What Cause the Split

[Erose]

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.

I still stand by my post. Nothing here said counters the fact that the Schism was originally due to political issues between the East and West. Yes one can claim a language barrier as well, but that in itself is also a political issue.

 

[Erose]

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

Yes there is quite a bit that needs to be reconciled before a union can occur; but that is above both of our pay grades. It should be noted that theologically the West had all these theological positions well before the original Schism started, and oddly enough there is no evidence that the East demanded a ecumenical council or anything else to correct the "errors". Why do you think that was the case?

 

[Erose]

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.

This still discussing after the fact. People started to scramble to justify why the split occurred, so then all this "differences" that have already been around for centuries, with no Schism, no calling each other heretics, no demand for an Ecumenical council, etc.

Quite frankly there is zero evidence that the Schism was over anything else but political reasons. Supposed theological differences are only reasons after the fact to justify and maintain the Schism.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes there is quite a bit that needs to be reconciled before a union can occur; but that is above both of our pay grades. It should be noted that theologically the West had all these theological positions well before the original Schism started, and oddly enough there is no evidence that the East demanded a ecumenical council or anything else to correct the "errors". Why do you think that was the case?

How are they supposed to call an ecumenical council by which to pronounce the Roman Pope's elevated authority in error when by virtue of his unique claims to that authority he places himself above any ecumenical council?

 

[Erose]

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.

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.

 

[dzheremi]

This still discussing after the fact. People started to scramble to justify why the split occurred, so then all this "differences" that have already been around for centuries, with no Schism, no calling each other heretics, no demand for an Ecumenical council, etc.

Quite frankly there is zero evidence that the Schism was over anything else but political reasons. Supposed theological differences are only reasons after the fact to justify and maintain the Schism.

This is an Eastern Orthodox saint discussing various reasons why the split originally occurred, and why the Eastern Orthodox will not reunite with the Roman Catholics. He happened to be the lone hold out from the Council of Florence, so it's relevant to the events of his time that he should discuss things in this manner (i.e., to justify not following the rest in his own day in wanting to reunited too hastily, he reminds his people why they were separated from Rome in the first place). It is not armchair quarterbacking after the fact, unlike those who come by today (when there is no such Council of Florence II to be concerned about) and pronounce the schism to be over nothing.

 

[Erose]

How are they supposed to call an ecumenical council by which to pronounce the Roman Pope's elevated authority in error when by virtue of his unique claims to that authority he places himself above any ecumenical council?

If the East rejected that authority, then they would not have any issues demanding such a council. Traditionally it wasn't the pope that called a council anyway. Normally it was the emperor. Why didn't the Eastern Patriarchs ask the emperor to call a council? The Western understanding of the papal authority isn't something that has popped up in the last 1000 years. There is plenty of evidence that the West's understanding of papal authority has been around since well before Saint Leo the Great. The Filioque has been used in Churches in Spain since the 4th or 5th century. There were ecumenical councils dated after the beginning usage of the filioque, and it was never brought up as an issue to deal with.

 

[Erose]

This is an Eastern Orthodox saint discussing various reasons why the split originally occurred, and why the Eastern Orthodox will not reunite with the Roman Catholics. He happened to be the lone hold out from the Council of Florence, so it's relevant to the events of his time that he should discuss things in this manner (i.e., to justify not following the rest in his own day in wanting to reunited too hastily, he reminds his people why they were separated from Rome in the first place). It is not armchair quarterbacking after the fact, unlike those who come by today (when there is no such Council of Florence II to be concerned about) and pronounce the schism to be over nothing.

Sorry we will have to disagree. This Saint was nearly 400 years after the Schism started; it is only natural for him to justify to himself why things are the way they are. No one likes to admit wrong doing when it comes to Church authority. But it needs to be noted that Jesus never promised the Apostles that He would protect the Church from making pastoral errors of judgement.

The Schism should never had occurred. Either one for that matter. To have the Apostolic Church split into three camps, is the greatest scandal on the Church as a whole. Every effort should be made to rectify this scandal. In fact it shouldn't be called the Great Schism, but rather the Great Scandal for that is what it is.

 

[prodromos]

For the most part, the Church in the West had ceased learning Greek and the Church in the East did not understand Latin. Thus there was little communication of theology between the two until they were brought together by circumstances and discovered they were not the same Church.

 

[dzheremi]

This is true. From memory, I believe the last Eastern emperor to natively speak Latin was Justinian (d. 565), while in the West, the liturgy had been celebrated in Latin since the time of the African Pope Victor I (d. 199), supplanting Greek in virtually the entire Western empire by the 4th century.

 

[Erose]

For the most part, the Church in the West had ceased learning Greek and the Church in the East did not understand Latin. Thus there was little communication of theology between the two until they were brought together by circumstances and discovered they were not the same Church.

Yeah is is one of the other excuses made, but seriously how realistic is this? I am pretty sure that there were clergy in the East who knew Latin and clergy in the West who knew Greek. Think about it, if this was true, them imagine how messed up the Church's theology should be now from culture to culture. I don't buy into the idea that we are more enlightened now than our ancestors, there were plenty of very intelligent men and women running around during that time, and I am sure that the Church in both the East and the West had plenty who spoke and understood both languages fluently. It is not like there was a huge wall put up between the East and West for centuries and then all of a sudden it was knocked down and we all discovered there were issues. The last Ecumenical Council accepted by both the East and the West minus the Orientals was 2nd Nicea in 787ad; already at that point in history the filioque was openly taught in Western theology and used in some areas of the West for at least 300 years. Can you really tell me that the Eastern Church fathers were just that blind? Considering that the West pretty much kept up with the theology in the East.

 

[Erose]

This is true. From memory, I believe the last Eastern emperor to natively speak Latin was Justinian (d. 565), while in the West, the liturgy had been celebrated in Latin since the time of the African Pope Victor I (d. 199), supplanting Greek in virtually the entire Western empire by the 4th century.

Ok so for Latin vs Greek to truly be a factor that would mean that the Church as a whole both East and West had no one in the clergy that could speak both languages fluently, and understand both languages fluently. I truly find it hard to believe that when traders had no issues speaking or at least being able to get by in both locations, that the Church with all its education decided it wasn't worth the time to learn the opposite's region's language. Seriously you have to give the Church far more credit than that. During that time period on both sides the brightest minds were usually tied to the Church in one way or the other.

 

[buzuxi02]

This still discussing after the fact. People started to scramble to justify why the split occurred, so then all this "differences" that have already been around for centuries, with no Schism, no calling each other heretics, no demand for an Ecumenical council, etc.

Quite frankly there is zero evidence that the Schism was over anything else but political reasons. Supposed theological differences are only reasons after the fact to justify and maintain the Schism.

But there were canons and councils trying to fix errors they found in the west. Here is canon 13 &55 of the council of Trullo

CANON XIII.
SINCE we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife.....

CANON LV.
SINCE we understand that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent they fast on the Saturdays, contrary to the ecclesiastical observance which is traditional, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in the Church of the Romans the canon shah immovably stands fast which says: "If any cleric shall be found to fast on a Sunday or Saturday (except on one occasion only- Holy Saturday) he is to be deposed; and if he is a layman he shall be cut off."

:In the Church council of Constantinople IV of 879-880 AD it passed the definition (horos) in the 7th session with the affirmation of the pope's legates as well:
..If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers, even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely the antiquity of this sacred and venerable horos with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person, according to the vote of the holy and ecumenical synods, which has already been proclaimed before us. be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of clergyman, or be sent away with anathema if he happens to be one of the laity...

Then you had the council of Florence which was meant to resolve theological errors as well but didnt.

 

[dzheremi]

Ok so for Latin vs Greek to truly be a factor that would mean that the Church as a whole both East and West had no one in the clergy that could speak both languages fluently, and understand both languages fluently.

Why does that follow?

I truly find it hard to believe that when traders had no issues speaking or at least being able to get by in both locations, that the Church with all its education decided it wasn't worth the time to learn the opposite's region's language. Seriously you have to give the Church far more credit than that. During that time period on both sides the brightest minds were usually tied to the Church in one way or the other.

I don't think you're properly understanding or appreciating this point. The point is not there weren't people who spoke both languages, but that the lack of material in one language or another meant that the two churches developed differently. It's not an accident that St. Augustine's writings were preserved in far greater number in Latin than they were in Greek, or Syriac, or Coptic, or any of the other languages of the East (to the extent that such translations even exist prior to modern attempts by Catholic evangelists to set their churches up among those people), or that Western monasticism only came to be after Western travelers to Egypt (including not a few who stayed there and established their own monastic communities, such as our fathers among the saints St. Maximus and St. Domatius of Deir El Baramous fame) translated the sayings and instructions of the Egyptian monks into Latin, thereby paving the way for their lives and means of organization to be emulated and built upon in a Western context by Benedict of Nursia.

 

[civilwarbuff]

And wouldn't it seem that even though the bible had been translated in to Latin by the late 4th century there would still be people studying it in Greek to ensure proper translation, context, etc? So it seems there would be a fair number who should still be fluent. Now, maybe not so much going the other way since NT was written in Greek. Just thinking....

 

[Erose]

But there were canons and councils trying to fix errors they found in the west. Here is canon 13 &55 of the council of Trullo

CANON XIII.
SINCE we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife.....

CANON LV.
SINCE we understand that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent they fast on the Saturdays, contrary to the ecclesiastical observance which is traditional, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in the Church of the Romans the canon shah immovably stands fast which says: "If any cleric shall be found to fast on a Sunday or Saturday (except on one occasion only- Holy Saturday) he is to be deposed; and if he is a layman he shall be cut off."

:In the Church council of Constantinople IV of 879-880 AD it passed the definition (horos) in the 7th session with the affirmation of the pope's legates as well:
..If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers, even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely the antiquity of this sacred and venerable horos with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person, according to the vote of the holy and ecumenical synods, which has already been proclaimed before us. be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of clergyman, or be sent away with anathema if he happens to be one of the laity...

Then you had the council of Florence which was meant to resolve theological errors as well but didnt.

Ok, so in each and every instance you offered here, and given that neither was an ecumenical council, all the issues presented are pastoral, NOT doctrinal. Pastoral practices and "t"raditional practices can and have on both sides changed over the centuries. Changing a practice does not make a heretic.

So please try again. You guys are looking for a smoking gun everywhere were there isn't one. The Great Scandal was caused by politics, it is truly that simple. Look I'm not blaming just the East for this scandal, this is on all of us, and I do not mean just on those living during the timeframes were the tear grew and finally broke. All of us today are just as much to blame. On both sides we should be ashamed and embarrassed and living in penance for disobeying our Lord's desire. And the very fact that we all go on pretending that we are three different communities when we are really one is truly something we all should be wearing sackcloth and ashes for. For we have torn our Lord asunder. Even the Romans didn't go that far.

 

[buzuxi02]

Sorry but the canons of Trullo are considered an extension of the 6th ecumenical council. And the council of 879ad is considered the unofficial 8th ecumenical council in Orthodoxy. An 'horos' means dogmatic definition. The Patriarch of Constantinople has not commemorated a pope since the year 1009 AD that was the year Rome permanently inserted the fillioque in the Roman church. This is a fact that there has not been a pope's name on the diptych's of the byzantine church since 1009 ad, 45 years before the official excommunications of 1054

 

[prodromos]

Yeah is is one of the other excuses made, but seriously how realistic is this?

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 am pretty sure that there were clergy in the East who knew Latin and clergy in the West who knew Greek.

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

Think about it, if this was true, them imagine how messed up the Church's theology should be now from culture to culture.

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).

I don't buy into the idea that we are more enlightened now than our ancestors, there were plenty of very intelligent men and women running around during that time, and I am sure that the Church in both the East and the West had plenty who spoke and understood both languages fluently.

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

It is not like there was a huge wall put up between the East and West for centuries and then all of a sudden it was knocked down and we all discovered there were issues. The last Ecumenical Council accepted by both the East and the West minus the Orientals was 2nd Nicea in 787ad; already at that point in history the filioque was openly taught in Western theology and used in some areas of the West for at least 300 years. Can you really tell me that the Eastern Church fathers were just that blind? Considering that the West pretty much kept up with the theology in the East.

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

 

[Erose]

Sorry but the canons of Trullo are considered an extension of the 6th ecumenical council. And the council of 879ad is considered the unofficial 8th ecumenical council in Orthodoxy. An 'horos' means dogmatic definition. The Patriarch of Constantinople has not commemorated a pope since the year 1009 AD that was the year Rome permanently inserted the fillioque in the Roman church. This is a fact that there has not been a pope's name on the diptych's of the byzantine church since 1009 ad, 45 years before the official excommunications of 1054

Ok and perhaps you should know that Trullo in the West is called the robbers council as there was only one side represented there. I'm sorry even from the perspective of the East neither are considered Ecumenical. And that being said nothing you quoted was doctrinal only pastoral. Big difference. Huge difference.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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