Author Topic: Why 1054?  (Read 32317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Why 1054?
« on: April 27, 2009, 12:02:22 PM »
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc? Correct me if I am wrong (And I am sure many of you will ;D), but wasn't St. Benedict canonized after 1054? By a post-schism Roman Catholic Pope? Isn't he an Orthodox Saint though? I am really not sure about all of this, and would like some help. God Bless!

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2009, 12:03:16 PM »
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc? Correct me if I am wrong (And I am sure many of you will ;D), but wasn't St. Benedict canonized after 1054? By a post-schism Roman Catholic Pope? Isn't he an Orthodox Saint though? I am really not sure about all of this, and would like some help. God Bless!
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2009, 12:06:28 PM »
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2009, 12:27:46 PM »
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?
Even if he was not cannonized until later by the Roman Church, I am certain that he recieved popular veneration by the East and West well before this.
EO objections to western saints is really only to saints who lived after the schism and were members of the Catholic Communion.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2009, 12:31:16 PM »
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?
Even if he was not cannonized until later by the Roman Church, I am certain that he recieved popular veneration by the East and West well before this.
EO objections to western saints is really only to saints who lived after the schism and were members of the Catholic Communion.
I guess my question concerns much more than just St. Benedict. Is it really so "cut-and-dry" where the line is drawn in our (Catholic/Orthodox) traditions? Does it truly stop at 1054 for the Orthodox Church? Or is this wishful thinking? I really don't know. Can anyone help?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2009, 12:35:12 PM »
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?
Even if he was not cannonized until later by the Roman Church, I am certain that he recieved popular veneration by the East and West well before this.
EO objections to western saints is really only to saints who lived after the schism and were members of the Catholic Communion.
I guess my question concerns much more than just St. Benedict. Is it really so "cut-and-dry" where the line is drawn in our (Catholic/Orthodox) traditions? Does it truly stop at 1054 for the Orthodox Church? Or is this wishful thinking? I really don't know. Can anyone help?
I guess that this would have to come down to a question of when the schism was finalized. Most EO I have talked to believe that mutual excommunications of 1054 were the finalization of the schism. A small minority that I have spoken to believe it happened before or after that point. I honestly don't know what the percise answer is on this issue. I am not sure if anyone knows to be honest. I expectantly await the EO response on this thread.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2009, 12:39:16 PM »
I expectantly await the EO response on this thread.
As do I.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,197
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2009, 12:40:35 PM »
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc? Correct me if I am wrong (And I am sure many of you will ;D), but wasn't St. Benedict canonized after 1054? By a post-schism Roman Catholic Pope? Isn't he an Orthodox Saint though? I am really not sure about all of this, and would like some help. God Bless!

Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
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

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2009, 12:41:04 PM »
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc? Correct me if I am wrong (And I am sure many of you will ;D), but wasn't St. Benedict canonized after 1054? By a post-schism Roman Catholic Pope? Isn't he an Orthodox Saint though? I am really not sure about all of this, and would like some help. God Bless!

Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Yawn.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2009, 12:46:01 PM »
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2009, 12:47:21 PM »
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Section Moderator
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,118
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2009, 12:50:47 PM »
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.

Some of the EO's also used the same accusation against the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Some just love to insult the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2009, 12:51:20 PM »
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.
Well then, it seems that the statement has nothing to do with what I asked.....hmmmmm. I wonder why ialmisry is being moderated?  

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2009, 12:52:02 PM »
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.

Some of the EO's also used the same accusation against the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Some just love to insult the Ecumenical Patriarchate
I've noticed that too.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2009, 12:52:57 PM »
Anyone have helpful info on this question, that isn't an insult?

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Section Moderator
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,118
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2009, 12:53:09 PM »
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?
Even if he was not cannonized until later by the Roman Church, I am certain that he recieved popular veneration by the East and West well before this.
EO objections to western saints is really only to saints who lived after the schism and were members of the Catholic Communion.
I guess my question concerns much more than just St. Benedict. Is it really so "cut-and-dry" where the line is drawn in our (Catholic/Orthodox) traditions? Does it truly stop at 1054 for the Orthodox Church? Or is this wishful thinking? I really don't know. Can anyone help?
I guess that this would have to come down to a question of when the schism was finalized. Most EO I have talked to believe that mutual excommunications of 1054 were the finalization of the schism. A small minority that I have spoken to believe it happened before or after that point. I honestly don't know what the percise answer is on this issue. I am not sure if anyone knows to be honest. I expectantly await the EO response on this thread.

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

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

Like I said though..an anathematization is hard to get over, so perhaps this is why there is such a hard line.  

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2009, 12:55:09 PM »
St. Benedict lived well before 1054.
I know, but wasn't he canonized after 1054, by the Roman Church first?
Even if he was not cannonized until later by the Roman Church, I am certain that he recieved popular veneration by the East and West well before this.
EO objections to western saints is really only to saints who lived after the schism and were members of the Catholic Communion.
I guess my question concerns much more than just St. Benedict. Is it really so "cut-and-dry" where the line is drawn in our (Catholic/Orthodox) traditions? Does it truly stop at 1054 for the Orthodox Church? Or is this wishful thinking? I really don't know. Can anyone help?
I guess that this would have to come down to a question of when the schism was finalized. Most EO I have talked to believe that mutual excommunications of 1054 were the finalization of the schism. A small minority that I have spoken to believe it happened before or after that point. I honestly don't know what the percise answer is on this issue. I am not sure if anyone knows to be honest. I expectantly await the EO response on this thread.

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

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

Like I said though..an anathematization is hard to get over, so perhaps this is why there is such a hard line.  
Sounds reasonable to me. The sacking may have just confirmed in the minds of the Greeks what was already a true schism. The sackind of one's home town is also hard to get over. But I think that the 1054 date is pretty good indicator of when this all happened.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2009, 02:36:56 PM »
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.
You deny being ultramontanist?!? How very odd!


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




« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 02:37:23 PM by Mickey »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2009, 03:26:20 PM »
Some EOs on this forum like to insult Catholics by calling us Ultramontanists. Its an unfounded accusation but some just love insulting the Catholic Church.
You deny being ultramontanist?!? How very odd!


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





How odd that you anti-catholics apply the term "montanist" to Catholics at all. It has nothing do with the Popes "Power of the Keys". Its anti-catholic rehtoric, plain and simple.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,197
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2009, 03:34:49 PM »
Orthodoxy doesn't stop in 1054.  Ultramontanism officially begins in 1054.
Could you please clarify for me? I know that this is probably a jab at someone; I am not knowledgable enough to realize what you are saying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How odd that you anti-catholics apply the term "montanist" to Catholics at all. It has nothing do with the Popes "Power of the Keys". Its anti-catholic rehtoric, plain and simple.
Calling the Vatican on its claims?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 03:50:03 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2009, 03:51:23 PM »
How odd that you anti-catholics apply the term "montanist" to Catholics at all. It has nothing do with the Popes "Power of the Keys". Its anti-catholic rehtoric, plain and simple.
Please try to contain yourself. Ultramontanist is not synonymous with the heresy of montanism. They are different terms. As Isa has shown, the catholic encyclopedia agrees.

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

Thank you.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 03:52:23 PM by Mickey »

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,195
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2009, 04:16:03 PM »
Well then, it seems that the statement has nothing to do with what I asked.....hmmmmm. I wonder why ialmisry is being moderated?  

I've noticed that too.

Those sentiments are not necessary here.

To answer your question, PFN, you must remember that the Orthodox veneration of saints does not happen simply because he has been canonzied "officially" by any one church hierarch.  Veneration of certain saints happens organically over time.  A local congregation may start venerating a saint who died in their midst and over time, his/her veneration spreads over a larger geographic area until the whole church catholic begins to do likewise.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,279
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2009, 04:21:59 PM »
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc? Correct me if I am wrong (And I am sure many of you will ;D), but wasn't St. Benedict canonized after 1054? By a post-schism Roman Catholic Pope?

It really seems as though you already have half a foot out the door.  If you are so thoroughly enamored with Roman Catholic devotions and saints, why don't you just go ahead and become Catholic already?  It just seems like you're inching over in increments anyway.  Just take the big leap!

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2009, 04:27:32 PM »
How odd that you anti-catholics apply the term "montanist" to Catholics at all. It has nothing do with the Popes "Power of the Keys". Its anti-catholic rehtoric, plain and simple.
Please try to contain yourself. Ultramontanist is not synonymous with the heresy of montanism. They are different terms. As Isa has shown, the catholic encyclopedia agrees.

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

Thank you.
Perhaps you should educate yourself in common courtesy.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #24 on: April 27, 2009, 05:27:35 PM »
Well, I step away, and the thread is completely off course. shocking :P Some have said that 1204 is another date spoken of in regards to where the line should be drawn between the two traditions. Is this a popular view?

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #25 on: April 27, 2009, 05:31:06 PM »
In 1054 one of the pentarchy left the Orthodox Communion, or began to (in Antioch a date of 1717 is sometimes given), nothing more.  The Orthodox remained what we were before.  We haven't stopped.
I know that we Orthodox haven't stopped. I was just wondering where the line is drawn in the two traditions being seperated. 1054? 1204? 1717?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 05:31:58 PM by PoorFoolNicholas »

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Section Moderator
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,118
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #26 on: April 27, 2009, 06:26:10 PM »
Well, I step away, and the thread is completely off course. shocking :P Some have said that 1204 is another date spoken of in regards to where the line should be drawn between the two traditions. Is this a popular view?

It just really depends on who you talk to and what your stance is.  You have to be educated about all of the dates and the historical particularities.  If you want a nice intro to things i'd be more than happy to send you my church history notes.  Just PM me. 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,197
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2009, 07:01:01 PM »
Well, I step away, and the thread is completely off course. shocking :P Some have said that 1204 is another date spoken of in regards to where the line should be drawn between the two traditions. Is this a popular view?

Especially in Greece.

A lot of dates can be provided.  If it wasn't for the drama of Cardinal Humbert, maybe 1054 wouldn't have been picked (the Pope of Rome had been struck from the diptychs a few decades earlier, when he sent a missive with the Filioque in it.  But that was done without fanfair).
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

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2009, 07:08:43 PM »
Historians are quite right when they demonstrate that the schism didn't "happen" in 1054. It was a gradual estrangement of which 1054 was only a part.

As for post-1054 things, PoorFoolNicholas, Orthodox today already practice things post-1054. The Liturgy of Saint Tikhon and the Liturgy of Saint Gregory, celebrated by Western-rite Orthodox, are based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and the post-Council of Trent Roman-rite Mass, respectively. So the very liturgy some Orthodox pray are basically post-schism.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2009, 08:42:46 PM »
It just really depends on who you talk to and what your stance is.  You have to be educated about all of the dates and the historical particularities.
That is what gets me stratching my head. Now please do not unleash the hounds: What about devotions within Catholicism that are post-schism? Now I am not saying lets bring em' all in, but where does one draw the line? Let's take the saints as well. Where do we draw the line when venerating Western(Catholic) saints? 1054? 1204? 1717? This confuses me. I know it is because of my limited knowledge of the history behind the schism of East and West. Let me give an example: Saint Francis of Assisi. While he lived after 1054, he did live within the window of 1204. What to do? 

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Section Moderator
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,118
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2009, 11:56:27 PM »
It just really depends on who you talk to and what your stance is.  You have to be educated about all of the dates and the historical particularities.
That is what gets me stratching my head. Now please do not unleash the hounds: What about devotions within Catholicism that are post-schism? Now I am not saying lets bring em' all in, but where does one draw the line? Let's take the saints as well. Where do we draw the line when venerating Western(Catholic) saints? 1054? 1204? 1717? This confuses me. I know it is because of my limited knowledge of the history behind the schism of East and West. Let me give an example: Saint Francis of Assisi. While he lived after 1054, he did live within the window of 1204. What to do? 

How about even more complicated questions like "what about Origen"?  Because he was not declared a heretic until 400 years after his repose.  You have to realize that the mind of the church is united in this one fact:  an ecumenical council (in the case of Origen) or a common declaration of anathema (in the RC case) is the mind of the church on a whole selection of people who have chosen to schism.  Does that mean they don't have holy people who were close to christ?  Who can say for sure.  But the key problem is that we do not know how "orthodox" these saints were.  And also, you have to account that they all put themselves with a church which was heretical in many ways.  All of these things have to be balanced out before you can even ASK if they were orthodox (which is a huge category in and of itself). 

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #31 on: April 28, 2009, 08:36:44 AM »
Perhaps you should educate yourself in common courtesy.
Apology accepted.  ;D

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2009, 09:20:06 AM »
How about even more complicated questions like "what about Origen"?  Because he was not declared a heretic until 400 years after his repose.  You have to realize that the mind of the church is united in this one fact:  an ecumenical council (in the case of Origen) or a common declaration of anathema (in the RC case) is the mind of the church on a whole selection of people who have chosen to schism.  Does that mean they don't have holy people who were close to christ?  Who can say for sure.  But the key problem is that we do not know how "orthodox" these saints were.  And also, you have to account that they all put themselves with a church which was heretical in many ways.  All of these things have to be balanced out before you can even ASK if they were orthodox (which is a huge category in and of itself).
Very good points indeed. But I guess it doesn't really get me any closer to understanding where the line is. I know that many cite 1054, but there is always a "but"; you know what I mean? And with 1204, I don't really know. 1717 is quite a new one for me, could someone elaborate on how 1717 affects the boundary between the Catholic and Orthodox traditions? Or is this not a very popular date, so to speak?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2009, 09:38:13 AM »
Perhaps you should educate yourself in common courtesy.
Apology accepted.  ;D
::)
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2009, 09:41:38 AM »
How about even more complicated questions like "what about Origen"?  Because he was not declared a heretic until 400 years after his repose.  You have to realize that the mind of the church is united in this one fact:  an ecumenical council (in the case of Origen) or a common declaration of anathema (in the RC case) is the mind of the church on a whole selection of people who have chosen to schism.  Does that mean they don't have holy people who were close to christ?  Who can say for sure.  But the key problem is that we do not know how "orthodox" these saints were.  And also, you have to account that they all put themselves with a church which was heretical in many ways.  All of these things have to be balanced out before you can even ASK if they were orthodox (which is a huge category in and of itself).
Very good points indeed. But I guess it doesn't really get me any closer to understanding where the line is. I know that many cite 1054, but there is always a "but"; you know what I mean? And with 1204, I don't really know. 1717 is quite a new one for me, could someone elaborate on how 1717 affects the boundary between the Catholic and Orthodox traditions? Or is this not a very popular date, so to speak?
I am not sure about 1717 but it is my understanding that some of the Patriarchates remained in communion with both Rome and Constantinople for some time after 1054. At least this is what I have read on the internet. Can anyone provide evidence for against this?
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2009, 09:41:49 AM »
It's not so simple as saying there's a break point at 1054.  It's particularly messy in the Patriarchate of Antioch.

To give one example though, here is this

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

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

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spnorton/Platsis%20web%20page.htm

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #36 on: April 28, 2009, 09:46:03 AM »
It's not so simple as saying there's a break point at 1054.  It's particularly messy in the Patriarchate of Antioch.

To give one example though, here is this

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

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

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spnorton/Platsis%20web%20page.htm
Interesting. Can anyone elaborate on the schism taking longer with the Antiochians, and why?

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2009, 10:31:15 AM »
*BUMP*

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #38 on: April 28, 2009, 11:42:51 AM »
Perhaps I can ask the question this way:
When did the Roman Catholic Tradition stop being Orthodox Tradition? 1054? 1204? 1453? 1717?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #39 on: April 28, 2009, 11:45:19 AM »
Perhaps I can ask the question this way:
When did the Roman Catholic Tradition stop being Orthodox Tradition? 1054? 1204? 1453? 1717?
That is a great question because the west believed in Papal Primacy, the filioque, etc. before the schism.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 11:45:40 AM by Papist »
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #40 on: April 28, 2009, 11:49:59 AM »
Perhaps I can ask the question this way:
When did the Roman Catholic Tradition stop being Orthodox Tradition? 1054? 1204? 1453? 1717?
I always thought it was a gradual and incremental process beginning (unofficially) before 1054.  ???

Offline Douglas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 608
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #41 on: April 28, 2009, 11:51:59 AM »
Would you mind providing some specific dates along with corresponding evidence supporting those dates relating to when papal primacy, the filioque and the immaculate conception were "believed in" by the west?
Douglas no longer posts on the forum.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #42 on: April 28, 2009, 11:52:12 AM »
I always thought it was a gradual and incremental process beginning (unofficially) before 1054.  ???
Then when? That is what I can't seem to tack down. Where do our traditions finally, and authoritatively end?

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,785
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #43 on: April 28, 2009, 11:52:14 AM »
Does Orthodoxy stop at 1054 A.D. when venerating saints, implementing devotions, etc?
Umm...no. In fact, one of our most cherished saints in the Ozarks is St. John Kucharov, who lived in the 19th and 20th c. A.D. He was an apostle to Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas, and became the first martyr of the Bolshevik Revolution. We venerate him weekly in church, and many of us daily at home.

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

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #44 on: April 28, 2009, 11:52:36 AM »
Would you mind providing some specific dates along with corresponding evidence supporting those dates relating to when papal primacy, the filioque and the immaculate conception were "believed in" by the west?
That would be nice.