OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 07:04:01 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: "Timeline" of the Great Schism  (Read 6280 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« on: March 09, 2009, 08:09:04 AM »

I once spent time on another forum  police Roll Eyes police in frefuting this silly time line.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.htm

Since, consistent with that forum's practice, policy and philosophy those posts are gone  police Roll Eyes police, and it has appeared again in support of the Vatican's superiority, it might pay to refute it here.

It has such gems as
Quote
The East begins to view the Roman Emperor as the supreme Church authority; even over the primacy (in however one defines it) of the Bishop of Rome. This is somehow related to the influence of the Arians at the imperial court; and most likely developed as a modified form of the old, pagan Emperor worship.

With the Council’s decree rejected, Eastern Emperor Theodosius I tries to imitate the policy of Western Emperor Gratian by making St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constantinople, the Pontifex Maximus of the Eastern Empire. St. Gregory, however, refuses to accept the title, and soon after resigns the bishopric.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 08:12:26 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,947


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2009, 11:19:09 AM »

Where do they come up with that garbage?  Obviously objective history isn't their goal, just propaganda.  I'd say that we should generate an equally-rosy timeline from our POV, but I'd rather have a more balanced historical account than that kind of trash.
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.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,274



« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2009, 12:23:32 PM »

I've seen Orthodox timelines that have objectionable points as well (e.g. this one). Obviously such a timeline is from an Orthodox perspective, as it paints Orthodoxy as the continuation of the ancient Church and Catholicism as a Church that split from the ancient Church. Of course, there is no mention of earlier splits, such as the ones that happened over Ephesus and Chalcedon, because that would dilute the (misleading) impact that the timline is meant to have. There are also no indications that Orthodoxy has had it's own splits in recent times (ie. the old calendarists), leaving one with the impression that it's only Catholicism and Protestantism that has such problems.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 12:24:38 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,947


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2009, 12:54:35 PM »

I've seen Orthodox timelines that have objectionable points as well (e.g. this one). Obviously such a timeline is from an Orthodox perspective, as it paints Orthodoxy as the continuation of the ancient Church and Catholicism as a Church that split from the ancient Church. Of course, there is no mention of earlier splits, such as the ones that happened over Ephesus and Chalcedon, because that would dilute the (misleading) impact that the timline is meant to have. There are also no indications that Orthodoxy has had it's own splits in recent times (ie. the old calendarists), leaving one with the impression that it's only Catholicism and Protestantism that has such problems.

Omission is a common problem in historical outlines; however, it seems that the RC timeline from the OP has some explicitly false or misleading point.  We should do what we can to fix our own timeline to add those points which may seem a bit counterproductive (like the splits with the Assyrians, Copts, etc.), but theirs needs to have some stated points removed and clarified.
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.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2009, 02:44:47 PM »

I've seen Orthodox timelines that have objectionable points as well (e.g. this one). Obviously such a timeline is from an Orthodox perspective, as it paints Orthodoxy as the continuation of the ancient Church and Catholicism as a Church that split from the ancient Church. Of course, there is no mention of earlier splits, such as the ones that happened over Ephesus and Chalcedon, because that would dilute the (misleading) impact that the timline is meant to have. There are also no indications that Orthodoxy has had it's own splits in recent times (ie. the old calendarists), leaving one with the impression that it's only Catholicism and Protestantism that has such problems.

Omission is a common problem in historical outlines; however, it seems that the RC timeline from the OP has some explicitly false or misleading point.  We should do what we can to fix our own timeline to add those points which may seem a bit counterproductive (like the splits with the Assyrians, Copts, etc.), but theirs needs to have some stated points removed and clarified.

Case in point:
Quote
At the end of the imperial persecutions of Christianity (c. 313), the universal Church is administered by three major ecclesiastical sees: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (in that order of primacy).

Not quite.

In the Apostolic Constitutions (3-4th cent) it states:

Quote
XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:—James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord [An incidental proof of the early origin of this compilation is furnished by the clear distinction it makes between James the son of Alphæus and James the brother of our Lord. The theory of Jerome, which identifies them, was later]   upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul   and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.   Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois;  and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus.Of Colossæ, Philemon.  Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon.Of the churches of Galatia,    Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep ye always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, “Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.viii.iv.html

Now notice, there is a multiple of Apostolic centers.  Note too, that some of the sees are explicitely mentioned, including Rome, as having successor bishops ordained by different Apostles (fitting, as the episcopacy is an ontological whole).  Such multimplicity fits the image St. Iranaeus gives of the Apostolic succession.  Note too, the order: it is not in the order of primacy.

What the timeline has done is taken its ecclesiology and projected it back.  Further, it has taken the Pentarchy and projected it back.  Around 313, yes, Rome was the leading See, and Alexandria was second, and Antioch third, but Ephesus was also a center of some renown (remember, its primate had taken on Victor of Rome, and the 3rd Ecumenical Council would take place there over a century later after 313), as was Caesarea in Palestine, and Caesarea in Cappadocia (whose Firmilian would give support to the Church of North Africa against its patriarch, St. Stephen of Rome).

The Pentarcy was of Ecclesiastical, not Divine nor Apostolic origin.  Rather than saying that the Universal Church was administered by three sees (note, it doesn't say "presided over by three sees," I suspect as to not put Alexandria or Antioch in Rome's alleged league), history would say that these three sees dominated the Universal Church.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2009, 02:48:17 PM »

And the problems just go on:
Quote
However, by the mid 300’s, there are already significant differences developing between East and West:

* The Roman Empire splits in two: a Western Roman Empire and an Eastern Roman Empire

Interesting how it brings this up, as they are constantly saying that politics have nothing to do with Rome's primacy.

Quote
* The Roman Rite is used in the West; the Antiochian and Alexandrian Rites are used in the East.

Yes, the Roman Rite was used in the West. And the Ambrosian, and the Mozarabic, and the Gallican, and...

Quote
* Unleavened bread is used in the Western Eucharist; leaven bread is used in the East.

Anyone want to take this up (Fr. Ambrose?).
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 02:50:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2009, 05:05:06 PM »

As mentioned in another thread, unleavened bread popped up in the 8th century.

And what's with this statement?

Quote
The West, as well as the Cappadocian fathers of Asia Minor (i.e., St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory Nazianzus), have accepted the clause’s theology since the mid-300’s.
Logged

signature
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2009, 05:14:44 PM »

The 'truth' lies in the person making up the timeline.

I never paid too much attention to these timelines anyway.  It only promotes false pride.



Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2009, 09:27:01 PM »

Quote
* The West begins a process toward an all-celibate clergy, based upon the growing East-West trend of electing only celibate monks as bishops.

At least it admits that it was a process, and away from married clergy.

The issue is not so accurately handed elsewhere on the site:
Quote
The Church Fathers of the first four centuries consistently spoke against the married priesthood. (Eusibius, Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Jerome etc..) St. Epiphanius speaks of the accepted ecclesiastical rule of the priesthood (kanona tes ierosynes) as something established by the Apostles. (Haer., xlviii, 9) "Holy Church", he says, "respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children." (Haer., lix, 4).

The writings of the Church fathers show that, in the early Church, married priests were not the accepted norm in the main centres of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. They considered it a "problem" that existed in the outlying regions. By the 3rd century there were almost no married priests and several councils put the issue to rest until around the 9th century when many bishops and priests took wives and had children. The state of the priesthood fell to an all time low.  A huge problem emerged with priests "willing" Church property to their families. Up to that point, the principle of celibacy was never completely surrendered in the official enactments of the Church. In 1123, celibacy was made official. Although, throughout history there have been scattered instances of abuses of the Canon Law, the Roman Catholic Church has consistently stuck to this position on celibate priests.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_priests_cant_marry.htm

Both St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Illuminator were married, and St. Gregory's line continued to produce primates for generations.  That was in Cappodocia, a center I guess the web site sees as an "outlying region," although the CAPPADOCIAN Fathers defined Orthodoxy.  The Quinisext Council explicitely affirmed the married clergy in the 692, not the "9th century."

Of course, then there's the problem of married Popes, starting with St. Peter. Shocked
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 09:27:37 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2009, 10:20:39 PM »

Quote
* The East begins to view the Roman Emperor as the supreme Church authority; even over the primacy (in however one defines it) of the Bishop of Rome. This is somehow related to the influence of the Arians at the imperial court; and most likely developed as a modified form of the old, pagan Emperor

It also is interesting to see the selective condemnation of Caesaropapism by the Ultramontanists.  Here and elsewhere they blame it for the Great Schism, e.g. from the same site:

Quote
In regard to the origins of the Church in Bulgaria, the first Christian tzars in Bulgaria were all in full communion with Rome, but later became isolated from Rome and dependent on Constantinople for political reasons.   The Bulgars, unfortunately, embraced Christianity during the very beginning of the struggles between Rome and Constantinople.    In this, Constantinople was interested in keeping Frankish (German) Christians out of the Balkans because the Franks claimed to have a rival Christian Empire, and the Byzantine Greeks were concerned for their national security.   Because of this, Patriarch Photius of Constantinople began to attack Roman customs and beliefs and caused trouble between the East and West, until he was deposed by the Greek Emperor Basil, who was obedient to the Pope of Rome and defended him against Photius.   At this time (actually just as it was beginning), King Boris of Bulgaria (his son Symeon was the first to claim the title Tzar) wanted to form Bulgaria into a third Christian Empire, alongside the Byzantine (Greek) Empire and the Frankish (German) Empire in the West.   To help in this political goal, Boris asked Pope St. Nicholas to make Bulgaria into a patriarchate, so that it would be equal to Constantinople.   But, when Pope Nicholas refused to do this (because he didn't want to alienate the Byzantines or the Franks), the Byzantines offered to recognize the leading Bulgarian bishop as a patriarch if the Bulgars would accept the Patriarch of Constantinople as "Ecumenical Patriarch" --a title which Rome also denied to the Greeks.   And this is why Bulgaria sided with Constantinople against Rome.   But, like Constantinople itself, Bulgaria still remained in communion with Rome and the entire Western Church until well after 1054.  Bulgaria even reaffirmed its communion with Rome in 1204, but sided with the Greeks thereafter.   And while the Pope did excommunicate the Bulgarian Tzar (Asen II) and launched a crusade into Bulgaria to depose him in 1238, Rome never excommunicated the people or clergy of Bulgaria itself, nor did Bulgaria ever excommunicate Rome.   Rather, as with Romania, Russia, and some other Eastern Orthodox Churches, there was never any formal excommunication issued between Bulgaria and Rome.   So, technically, we've always been in full communion.   We just don't act like it, and we have been isolated from each other for about 1,000 years. 
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/history_of_catholic_church_in_bulgaria.htm

But when it comes to the union schemes of Lyons and Florence, we are castigated for not following the emperor into submitting to the Vatican.

The toss in of the Arians is the usual guilt by association.  The closest bishop to the emperor was Hossios of Cordoba (in the West I believe  Roll Eyes)  Hardly an Arian.  What is not spoken (avoiding details is one way of not being proven wrong I guess) is the allusion to Eusebius of Nicomedia, who baptized Constantine on his death bed.  Said Eusebius was Arian, and did use his considerable influence to undermine the Catholic Orthodox Church, but even he had to sign onto the decree of Nicea I.  The image of the Christian emperor is indepted to Eusebius of Caesarea, an Origenist.  The problem for the "timeline's" theory is that the Arians basically disappeared in the East after Constantinople I (381), but lived on in the West, until the East came and rubbed them out of existence.  Not to be confused with the facts, I have seen it innumerable times claimed the St. John Chrysostom was deposed by an Arian council.  He was deposed by Popes Theophilos and Cyril of Alexandria, no Arians.

As for the comparison to emperor worship, it is interesting that the Vatican canonized its emperors just like the East canonized emperors: Constantine seems to be the only unanimous one, Justianian also venerated in the East.  The West has Henry II (who forced the pope of Rome to insert the filioque in her creed and forced mandatory clerical celebacy), and Charlemagne (canonized by the "anti-pope" Paschal III).  Of course, the problem is the the pope of Rome was also the ruler of the papal states, and a number of them were canonized.

And of course, the biggest problem for the Vatican kettle calling the pot of Constantinople black, is that the pope of Rome accepted the emperors title as High Priest of the pagan Roman religion, dealt with below in amusing ways. 

And of course, the embarrassing fact (for the Vatican) that the emperor called each and every Ecumenical Council.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 10:23:47 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,986


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2009, 12:43:24 AM »

I always believed that the timelime to Schism began with the Council of Toledo which enacted the Creed with Filoque in 586 and later ratified by whomever was Pope.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2009, 02:48:29 AM »

Quote
500 A.D. - Greek begins to replace Latin as the official tongue of the Eastern Empire.

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2009, 03:24:02 AM »

Quote
* Unleavened bread is used in the Western Eucharist; leaven bread is used in the East.

Anyone want to take this up (Fr. Ambrose?).

Dear ialmisry,

Here is my standard contribution on the topic of the use of leavened bread in the Western Church


CATHOLIC SCHOLARS SAY THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME USED LEAVENED BREAD
for the first 800 and more years.

The change to unleavened bread in Rome took place towards the end of the first millennium.


Fr. Joseph Jungman -- in his The Mass of the Roman Rite -- states that:


"In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on, all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural considerations -- all favored this development.


"Still, the new custom did not come into exclusive vogue until the middle of the eleventh century. Particularly in Rome it was not universally accepted till after the general infiltration of various usages from the North" [Rome itself, conservative as alwaysr, did not change to unleavened bread until a few decades after the schism.]

~ Joseph Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, pages 33-34


Fr. Jungman goes on to say that:


". . . the opinion put forward by J. Mabillon, Dissertatio de pane eucharistia, in his answer to the Jesuit J. Sirmond, Disquisitio de azymo, namely, that in the West it was always the practice to use only unleavened bread, is no longer tenable."


"Now, the fact that the West changed its practice and began using unleavened bread in the 8th and 9th century -- instead of the traditional leavened bread -- is confirmed by the research of Fr. William O'Shea, who noted that along with various other innovative practices from Northern Europe, the use of unleavened bread began to infiltrate into the Roman liturgy at the end of the first millennium, because as he put it, "Another change introduced into the Roman Rite in France and Germany at the time [i.e., 8th - 9th century] was the use of unleavened bread and of thin white wafers or hosts instead of the loaves of leavened bread used hitherto"


~ Fr. William O'Shea, The Worship of the Church, page 128


"Moreover, this change in Western liturgical practice was also noted by Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus in his book, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, because as he said:


"The Eucharistic bread has been unleavened in the Latin rite since the 8th century -- that is, it is prepared simply from flour and water, without the addition of leaven or yeast. . . . in the first millennium of the Church's history, both in East and West, the bread normally used for the Eucharist was ordinary 'daily bread,' that is, leavened bread, and the Eastern Church uses it still today; for the most part, they strictly forbid the use of unleavened bread. The Latin Church, by contrast, has not considered this question very important."


~ Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, page 162


"Thus, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the use of leavened bread by the Eastern Churches represents the ancient practice of the undivided Church, while the use of unleavened bread by the Western Church was an innovation introduced near the end of the first millennium."
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2009, 03:30:11 AM »


In the Apostolic Constitutions (3-4th cent) it states:

Quote
XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:—James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord [An incidental proof of the early origin of this compilation is furnished by the clear distinction it makes between James the son of Alphæus and James the brother of our Lord. The theory of Jerome, which identifies them, was later]   upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul   and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.   Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois;  and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus.Of Colossæ, Philemon.  Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon.Of the churches of Galatia,    Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep ye always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, “Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.viii.iv.html

Brethren,

Can I make a suggestion, that when you supply quotes in quotes that you block the quote and click on the "A" in the top row button above.  This will increase the font size by one point and. believe me, those of us with old eyes will be very grateful.   Smiley
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,160


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2009, 03:54:45 AM »

Quote
500 A.D. - Greek begins to replace Latin as the official tongue of the Eastern Empire.

*SNORT*

Oh, c'mon, already! How condescending is this to East and West alike? (I'm not including the Mel Gibsons of this world  Grin)
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2009, 01:13:00 PM »

Quote
500 A.D. - Greek begins to replace Latin as the official tongue of the Eastern Empire.

*SNORT*

Oh, c'mon, already! How condescending is this to East and West alike? (I'm not including the Mel Gibsons of this world  Grin)

Actually, this one is accurate.  Although Greek remained the dominant language in the East, Latin was official.  This may be seen in the Justinian code, which was produced in Latin.  The Novella, the most recent law, of the Code, began to be in Greek, however.  I believe it is under the Emperor Heracleius that Greek replaces Latin on the coinage, and Latin begins to be restricted to fossilized slogans and phrases.

Latin was spoken throughout the Balkans: witness that the Romanians/Vlachs are the most widespread group.  Constintine and Justinian both were Latin speakers, from what is now Serbia.  Mel Gibson is accurate, in that the recruits in the East at the time were mostly from the Balkans.  And St. Jerome, Mr. Latin himself, hailed from the Balkans too.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #16 on: March 11, 2009, 04:22:47 PM »

Actually, this one is accurate.  Although Greek remained the dominant language in the East, Latin was official.  This may be seen in the Justinian code, which was produced in Latin.  The Novella, the most recent law, of the Code, began to be in Greek, however.  I believe it is under the Emperor Heracleius that Greek replaces Latin on the coinage, and Latin begins to be restricted to fossilized slogans and phrases.

Latin was spoken throughout the Balkans: witness that the Romanians/Vlachs are the most widespread group.  Constintine and Justinian both were Latin speakers, from what is now Serbia.  Mel Gibson is accurate, in that the recruits in the East at the time were mostly from the Balkans.  And St. Jerome, Mr. Latin himself, hailed from the Balkans too.

I knew Latin was common in the East up to a certain point, but I did not know it was official and even dominant amongst the elites.  Thanks for the information!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2009, 12:37:17 PM »

Quote
342  At the height of the Arian struggle, the Council of Sardica acknowledges the supreme ecclesiastical authority of Rome, and gives the Roman bishop the right to judge cases involving episcopal sees. The presiding bishop at this council is St. Athanasius himself, who had previously been restored to his see of Alexandria by the authority of Pope Julius I --an authority that is even recognized by the Arians, then in power at Constantinople. Thus, Sardica merely codified Rome’s Traditional primacy as a matter of imperial law. 

Compare:

Quote
347 AD
 Council of Sardica, convened by Roman Emperors Constantius of New Rome and Constans of Old Rome, presided over by Hosius, bishop of Cordova, and attended by 370 fathers. It is convened to exonerate Sts. Paul of New Rome, Athanasius the Great of Alexandria and Maximus of Jerusalem, as well as Marcellus of Ancyra and Asclepas of Gaza, who had been deposed in 335 at the Council of Tyre under Eusebius of Caesarea. The Easterners agree to be present at the council of Sardica, but upon discovering that the deposed clergymen are to be given seats at the council, the Easterners depart for Philippoupolis where they hold a council of their own. The Westerners continue at the council of Sardica at which they confirm the Nicene Creed and establish several canons concerning church discipline. They proceed to depose 11 of the Easterners who departed for Philippoupolis on the charge of Arianism, whereas they exonerate and annul the depositions of Paul, Athanasius, Maximus, Asclepes and Marcellus. However, this council errs in its exoneration of Marcellus in that the latter is indeed a heresiarch (Marcellianism). 
 
347 AD
 Council of Philippoupolis, attended by 76 bishops who had departed from Sardica. It confirms the Nicene Creed and condemns the extreme form of Arianism, as well as Tritheism and Sabellianism. In addition to re-deposing Paul, Athanasius, Maximus, Asclepas and Marcellus, they also depose Pope Julius of Rome, Hosius of Cordova, Protogenes of Sardica, and several others who participated in the Sardican council. Thus, the Easterners and Westerners excommunicate each other on the grounds of heresy.

 
http://www.stnicholas-billings.org/History/timelineXXX.htm

Now, the mere existence of the Council of Phillippoulis belies the claim that the Archbishop (not yet Pope) of Rome's authority was recognized by the Arians.  In fact, it was the presence, as the Orthodox timeline shows, of Athanasius that caused the Eastern prelates to leave and reconvene at Phillippoupolis.  Not to say that Phillippoupolis was not a Robber Council.  But to claim that the Arians acknowledged Julian's dictates as mandates from heaven, implying that even heretic had to bow to the authority of Rome (then why are they still heretics?) is an outright lie.  Even more laughable is the claim that it made Rome's authority over the whole Church a matter of imperial law:Constantius, the emperor who called Sardica (note, not Rome's Julius), refused to acknowledge the decrees of Sardica.

A good summary of the issue:
Quote
Excursus as to Whether the Sardican Council Was Ecumenical.

Some theologians and canonists have been of opinion that the Council of Sardica was Ecumenical and would reckon it as the Second.  But besides the fact that such a numbering is absolutely in contrariety to all history it also labours under the difficulty, as we shall see presently, that the Westerns by insisting that St. Athanasius should have a seat caused a division of the synod at the very outset, so that the Easterns met at Philippopolis and confirmed the deposition of the Saint.  It is also interesting to remember that when Alexander Natalis in his history expressly called this synod ecumenical, the passage was marked with disapproval by the Roman censors.

(Hefele.  Hist. Councils. Vol. II., pp. 172 et seqq.)

The ecumenical character of this Synod certainly cannot be proved.  It is indeed true that it was the design of Pope Julius, as well as of the two Emperors, Constantius and Constans, to summon a General Council at Sardica; but we do not find that any such actually took place:  and the history of the Church points to many like cases, where a synod was probably intended to be ecumenical, and yet did not attain that character.  In the present case, the Eastern and Western bishops were indeed summoned, but by far the greater number of the Eastern bishops were Eusebians, and therefore Semi-Arians, and instead of acting in a better mind in union with the orthodox, they separated themselves and formed a cabal of their own at Philippopolis.

We cannot indeed agree with those who maintain that the departure of the Eusebians in itself rendered it impossible for the synod to be ecumenical, or it would be in the power of heretics to make an Ecumenical Council possible or not.  We cannot, however, overlook the fact that, in consequence of this withdrawal, the great Eastern Church was far more poorly represented at Sardica, and that the entire number of bishops present did not even amount to a hundred!  So small a number of bishops can only form a General Council if the great body of their absent colleagues subsequently give their express consent to what has been decided.  This was not, however, the case at the Synod of Sardica.  The decrees were no doubt at once sent for acceptance and signature to the whole of Christendom, but not more than about two hundred of those bishops who had been absent signed, and of these, ninety-four, or nearly half, were Egyptians.  Out of the whole of Asia only a few bishops from the provinces of Cyprus and Palestine signed, not one from the other Eastern provinces; and even from the Latin Church in Africa, which at that time numbered at least three hundred bishops, we meet with very few names.  We cannot give much weight to the fact that the Emperor Constantius refused to acknowledge the decrees of Sardica:  it is of much greater importance that no single later authority declared it to be a General Council.  Natalis Alexander is indeed of opinion that because Pope Zosimus, in the year 417 or 418, cited the fifth canon of Sardica as Nicene, and a synod held at Constantinople in 382 cited the sixth as Nicene, the synod must evidently have been considered as an appendix to that of Nicea, and therefore its equal, that is, must have been honoured as ecumenical.  But we have already shown how Zosimus and the bishops of Constantinople had been led into this confusion from the defects of their manuscript collections of the canons.  Athanasius, Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, and the Emperor Justinian were cited in later times for the ecumenical character of this synod.  Athanasius calls it a μεγάλη σύνοδος; Sulpicius Severus says it was ex toto orbe convocata; and Socrates relates that “Athanasius and other bishops had demanded an Ecumenical Synod, and that of Sardica had been then summoned.  It is clear at the first 436glance that the two last authorities only prove that the Synod had been intended to be a general one, and the expression “Great Synod,” used by Athanasius, cannot be taken as simply identical with ecumenical.  While, however, the Emperor Justinian, in his edict of 346, on the Three Chapters, calls the Synod of Sardica ecumenical, he yet, in the same edict, as well as in other places, does not reckon it among the General Councils, of which he counts four.  To this must be added, first, that the Emperor is not the authority entitled to decide as to the character of an Ecumenical Synod; and secondly, that the expression Universale Concilium was employed in a wider sense in speaking of those synods which, without being general, represented a whole patriarchate.

The Trullan Synod and Pope Nicholas I. are further appealed to.  The former in its second canon approved of the Sardican canons, and Pope Nicholas said of them:  “omnis Ecclesia recepit eos.”  But this in no way contains a declaration that the Synod of Sardica was ecumenical, for the canons of many other councils also—for instance, Ancyra, Neocæsarea, and others—were generally received without those synods themselves being therefore esteemed ecumenical.  Nay, the Trullan Synod itself speaks for us; for had it held the Synod of Sardica to be the second General Council, it would have placed its canons immediately after those of Nice, whereas they are placed after the four ancient General Councils, and from this we see that the Trullan Synod did not reckon the Sardican among those councils, but after them.  To this it must be added that the highest Church authorities speak most decidedly against the synod being ecumenical.  We may appeal first to Augustine, who only knew of the Eusebian assembly at Sardica, and nothing at all of an orthodox synod in that place; which would have been clearly impossible, if it had at that time been counted among the ecumenical synods.  Pope Gregory the Great and St. Isidore of Seville speak still more plainly.  They only know of four ancient General Councils—those of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.  The objection of the Ballerini that Gregory and Isidore did not intend to enumerate the most ancient general synods as such, but only those which issued important dogmatic decrees, is plainly quite arbitrary, and therefore without force.  Under such circumstances it is natural that among the later scholars by far the great majority should have answered the question, whether the Synod of Sardica is ecumenical, in the negative, as have Cardinal Bellarmin, Peter de Marca, Edmund Richer, Fleury, Orsi, Sacharelli, Tillemont, Du Pin, Berti, Ruttenstock, Rohrbacher, Remi Ceillier, Stolberg, Neander, and others.  On the other hand, Baronius, Natalis Alexander, the brothers Ballerini, Mansi, and Palma have sought to maintain the ecumenical character of the synod, but as early as the seventeenth century the Roman censors condemned the direct assertions of Natalis Alexander on the subject.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iii.vi.html


The canons have St. Hosius presiding, not Pope St. Athanasius.  Note the language "gives the Roman bishop the right to judge cases involving episcopal sees."  "Give" is right, he had no such power before, as Victor I found out when rebuked by the entire Church for threatening to excommunicate Polycrates of Ephesus.  Rather strange, though, that our time line in the same sentence claimes the Rome had "supreme ecclesiastical authority."  If she did, why did the Council have to "give[ her] the right to judge cases involving episcopal sees?"

Btw, Pontiff Julius' did not restore St. Athansius to his see:
Quote
Athanasius came to Rome about Easter, 340.  As is known, he was there for three whole years, and in the beginning of the fourth year was summoned to the Emperor Constans at Milan.  This points to the summer of 343.  From thence he went through Gaul to Sardica, and thus it is quite possible that that Synod might have begun in the autumn of 343.  It probably lasted, however, until the spring; for when the two envoys, Euphrates of Cologne, and Vincent of Capua, who were sent by the Synod to the Emperor Constans, arrived in Antioch, it was already Easter 344.  Stephen, the 414bishop of the latter city, treated them in a truly diabolical manner; but his wickedness soon became notorious, and a synod was established, which deposed him after Easter 344.  Its members were Eusebians, who therefore appointed Leontius Castratus as Stephen’s successor, and it is indeed no other than this assembly which Athanasius has in mind, when he says it took place three years after the Synod in Encæniis, and drew up a very explicit Eusebian confession of faith, the μακρόστιχος.

The disgraceful behaviour of Bishop Stephen of Antioch for some time inclined the Emperor to place less confidence in the Arian party, and to allow Athanasius’s exiled clergy to return home in the summer of 344.  Ten months later, the pseudo-bishop, Gregory of Alexandria, died (in June, 345), and Constantius did not permit any fresh appointment to the see of Alexandria, but recalled St. Athanasius by three letters, and waited for him more than a year.  Thus the see of Alexandria remained unoccupied for more than a year, until the last six months of 346.  At length, in October, 346, Athanasius returned to his bishopric
.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iii.ii.html

Btw, it would not be until the edict of Theodosius, in connection with the events of the Second Ecumenical Council, that the primacy of Rome AND the Pope of Alexandria would be codified into Roman law.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2009, 12:39:32 PM »

Actually, this one is accurate.  Although Greek remained the dominant language in the East, Latin was official.  This may be seen in the Justinian code, which was produced in Latin.  The Novella, the most recent law, of the Code, began to be in Greek, however.  I believe it is under the Emperor Heracleius that Greek replaces Latin on the coinage, and Latin begins to be restricted to fossilized slogans and phrases.

Latin was spoken throughout the Balkans: witness that the Romanians/Vlachs are the most widespread group.  Constintine and Justinian both were Latin speakers, from what is now Serbia.  Mel Gibson is accurate, in that the recruits in the East at the time were mostly from the Balkans.  And St. Jerome, Mr. Latin himself, hailed from the Balkans too.

I knew Latin was common in the East up to a certain point, but I did not know it was official and even dominant amongst the elites.  Thanks for the information!

Even more a quirk of history: Greek was common in the West. The Divine Liturgy/Mass at Rome was in Greek until Victor I (a Latin from North Africa) introduced Latin in the late second century.  It did not become all  Latin until Damasus in the late fourth century.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: leavened bread 
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 0.12 seconds with 47 queries.