What Cause the Split

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Historically there is zero evidence for anything that supports these claims. If you are speaking of the crusades, remember that originally it was the Emperor that came to the West for aid. The West just didn't go into Eastern territories to take over the other Patriarchates. Was there Western missionary work in traditional Eastern territories after Florence? Yes, I don't deny that; but Eastern missionaries have also evangelized in Western territories. In fact if you want to get picky about it most of the Eastern Orthodox brethren on this forum, lives in the West, i.e. inside the Patriarchate of Rome.

Absolutely there is! Did Rome stay within her patriarchate after the split? NO. Rome's patriarchate never included all the west. BTW, many of Rome's current relics were Eastern church relics, including the shroud of turin. I am not even going to go into the crusades and what Rome did to the East. You are delusional and a historical revisionist...

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

I'm asking for a MOD to close this thread. I asked a question of my EO friends. A non-EO person came in and out in his two cents and started arguing with others. If I wanted a non-EO perspective or to watch a debate I would have posted this elsewhere.

 

[Erose]

It is pretty well documented from what I recall. In the first few centuries almost everyone who was ordained in the West was required to learn Greek but at some point they stopped doing so. Clergy in the East rarely encountered Latin.

I'm pretty sure you can't name any after the 4th century.

That is actually one of the problems with Latin. The Greek language has 4 times the vocabulary of Latin so an awful lot literally gets lost in translation. Different expressions in Greek end up translated as identical expressions in Latin (eg. procedit).

Give us the names of a few of them. Actually show evidence of bilingual clergy rather than assertions that it must have been so.

Hum. So from your point of view then that the rest of the seven ecumenical councils shared by both the East and West, were just two groups of folks talking gibberish to each other? That makes a lot of sense,...somewhere maybe.

From what I understand that even though the common language in Constantinople at that time was Greek, up to the 7th century the the bureaucratic language was Latin. Also considering that even after the 7th century up until its fall Constantinople was an extremely important trading hub, between the East and the West. In the West the trade language up until just a few centuries ago was Latin, so one can assume that for trade to occur between the East and West a common language was used, whether that was traders from the West who knew Greek, and/or traders from the East and Constantinople who knew Latin as well. Most probably both.

Even if you look further back, where we have St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, both of whom even though Latin fathers operated in the East; and I doubt very seriously that the entire Eastern clergy were ignorant of the writings of these great Saints, or for that matter the teachings of St. Pope Leo the Great. All of who taught the filioque.

The Eastern Church fathers had other concerns over that period and probably expected that Rome would remain Orthodox as it had in the past

From what I can diagnose from the Eastern Church Fathers at that timeframe, they didn't let heresy fester wherever they found it. So are you saying that until the split, the Eastern Church fathers ignored what was going on the West? Albeit the East and the West were still interacting on a multiple of levels?

It seems I give the Eastern clergy during that timeframe much more credit than you. I have seen nothing historically that would convince me that the Eastern clergy were uneducated.

 

[Erose]

I would love something clear that shows that it was only politics, and not theology.

It is called history.

 

[Erose]

Absolutely there is! Did Rome stay within her patriarchate after the split? NO. Rome's patriarchate never included all the west. BTW, many of Rome's current relics were Eastern church relics, including the shroud of turin. I am not even going to go into the crusades and what Rome did to the East. You are delusional and a historical revisionist...

So who was Rome's Patriarch?

 

[Erose]

I'm asking for a MOD to close this thread. I asked a question of my EO friends. A non-EO person came in and out in his two cents and started arguing with others. If I wanted a non-EO perspective or to watch a debate I would have posted this elsewhere.

I apologize. I thought you wanted an answer. No where did you state that you wanted the EO's understand of what caused the split. And just to clarify, others attacked my comment first. I have just been responding. I will back out of the thread, as you only want one point of view.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is well-covered area in TAW and it's super "Googleable," but I'd say there is no one quick explanation as to why East and West are no longer together and the West vacated the ancient faith. It isn't 'just' the filioque. It's much more. East and West were barely cohabitating for years. The West quit using leavened bread, which understandably perplexed the Orthodox. It made zero sense. Then they forced celibacy on their clergy, which was equally odd and a head-scratcher. They started to view salvation in terms of satisfaction, compensation, legalism, blood, and appeasement terminology that the East and West had never really utilized before. The East was very focused on mystery, the West very focused on juridical mindsets and the desire to EXPLAIN everything.

The big elephant in the room wasn't the unleavened bread vs. flat wafers or the celibacy or the juridical stuff, it was the PAPAL POWER ABUSES. The Popes started to claim powers, pervues, and scopes of authority they had never had previously. Popes started to intrude in the affairs of other jurisdictions, pontificate where it wasn't welcome, and the whole Photian affairs left a VERY BAD taste in the mouths of the Orthodox East. Popes claimed to be the entire church in a nutshell, and the conciliar model that served the Church so well was being trampled upon heavily.

Another sore spot was missionary activity and spreading the Word. The Roman Catholics were crossing into Orthodox lands and pushing their agendas there. Like I said, it's complicated.

But the papal claims and filioque were the biggies, the Photian issues and the other views and ways of seeing salvation all added up like sediment that had been accumulating for a long time.

The East had and still does have a much healthier, more holistic, beautiful, and true vision of God and His Church than anyone who has come since. If only I could've known the Jesus of Orthodoxy when I was a teen!!! Imagine a God-Man who suffers through death and dies like me only to descend into death, defeat it, and rise like a phoenix breathing life back into a broken human matrix! Imagine if I knew a God and a Church when I was a teen that focused not on God "creating" grace, but extending grace as a principle of WHO HE IS! Grace isn't created! It's an extension of the Godhead, participation in the divine life to save me! Imagine if I could've known a God who sees sin as missing a mark and trying to readjust my aim rather than the courtroom drama of the West! Ponder what my life might've been like back when I was younger if I had only known the fullness of the Church and not guilt-driven Law and Order episodes with Jesus portrayed as taking a bullet for me before an angry judge and jury.

Rest assured that the Orthodox Church is unchanged, unfettered, and constant. The West fell away, not the reverse, and the OC is right 100%. The Catholics and Protestants contain kernels (some kernels huge, some the size of dog kibble) of truth, while we possess the whole truckload of it.

I suggest reading about the Photian controversies. The Catholics call it "The Photian Schism," which is extremely inaccurate, because the only schism made was from the pope of that time! But the Photian situation really laid the ground work for the mushroom cloud of 1054 and the stupidity that followed.

Well?

 

[katherine2001]

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.

No, that is not true. The Filioque was a major reason as well as the head of the Church of Rome was demanding authority over the entire church rather than just his see, which against the rules of the Ecumenical Councils which stated that the bishop of one see was to allow the other bishops to run their own sees and not interfere.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It is called history.

that doesn't actually answer the question. if it really is that simple, you should be able to provide some evidence to show that it was only politics, and not just hide behind some generic comment that doesn't actually answer anything.