Topic: Why 1054?

[AMM]

Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.

Clearly it has in places beyond that date.

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.

Clearly it has in places beyond that date.

Could you give me some info. Or have you already? God Bless!

[AMM]

Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.

Clearly it has in places beyond that date.

Could you give me some info. Or have you already? God Bless!

I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen.  Consider the implications of that.

[Papist]

Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.

Clearly it has in places beyond that date.

Could you give me some info. Or have you already? God Bless!

I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen.  Consider the implications of that.

Hey, I really like your icon of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

[NorthernPines]

I always thought it was a gradual and incremental process beginning (unofficially) before 1054. 

Then when? That is what I can't seem to tack down. Where do our traditions finally, and authoritatively end?

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

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

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

[Mickey]

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

Good post. You summed it up as good as anyone on this thread. 

[PoorFoolNicholas]

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

Good post. You summed it up as good as anyone on this thread. 

Yes, thank you very much. Now to 1484:
Could someone give me some more info on what transpired between East, and West in that year? Thanks, and God Bless!

[Entscheidungsproblem]

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

Good post. You summed it up as good as anyone on this thread. 

Yes, thank you very much. Now to 1484:
Could someone give me some more info on what transpired between East, and West in that year? Thanks, and God Bless!

Synod of Constantinople.  It was a series of Synods in which they denounced the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence and stated that Latin converts should be received through Chrismation and a formal renouncing of errors.

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Synod of Constantinople.  It was a series of Synods in which they denounced the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence and stated that Latin converts should be received through Chrismation and a formal renouncing of errors.

What is the official name of the synod meeting? Or is Synod of Constantinople the official title? Thanks, and God Bless!

[PoorFoolNicholas]

I found this on Orthodoxwiki:

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

A schism is a break in the Church's authority structure and communion and is different from a heresy, which means false doctrine. Church authorities have long recognized that even if their minister is in schism, the sacraments, except the power to ordain, are valid. There have been many other schisms, from the second century until today, but none as significant as the one between East and West. [/b]
So do the Orthodox consider the sacraments of Rome, and those in communion with Rome valid? Or is this just wishful thinking in this article?

[Alveus Lacuna]

A look at the vigil text for the feasts of the Veneration of the Cross (3rd Sunday of Great Lent), and the Exaltation of the Cross (September 14) make the Orthodox Church's position quite clear. Both feasts are "universal" feasts of the Church, i.e. are celebrated by all local Orthodox churches, not just the Russian. The church also has feasts for various icons of the Mother of God, for the Mandylion of Christ, the veneration of the chains of Apostle Peter, the Deposition of the belt of the Mother of God, etc. These items became holy through the actions of those who were themselves holy, and are treated with the same honour and reverence as relics and icons.

Yes, but in the liturgical books does the congregation pray to the chains, to the cross, to the deposition belt as if they are persons?  As in: "Holy Chains of St. Peter, free me from my sins!!"  Because my prayer book contains prayer to the cross, and I am wondering if it is theologically Orthodox.

[Irish Hermit]

I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen. 

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

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

[ialmisry]

I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen. 

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

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

A Ukrainian just asked me today about this (he says he considers himself Orthodox, and has no use for the Latins).

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Topic Split:  Communion and Schism

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

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


Thank you.

-- Nebelpfade

[AMM]

I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen. 

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

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

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

It's certainly not the only example of the recognition of the efficacy and validity of Catholic sacraments.

[PoorFoolNicholas]

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

Hilarious!  If, the Schism is pushed "officially" to 1484 why don't we venerate saints from the Catholic tradition that fit within that window in the Orthodox Church? Why don't we participate in the Catholic devotions that fit within that window? As I asked before, St. Francis would clearly fit, as would St Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. I guess, I just don't see why we stop at 1054, the more I learn about the nature of the Schism. Thoughts?

[AMM]

If, the Schism is pushed "officially" to 1484 why don't we venerate saints from the Catholic tradition that fit within that window in the Orthodox Church? Why don't we participate in the Catholic devotions that fit within that window?

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

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

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

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

http://www.cnewa.org/mag-article-bodypg-us.aspx?articleID=3229

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Are we encouraged, as Orthodox Christians, NOT to venerate saints after 1054, or would we find some that would say 1484?

[Papist]

Are we encouraged, as Orthodox Christians, NOT to venerate saints after 1054, or would we find some that would say 1484?

I am encouraging you as an Orthodox Christian (you being one) to venerate Latin saints after 1054. LOL 


I Jest!

[PoorFoolNicholas]

I am encouraging you as an Orthodox Christian (you being one) to venerate Latin saints after 1054. LOL 
I Jest!

Hardy Har!  Anyone without a Catholic bias want to answer?

[Papist]

I am encouraging you as an Orthodox Christian (you being one) to venerate Latin saints after 1054. LOL 
I Jest!

Hardy Har!  Anyone without a Catholic bias want to answer?

What? Me? Biased? Neeeeeever. 

[PoorFoolNicholas]

What? Me? Biased? Neeeeeever. 

Yeah, sure.

[NorthernPines]

Are we encouraged, as Orthodox Christians, NOT to venerate saints after 1054, or would we find some that would say 1484?

It depends on who you ask!

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

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

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

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

[PoorFoolNicholas]

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

I agree.

[PoorFoolNicholas]

I can anticipate that some would say venerating saints of the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is problematic because of certain false teachings/heresies. But on the other end of the issue, we Orthodox have many saints that taught false ideas/heresies, and we still venerate/commemorate them. Thoughts? Am I way off?

[AMM]

I can anticipate that some would say venerating saints of the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is problematic because of certain false teachings/heresies.

Look before the East/West schism.

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

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

Blessed Damien of Molokai pray for us all!

[PoorFoolNicholas]

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

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

Blessed Damien of Molokai pray for us all!

Good points. Are there any here that want to completely disagree?

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Good points. Are there any here that want to completely disagree?

Guess not...

[AMM]

You need to give people more time.  There are many who will be happy to swear me off, I promise.

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

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

It is the single best piece on the topic I know of.

[serb1389]

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

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

Blessed Damien of Molokai pray for us all!

Good points. Are there any here that want to completely disagree?

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

On point, however, i think it is very complicated, but there are definitely some boundaries that usually arn't crossed. 

[AMM]

Nicetas the Goth (the Great) M (RM)
Died c. 378. Saint Sabas and Nicetas are the two most renowned martyrs among the Goths. It is interesting to note that Nicetas, an Ostrogoth born along the Danube, should rightly be considered a heretic, yet he is listed in the Roman Martyrology. Through no fault of his own, he and many of his kinsmen and neighbors were converted to Christianity by the Arian Ulphilas. In good faith, he was also ordained as an Arian priest. But doctrinal differences are often forgotten in the name of Jesus. Nicetas was martyred by King Athanaric, in his attempt to eradicate the name of Christ from his territory bordering on the Roman Empire. About 370, Athanaric began a systematic persecution. He caused an idol to be carried in a chariot through all the towns and villages he suspected were sheltering Christians. Those who refused to adore were put to death, usually by burning the Christians with their children in the houses or those assembled together in churches. At other times they were stabbed at the foot of the altar. Nicetas was burnt to death. His body was taken to Mopsuestia in Cilicia, which is why his name is especially remember in the East (Attwater, Benedictines, Husenbeth).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are other similar Georgian saints as well.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Good points. Are there any here that want to completely disagree?

Guess not...

Four hours is often not enough time for those here who want to reply, especially in the middle of the day for the Western Hemisphere. Patience, grasshopper.

[serb1389]

Nicetas the Goth (the Great) M (RM)
Died c. 378. Saint Sabas and Nicetas are the two most renowned martyrs among the Goths. It is interesting to note that Nicetas, an Ostrogoth born along the Danube, should rightly be considered a heretic, yet he is listed in the Roman Martyrology. Through no fault of his own, he and many of his kinsmen and neighbors were converted to Christianity by the Arian Ulphilas. In good faith, he was also ordained as an Arian priest. But doctrinal differences are often forgotten in the name of Jesus. Nicetas was martyred by King Athanaric, in his attempt to eradicate the name of Christ from his territory bordering on the Roman Empire. About 370, Athanaric began a systematic persecution. He caused an idol to be carried in a chariot through all the towns and villages he suspected were sheltering Christians. Those who refused to adore were put to death, usually by burning the Christians with their children in the houses or those assembled together in churches. At other times they were stabbed at the foot of the altar. Nicetas was burnt to death. His body was taken to Mopsuestia in Cilicia, which is why his name is especially remember in the East (Attwater, Benedictines, Husenbeth).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are other similar Georgian saints as well.

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

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

I would think though that canonically speaking, these saints should not be commemorated.  If I remember correctly the bishop that converted St. Ambrose of Milan was an Arian, and he is not commemorated in the synaxarion.  So...

[witega]

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

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

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

The life of Saint David, 

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


The only actually questionable one on your list is St. Isaac. And he's a lot more questionable than you think.

[AMM]

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

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

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

This dictionary

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

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

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

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

Interesting history I must say!

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Many thanks to those of you who have steered me in the right historical direction, so to speak, but could anyone give some info on the year 1717 that came up previously? What does this date have to do with the Schism? God Bless!

[ialmisry]

Many thanks to those of you who have steered me in the right historical direction, so to speak, but could anyone give some info on the year 1717 that came up previously? What does this date have to do with the Schism? God Bless!

The Patriarch elected for Antioch followed his relatives into submission to the Vatican, and the schism resulted in the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church.

[witega]

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

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

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

This dictionary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dan-Romania]

I can still feel grace in the RCC , it is my opinion , i consider part of something special like us , maybe a bigger grace . I always had a sympathy for them cause they are our brothers and our sister and we were one , I am a romantic . I feel they have something special with Mary . I remmeber seing a documentary with people who were in the Battle of Monte Cassino in WW2 . On that mountain there was a beautiful catholic monastery , there still is a new one , rebuild on the same spot from what i heard . I remmember a testimony of one saying that all the monastery(church not sure) was on ruin and destroy except for the statue of Mary , and he said that from that spot where the statue was he could see a beautiful landscape .No matter what many say here , I feel sanctity on catholics and Vatican , and I believe them to be as sacred as us , I feel sanctity on the Pope , maybe more than on our Patriarchs , I feel Vatican is a sacred place . Make love . Let us love each other , and remmeber we were one . In memory of the true Church , peace and love.

[PoorFoolNicholas]

...I feel sanctity on the Pope , maybe more than on our Patriarchs...

Uhhh, Excuse me?

[recent convert]

The Crab Nebula was visible in the daytime sky in 1054. I have looked to see if it had any influence on Humbert but cannot find any records. The fact that a comet is so prominent in the Bayeaux Tapestry as alleging justification of the defeat of the Saxon church, I wondered if a similar logic applied to 1054 (the C nebula being only recently faded away).

[PoorFoolNicholas]

The Crab Nebula was visible in the sky in 1054. I have looked to see if it had any influence on Humbert but cannot find any records. The fact that a comet is so prominent in the Bayeaux Tapestry as alleging justification of the defeat of the Saxon church, I wondered if a similar logic applied to 1054 (the C nebula being only recently faded away).

Did anyone else hear that sound? It was my brain exploding......

[AMM]

That with that basis you want to accuse St. Nicetas of Arianism says more about your preconceptions that it does about him.

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

What it should say about me is I'm not paranoid and defensive about the idea of the church saying there is sanctity to be found in those not in the visible bounds of the church.

[PoorFoolNicholas]

What it should say about me is I'm not paranoid and defensive about the idea of the church saying there is sanctity to be found in those not in the visible bounds of the church.

I would have to agree.

[serb1389]

The Crab Nebula was visible in the sky in 1054. I have looked to see if it had any influence on Humbert but cannot find any records. The fact that a comet is so prominent in the Bayeaux Tapestry as alleging justification of the defeat of the Saxon church, I wondered if a similar logic applied to 1054 (the C nebula being only recently faded away).

Did anyone else hear that sound? It was my brain exploding......

I heard it!  OOH OOH!  PICK ME!