Talk:East–West Schism

Yes. Be bold. —No-One Jones ^(m) 06:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One holy catholic...

The Phrase "one holy catholic and apostolic church" has been used by scads of Christians, not as a statement of allegiance to a particular church organization, but to the church community (the entire Christian church started by the apostles) so the last line needs to be rephrased but I’m not sure how best to do that. Ideas?

The idea of an "invisible" church (consisting of all Christians everywhere) began with the Donatist controversy, but it has tended to be used mostly by Protestants. RC and Orthodox alike tend to identify "the church" with the institution itself. Hence, the claim to be the "One True Holy Catholic" church. As it stands, the article seems like a fair description. 68.33.140.194 19:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (jrcagle)

more here:[1]

Insertion of filioque

The word "non-canonical" before the insertion of the clause seems to be advocating the Eastern side of the schism. I mean, obviously the Catholics do not think that it is non-canonical, right? I might be wrong... Bratsche ^(talk) 20:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

the Pope claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs, while the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed since he was the spiritual leader of "new-Rome" that he was the head of the Christian Church

Is the above right? I thought the claim of the four Eastern patriarchs was that none of the five patriarchs could claim authority over the whole Christian church. Today, the various Eastern Orthodox hierarchies recognize the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople as only honorary; he has authority over only one of those hierarchical churches. My understanding has been that that has been the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church ever since the schism of 1054. Michael Hardy 22:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I always thought that the Patriarch of Constantinople was not called "ecumenical" until after the Schism. Am I wrong? 66.213.21.15 28 June 2005 19:42 (UTC)

Actually, the Patriarch of Constatinople at the time of the split did indeed make primatial claims, much as the modern Orthodox hate to admit it. He was an aberration, unfortunately it was at the wrong time for it to happen.

The above would seem to contradict the current article which says: "All five Patriarchs of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church agreed that the Patriarch of Rome should receive higher honors than the other four" So which is it? At that time, did the Patriarch of Constantinople accord some degree of primacy to the Roman Patriarch/Pope or did he assert his own primacy (or neither)? Crust 21:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Patriarch of Constantinople never tried to claim any sort of primacy over the Pope. --Midnite Critic 15:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Pope, as the apostolic successor of St. Peter, has always been recognized as enjoying primacy among the patriarchs. This sentiment arises from Matthew 16:18, where Jesus is recorded as stating "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." As Midnite Critic rightly notes, the Patriarch of Constantinople, as successor to St. Andrew, has never claimed such primacy; nor could he. The disagreement has thus rested more over the degree of primacy to accord Rome. As finally incorporated into the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility, Rome has traditionally held that it is supreme over all pre-Reformation churches, especially on doctrinal matters. The Orthodox churches have conversely argued that while Rome is properly the first of patriarchates, it is, nonetheless, a first amongst equals—not the final and binding authority, which can only be accorded to the Counsels of the Church (such as Ephesus and Nicaea). Rome is, therefore, to be accorded particular respect and esteem, but not the rights historically asserted by Rome.

Thus as applicable to the "Filioque" controversy, the positions of Constantinople and Rome become clear. Constantinople looks to the Counsels of the Church, and particularly the final statement of the Third Ecumenical Counsel, which it interprets as forbidding further changes to the Nicaean Creed (which had been altered previous to address various heresies that afflicted the Christian Faith following its adoption as the creed of the Roman Empire). Rome, conversely, adhered to the position that the Pope, as the final word on doctrinal matters, had the right to authorize additions, to the extent consistent with orthodox practice. Rome did not regard the closing line of the Third Counsel, furthermore, that “No attempt to introduce any form contrary to these shall be of any avail,” as restricting Rome’s right to approve limited orthodox reformulations necessary to answer the specific needs of a community. Certainly, the Roman Church was confronting particular heresies on the specific nature of God—largely unknown in the East—that drove the addition of “Filioque” to the Creed as recited in the West.

In the final analysis, the “Filioque” controversy seems more a product of the debacle of the Fourth Crusade and its sacking of Constantinople—and Innocent III’s failure to definitively excommunicate those responsible—than having the flavor of an argument worthy of the status it has taken in relations between Rome and Constantinople. Certainly, the debate about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son or the Father alone, clouds the strong agreement of all orthodox faiths on the fundamental nature of the Godhead.

That said, I believe a seperate section should be added on the "Filioque" controversy, if for no other reason that it remains the only 'major' doctrinal impedement to reunification. Perhaps some short summary, and a reference to the Filioque page for further detail. Mikhelos 06:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Origins' Content

Paragraph two is concluded with the line 'thus the Empire was the first to fall' or something similar; which empire? Byzantine or the Western? Both are mentioned in the preceding sentence. Celtmist 5-11-05

I have replaced the word decimated by destroyed, since to decimate means to destroy 10% of something.Mystery Man 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Should this article be merged with this one?

I have found this article, and Western Schism, about the same topic. Are there enough differences between the two, or should they be merged? DrJones 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

They are not at all about the same topic and should not be merged. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, no. They're about two entirely different topics. —Preost ^talk contribs 12:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Mutual recognition

Should there not be something about the Roman and the Eastern Churches recognising the legitimacy of each other's priesthood and sacraments? That is, a Catholic could receive the Eucharist from a Greek Orthodox priest and would regard himself as having received "proper" communion. He would not so regard communion taken from an Anglican. Avalon 11:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The recognition generally only goes in one direction. That is, while an RC might consider it okay to receive at an Orthodox church, no Orthodox priest would be allowed to commune him. And while an RC parish might receive an Orthodox Christian to communion, the act of doing so would automatically excommunicate that person from the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Church has not made an official statement regarding the "validity" of RC sacraments, but they are certainly not treated in practice as "proper" to the life of an Orthodox Christian. —Preost ^{talk contribs} 12:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad I asked the question because I'm happy to learn the true situation. One lives and learns! Avalon 14:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Details

This article contains no details about the actual excommunications and the immediate events surrounding them which occurred in 1054. It's a serious lacking and should be corrected. What about Bishop Leo of Ochrid's letter or Emperor Constantine IX's attitude? There is no mention here or at Leo IX's articel or Cerularius' about the prime human catalyst for the actual excommunications, Humbert of Mourmoutiers. I can add it if necessary, but I would prefer someone more familiar with the topic do it. Srnec 05:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for adding your stuff, but most unfortunately it reeks of Papist propaganda. Your account seems to put the blame for the rift on the Patriarch and whitewash the Pope and his legates. Such phrases as - "just at the time when the patriarch was set to open up a Pandora's box" or "the patriarch's refusal to address the issues at hand drove the legatine mission to extremes" - are judgmental and as such unacceptable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to first disavow any connection to either church involved—I'm a Protestant. The tenor of the section almost certainly comes from John Julius Norwich, my only source. He was not a Catholic, as far as I know. His book read impartially to me.

For those reasons, I'll first address the alleged POV-ness of the above citations. The patriarch did open a Pandora's box; fault if you will the pope for refusing to close it, but as far as I can tell, it was the patriarch who initiated the whole affair: which seems to be universally regarded today as a Pandora's box. The patriarch, according to Norwich, basically ignored the legates, which led them to extremes. How is this POV? The legates may or may not have been justified, but what drove them to do what they certainly did not intend to do upon setting out on their mission was the patriarch's basic refusal to receive them as legates. The sentences may seem to blame the patriarch, but I believe if read critically, they are factual statements. What about the statement "legates' authority legally ceased, but they did not seem to notice," how is that less POV than the above statements? Certainly its a legal point of view the legates would probably have debated.

Anyway, I won't dispute that further. If its POV, edit it. But I have been accused recently of having a POV I certainly didn't have (see Talk:Kingdom of Galicia if you care to read that long debate) because someone couldn't read what precisely I wrote. I rarely try and write something other than exacly what I mean and I think (I may be wrong) these statements are ones of fact if read to mean precisely what they say and no more or less. Perhaps, for an encyclopaedia, language must be watered down to accomodate those who can't read (not you, I'm sure), but I think that's sad. Srnec 03:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual Error Edit

I made a correction to a factual error. Rome did not condemn intinction. For certain rites it has been forbidden, but not condemned. There is a major difference. Rome has historically approved of it for certain rites. - Diligens 13:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"You can imagine the uproar that ensued"?

this phrase does not seem very encyclopedic... why is it there? (unsigned by User:69.203.98.141 )

As is "and when the smoke cleared". The whole section read a bit oddly. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Took care of the first bit, and added some detail on the political events during the eventual slide into full schism. Epimetreus 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Excommunications and final break

I reverted the entire section because so much information had been removed that seems useful. Was there a good reason for this? Srnec 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Can anyone make sense of this sentence? :

Despite Pope John Paul II didn't participate as officiant, but only assisted to the Orthodox liturgy officiated by the Romanian Patriarch, the Greek monks in Mount Athos refused to admit Romanian priests and hieromonks as co-officiants to their liturgies for a few years afterwards.

It is found in the reconciliation section of the main article. I would change it myself if I knew what it was supposed to be saying Kaid100 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

see here (Re: East-West Schism # Reconciliation) Adriatikus 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks Adriatikus, I've now made a change. Kaid100 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

to be included ?

I don't know if the info at [2] (briefly: Pope dropping "Patriarch of the West" title, the Synod of the Constantinople saying it creates "grave difficulties" for dialogue) is significant enough to be included in #Reconciliation. See also [3]. Opinions? adriatikus | 11:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Request Clarification

Much of the section "Excommunications and final break" reads like a university lecture with lots of narrative and rhetorical flourishes, rather than an encylopedia article. Therefore, I suggest changing the cleanup tag to a copyedit tag and request editing of its tone. Foltor 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Chalcedonian Christianity?

This term, used in the first sentence of the article, is unfamiliar to me and I would guess 99% of the readers. Although it cross-references to an article explaining the term, it seems to me that a casual reader could easily see the term and mistakenly assume that the schism discussed in the article is unimportant or irrelevant to their concerns. At a minimum it's kind of jarring to encounter such a jargonish term in the first sentence of the article. According to the cross-referenced article, non-Chalcedonian Christianity was common in the 5th - 8th century, but was - I guess - pretty well suppressed after that. Could we get away with just saying "Christianity" here?

I agree, it's too jargonish. But "Christianity doesn't sound right either. Couldn't we just write: "The East-West Schism, or Great Schism, divided the Christian Church into Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) branches"?Zambetis 13:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Heretics?

I was just wondering: why did the Catholic Church never seek to crush the Orthodox Church? I understand that reconciliation comes before violence, but I thought that rejecting papal authority meant heresy and the Catholic Church wanted to stamp out heresy. When the Protestants separated from papal authority there were wars and bloodshed; why were there none in the earlier schism? (And if there were, what happened?) Brutannica 07:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There were wars and bloodshed. The sack of Constantinople is sometimes presented as Christians vs. Muslims but according to many accounts was also as much about Catholic vs. Orthodox. 67.135.240.36 21:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The sack of Constantinople in 1204, courtesy of the Fourth Crusade, was presented by those responsible as some form of Divine retribution for the Great Schism of 1054. Pope Innocent III rightly disagreed, and initially excommunicated them. But unfortunately, Innocent III soon came to regard the Crusade’s successful taking of Constantinople as perhaps God's way of forcing reconciliation between East and West. Soon, he appointed a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, which position became honorary after the Orthodox retook Constantinople in 1261. Rome abolished the title in the 1960’s, in part in recognition of the proper dignity to be accorded the lawful successors to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Certainly, if Rome and Constantinople had been able, there would have been other wars between them. But the rapid advance of the Seljuk Turks into the heartland of the Byzantine Empire rendered those arguments moot. Essentially, the two Churches had larger problems to worry about. By the first half of the 16th Century, the Ottoman Empire lapped the boarders of Austria. Hungary had fallen, as had Serbia, and Ottoman ships harried shipping and cities in the Adriatic and Mediterranean. Even Vienna was beseiged.

Also, unlike the Protestant Churches, Rome always conceded that the Orthodox Patriarchs enjoyed independent primacy over their specific jurisdictions. And on almost all doctrinal matters, Rome and her Orthodox counterparts were in agreement. The Protestants, conversely, fell squarly within the undisputed province of the Pope, and were reviving and developing various concepts that Rome considered unorthodox, or worse, heretical. Certainly, the fact they were in Rome's backyard, driving the dissintergration of Rome's temporal and spiritual authority, spurred Rome to a degree of action not implicated by the long-standing schism of 1054.Mikhelos 07:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   -the Non-chalcedonian church is still around. orthodoxwiki.org article on the subject
   68.102.184.230 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rapture 1000 didn't happen

There are examples of smaller sects, like the Millerites, fracturing along political boundaries after some fundamental prophecy failed to take place. According to the book "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", there had been a significant expectation that a "rapture" event would take place around year 1000, much as had been predicted recently around year 2000. I haven't seen explicit mention of any such prophecy being a fundamental part of Church doctrine at the time, but the timing is a bit coincidental. Had there been a general sense of failure with the Church?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.159.105 (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you will find that these concerns are more Protestant in nature. An orthodox interpretation of the Gospels, and particularly Revelation, does not accept the notion of the rapture or the literal reading of such Book, or other "end times" prophesy. In the orthodox idiom, the Revelation of St. John has already been attained by the succession of orthodox faith to primacy (i.e. the Churches of Rome and Constantinople). Thus the Church is not a "failure," as you put it, but the essential and continuing embodiment of God's plan of salvation, through the performance of the Mass/Divine Liturgy, prayers of intersession, and administration of the Sacraments/Mysteries (Baptism, Confirmation, Communion etc.). Mikhelos 07:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)