OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 27, 2009, 12:02:22 PM

Title: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 27, 2009, 12:02:22 PM
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc? Correct me if I am wrong (And I am sure many of you will ;D), but wasn't St. Benedict canonized after 1054? By a post-schism Roman Catholic Pope? Isn't he an Orthodox Saint though? I am really not sure about all of this, and would like some help. God Bless!
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2009, 12:03:16 PM
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc? Correct me if I am wrong (And I am sure many of you will ;D), but wasn't St. Benedict canonized after 1054? By a post-schism Roman Catholic Pope? Isn't he an Orthodox Saint though? I am really not sure about all of this, and would like some help. God Bless!
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 27, 2009, 12:06:28 PM
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2009, 12:27:46 PM
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?
Even if he was not cannonized until later by the Roman Church, I am certain that he recieved popular veneration by the East and West well before this.
EO objections to western saints is really only to saints who lived after the schism and were members of the Catholic Communion.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 27, 2009, 12:31:16 PM
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?
Even if he was not cannonized until later by the Roman Church, I am certain that he recieved popular veneration by the East and West well before this.
EO objections to western saints is really only to saints who lived after the schism and were members of the Catholic Communion.
I guess my question concerns much more than just St. Benedict. Is it really so "cut-and-dry" where the line is drawn in our (Catholic/Orthodox) traditions? Does it truly stop at 1054 for the Orthodox Church? Or is this wishful thinking? I really don't know. Can anyone help?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2009, 12:35:12 PM
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?
Even if he was not cannonized until later by the Roman Church, I am certain that he recieved popular veneration by the East and West well before this.
EO objections to western saints is really only to saints who lived after the schism and were members of the Catholic Communion.
I guess my question concerns much more than just St. Benedict. Is it really so "cut-and-dry" where the line is drawn in our (Catholic/Orthodox) traditions? Does it truly stop at 1054 for the Orthodox Church? Or is this wishful thinking? I really don't know. Can anyone help?
I guess that this would have to come down to a question of when the schism was finalized. Most EO I have talked to believe that mutual excommunications of 1054 were the finalization of the schism. A small minority that I have spoken to believe it happened before or after that point. I honestly don't know what the percise answer is on this issue. I am not sure if anyone knows to be honest. I expectantly await the EO response on this thread.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 27, 2009, 12:39:16 PM
I expectantly await the EO response on this thread.
As do I.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2009, 12:40:35 PM
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc? Correct me if I am wrong (And I am sure many of you will ;D), but wasn't St. Benedict canonized after 1054? By a post-schism Roman Catholic Pope? Isn't he an Orthodox Saint though? I am really not sure about all of this, and would like some help. God Bless!

Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2009, 12:41:04 PM
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc? Correct me if I am wrong (And I am sure many of you will ;D), but wasn't St. Benedict canonized after 1054? By a post-schism Roman Catholic Pope? Isn't he an Orthodox Saint though? I am really not sure about all of this, and would like some help. God Bless!

Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Yawn.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 27, 2009, 12:46:01 PM
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2009, 12:47:21 PM
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: serb1389 on April 27, 2009, 12:50:47 PM
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.

Some of the EO's also used the same accusation against the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Some just love to insult the Ecumenical Patriarchate
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 27, 2009, 12:51:20 PM
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.
Well then, it seems that the statement has nothing to do with what I asked.....hmmmmm. I wonder why ialmisry is being moderated?  
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2009, 12:52:02 PM
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.

Some of the EO's also used the same accusation against the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Some just love to insult the Ecumenical Patriarchate
I've noticed that too.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 27, 2009, 12:52:57 PM
Anyone have helpful info on this question, that isn't an insult?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: serb1389 on April 27, 2009, 12:53:09 PM
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?
Even if he was not cannonized until later by the Roman Church, I am certain that he recieved popular veneration by the East and West well before this.
EO objections to western saints is really only to saints who lived after the schism and were members of the Catholic Communion.
I guess my question concerns much more than just St. Benedict. Is it really so "cut-and-dry" where the line is drawn in our (Catholic/Orthodox) traditions? Does it truly stop at 1054 for the Orthodox Church? Or is this wishful thinking? I really don't know. Can anyone help?
I guess that this would have to come down to a question of when the schism was finalized. Most EO I have talked to believe that mutual excommunications of 1054 were the finalization of the schism. A small minority that I have spoken to believe it happened before or after that point. I honestly don't know what the percise answer is on this issue. I am not sure if anyone knows to be honest. I expectantly await the EO response on this thread.

It would be safe to say that part of the reason that there even IS a clear line (if you want to call it that) is because the anathematizations took place that year.  So in terms of declaring each other heretics...that's a fairly hard line to get rid of.  

I would only add that there is a large contingent of "historians" or whatever you want to call them who are VERY vocal about saying that the schism really took place in 1204 with the Crusaders pillaging Constantinople.  that was the culmination of things that started in the 9th century (in Spain and other places).  

Like I said though..an anathematization is hard to get over, so perhaps this is why there is such a hard line.  
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2009, 12:55:09 PM
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?
Even if he was not cannonized until later by the Roman Church, I am certain that he recieved popular veneration by the East and West well before this.
EO objections to western saints is really only to saints who lived after the schism and were members of the Catholic Communion.
I guess my question concerns much more than just St. Benedict. Is it really so "cut-and-dry" where the line is drawn in our (Catholic/Orthodox) traditions? Does it truly stop at 1054 for the Orthodox Church? Or is this wishful thinking? I really don't know. Can anyone help?
I guess that this would have to come down to a question of when the schism was finalized. Most EO I have talked to believe that mutual excommunications of 1054 were the finalization of the schism. A small minority that I have spoken to believe it happened before or after that point. I honestly don't know what the percise answer is on this issue. I am not sure if anyone knows to be honest. I expectantly await the EO response on this thread.

It would be safe to say that part of the reason that there even IS a clear line (if you want to call it that) is because the anathematizations took place that year.  So in terms of declaring each other heretics...that's a fairly hard line to get rid of.  

I would only add that there is a large contingent of "historians" or whatever you want to call them who are VERY vocal about saying that the schism really took place in 1204 with the Crusaders pillaging Constantinople.  that was the culmination of things that started in the 9th century (in Spain and other places).  

Like I said though..an anathematization is hard to get over, so perhaps this is why there is such a hard line.  
Sounds reasonable to me. The sacking may have just confirmed in the minds of the Greeks what was already a true schism. The sackind of one's home town is also hard to get over. But I think that the 1054 date is pretty good indicator of when this all happened.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Mickey on April 27, 2009, 02:36:56 PM
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.
You deny being ultramontanist?!? How very odd!


Ultramontanism is a religious philosophy within the Roman Catholic community that places strong emphasis on the prerogatives and powers of the Pope. In particular, ultramontanism may consist in asserting the superiority of Papal authority over the authority of local temporal or spiritual hierarchies (including the local bishop).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramontanism




Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2009, 03:26:20 PM
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.
You deny being ultramontanist?!? How very odd!


Ultramontanism is a religious philosophy within the Roman Catholic community that places strong emphasis on the prerogatives and powers of the Pope. In particular, ultramontanism may consist in asserting the superiority of Papal authority over the authority of local temporal or spiritual hierarchies (including the local bishop).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramontanism





How odd that you anti-catholics apply the term "montanist" to Catholics at all. It has nothing do with the Popes "Power of the Keys". Its anti-catholic rehtoric, plain and simple.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2009, 03:34:49 PM
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.

Orthodoxy remained aftter 1054 what it was before.  Rome exchanged Orthodoxy for the Ultramontanism of the Vatican:
Quote
Ultramontanism

A term used to denote integral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope, who, for the greater part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the mountains...As our present purpose is to state what Ultramontanism is, it is beside our scope to expound the Catholic doctrine on the power of the Church and, in particular, of the pope, whether in spiritual or temporal matters, these subjects being treated elsewhere under their respective titles. It is sufficient here to indicate what our adversaries mean by Ultramontanism. For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanis are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm\

Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.
Have you read Vatican I?

I've posted from Vatican II and the Code of Canon Law on this, here and elsewhere.  I don't have the time now.

Well then, it seems that the statement has nothing to do with what I asked.....hmmmmm. I wonder why ialmisry is being moderated? 

You asked:
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc? Correct me if I am wrong (And I am sure many of you will ;D), but wasn't St. Benedict canonized after 1054? By a post-schism Roman Catholic Pope? Isn't he an Orthodox Saint though? I am really not sure about all of this, and would like some help. God Bless!

Which makes sense only if you buy the Ultramontanist line.  In 1054 one of the pentarchy left the Orthodox Communion, or began to (in Antioch a date of 1717 is sometimes given), nothing more.  The Orthodox remained what we were before.  We haven't stopped.

I assumed your reference to 1054 had something to do with the Vatican.  What were you refering to?

How odd that you anti-catholics apply the term "montanist" to Catholics at all. It has nothing do with the Popes "Power of the Keys". Its anti-catholic rehtoric, plain and simple.
Calling the Vatican on its claims?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Mickey on April 27, 2009, 03:51:23 PM
How odd that you anti-catholics apply the term "montanist" to Catholics at all. It has nothing do with the Popes "Power of the Keys". Its anti-catholic rehtoric, plain and simple.
Please try to contain yourself. Ultramontanist is not synonymous with the heresy of montanism. They are different terms. As Isa has shown, the catholic encyclopedia agrees.

So before you begin accusing people of being "anti-catholic", please attempt to educate yourself on the terminology.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: scamandrius on April 27, 2009, 04:16:03 PM
Well then, it seems that the statement has nothing to do with what I asked.....hmmmmm. I wonder why ialmisry is being moderated?  

I've noticed that too.

Those sentiments are not necessary here.

To answer your question, PFN, you must remember that the Orthodox veneration of saints does not happen simply because he has been canonzied "officially" by any one church hierarch.  Veneration of certain saints happens organically over time.  A local congregation may start venerating a saint who died in their midst and over time, his/her veneration spreads over a larger geographic area until the whole church catholic begins to do likewise.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 27, 2009, 04:21:59 PM
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc? Correct me if I am wrong (And I am sure many of you will ;D), but wasn't St. Benedict canonized after 1054? By a post-schism Roman Catholic Pope?

It really seems as though you already have half a foot out the door.  If you are so thoroughly enamored with Roman Catholic devotions and saints, why don't you just go ahead and become Catholic already?  It just seems like you're inching over in increments anyway.  Just take the big leap!
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2009, 04:27:32 PM
How odd that you anti-catholics apply the term "montanist" to Catholics at all. It has nothing do with the Popes "Power of the Keys". Its anti-catholic rehtoric, plain and simple.
Please try to contain yourself. Ultramontanist is not synonymous with the heresy of montanism. They are different terms. As Isa has shown, the catholic encyclopedia agrees.

So before you begin accusing people of being "anti-catholic", please attempt to educate yourself on the terminology.

Thank you.
Perhaps you should educate yourself in common courtesy.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 27, 2009, 05:27:35 PM
Well, I step away, and the thread is completely off course. shocking :P Some have said that 1204 is another date spoken of in regards to where the line should be drawn between the two traditions. Is this a popular view?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 27, 2009, 05:31:06 PM
In 1054 one of the pentarchy left the Orthodox Communion, or began to (in Antioch a date of 1717 is sometimes given), nothing more.  The Orthodox remained what we were before.  We haven't stopped.
I know that we Orthodox haven't stopped. I was just wondering where the line is drawn in the two traditions being seperated. 1054? 1204? 1717?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: serb1389 on April 27, 2009, 06:26:10 PM
Well, I step away, and the thread is completely off course. shocking :P Some have said that 1204 is another date spoken of in regards to where the line should be drawn between the two traditions. Is this a popular view?

It just really depends on who you talk to and what your stance is.  You have to be educated about all of the dates and the historical particularities.  If you want a nice intro to things i'd be more than happy to send you my church history notes.  Just PM me. 
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2009, 07:01:01 PM
Well, I step away, and the thread is completely off course. shocking :P Some have said that 1204 is another date spoken of in regards to where the line should be drawn between the two traditions. Is this a popular view?

Especially in Greece.

A lot of dates can be provided.  If it wasn't for the drama of Cardinal Humbert, maybe 1054 wouldn't have been picked (the Pope of Rome had been struck from the diptychs a few decades earlier, when he sent a missive with the Filioque in it.  But that was done without fanfair).
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: lubeltri on April 27, 2009, 07:08:43 PM
Historians are quite right when they demonstrate that the schism didn't "happen" in 1054. It was a gradual estrangement of which 1054 was only a part.

As for post-1054 things, PoorFoolNicholas, Orthodox today already practice things post-1054. The Liturgy of Saint Tikhon and the Liturgy of Saint Gregory, celebrated by Western-rite Orthodox, are based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and the post-Council of Trent Roman-rite Mass, respectively. So the very liturgy some Orthodox pray are basically post-schism.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 27, 2009, 08:42:46 PM
It just really depends on who you talk to and what your stance is.  You have to be educated about all of the dates and the historical particularities.
That is what gets me stratching my head. Now please do not unleash the hounds: What about devotions within Catholicism that are post-schism? Now I am not saying lets bring em' all in, but where does one draw the line? Let's take the saints as well. Where do we draw the line when venerating Western(Catholic) saints? 1054? 1204? 1717? This confuses me. I know it is because of my limited knowledge of the history behind the schism of East and West. Let me give an example: Saint Francis of Assisi. While he lived after 1054, he did live within the window of 1204. What to do? 
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: serb1389 on April 27, 2009, 11:56:27 PM
It just really depends on who you talk to and what your stance is.  You have to be educated about all of the dates and the historical particularities.
That is what gets me stratching my head. Now please do not unleash the hounds: What about devotions within Catholicism that are post-schism? Now I am not saying lets bring em' all in, but where does one draw the line? Let's take the saints as well. Where do we draw the line when venerating Western(Catholic) saints? 1054? 1204? 1717? This confuses me. I know it is because of my limited knowledge of the history behind the schism of East and West. Let me give an example: Saint Francis of Assisi. While he lived after 1054, he did live within the window of 1204. What to do? 

How about even more complicated questions like "what about Origen"?  Because he was not declared a heretic until 400 years after his repose.  You have to realize that the mind of the church is united in this one fact:  an ecumenical council (in the case of Origen) or a common declaration of anathema (in the RC case) is the mind of the church on a whole selection of people who have chosen to schism.  Does that mean they don't have holy people who were close to christ?  Who can say for sure.  But the key problem is that we do not know how "orthodox" these saints were.  And also, you have to account that they all put themselves with a church which was heretical in many ways.  All of these things have to be balanced out before you can even ASK if they were orthodox (which is a huge category in and of itself). 
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Mickey on April 28, 2009, 08:36:44 AM
Perhaps you should educate yourself in common courtesy.
Apology accepted.  ;D
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 09:20:06 AM
How about even more complicated questions like "what about Origen"?  Because he was not declared a heretic until 400 years after his repose.  You have to realize that the mind of the church is united in this one fact:  an ecumenical council (in the case of Origen) or a common declaration of anathema (in the RC case) is the mind of the church on a whole selection of people who have chosen to schism.  Does that mean they don't have holy people who were close to christ?  Who can say for sure.  But the key problem is that we do not know how "orthodox" these saints were.  And also, you have to account that they all put themselves with a church which was heretical in many ways.  All of these things have to be balanced out before you can even ASK if they were orthodox (which is a huge category in and of itself).
Very good points indeed. But I guess it doesn't really get me any closer to understanding where the line is. I know that many cite 1054, but there is always a "but"; you know what I mean? And with 1204, I don't really know. 1717 is quite a new one for me, could someone elaborate on how 1717 affects the boundary between the Catholic and Orthodox traditions? Or is this not a very popular date, so to speak?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2009, 09:38:13 AM
Perhaps you should educate yourself in common courtesy.
Apology accepted.  ;D
::)
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2009, 09:41:38 AM
How about even more complicated questions like "what about Origen"?  Because he was not declared a heretic until 400 years after his repose.  You have to realize that the mind of the church is united in this one fact:  an ecumenical council (in the case of Origen) or a common declaration of anathema (in the RC case) is the mind of the church on a whole selection of people who have chosen to schism.  Does that mean they don't have holy people who were close to christ?  Who can say for sure.  But the key problem is that we do not know how "orthodox" these saints were.  And also, you have to account that they all put themselves with a church which was heretical in many ways.  All of these things have to be balanced out before you can even ASK if they were orthodox (which is a huge category in and of itself).
Very good points indeed. But I guess it doesn't really get me any closer to understanding where the line is. I know that many cite 1054, but there is always a "but"; you know what I mean? And with 1204, I don't really know. 1717 is quite a new one for me, could someone elaborate on how 1717 affects the boundary between the Catholic and Orthodox traditions? Or is this not a very popular date, so to speak?
I am not sure about 1717 but it is my understanding that some of the Patriarchates remained in communion with both Rome and Constantinople for some time after 1054. At least this is what I have read on the internet. Can anyone provide evidence for against this?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 28, 2009, 09:41:49 AM
It's not so simple as saying there's a break point at 1054.  It's particularly messy in the Patriarchate of Antioch.

To give one example though, here is this

Quote
in the church of Panayia Kera at Kritsa near Ayios Nikolaos in Lassithi, among the many Orthodox saints adorning the walls of this wonderfully decorated church of about 1300 appears a figure of a tonsured friar, dressed in the garb of the Franciscans, clearly labeled as St. Francis. This saint, canonized by the pope in the late 1220's, that is to say almost two centuries after the schism between the Eastern and Western churches, is a total anomaly within an Orthodox place of worship. What does this mean? Obviously, the intrusion of this Latin saint within an Orthodox iconographic program shows us that the separation between Latin and Orthodox was by no means complete. What could have happened here? Was the donor the product of a mixed marriage? Was this church, which parenthetically had three naves, used by Greeks and Latins alike because there was no other Latin church or a Latin priest available in the area?

A similar kind of rapprochement between Orthodox and Latin religious practices can be seen in the religious rituals that were instituted by the Venetians in the city of Candia/Herakleion. On the major feast days of the Church or at times when state celebrations were staged the whole population was invited to participate in processions that started from the Latin cathedral, moved through the town and the piazza San Marco to end in front of the ducal palace and then back to the cathedral. As the focal point of these processions was the parade of the relics of St. Titus, Byzantine icons, and that flags and standards of the Republic, Greeks and Latins alike must have felt the pressure to participate in order to venerate these treasures. At the same time it is probable that the procession of the icons and relics was a weekly custom of Byzantine Chandax/Herakleion that the Venetians incorporated into the ceremonial of their capital city. Similar icon processions are known from Constantinople and Thebes in the twelfth century. One wonders if the Byzantine customs of icon veneration that the Venetians encountered on Crete as well as Constantinople and other Byzantine cities were the impetus that prompted them to incorporate the cult of the Byzantine icon of the Madonna Nicopeia, an icon that they took from the Byzantines during the siege of Constantinople in 1204, into their ceremonial in the basilica of San Marco in Venice. Although hard to prove this enticing theory places Crete in the core of the formation of Venetian culture.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spnorton/Platsis%20web%20page.htm
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 09:46:03 AM
It's not so simple as saying there's a break point at 1054.  It's particularly messy in the Patriarchate of Antioch.

To give one example though, here is this

Quote
in the church of Panayia Kera at Kritsa near Ayios Nikolaos in Lassithi, among the many Orthodox saints adorning the walls of this wonderfully decorated church of about 1300 appears a figure of a tonsured friar, dressed in the garb of the Franciscans, clearly labeled as St. Francis. This saint, canonized by the pope in the late 1220's, that is to say almost two centuries after the schism between the Eastern and Western churches, is a total anomaly within an Orthodox place of worship. What does this mean? Obviously, the intrusion of this Latin saint within an Orthodox iconographic program shows us that the separation between Latin and Orthodox was by no means complete. What could have happened here? Was the donor the product of a mixed marriage? Was this church, which parenthetically had three naves, used by Greeks and Latins alike because there was no other Latin church or a Latin priest available in the area?

A similar kind of rapprochement between Orthodox and Latin religious practices can be seen in the religious rituals that were instituted by the Venetians in the city of Candia/Herakleion. On the major feast days of the Church or at times when state celebrations were staged the whole population was invited to participate in processions that started from the Latin cathedral, moved through the town and the piazza San Marco to end in front of the ducal palace and then back to the cathedral. As the focal point of these processions was the parade of the relics of St. Titus, Byzantine icons, and that flags and standards of the Republic, Greeks and Latins alike must have felt the pressure to participate in order to venerate these treasures. At the same time it is probable that the procession of the icons and relics was a weekly custom of Byzantine Chandax/Herakleion that the Venetians incorporated into the ceremonial of their capital city. Similar icon processions are known from Constantinople and Thebes in the twelfth century. One wonders if the Byzantine customs of icon veneration that the Venetians encountered on Crete as well as Constantinople and other Byzantine cities were the impetus that prompted them to incorporate the cult of the Byzantine icon of the Madonna Nicopeia, an icon that they took from the Byzantines during the siege of Constantinople in 1204, into their ceremonial in the basilica of San Marco in Venice. Although hard to prove this enticing theory places Crete in the core of the formation of Venetian culture.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spnorton/Platsis%20web%20page.htm
Interesting. Can anyone elaborate on the schism taking longer with the Antiochians, and why?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 10:31:15 AM
*BUMP*
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 11:42:51 AM
Perhaps I can ask the question this way:
When did the Roman Catholic Tradition stop being Orthodox Tradition? 1054? 1204? 1453? 1717?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2009, 11:45:19 AM
Perhaps I can ask the question this way:
When did the Roman Catholic Tradition stop being Orthodox Tradition? 1054? 1204? 1453? 1717?
That is a great question because the west believed in Papal Primacy, the filioque, etc. before the schism.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Mickey on April 28, 2009, 11:49:59 AM
Perhaps I can ask the question this way:
When did the Roman Catholic Tradition stop being Orthodox Tradition? 1054? 1204? 1453? 1717?
I always thought it was a gradual and incremental process beginning (unofficially) before 1054.  ???
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Douglas on April 28, 2009, 11:51:59 AM
Would you mind providing some specific dates along with corresponding evidence supporting those dates relating to when papal primacy, the filioque and the immaculate conception were "believed in" by the west?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 11:52:12 AM
I always thought it was a gradual and incremental process beginning (unofficially) before 1054.  ???
Then when? That is what I can't seem to tack down. Where do our traditions finally, and authoritatively end?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on April 28, 2009, 11:52:14 AM
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc?
Umm...no. In fact, one of our most cherished saints in the Ozarks is St. John Kucharov, who lived in the 19th and 20th c. A.D. He was an apostle to Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas, and became the first martyr of the Bolshevik Revolution. We venerate him weekly in church, and many of us daily at home.

The answer is simple: Regardless of what Rome does, we're going to be the Body of Christ. If others choose not to be a part of that body, it's their loss, but it doesn't affect what we do. We have always canonized saints we found to exhibit Christ in extraordinary way, in 1054 just as in 54, and we will continue to do so in 2054, 3054, and beyond.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 11:52:36 AM
Would you mind providing some specific dates along with corresponding evidence supporting those dates relating to when papal primacy, the filioque and the immaculate conception were "believed in" by the west?
That would be nice.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on April 28, 2009, 11:53:42 AM
I always thought it was a gradual and incremental process beginning (unofficially) before 1054.  ???
Then when? That is what I can't seem to tack down. Where do our traditions finally, and authoritatively end?
When we no longer need to pray.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 11:54:58 AM
Umm...no. In fact, one of our most cherished saints in the Ozarks is St. John Kucharov, who lived in the 19th and 20th c. A.D. He was an apostle to Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas, and became the first martyr of the Bolshevik Revolution. We venerate him weekly in church, and many of us daily at home.

The answer is simple: Regardless of what Rome does, we're going to be the Body of Christ. If others choose not to be a part of that body, it's their loss, but it doesn't affect what we do. We have always canonized saints we found to exhibit Christ in extraordinary way, in 1054 just as in 54, and we will continue to do so in 2054, 3054, and beyond.

Quote
Perhaps I can ask the question this way:
When did the Roman Catholic Tradition stop being Orthodox Tradition? 1054? 1204? 1453? 1717?

I , perhaps, have confused some with my previous question. Sorry about that. My amended questions above should clear that up. God Bless.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Mickey on April 28, 2009, 12:01:51 PM
Then when? That is what I can't seem to tack down. Where do our traditions finally, and authoritatively end?
Why do you need to "tack down" the date? For me, it is analogous to pulling multiple threads out of the sweater until the entire sweater almost falls apart. One thread is the Filioque--another thread is the mutual excommunications--another thread is the sack of Constantinople--another thread is the IC (1854)--another thread is infallibility (1870)......etc......
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on April 28, 2009, 12:03:04 PM
Perhaps I can ask the question this way:
When did the Roman Catholic Tradition stop being Orthodox Tradition? 1054? 1204? 1453? 1717?
Okay, that's a little clearer. Well, it's hard to say exactly. 1054 is a pretty good start, since the mutual excommunications took place that year, but even then it was not certain that Rome would begin to form another religion. Many historians believe that the two could have been re-united if circumstances would have allowed it, but bitter feelings on both sides, as well as an ever-widening list of differences between the various rites (at the time there were many more than just Latin and Byzantine), perhaps caused a rift so large it could not be repaired. So the Schism really began about the time of the Chalcedonian Council, when West and Oriental began to separate from the East, and it continues with Latin innovations such as the Immaculate Conception.

So the story is just too big to be told with one date, but if we have to pick a date, 1054 is certainly adequate.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 12:04:00 PM
Why do you need to "tack down" dates?
Not "dates", but THE DATE.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Mickey on April 28, 2009, 12:06:25 PM
Not "dates", but THE DATE.
Why do you need to tack down the date?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 12:08:08 PM
Okay, that's a little clearer. Well, it's hard to say exactly. 1054 is a pretty good start, since the mutual excommunications took place that year, but even then it was not certain that Rome would begin to form another religion. Many historians believe that the two could have been re-united if circumstances would have allowed it, but bitter feelings on both sides, as well as an ever-widening list of differences between the various rites (at the time there were many more than just Latin and Byzantine), perhaps caused a rift so large it could not be repaired. So the Schism really began about the time of the Chalcedonian Council, when West and Oriental began to separate from the East, and it continues with Latin innovations such as the Immaculate Conception.

So the story is just too big to be told with one date, but if we have to pick a date, 1054 is certainly adequate.
I have read many Orthodox articles regarding 1054 not being the Great Schism that everyone chalks it up to be. It was just an excommunication of certain "individuals", not certain Patriachates. This would certainly muddy the waters for me. To tie this in to my first question: How does this effect the saints we venerate? Such as Saint Francis of Assisi (I am only using him as a generic example)?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on April 28, 2009, 12:08:12 PM
Why do you need to "tack down" dates?
Not "dates", but THE DATE.
Sorry. Despite what you learned in your high school history class, the course of human events just isn't that tidy. There's not going to be "the date." Instead, we have what I find much more interesting, an entire series of events that intertwine most of the Mediterranean world for centuries. History is not about facts; it's about relationships.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 12:09:30 PM
Why do you need to tack down the date?
Is this a serious question? Because I wish to know more about the history of Orthodoxy, and this is a fundamental piece of Orthodoxy history.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 12:11:25 PM
History is not about facts; it's about relationships.
Ok, thanks. Could you then help me understand the crucial relationships that I am missing here? Especially in regards to the two traditions, and their boundaries?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Douglas on April 28, 2009, 12:11:58 PM
Why do you need to "tack down" dates?
Not "dates", but THE DATE.
Sorry. Despite what you learned in your high school history class, the course of human events just isn't that tidy. There's not going to be "the date." Instead, we have what I find much more interesting, an entire series of events that intertwine most of the Mediterranean world for centuries. History is not about facts; it's about relationships.

Very well phrased.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Mickey on April 28, 2009, 12:12:20 PM
Is this a serious question? Because I wish to know more about the history of Orthodoxy, and this is a fundamental piece of Orthodoxy history.
I was going to respond to this, but ytterbiumanalyst already answered it.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 28, 2009, 12:21:04 PM
Interesting. Can anyone elaborate on the schism taking longer with the Antiochians, and why?

Read the history of the Melkites. 

http://phoenicia.org/greek_melkite_catholic.html

Intercommunion still happens there, but concelebration does not.  I'm sure there are other similar instances.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on April 28, 2009, 12:24:00 PM
Why do you need to "tack down" dates?
Not "dates", but THE DATE.
Sorry. Despite what you learned in your high school history class, the course of human events just isn't that tidy. There's not going to be "the date." Instead, we have what I find much more interesting, an entire series of events that intertwine most of the Mediterranean world for centuries. History is not about facts; it's about relationships.
So much for playing Jeopardy.  I can just hear the discussion unravel;  

"Sorry Alex, you've presented these human events too tidily.  I cannot see the relationship involved ergo your 'facts' are inadequate"
"Sir, the question is regarding Jan the 20th being what important date for Americans?  A fact that just recently occurred."
"Sorry.  History is not about facts; it's about relationships."
"Well, sir, perhaps you should be on Dr. Phil then instead of trying to play Jeopardy."  
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 12:27:47 PM
So much for playing Jeopardy.  I can just hear the discussion unravel;  

"Sorry Alex, you've presented these human events too tidily.  I cannot see the relationship involved ergo your 'facts' are inadequate"
"Sir, the question is regarding Jan the 20th being what important date for Americans?  A fact that just recently occurred."
"Sorry.  History is not about facts; it's about relationships."
"Well, sir, perhaps you should be on Dr. Phil then instead of trying to play Jeopardy."  
He makes a very good point.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2009, 12:29:35 PM
Why do you need to "tack down" dates?
Not "dates", but THE DATE.
Sorry. Despite what you learned in your high school history class, the course of human events just isn't that tidy. There's not going to be "the date." Instead, we have what I find much more interesting, an entire series of events that intertwine most of the Mediterranean world for centuries. History is not about facts; it's about relationships.
So when was the relationship over?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 12:31:26 PM
So when was the relationship over?
Exactly. And this seems to be where the gray area is. Is there even a "kind-of-sort-of" date, perhaps?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2009, 12:35:07 PM
So when was the relationship over?
Exactly. And this seems to be where the gray area is. Is there even a "kind-of-sort-of" date, perhaps?
I have no idea. The break has been treated in many different ways over the past one thousand years. Sometimes that treatment did not include treating Catholic as graceless heretics.  ;D
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
Is there even a "kind-of-sort-of" date, perhaps?
I have no idea. The break has been treated in many different ways over the past one thousand years. Sometimes that treatment did not include treating Catholic as graceless heretics.  ;D
Ah, I see. Hmmmmm. Care to elaborate?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2009, 12:41:25 PM
Is there even a "kind-of-sort-of" date, perhaps?
I have no idea. The break has been treated in many different ways over the past one thousand years. Sometimes that treatment did not include treating Catholic as graceless heretics.  ;D
Ah, I see. Hmmmmm. Care to elaborate?
I don't have any of the information at my finger tips but I have heard of stories in places were Catholic priests were hearing confessions of Eastern Orthodox Christians with the approval of the Orthodox there. There are other stories but, as I said, I don't have them at my finger tips. I think some of them are in Met. Ware's book, The Orthodox Church. I will do some research tonight and try to provide some sources.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 28, 2009, 02:26:49 PM
Is there even a "kind-of-sort-of" date, perhaps?
I have no idea. The break has been treated in many different ways over the past one thousand years. Sometimes that treatment did not include treating Catholic as graceless heretics.  ;D
Ah, I see. Hmmmmm. Care to elaborate?

The entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: witega on April 28, 2009, 02:46:54 PM
Okay, that's a little clearer. Well, it's hard to say exactly. 1054 is a pretty good start, since the mutual excommunications took place that year, but even then it was not certain that Rome would begin to form another religion. Many historians believe that the two could have been re-united if circumstances would have allowed it, but bitter feelings on both sides, as well as an ever-widening list of differences between the various rites (at the time there were many more than just Latin and Byzantine), perhaps caused a rift so large it could not be repaired. So the Schism really began about the time of the Chalcedonian Council, when West and Oriental began to separate from the East, and it continues with Latin innovations such as the Immaculate Conception.

So the story is just too big to be told with one date, but if we have to pick a date, 1054 is certainly adequate.
I have read many Orthodox articles regarding 1054 not being the Great Schism that everyone chalks it up to be. It was just an excommunication of certain "individuals", not certain Patriachates. This would certainly muddy the waters for me. To tie this in to my first question: How does this effect the saints we venerate? Such as Saint Francis of Assisi (I am only using him as a generic example)?

Let's try an anology:
John and Susan get married in 1980. For the first 10 years they seem to have a good strong marriage. But then strains start to appear. In 1990, John loses his job, he starts drinking more, they are both under stress and there are several huge fights. However, they hang on in 1991, John gets a new job. The stress is reduced and things improve. But they aren't all the way back. John's new job has him working longer hours. Susan has more free time and over the next couple of years she takes up new activities that don't include John. As she spends more time on them and with the new friends associated with them, she's home less even John is not working. They are arguing more again. In 1995 things reach an explosive head, Susan leaves the house and goes to stay with a friend for 2 weeks. Eventually she comes home though, they reconcile and struggle on together for another year. Then there's another explosion and this time John storms out and files divorce papers in 1996. Again, two weeks later they meet for dinner, they try to reconcile, decide to see a councillor, maybe go on a trip together to try to work things out. The trip goes okay and John drops the divorce papers. But both are still feeling dissatisfied. Finally in 1997 they agree to a separation. Several times during the separation they meet, they have a nice time together, maybe even sleep together. But they also fight and neither can summon the will to get back together. So John re-files the divorce papers. Even then, they keep meeting occasionally talking, they both want to avoid divorce but they just can't seem to stay around each other more than 24 hours without fighting. Finally in 1998, the divorce becomes final.  Even then, two years later, they meet at the party of a mutal friend, they have a great conversation, end up going home together. Things are great for week or two. And then there's another fight.

At what point did the two divorce? 1998. But roots of the divorce go much further back than that, you could as accurately say that the marriage, as a functioning relationship ended in in 1997 or 1996. And the relationship didn't completely end in 1998. Part linger, giving us 2000.

So let's say Susan took up pottery in 1991. Is that activity something that contributed to the divorce? Or to the marriage? Maybe, the time on her own, satisfying a creative impulse, helped strengthen her to deal with the troubles in her marriage and so helped her continue as long as she did; or maybe it was an escape, a part of her life she could shut John out of and thus a contributed to the divorce.

So 1054, the Roman delegate excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and, by extension, anyone who remained in communion with him. Like John & Susan's divorce decree in 1998 that gives us a clear, formal date. But it doesn't mean that the West was perfectly Orthodox until 1054 and completely un-Orthodox (or heretical) after 1054. There was build-up. The issues that would eventually separate Rome from the Church started well before 1054, that's simply the date they reached a point that they could no longer be overlooked or worked around; and after 1054 Rome still retained many of the good things it had from the Church, but it was no longer a part of it.

Therefore, just because a practice was present in the West prior to 1054, doesn't make it Orthodox. Like Susan's pottery, one would have to examine it in light of Orthodoxy to see if it was a valid expression of Orthodoxy, or a symptom of the growing heterodoxy which would eventually lead Rome out of the Church. Practices after 1054 are even more problematic. Roman Catholics still believed many correct things (far more than, say, Muslims or Buddhists), and therefore they might develop useful thoughts or practices based on those correct things and without too much warping by the incorrect things. Or they might come up with a good idea that was also thoroughly mixed with their heterodox approach. It requires study, discernment, and, most importantly, submission to the Mind of the Church which was preserved in Orthodoxy to tell which was which (which is why, though I don't agree with them, I understand those who just take a blanket knee-jerk reaction of 'it's Western, avoid it'; they avoid the risk).

Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Mickey on April 28, 2009, 02:56:55 PM
Let's try an anology:
John and Susan get married in 1980....
Great post!  :)
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 28, 2009, 02:57:57 PM
So when was the relationship over?

Well, the relationship is over as of right now, so maybe we can just settle for that!
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2009, 03:11:32 PM
So when was the relationship over?

Well, the relationship is over as of right now, so maybe we can just settle for that!
True. There isn't much practical significance in trying to figure out when the schism is finalized expect for the purpose of determing the different ways that the Eastern Orthodox Church has dealt with Catholics over the years.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 04:33:47 PM
Okay, that's a little clearer. Well, it's hard to say exactly. 1054 is a pretty good start, since the mutual excommunications took place that year, but even then it was not certain that Rome would begin to form another religion. Many historians believe that the two could have been re-united if circumstances would have allowed it, but bitter feelings on both sides, as well as an ever-widening list of differences between the various rites (at the time there were many more than just Latin and Byzantine), perhaps caused a rift so large it could not be repaired. So the Schism really began about the time of the Chalcedonian Council, when West and Oriental began to separate from the East, and it continues with Latin innovations such as the Immaculate Conception.

So the story is just too big to be told with one date, but if we have to pick a date, 1054 is certainly adequate.
I have read many Orthodox articles regarding 1054 not being the Great Schism that everyone chalks it up to be. It was just an excommunication of certain "individuals", not certain Patriachates. This would certainly muddy the waters for me. To tie this in to my first question: How does this effect the saints we venerate? Such as Saint Francis of Assisi (I am only using him as a generic example)?

Let's try an anology:
John and Susan get married in 1980. For the first 10 years they seem to have a good strong marriage. But then strains start to appear. In 1990, John loses his job, he starts drinking more, they are both under stress and there are several huge fights. However, they hang on in 1991, John gets a new job. The stress is reduced and things improve. But they aren't all the way back. John's new job has him working longer hours. Susan has more free time and over the next couple of years she takes up new activities that don't include John. As she spends more time on them and with the new friends associated with them, she's home less even John is not working. They are arguing more again. In 1995 things reach an explosive head, Susan leaves the house and goes to stay with a friend for 2 weeks. Eventually she comes home though, they reconcile and struggle on together for another year. Then there's another explosion and this time John storms out and files divorce papers in 1996. Again, two weeks later they meet for dinner, they try to reconcile, decide to see a councillor, maybe go on a trip together to try to work things out. The trip goes okay and John drops the divorce papers. But both are still feeling dissatisfied. Finally in 1997 they agree to a separation. Several times during the separation they meet, they have a nice time together, maybe even sleep together. But they also fight and neither can summon the will to get back together. So John re-files the divorce papers. Even then, they keep meeting occasionally talking, they both want to avoid divorce but they just can't seem to stay around each other more than 24 hours without fighting. Finally in 1998, the divorce becomes final.  Even then, two years later, they meet at the party of a mutal friend, they have a great conversation, end up going home together. Things are great for week or two. And then there's another fight.

At what point did the two divorce? 1998. But roots of the divorce go much further back than that, you could as accurately say that the marriage, as a functioning relationship ended in in 1997 or 1996. And the relationship didn't completely end in 1998. Part linger, giving us 2000.

So let's say Susan took up pottery in 1991. Is that activity something that contributed to the divorce? Or to the marriage? Maybe, the time on her own, satisfying a creative impulse, helped strengthen her to deal with the troubles in her marriage and so helped her continue as long as she did; or maybe it was an escape, a part of her life she could shut John out of and thus a contributed to the divorce.

So 1054, the Roman delegate excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and, by extension, anyone who remained in communion with him. Like John & Susan's divorce decree in 1998 that gives us a clear, formal date. But it doesn't mean that the West was perfectly Orthodox until 1054 and completely un-Orthodox (or heretical) after 1054. There was build-up. The issues that would eventually separate Rome from the Church started well before 1054, that's simply the date they reached a point that they could no longer be overlooked or worked around; and after 1054 Rome still retained many of the good things it had from the Church, but it was no longer a part of it.

Therefore, just because a practice was present in the West prior to 1054, doesn't make it Orthodox. Like Susan's pottery, one would have to examine it in light of Orthodoxy to see if it was a valid expression of Orthodoxy, or a symptom of the growing heterodoxy which would eventually lead Rome out of the Church. Practices after 1054 are even more problematic. Roman Catholics still believed many correct things (far more than, say, Muslims or Buddhists), and therefore they might develop useful thoughts or practices based on those correct things and without too much warping by the incorrect things. Or they might come up with a good idea that was also thoroughly mixed with their heterodox approach. It requires study, discernment, and, most importantly, submission to the Mind of the Church which was preserved in Orthodoxy to tell which was which (which is why, though I don't agree with them, I understand those who just take a blanket knee-jerk reaction of 'it's Western, avoid it'; they avoid the risk).
That was excellent. Thank you so much. I would like to comment, though. Even though there were problems in the marriage, was it not still a marriage? This is where my confusion comes in. Yes there were problems before, and after, 1054, but where do we say, definitively, that the two traditions are forever separated/divided? Why do some project it to 1204, or 1453, or 1717? Could someone also point me in the direction of some info on 1717? I have found plenty regarding 1204, and 1453, but nothing on 1717. Thanks, and God Bless!
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 28, 2009, 04:58:21 PM
So when was the relationship over?

Well, the relationship is over as of right now, so maybe we can just settle for that!

The excommunications were rescinded, though communion not restored, so I'm not sure this is even quite that simple.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: witega on April 28, 2009, 05:04:21 PM
That was excellent. Thank you so much. I would like to comment, though. Even though there were problems in the marriage, was it not still a marriage? This is where my confusion comes in. Yes there were problems before, and after, 1054, but where do we say, definitively, that the two traditions are forever separated/divided? Why do some project it to 1204, or 1453, or 1717? Could someone also point me in the direction of some info on 1717? I have found plenty regarding 1204, and 1453, but nothing on 1717. Thanks, and God Bless!

Well, like any analogy, it can only be pressed so far. The only actual marriage here was the one between The Church and Christ, not between East and West. I use 1054 because that is the date that Rome itself told the rest of the Church "If you don't accept my errors (particularly papalism), we are no longer One Church". Before that, the East could overlook the growing errors in the West or remonstrate with them in the hope of correcting them (both strategies pursued by various saints and hieararchies at various times), but after that it was Rome stating they were no longer part of the Church (obviously they defined it otherwise).

In other words, part of the confusion comes because the East did not eject the West from the Church. The West took itself out. Various portions of the East may have tried to maintain the relationship for longer periods than others which would give a different date 'in practice' for Constantinople vs. Antioch. And there were multiple attempts at rapprochement initiated on one side or the other which further muddy the waters. But 1054 is Rome's date for when they left.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 28, 2009, 05:40:41 PM
That was excellent. Thank you so much. I would like to comment, though. Even though there were problems in the marriage, was it not still a marriage? This is where my confusion comes in. Yes there were problems before, and after, 1054, but where do we say, definitively, that the two traditions are forever separated/divided? Why do some project it to 1204, or 1453, or 1717? Could someone also point me in the direction of some info on 1717? I have found plenty regarding 1204, and 1453, but nothing on 1717. Thanks, and God Bless!

Well, like any analogy, it can only be pressed so far. The only actual marriage here was the one between The Church and Christ, not between East and West. I use 1054 because that is the date that Rome itself told the rest of the Church "If you don't accept my errors (particularly papalism), we are no longer One Church". Before that, the East could overlook the growing errors in the West or remonstrate with them in the hope of correcting them (both strategies pursued by various saints and hieararchies at various times), but after that it was Rome stating they were no longer part of the Church (obviously they defined it otherwise).

In other words, part of the confusion comes because the East did not eject the West from the Church. The West took itself out. Various portions of the East may have tried to maintain the relationship for longer periods than others which would give a different date 'in practice' for Constantinople vs. Antioch. And there were multiple attempts at rapprochement initiated on one side or the other which further muddy the waters. But 1054 is Rome's date for when they left.
I doubt highly that they would say that 1054 is when they "left", but I get what you are saying. These different dates "in practice", could you explain some of them? Thanks.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 28, 2009, 06:01:01 PM
The excommunications were rescinded, though communion not restored, so I'm not sure this is even quite that simple.

Well, obviously the popular conscience of neither apostolic church excepted those recensions, as the lack of communion testifies to.  So what we really had was one Eastern Patriarch who thought that he could revise history without the consent of the Church.  While the intention was good, it did not change anything.  The excommunications still happened, rescinded or not, and the effects of them remain in place.  So practically speaking, until communion is restored, the anathemas remain in action.

While we are on the topic of Roman Catholic devotions, I know that the Orthodox find the Catholic trend in venerating isolated body parts of Christ and the Theotokos to be strange and inappropriate.  But I was wondering, if this is so wrong, then why do we pray to the Cross of the Lord?  This seems to be in the same category of strangeness, as two piece of wood to comprise a person in any real sense.  How can the Life Giving Cross of the Lord hear our prayer and grant requests?  It seems very odd and unOrthodox to me.

Or is this just another theological error in popular Russian devotion?  The Jordanville Prayer Book has these prayers, if you would like me to type them out.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 28, 2009, 06:46:54 PM
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc?

In holy Ireland the date could be set at 1172.

The ancient rites of Ireland, Scotland, Wales were entirely and utterly destroyed by the close of the 12th century.  In Ireland this was accomplished at the insistence of the Papal Legate of Pope Adrian at the Synod of Cashel in 1172 AD and backed up by the invading Anglo-Norman army.  Continental Catholicism and the Anglo-Sarum Rite were imposed on Ireland in 1172.   All Irish bishops were replaced by Anglo-Norman bishops.  The remaining forms of the ancient ways of Irish monasticism were completely erased.   From 1172 onwards all diversity was crushed and it had to be only Rome's way.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: LBK on April 28, 2009, 07:30:56 PM
While we are on the topic of Roman Catholic devotions, I know that the Orthodox find the Catholic trend in venerating isolated body parts of Christ and the Theotokos to be strange and inappropriate.  But I was wondering, if this is so wrong, then why do we pray to the Cross of the Lord?  This seems to be in the same category of strangeness, as two piece of wood to comprise a person in any real sense.  How can the Life Giving Cross of the Lord hear our prayer and grant requests?  It seems very odd and unOrthodox to me.

Or is this just another theological error in popular Russian devotion?  The Jordanville Prayer Book has these prayers, if you would like me to type them out.

A look at the vigil text for the feasts of the Veneration of the Cross (3rd Sunday of Great Lent), and the Exaltation of the Cross (September 14) make the Orthodox Church's position quite clear. Both feasts are "universal" feasts of the Church, i.e. are celebrated by all local Orthodox churches, not just the Russian. The church also has feasts for various icons of the Mother of God, for the Mandylion of Christ, the veneration of the chains of Apostle Peter, the Deposition of the belt of the Mother of God, etc. These items became holy through the actions of those who were themselves holy, and are treated with the same honour and reverence as relics and icons.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 28, 2009, 09:20:03 PM
Quote
Well, obviously the popular conscience of neither apostolic church excepted those recensions, as the lack of communion testifies to.

On the Catholic side, that's not the case.  Communion is open to Orthodox Christians, and I'm sure they would gladly concelebrate if given the chance.  Read the Melkite initiative.

On the Orthodox side the story is mixed, it hasn't entered the popular conscience except for where it has.  Two of the examples are ones I cited.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: lubeltri on April 28, 2009, 09:55:47 PM
Quote
Well, obviously the popular conscience of neither apostolic church excepted those recensions, as the lack of communion testifies to.

On the Catholic side, that's not the case.  Communion is open to Orthodox Christians, and I'm sure they would gladly concelebrate if given the chance.  Read the Melkite initiative.

On the Orthodox side the story is mixed, it hasn't entered the popular conscience except for where it has.  Two of the examples are ones I cited.

Things will continue as they are since there is no consistent Orthodox position on this. That's one of the reasons the Pope is so keen on visiting Moscow---making accords with the EP isn't even nearly enough. No patriarchate can speak for Orthodoxy, and endless rivalries between churches make a pan-Orthodox synod not likely anytime soon.

In some jurisdictions, the Supreme Pontiff is referred to as "Your Holiness, beloved brother in the Lord" and among the "venerable men of the Church,"* while in others he is seen as an unbaptized heresiarch layman in fancy dress.

Disagreements over the Catholic Church and its influence have caused a number of schisms in Orthodoxy over the past few centuries. Any breaking of the existing entrenchment in ecumenical dialogue will require divine intervention.


*http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=6826
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: witega on April 29, 2009, 01:28:42 AM
I doubt highly that they would say that 1054 is when they "left", but I get what you are saying. These different dates "in practice", could you explain some of them? Thanks.

Of course they don't say they left, schismatics never do. But Rome also still thinks they are the Church and we are the schismatics. But 1054 is when Rome voluntarily cut itself off from the communion with those who did not accept their heretical view of primacy.

As to the specifics of your question, post-schism history isn't really my thing. I know Bishop Kallistos has a brief treatment of this in 'The Orthodox Church' as, iirc, does Jaroslav Pelikan in his history of the East. I believe Antioch for a time attempted to maintain communion with both Rome and the other Orthodox but eventually had to admit it wasn't going to work.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Apostolos on April 29, 2009, 06:27:14 AM
Well, I step away, and the thread is completely off course. shocking :P Some have said that 1204 is another date spoken of in regards to where the line should be drawn between the two traditions. Is this a popular view?

Especially in Greece.

A lot of dates can be provided.  If it wasn't for the drama of Cardinal Humbert, maybe 1054 wouldn't have been picked (the Pope of Rome had been struck from the diptychs a few decades earlier, when he sent a missive with the Filioque in it.  But that was done without fanfair).
...or 1305. I remember back in '95-'96, when the very famous (in Catalonia) Catalan singer Josep Tero visited Athos, he was offended by the Archontaris of a Monastery (Vatopaidi) because the latter refused to receive him due to his Catalan ethnicity. Tero asked and found out that in the Monasteries of Athos, Catalonia is synonymous to evil and Catalans are considered a villainous band of thieves. It all began in 1305 when the Catalans of the Catalan Company of the East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Company), pillaged and plundered Athos and killed many monks. In '03 Tero with the Catalan poet and linguist Carles Duarte (http://www.escriptors.cat/autors/duartec/pagina.php?id_sec=439) made a formal proposal to the autonomous Catalan Parliament to put to the vote a motion of a formal apology for the Catalan conduct in the 14th century. To show their unfeigned feelings the Catalan Parliament voted solidly for the financial support of the gentrification of a 16th century oil storage house in Vatopaidi.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 29, 2009, 08:57:48 AM
So, what many are saying, is that 1054 is often touted as the end of Catholic tradition being Orthodox, but it seems that it is the furthest from the truth. Interesting.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 29, 2009, 09:15:10 AM
I have just started reading another article given to me by serb, and it posits that the schism was in 1484. Thoughts? Is this a common view, or a personal opinion?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: lubeltri on April 29, 2009, 09:36:45 AM
I have just started reading another article given to me by serb, and it posits that the schism was in 1484. Thoughts? Is this a common view, or a personal opinion?

Fairly common, especially among historians. The estrangement was sealed or institutionalized, you could say, by the Ottoman Turks, who chose the Patriarch of Constantinople and did not desire any reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christendom. Ironically, the threat of the Turks was largely the impetus for reconciliation efforts earlier in the 15th century. But once Constantinople fell and the Turks were in control of New Rome and of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, things changed.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 29, 2009, 10:50:48 AM
I guess the question arises now of why doesn't the Orthodox Church recognize Catholic Tradition as Orthodox up to the date of 1484?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2009, 11:09:15 AM
I guess the question arises now of why doesn't the Orthodox Church recognize Catholic Tradition as Orthodox up to the date of 1484?
Or do they? Or did they?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 29, 2009, 11:18:31 AM
Or do they? Or did they?
That would be the question. Anyone know?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 29, 2009, 12:08:17 PM
I think what matters is what the Magisterium teaches, and not what individuals believe.  That applies on several fronts.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 29, 2009, 12:14:58 PM
Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2009, 12:20:57 PM
I think what matters is what the Magisterium teaches, and not what individuals believe.  That applies on several fronts.
Agreed
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 29, 2009, 01:04:19 PM
Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.

Clearly it has in places beyond that date.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 29, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.

Clearly it has in places beyond that date.
Could you give me some info. Or have you already? God Bless!
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 29, 2009, 01:47:03 PM
Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.

Clearly it has in places beyond that date.
Could you give me some info. Or have you already? God Bless!

I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen.  Consider the implications of that.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2009, 02:20:21 PM
Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.

Clearly it has in places beyond that date.
Could you give me some info. Or have you already? God Bless!

I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen.  Consider the implications of that.
Hey, I really like your icon of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: NorthernPines on April 29, 2009, 03:26:43 PM
I always thought it was a gradual and incremental process beginning (unofficially) before 1054.  ???
Then when? That is what I can't seem to tack down. Where do our traditions finally, and authoritatively end?


I haven't read the whole thread, but what I gather from my reading and personal study there really is no hard line date. I've always read and been told that the 1054AD date is a way to tidy up Church history just so there is SOME sort of official moment in time we can point to. But From what I gather, most historians have said or written that both East and West, on the parish level were still "in communion" well after that date, despite the mutual excommunications, especially in the middle east. I'm not a professional historian or anything, but that's what I've read and how I understand this issue. IMO 1204AD is probably a better date for our split on a practical real world level. I think once those events transpired, the East looked West and said, "woah, who are these people, they're not with us because they just sacked the city"! (not saying the East was right or wrong, or the West was right or wrong, only that that was probably how most in the East felt at that moment) So in reality I think that is probably the real moment of the split, the 1054AD is "official" but I doubt it affected very many Christians or churches...it was more of a heirachical event at that point I think. 1204AD brought it down to our level (by that I mean us on the parish level). Again, this is what I've read and have been told and I can't really point to any one source, but it makes sense to me. More sense than the idea one morning we're united and the next we're not. it might work like that NOW with modern inventions like telephones, and internet, but I find that hard to believe it happened that way 1000 years ago.

However personally, I still suspect even after 1204, there may have been some sort of union in some locals, I'm not sure there was a complete and truly finalized break between East and West until the time of St. Mark of Ephesus and those events. At least up until then, I think there was "hope" one side or the other would "come home" as it were.....but I I think after florence, both East and West looked at each other and didn't really recognize their tradition in the other side anymore. So by then i think the rift was complete.  But that is my pure speculation and my own PERSONAL opinion on the matter.

I've also read the rift happened way before 1054, but again I think that puts too tidy of a date on things....the split was gradual and took centuries, and I don't think there truly is any single date or event we can point to and say "it was 100% complete" at that point. Again, just my opinion. Maybe the historians can give you more help.





Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Mickey on April 29, 2009, 03:31:40 PM
I've also read the rift happened way before 1054, but again I think that puts too tidy of a date on things....the split was gradual and took centuries, and I don't think there truly is any single date or event we can point to and say "it was 100% complete" at that point. Again, just my opinion. Maybe the historians can give you more help.

Good post. You summed it up as good as anyone on this thread.  :)
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 29, 2009, 03:44:02 PM
I've also read the rift happened way before 1054, but again I think that puts too tidy of a date on things....the split was gradual and took centuries, and I don't think there truly is any single date or event we can point to and say "it was 100% complete" at that point. Again, just my opinion. Maybe the historians can give you more help.

Good post. You summed it up as good as anyone on this thread.  :)
Yes, thank you very much. Now to 1484:
Could someone give me some more info on what transpired between East, and West in that year? Thanks, and God Bless!
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on April 29, 2009, 04:03:34 PM
I've also read the rift happened way before 1054, but again I think that puts too tidy of a date on things....the split was gradual and took centuries, and I don't think there truly is any single date or event we can point to and say "it was 100% complete" at that point. Again, just my opinion. Maybe the historians can give you more help.

Good post. You summed it up as good as anyone on this thread.  :)
Yes, thank you very much. Now to 1484:
Could someone give me some more info on what transpired between East, and West in that year? Thanks, and God Bless!

Synod of Constantinople.  It was a series of Synods in which they denounced the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence and stated that Latin converts should be received through Chrismation and a formal renouncing of errors.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 29, 2009, 10:01:04 PM
Quote
Synod of Constantinople.  It was a series of Synods in which they denounced the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence and stated that Latin converts should be received through Chrismation and a formal renouncing of errors.
What is the official name of the synod meeting? Or is Synod of Constantinople the official title? Thanks, and God Bless!
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 29, 2009, 10:05:54 PM
I found this on Orthodoxwiki:

In 1484, 31 years after the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, a Synod of Constantinople repudiated the Union of Florence, making the breach between the Patriarchate of the West and the Patriarchate of Constantinople final.[1] In 1965, the Pope of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople nullified the anathemas of 1054.[1] Further attempts to reconcile the two bodies are ongoing.

A schism is a break in the Church's authority structure and communion and is different from a heresy, which means false doctrine. Church authorities have long recognized that even if their minister is in schism, the sacraments, except the power to ordain, are valid. There have been many other schisms, from the second century until today, but none as significant as the one between East and West.
[/b]
So do the Orthodox consider the sacraments of Rome, and those in communion with Rome valid? Or is this just wishful thinking in this article?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 29, 2009, 11:15:51 PM
A look at the vigil text for the feasts of the Veneration of the Cross (3rd Sunday of Great Lent), and the Exaltation of the Cross (September 14) make the Orthodox Church's position quite clear. Both feasts are "universal" feasts of the Church, i.e. are celebrated by all local Orthodox churches, not just the Russian. The church also has feasts for various icons of the Mother of God, for the Mandylion of Christ, the veneration of the chains of Apostle Peter, the Deposition of the belt of the Mother of God, etc. These items became holy through the actions of those who were themselves holy, and are treated with the same honour and reverence as relics and icons.

Yes, but in the liturgical books does the congregation pray to the chains, to the cross, to the deposition belt as if they are persons?  As in: "Holy Chains of St. Peter, free me from my sins!!"  Because my prayer book contains prayer to the cross, and I am wondering if it is theologically Orthodox.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 29, 2009, 11:18:21 PM
I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen. 

I am not sure if any Carpatho-Russians were received by being stroked with a pen.  Must be an ACROD ritual?   ;D

They were recived by Confession and Communion.  If you read the Hapgood Service Book it gives the three methods employed by the Russian Church to receive non-Orthodox Christians.  Via Confession and Communion is one of them and is the method usually, if not always, used to receive Greek Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ialmisry on April 29, 2009, 11:31:10 PM
I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen. 

I am not sure if any Carpatho-Russians were received by being stroked with a pen.  Must be an ACROD ritual?   ;D

They were recived by Confession and Communion.  If you read the Hapgood Service Book it gives the three methods employed by the Russian Church to receive non-Orthodox Christians.  Via Confession and Communion is one of them and is the method usually, if not always, used to receive Greek Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.

A Ukrainian just asked me today about this (he says he considers himself Orthodox, and has no use for the Latins).
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on April 29, 2009, 11:56:37 PM
Topic Split:  Communion and Schism (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21015.0.html)

The split is far from perfect, but discussions specifically about schism, communion, its effects, state of your soul, etc. should go into the above split.

This thread should get back on topic. It is to revolve around 1054 and other dates pertaining to the split between East and West.


Thank you.

-- Nebelpfade
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 30, 2009, 08:43:27 AM
I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen. 

I am not sure if any Carpatho-Russians were received by being stroked with a pen.  Must be an ACROD ritual?   ;D

They were recived by Confession and Communion.  If you read the Hapgood Service Book it gives the three methods employed by the Russian Church to receive non-Orthodox Christians.  Via Confession and Communion is one of them and is the method usually, if not always, used to receive Greek Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.

Yes, there was no chrismation involved, as the faithful had already been baptized and chrismated.  More importantly, all priests were received in their orders, including Metropolitan Orestes who was then consecrated a bishop.  In other words, at the stroke of a pen.

It's certainly not the only example of the recognition of the efficacy and validity of Catholic sacraments.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 30, 2009, 09:15:25 AM
I am not sure if any Carpatho-Russians were received by being stroked with a pen.  Must be an ACROD ritual?   ;D
Hilarious!  ;D If, the Schism is pushed "officially" to 1484 why don't we venerate saints from the Catholic tradition that fit within that window in the Orthodox Church? Why don't we participate in the Catholic devotions that fit within that window? As I asked before, St. Francis would clearly fit, as would St Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. I guess, I just don't see why we stop at 1054, the more I learn about the nature of the Schism. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 30, 2009, 10:19:45 AM
Quote
If, the Schism is pushed "officially" to 1484 why don't we venerate saints from the Catholic tradition that fit within that window in the Orthodox Church? Why don't we participate in the Catholic devotions that fit within that window?

Probably because of both of those for in many ways are about the the particulars of local churches.  Same reason you will find emphasis on some saints, practices, devotions, etc. in some local Orthodox churches but not in others.

Some more recent saints are commemorated though.  Here's one example

Quote
There is reason to celebrate: Last August, on the feast of the Dormition of Mary, Metropolitan Nicholas proclaimed that the second Sunday after each Pentecost “shall be celebrated as the Synaxis [assembly] of the Carpatho-Rusyn Saints.” The ruling hierarch of the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church included two 20th-century Greek Catholic martyrs in the list of saints, Blesseds Pavel Gojdic and Teodor Romzha, recognizing them for their “holiness, witness and supreme sacrifice for the Christian faith and for the Rusyn people.”

This extraordinary yet little-known gesture acknowledges not only the common faith uniting all Rusyns, but symbolically calls for the healing of all Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

http://www.cnewa.org/mag-article-bodypg-us.aspx?articleID=3229
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 30, 2009, 10:33:53 AM
Are we encouraged, as Orthodox Christians, NOT to venerate saints after 1054, or would we find some that would say 1484?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 30, 2009, 10:35:08 AM
Are we encouraged, as Orthodox Christians, NOT to venerate saints after 1054, or would we find some that would say 1484?
I am encouraging you as an Orthodox Christian (you being one) to venerate Latin saints after 1054. LOL  ;D


I Jest!
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 30, 2009, 10:36:36 AM
I am encouraging you as an Orthodox Christian (you being one) to venerate Latin saints after 1054. LOL  ;D
I Jest!
Hardy Har!  :laugh: Anyone without a Catholic bias want to answer? ;)
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Papist on April 30, 2009, 10:40:45 AM
I am encouraging you as an Orthodox Christian (you being one) to venerate Latin saints after 1054. LOL  ;D
I Jest!
Hardy Har!  :laugh: Anyone without a Catholic bias want to answer? ;)
What? Me? Biased? Neeeeeever.  ;)
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 30, 2009, 10:42:52 AM
What? Me? Biased? Neeeeeever.  ;)
Yeah, sure.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: NorthernPines on April 30, 2009, 11:05:51 AM
Are we encouraged, as Orthodox Christians, NOT to venerate saints after 1054, or would we find some that would say 1484?

It depends on who you ask! :)

I venerate St. Francis in my personal devotions, ask for his intercessions like I do any saint. I don't see a problem. Other Orthodox would strongly disagree. In the end, the Church does not say who you can and cannot venerate in your own personal devotions. (well within in reason, I mean I suppose venerating Hitler would be problematic, but I think you get the point) After all that's how canonization begins in the Orthodox Church, by people's private devotions, and asking so and so for prayers etc...Canonization just makes it "officially" acceptable to venerate them Liturgically. (that is if I understand our process correctly)

New Skete (an Orthodox monastery that was formerly Byzantine Catholic following the Franciscan tradition I believe) I'm pretty sure  still venerates him and has icons of him. So in isolated local cases it's not totally unheard of. I also pray the Rosary, (without the meditations) as the prayers involved go back WAY before 1054AD, so again, I really do not see a problem. Other Orthodox disagree and think the Rosary is not acceptable. So it just depends.

Personally, I think 1054 is an arbitrary date, and a later date should certainly be used as the point where the schism was truly put into practical use, but that's just my opinion.

edited to clarify, hopefully I didn't muddle it even more...:)







Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 30, 2009, 11:07:32 AM
Personally, I think 1054 is an arbitrary date, and a later date should certainly be used as the point where the schism was truly put into practical use, but that's just my opinion.
I agree.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 30, 2009, 11:28:03 AM
I can anticipate that some would say venerating saints of the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is problematic because of certain false teachings/heresies. But on the other end of the issue, we Orthodox have many saints that taught false ideas/heresies, and we still venerate/commemorate them. Thoughts? Am I way off?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 30, 2009, 11:30:15 AM
Quote
I can anticipate that some would say venerating saints of the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is problematic because of certain false teachings/heresies.

Look before the East/West schism.

There are saints we commemorate even before the schism such as St. Isaac of Syria (Nestorian), St. Nicetas the Goth (Arian) and St. David of Garesja (anti Chalcedonian).  In other words the boundaries are not always well defined in the East.

I think the important thing to remember as well is private devotion and/or veneration is not the same thing as public commemoration.

Blessed Damien of Molokai pray for us all!
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 30, 2009, 11:31:10 AM
There are saints we commemorate even before the schism such as St. Isaac of Syria (Nestorian), St. Nicetas the Goth (Arian) and St. David of Garesja (anti Chalcedonian).  In other words the boundaries are not always well defined in the East.

I think the important thing to remember as well is private devotion and/or veneration is not the same thing as public commemoration.

Blessed Damien of Molokai pray for us all!
Good points. Are there any here that want to completely disagree?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on April 30, 2009, 03:47:17 PM
Good points. Are there any here that want to completely disagree?
Guess not...
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 30, 2009, 04:37:15 PM
You need to give people more time.  There are many who will be happy to swear me off, I promise.

In the meantime PFN, I would suggest giving this a read:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/limits_church.htm (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/limits_church.htm)

It is the single best piece on the topic I know of.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: serb1389 on April 30, 2009, 06:10:54 PM
There are saints we commemorate even before the schism such as St. Isaac of Syria (Nestorian), St. Nicetas the Goth (Arian) and St. David of Garesja (anti Chalcedonian).  In other words the boundaries are not always well defined in the East.

I think the important thing to remember as well is private devotion and/or veneration is not the same thing as public commemoration.

Blessed Damien of Molokai pray for us all!
Good points. Are there any here that want to completely disagree?

First of all I'd LOVE to know what sources you are using to say that St. Isaac of Syria was Nestorian.  Also, same thing goes for St. Nicetas and St. David.  Some kind of validation of those statements is definitely necessary. 

On point, however, i think it is very complicated, but there are definitely some boundaries that usually arn't crossed. 
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on April 30, 2009, 06:37:55 PM
Quote
Nicetas the Goth (the Great) M (RM)
Died c. 378. Saint Sabas and Nicetas are the two most renowned martyrs among the Goths. It is interesting to note that Nicetas, an Ostrogoth born along the Danube, should rightly be considered a heretic, yet he is listed in the Roman Martyrology. Through no fault of his own, he and many of his kinsmen and neighbors were converted to Christianity by the Arian Ulphilas. In good faith, he was also ordained as an Arian priest. But doctrinal differences are often forgotten in the name of Jesus. Nicetas was martyred by King Athanaric, in his attempt to eradicate the name of Christ from his territory bordering on the Roman Empire. About 370, Athanaric began a systematic persecution. He caused an idol to be carried in a chariot through all the towns and villages he suspected were sheltering Christians. Those who refused to adore were put to death, usually by burning the Christians with their children in the houses or those assembled together in churches. At other times they were stabbed at the foot of the altar. Nicetas was burnt to death. His body was taken to Mopsuestia in Cilicia, which is why his name is especially remember in the East (Attwater, Benedictines, Husenbeth).

http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0915.shtml

I believe St. Sabbas the Goth was also technically an arian.

Quote
St Isaac was born in Qatar on the Western shore of Persian Gulf. He was a member of the Church of the East, commonly known as ‘Nestorian’, though historically it had nothing to do with Nestorius. This Church followed a strongly diophysite Antiochene Christology and did not recognize the most important Christological Councils of the early Church: Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Isaac was ordained a Bishop of Nineveh some time between 660 and 680. After he had held this office for five months he resigned (‘by reasons known to God’, as one of the sources says) and ascended the mountain of Matout in the province of Huzistan (modern Iran). Then he moved to the monastery of Rabban Shabur. An anonymous West Syrian source of an uncertain date[1] specifies that in his old age Isaac became blind and because of that was called ‘second Didymos’, after Didymos the Great, a famous Alexandrian theologian of the 4th century. The exact dates of Isaac’s birth and death are not known.

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_6_1

Quote
The life of Saint David, founder of the David-Garejeli monastery in Eastern Georgia, belongs to the cycle of biographies known as The Lives of the Syrian Fathers, most of which were composed by the Catholicos Arsenius II of Georgia (c. 955-80). To these Syrian Fathers is ascribed the introduction of monastic institutions into Georgia. The historical background of their mission has been the subject of considerable discussion, especially as their biographies, in their present form, were not composed until four centuries after their deaths, with the result that facts are overlaid with legend and myth.

The approximate date of the Syrian Fathers' mission to Georgia can, however, be established by references to real personages and events. Thus, the life of St. David of Garesja mentions the Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem (494-513). Lives of the twelve other Syrian Fathers refer to a visit to St. Simeon Stylites the Younger (521-97), who is described as sitting in an oven, which he is known to have done between the years 541 and 551. There is also a reference to the Persian king Khusraus’s siege of Edessa, which took place in 544. The Georgian chronicle known as The Conversion of Georgia says that the Syrian Fathers arrived some two hundred ears after St. Nino’s apostolate. These allusions combine to show that the Syrian Fathers arrived, or were traditionally supposed to have arrived in the Caucasus at various times between the end of the 5th and the middle of the 6th centuries.

While the Syrian Fathers are revered among the fathers of the Orthodox Georgian Church there can be no doubt that they belonged to the Monophysite persuasion, as did Peter the Iberian, whose life we have read in the last chapter. Syria was a great centre of opposition to the edicts of the Council of Chalcedon. We have already seen with what vigour the Emperor Marcian (450-57) persecuted those who refused to accept the Chalcedonian formulation of the doctrine of Christ’s two natures. After a period of respite under Zeno and Anastasius, there was a fresh outburst of persecution between the years 520 and 545 under Justin I and Justinian. Contemporary analysts give a lurid picture of the excesses committed by the Byzantine authorities against the Syrian clergy and monks, many of whom were forced to flee abroad.

http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Georgian/david.html

There are other similar Georgian saints as well.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on April 30, 2009, 09:13:56 PM
Good points. Are there any here that want to completely disagree?
Guess not...
Four hours is often not enough time for those here who want to reply, especially in the middle of the day for the Western Hemisphere. Patience, grasshopper.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: serb1389 on May 01, 2009, 09:41:25 AM
Quote
Nicetas the Goth (the Great) M (RM)
Died c. 378. Saint Sabas and Nicetas are the two most renowned martyrs among the Goths. It is interesting to note that Nicetas, an Ostrogoth born along the Danube, should rightly be considered a heretic, yet he is listed in the Roman Martyrology. Through no fault of his own, he and many of his kinsmen and neighbors were converted to Christianity by the Arian Ulphilas. In good faith, he was also ordained as an Arian priest. But doctrinal differences are often forgotten in the name of Jesus. Nicetas was martyred by King Athanaric, in his attempt to eradicate the name of Christ from his territory bordering on the Roman Empire. About 370, Athanaric began a systematic persecution. He caused an idol to be carried in a chariot through all the towns and villages he suspected were sheltering Christians. Those who refused to adore were put to death, usually by burning the Christians with their children in the houses or those assembled together in churches. At other times they were stabbed at the foot of the altar. Nicetas was burnt to death. His body was taken to Mopsuestia in Cilicia, which is why his name is especially remember in the East (Attwater, Benedictines, Husenbeth).

http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0915.shtml

I believe St. Sabbas the Goth was also technically an arian.

Quote
St Isaac was born in Qatar on the Western shore of Persian Gulf. He was a member of the Church of the East, commonly known as ‘Nestorian’, though historically it had nothing to do with Nestorius. This Church followed a strongly diophysite Antiochene Christology and did not recognize the most important Christological Councils of the early Church: Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Isaac was ordained a Bishop of Nineveh some time between 660 and 680. After he had held this office for five months he resigned (‘by reasons known to God’, as one of the sources says) and ascended the mountain of Matout in the province of Huzistan (modern Iran). Then he moved to the monastery of Rabban Shabur. An anonymous West Syrian source of an uncertain date[1] specifies that in his old age Isaac became blind and because of that was called ‘second Didymos’, after Didymos the Great, a famous Alexandrian theologian of the 4th century. The exact dates of Isaac’s birth and death are not known.

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_6_1

Quote
The life of Saint David, founder of the David-Garejeli monastery in Eastern Georgia, belongs to the cycle of biographies known as The Lives of the Syrian Fathers, most of which were composed by the Catholicos Arsenius II of Georgia (c. 955-80). To these Syrian Fathers is ascribed the introduction of monastic institutions into Georgia. The historical background of their mission has been the subject of considerable discussion, especially as their biographies, in their present form, were not composed until four centuries after their deaths, with the result that facts are overlaid with legend and myth.

The approximate date of the Syrian Fathers' mission to Georgia can, however, be established by references to real personages and events. Thus, the life of St. David of Garesja mentions the Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem (494-513). Lives of the twelve other Syrian Fathers refer to a visit to St. Simeon Stylites the Younger (521-97), who is described as sitting in an oven, which he is known to have done between the years 541 and 551. There is also a reference to the Persian king Khusraus’s siege of Edessa, which took place in 544. The Georgian chronicle known as The Conversion of Georgia says that the Syrian Fathers arrived some two hundred ears after St. Nino’s apostolate. These allusions combine to show that the Syrian Fathers arrived, or were traditionally supposed to have arrived in the Caucasus at various times between the end of the 5th and the middle of the 6th centuries.

While the Syrian Fathers are revered among the fathers of the Orthodox Georgian Church there can be no doubt that they belonged to the Monophysite persuasion, as did Peter the Iberian, whose life we have read in the last chapter. Syria was a great centre of opposition to the edicts of the Council of Chalcedon. We have already seen with what vigour the Emperor Marcian (450-57) persecuted those who refused to accept the Chalcedonian formulation of the doctrine of Christ’s two natures. After a period of respite under Zeno and Anastasius, there was a fresh outburst of persecution between the years 520 and 545 under Justin I and Justinian. Contemporary analysts give a lurid picture of the excesses committed by the Byzantine authorities against the Syrian clergy and monks, many of whom were forced to flee abroad.

http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Georgian/david.html

There are other similar Georgian saints as well.

Interesting.  Do you happen to also know what days they are commemorated, and which churches commemorate them?  Or even a calendar which would have them listed?  Just trying to connect the dots. 

I think there could be several factors here:  Depending on when they were canonized they could have been declared saints before an Ecumenical Council declared their particular faith a heresy.  Also, if they were the missionaries to a country which later became orthodox, that is a different category as well. 

I would think though that canonically speaking, these saints should not be commemorated.  If I remember correctly the bishop that converted St. Ambrose of Milan was an Arian, and he is not commemorated in the synaxarion.  So...
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: witega on May 01, 2009, 11:31:48 AM

http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0915.shtml

I believe St. Sabbas the Goth was also technically an arian.


And what's their source? Unattributed data on a website is meaningless. The fact that Nicetas (or Sabbas) are *not* Gothic names (unlike the Gothic and Arian Wulfilas) but Greek names and that immediately after his death, his body was transported to Cilicia, deep in Orthodox Greek territory make their account highly suspicious. They appear to be assuming that the fact that he was an Ostrogoth means he had to be an Arian, when in fact that was never the case--while the Ostrogoths were predominantly Arian, there was plenty of interaction on the edges with Orthodoxy and Goths who embraced the Orthodox version of the faith. Here's another source (one that identifies where it got its information) that states St. Nicetas' ordination to the priesthood was at the hands of St. Theophilus, who was a participant in the 1st Ecumenical Council on the *anti*-Arian side:


Quote
The life of Saint David, 

Another one that does not make a case for considering St. David a heretic. The entire argument is that he, and his contemporaries, came from Syria, there were lots of Monophysites in Syria, many of whom traveled. So St. David must have been one of them. That's guesswork, not evidence--especially since it doesn't account for why, if St. David and his contemporaries, who founded monasticism in Georgia, were 'Monophysites' then why was the Georgian church *not* Monophysite or at least non-Chalcedonian--like, say, its neighbor Armenia.


The only actually questionable one on your list is St. Isaac. And he's a lot more questionable than you think.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on May 01, 2009, 12:06:02 PM
Interesting.  Do you happen to also know what days they are commemorated, and which churches commemorate them?  Or even a calendar which would have them listed?  Just trying to connect the dots.

Here are the entries in the Prologue for St. David and St. Nicetas

http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=September&day=15
http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=May&day=27

This dictionary

http://books.google.com/books?id=l-pwoTFp31kC&pg=PA605&lpg=PA605&dq=nicetas+the+goth+%2B+arian&source=bl&ots=H6rf1V_ym4&sig=L9gfqjPz-yJMtwdf4d1iTZ9uy5w&hl=en&ei=nBv7Sf6VLszJtgeD2eiQBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2 (http://books.google.com/books?id=l-pwoTFp31kC&pg=PA605&lpg=PA605&dq=nicetas+the+goth+%2B+arian&source=bl&ots=H6rf1V_ym4&sig=L9gfqjPz-yJMtwdf4d1iTZ9uy5w&hl=en&ei=nBv7Sf6VLszJtgeD2eiQBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2)

Says that Nicetas was ordained by an Arian missionary and that he was likely Arian.

There was a post here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11487.msg158132.html#msg158132 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11487.msg158132.html#msg158132) talking about the Anti-Chalcedonian Georgian saints including St. David and Peter the Iberian.  There is more about St. Peter here http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Georgian/iber.html (http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Georgian/iber.html) and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Iberian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Iberian).  I'm sure there's other sources.  This also says something on the subject http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=38099&postcount=3 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=38099&postcount=3).

Bishop Hilarion in his article says that St. Isaac was a bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East.

Interesting history I must say!
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on May 03, 2009, 04:19:35 PM
Many thanks to those of you who have steered me in the right historical direction, so to speak, but could anyone give some info on the year 1717 that came up previously? What does this date have to do with the Schism? God Bless!
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ialmisry on May 03, 2009, 05:03:22 PM
Many thanks to those of you who have steered me in the right historical direction, so to speak, but could anyone give some info on the year 1717 that came up previously? What does this date have to do with the Schism? God Bless!

The Patriarch elected for Antioch followed his relatives into submission to the Vatican, and the schism resulted in the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: witega on May 04, 2009, 12:08:20 AM
Interesting.  Do you happen to also know what days they are commemorated, and which churches commemorate them?  Or even a calendar which would have them listed?  Just trying to connect the dots.

Here are the entries in the Prologue for St. David and St. Nicetas

http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=September&day=15
http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=May&day=27

This dictionary

http://books.google.com/books?id=l-pwoTFp31kC&pg=PA605&lpg=PA605&dq=nicetas+the+goth+%2B+arian&source=bl&ots=H6rf1V_ym4&sig=L9gfqjPz-yJMtwdf4d1iTZ9uy5w&hl=en&ei=nBv7Sf6VLszJtgeD2eiQBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2 (http://books.google.com/books?id=l-pwoTFp31kC&pg=PA605&lpg=PA605&dq=nicetas+the+goth+%2B+arian&source=bl&ots=H6rf1V_ym4&sig=L9gfqjPz-yJMtwdf4d1iTZ9uy5w&hl=en&ei=nBv7Sf6VLszJtgeD2eiQBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2)

Says that Nicetas was ordained by an Arian missionary and that he was likely Arian.

So we have the Prologue of Ochrid and a site which both of which specifically state that St. Nicetas was a disciple of and ordained by one of the Nicean fathers who *condemned* Arius vs. an unsourced site and a book without references which both think Nicetas was 'probably' an Arian and doesn't know the name of his ordainer--with no evidence other than the fact that he was Gothic. That with that basis you want to accuse St. Nicetas of Arianism says more about your preconceptions that it does about him.

Quote
There was a post here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11487.msg158132.html#msg158132 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11487.msg158132.html#msg158132) talking about the Anti-Chalcedonian Georgian saints including St. David and Peter the Iberian.  There is more about St. Peter here http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Georgian/iber.html (http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Georgian/iber.html) and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Iberian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Iberian).  I'm sure there's other sources.  This also says something on the subject http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=38099&postcount=3 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=38099&postcount=3).

Quoting from the Wikipedia post:  :Various eastern Churches (Armenian, Coptic, etc) believe that Peter the Iberian was a Monophysite and an anti-chaldeonian, whereas this point of view is not shared by the Georgian Orthodox Church. Although his biographies do not discuss this ussue, some of the scholars who side with the Armenian sources accept the idea that he was an anti-chaldeonian, while others do not. For example, David Marshall Lang believes in the possibility that he was a monophysite (see Lang, D M. "Peter the Iberian and his biographers." Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 1951: 158-168), while Shalva Nutsubidze (Georgia, 1942) and Ernest Honingmann (Belgium, 1952) believe that he was a neoplatonic philosopher. (Horn (2006), p. 167.)"

In other words, for St. Peter--who is far better documented than St. David--the issue is disputed not settled. For St. David, the only evidence that he was non-Chalcedonian given in any of your posted documents continues to be that he came from Syria in a period where there were lots of non-Chalcedonians there. Given that there were also Orthodox and Nestorians in Syria at the time, it could be argued from the same evidence that he was Orthodox or Nestorian. And the simple fact is that the Georgians who glorified him are Chalcedonian and considered him such when they canonized him.

Quote
Bishop Hilarion in his article says that St. Isaac was a bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East.

Yes, St. Isaac was the Church of the East bishop of Ninevah--for 5 months. Unlike the other two, St. Isaac actually is an ambiguous case. The problem is, his veneration throughout Orthodoxy is based on the works he produced after leaving his Church of the East episcopacy (for completely unknown reasons) and retiring to the life a solitary. And those works do not reflect Nestorian teaching at all--in fact, until this century, when documentation of that ordination came to light, he was also claimed by the Syrian Non-Chalcedonian Church as one of theirs. Given the overlapping situation in Syria, the evidence of his works, and the fact that movement between the Church of the East and Orthodoxy involved only confession, the best we can say is that he was definitely a member of the Church of the East for a time, and *probably* continued as such. But there is no firm evidence.


Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: Dan-Romania on May 04, 2009, 07:49:40 AM
I can still feel grace in the RCC , it is my opinion , i consider part of something special like us , maybe a bigger grace . I always had a sympathy for them cause they are our brothers and our sister and we were one , I am a romantic . I feel they have something special with Mary . I remmeber seing a documentary with people who were in the Battle of Monte Cassino in WW2 . On that mountain there was a beautiful catholic monastery , there still is a new one , rebuild on the same spot from what i heard . I remmember a testimony of one saying that all the monastery(church not sure) was on ruin and destroy except for the statue of Mary , and he said that from that spot where the statue was he could see a beautiful landscape .No matter what many say here , I feel sanctity on catholics and Vatican , and I believe them to be as sacred as us , I feel sanctity on the Pope , maybe more than on our Patriarchs , I feel Vatican is a sacred place . Make love . Let us love each other , and remmeber we were one . In memory of the true Church , peace and love.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on May 04, 2009, 09:11:27 AM
...I feel sanctity on the Pope , maybe more than on our Patriarchs...
Uhhh, Excuse me?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: recent convert on May 04, 2009, 09:21:45 AM
The Crab Nebula was visible in the daytime sky in 1054. I have looked to see if it had any influence on Humbert but cannot find any records. The fact that a comet is so prominent in the Bayeaux Tapestry as alleging justification of the defeat of the Saxon church, I wondered if a similar logic applied to 1054 (the C nebula being only recently faded away).
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on May 04, 2009, 09:23:40 AM
The Crab Nebula was visible in the sky in 1054. I have looked to see if it had any influence on Humbert but cannot find any records. The fact that a comet is so prominent in the Bayeaux Tapestry as alleging justification of the defeat of the Saxon church, I wondered if a similar logic applied to 1054 (the C nebula being only recently faded away).
Did anyone else hear that sound? It was my brain exploding...... :-\
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: AMM on May 04, 2009, 09:25:49 AM
Quote
That with that basis you want to accuse St. Nicetas of Arianism says more about your preconceptions that it does about him.

I'm not accusing him of anything, I'm pointing out that there's a good chance he may have been one in his life.  Same with St. David, etc.

What it should say about me is I'm not paranoid and defensive about the idea of the church saying there is sanctity to be found in those not in the visible bounds of the church.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on May 04, 2009, 09:27:26 AM
What it should say about me is I'm not paranoid and defensive about the idea of the church saying there is sanctity to be found in those not in the visible bounds of the church.
I would have to agree.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: serb1389 on May 04, 2009, 10:36:53 AM
The Crab Nebula was visible in the sky in 1054. I have looked to see if it had any influence on Humbert but cannot find any records. The fact that a comet is so prominent in the Bayeaux Tapestry as alleging justification of the defeat of the Saxon church, I wondered if a similar logic applied to 1054 (the C nebula being only recently faded away).
Did anyone else hear that sound? It was my brain exploding...... :-\

I heard it!  OOH OOH!  PICK ME! 
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on May 04, 2009, 10:38:05 AM
I heard it!  OOH OOH!  PICK ME!
Ha! Seriously, what was that all about?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on May 04, 2009, 10:57:40 AM
Quote
The Patriarch of Antioch, Macarios III Zaim (1647-1672), who succeeded Euthymios III of Chios, also had very good relations with Rome since he is called cryptocatholic, but he hesitated to declare himself. It is certain that in 1633 this patriarch sent a letter to the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in which he affirmed "his irrevocable intention to work for the union of the Eastern Church until the last breath of his life... and to undermine the wall of enmity posed by the enemy of all good (the devil),” entirely professing that it is "Christ who is the head of the holy Church.” The Congregation sent him a chalice and the patriarch thanked them in the letter cited above. The journey of this patriarch to Russia was considered by the missionaries at that time as the voyage of an apostle who "with prudence and catholic zeal goes to confirm the good begun by the Latin missionaries.”
Excerpt from:http://phoenicia.org/greek_melkite_catholic.html (http://phoenicia.org/greek_melkite_catholic.html)

What implications does this have on someone who is in an Antiochian parish? Does this mean that Catholic saints up to the year 1717 may be venerated? Does this also include Catholic devotions up to the year of 1717?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on May 04, 2009, 11:55:06 AM
What implications does this have on someone who is in an Antiochian parish? Does this mean that Catholic saints up to the year 1717 may be venerated? Does this also include Catholic devotions up to the year of 1717?
None whatever. We don't care about Catholic saints. We don't care about Catholic devotions. We care only about those in whom we find faith. If the Catholics also recognize their faith, goody for them, but it means absolutely nothing whether they do or not.

You're not going to get the answers you seek, because you seek a concrete date and a concrete act for the Schism. There is none. We have told you this repeatedly, yet you persist. Why? Are you trying to justify a Catholic devotion that means something to you?
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on May 04, 2009, 12:29:11 PM
You're not going to get the answers you seek, because you seek a concrete date and a concrete act for the Schism. There is none. We have told you this repeatedly, yet you persist. Why? Are you trying to justify a Catholic devotion that means something to you?
No, not at all. The history of the Church, and the Schism, just completely confuses me. How do I understand the history of Orthodoxy, and its development of Tradition, if I don't understand when Catholic Tradition broke itself away? It is very muddy, and I can't seem to put my finger on it.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on May 04, 2009, 01:51:33 PM
^ You don't need to understand Catholicism to understand Orthodoxy. Yes, it's muddy, because history is not as simple as the history texts make it out to be. We began very early to grow apart, and we are still growing apart now. Much more important than when or how we broke communion is why. There was much pride and misunderstanding, as well as real theological issues such as the Pope's position as first among equals and the role of the laity in ecclesiastical government. I believe that the primary reason for schism was an inability to distinguish what was theological and what was personal. I believe in 1054, the schism could still have been prevented. To an extent it was, because the schism was not finalized until much later. When exactly that was eludes us, but we do know that we are now two religions and not one.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: lubeltri on May 04, 2009, 05:05:31 PM
Blessed Damien of Molokai pray for us all!

Saint Damien, as of October 11, 2009. :)
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on May 05, 2009, 09:32:31 AM
...When exactly that was eludes us, but we do know that we are now two religions and not one.
I see. Thank you.
Title: Re: Why 1054?
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on May 05, 2009, 09:45:46 AM
Something still troubles me though. If we don't really know when the official split happened, is 1054 just a modern "sign post" for the Schism?