|
|
Post by simplyorthodox on Aug 3, 2012 21:04:28 GMT 2
Hey!
Recently, I received a question from a Roman Catholic and I wanted to share it with you:
There has been a debate since the Great Schism on whether or not it's the fault of the Pope of Rome or of the Eastern Patriarch. From what I learned from history the Great Schism was initiated by the Eastern churches because the Bishop of Rome decided to coronate Charlemagne, whereas Eastern Christians recognizes only the Byzantine emperor as the supreme head both politically and spiritually. The papacy certainly has existed prior to what you have claimed. What is your opinion?
I don't want my answer to be rude, since I respect other people's beliefs. How exactly would you answer kindly, but correctly according to the Orthodox point of view?
|
|
greekpineapple
Monastic
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 12
|
Post by greekpineapple on Aug 4, 2012 0:22:26 GMT 2
It was not touched on much by my history class, but this is what I learned in church school:
In the beginning of the church there were 5 patriarchs of equal rank, one in each of the centers of Christianity: Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Though they were all of the same rank, the Patriarch of Rome was seen as sort of the "leader" among them, for he was from the main hub of the Roman Empire and Peter was the first Bishop there, ect. Eventually, however, what happened is that he had a bit of an ego trip and felt he had more authority than the other four bishops, when in actuality he didn't. He did one huge mistake: add a clause (known as the Filioque Clause) to the Creed, which was not allowed to be changed since it was established in 325. By 1054, the split between the Western and Eastern churches was declared official, and the Western Church has been splitting since, while the Eastern Church has remained whole.
Charlemange was an issue, there is no doubt on that, but it wasn't the Christians that didn't recognize him. Charlemange practically set up an empire of his own in Gaul. In reality, he was one of those barbarians that overran Rome and it's Western Empire. The difference is, he realized the was to get people to obey him was to become Christian, and that he did.
Sorry for the long reply, and sorry if it's rambling, but historical things make me babble.
But technically, it is the fault of the Papacy for 1) Saying he's more powerful than the other bishops, 2) Adding a clause to the creed, and 3) Crowning an emperor when there was already an emperor in Constantinople and Rome had already been demolished as an empire (though it was still a mega stronghold).
|
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoxBrit on Aug 4, 2012 3:34:47 GMT 2
My answer would be simple.
-----------
Dear anon,
Firstly, the Papacy has existed for a long time, the first pope was the Alexandrian patriarch. The pope originally referred to the Patriarch of Alexandria before Rome laid claim to the title, but as for the Roman papacy the story is more complex. Yes, they accepted the primacy of Peter, considering the teachings of the church father and, from an EO perspective, the council of Chalcedon, Rome did have some form of primacy but the modern Latin interpretation of this is far from that which was followed by the Pre-Schism church. Rome's role was one of a big brother. He could not order anything but if there was indecisiveness he would be able to conclude. We see this at Chalcedon when after deliberations on Leo's tome the EO patriarchs passed the bill with the line "Peter has spoken through Leo" so on this occasion Leo had the final say AFTER at least 2 of the other Patriarchates ( Constantinople and Jerusalem) had altered and decided thah the tome which Leo produced was now Orthodox. He only had this primacy within the boundaries of the teaching being accepted, so it was not absolute or infallible, which is the modern (Post Vatican I) Roman interpretation of Rome's power. One of the major contributors to the schism was that Rome, in many occasions, tried to exhibit the authority beyond thisnand without the approval or regulation of the other Patriarchs. This is why 1 of the 5 Patriarchates of the early church is in communion with Rome and the the other 4 refuse to be so. If Constantinople had been behind the schism there would have been support from other Patriarchates for Rome in 1054, and there was none.
To be blunt, the History you have been taught is very distorted. The schism happened for a number of reason and was certainly not caused by the east since it was the west which excommunicated Constantinople and has since revoked this. There were many factors such as the language, liturgical and even in many case the doctrinal teachings which differed.
The coronation of Constantine happened over 200 years before the schism so it certainly did not cause the schism. It was a factor though as legitimately the Byzantine emperor was still Emperor of Rome at this time, as the capital of the Roman empire WAS Constantinople, where he was based. He did not hold any spiritual power as he was a statesman, though Roman Poppes at the time expected to hold both and went to drastic measures to do this. By the time of the schism, Rome had already separated itself from the rest of the church politically, as the Roman emperor was traditionally crowned in Constantinople (this was a 600 year old tradition) so Rome had chosen to be a seperate political entity by creating a rival emperor which was illegitimately crowned against Roman succession laws. This was not the choice of the east, but of Rome. This did not, in itself, cause the schism though.
Rome's acceptence of the Filioque was another issue and one which Rome tried to prevent Pre-schism. Many popes of Rome protested it though it was eventually added, this led to an end of doctrinal unity. This was, in canonical terms, illegal as any addition to the creed was to be discussed at an Ecumenical Council and this was not. This type of occurrence, over the centuries happened many times, pushing Rome doctrinally away from the other 4 Patriarchates. Photius of constantinople and the eastern bishops labelled the filioque as heresy, as it was added without ecumenical approval, though Rome ignored their pleas due to political pressure from the franks who had already been using it (regardless of Papal protest) for many years. This happened with other factors, some of which were even addressed in 1054 by Constantinople and met with abuse from the roman legate (whether he understood the accusations is still debated since he was not a hellenophone)
Another was language. when the schism itself occurred, language played a vital role. Historians note that the legate sent to oppose the latest eastern accusation of heresy directed at Rome did not know Greek, and the Byzantines he discussed Thr matter with did not know Latin. This caused much frustration and anger. He eventually excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, who responded by doing the same. The schism and excommunication itself was therefore much more complicated than you had been told.
It is important to note that it took Rome another 500 years to hold a council and announce the legitimacy of the Filioque, in the creed, in the western church snowing that this still held much contention. This, as well as the linguistic and political factors mentioned demonstrate that the schism is far more complex than noted and, as most historians would accept, far more a response and effect of Roman power plays in acts of doctrine than politics, which had been separated over 200 years prior."
--------
I hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 4, 2012 17:44:03 GMT 2
I am reading at the moment on the Schism for my Master admittance exam; and I can say that we can't blame X or Y for what happened.
The whole situation was like "bad men at the bad time, in the bad places". The Schism was a mix of factors and contexts. Either we blame none, or we blame all. There isn't a single person or group of people who can take all the blame.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 7, 2012 19:50:51 GMT 2
This reply is a long one; I decided to sacrifice the shortness of the message for a better understanding of what the Great Schism was and meant.
The ideas below are taken from the material
"950 years since the Great Schism: interpretations and documents", by Archdeacon Professor Ioan I. ICĂ Jr., Ph.D., from the Faculty of Orthodox Theology "Andrei Şaguna" in Sibiu, Romania, published in "Revista Teologică" ("The Theological Magazine"), new series, year XIV (86), no. 3, July-September 2004, pages 8-41, and no. 4, October-December 2004, pages 79-113.
I had this material for my graduation (diploma) exam, and also for the Master programme admittance exam.
The study is a really good one, and starts from the idea that, in order for us to understand the problem of the Schism, we must take a closer look at the context, and have an objective view on the facts.
So, the main actors of the Schism were:
Humbert, cardinal of Silva Candida
Michael I Kerularios, Ecumenical Patriarch.
According to the study, the schism was prepared in the 4th-7th centuries, deepened by Photios in the 9th century and concluded by Kerularios in the 11th century.
A reason for the schism, although not the main one, is the difference between the two canonical regimes: the Constantinian one, of the Imperial Church, and synodal one of the Patriarchal Pentarchy of the East, on one side, and the Roman regime of the Church as a Papal monarchy. The schism was the inevitable collision between these two canonical regimes.
The best synthetic presentation of the schism was made by the English Byzantinologist Steven Runciman, in a series of 7 lectures at the Magdalen College in Oxford.
The term of "Great Schism" is an invention made by the Catholic historians during the 16th and 17th centuries, who were confronted with the Reform.
During the 10th and 11th centuries, the Byzantine Empire and the Ecumenical Patriarchate experienced a spectacular revival, in a total contrast with the humiliating decline of the Papacy, between 904 and 963, in the century of pornocracy, when Rome was dominated by the philo-Byzantine family of Theophilaktos. In 847, the Arabs attack Rome; only in 915, the city is saved. In 885, the Byzantine general Nikephoros Phokas occupies Southern Italy, and creates two themes, Calabria and Longobardia (Apulia). The unified Byzantine Italy (975) has the capital city at Bari.
In the 10th century, the Western Church experiences two reforming movements, the monastic reform (Cluny) and the clergy reform (Lorraine). On January 2nd, 962, Otto I is crowned in Rome by pope John XII, an action that heats up the relations with Constantinople, relations which are colled down in 972, by the marriage between Otto and the Byzantine princess Theophano. In 988, the Russian knyaz Vladimir is baptised under the Eastern rite. In 996, Otto III is crowned emperor, and then he imposes the first German pope, his cousin Bruno, under the name Gergory V; after Gregory dies, Otto chooses the Frenchman Gerbert d'Aurillac, as Sylvester II; after him, pope was John XVIII. Anyway, in 1014, in Rome, during the coronation of Henry II the Holy, the Filioque was sang for the first time.
In 1042, the throne of Byzantium is occupied by Constantine IX Monomachos; in 1043, Alexios the Studite, the Patriarch, dies; his successor is Michael I Kerularios. The following years, the Seljuk Turks attack the Empire; in 1071, the Byzantine army is catastrophically defeated at Mantzikert.
The fact that the Byzantine army reconquered Italy, Bulgaria, Armenia and Syria, meant that the heterodox populations in these areas were now in the Empire, and the internal religious balance was heavily perturbed. The revolts that followed, against a state action of converting those populations to the imperial Orthodoxy, were inevitable. The Patriarch (Michael I Kerularios) was an active promoter of the integration of the heterodox populations in the Byzantine rite. Their heterodoxy meant, mainly, the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist - especially by the Armenians and by the Latins. These two rites were forbidden. This is the origin of the Schism: the "Byzantinization" of the heterodox rites. The campaign against the unleavened bread (azyme) wasn't against the Latin rite, but against the Armenian one. Niketas, from Stoudion, was elected to write treaties against the use of unleavened bread. Niketas was convinced that Rome had the same position, against the azymes, because the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Synods were assimilated to the Trulan Synod (Quinisext, Penthekte) in 692 (the 11th canon was against the unleavened bread); pope Agathon approved the 6th Synod, so the Byzantines believed that he also approved the Trulan Synod, which wasn't true.
An important figure in the conflict was Argyros, a Latin Longobard, who helped the Byzantine emperor in the revolts of Maniakes and Leon Tornikes. Constantine IX named Argyros catepan of Italy in 1051, a situation which was incompatible with the Byzantine rules Argyros assisted the Liturgies at Agia Sophia in Constantinople, but he was refused the Eucharist by the Patriarch Kerularios, because he was a Latin.
Back to Rome, in 1046, Suigder of Bamberg became pope as Clement II, and, after him, Bruno d'Egisheim, under the name of Leo IX. Leo was determined to reform the Western Church; his right hand was the theoretician of this reform, the Benedictine Humbert from Moyenmoutier, firstly named Archbishop of Sicily, and then Cardinal-Bishop of Silva Candida. Humbert governed the Church of Rome in the shadow between 1048 and 1061, under Leo IX, and especially under Nicholas II.
In 1053, Leo IX is defeated by the Normans, and locked for 10 months in Benevento. Freed in March 1054, he dies on April 19th.
Now, this is how all started:
In the summer of 1053, Humbert receives a letter from Archbishop John of Trani (Apulia), which was sent to him by Archbishop Leo of Ohrid, in which Leo criticised the use of unleavened bread; the letter was addressed to the Latin bishops, who were asked to send it to the pope, in order for the problem to be corrected. Humbert met with Argyros, who saw in this letter the hand of Michael Kerularios; during the translation, the name of the Patriarch was added. Leo IX, the pope, asked Humbert to answer in his name. The answer was an apology of the primate of the Roman Church and of its infallible authority. One on top of the other, Rome was the master Church, and no Church was so great than Rome. Rome was the top of the tops etc. Due to the tough language, the letter wasn't sent.
In the fall of 1053, the pope received two very cordial letters, from the Byzantine emperor and from the Patriarch, in which they asked for political alliance and religious reconciliation. In the name of the poe, Humbert answered, praising the wish of the emperor, and criticising the Patriarch. The letters were to be sent by a special embassy, in the spring of 1054.
A secondary excange of letters happened between Constantinople (Michael Kerularios), Rome (Leo IX / Humbert), Venice (Dominic) and Antioch (Patriarch Peter III).
The Roman embassy to Constantinople was formed by Humbert, Frederic of Lorraine and Peter of Amalfi. They stopped in Bari, where they showed the letters to Argyros, and then they resealed them. Argyros told them to ignore the Patriarch and discuss only with the basileus. On April 19th, Leo IX dies, so the embassy had no legal and official statute. Their papers was legally invalid.
Humbert went straight to the emperor and behaved arrogantly toward the Patriarch - he pretended that the Patriarch should submit without contitions to Rome. They left the pope's letter and left without respecting the protocol. when he read the letter, Kerularios was stunned by its tone and content, and refused to believe that it was sent by the pope; he also refused to accept the authority of the Latin embassy. He refused to discuss with the embassy, because he believed that there was a conspiracy, whose brain was Argyros, due to the broken seals. I won't detail all the events in between, as they are secondary.
Anyway, Humbert loses his patience, because the Patriarch doesn't want to discuss with him. In the afternoon of Saturday, July 16th, 1054. he enters Agia Sophia, walks in the altar, and throws on the holy table a paper of excommunication, under the glances of the Hypodeacons and the people; in the name of Leo IX (already dead), Michael Kerularios, Leo of Ohrid and Nikephoros the sakelarios were excommunicated. As he exited the church, Humbert shaked the dust from his feet. Steven Runciman says that few important documents are filled with so many errors, and it is truly extraordinary how a man like Humbert could have written a so lamentable manifesto. Kerularios was accused in every imaginable way possible, and in the end he was declared a heretic.
Kerularios asked for the paper to be translated in Greek, and then he showed it to the emperor, who called the embassy back, in order for them to enter a synod. He couldn't force them, and they refused; therefore, they left. The men of the Patriarch spread the translation in Constantinople; the people rallied for the Patriarch and Orthodoxy, and against the emperor. The emperor blamed the translators and Argyros; the translators were beaten, and Argyros' relatives in Constantinople were imprisoned. He ordered the anathematization of the authors of the excommunication paper (the embassy), their collaborators, the translators, and also he ordered for the paper to be burned. The synod debated and written an official paper, semeioma, in which the Church complied with the imperial orders; however, the paper was kept in the archives of the Church.
So the schism was, actually, between Humbert and Kerularios, not between two Churches. It became active between the Churches only when these two (the Churches) silently accepted it. Humbert act was invalidated, because the pope had died before. After the schism, Humbert led the Roman Church from the shadows, until his death, in 1061; Kerularios became the most influent character in Constantinople, until his death, in 1059.
The schism wasn't submitted to the conscience of the Church, to the talks of a Synod, unlike the Photian Schism.
Anyway, on December 7th, 1965, the anathemas which were pronounced in 1054 were lifted simultaneously, by pope Paul VI, in Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, Bishop of Constantinople, New Rome. They were removed from the memory and the middle of the Church.
So we can't just blame X or Y for the Schism; we must do a little research, and see what happened there. As we can see, the Schism happened because there was a mix of wrong people at the wrong time, doing wrong actions. There were a thousand mistakes: every person had done mistakes (except, maybe, Peter III of Antioch, who had the best attitude: calm, Orthodox, peacemaker). Humbert, Michael, Constantine, Argyros... They are the main characters. But it was a special conjucture which led to the schism. If the conjuncture hadn't existed, maybe the schism wouldn't have happened, who knows?
|
|
