OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 09:17:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 1054  (Read 7729 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« on: March 07, 2008, 10:42:37 PM »

Perhaps there is already an existing thread dealing with this topic, but I was always under the impression that Rome split from the EO. However, ALL my Evangelical friends are most adamant that the EO split from the RCC. It seems everytime I'm sure I've settled the issue in my mind, along comes an Evangelical  who informs me I'm wrong about this, and I feel like an idiot. What is correct? (of course I understand it's a question of to whom you are speaking...)
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 10:43:55 PM by Rosehip » Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,003


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2008, 11:21:25 PM »

When we read Bp. Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church we learn that there were many different things (i.e. language, culture, and yes theology) that led to the split.  Basically, Bp. Kallistos says that it was a long time coming and that both side could have done things differently (he places blame on the RCC and the EOC).  Technically though, if we can narrow it down to one single aspect, it would probably be the papal document excommunicating the patriarch of Constantinople (and the subsequent excommunicating of the pope by the patriarch).  I would read Bp Kallistos's book for some really great insight.  And on matters of theology or EOC history, I wouldn't listen to what an Evangelical has to say untill you're thoroughly grounded in Orthodoxy.  Just my $0.02, sister.

In Christ,

Gabriel
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2008, 11:32:55 PM »

Perhaps there is already an existing thread dealing with this topic, but I was always under the impression that Rome split from the EO. However, ALL my Evangelical friends are most adamant that the EO split from the RCC. It seems everytime I'm sure I've settled the issue in my mind, along comes an Evangelical  who informs me I'm wrong about this, and I feel like an idiot. What is correct? (of course I understand it's a question of to whom you are speaking...)   

Well, to begin, 1054 wasn't really the end, nor was it the beginning.  It wasn't even an official split - the Patriarch was excommunicated by a Cardinal who was in Constantinople representing the pope, but the Excommunication had little force, and the Patriarchate only responded by excommunicating the Cardinal involved.  In this one isolated instance, a Roman emissary created the rift.

However, there had been numerous splits before this point which had been reconciled.  And there were other dividing points afterward.  If you want to pinpoint a moment of definite and irreversible division, it would come at 1204 with the 4th Crusade and the sacking of Constantinople.  That blow can definitively be attributed to the Papacy.

Overall, the division could be considered mutual (between the Churches of the East and Rome); however, from each perspective the other side was clearly at fault (Rome was alienating the East with its innovations and intrusiveness, and the East was falling behind and disrespecting Rome).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,003


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2008, 11:44:24 PM »

^^That's what I meant to say. Tongue  Cheesy
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,279



« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2008, 01:13:50 AM »

Well, to begin, 1054 wasn't really the end, nor was it the beginning.  It wasn't even an official split - the Patriarch was excommunicated by a Cardinal who was in Constantinople representing the pope, but the Excommunication had little force, and the Patriarchate only responded by excommunicating the Cardinal involved.  In this one isolated instance, a Roman emissary created the rift.

Cleveland,

If I'm not mistaken, the excommunication bull that Cardinal Humbert placed on the altar of Hagia Sophia in 1054 excommunicated the entire Eastern Church while Patriarch Cerularius' bull excommunicated only Humbert, the papal delegation and the pope (who himself had died two weeks prior to Humbert placing the bull on the altar).  I'll have to dig up my copy of Runcimann.

Rosehip,

You will find that the majority of histories of religion written nowadays will be written from an almost exclusively western point of view.  Since Protestants claim descent from the RC, they will of course want to prop themselves as reforming the Church which had always been though corrupted.  That is why Bishop KALLISTOS' book is so important--becuse it represents an easter pov.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2008, 09:23:54 AM »

Having a degree from an Evangelical university, I can understand your feeling. Evangelicals place a strong emphasis on the individual; to them salvation is individual, prayer is individual, baptism is individual, etc. Thus we get actions like "altar calls," a cacophony of 300 people praying individual prayers in the same room at the same time, and "believers' baptism." So when it comes to research, they're no different. One cannot know something unless they have researched it themselves. Unfortunately, if the sources they've used are not good or are biased, their knowledge will reflect that.

I had a discussion with my Old Testament professor (who held a Doctor of Theology degree) about the Septuagint (LXX). He insisted that it was written by Rome in the sixteenth century A.D. as part of the Counter-Reformation. So even theologians can hold stupid views (and there's really no other word for his, as he must ignore mountains of archaeological and historical evidence to hold it) if they have been exposed to the wrong sources.

Your friends have probably been reading some well-written mut misinformed authors who are coming from a Catholic perspective. They will seem very sure of what they are saying because they have researched it themselves or have heard a lecture from someone who has. The best way to counter-act this is to do some research of your own from Eastern sources. Then, once you're sure you know our position, read some Catholics and Protestant sources and see what they say about it. This will help you strengthen your knowledge of our position--and it'll make you sound way smarter than your friends. Grin
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2008, 11:28:23 AM »

Wow-thanks all, for the wonderful answers! They are tremendously helpful!
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2008, 12:12:59 PM »

If interested, here's a very rough copy of a paper on the schism I began writing some time ago but never finished. It's half history, half historiography, and should give you the basic outline of the debate. Forgive the good number of sloppy, less than eloquent parts-  again, a rough, unpolished draft. Also, I wasn't able to transfer over the footnotes properly.



Although, as Steven Runciman points out, “the date that the world has generally accepted for the schism between Rome and Constantinople is 1054” , most historiography of the twentieth century rejects the bull of excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbert to the Patriarch Cerularius as the decisive point of separation between the Byzantine East and Roman West – a separation that still continues to this day. Just as it has proved difficult to date the schism, its causes and the weight that should be assigned to them have been a point of contention in recent historiography. Was it primarily questions of ecclesiastical authority, theological disputes, or political and cultural estrangement that led to and perpetuated the division?

Estrangement From the Third to the Eleventh Century: Political and Cultural Influences

All major historiography dealing with the separation of Eastern and Western Christendom agrees that there existed a long period of estrangement between the two bodies prior to a definitive schism. The gradual process by which East and West drifted apart was shaped not only by divergent theological understandings but by changing political and cultural climates that developed over time. As early as the third century the early Church that had operated under the Roman Empire, unified by Greco-Roman culture, one Emperor, and Greek and Latin as the primary languages, was forced to deal with profound political and cultural change.
   By the end of the third century Christendom found itself under two emperors. After the death of Theodosius in 395 the empire was given over to his two sons to rule; Arcadius would rule the East from Constantinople while Honorius would rule the West with his capital first in Milan and later Ravenna. Barbarian invasions in the fifth century furthered this division as much of the West, with the exception of Italy, was carved up among the invaders.  The sixth and seventh centuries witnessed the Slav and Avar invasions of the Balkan peninsula. As a result, the Roman province of Illyricum which formerly served as a bridge between Byzantium and the Latin West was now a barrier between the two.
   The rise of Islam also contributed much to the growing, forced estrangement of East and West. By about 700 much land was lost to Islam in Palestine, North Africa, Syria and Spain. As a result, the five Patriarchal Churches began to lose touch with the rest of the Church and essentially stopped being forces in Christendom, as well as players in the Church’s decision making process. 
Though the Christian Empire still existed, as did political unity, this unity was slowly eroding. Still, as Southern and others point out, in some ways the rise of Islam and isolation of the Jerusalem, Alexandrian, and Antiochian Patriarchates who had never been a part of the Roman Empire as Constantinople and Rome were, drew Rome and Constantinople closer together as the emperor in Constantinople effectively became the ruler of much of Italy, including Rome. In fact, from 654 to 752 eleven out of seventeen popes had Greek backgrounds, coming from Greece, Syria, or Sicily which was more strongly Greek at the time. 
   The Iconoclast Controversy (726-787) drove yet another wedge between East and West as iconodule Rome began, after spending decades out of communion with the emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople, to look to the West and away from primarily iconoclast Constantinople for support. It is here that “politics and the defense of orthodoxy combined to drive the two halves of Christendom apart”.  The emperor’s refusal to send military assistance in 753 after an appeal by Pope Stephen lead him to turn to the Carolingian king Pepin with whom he came to share power- a huge shift in political orientation away from Constantinople.  This, in turn, eventually lead to a policy which allowed for Charlemagne’s inauguration and further change in Rome’s orientation.  It is here, Southern says, that the “foundations of the medieval Empire and Papacy were laid”.   To the Byzantine east this medieval empire and “new” papacy came to be seen as being at odds with centuries of ecclesiastical tradition, while anything Frankish was seen as “barbarian”.
   It is in this mutual dislike and misunderstanding that Steven Runciman finds the reasons for the schism. More than traditions and customs (which will be discussed below), Runciman cites a “mutual dislike of peoples of Eastern and Western Christendom” , because of cultural shifts that developed over time and divided the world-views of East and West, as the primary force behind this schism. Coupled with this “mutual dislike” were the political events of the eleventh and twelfth centuries like the reformed papacy, the Norman invasion, and the crusades that worked to create and later perpetuate division.
   The introduction of Germanic customs into the life of the Western Church in the eleventh century played a central role in the estrangement of East and West according to Francis Dvornik.  Dvornik describes the evolution of the papacy as a result of the reform movement’s use of Roman law (vs. Germanic) to empower the papacy. This reform movement applied a new a concept of Roman authority to dealings with East- one which emphasized the power of the papacy over lay power. To a large extent this reform “freed” the papacy in the West from secular control. However, “these reformers were totally unaware of the peculiar situation of the Eastern churches and they naturally wished to extend everywhere the direct right of intervention of the papacy…”  These new “monarchical” tendencies of the medieval papacy will be discussed below.
As a result of the new position of the papacy Dvornik sees a resulting lack of understanding in the West regarding the Byzantine concept of a universal Christian empire coupled. Likewise, in the East there existed a lack of recognition of the Western emperor as a successor to the Caesars.  In addition to these divergent understandings of authority, the Norman conquest of the Byzantine controlled territory of Southern Italy drove a wedge between East and West.
   The political and cultural forces that served as sources of estrangement between east and west came to shape and inform other issues faced by the Church. In this context theological questions and innovations, as well as ecclesiastical practices and customs, developed different trajectories- one eastern, one western. Tied to this was the important question of authority in the Church. More specifically, what was the proper position of the pope in Rome in deciding matters of faith and practice? These disputes over theology and authority will be discussed below.

Theological Disputes

   The Filioque, or addition of the clause “and from the son” to the Nicene Creed, in the west brought the two halves of Christendom into conflict. Two issues were at stake- theology and authority. Was it theologically sound to state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son as the west came to believe? If so, one whose authority could the Nicene Creed by altered? The east maintained that the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son undermined the monarchy of the Father and, to state it simply, was a false notion with little patristic evidence to support it. The east also argued that the Creed belonged to the whole Church and could not be revised without the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
   According to Greek Orthodox bishop Timothy Ware east and west had approached theology with different “minds” for centuries. The Latin approach, he writes, “was influenced by juridical ideas, by the concept of Roman law, while the Greeks understood theology in the context of worship and in the light of the Holy Liturgy”.  Ware sees no necessary contradiction in these approaches, believing that each served to compliment or supplement the other, both holding a place in the Church’s tradition. However, with east and west growing estranged, a potential existed for each to “follow its own approach in isolation and push it to extremes, forgetting the value in the other point of view”.  This, Ware posits, is what happened over the Filioque question. This created for the first time, as Southern states, “a distinct point of doctrinal difference between Rome and Constantinople”.
   By the eleventh century Rome became the last place in western Christendom to adopt the Filioque. Due to the Roman See’s conservative nature, it had maintained the traditional Nicene Creed and even advised Charlemagne in 808 that even though the Filioque was theologically sound it was a mistake to change the Creed and possibly create discord within the Church. However, for the rest of the west the Filioque had become standard. Most likely originating at the Third Council of Toledo in 589 as a safeguard against Arianism, the Filioque quickly spread to France and Germany. With Charlemagne’s acceptance of it at the Council of Frankfort in 794 the addition to the Nicene Creed became enshrined for the majority of western Christendom, even to the point of accusing the Byzantines of heresy for following the Nicene Creed in its original form. 
   When Pope Sergius IV (1009-1012) took the Papal throne he sent a customary profession of faith to Byzantium. This profession now included the addition of the Filioque. As a result, Patriarch Sergius removed the Pope’s name from the Byzantine diptychs and commemoration of the new Pope ceased. Francis Dvornik cites the opinion of Nicetas of Nicaea who in the eleventh century wrote on the nature of the East-West schism. Unlike Nicetas, Dvornik does not see this event, or the question of the Filioque, as the beginning of the schism and cites instead the political and cultural changes mentioned above.
   Besides the major issue of the Filioque there existed a number of questions of custom and Church discipline that divided East and West. The Photian Schism (863-867) , highlighted a number of these issues of theology and custom. Photius, in his encyclical to the Eastern patriarchs in 866 saw the Filioque as the “crown of evils” , introduced by Frankish missionaries to Bulgaria.  His objection was that it “presupposed a confusion of the hypostatic characters of the Persons of the Trinity and was, therefore, a new form of modalism, or  ‘semi-Sabellianism’”.   John Meyendorff presents the arguments of Photius as well as Byzantine theologians who followed him like Peter of Antioch(ca. 1050), and Theophylact of Bulgaria (ca. 1100) who agreed that the Filioque was the only issue dividing East and West.   However, Meyendorff himself sees the Great Schism as having taken place as a result of more visible points of divergence, particularly in terms of those customs like the use of unleavened vs. leavened bread, married clergy, fasting practices, and the proper place for absolving penitents- all issues highlighted during the Photian Schism. According to Meyendorff it was not the “heady” theological issues that came to separate the Churches, but these “minor” matters of practice.  “On the less enlightened level of popular piety”, Meyendorff writes, “polemics took a sharper tone and were often oriented toward peripheral issues… thus, the schism of the eleventh century was almost exclusively a dispute about ritual practice”.

   1054?

   In the summer of 1054 a delegation led by Cardinal Humbert was sent by Pope Leo IX to Constantinople with a bull of excommunication for the Patriarch. This even was precipitated by Rome’s Synod of Siponto in 1050 where the Pope called for further reform to gain control of Southern Italy and weed out the Greek liturgical practices there. In response Patriarch Michael Cerularius called for all Latin churches in Constantinople and asked Leo of Ochrida to compose a letter to the Roman bishop of Trani defending Greek usages. The Pope’s response was to ask Bishop Humbert to write a letter to Cerularius defending the Latin position and deliver it to Constantinople. Humbert, joined by Frederick of Lorraine and Peter of Amalfi, delivered this letter outlining Rome’s position on Papal authority - a position that, according to Dvornik, was entirely unfamiliar to the East . Humbert’s position, “bolstered” by the Donation of Constantine, accusations of the East’s flawed theology for not including the Filioque, as well as a flawed understanding of the East’s use of the term “Oecumenical”, would effectively end Greek liturgical practices in the West and, if accepted, force the East to relinquish their autonomy.  Dvornik reminds us that this excommunication of 1054 was meant only for the Patriarch of Constantinople and therefore cannot be considered the decisive break between Eastern and Western Christendom. At this time, Dvornik believes, there still existed much room for dialogue and the possibility of rapprochement.  This possibility was destroyed when Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) asked the Normans for support. Here Rome adopts “new political ideology”.  In rejecting 1054 as the true date of the schism, Dvornik’s takes a position consistent with recent historiography. 
   According to Edward Gibbon in his 1776 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, it is “from this thunderbolt (1054) we may date the consummation of the schism.”  Though Gibbon does mention cultural differences between East and West that contributed to the schism, as well as internal Church disputes, he neglects the full scope of developments in preceding centuries. This seems to be the prevailing dating of the schism until perhaps until Steven Runciman’s The Eastern Schism, published in 1955. Runciman contends that it is impossible to give an exact date to the schism, stating that the schism gradually occurred and was not recognized by many for one to two hundred years after 1054. Although R.W. Southern, writing in 1970, seems to agree with Gibbon in saying that “It was in 1054 that all the elements of disunity which had come to light over the centuries were first concentrated in a single event” , Southern recognizes that the schism was hundreds of years in the making as a result of cultural, political, and theological divergence. Thomas Bokenkotter in his 1977 A Concise History of the Catholic Church contends that the schism really took place when the crusaders seized Antioch in 1098 and the Greek Patriarch was driven into exile and a Latin Patriarch installed. “The schism at Antioch was really the beginning of the schism between Eastern and Western Churches, for until then the other patriarchates were better disposed toward Rome than Constantinople, and if compelled to recognize any ecclesiastical superior would have preferred distant Rome to Constantinople”.  It was the Fourth Crusade (1202-04) that ended all hope of reunion, and especially the 1203 sack of Constantinople. J.M. Hussey agrees with Bokenkotter’s assessment of the 1202-1204 crusade being a better date for the schism, pointing out that the Humbert’s bull of excommunication received almost no mention in contemporary writings. Hussey writes that “Posterity has however read into this dramatic episode ‘a formal schism’ which did not then exist. What the quarrel did was to bring to the surface once again differences in doctrine and custom which had long been recognized and which were to be exaggerated and worked over in the better polemic of the middle ages”. 

Authority and The Failure of The Council of Florence

John Meyendorff writes that “most of the controversy which set Greek against Latin in the Middle Ages could have been solved easily if both churches had recognized a common authority able to solve the unavoidable differences created by divergent cultures and historical situations”.   In any attempt at reunion following the separation of Byzantine East and Latin West two conflicting understandings of the source of ecclesiastical authority consistently clashed- one based on the monarchical papacy, one on the pentarchical system of the East. As a result of the West’s changing political climate the papacy responded by becoming more centralized and autocratic- a position not objected to by the East, according to Ware, as long as the reach of the papacy’s control remained in the West.  The question of ecclesiastical authority loomed heavily over the 1439 Council of Florence.
After nearly four hundred years of separation a council seemed unlikely. To the West, a council could undermine the authority of the pope if convened on Greek terms. Likewise, the Byzantines feared the “Latinization” of the East and the loss of the pentarchical system. However, historical circumstance dictated the need for an attempt at reunion. After seven years of negotiations preceding it, and with the advance of the Turks into what remained of the dying Byzantine Empire, the pope agreed to allow for a council on Greek terms to discuss reunion.  While the East greatly needed military aid, the Holy See could not risk being undermined by the conciliarists in Basle who saw the possibility for their union with the Greeks as an opportunity to strengthen their position in the west.  In the end the emperor decided on the pope whose position and power was more familiar than that of the conciliarists. The council would follow the protocol for the ecumenical councils preceding it and in return the Byzantine Empire would receive Western aid to defend itself against the advancing Turks.
From the very beginning of the council the question of authority became obvious. Patriarch Joseph refused to genuflect and kiss the pope’s feet as had been the western tradition. Also, Emperor John Palaelogus insisted on sitting in the center of the council and presiding over it. In the end the pope received the patriarch out of public view and the seating arrangement placed the pope on Latin side but higher up than the other delegates while the emperor was seated the on eastern side, but lower. The Patriarch was seated lower than the both of them.
Naturally, questions of theology were extensively debated: The Filioque, purgatory, the use of leavened or unleavened bread, and whether the Eucharist was affected by the “words of institution” or the epiclesis. In the Filioque question Mark of Ephesus and Dominican Provincial of Lombardy were central players. Both wanted to discuss the question in light of patristic sources- they consulted Epiphanius and St. Basil’s Adversus Eunomium as well as his Homily on the Holy Spirit.   However, as Mark of Ephesus pointed out at the council, the real questions that needed to be addressed were those on the nature of authority. Basing his belief on a canon of the Council of Ephesus (431) stating that no change can be made to the Nicene Creed , Mark of Ephesus argued that the Filioque was inherently invalid because of the way it had been changed and represented a clear abuse of power in the West.  The Latins on the other hand believed that the argument should focus on whether the Filioque is theologically sound or not. This debate stretched on for eight fruitless months with appeals to the Greek Church Fathers presented on both sided. In the end, Geanakoplos argues, for the Latins to have accepted the Filioque as an error would have implied the recitation of a heresy for centuries.   
In interpreting the difficulty at Florence Meyendorff and Geanakoplos place a great deal of the blame on the centralized and authoritarian papacy that developed during the Middle Ages, presenting an almost unchanging East (in terms of Church governance) with a monarchical, distorted West. For the West Medieval canonical development gave supreme control and jurisdiction to the pope alone, while in the East authority continued to come from the Ecumenical Councils in which all five patriarchs of east and west represented. Meyendorff agrees, pointing out that until the eleventh century the council was the common way to remedy difficulties in the Church and stating that a “German-oriented reformed papacy of the eleventh century was definitely no longer attuned to this type of conciliarity” and that by Florence it was “too late to create the atmosphere of mutual respect and trust which alone would have permitted an authentic theological dialogue”.   Dvornik also points out the problems that arose over issues of authority. While the Byzantines used “apostolic canons” ecumenical councils, and local Synods, The West, by as early as the sixth century had added to conciliar canons the decrees of the Pope.
In the end the Greeks submitted to Roman demands and a brief reunion took place. With Mark of Ephesus as the sole member of the Greek delegation who refused to accept the union, the delegation returned to Constantinople on February 1st of 1440 where  an anti-unionist movement led by Mark of Ephesus began which attracted many monastics, lay people, and even former supporters of the union.  In 1452 the union was celebrated in Hagia Sophia. One year later Constantinople would fall to the Turks and the union would be a thing of the past. So why did so many sign a decree they later rejected and why did it fail so quickly?
Hussey points to the fact that the majority of Eastern representatives at the council were not learned. While at the council a small elite, learned, pro-union force swayed the votes. These delegates, like Bessarion of Nicaea, Isidore of Kiev, and George Scholarius, had been exposed to Latin theology and were most likely genuinely convinced of Rome’s position.   Southern believes that the pope did not realize the extent of the patriarch’s control over the emperor, or that the patriarch was not the equivalent of an “eastern pope”. Upon returning to Constantinople the Emperor found himself up against an “active body of lay theological opinion, an even more active and firmly entrenched monastic opinion, and a profound danger of popular disturbance”.  This popular disturbance derived from Greek rivalry, hatred of the West, and a fear of the loss of Greek identity to the Latins. Geanakoplos also sees the breakdown in terms of east-west antagonism, believing that remembrance of the sacking of Constantinople, fear of God’s judgment for abandoning the Orthodox faith, and fear of Latinization all “found expression” in the Church.  Runciman blames the failure to stay united on his belief that the aims of the council, for the East, were entirely political and was therefore unsustainable when circumstances changed.
   Although historians disagree on the extent to which theology, politics, culture, or authority played a role in creating and perpetuating the Great Schism, all agree that it was a combination of these factors that contributed to the divide. While some emphasize theological disagreements and others point to cultural estrangement as primary culprits, the consensus points to not just one, but many points of contention as well as misunderstanding. As ecumenical dialogue continues to try and bridge the gap between Eastern and Western Christendom, we see the same basic questions raised time and time again. Despite the “lifting of anathemas” between East and West in the 1960s, and despite the increased work of the ecumenical movement, the central issues of cultural difference, the Filioque, and the nature of ecclesiastical authority remain. 

  Steven Runciman. The Eastern Schism. a Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the XIth and XIIth Centuries. (New York: Oxford UP, 1955) 159.
  Timothy Ware. The Orthodox Church. (London: Penguin Books. 1997) 43-45.
  R. W. Southern. Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1970.) 55.

  Ibid 58.
  Thomas Bokenkotter. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977)
  Southern 60.
  Steven Runciman. The Eastern Schism. a Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the XIth and XIIth Centuries. (New York: Oxford UP, 1955.)

  Francis Dvornik. Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. (New York: Fordham UP, 1966) 127-128.
  Ibid 129.
  Ibid 127-128.
  Ware 48.
  Ibid 49
  Southern 65.
  Ware 50.
  Dvornik 128.
  Francis Dvornik. The Photian Schism: History and Legend. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1948.

  John Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. (New York: Fordham UP, 1987) 92.

  Ibid 92.
  Ibid 93.
  Ibid 92.
  Francis Dvornik. Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. (New York: Fordham UP, 1966) 132.
  Ibid 132.
  Ibid 135.
  Ibid 137.
  Edward Gibbon. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. (Great Britain: Chatto and Windus Ltd, 1960) 755.
  Southern 67.
  Bokenkotter 137.
  J.M. Hussey. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. )Oxford: Clarendon P, 1986)136.
  Meyendorff 97.
  Ware 49.
  Deno Geanakoplos. (Byzantine East and Latin West. New York: Barnes & Noble 1966) 91-92.
  Ibid 92.
  Hussey 278.
  Ibid 276.
  Ibid 103.
  Meyendorff 101.
  Dvornik 124.
  Hussey 281.
  Ibid 283.
  Southern 76.
  Geanakoplos 87.
  Runciman 158.

   















 







« Last Edit: March 08, 2008, 12:14:22 PM by Bogoliubtsy » Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2008, 12:22:25 PM »

Cleveland,

If I'm not mistaken, the excommunication bull that Cardinal Humbert placed on the altar of Hagia Sophia in 1054 excommunicated the entire Eastern Church while Patriarch Cerularius' bull excommunicated only Humbert, the papal delegation and the pope (who himself had died two weeks prior to Humbert placing the bull on the altar).  I'll have to dig up my copy of Runcimann.
...

Here http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf
is the text of Bull of Excommunication.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2008, 10:13:14 PM »

Thanks, Bogoliubtsy, for sharing your paper-looks like you put a lot of work into that!

Thanks also for the link, OrthodoxLurker!
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2008, 10:01:18 PM »

If I'm not mistaken, the excommunication bull that Cardinal Humbert placed on the altar of Hagia Sophia in 1054 excommunicated the entire Eastern Church while Patriarch Cerularius' bull excommunicated only Humbert, the papal delegation and the pope (who himself had died two weeks prior to Humbert placing the bull on the altar).  I'll have to dig up my copy of Runcimann.

I believe Cleveland is correct in saying that Patriarch Cerularius did not include the pope in his excommunication. Here's how Bishop KALLISTOS puts it: "Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such)."

You are correct in saying that Pope Leo IX had already died -- and hence it would be extremely difficult to claim that Cardinal Humbert still had the authority to issue an excommunication. (Incidentally, this is one reason I'm not too bothered by Pope Paul VI lifting that excommunication. It was never valid to begin with.)

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2008, 10:08:25 PM »

... the 4th Crusade and the sacking of Constantinople.  That blow can definitively be attributed to the Papacy.

?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2008, 07:09:07 AM »

If I'm not mistaken, the excommunication bull that Cardinal Humbert placed on the altar of Hagia Sophia in 1054 excommunicated the entire Eastern Church
Not really.  The Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Caerularius and "those who follow him."

It was probably a bit of a surprise to the Latins that it eventuated that "those who followed him" were in fact the greater part of the Catholic Church.  At that time the Eastern segment of the Church was a little larger than the Western.

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2008, 07:27:03 AM »

Here is the actual text of the Bull of Excommunication.   Most people have never read it.  It gives 11 very dubious and even dishonest reasons for excommunicating the Patriarch and those who follow him.

It is interesting that there is no actual charge of disobedience to the authority of the Pope of Rome.  I would take this as evidence that Rome knew it was on shaky ground with such a claim.  It was an innovative doctrine which it knew was unknown in the East and not yet firmly established in the West.  To have introduced it into the Bull would have made Rome look a little laughable.

Here is the text.

A Brief or Succinct Account of What the Ambassadors of the Holy Roman and
Apostolic See Did in the Royal City attributed to Cardinal Bishop Humbert of
Silva Candida.

"Acta et Scripta Quae de Controversiis Ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae Saeculo Undecimo Composita Extant"
Leipzig & arburg 1861, Documents VIII-X, pp. 150-4.

http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

The Excommunication with which Michael Kerularios and his Followers were wounded

Humbert, cardinal bishop of the holy Roman Church by the grace of God; Peter,archbishop of Amalfi; and Frederick, deacon and chancellor, to all the children of the catholic Church.

The holy, primary, and apostolic see of Rome, to which the care of all the churches most especially pertains as if to a head, deigned to make us its ambassadors to this royal city for the sake of the peace and utility of the Church so that, in accordance with what has been written, we might descend and see whether the complaint which rises to its ears without ceasing from this great city, is realized in fact or to know if it is not like this. Let the glorious emperors, clergy,senate, and people of this city of
Constantinople as well as the entire catholic Church therefore know that we have sensed here both a great good, whence we greatly rejoice in the Lord, and the greatest evil, whence we lament in misery. For as far as the columns of the imperial power and its honoured and wise citizens go, this city is most Christian and orthodox. But as far as Michael,who is called patriarch through an abuse of the term, and the backers of his foolishness are concerned, innumerable tares of heresies are daily sown in its midst.

1.  Because like Simoniacs,  they sell the gift of God;
2.  like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy;
3.  like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins;
4.  like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world;
5. like Nicolaitists,they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar; l
6.  like Severians,they say that the law of Moses is accursed;
7.  like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;
8.  like the Manichaeans among others, they state that leave is ensouled (animatum); 9.  like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and,
10.  in refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid
them to be baptized if they are pagan;
11.  and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church.

For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to repent. Furthermore, when we, the Pope's ambassadors, wanted to eliminate the causes of such great evils in a reasonable way, he denied us his presence and conversation, forbid churches to celebrate Mass, just as he had earlier closed the churches of the Latins and, calling them"azymites," had persecuted the Latins everywhere in word and deed. Indeed, so much did he persecute them that among his own children, he had anathematized the apostolic see and against it he still writes that he is the ecumenical
patriarch.

Therefore, because we did not tolerate this unheard of outrage and injury of the first, holy, and apostolic see and were concerned that the catholic faith would be undermined in many ways, by the authority of the holy and individuatedTrinity and the apostolic see, whose embassy we are performing, and of all the orthodox fathers from the seven councils and of the entire catholic Church, we thus subscribe to the following anathema which the most reverend pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers unless they should repent.

Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office, who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned  errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians,Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi,
Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics - nay, with the devil himself
and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN,AMEN.

« Last Edit: March 12, 2008, 07:34:22 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2008, 08:35:41 AM »

Not really.  The Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Caerularius and "those who follow him."

It was probably a bit of a surprise to the Latins that it eventuated that "those who followed him" were in fact the greater part of the Catholic Church.  At that time the Eastern segment of the Church was a little larger than the Western. 

That's an interesting graph (and certainly interesting results).  What study gathered that data?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2008, 09:10:34 AM »

That's an interesting graph (and certainly interesting results).  What study gathered that data?
Cannot say.  It was on CAF in the Eastern Christianity Forum but that has been deleted now.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2008, 09:15:55 AM »

Cannot say.  It was on CAF in the Eastern Christianity Forum but that has been deleted now.

Hmm.  Maybe I'll try and find it sometime later today.  Thanks for the info!
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2008, 09:30:25 AM »

Hmm.  Maybe I'll try and find it sometime later today.  Thanks for the info!
I've done a google search but cannot find that specific graph.  I would think it comes from this book "World Christian Trends AD 30 - AD 2200." Interpreting the annual Christian megacensus. David Barrett and Todd Johnson. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2001. 934p.

www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/wce2.htm
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2008, 10:02:39 AM »

I've done a google search but cannot find that specific graph.  I would think it comes from this book "World Christian Trends AD 30 - AD 2200." Interpreting the annual Christian megacensus. David Barrett and Todd Johnson. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2001. 934p.

www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/wce2.htm

The charts linked to that site are very interesting, and seem to mirror the conclusions drawn from the graph you linked above.  Of course it shows an obvious bias (it is Gordon Conwell), but the findings are interesting nonetheless.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,464


« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2008, 11:23:07 AM »

I wonder if one of the RC's here can define "Evangelical Catholics", "Spiritist Catholics" and "Christopagans" for me  Cheesy.  I have no idea where that Conwell guy gets some of his ideas.  In his 2001 "Facts", he says there are 500 M Pentacostals/Charismatics/Neo-Charismatics.  Sure..... Roll Eyes Huh
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2008, 03:00:53 PM »

I had a professor who used Conwell's figure of 500 M, and I asked him to identify a "Charismatic." He said that the entire Orthodox Church could be considered charismatic because of our emphasis on the Holy Spirit at Chrismation and our belief that the Holy Spirit has given and can give gifts of tongues (despite that this is a D-level doctrine for us and that we disagree with the Pentecostals as to how this is done).

As far as I can tell, in Conwell's mind, a "Charismatic" is anyone who doesn't ignore the Holy Spirit. It's really a synonym for "Trinitarian Christian."
« Last Edit: March 12, 2008, 03:03:38 PM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2008, 03:09:22 PM »

One conclusion that they drew in their study that I wholeheartedly agree with:

Quote
91% of all Christian outreach/evangelism does not target non-Christians but targets other Christians in World C countries, cities, peoples, populations, or situations.

World C is their code for "Christian" countries, versus World A (unevangelized) and World B (evangelized non-Christian)
« Last Edit: March 12, 2008, 03:09:42 PM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2008, 03:28:26 PM »

According to that definition, is there really a World A anymore?

I do agree, though, about evangelizing Christians. A few years ago I took a trip to Nicaragua to rebuild some houses that had been destroyed in an earthquake or a mudslide; I don't remember which. I didn't know much about the group I was traveling with; big mistake. We spent more time trying to convert these people than we did building houses. We even required that they have the "proper" definition of salvation (i.e. by grace and not by works) in order to receive their house. That, and in a town of about 5,000, I counted two Catholic churches and seven Protestant ones! They were obviously well-evangelized.

I would really love to go do some good in the world, to help Christians in places less fortunate--but it seems that everywhere I go Christians are trying to convert each other. I couldn't care less what religion they are; if someone has a need that I am able to provide for, I'd like to do so. I was so frustrated by this group; doing good for others should not be this difficult.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2008, 03:52:07 PM »

According to that definition, is there really a World A anymore? 

I don't know, but according to them Russia is World B (more than 50% have been evangelized, but less than 60% are Christian).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Cyril of New York
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese
Posts: 35



« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2008, 05:49:18 PM »

Having a degree from an Evangelical university, I can understand your feeling. Evangelicals place a strong emphasis on the individual; to them salvation is individual, prayer is individual, baptism is individual, etc. Thus we get actions like "altar calls," a cacophony of 300 people praying individual prayers in the same room at the same time, and "believers' baptism." So when it comes to research, they're no different. One cannot know something unless they have researched it themselves. Unfortunately, if the sources they've used are not good or are biased, their knowledge will reflect that.

I had a discussion with my Old Testament professor (who held a Doctor of Theology degree) about the Septuagint (LXX). He insisted that it was written by Rome in the sixteenth century A.D. as part of the Counter-Reformation. So even theologians can hold stupid views (and there's really no other word for his, as he must ignore mountains of archaeological and historical evidence to hold it) if they have been exposed to the wrong sources.

Your friends have probably been reading some well-written mut misinformed authors who are coming from a Catholic perspective. They will seem very sure of what they are saying because they have researched it themselves or have heard a lecture from someone who has. The best way to counter-act this is to do some research of your own from Eastern sources. Then, once you're sure you know our position, read some Catholics and Protestant sources and see what they say about it. This will help you strengthen your knowledge of our position--and it'll make you sound way smarter than your friends. Grin

Septuagint a product of the Reformation. Ooooookay, didn't see that one coming. Gotta give points for creativity. But seriously, this kind of stuff has been manna for Protestants, except when a lot of what they believe makes its way into a Dan Brown novel, for instance, they go apoplectic.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2008, 05:52:48 PM by Cyril of New York » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,279



« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2008, 11:14:59 PM »

I would really love to go do some good in the world, to help Christians in places less fortunate--but it seems that everywhere I go Christians are trying to convert each other. I couldn't care less what religion they are; if someone has a need that I am able to provide for, I'd like to do so. I was so frustrated by this group; doing good for others should not be this difficult.

I've got some stories similar to yours, Y.  Some of them involved me, others were told to me, but I've come to the exact same conclusion.  If we fail to give as if we were giving to Christ, then it is no gift and Christ Himself, at the day of judgment, will look upon me and say that I never visited him in prison, gave him neither food nor clothing, etc.  Gifts of the heart should never come with a price tag or warranty attached.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,194


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2008, 11:54:19 PM »

Would everyone please try to stay on topic?  Thank you.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2008, 11:55:36 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2008, 07:38:19 AM »

Getting back on topic...

It is often claimed that the Bull of Excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbert was not valid because the authority behind this Bull, Pope Leo IX had died before it was delivered. Taking this view of course casts doubt on the validity of every Papal Bull ever written, since none of those Popes who wrote them are alive today.

Leaving this aside, we also have the fact that every subsequent Pope upheld the validity of the Bull, particularly Pope Stephen X, who before his crowning, was Frederick of Lorraine, one of the papal legates who accompanied Cardinal Humbert and thus one of those excommunicated by the Synod of Constantinople.

John
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2008, 08:33:08 AM »

Getting back on topic...

It is often claimed that the Bull of Excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbert was not valid because the authority behind this Bull, Pope Leo IX had died before it was delivered. Taking this view of course casts doubt on the validity of every Papal Bull ever written, since none of those Popes who wrote them are alive today.

Your argument may work if Cardinal Humbert decided to excommunicate Michael Cerularius et al while Leo IX was still alive, but only delivered it after Leo's death. But my understanding (I'm no expert, I admit) is that Leo had already died before the decision was even made.

Leaving this aside, we also have the fact that every subsequent Pope upheld the validity of the Bull, particularly Pope Stephen X, who before his crowning, was Frederick of Lorraine, one of the papal legates who accompanied Cardinal Humbert and thus one of those excommunicated by the Synod of Constantinople.

Well not every subsequent pope.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2008, 08:42:29 AM »

Your argument may work if Cardinal Humbert decided to excommunicate Michael Cerularius et al while Leo IX was still alive, but only delivered it after Leo's death. But my understanding (I'm no expert, I admit) is that Leo had already died before the decision was even made.
*
But then we ask, what was the anathema that Pope Paul VI lifted in 1965?

If the 1054 anathema were null and void ab initio, he would have announced that instead.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2008, 08:51:39 AM »

It is often claimed that the Bull of Excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbert was not valid because the authority behind this Bull, Pope Leo IX had died before it was delivered.
*
(This is on my computer, without the author being named.  Prodromos maybe?)

What did the next Pope do?

Pope Victor II, also known as Gebhard, Count von Calw, Tollenstein, and Hirschberg was content to do nothing about it. Perhaps he was too involved with imperial politics, or the running of Eichstatt diocese (a post he held from the age of 24 until his death in violation of canon law.)

And the third Pope?
Pope Stephen IX, also known as Frederic de Lorraine was [one of the two other clerics with Cardinal Humbert in Constantinople.]

He must have accepted that the Bull was genuine since he he did not rescind it upon becoming Pope, although he was favorable to reopening negotiations.

According to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14290c.htm

It was seemingly whilst he [Pope Stephen] was a canon of Liège that his cousin Leo IX met him and made him chancellor and librarian of the Roman Church (c. 1051).

He accompanied Leo IX in his apostolic journeyings throughout Europe, and was sent by him on the famous embassy to Constantinople (1054) which terminated in the final separation of the Eastern and Western Churches.

and

As pope, he carried on the work of reformation which had been inaugurated by St. Leo IX. To show how much he was in earnest, he at once made cardinals of both that zealous St. Peter Damian, and the quondam monk champion of reform, Humbert, his own uncompromising companion on the embassy to Constantinople.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2008, 10:02:17 AM »

According to that definition, is there really a World A anymore?

I do agree, though, about evangelizing Christians. A few years ago I took a trip to Nicaragua to rebuild some houses that had been destroyed in an earthquake or a mudslide; I don't remember which.

Probably a mudslide. Did you go to Chinandega in NW Nicaragua? My best friend's family is from there. In 1998, Hurricane Mitch caused in Chinandega a mudslide down a volcano that killed thousands of people. Ten years later, recovery is still ongoing.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2008, 10:02:46 AM by lubeltri » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2008, 10:25:49 AM »

*
But then we ask, what was the anathema that Pope Paul VI lifted in 1965?

If the 1054 anathema were null and void ab initio, he would have announced that instead.

Hmm ... I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that. I suppose it's possible that the Pope Victor II re-authorized (perhaps tacitly) Cardinal Humbert to do what he did.

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2008, 10:27:34 AM »

The rescinding of the excommunications was more of a gesture than an official act. The actual excommunications were insignificant themselves. Like someone said here before, it was neither the beginning nor the end of the breaking of our communion.

You can read the joint statement of Athenagoras and Paul VI here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html

Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.

3. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

4. Since they are certain that they express the common desire for justice and the unanimous sentiment of charity which moves the faithful, and since they recall the command of the Lord: "If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brethren has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go first be reconciled to your brother" (Matt. 5:23-24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that:

A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.

C. Finally, they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factors—among which, lack of understanding and mutual trust—eventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.


Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.148 seconds with 61 queries.