I tought that the Emperor was the head of your church

[Brendan03]

RB --

This is why I recommended sources like Hussey's "Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire" ... Hussey is an academic but doesn't have a religious pole in the fire, so her history is less likely to be tarnished in that way.  Another great series is the series on the History of Christian Doctrine by Jaroslav Pelikan, a Yale professor who was a Lutheran most of his life (including when he wrote the series a good 20+ years ago), and only recently converted to the Orthodox Church .. interesting because his views about the history of doctrine as thingts developed between East and West aren't really reflective of a Roman Catholic or Orthodox bias.  

But it is fruitful to read Orthodox and RC writers as well to see the different perspectives.  I would highly recommend, for example, the works of RC priest and scholar Francis Dvornik regarding the late first millenium and what happened between East and West ... very interesting, particularly coming as it does from the RC perspective.  One of his articles has been transcribed into the "texts" version of this website, so you can get a feel for his thinking by just making a few mouseclicks.

B

[Seraphim Reeves]

RomanByzantium,

I ask you to forgive me in advance for the length of this reply - it is a response to several of your posts on this thread.  Rather than replying to each one individually, I decided to answer them in a single post.  I've quoted from your previous messages, to make some sense of my reply.

I thought that the emperor was the head of your church? well not anymore since there is no more emperor.

This is true neither in theory, nor according to any canon; Christ is the head of the Orthodox Church, for the Church is His Body.

so what was the role of the emperor in your church? am I allowed to ask this question without being called names?

Besides seeking his own salvation (which is common to everyone), the Emperors were called to be defenders of the Faith, and took an interest in the Church the same way good governments take an interest in the practice of physical (as opposed to spiritual) medicine - work to support good doctors and sound practice, while putting the kibosh on quackery.

His both head of state of Vatican city and as pope temporal head of the church. Buit, Jesus is the Head of the Church

This is true, but there is another part of this, one which is most problematic for Orthodox - according to Catholicism, the Pope and Christ constitute "one head" of the Church.  This has the consequence of making his authority not simply a matter of "firstness" or contingent upon his Orthodoxy, but an intrinsic part of the Divine constitution of the Church.  This leads to further musings (or in the case of Catholicism, dogmas) such as the supposed "infallibility" of the Pope.  In Orthodoxy, there is no such arrogation of authority - this type of authority and "headship" is understood to reside in no man (no matter how senior or respected) save Christ.

Wel,l in the west the emperor and the pope were always battling each other over the emperor meddling in church affairs. guess who won?

While this is popular RC apologetics, this is simply not the case.  The history of "caesaro-papism" in the west is one paid precious little attention to by either Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, but it is not a totally unexplored topic.  The late Fr.John Romanides wrote a great deal on the influence of the Frankish Emperors upon the Papacy, and Latin Christendom in general.  He'd argue (and I'd agree) that the super aggrandized papacy of the middle ages is in large part the product of meddling by Frankish rulers - first as an attempt to assert (at the cost of exageration) the independence of the Popes from the (Frankish) state, later as a tool of imposing the new "Frankish Christianity" both upon westerners, and upon that large part of Christendom ("the East") which lay beyond the political control of the Franks.

FRANKS, ROMANS, FEUDALISM, AND DOCTRINE

DO FORCED REPLACEMENTS OF THEIR ORTHODOX PREDECESSORS HAVE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION?

Just to be clear (in case your knowledge in this area is minimal), I'm speaking of the germanic "Frankish" Emperors of the west who claimed to rule a "Holy Roman Empire" in the centuries after the collapse of the western portion of the Roman Empire (which many western historians falsely refer to as the "fall of the Roman Empire" - the truth is the Roman Empire existed right up until the 1400's when it's capital was finally conquered by the Turks), not the genuinely Roman Emperors in the succession of Caesar who had long moved their capital to Constantinople.

Well, it was not the emperor Demetri. The filioque started in Spain and there is nothing wrong with the filioque.

Like the error of Papism, filioquism has many sources (and like Papism, some are more innocent/benign than others.)  The early source of filioquism (a western phenomenon which works right away against any claim of this teaching being genuinely ecumenical and catholic) is found in a few western Fathers (in particular St.Hillary of Potiers), though it is unclear if they meant by it what later Catholicism would enshrine - in St.Hilary, while an eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit from the Son is taught, in other places he still differentiates this procession from that which occurs from the Father.  Arguably early western filioquism had to do with the less explicit triadology (teaching on the Holy Trinity) of the west, in particular it's lack of specifity in making distinctions between the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit and His eternal procession (one which is very clearly made by the Eastern Fathers who treat this subject.)

The first teacher of full blown filioquism was Augustine of Hippo - his argument for it being one which remains the common apologetic of Catholicism to this day.  The problem however with his teaching in this area (and others) is it's uniqueness, both in content and methodology.  Augustine reasoned that the Holy Spirit is the mutual love of the Father and the Son, and desired to define just precisely what "procession" was as opposed to "begotteness."  This line of thinking would be furthered by the western scholastics, who figured that if the filioque was not true, then there would be nothing to distinguish the Father from the Son.

This rational may seem convincing, but it was implicitly refuted by the Fathers, who basically taught that just what being "begotten" or "proceeding" in the Holy Trinity is something incomprehensable to the human mind - thus we insist they differ, not because we know what each is, but because we've been told as much.

Unfortunately, because Augustine was one of the few Fathers to write exclusively in Latin (and because of the voluminous nature of his work), he eventually became the only Father most western Christians were familiar with (earlier western fathers, and most of the eastern fathers, writing in Greek.)  That was a situation created both by trends beyond anyone's control, but also by the new Frankish rulers of the west, who in their desire to be "true Romans" did not take "Romanism" as it was, but as they imagined it to be.  Thus, though Greek had always been the common tongue of the Roman Empire (Latin generally being only the language of state and the upper classes - and even this wained in the east) and certainly the language used by the Fathers (as it was also the language of the Scriptures of the Church - both the Septuagint and the New Testament), it was not what the new, self-style Romans of the west were interested in.

Thus, Augustine, and everything Augustinian, was insisted upon in what really ought to be called "Frankish (rather than "Roman") Catholicism."  If you read later Latin works, Augustine gets cited in an incredibly disproportionate manner - in the Summa Theologica the only person cited as often as Augustine is the pagan philosopher Aristotle - other Fathers, including western ones, receive short shrift.

These are the contributing factors which had the most to do with "filioquism" becoming a "dogma" in the minds of Latin Christians.  The Spanish angle is another factor, which had to do with shoddy reasoning - the rationale being that filioquism was a way of shoring up the divinity of God the Son against lingering Arianism in the west (to insist that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, was seen as a way of guaranteeing that the Son would be recognized as being very God, of the same nature and essence as His Father.)  While it undoubtedly makes it's point, it can only do so at the expense of truth.

why do you think that their is something wrong with it when there are some circles in orthodoxy that no longer see it as a problem. I believe even Bishop Kalisto.

Bp.Kallistos is a scholar and a gentleman, but this wouldn't be the only time he's expressed an opinion (though he tends to do this very cautiously) which has caused a few eyebrows to raise (he apparently regards the issue of female ordination as a subject at least open to discussion.)  However, having read some of his thoughts on this topic, I do not think he could be described as someone who subscribes to filioquism - rather he is among those who seems to believe that the subject can be buried under enough qualification so as to make it an admissable opinion to be held in some hypothetical future re-union of the Papacy to the Orthodox Church.  I highly doubt he would subscribe to the filioquism of the Council of Florence, nor would even admit the permissability of this clause being inserted into the Creed should the Latins return to the Orthodox Church.

It also needs to be said that while there are definately men like Bp.Kallistos who are optimistic about the possibility of RC filioquism being essentially buried through a lot of straining and careful qualification, there are others (many!) who are far less optimistic, for the simple reason that even if the "optimists" are onto something that is workable, what those optimists are describing is a gutted, re-worked, "filioquism"; in effect, not what the RCC was dogmatically insisting upon back in it's more triumphalistic days...in which case, you have to ask why such a speculation (which in all likelihood is wrong to begin with, since it goes well beyond what human beings can actually know or what has in truth been revealed to mankind) should be humoured at all?  The only reason I can find is to allow the Latins to save face as much as they can in any future re-union.  While that's not a completely invalid reason, they would argue (and I'd agree) that the price of such face-saving is far too high and prone to incredible misunderstanding by all parties involved.

there is nothing wrong with the filioque. you guys just don't understand it. read the church fathers.

I understand it just fine - though one really should be speaking of filioques, since there is a marked difference between what St.Hillary of Potiers taught, what Augustine of Hippo taught, and what the Council of Florence taught.  It's arguably a spectrum, but one with important developments nonetheless.

However, always being one willing to be proven wrong, I'm curious which Church Fathers you recommend I should be reading to gain this better, more accurate knowledge you believe you're in possession of.

the history church has been adding from the very beginning. There where things that the 4th and 5th century church believed that the 3rd had no idea of.  This has been the nature of the church. I am very sure that you wouldn't call what the church believed in the 5th and 4th century innovations compare to that which was believed in the 3rd and 2nd century. Because if this is the case, then we have all left it behind a long time ago.

This is one of the basic areas (perhaps more basic than any particular, divisive teaching, like Papal infallibility, or the filioque) where Orthodoxy fundamentally differs with Roman Catholicism.  While you will probably not agree with what I'm about to say, it's important for you (as someone seeking to understand Orthodox Christianity) to at least know about this difference and appreciate it's consequences.

In Roman Catholicism, theology (words/ideas about God) is treated as a species of philosophy - what God has revealed about Himself and His will for mankind is treated as a collection of authoratative data, which can be subjected to human genius - resulting in presumably true conclusions...further truths.  This is why in Catholicism, you have entire doctrines which have no direct basis in the revelation of God, but are syllogistically drawn from the Christian revelation.  Good examples of this would be the particulars of the Papacy, the filioque, indulgences, or limbo (yes, I know this is not a dogma of the RCC, but up until recently it was treated as such - to the point it was a part of all catechesis, whether it was that of children or adult converts).  This all points to a conceptual development, an evolution of the Christian faith as a whole...allegedly never betraying the foundations, but certainly growing well beyond them.  Thus you have a situation where Catholics believe you can be morally compelled to hold a teaching that not only the early Fathers would have been absolutely unaware of, but may have even said was utter heresy.  This also has the consequence of saying, in truth, that Thomas Aquinas or Anslem of Canterbury know and understand the revelation of God better than the Holy Apostles.

In Orthodoxy, doctrinal definitions are viewed as fences (raised out of necessity) to protect the age old understanding - an understanding and way of believing which is apostolic.  While it is true that the Church employed language which doubless would not have rolled readily off the lips of the Holy Apostles (at least not in every case), the conceptual understanding remains in tact.

For example St.Peter, St.John, and the other Holy Apostles, knew and experienced Christ as being true God, and true man.  They knew (both intellectually and experientially) that the glory of the Son is the same as that of the Father and the Holy Spirit.  They also knew He was truly a man, tasted our lowliness, felt as we feel, hungered as we hungered, etc.

The Oecumenical Councils defend those integral truths - they add nothing conceptually to the faith of the Apostles, but rather defend it against the curiosity and vain philosophy of later, and lesser men, who do not know God as they (the Apostles) did.  As should be obvious, there is a link between sanctification/divinization and theologizing (talking about God) - this is why all of the truly great theologians/Fathers, were also (without exception) men of incredible sanctity - they spoke not simply of what they were told, but also of what they experienced first hand.  They wresteled with demons, put sword to the passions, and directly encountered the glory of the Holy Trinity.

This is also why to some extent, all Orthodox Christians (those who are on the path to salvation) are both theologians and mystics - thus the greatness of a theologian (to be remembered as a "Father") is tied to his sanctity.

another reason why I am not orthodox is because it is to foreign for me. I was born a roman catholic and I will die a roman catholic.  from what I have seen, the  orthodox churches are along national line. being in a greek, russian, romanian church is not for me.

While part of this does point to the real human failings of Orthodox Christians themselves (Orthodox in the west seeing the Church not simply in a spiritual life, but as a repository of ethnic identity...not an entirely bad thing, but certainly not good when it in any way alienates the host culture in which that Church is actually residing!), a part of this also has to do with the smallness of the Orthodox presence in the west.  Churches will become "less Greek" when there are, frankly, less Greeks (percentage wise) in the pews.  That is something that will take time.

Of course, Catholicism has not always been free of the "ethnic factor", particularly in America.  There was a time when, in most places, Roman Catholicism was heavily identified with immigrant populations - mainly the Irish, Italians, and Hispanics.  Most of white, anglo America (which was, and still is the majority) was historically Protestant, thus there was a time that conversion for purely ideological/conviction reasons to Catholicism would have definately involved immersing oneself not only in a very alien religion, but also some amount of immersion (if not conversion to!) in a different culture.  This process was in large part aided by the integration of those cultures into the anglo American "mainstream."  The passing of generations didn't hurt either (with second and third generation Italian children no longer being fluent in the mother tongue and more familiar with American culture - hence little point in giving sermons only in Italian.)

Given the state of things in western Orthodoxy (given that in most Churches there is still a heavy ethnic element), I think a great deal of humility is called for by prospective converts.  The fact is, those peoples (Greeks, Serbs, Russians, etc.) have the truth - if you believe Orthodox Christianity to be the authentic Christian faith, then that means these weird people, with their funny alphabets and strange accents, have the pearl of great price, where as my own native culture (at best) only has knock offs and counterfeits.  That means that me, smug english speaking westerner (who was raised in a civilization that materially has the best of everything, and politically influences and exploits the rest of the world) has something to learn from olive skinned clerics (or big burly Russkies ) speaking broken english and who like to tell stories about the mother country.

Without teaching that one has to "become Russian" or "become Greek" to be really Orthodox, I would also add that the influence of those cultures upon our own is also a good thing - north American culture (and western culture in general) has not been formed by an Orthodox outlook.  To varying degrees, it has been affected by centuries of heresy...some truth, varying amounts of falsehood, and a lot that is just missing.  For all of their faults, the Greeks, Serbs, etc. hail from cultures deeply affected by the Orthodox faith... to the point that you cannot speak of Hellas, Serbia, or Russia without speaking of Orthodoxy.  Just as those first gentile Christians were undoubtedly touched by the semiticism of the Apostles and Hebrew Christian missionaries and built upon this in a natural, organic way, I think the same is going to turn out being the case here, in the Orthodox mission to the heterodox west.

Seraphim

[romanbyzantium]

DO FORCED REPLACEMENTS OF THEIR ORTHODOX PREDECESSORS HAVE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION?

Just to be clear (in case your knowledge in this area is minimal), I'm speaking of the germanic "Frankish" Emperors of the west who claimed to rule a "Holy Roman Empire" in the centuries after the collapse of the western portion of the Roman Empire (which many western historians falsely refer to as the "fall of the Roman Empire" - the truth is the Roman Empire existed right up until the 1400's when it's capital was finally conquered by the Turks), not the genuinely Roman Emperors in the succession of Caesar who had long moved their capital to Constantinople.

This debatable because in the west the fall of the roman empire ended with the fall of rome. No one is saying that the west was not also part of the roman empire but it took a different course and that it is why it is refered as the " Byzantine Empire".

1. The " Holy Roman Empire" was an attempt to rebuild the western half of the empire. They didn't claim to be emperors.. they were emperors.
2. These frankish emperors where no less roman than your eastern slavs or goths.
3. emperors were made and dethrone by the sword. as you know alot of the emperors where generals.

That was a situation created both by trends beyond anyone's control, but also by the new Frankish rulers of the west, who in their desire to be "true Romans" did not take "Romanism" as it was, but as they imagined it to be.  Thus, though Greek had always been the common tongue of the Roman Empire (Latin generally being only the language of state and the upper classes - and even this wained in the east) and certainly the language used by the Fathers (as it was also the language of the Scriptures of the Church - both the Septuagint and the New Testament), it was not what the new, self-style Romans of the west were interested in.

Thus, Augustine, and everything Augustinian, was insisted upon in what really ought to be called "Frankish (rather than "Roman") Catholicism."  If you read later Latin works, Augustine gets cited in an incredibly disproportionate manner - in the Summa Theologica the only person cited as often as Augustine is the pagan philosopher Aristotle - other Fathers, including western ones, receive short shrift.

1. what is the " true romans"? Am I to expect that you will tell me that the slavs and the goths and those barbarians of the east where " true romans" . Or is this one of those eastern prejudices against the franks and the germanic.

2. Frankish catholicism  . This is too funny. so what you we call your christianity? greek slavic, gothic christianty. I didn't know that orthodox had such prejudice against the frankish-germanic people.

[theodore]

This debatable because in the west the fall of the roman empire ended with the fall o rome. No one is saying that the west was not also part of the roman empire but it took a different course and that it is why it is refered as the " Byzantine Empire".

The Eastern portion of the multi-cultural Empire known as Rome survived as a polity for 1,000 years beyond the western territories.  You say the Eastern Empire took a different course.  What did it do differently than it otherwise would have, and how do you know that?  The term "Byzantine Empire" is a western invention.  The inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire were called Romans.  


1. The " Holy Roman Empire" was an attempt to rebuild the western half of the empire. They didn't claim to be emperors.. they were emperors.

It was an attempt by Frankish Kings to claim the mantle of Rome.  If Jacques Chirac declared himself to be Emperor of Rome, and was accepted as such by the French people, would you accept that he was an authentic Roman Emperor, and that the Roman Empire was restored?

2. These frankish emperors where no less roman than your eastern slavs or goths.

That doesn't make sense.  There was a continuous political entity known as Rome existing in the East until 1453, but NOT in the West.  The Roman Empire was ALWAYS a multi-ethnic multi-cultural entity.  The majority of the Eastern Roman population was not gothic or slavic, but even assuming that they did become the majority, how is that relevant?  That would be like saying that the current American nation isn't truly American anymore because it is no longer inhabited by a majority of ethnic English.


3. emperors were made and dethrone by the sword. as you know alot of the emperors where generals.1. what is the " true romans"? Am I to expect that you will tell me that the slavs and the goths and those barbarians of the east where " true romans" . Or is this one of those eastern prejudices against the franks and the germanic.

The citizens of the political entity known as Rome, which existed until 1453, were the "true Romans".   Are you now trying to assert that the Eastern Empire was made up mostly of Goths and Slavs?  Having studied Eastern Roman History, please cite to me data to prove this novel assertion.

2. Frankish catholicism  . This is too funny. so what you we call your christianity? greek slavic, gothic christianty. I didn't know that orthodox had such prejudice against the frankish-germanic people.

I believe that the point which Seraphim is making is that the Church of the West is more influenced by the Frankish culture than the Roman culture.  I don't see any prejudice here.  No need to get hysterical and read too much into what he said.

[romanbyzantium]

The Eastern portion of the multi-cultural Empire known as Rome survived as a polity for 1,000 years beyond the western territories.  You say the Eastern Empire took a different course.  What did it do differently than it otherwise would have, and how do you know that?  The term "Byzantine Empire" is a western invention.  The inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire were called Romans.  

Yes it did. but it stopped being roman culturally and became extremely GREEK. Do you know why we call the eastern empire the Byzantine empire? because we call it the GREEK ROMAN EAST

The general prevailing cultural identity of the Eastern Roman Empire was Hellenistic, NOT ROMAN.

Did you notice that the symbols of the empire is different. when the empire center was in Rome. it had an eagle, when it moved west it had the double headed eagle.

Also, Heraclius fully Hellenized the empire by making Greek the official language, and he took the title ''vasil fs (king; in Latin, basileus) instead of the old Roman term augustus.

The Byzantine empire is not invention but a reality as to what happen to the roman empire when it moved east. Rome started in the west and ended in the west. politically it continued in the east but culturally it became something else. Rome of the caesors(sp) is no more.

Politically they might have been called roman but culturally they were not romans. they were slavs, goths, greek, arabs, etc.  Of course this was after the roman empire let anyone become a roman citizen but, even then the romans knew who where real romans.

It is like today in america. you have alot of american citizen but there is a sense that the true americans are those that are of english stock. Do you really believe that an american is going to see an iraqui/iranian/mexican as true american even if they have american citizenship.? Not really!

It was an attempt by Frankish Kings to claim the mantle of Rome.  If Jacques Chirac declared himself to be Emperor of Rome, and was accepted as such by the French people, would you accept that he was an authentic Roman Emperor, and that the Roman Empire was restored?

The mantle of rome!! There is Rome and then there is Constantinople. Rome cannot ever be replaced. You can't have rome without rome.

You have explained to me what is an authentic roman emperor? I already told you that emperor where made and deposed by the sword. who ever was strongest became emperors.

That doesn't make sense.  There was a continuous political entity known as Rome existing in the East until 1453, but NOT in the West.  The Roman Empire was ALWAYS a multi-ethnic multi-cultural entity.  The majority of the Eastern Roman population was not gothic or slavic, but even assuming that they did become the majority, how is that relevant?  That would be like saying that the current American nation isn't truly American anymore because it is no longer inhabited by a majority of ethnic English.

Not everone was a roman citizen in the roman empire. especially not in the west. this changed when the romans decided to offer roman citenship to all.

No. the populations of the eastern empire was slavic, goths, you also had the huns, balkan peoples, arabs, Vlachs,Illyrians, Armenians, Jews, Egyptians, Syrians, Bulgars.

I believe that the point which Seraphim is making is that the Church of the West is more influenced by the Frankish culture than the Roman culture.  I don't see any prejudice here.  No need to get hysterical and read too much into what he said.

who is getting hysterical?  we western europeans don't get hysterical. what frankish influences do you see. cause when i see my church I see the legacy of rome. look at the structure of the roman catholic hierarchy. can't get anymore roman. even our laws are based on roman law. our alphabet, our language ( especially mine...Spanish/Italian).

[Historynut]

Wow arguing over wether the Holy Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire was the true sucessor to rome is basically an exercise in futility. The HRE which was neither holy nor Roman in nature was only really an Empire in name only as it was actually a loose coalition of Princes. At times like under Charlemagne it had increasing  degrees of central authority but it never even approached the cosmopolitain nature and political sophistication of the Eastern Empire. The so called Byzantine Empire, which is a name placed on the empire for the period of history post Justinian by the way, was very greek in nature but that was not a change from the way the Eastern Half of the Meditteranean sea had been ever since the conquests of Alexander the great. The east was never roman culturally but primarily greek with other eastern elements.

 

It is like today in america. you have alot of american citizen but there is a sense that the true americans are those that are of english stock. Do you really believe that an american is going to see an iraqui/iranian/mexican as true american even if they have american citizenship.? Not really!

RB this quote goes a little to far if you ask me. Am i somehow less of an American because my ancestors are central European and Scottish I think not. I would suspect that less than 20% of americans are of pure english stock so i guess we must all be less than real americans huh? Using racial make up to define an empire or country is useless. Most countries blend multiple subcultures into one overriding culture for example sicilians are generally of a slightly different culture then mainland italians and southern Itlians generally differ from northern Italians are any of these groups less entitled to the name Italian??? And all of this goes back to the argument of who was the real successor to rome well its hard to say but most historians say the East was at least until the end of Justians reign. And most real scholars dont take into acount ethnic make up to determine Romanness seeing as the Romans were always a tiny minority in their own empire. Face facts after the collapse of the Western Empire the small pricipalities of the West were backward to say the least compared to the East until at least the High Middle Ages ca. 1000 AD and maybe latter by some estimates.

Oh yeah and who gave all of Europe a codified Roman law? Oh thats right it was Justinian an Eastern Emperor silly me for thinking he might also deserve the title Roman Emperor.

[prodromos]

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!

Dear romanbyzantium,
your posts are more and more taking on the nature of those posted by the lovable forum visitor known as a TROLL. You have provided very little to back up your arguments, and though we respect your disagreement with the evidence you have been provided with, it is apparent that you refuse to budge in your opinions which makes any further discussion rather pointless.

Please take note of the fact that most of the people you are arguing against are NOT GREEKS but people who are primarily of WESTERN EUROPEAN DESCENT, yet they hold very different opinions to you regarding the Roman Empire.

If you wish to continue with these discussions then please cite evidence and provide links or quotes with references to back up your arguments. Otherwise this and similiar threads will be closed as unproductive.

John.

[romanbyzantium]

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!

Dear romanbyzantium,
your posts are more and more taking on the nature of those posted by the lovable forum visitor known as a TROLL. You have provided very little to back up your arguments, and though we respect your disagreement with the evidence you have been provided with, it is apparent that you refuse to budge in your opinions which makes any further discussion rather pointless.

Please take note of the fact that most of the people you are arguing against are NOT GREEKS but people who are primarily of WESTERN EUROPEAN DESCENT, yet they hold very different opinions to you regarding the Roman Empire.

If you wish to continue with these discussions then please cite evidence and provide links or quotes with references to back up your arguments. Otherwise this and similiar threads will be closed as unproductive.

John.

1. I provided alot. the thing is that it is being dismissed. which is ok. I respect that, really
2. you also claim that I won't budge in my opinions. why should I budge on things that my people hold as truths?
3. of course that they are of western euorpean but Like I said before, converting to orthodox means rejeting your heritage and replacing it with yours.

How long do you think a person who is orthodox but holds to western euorpean history as facts would last in your culture?

4. next time I will rpovide text reference from books and website. but lets be fair...this should be a two way street.

[Brendan03]

RB --

I don't really agree.  I think that it is useful to see both perspectives.  Certainly I got the Western Civ perspective in HS and college in spades, that perspective is familiar to me as it is familiar to most other people who grow up in and are educated in a Western setting.  As part of becoming Orthodox, I have learned a lot about the history of Eastern Europe and the Eastern Meditteranean from a different perspective .. the perspective of people who live there and/or come from there.  I like to understand both perspectives, as I tend to think that the real truth is somewhere in the middle.  I don't think you can only take the Western perspective and say "well, that's because it's what my people think", whatever that means, but I also don't think that you can only take the, say, Greek perspective and say the same thing.  Both perspectives are true in their own way, but I don't think that either perspective contains the entirety of the truth.  I don't see this realization as a rejection of my Western heritage, but merely as a recognition of the limitations inherent in that -- or any other -- perspective on things both within and outside the Western world.

B

[romanbyzantium]

Wow arguing over wether the Holy Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire was the true sucessor to rome is basically an exercise in futility. The HRE which was neither holy nor Roman in nature was only really an Empire in name only as it was actually a loose coalition of Princes. At times like under Charlemagne it had increasing  degrees of central authority but it never even approached the cosmopolitain nature and political sophistication of the Eastern Empire. The so called Byzantine Empire, which is a name placed on the empire for the period of history post Justinian by the way, was very greek in nature but that was not a change from the way the Eastern Half of the Meditteranean sea had been ever since the conquests of Alexander the great. The east was never roman culturally but primarily greek with other eastern elements.

true.. the eatsern half of the empire was a hellenistic roman empire. hence the name BYZANTIUM. This was very different from the origins of the Roman empire when it started in the west in the city of rome. Compare the early emperors and the late ones. compare the culture. compare the language. adminitratively the easter half was roman but culturally it was GREEK. The emperors where no loger Latins but Greeks. do you see the change in language and culture that shifted to the east to a backwater of a city in the bosporus(sp).

this quote goes a little to far if you ask me. Am i somehow less of an American because my ancestors are central European and Scottish I think not. I would suspect that less than 20% of americans are of pure english stock so i guess we must all be less than real americans huh? Using racial make up to define an empire or country is useless. Most countries blend multiple subcultures into one overriding culture for example sicilians are generally of a slightly different culture then mainland italians and southern Itlians generally differ from northern Italians are any of these groups less entitled to the name Italian??? And all of this goes back to the argument of who was the real successor to rome well its hard to say but most historians say the East was at least until the end of Justians reign. And most real scholars dont take into acount ethnic make up to determine Romanness seeing as the Romans were always a tiny minority in their own empire. Face facts after the collapse of the Western Empire the small pricipalities of the West were backward to say the least compared to the East until at least the High Middle Ages ca. 1000 AD and maybe latter by some estimates..

Oh yeah and who gave all of Europe a codified Roman law? Oh thats right it was Justinian an Eastern Emperor silly me for thinking he might also deserve the title Roman Emperor.

I never said that he was not an emperor. But was not he latin speaking. I believe that justinian was considered by a pope during his time as being a true emperor. will get back to you on this.

The problem is that we are looking at the issue differently. I am looking at it from a cultural perspective while you are looking at it from a political entity point of view.

[Schultz]

why should I budge on things that my people hold as truths?

Your people?  Please, don't speak for me.  I'm as Western European as you can get, with both Bavarian and Highland Scot blood flowing in these veins, and I find most of the "truths" you espouse to be highly ignorant.  They remind me quite a bit of the "truths" espoused by such luminaries as Enoch Powell and Charles Parham.  Much like them, you almost-sort of quote scholars by name, but not quite.

Try posting some book titles and references and maybe people would take you a bit more seriously.  As it stands, most of your posts sound like something one might find in "The Plain Truth".

[romanbyzantium]

Your people?  Please, don't speak for me.  I'm as Western European as you can get, with both Bavarian and Highland Scot blood flowing in these veins, and I find most of the "truths" you espouse to be highly ignorant.  They remind me quite a bit of the "truths" espoused by such luminaries as Enoch Powell and Charles Parham.  Much like them, you almost-sort of quote scholars by name, but not quite.

Try posting some book titles and references and maybe people would take you a bit more seriously.  As it stands, most of your posts sound like something one might find in "The Plain Truth".

are you from europe?  if you are not then. you are right,  you are not part of my people. Friend,  open a history book or better yet a very good encyclopedia and see if what I say is highly ignorant. why do people resort to name calling is beyond me.

some books for you to read

Being Greek under Rome : cultural identity, the second sophistic and the development of empire by Goldhill, Simon.
The end of the past : ancient Rome and the modern West  by  Schiavone, Aldo.
Hellenism and empire : language, classicism, and power in the Greek world, AD 50-250 /   by Swain, Simon
The Roman Empire and its neighbours by Millar, Fergus.
The Caesars; the Roman Empire and its rulers. by  Marsh, Henry
Byzantium in the seventh century :  the transformation of a culture  by J.F. Haldon.  
Byzantium : the early centuries  by Norwich, John Julius
 Byzantium: an introduction. by Whitting, Philip D.

[Anastasios]

"3. of course that they are of western euorpean but Like I said before, converting to orthodox means rejeting your heritage and replacing it with yours."

A laughable assertion, and really quite unfair.

anastasios

[romanbyzantium]

"3. of course that they are of western euorpean but Like I said before, converting to orthodox means rejeting your heritage and replacing it with yours."

A laughable assertion, and really quite unfair.

anastasios

It is not laugable assertion. think about it.

1. you have to change your entire outlook and take a more easterner point of view as was said here.
2. look at the hostility that some easteners here  have against the west, especially against the franflish influences. There is a hostility towards western though in orthodoxy, which is very unfortunate.

How long would you last in orthodoxy if you remain pro western in though.

Do you think that I would last long in orthodoxy if I maintain that the Pope has jurisdisction in the church, etc..?

[Jack]

I'm a new member, and would like to enter this conversation late.  Please forgive me if I inadvertently violate any protocol.  To the extent this is relevant, I am of Irish Catholic heritage, though I had to convert to Catholicism later in life for autobiographical reasons not pertinent here.

Although I understand that RB's question that started this string wasn't intended to be offensive, I think that the underlying premise of it is wrong, and that premise remains in the subsequent responses.  At the same time, the very interesting historical debate that you have been having highlights the point that I want to make.

The misunderstanding between the eastern and western churches have derived from cultural and language barriers.  Fortunately, we now live in an epoch where overcoming those barriers is easier than it was in the past, though not entirely unproblematic.

The underlying premise that I believe to be in error is manifested by such phrases as "your church."  There is only one Church, and everyone participating in this discussion seems to be a member.  I blush to refer to history in the presence of people so knowledgeable on the subject, but I am unaware of any point at which the eastern and western churches actually excommunicated each other.  Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Michael Cerularius, and he, in turn, excommunicated the Cardinal.  But those were excommunications of individuals, not whole bodies of peoples.

It is my position that the current separation of eastern and western churches is unauthorized.  Actually, for reasons that I will explain if requested, I think it would take an ecumenical council to accomplish it.  

It is true that we have many differences.  Some of those differences are theological, and others are merely political.  But the way to handle differences in the Church is by means of an ecumenical council, and there has been no such council involving eastern and western bishops, and, indeed, the bishops of the oriental churches, in centuries.  I think it is for those of us who are of the laity to agitate for one, so that the Church can get over this centuries long in-house squabble, and start going about the business of converting the world.

I would be interested in any other views.

[romanbyzantium]

Hi Jack,

Although I understand that RB's question that started this string wasn't intended to be offensive, I think that the underlying premise of it is wrong, and that premise remains in the subsequent responses.  At the same time, the very interesting historical debate that you have been having highlights the point that I want to make.

I would like for you to expand more on what you said in regards to my premise. what do you think my premise is? It is good that we are all looking at the samething and that we are arguing ( in a good way) about the same thing.

[theodore]

true.. the eatsern half of the empire was a hellenistic roman empire. hence the name BYZANTIUM. This was very different from the origins of the Roman empire when it started in the west in the city of rome. Compare the early emperors and the late ones. compare the culture. compare the language. adminitratively the easter half was roman but culturally it was GREEK. The emperors where no loger Latins but Greeks. do you see the change in language and culture that shifted to the east to a backwater of a city in the bosporus(sp).

The name BYZANTIUM is a western term for the eastern Roman Empire.  At what point did the Empire of Justinian (who you acknowledge as being Roman) cease being Roman?  Let's take a hypothetical example.  If say the large numbers of hispanics immigrating to the United States became a majority, and Spanish gradually supplanted English as the common language and the Capital was moved to Los Angeles; would the United States cease being the United States?


I never said that he was not an emperor. But was not he latin speaking. I believe that justinian was considered by a pope during his time as being a true emperor. will get back to you on this.

The problem is that we are looking at the issue differently. I am looking at it from a cultural perspective while you are looking at it from a political entity point of view.

But it makes no difference!  Cultures change!  American culture today is radically different than it was in the 1950s.  Does that mean that the US no longer exists and should be called something else?

[romanbyzantium]

The name BYZANTIUM is a western term for the eastern Roman Empire.  At what point did the Empire of Justinian (who you acknowledge as being Roman) cease being Roman?  Let's take a hypothetical example.  If say the large numbers of hispanics immigrating to the United States became a majority, and Spanish gradually supplanted English as the common language and the Capital was moved to Los Angeles; would the United States cease being the United States?I

I know that byzatium is a term used for the eastern empire. Do you know why it is used? Now, for your second point. The united states would exist only in name. what makes a country is it culture and heritage. This united states is different than the one founded by the founding fathers and replaced by a foreing cultural element.

This is what happened to the east. the political enitity of the roman east was in placed but eventually it became a hellenised empire. It seized being roman in culture and language. even the official language was changed from latin to greek.  Hence, the name BYZANTIUM.

But it makes no difference!  Cultures change!  American culture today is radically different than it was in the 1950s.  Does that mean that the US no longer exists and should be called something else?[/b]

America is country founded on english language and culture. Granted gradually it is being eroded. and this is what happened to the roman empire. you keep talking about political entity and I keep talking about culture. we are not on the same page.

Let me ask you a question. When rome conquered Greece, did they considered the greeks as romans or any conquered people?

[Schultz]

...better yet a very good encyclopedia

Anyone who wants to express an opinion in a scholarly fashion would never cite an encyclopedia.

And I never called you ignorant.  I called your "truths" such and I stick by that.  

When rome conquered Greece, did they considered the greeks as romans or any conquered people?

I believe it's quite clear in the New Testament that St. Paul was a Roman citizen.  He was also a Jew.  It seems to me that conquered peoples can indeed become Roman citizens.


I'm also withdrawing from this conversation.  I lament even getting involved in the first place.  I will only end up saying something I'll regret.  I leave this to others with cooler heads.

[Jack]

Hi Jack,I would like for you to expand more on what you said in regards to my premise. what do you think my premise is? It is good that we are all looking at the samething and that we are arguing ( in a good way) about the same thing.

As I said, above, the premise is that we are talking about two churches.  I maintain that the division between east and west is illusory, and that our refusal to have communion together is unauthorized by the Holy Spirit.

[theodore]

It is not laugable assertion. think about it.

1. you have to change your entire outlook and take a more easterner point of view as was said here.
2. look at the hostility that some easteners here  have against the west, especially against the franflish influences. There is a hostility towards western though in orthodoxy, which is very unfortunate.

How long would you last in orthodoxy if you remain pro western in though.

Do you think that I would last long in orthodoxy if I maintain that the Pope has jurisdisction in the church, etc..?

Actually, it IS laughable.  My ENTIRE outlook is not Eastern.  Orthodox ecclesiology was once predominant in the West as well as the East.

I personally, as an Orthodox Christian am not hostile to the west.  I live in the west, have a western education, etc...  Your question of how long would someone last in Orthodoxy if they remained pro-western in thought is puzzling to me.  Protestantism is extremely western in thought.  Does that mean I can't be a good Westerner if I don't embrace Protestant thought?

I also believe that the Pope has jurisdiction in the Church.  Now in regards to the Pope of Rome (as opposed to the Pope of Alexandria) having jurisdiction, it would be almost as bad as me believing that the Archbishop of Canterbury has jurisdiction in the Catholic Church.  One can pray that there is a reconcilliation between East and West, but until that happens one must note that there are serious differences between East and West on many levels, and a false unity is no unity.

[theodore]

I know that byzatium is a term used for the eastern empire. Do you know why it is used?

Yes I do.

 Now, for your second point. The united states would exist only in name. what makes a country is it culture and heritage. This united states is different than the one founded by the founding fathers and replaced by a foreing cultural element.

I have to strenuously disagree with you here.  While the culture and language would have changed, the civic, legal, political and historical heritage would still be in place, having existed in a continuum.  The US of today is dramatically different the the US of the 1790s.  The ethnic and even geographic composition of the country is much changed from the 13 original colonies, but it's still the same country.

This is what happened to the east. the political enitity of the roman east was in placed but eventually it became a hellenised empire. It seized being roman in culture and language. even the official language was changed from latin to greek.  Hence, the name BYZANTIUM.America is country founded on english language and culture. Granted gradually it is being eroded. and this is what happened to the roman empire. you keep talking about political entity and I keep talking about culture. we are not on the same page.

What's this "hence the name BYZANTIUM"?  I don't recall the Eastern Romans EVER using that term to describe themselves.  Please show me where this is so.  Oh wait, you can't.  It's an invention of westerners to describe that era in Roman history.  

Let me ask you a question. When rome conquered Greece, did they considered the greeks as romans or any conquered people?

Rome was a multi-ethnic empire which absorbed conquored people into their Empire.  Actually, the Romans brought many Greeks to the city of Rome and environs so as to be taught philosophy and the arts, which the Romans recognized as being superior to their own.  There was much cultural transfer back and forth between Greeks and Romans.  The Romes absorbed the cultures of the people which they conquored, but they also brought the Roman law and civilization to the lands which they annexed, and bequeathed citizenship to the populace.   A Roman city, whether in Italy, Britain or Syria would all share the same legal system, temples (later Churches), baths, ampitheatres, etc..  The Church in the City of Rome originally celebrated their liturgies in Greek, only later being supplanted by the vulgar language or Latin.

[Seraphim Reeves]

RomanByzantium,

This debatable because in the west the fall of the roman empire ended with the fall of rome. No one is saying that the west was not also part of the roman empire but it took a different course and that it is why it is refered as the " Byzantine Empire".

You might be interested to know that the "Byzantines", oddly enough, never understood themselves to be "Byzantines", but "Romans."  This is how they understood themselves, and how they were understood even by their conquerors (the Muslims.)

"Byzantine" (based on the old name of Constantine's new capital, "Byzantium", which had been a relatively minor city before his moving the capital there) is a term coined by western scholarship, the same scholarship which rather blindly repeats the mantra that the Empire fell in the fifth century to Germanic invaders.  While this is rather innocent in our day, the pedigree of this view has a less honest past - the attempt by Frankish kings to assert their political claims (and the religious opinions/institutions which had a symbiotic relationship to those assertions) over the Throne of Constantinople, and the continuing Empire it still reigned over.

1. The " Holy Roman Empire" was an attempt to rebuild the western half of the empire. They didn't claim to be emperors.. they were emperors.

Exactly - an "attempt."  In reality, it was not a continuation of what had previously been present, but as you say a "rebuilding", or a re-creation.

As far as actually being "emperors" that is neither here nor there, though what the Germanic emperors actually ruled is debatable.  The polity of the Holy Roman Empire was quite foreign to what had existed in the west previous to it's collapse.

2. These frankish emperors where no less roman than your eastern slavs or goths.

How so?  They were part of the whole movement which actually "un-did" the actual Romania of the west.

1. what is the " true romans"? Am I to expect that you will tell me that the slavs and the goths and those barbarians of the east where " true romans" . Or is this one of those eastern prejudices against the franks and the germanic.

While you are exagerating (particularly in the earlier periods) the importance of "slavs" and "goths", I also think you are doing an injustice to the reality of Romania (the ancient Roman Empire, and not the modern nation state which bears this name) - that it was always a multi-ethnic entity, populated by various people who had all to varying degrees been assimilated into a larger culture.

2. Frankish catholicism  . This is too funny. so what you we call your christianity? greek slavic, gothic christianty. I didn't know that orthodox had such prejudice against the frankish-germanic people.

I coined the term ("Frankish Catholicism") not simply because there were Franks who practiced Christianity of a sort, but because the type of religion which their rulers favoured and encouraged is peculiar - it is not the ecumenical, genuinely catholic faith that had been held by the Romans of both the East and the West, but an innovation and schism (both from that which came beforehand, and that which was still known throughout the world.)  Were the credo of the Franks not peculiar to them, I wouldn't single it out - and this is precisely why I do not do that with the catholic beliefs of the Hellenes, Slavs, Goths, etc.

Yes it did. but it stopped being roman culturally and became extremely GREEK. Do you know why we call the eastern empire the Byzantine empire? because we call it the GREEK ROMAN EAST

The Roman Empire was never so "latin" as popular imagination now has it.  This was particularly true of the Eastern part of the Empire (it's major portion!), well before Rome would be sacked (and eventually controlled) by the barbarians.  The Holy Apostles (and early Fathers, even those of the west) circulated themselves in a world which was overwhelmingly Greek speaking, and explains why their writings were so penned in the language of the Hellenes (who had been assumed early on into budding Romania.)

I will certainly grant that with time what actually remained of the "Pax Romania" spoke increasingly little Latin (until it was a dead language) - however it's also true that Latin was never the lingua franca throughout the entire Empire at any point in her history, and would only become an increasingly common tongue in the west in the centuries after Christ (thus explaining why the first liturgical celebrations in Rome herself were predominantly in Greek, not Latin.)

The general prevailing cultural identity of the Eastern Roman Empire was Hellenistic, NOT ROMAN.

Given that the Roman Empire had assumed the remains of the older conquests of Alexander the Great (both territorially and culturally), the above is a meaningless distinction.  Even where Latin predominated in Rome itself, in the Imperial cult of the pre-Constantinian period, the "most Roman" of things are in fact Hellenic in origin.  Where do you think Jupiter (Zeus),  Mars (Aries) Hercules (Herakles) or Bacchus (Dionysius) came from?

In the sense you're using "Roman" (as somehow opposed to being Greek), I guess one would be forced to say there never were Romans then!

Did you notice that the symbols of the empire is different. when the empire center was in Rome. it had an eagle, when it moved west it had the double headed eagle.

Did you notice that at one time the Empire had the emblems of various gods and elementals as their standards, but this eventually gave way to the Holy Cross?

Civilizations change and develop.  If being static is the test of genuine identity and continuity, then there never was a Roman Empire, nor has there ever been a "you" or "me."  It's this lack of genuine cultural and (in particular) political continuity for which the claims of the Franks are being faulted.

Politically they might have been called roman but culturally they were not romans. they were slavs, goths, greek, arabs, etc.  Of course this was after the roman empire let anyone become a roman citizen but, even then the romans knew who where real romans.

While it is true that the remnants of the patrician class would always pride themselves on their heritage (and find a certain snob value in it), in reality they were throwbacks to a Republicanism which died with the first Caesar.  What I find odd however, is that you use such a line of thinking as some kind of qualifier for being a "true Roman" - since by this measure, the Franks undoubtedly are not Romans!

However, the whole "real romans" stuff is nonsense - the ultimate deliniation made at the height of the Empire and beyond, was whether or not one was a citizen.  The tribalistic/nationalistic distinctions you're making are leftovers of the post-Roman west and the feudalism this birthed, and not Romania.

It is like today in america. you have alot of american citizen but there is a sense that the true americans are those that are of english stock. Do you really believe that an american is going to see an iraqui/iranian/mexican as true american even if they have american citizenship.? Not really!

It depends on which Americans you're talking to.   The U.S.A is not any one thing in a narrow sense.  It's a continuity, involving wave after wave of immigration and population movement.  The trend seems to have been (at least in times past), the newest "wave" would have a hard time, but eventually be assimilated into the broader culture (all the while, contributing some of their own cultural characteristics to the broader civilization.)

Thus, when the Irish first arrived, there were lots of people who had no use for them...same with the Italians, etc.  Now, they are well integrated into the broader culture, and undoubtedly the USA as a whole has (perhaps unwittingly, unintentionally) absorbed many things from those immigrants as well.

I'm sure (like the United States) the Romans had "old families" - though like the U.S. their importance was more in their own estimation than in that of the common man...and that importance grew less and less as the times changed, and the scope of their culture took on a more global quality (yet with something always binding it all together.)  In many ways, the U.S. does have a strong resemblence to the Roman Empire.

In general, you'd find that most Americans would be offended (including the few whites who are actually purely descended from Anglo stock...most whites in America cannot claim this, even if they were actually interested in doing such) by the distinction you're making (that some people, despite citizenship and personal allegiance, are not "real Americans.")

The mantle of rome!! There is Rome and then there is Constantinople. Rome cannot ever be replaced. You can't have rome without rome.

Very early on being "a Roman" had become something more than being a geographical resident of the particular city on the Tiber...and this was even while Rome was still the primary seat of the Emperors.

Btw., I was disappointed that you did not comment on the distinction I made between the Orthodox understanding of theology (it's method, goals) and that held by the RCC.

Seraphim

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: I tought that the Emperor was the head of your church