Who Started the Great Schism?

[concretecamper]

I did not realize this was in the Eastern Orthodox section. Please accept my apology.

 

[prodromos]

Michael Cerularius and the schism

According to the above article, a Pope's authority ceases on his death, thus any decisions or pronouncements made while alive would no longer have any bearing after their death. Is this Catholic teaching? I'm surprised you would post something which so undermines the papacy.

 

[prodromos]

I did not realize this was in the Eastern Orthodox section. Please accept my apology.

It's in Justin Martyrs, so you are free to debate, in fact we welcome it. All we ask is that it be done in a civil manner.

I'd still like to know why you claim the OP video is fiction.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I offered an alternative view. So quick to dismiss a quick read and accept a short video as gospel. If that is reportable, be my guest.

I didn’t dismiss it. I read it and found it was missing a lot of important history.

 

[WarriorAngel]

According to the above article, a Pope's authority ceases on his death, thus any decisions or pronouncements made while alive would no longer have any bearing after their death. Is this Catholic teaching? I'm surprised you would post something which so undermines the papacy.

It does not undermine it.
But an action the Pope is having done upon death is now up to the jurisdiction of the new Pope.
That's why nothing happened from April 1054 to July 1054.
And I know I have brought this up in the past that the Pope died and so his legates could not do anything without the Pope's final decree because he died.
Now it would up to the next Pope to discuss the situation.
As well, I stated in the past that Michael had no authority [and as this article states] to excommunicate the Pope of Rome.

So as I have previously said in the past, it's all man made and according to Heaven, hasn't happened but we have really cranky brothers still crossing their arms and just not speaking on this.

Because rumors begot rumors begot rumors and so forth....

 

[ArmyMatt]

As well, I stated in the past that Michael had no authority [and as this article states] to excommunicate the Pope of Rome.

not true. Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the East when he refused to accept the 5th Ecumenical Council, and then was excommunicated by the West when he did accept the 5th Ecumenical Council.

 

[prodromos]

It does not undermine it.

It really does.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It really does.

indeed.

 

[WarriorAngel]

not true. Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the East when he refused to accept the 5th Ecumenical Council, and then was excommunicated by the West when he did accept the 5th Ecumenical Council.

I have said this and will repeat it...
JESUS said...

Anything henceforth is man made. Opinion even.

Site

St Paul: “If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:9). The objection hinges, therefore, on the way in which those involved in the context were speaking of the See of Rome, as well as the established canonical procedure at the time. In any case, it must first be remembered that the Second Council of Constantinople had nothing to do with Papal authority or the ability of a council to judge a pope.

Today the Fifth Ecumenical is remembered for a very different reason. The treatment of Pope Vigilius by Emperor Justinian at the Council, and even the Council fathers’ subscription to personally excommunicating the Pope, is seen as a vindication of anti-Roman interpretations of the Patristic age. Divorcing the Council from its context in the middle of intense dispute and chaotic politics, this interpretation insists that such a history is incompatible with the later definition of ‘Papal Supremacy’: an ecumenical Council here seems to judge the See of Rome, which the Roman Church would later condemn as contrary to the rights and privileges afforded to that See.

It would seem, historically, that the other Sees enjoyed the Emperors authority over the one Christ established, and far too often.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have said this and will repeat it...
JESUS said...

Anything henceforth is man made. Opinion even.

Site

St Paul: “If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:9). The objection hinges, therefore, on the way in which those involved in the context were speaking of the See of Rome, as well as the established canonical procedure at the time. In any case, it must first be remembered that the Second Council of Constantinople had nothing to do with Papal authority or the ability of a council to judge a pope.

Today the Fifth Ecumenical is remembered for a very different reason. The treatment of Pope Vigilius by Emperor Justinian at the Council, and even the Council fathers’ subscription to personally excommunicating the Pope, is seen as a vindication of anti-Roman interpretations of the Patristic age. Divorcing the Council from its context in the middle of intense dispute and chaotic politics, this interpretation insists that such a history is incompatible with the later definition of ‘Papal Supremacy’: an ecumenical Council here seems to judge the See of Rome, which the Roman Church would later condemn as contrary to the rights and privileges afforded to that See.

It would seem, historically, that the other Sees enjoyed the Emperors authority over the one Christ established, and far too often.

that doesn’t explain that the West excommunicated Pope Vigilius after he accepted the council.

plus you have Honorius who was anathematized by an Ecumenical Council.

you are arguing for a position that history doesn’t support, neither does the Scripture. the fact that you have to repeat your claim by inserting words Christ doesn’t actually say is pretty telling.

 

[WarriorAngel]

that doesn’t explain that the West excommunicated Pope Vigilius after he accepted the council.

plus you have Honorius who was anathematized by an Ecumenical Council.

you are arguing for a position that history doesn’t support, neither does the Scripture. the fact that you have to repeat your claim by inserting words Christ doesn’t actually say is pretty telling.

Honorius did not - did not send a resolution.

We know as time passes, situations in context may vary.

Here's what we do know of Honorius... he sent a letter that he sought them to use caution.
Well, in those times medicine being as it was, we do not have record of his illness. We know he was 'likely ill' because when they sent another letter for resolution due to dissatisfaction, he had passed.

He said use caution.
He did make any statements.

Then the ascending Pope stood up and claimed he was wrong NOT using the Chair of Peter to teach.

This has been repeated often and frequently now.
Yet a rumor will catch fire and repeat itself faster than truth.

Another point we do well to remember - a council is not an ecumenical council unless the Roman Pope declares it. So to suggest Vigiglius was not conforming to an ECUMENICAL council has more errors than we need to replay.

And what the 'majority' of all heresies fought against repeatedly and ONLY came from the others Churches in the East.
Every single one, in fact.

How does anyone trust them without the Roman Pope??
And the alleged excommunication Pope Vigilius came from a worldly statesman. An emperor of all people.
NOW - you are suggesting he was then excommunicated in Rome?
No he was not.
And I say this again, man's errors are not to usurp Christs words, despite the fact they often do because man who NEEDS this shepherd, [Peter feed MY sheep, feed my lambs etc] have walked away time and time again but still, are not proven correct to do so because it defies the words of our Lord. No matter how many do it, their reasons... it defies and flies in the face of the words of the Lord.

Site

In fact even in the 60s we had people [upon their own ideals] walk away from Christs steward, but this does not mean the Pope was wrong.

“Pope Vigilius (537-555), who had very little backbone in conflict situations, first gave way and condemned the three chapters in his Iudicatum of 548. Faced with a storm of protest in the West, where the pope was accused of betraying Chalcedon, he made an about-face and retracted his condemnation (Constitutum, 553). The emperor in turn called a council at Constantinople (the Second Council of Constantinople, 553) made up only of opponents of the three chapters. It not only condemned those three chapters but even excommunicated the pope. This was a unique case of an ecumenical council setting itself clearly against the pope and yet not suffering the fate of Ephesus II. Instead, over time it was accepted and even recognized as valid by the pope. The council got around the papal opposition by referring to Matthew 18:20 (“Where two or three are gathered in my name…”): no individual council could therefore forestall the decision of the universal Church. This kind of argument was invalid, of course, because the pope was not alone; the entire West was behind him, and yet it was not represented at the council. Broken in spirit, Vigilius capitulated after the end of the council and assented to its condemnation of the three chapters. The result was a schism in the West, where the pope was accused of having surrendered Chalcedon. A North African synod of bishops excommunicated the pope, and the ecclesial provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke communion with Rome….The Spanish Church did not separate from Rome, but throughout the Middle Ages it refused to recognize this Council. The authority of the papacy in the West had suffered a severe blow with regard to dogma as well” (Schatz, Klaus, Papal Primacy. From Its Origins to the Present, 1996, Liturgical Press: Collegeville, p. 53).​

 

[ArmyMatt]

Honorius did not - did not send a resolution.

he was still condemned by a council.

Another point we do well to remember - a council is not an ecumenical council unless the Roman Pope declares it. So to suggest Vigiglius was not conforming to an ECUMENICAL council has more errors than we need to replay.

again, not true. Ephesus was called and finished before the Roman delegation got there. if they needed Rome, they would have waited especially since St Celestine of Rome was an ally of St Cyril.

NOW - you are suggesting he was then excommunicated in Rome?

no, I said the West.

And what the 'majority' of all heresies fought against repeatedly and ONLY came from the others Churches in the East.
Every single one, in fact.

also not true. Pelegianism came from the West. Novationism started in the West. the filioque started in the West (not forgetting that even Rome condemned it as a heresy for a while).

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ecumenical = whole Church.
Whole Church is the Pope of the West, Rome, and especially that Pontiff in particular must agree with the council findings.

SO pray tell me how a Pontiff agrees with the findings and signs off on it excommunicating himself.
I mean, really?

It's not even logical.

And who has the pejorative to excommunicate?
The Roman Pope.

Does a Pope excommunicate himself?
No

Was that council anything else but a witch hunt led by a worldly leader? No.

The filioque is not a heresy.
Did the Pope say it was heresy?
No.

Did the Pope state the others were heresy? Yes, therefore heresy.

If you pay attention the Pope of Rome never taught heresy because it is impossible, and why? Because he has the keys to open and it's open in Heaven and the keys to shut and it's shut in Heaven.

NOT only will the gates of hell [heresy] SHALL NOT EVER prevail against it but it's impossible to undo the official pronouncement of Christ.
Read that 100 times.
Those are Jesus words.
Does that mean the Pope is always right?
Yes. In matters of teaching - 100%.

Not only does he have the keys to state these things, but he has the Holy Spirit instructing him thus the Church UPON Peter [alone] will not have entry to heresy.

Who outside of man would love for that to be so?? The gates of hell themselves but they cannot however; it doesn't stop them from duping folks into believing it is not only possible [against the words of Christ] but heck it happened.

And we know in the end what that means.

 

[WarriorAngel]

he was still condemned by a council.


again, not true. Ephesus was called and finished before the Roman delegation got there. if they needed Rome, they would have waited especially since St Celestine of Rome was an ally of St Cyril.


no, I said the West.



also not true. Pelegianism came from the West. Novationism started in the West. the filioque started in the West (not forgetting that even Rome condemned it as a heresy for a while).

Also a Pope cannot be condemned from a council.
He cannot be excommunicated because the Church is built upon his chair.
He holds the keys to open and shut Heaven and the gates cannot prevail.

Until or unless we understand this firm and promised pronouncement all we will ever have is arguing mans egos of the past who did not care for that firm official statement.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Also a Pope cannot be condemned from a council.
He cannot be excommunicated because the Church is built upon his chair.
He holds the keys to open and shut Heaven and the gates cannot prevail.

except that it happened to Honorius. this was recognized by Rome as well. the 6th Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic. the 7th affirmed this condemnation. the Liber Diurnus, which Roman Popes affirmed, also affirmed he is a condemned heretic.

 

[ArmyMatt]

SO pray tell me how a Pontiff agrees with the findings and signs off on it excommunicating himself.
I mean, really?

It's not even logical.

I never said he excommunicated himself.

The filioque is not a heresy.
Did the Pope say it was heresy?
No.

actually, a lot of them did. Pope John VIII signed off on a council that excommunicated anyone who used it. plus, Popes for over a century agreed with our Constantinople VI which condemned it as a heresy. there is a reason the Creed is on silver slabs in Greek and Latin in the Vatican without the filioque.

Does that mean the Pope is always right?
Yes. In matters of teaching - 100%.

if that were true, they wouldn’t disagree on matters of teaching, and they do.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I never said he excommunicated himself.


actually, a lot of them did. Pope John VIII signed off on a council that excommunicated anyone who used it. plus, Popes for over a century agreed with our Constantinople VI which condemned it as a heresy. there is a reason the Creed is on silver slabs in Greek and Latin in the Vatican without the filioque.


if that were true, they wouldn’t disagree on matters of teaching, and they do.

This question is not new. Textbooks of Church History usually refer to this as the “filioque clause controversy.” (Filioque is Latin for “and the Son.”) The creedal citation referenced actually appears in the Creed of the Council of Constantinople (381). The Creed of the Council of Nicea (325) ended, “And in the Holy Spirit.” At that time, however, a group called the Pneumatomachi (i.e. “the killers of the Spirit) denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and consequently shattered the mystery of the Holy Trinity. In response, the Council of Constantinople (381) affirmed the Creed of Nicea and added the last section, which clarified the role of the Holy Spirit. In the original Greek text, this last section reads, “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified….” Thus, the Creed professed at Mass was actually promulgated by the Council of Constantinople and is officially titled “The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.”

The Creed was later translated into Latin with the addition, “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” (filioque). This filioque clause first appeared in the translation issued by the Council of Toledo, Spain, in 589. During the Carolingian Dynasty, Charlemagne petitioned Pope Leo III at the Synod of Aachen (809) to have the filioque clause accepted universally; the Pope declined, hesitating to add anything, however appropriate, to the official text of a conciliar creed. Several Church fathers argued that the meaning of the filioque clause was no different from the meaning of the succinct teaching, “Father through the Son.” Nevertheless, the filioque clause was added to the creed recited in the Roman Mass (Latin Rite) by Pope Benedict VIII (1024), but was not used in the liturgy of the Eastern Rites.

The filioque clause has been cited as one of the official causes of the schism between the Western and Eastern Churches in 1054. Although this point was later officially remedied by the Churches at the Councils of Lyons II (1274) and Florence (1439), the reconciliation was short lived.

Site



So if you are suggesting Pope John VIII suggested as you are suggesting, you are mistaken.
BECAUSE of the heresy of Pneumatomachi, it was necessitted to actually add in "who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified…"
AND that could not be changed. ^^^

NOW, if we want technicality, did they not at one time say the Nicene Creed could not be changed? Ay.

But that was before a heresy rose against the incomplete statements which were made at the time when another heresy was being meted out. The phrase 'who knew...' could be used.

So, as such, the Church allowed it because it was NOT different than what was already addressed at Constantinople.

Pope John VIII was stating it could not be changed to suggest the Holy Spirit was NOT God and part of the Trinity.

 

[Lukaris]

I tend to think that even if history was more peaceful, the Orthodox would have always had deep concerns re the filioque. The fact that this was not added to the Latin Mass until the 11th c. seems to indicate that this doctrine is on thin ice. As far as human nature both sides are good & bad but I believe in 1054, Cardinal Humbert unhinged any sense of unity.

I still believe Orthodox & Catholics can still be mutual Christians but we cannot reunify. Even with Pope Benedict XVI, I felt the same categorically but I felt much better that both of us were better off spiritually.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So if you are suggesting Pope John VIII suggested as you are suggesting, you are mistaken.
BECAUSE of the heresy of Pneumatomachi, it was necessitted to actually add in "who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified…"
AND that could not be changed. ^^^

that wasn’t the reason the filioque was inserted. wrong heresy.

NOW, if we want technicality, did they not at one time say the Nicene Creed could not be changed? Ay.

yes, and the whole Church to include Rome condemned the filioque at Constantinople IV.

But that was before a heresy rose against the incomplete statements which were made at the time when another heresy was being meted out. The phrase 'who knew...' could be used.

actually, the Church said at Chalcedon centuries prior to the insertion of the filioque that all manner and teaching concerning the Holy Spirit was full and complete.

 

[WarriorAngel]

that wasn’t the reason the filioque was inserted. wrong heresy.


yes, and the whole Church to include Rome condemned the filioque at Constantinople IV.



actually, the Church said at Chalcedon centuries prior to the insertion of the filioque that all manner and teaching concerning the Holy Spirit was full and complete.

The East cannot pronounce heresy. They can meet, discuss and then ask the Roman Pope.

If the Pope did not state it was heresy, and it is not nor was it ever stated as such, then it is not heresy.
It was not until the last year we quit saying in generous deference to Eastern kin.

Did Jesus say - Peter seek the council of the others?
No.

The others had councils so they could get in line of the Pope's teaching via discussions of what they knew in Tradition....and yet then have the approval of the Roman Pope. It is not them stating heresy, it is not their job, nor was it ever their job.
So, it was never stated as heresy and it is not.
A council is not a necessity for the Pope to teach but it is a place of discussion and then seeking the answer from the Chair of Peter for the rest of the Church.
I think the mistake comes from the idea the others have some power over or equal to the Pope but that's never been a teaching of the Pope nor the understanding of the Church.
The other Sees hold true the teachings of Rome in their jurisdictions.

Nothing more, nothing less.