Because some things during its Orthodox period led to the circumstances during which the schism occurred. It wasn't like the Filioque, Papal Supremacy and other such issues just instantly popped out of nowhere in the 11th Century.
I am well aware of that. My point is more that it cannot be tied to such things as a change in language, or the establishment of a local discipline that was not argued to extend beyond that locality. No matter what you feel about the concept of Original Sin, or Papal Infallibility, or any such stance, you can't blame them on things like the language being used to communicate those ideas.
It isn't like I have anything against Latin, my point was that due to the language, the theologians tended to think in much more legalistic manners.
And my point is that this is complete baloney...and, really, calling it that is a bit insulting to baloney.
Think about it. Compare English to other languages. We are a language that is not always very specific.
Speak for yourself. I am not a language.
In fact, if one were to say shoot, they could mean shoot a gun, the expression shoot! (like darn!), chute as in a tube, chute as in a parachute, etc... However, for comparison, in Greek, if you say Alpha, with emphasis on the first A, it would mean something completely different than alphA with emphasis on the last A.
What does any of this have anything to do with theology?
So if you were translating the Bible from Greek to English, you obviously open up many opportunities for various interpretations. Whereas if you translated it from Greek to Latin, Latin would absolutely insist on precision, which might not coincide with the Greek.
I don't even know if I want to get into this. I do not want to come off as prideful, but I am a linguist, and I can tell you with no sense of triumphalism at all that ideas such as this one (a sort of "hard" linguistic determinism wherein the language insists
on such-and-such) have not been taken seriously for many, many years. Especially with regard to the specific context in which you have invoked this idea (Bible translation), the fact that there has been (literally since Biblical times) such a proliferation of many different translations of the scriptures into all the world's languages shows that your point cannot be sustained. If it were somehow not possible to translate faithfully a given passage due to supposed "insistence" from the language
(rather than the translator, who really makes the final judgment) in this or that regard, we would not see very many successful translations (and this goes not just for the Bible, but anything that is translated from one language to another). Obviously, it was not impossible to translate from two Semitic languages to an Indo-European language (Septuagint, anyone?), and it was likewise not impossible to translate from one Indo-European language to another (Latin to Greek), just as it is possible and perfectly acceptable to provide translations in any number of languages should the circumstances insist
upon it. (Say, if someone has the temerity to not read Greek or Aramaic.)
Not only that, but they also began interpreting things, and defining matters of the faith in very legalistic manners. This is especially true when it came to various issues not just related to St. Augustine. Such as their eventual interpretation of canons, which they treat as laws that cannot be broken without a consequence. Not to mention their idea of sin as being the same, laws which cannot be broken, and have a consequence and God will punish accordingly.
Again, what does this have to do with the West being Latin-speaking? They spoke Latin when they were Orthodox; they spoke Latin when they were not Orthodox. Orthodoxy is wherever it is, and heterodoxy is where it is, too. Is this not a general principle by which most people live? (I've heard this about a million times from EO friends, and not just on the internet; other, more fanatical stances, seem to live much more comfortably on the internet.)
Obviously Latin isn't the only cause, but it is one of many causes. Again, no one is suggesting Latin is a poor language, or shouldn't have been used. But that it just contributed to the situation.
It didn't, though. If Latin is to be "blamed" in any way, then Greek can be blamed similarly, as it was a mutual estrangement wherein less translations were being made (i.e., less Latins were reading or could read Eastern writers, and less Greeks were reading or could read Western writers), less people were learning "the others'" language, etc. This is not the fault of either language, just the way that things worked out as the cultures continued to develop in more and more isolation. This arguably does go back to Pope Victor's time (since that was when the liturgy was changed from Greek to Latin, hence cutting off exposure to Greek in that context), but it could just as easily have happened under some other set of circumstances, as with some other set of languages. If the West had spoken Swahili and the East Danish, you'd still have the same problem! We still see very deep divisions in society in certain places where there is even less difference between the people. The development of artificial national standards of speech to meet new political realities is a great example. Did anyone speak Montenegrin
before 2006, for instance? It depends on who you ask.
I repeat: There is nothing inherent in the Latin language or ANY language on any level that makes it either problematic or a cause of division between the Orthodox East and the heterodox/heretical/formerly Orthodox West. Anyone who claims otherwise is confusing the social conditions or other aspects of cultural life with the language in which they are expressed. Every language is equally "Orthodox" or "Heterodox", in the hands of a capable speaker or writer. Let us not forget that Pope Leo III, born in Rome, forbade the filioque and went so far as to have the Creed inscribed on silver tablets without it as a testament to his defense of the faith. And in defending that faith, he wrote in Latin
"HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI", or "I, Leo, put here for love and protection of orthodox faith".
Quod erat demonstrandum?