Rc Ortho schism

Discussion in 'Christian History' started by brother Paul, Dec 20, 2016.

  1. brother Paul

    brother Paul Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,277
    Christian:
    Yes
    The schism between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy

    The simplest explanation, I guess, is the cross anathemas declared by Michael Cerularius of Constantinople and Pope Leo IX of Rome in 1054 AD based on arguments about authority, and the Bread of the Eucharist, but actually it was the culmination of tensions that started long before.

    The general historical order beginning in the 2nd century would be differences that arose over:

    a) The Pashal feast

    b) Authority

    c) The Fillioque

    d) The Bread

    Also the story did not end there, it actually continued on different fronts until in 1204 AD when the Roman Bishop (see Innocent III) called for a 4th Crusade, in which they attacked and sacked Constantinople destroying the Hagia Sophia.

    In my humble opinion, the division all started around 110 to 130 AD when a disagreement (though totally peaceful) arose over the Paschal festival (called “Easter” many centuries later). The Bishops of the East allegedly having always followed the instructions of the Apostles observed “the feast” celebrating His death till He comes (culminating in celebrating the Resurrection on the 1st day of the week following the Passover which the Jews called “first fruits”) while the Bishops of Rome had chosen to focus on the “Sunday” as the day of Resurrection.

    Now do not misunderstand. The entire Christian church met on the 1st day of each week and broke bread in commemoration of the Resurrection, that was the foundation of the Church but I am referring to the Paschal feast.

    So Polycarp (student of St. John and Bishop of Smyrna) travelled to Rome to meet with and discuss the issue with Anicetus who at that time was the Bishop there. Poly carp pointed to the teaching handed down by St. John, but depending on the viewpoint one can see this in the scriptures as well.

    In Luke 22:19 Jesus commands His followers and says “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: do this in remembrance of me.“

    Later we read in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

    1 Corinthians 11:23-26For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do you, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death till he comes.

    So while all the Bishops of the East would “keep the feast” (Pascha from Pesach or Passover) intending to do so till He come, which would culminate in an all-night vigil till dawn on the 1st day (the concept of Sunday or a day of the Sun was not even in their frame of reference). Anicetus and his companions felt the importance was the resurrection not His death (and possibly “to keep the feast” was too Jewish). The two agreed each group would do as they believed in good conscience before the Lord and would not allow the ritualistic difference to be a cause for division (maintaining unity of the Spirit).

    After a few generations this issue came in question again as Churches interacted and teachers and preachers travelled more. Around 190 AD, Victor (Bishop or Rome), claimed sole authority over all the churches claiming that because Peter was the first Bishop of Rome he had this right. In his decree he commanded that ALL CHURCHES observe the Pascha only as Rome did. Eastern bishops rejected his claim of ultimate authority. In 193 AD, Polycrates of Ephesus (a Church founded by Paul where both Paul and John had taught, and for a while Mary had resided) protested on the former Bishop’s apostolic basis and also refuted Victor’s alleged authority over all.

    Since the beginning, in each Church founded and taught by an Apostle, the Bishops always considered themselves autocephalous (equal independent leaders), and in matters where questions arose they would get together and discuss, and by the scriptures and their traditions they would come to agreement, but none of these (considered to be servants of servants) ever assumed sole authority over all. Even Peter had taught not to lord it over one another as the Gentiles do (1 Peter 5:3). Victor then threw the first historically recorded anathema allegedly ex-communicating Polycrates. Irenaeus and others interceded (Eusibius, History of the Church, Vol. 24, 10-11) on Polycrates’ behalf against Victor and the issue for a time was resolved.

    The issue of Peter’s alleged primacy became a matter of dispute between Rome and the rest of the Bishops. Though Peter was in Rome later with Paul and died there, there is no evidence of indication he was ever the 1st Bishop there. Paul, who only went where no other Apostle had previously been, went to Rome, Priscilla and Aquila were already there fellowshipping with other Christians who regularly met in house churches on the first day of the week. Peter came later. The official 1st Bishop of Rome (appointed by Paul and Peter) was Linus.

    Peter on the other hand had been a Bishop of a Church years before coming to Rome (he arrived in Rome around 60 AD). In fact he was their first Bishop. It is a matter of History that Peter was actually the first Bishop of Antioch (in Syria) around 50 AD for around two years where he taught and appointed Evodius, who then appointed Ignatius (a student of St. John) in 100 AD. All the Apostles (including Peter) looked to Jerusalem as the true mother church, if one wishes to use such a term, and saw James (the brother of our Lord) as the actual first Bishop of the Church ever. Even Peter was under the general authority of James till James was martyred (though as I indicated real authority was in the council not in the final word of one man).

    In time, by the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, the Church recognized 5 primary centers and their Bishops were looked up to as sources of true guidance. These five autocephalous Patriarchates were Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, and Alexandria in Egypt.

    Politically/secularly Rome was still the capital of the Empire, and then came Constantine. Soon after he became Emperor he moved the capital of the Empire to Turkey naming Constantinople (after himself) as the new capital. This made many Romans (and Roman Bishops who after Victor assumed authority over all others) very angry. The Council of Nicea was ordered by the Emperor to foster unity, and the original Nicene Creed was formed (around 325 – 330 AD).

    Shortly after there was a new dispute (called the Fillioque). The original says “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified.” In this case, because Jesus can be said and shown to also direct and send the Spirit they insisted on changing it to say “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, AND THE SON. Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified.” Whether it was just because it was Rome or because they relied on what had been agreed to by ALL the Bishops at the Council, the Bishops of the East now enjoying their place in relation to the Political authority, refused to change it. As you can see the wedge widening even as far back as this.

    Later still (a few centuries) a question of the Bread to be used at the Pascha arose (and in communion weekly) for allegedly (they still claim this) the East had always used a consecrated loaf of leavened Bread (for Christ the Bread of life had now Risen and His Spirit now leavens the whole lump, ie., the Church), but Rome and other centers under their See (North Africa, France, and some of the Balkan states) maintained that this Bread should be unleavened according to scripture and tradition.

    So you can see that by the time of 1054 AD the divisions were manifold, and by this time they were quite irresolvable, neither side was going to budge, and cross anathemas broke “Communion” on what seemed to be on a permanent basis. But the true absolute break up (in my opinion) was finalized with the attack and destruction of the Hagia Sophia in the attack of 1204 AD.

    Have any of you thought about this one? Anything to add or any differences of opinion?
     
  2. Runner

    Runner Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2015
    Messages:
    689
    I don't know if you're intentionally trying to be humorous, brother Paul (and if you are: Hey, I get it!). If not, and it is actually your purpose to stimulate discussion, you would need to dumb this down by a factor of about 15. I'm thinking a good start would be to edit the title: DID HILLARY AND THE LIBERAL SOCIALIST PUNKS CAUSE THE SCHISM BETWEEN ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND EASTERN ORTHODOXY??? Or perhaps, DID THE SCHISM BETWEEN ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND EASTERN ORTHODOXY ACTUALLY CAUSE A CRACK IN THE FLAT EARTH??? These are merely suggestions, mind you, but I believe something in this vein would generate far greater enthusiasm.

    When I was a journalist, one of the axioms was to gear one's writing to those with an 8th-grade education. On a Christian forum, alas, this is aiming far too high. The folks here think Polycarp is a species of fish.

    Nice summary, BTW. (Again, if your intent was to be humorous: Wink, wink, I get it!)
     
  3. brother Paul

    brother Paul Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,277
    Christian:
    Yes
    No! Actually I thought this was a place to discuss "church history". I guess I was wrong...! By your Hillary-ous suggestions I surmise you were a real crack journalist, as in crack pot, or perhaps a journalist on crack or pot, or else just being funny! I pray it was the last option. (see? I also have a sense of humor)

    Also I sense an accusation of me being a YEC political conservative (an unfounded assumption...not good for a Journalist) while I am not. Being much more orthodox I guess you could call me a libservative or else a coniberal (like Jesus)...while I fully insist on the sanctity of every individual life, I also believe and do and support feeding the poor. housing the homeless and so on...
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2016
  4. brother Paul

    brother Paul Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,277
    Christian:
    Yes
    Runner...can you direct me to some of your other comments on this forum (I always need a jolly laugh)? Hoi Hoi Hoi Jesus was Jewish! Have a Merry Christmas runner...
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2016
  5. AirDancer

    AirDancer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    18,908
    Location:
    where my faith has set me free
    Christian:
    Yes
    Bible Study is not a forum for debate. Our Terms of Service apply here as everywhere else.
     
  6. brother Paul

    brother Paul Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,277
    Christian:
    Yes
    Sorry Airdancer I was actually trying to get some discussion on the topic. I do not see anyone debating though. It seemed Runner may be a troll.
     
  7. AirDancer

    AirDancer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    18,908
    Location:
    where my faith has set me free
    Christian:
    Yes
    My apologies for halting the discussion, brother Paul. Just wanted to post a reminder about no debates in Bible Study. (It has been a problem in a handful of threads in non-debate forums)

    The study of history is always fascinating. And the more information we can glean about the past should prepare us for what may face us in future.
     
  8. brother Paul

    brother Paul Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,277
    Christian:
    Yes
    Galatians 5:15 says, "But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you be not consumed one of another."

    Such division often begins on such small points, until the dividing alienation destroys the whole. The Song of songs 2:15 tells us it is the small foxes the spoil the vine. You see, the big foxes just jump up and grab a bunch of grapes and separate themselves to eat, but the small foxes cannot get to them directly so they slowly gnaw at the base until the vine topples and then they eat their full while right there in the vineyard...while still in the Church!
     
  9. AirDancer

    AirDancer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    18,908
    Location:
    where my faith has set me free
    Christian:
    Yes
  10. brother Paul

    brother Paul Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,277
    Christian:
    Yes
    I know no one will understand this but are you also WindDancer? Sorry back to the topic...

    Another cause of division is the approach to knowing God. Eastern Orthodox theologians argue the existential difference in East and West views is also responsible. According to them the Roman Catholic Church has used pagan metaphysical philosophy and scholasticism rather than the direct mystical actual experience of God, called theoria, through prayer, meditation, and revealed word (as the Spirit speaks to each sinsere seekers soul). The East believes each person in Christ partakes of the divine presence between themselves and the Lord through the Spirit, and the RC believes the epitome is through them in the administered sacraments within the Holy Mother Church.

    If any has more to add or can correct where I may have missed something please comment.....
     
  11. AirDancer

    AirDancer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    18,908
    Location:
    where my faith has set me free
    Christian:
    Yes
    No, I'm not WindDancer. Just AirDancer. The name is because I am dancing on air because our Lord loves & protects me!
     
  12. brother Paul

    brother Paul Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,277
    Christian:
    Yes
    Okay thanks! WindDancer is a Native American sister on another forum who is a grief counselor....her explanation for her AKA is quite similar.
     
    AirDancer likes this.
  13. AirDancer

    AirDancer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    18,908
    Location:
    where my faith has set me free
    Christian:
    Yes
    This is the only forum in which I participate. Too many of the other ones were too disruptive for my senses. Talk about Christians attacking their own! Your point about the vineyard & foxes (post #8) describes what all too often occurs within the Christian community, unfortunately.
     
  14. brother Paul

    brother Paul Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,277
    Christian:
    Yes
    I must post an error I made. The Hagia Sophia was not sacked along with the city, in fact when conquered, Baldwin of Flanders entered in and declared himself Emporer of the new Latin Empire...
     
  15. Anto9us

    Anto9us Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2017
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Texas
    I recently re-read the chapter on THE GREAT SCHISM in Timothy Ware's book -- THE ORTHODOX CHURCH.

    Someone on another board had insinuated the schism was like a "personality clash" between a bishop of Rome and one of the other bishops, and I felt that was a bit much to dismiss it all as a personality clash.

    The BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION in 1054 was indeed a dramatic place to start the chapter, to lead into the discussion of the schism, but of course the causes were multiple and went back centuries before and continued after this BULL where one bishop excommunicated another (yeah, that's what it was --a lot of BULL)

    Most of the causes Ware put forth were touched on in the OP here.

    My son became Greek Orthodox, I am interested in the Great Schism
     
  16. Jim Parker

    Jim Parker Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    Messages:
    8,575
    Location:
    Right here, right now
    Christian:
    Yes
    There was a fundamental shift in theology in the west which was initiated by Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century, who was a prolific writer. He drew heavily on the Greek Philosophers (esp. Plato and Aristotle) to the point that he sent the entire western church on that trajectory. By the time of the Frankish Scholastics, the East and the West had huge differences in theology. The west became dependent upon the Greek Philosophers. Augustine was seen as the first theologian to "really understand Paul." In fact, nothing could be further from the facts. Christianity does not draw from Greek Philosophy for anything other than some vocabulary which allowed more precision than the Koine Greek of the NT. Christianity does not in any manner draw from Greek philosophy for it's doctrines because Christianity is Jewish to the core.

    The result of Augustine and the Schoolmen (Scholastics) insertion of the teachings of Plato and Aristotle into the study of God's revelation was a departure from the ancient view of the atonement as put concisely by St. Athanasius in his book On the Incarnation ( 5th century) which gives a totally different explanation than does Anselm of Canterbury in his tract Cur Deus Homo. (11th century)

    A comparison of the two views reveals how far the western Church departed from the early teaching of the Eastern Church on this one point.

    Unfortunately, the errors which resulted from the infection of Greek philosophy have been passed on to all the Protestant sects as well.

    On The Incarnation is available at Amazon and the entire text of Cur Deus Homo is available online to download at no cost.

    iakov the fool
     

Share This Page