always struck me as strange too. It seems obvious that once Humbert arrived in Constantinople, he did not have time to get approval from Rome for such an audacious act. And even if he had tried, he would have found out that Pope Leo had died. So either he traveled with it already written or with Pope Leo's blessings to do this. But why would Pope Leo send Cardinal Humbert on a diplomatic mission armed with a bull of excommunication. Similarly, I cannot see Pope Leo trusting Cardinal Humbert so much that he would allow Humbert to do this on his own discretion. So I looked for a third alternative and found out that Cardinal Humbert was Pope Leo's secretary before going to Constantinople. That means that it could be that Humbert, after sitting for two months being ignored by Patriarch Michael I Cerularius, who seems to be as ambitious and hot-headed as Humbert, could have easily written the bull in anger and signed Pope Leo's name and it would have seemed official. If that is the case, then this document was more BS than bull. That would mean that the straw that broke the back of a unified Christian Church was a lie based on anger and pride, so the world, the flesh, and the devil wins.

There were differences between West and East other than the Filioque clause that, fueled by the doctrine of universal jurisdiction of Romes, could have catalysed the schism, such as leavened bread, clerical celibacy or Saturday fasts.

RaphaCam said:

There were differences between West and East other than the Filioque clause that, fuelled by the doctrine of universal jurisdiction of Romes, could have catalysed the schism, such as leavened bread, clerical celibacy or Saturday fasts.

Click to expand...

I normally summarise the issues as Procession, Procedure, and Primacy. Whilst there is more to the schism than the Filioque, there is no doubt that this was the principle hook on which the exercise of the Primacy of Rome was contentious.

I think in the present climate Rome is happy for those who don't want to insert the Filioque, to not insert it, however I am not so sure that they are ready to drop it for themselves.

I don't think there is big a question about the primacy of Rome, per se, so much as a discussion about what that primacy might mean (Does it imply authority to act alone, does it mean leadership or being 'in-charge' etc, what meaning does it have outside the Councils) and how it might be exercised.

I think that part of the difficulty is that since the big split (the great schism) both sides have become more entrenched, and some of the decisions made in the west since then are also unpalatable in the East. The truth is it is a long way back, and we rejoice that of late there are those who want to repair the damage. We continue to pray that we may be what we believe, one holy catholic and apostolic.

Wolf_Says said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, the excommunications and anathemas were revoked by Pope Paul VI, back in 1965 (here is a link).

There are many issues that still need to be worked out, but all the Popes from Paul VI to Francis have been moving to bring a reconciliation between Orthodox and Catholic.

Philip_B said:

I don't think there is big a question about the primacy of Rome, per se, so much as a discussion about what that primacy might mean (Does it imply authority to act alone, does it mean leadership or being 'in-charge' etc, what meaning does it have outside the Councils) and how it might be exercised.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that "Primacy" as far as Papal is concerned is that the Pope is first among equals, the eldest brother of the Bishops. On top of that, he speaks to the world of the love of Christ. Not all Orthodox Patriarchs are that open, yet.

Constantine the Sinner said:

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).

Click to expand...

Could that not be turned right around and say the Orthodox don't have valid Mysteries? Come on, you are just echoing the words of thousands of bishops world wide Catholic and Orthodox alike, that say that we should have nothing to do with the other, as they are auslander.

Think outside of the box, and give us the same respect that we are giving to you. Open your eyes.

Monk Brendan said:

Could that not be turned right around and say the Orthodox don't have valid Mysteries? Come on, you are just echoing the words of thousands of bishops world wide Catholic and Orthodox alike, that say that we should have nothing to do with the other, as they are auslander.

Think outside of the box, and give us the same respect that we are giving to you. Open your eyes.

Click to expand...

So what? Christ and the Pharisees both said they had the truth and the other didn't, but that doesn't mean both positions were equally valid.

Forgive me, I didn't mean to step on toes. Rather, I was trying to encourage you to look beyond narrow, man made limits, and consider that at least the Eastern Catholics, with roots in the great Apostolic Sees (Antioch in my case) are attempting to face in the same direction as you, and that we are both treading the same narrow path.

Now, this subject is even more complicated than just looking at the Great Schism of 1054. You had two later attempts at reunion. I believe that the first one was in the 1200's and the second one was in the 1400's. The second reunion looked like it would succeed and was accepted by most all of the EO Bishops present at the Council of Florence. However, St. Mark of Ephesus was against reunion, perhaps mostly over the Purgatory doctrine. When news of the voted acceptance of reunion reached the East, said decision was rejected by the laity.

For what it is worth, I have studied the historical aspects the the doctrine of Papal Supremacy and as a Protestant, I see both sides of the debate. Personally, I believe that a case can be made both ways , for the Orthodox position and the Catholic one. I cannot find a definitive resolution to the matter in the historical writings. It seems to me that the concept of Papal Supremacy is one that probably developed gradually over time. I doubt that it was there in the pre-Constantine Church, but I think that it was probably there by the year 500 or so, as I recall when the one Council entered the canon saying that the Eastern Patriarch was 2nd in power to that of the Bishop of Rome, the Eastern Patriarch sent an apologetic letter to the Pope afterwards. It seems to me that he would not have felt the need to send such a letter, if it was not viewed at that point that the Pope was the "man in charge" so to speak, though to be fair, even such an apologetic letter does not necessarily indicate that the Eastern Patriarch viewed the Pope as being the head of the whole Church, rather than the EO concept of "first among equals".

Philip_B said:

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

Click to expand...

There is a realm for theologoumemna, but not on issues of doctrine.

As I see it, the main impediment to reconciliation at present is the post Vatican II theological variance within Catholicism and problems surrounding tne use of the Novus Ordo Missae. There are people in tne RCC who would change it radically if they could.

Ecumenical reconciliation requires stability. Now on the one hand, Vatican II opened the door for ecumenical reconciliation, but it also opened the door to people who have different agendas completely incompatible with Orthodoxy.

We do live in interesting times. Vatican II liturgy to some extent has been more accessible and yet has to some extent failed to allow them to apprehend the transcendent. I believe they will get better at this - it took the C of E 100 years to get Mass in the vulgar tongue.

Rome has a habbit of suggesting that 'the church has always tought' wich is harder to support it the age of google.

One wonders if it will not be the rise of our enemies that will force christians - and ultimately the Church back together.

The simplest explanation, I guess, is the cross anathemas declared by Michael Cerularius of Constantinople and Pope Leo IX of Rome in 1054 AD based on arguments about authority, and the Bread of the Eucharist, but actually it was the culmination of tensions that started long before.

The general historical order beginning in the 2nd century would be differences that arose over:

a) The Paschal feast

b) Authority

c) The Filioque

d) The Bread

Also the story did not end there, it actually continued on different fronts until in 1204 AD when the Roman Bishop (see Innocent III) called for a 4th Crusade, in which they attacked and sacked Constantinople conquering the Hagia Sophia.

In my humble opinion, the division all started around 110 to 130 AD when a disagreement (though totally peaceful) arose over the Paschal festival (called “Easter” many centuries later). The Bishops of the East allegedly having always followed the instructions of the Apostles observed “the feast” celebrating His death till He comes (culminating in celebrating the Resurrection on the 1st day of the week following the Passover which the Jews called “first fruits”) while the Bishops of Rome had chosen to focus on the “Sunday” as the day of Resurrection.

Now do not misunderstand. The entire Christian church met on the 1st day of each week and broke bread in commemoration of the Resurrection, that was the foundation of the Church but I am referring to the Paschal feast.

So Polycarp (student of St. John and Bishop of Smyrna) travelled to Rome to meet with and discuss the issue with Anicetus who at that time was the Bishop there. Poly carp pointed to the teaching handed down by St. John, but depending on the viewpoint one can see this in the scriptures as well.

In Luke 22:19 Jesus commands His followers and says “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: do this in remembrance of me.“

Later we read in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 – For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do you, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death till he comes.

So while all the Bishops of the East would “keep the feast” (Pascha from Pesach or Passover) intending to do so till He come, which would culminate in an all-night vigil till dawn on the 1st day (the concept of Sunday or a day of the Sun was not even in their frame of reference). Anicetus and his companions felt the importance was the resurrection not His death (and possibly “to keep the feast” was too Jewish). The two agreed each group would do as they believed in good conscience before the Lord and would not allow the ritualistic difference to be a cause for division (maintaining unity of the Spirit).

After a few generations this issue came in question again as Churches interacted and teachers and preachers travelled more. Around 190 AD, Victor (Bishop or Rome), claimed sole authority over all the churches claiming that because Peter was the first Bishop of Rome he had this right. In his decree he commanded that ALL CHURCHES observe the Pascha only as Rome did. Eastern bishops rejected his claim of ultimate authority. In 193 AD, Polycrates of Ephesus (a Church founded by Paul where both Paul and John had taught, and for a while Mary had resided) protested on the former Bishop’s apostolic basis and also refuted Victor’s alleged authority over all.

Since the beginning, in each Church founded and taught by an Apostle, the Bishops always considered themselves autocephalous (equal independent leaders), and in matters where questions arose they would get together and discuss, and by the scriptures and their traditions they would come to agreement, but none of these (considered to be servants of servants) ever assumed sole authority over all. Even Peter had taught not to lord it over one another as the Gentiles do (1 Peter 5:3). Victor then threw the first historically recorded anathema allegedly ex-communicating Polycrates. Irenaeus and others interceded (Eusibius, History of the Church, Vol. 24, 10-11) on Polycrates’ behalf against Victor and the issue for a time was resolved.

The issue of Peter’s alleged primacy became a matter of dispute between Rome and the rest of the Bishops. Though Peter was in Rome later with Paul and died there, there is no evidence of indication he was ever the 1st Bishop there. Paul, who only went where no other Apostle had previously been, went to Rome, Priscilla and Aquila were already there fellowshipping with other Christians who regularly met in house churches on the first day of the week. Peter came later. The official 1st Bishop of Rome (appointed by Paul and Peter) was Linus.

Peter on the other hand had been a Bishop of a Church years before coming to Rome (he arrived in Rome around 60 AD). In fact he was their first Bishop. It is a matter of History that Peter was actually the first Bishop of Antioch (in Syria) around 50 AD for around two years where he taught and appointed Evodius, who then appointed Ignatius (a student of St. John) in 100 AD. All the Apostles (including Peter) looked to Jerusalem as the true mother church, if one wishes to use such a term, and saw James (the brother of our Lord) as the actual first Bishop of the Church ever. Even Peter was under the general authority of James till James was martyred (though as I indicated real authority was in the council not in the final word of one man).

In time, by the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, the Church recognized 5 primary centers and their Bishops were looked up to as sources of true guidance. These five autocephalous Patriarchates were Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, and Alexandria in Egypt.

Politically/secularly Rome was still the capital of the Empire, and then came Constantine. Soon after he became Emperor he moved the capital of the Empire to Turkey naming Constantinople (after himself) as the new capital. This made many Romans (and Roman Bishops who after Victor assumed authority over all others) very angry. The Council of Nicea was ordered by the Emperor to foster unity, and the original Nicene Creed was formed (around 325 – 330 AD).

Shortly after there was a new dispute (called the Filioque). The original says “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified.” In this case, because Jesus can be said and shown to also direct and send the Spirit they insisted on changing it to say “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, AND THE SON. Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified.” Whether it was just because it was Rome or because they relied on what had been agreed to by ALL the Bishops at the Council, the Bishops of the East now enjoying their place in relation to the Political authority, refused to change it. As you can see the wedge widening even as far back as this.

Later still (a few centuries) a question of the Bread to be used at the Pascha arose (and in communion weekly) for allegedly (they still claim this) the East had always used a consecrated loaf of leavened Bread (for Christ the Bread of life had now Risen and His Spirit now leavens the whole lump, ie., the Church), but Rome and other centers under their See (North Africa, France, and some of the Balkan states) maintained that this Bread should be unleavened according to scripture and tradition.

So you can see that by the time of 1054 AD the divisions were manifold, and by this time they were quite irresolvable, neither side was going to budge, and cross anathemas broke “Communion” on what seemed to be on a permanent basis. But the true absolute break up (in my opinion) was finalized with the attack of 1204 AD. Baldwin of Flanders entered the Hagia Sophia and declared himself Baldwin I emperor of the Latin Empire. The split was sealed.

Thank you @pshun2404 for this. I am not sure about all of this which seems quite thorough, however there are a few bits that need to be tidied up.

pshun2404 said:

Politically/secularly Rome was still the capital of the Empire, and then came Constantine. Soon after he became Emperor he moved the capital of the Empire to Turkey naming Constantinople (after himself) as the new capital. This made many Romans (and Roman Bishops who after Victor assumed authority over all others) very angry. The Council of Nicea was ordered by the Emperor to foster unity, and the original Nicene Creed was formed (around 325 – 330 AD).

Click to expand...

Rome was the Capital until Constantine moved it to a new city built on old Byzantium and called at that stage Novus Romanus - New Rome and I believe the use of the name Constantinople happened after his death. The moving of the capital is not the issue that inspired or drew the attention of the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325. The issue was the dispute that had arisen in relation to the the teachings of Arius - and Constantine wanted the matter settled, for the peace of the republic. The issue of the standing of Bishops was not of concern here, tough it was discussed in 381 at the 1st Council of Constantinople where it was determined that the Bishop of Constantinople was 1st only after Rome.

pshun2404 said:

Shortly after there was a new dispute (called the Filioque).

Click to expand...

I think this is misleading. Augustine opened the door to the idea of double procession, however this is somewhat different from the matter of inserting the filioque into the Nicene Creed. Whilst the notion of a theology of double procession was discussed in western theology. It has been claimed that the Filioque was added in the west by the Third Council of Toldeo (579) where Reccared formally renounced Arianism and embraced the Catholic Faith. The records now available, along with good sense show this is not true.

By the time of the Carolignians (C750 or so) it seems that the Filioque was being used in Iberia and Gaul, though probably the result of textual corruption rather than intent. Charlemagne made clear use of the clause in his struggle with the Byzantines and it was formally added to the Creed in 794 at the Council of Frankfurt, and not used in Rome until the 14th of February 1014 for the Coronation of Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor. Photius - Patriarch of Constantinople took great objection to the use of the Filioque and much of his argument can be ascertained from Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit yet there is not suggestion that it was used in Rome.

Around 809 Leo had the Creed of the 1st Council of Constantinople (without the filioque) inscribed on two silver shields in Latin and Greek hung outside the Tomb of Peter.

Philip, re: the Council of Toledo, I'm curious where you read that. Even in seminary, that council was discussed as the source of the filioque.

BTW, I'm genuinely curious! I love history so nuggets like that are fun for me!