What Cause the Split

[ZaidaBoBaida]

Well?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Well what?

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

What caused the split between east and west?

 

[civilwarbuff]

What caused the split between east and west?

It is up to you to throw something out there....your thread.....what time period are you talking about?

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

Why do I have to throw something out there? I am seeking to be educated not to spout bullpoo for people to refute.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You might want to move this over to St. Justins in the TAW so you can debate with them.....might be a problem here...

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think it's fine to discuss here.

Others can give you much more information. It wasn't a simple thing. There were a couple of centuries of issues leading up to it, but it seems the Filioque was a major point. And the matter of the extent authority entered into it too, as disagreements grew.

There were other issues too that contributed to a lesser degree. But as I said, others can give you a better explanation.

 

[E.C.]

Our fallen nature caused the split.

 

[buzuxi02]

Many factors. Theological, cultural, political.

 

[Erose]

The only real reason why the East and West have split is due to political reasons, and nothing more. The Filioque had nothing to do with the schism. The Filioque is only an excuse now not reunite.

 

[buzuxi02]

Not true the council of Florence was not only over the fillioque but over purgatory and papal supremacy, three things the east rejected.
Before this in 681 AD, the canons of Trullo strongly denounced Rome's of fasting on saturdays, later canons rejected the use of unleavened bread, and so on.
This estrangement accelerated once the byzantine papacy was replaced by the Frankish popes. The practises in the far west did not align with the traditional practises of Rome. Besides the addition of the fillioque and change over to leavened bread, they introduced the concept of annullments. And since the schism alot more has come between us.

There was also cultural problems. In the west Latin was exclusively used while in the east Greek was. At one point the knowledge of each other's languages were not good and a divergence began to take place both theologically with vocabulary and culturally. Then you had the politics.

 

[Rygaku]

Two completely different societies 1 being highly civilized the other being not really civilized at all.
The other thing is political and theological views. Theological views being christians and muslims worship the same god
but have pretty much the same identical book except one is slightly different.
Then you have this religious war over a small strip of land

 

[RobNJ]

The only real reason why the East and West have split is due to political reasons, and nothing more. The Filioque had nothing to do with the schism. The Filioque is only an excuse now not reunite.

Actually, the West has more than that to fix, before they can rejoin The Church

 

[Rygaku]

Actually, the West has more than that to fix, before they can rejoin The Church

looking at it currently i doubt it would be possible.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Two completely different societies 1 being highly civilized the other being not really civilized at all.
The other thing is political and theological views. Theological views being christians and muslims worship the same god
but have pretty much the same identical book except one is slightly different.
Then you have this religious war over a small strip of land

You may have a different issue in mind.

The OP was asking about the schism between East and West in the Church, begun centuries earlier but culminating in 1054.

While Muslims influenced the world in various ways, it's not really about them.

 

[truefiction1]

It was cultural differences at the base of everything that divided, whether theological or political, because culture underlies these differences.

 

[dzheremi]

Mark of Ephesus on the Latin Church, for those who say it's all politics or that the filioque is an excuse rather than a reason (both of which are Grade F baloney):

"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do.”

“These people admit with the Latins that the Holy Spirit proceeds and derives His existence from the Son. Yet, with us, they say the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Latins imagine that this addition to the Creed is lawful and just, but we will not so much as pronounce it. They state that unleavened bread is the body of Christ, but we dare not communicate it. Is this not sufficient to exhibit that they came to the Latin council not to investigate the truth, which they once possessed and then betrayed, but simply to earn some gold and attain a false union? Behold, they read two Creeds as they did before. They perform two different liturgies – one on leavened and the other on unleavened bread. They perform two baptisms – one by triple immersion and the other by aspersion; one with Holy Chrism and the other without it. All our Orthodox customs are different from those of the Latins, including our fasts, Church rites, icons, and many other things. What sort of union is this then, when it has no external sign? How could they come together, each retaining his own?”

“‘But if,’ they say, ‘we had devised some middle ground between the dogmas (of the Papists and the Orthodox), then thanks to this we would have united with them and accomplished our business superbly, without at all having been forced to say anything except what corresponds to custom and has been handed down (by the Fathers).’ This is precisely the means by which many, from of old, have been deceived and persuaded to follow those who have led them off the steep precipice of impiety; believing that there is some middle ground between the two teachings that can reconcile obvious contradictions, they have been exposed to peril.”

(More here)

I find it very significant that the lone holdout from the Council of Florence would write such things. It seems that those who see nothing of substance in the Great Schism have probably not studied both sides' reasons for it with equal vigor. I know that the Latins also produced their polemics (such as Aquinas' Contra Errores Graecorum, which I always thought was an odd title since it seems like it is mostly meaning to say that the Greeks really agree with the Latins, but just don't realize it, rather than delving too much into supposed Greek/EO "errors"), so a reading of those will help anyone who is seriously interested in this topic to understand both sides a bit better. When it comes to Latin claims against the Greeks, I find many of the specific charges to be rather spurious.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The only real reason why the East and West have split is due to political reasons, and nothing more. The Filioque had nothing to do with the schism. The Filioque is only an excuse now not reunite.

except that it violates Chalcedon

What caused the split between east and west?

primarily it was Rome elevating authority that she did not have.

but unfortunately, Rome has continued to innovate and drift away from the Apostolic Faith

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The only real reason why the East and West have split is due to political reasons, and nothing more. The Filioque had nothing to do with the schism. The Filioque is only an excuse now not reunite.

Has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with theology. I think the filioque was a small part of a larger problem with the West trying to usurp all authority over all the other patriarchates. Once the split occurred, Rome went on to try and take other patriarchal territories and also began developing novel unorthodox doctrines on her own.

 

[The Federal Farmer]

What caused the split between east and west?

The Pacific ocean. wait what?