Topic: EO sympathizers' explanation of the schism

[ignatios]

From what I have read on the forum, I believe there are some OO (and EO) Christians on here that think that there isn't a real difference between the Christologies of the OO and EO.

I know this is a huge topic, and I have a ton of research to do, but how do y'all explain the schism between the two, especially in terms of there being "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"?

Please correct me if I have misunderstood things already.

Lord, have mercy.


P.S. I really like the OO Fathers thread!  The current Pope said something on prayer that has helped me a ton in the past few weeks.

[Salpy]

For my take on the issue, see reply seven of the below thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7942.msg104087.html#msg104087

It basically has to do with Constantinope II (The EO's Fifth Council.) 

Prior to then, there were some people, including some Chalcedonians, who gave Chalcedon a Nestorian interpretation.  Thus the schism between the Alexandrians, and the Chalcedonians.

At Constantinople II, any ambiguities were cleared up and Chalcedon was given an interpretation which excluded any possibility of Nestorianism.  Those Chalcedonians who wanted to give Chalcedon a Nestorian interpretation were kicked out.  Thus the current opinion of many theologians that our two Churches really believe the same thing.   

[Didymus]

Peace ignatios , which Pope do you mean?

The short answer is that we recognise our Churches to be one yet in disagreement.

Even in the Holy Bible we find that St. Paul and St. Barnabas parted ways due to a disagreement. Just as these Apostles parted ways so too have the bishops of our Churches. By the grace of God may they be reunited again. Nonetheless, the Church on earth is one with the Church Triumphant even if those of us here on earth are temporarily divided in time for there is no time in heaven.

Hope that helped and pray for me please.

[_Seraphim_]

From what I have read on the forum, I believe there are some OO (and EO) Christians on here that think that there isn't a real difference between the Christologies of the OO and EO.
I know this is a huge topic, and I have a ton of research to do...

"Disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike."
-St. Athanasius (†444)

"Behold the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology"
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state04.html

[Anastasios]

Some people think it is just about words, but others do not. I belong to the latter. But I'm not going to elaborate further, because the issue has been discussed a lot elsewhere and I don't have time!

[buzuxi]

Obviously there were reasons over the schism. Politics as much as theological motivation was behind it all.  The theological motives can easily be deciphered by studying various christological statements and see what these statements omit, rather than what they include. Likewise a study of Church history amongst the rivalry of patriarchates and the hardening of groups along ethnic lines within the eastern empire, were all catalysts for the split.

[Αριστοκλής]

^ To which I might add that we tend to view the schism as a point-in-time event when in fact it evolved over time after 451 - over quite some time.
As Salpy notes with the Council of 553, the schism was not beyond repair as, for example, this council led the Church of Georgia to switch 'sides'. A further political element, and perhaps greatest of all, was the coming of Islam and the Arab invaders who delighted in the schism's weakening of Christianity and so fostered its continuance under the guise of anti-Byzantine imperialism.

[Basil 320]

I had read in a secular publication that Islam was based on a heresy of the Byzantine Orthodox Christian Church; that its early adherents were essentially excommunicated Orthodox.  Is this relevant to this discussion?  Does anyone know, if this is true, what the alleged heresy was?

[wynd]

I had read in a secular publication that Islam was based on a heresy of the Byzantine Orthodox Christian Church; that its early adherents were essentially excommunicated Orthodox.  Is this relevant to this discussion?  Does anyone know, if this is true, what the alleged heresy was?

Arianism?

[Salpy]

Is this relevant to this discussion? 

No.

However, Islam had so many elements in common with Christainity and Judaism, that many do believe that Mohammad had contact with both communities.  Islamic tradition contains stories about Christ which scholars think may have come from some heretical communities.  I've also heard that Mohammad had a relative who was an excommunicated Christian priest and that this relative helped him formulate his religion.  I don't know, however, how true that last allegation is.

[ignatios]

Peace ignatios , which Pope do you mean?

The short answer is that we recognise our Churches to be one yet in disagreement.

Even in the Holy Bible we find that St. Paul and St. Barnabas parted ways due to a disagreement. Just as these Apostles parted ways so too have the bishops of our Churches. By the grace of God may they be reunited again. Nonetheless, the Church on earth is one with the Church Triumphant even if those of us here on earth are temporarily divided in time for there is no time in heaven.

Hope that helped and pray for me please.

Sorry, I realized that there are many popes or similar fathers in the Oriental churches.  I meant His Holiness Pope Shenouda III.