What's new
  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

The RC and Ortho schism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
1,328
Christian
Yes
#1
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 11:23-26 – For 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?
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
12,236
Gender
Male
#2
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 11:23-26 – For 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?
This is a good history lesson.
I've never heard any of this.
I'd love to hear more.
Please continue.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
12,153
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#3
This is a good history lesson.
I've never heard any of this.
I'd love to hear more.
Please continue.
The E.O. side of the stories aren't as well publicized. :lol

Paul told us about these matters long before they happened. Acts 20:29. IF we observe what they do to each others that's exactly what Paul said in Acts. Similar to Gal. 5:15.

Does anyone "in the church" in their right mind go to heresy blows over 3 words, alienating multiple millions against each others for centuries?

Ecclesiastes 9:3
This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
1,328
Christian
Yes
#4
The E.O. side of the stories aren't as well publicized. :lol

Paul told us about these matters long before they happened. Acts 20:29. IF we observe what they do to each others that's exactly what Paul said in Acts. Similar to Gal. 5:15.

Does anyone "in the church" in their right mind go to heresy blows over 3 words, alienating multiple millions against each others for centuries?

Ecclesiastes 9:3
This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

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!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 20, 2016
Messages
7,045
#5
An interesting, though lengthy article, discussing the division over the leavened/unleavened bread dispute between the Eastern & Western Churches:

At the institution of the Lord’s Supper Christ used unleavened bread. The primitive Christians carried with them the bread and wine for the Lord’s Supper, and took the bread which was used at common meals, which was leavened bread. When this custom ceased, together with the Agapè, the Greeks retained the leavened bread, while in the Latin Church the unleavened bread became common since the 8th century. Out of this difference a dogmatic controversy in the 11th century arose, the Greek Church reproaching the Latin for the use of unleavened bread, making it heresy. At the Council of Florence, in 1439, which attempted to unite both churches, it was agreed that either might be used… (1969, 5:514, emp. in orig). http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
1,328
Christian
Yes
#6
An interesting, though lengthy article, discussing the division over the leavened/unleavened bread dispute between the Eastern & Western Churches:

At the institution of the Lord’s Supper Christ used unleavened bread. The primitive Christians carried with them the bread and wine for the Lord’s Supper, and took the bread which was used at common meals, which was leavened bread. When this custom ceased, together with the Agapè, the Greeks retained the leavened bread, while in the Latin Church the unleavened bread became common since the 8th century. Out of this difference a dogmatic controversy in the 11th century arose, the Greek Church reproaching the Latin for the use of unleavened bread, making it heresy. At the Council of Florence, in 1439, which attempted to unite both churches, it was agreed that either might be used… (1969, 5:514, emp. in orig). http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196
Good article Civil, thanks...
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
1,328
Christian
Yes
#7
Good article Civil thanks but I have one dilemma with Apol Press on this issue. They adopt the Modern Rabbinical view of Passover and the 7 days of Unleavened bread and I go with the Torah. They say "And also, “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples” (26:20). According to Matthew, then, Jesus instituted the Last Supper “on the first day of unleavened bread.” But that is not correct according to the command of God. Passover feast is separate (though unleavened bread was used). The Feast of UB begins the next day (on the 15th of the month) so that the entire eventful process begins on the evening (the beginning) of the 14th and ends on the 21st day (the 8 days are Passover plus the 7 days of UB)...but the point is made by them that it was unleavened bread that Christ and the Apostles used but the question arose at some point in the church as to whether this form of the bread was required. I side with the Unleavened but others tell me such ritualism should become "the sole rule" negates grace....what is your take with the bread issue?
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
18,293
#8
It's such a horrible mistake to make communion about the elements themselves instead of who we are remembering through those elements, and what he did. It's even worse to hate a brother or sister over them.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
1,328
Christian
Yes
#9
It's such a horrible mistake to make communion about the elements themselves instead of who we are remembering through those elements, and what he did. It's even worse to hate a brother or sister over them.
Amen Jethro...that by far is more important. Like would we count it not communion because someone uses grape juice? Absurd! Its the Who not the what. Good point!
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
10,206
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#10
4th Crusade, in which they attacked and sacked Constantinople destroying the Hagia Sophia.
Hagia Sophia is still standing.
The Turks converted it to a mosque (adding the minarets) and then into a museum as it is today.
Otherwise, good answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.