OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 07:20:04 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Schism 1054  (Read 1998 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 159


« on: October 31, 2011, 08:07:38 AM »

In 1054 Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other. What was the reaction of the other patriarchates? Did they take sides immediately ?
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,825



« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2011, 11:24:20 AM »

^1054 is often cited by many scholars as the date where everything unraveled. But that's really not the case.  The other patriarchates were in infidel position and were not in a position to "take sides."  Also, a point of clarification needs to be added:  The excommunication bull which Cardinal Humbert laid down on the altar of Hagia Sophia excommunicated the churches under Constantinople, but Kerularios' excommunication was directed only towards Humbert and the other members of the Papal Delegation which, technically, had lost their authority to do anything as Pope Leo (XII?) died two weeks earlier.

We should also note that when Urban II called for a crusade in 1095 against the Turks, there was no trace of hostility towards the Eastern churches (though some said he masked it for political convenience) and crusaders and Byzantines fought side by side, though the Byzantines thought the westerners crude and barbaric while the westerners thought the Byzantines were not zealous enough for the faith.  There were many attempts at reconciliation during the period of the crusades to ensure that there was not an "actual" split.  The event which really solidified schism was the Venetian sacking of Constantinople in 1204 and the imposition of the Latin Empire, a Latin Rite for the churches and a Latin Patriarch.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 159


« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2011, 11:35:35 AM »

Thanks for the information.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2011, 03:41:52 PM »

In 1054 Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other. What was the reaction of the other patriarchates? Did they take sides immediately ?

Antioch did not split with Rome until 1100, when the Crusaders ejected the Greek bishop and installed a Latin.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2011, 03:45:36 PM »

Also, Humbert's bull was void from the moment he laid it pompously on the altar. The pope was dead and he had no authority to excommunicate anyone. This was known at the time in Constantinople. The incident was not even mentioned at a home council in Constantinople in 1098, however this was a council addressing reunion issues. So, there was definitely a breech of sorts between east and west, but this had been going on since about 1004, when the filioque was sung at the coronation mass of Holy Roman Emperor St. Henry II in Rome, and Constantinople and the other eastern patriarchates objected by removing the pope's name from the diptychs since filioque was in the pope's systatic letter. Later in the century, the popes ceased sending systatic letters to the other patriarchs as the idea of papal supremacy took shape.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 159


« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2011, 04:54:23 PM »

Thanks again, I  am due to be Chrismated by the end of the year. One of the issues is my wife is doing instructions and is interested  in  the caused of schism and the issue of authority. I am 61 a cradle observant RC(was) my wife converted in 1980 from church of Christ. She doesn't remember the old latin mass, communion in the mouth, or many of the other practices that separated us from Protestants. It is only by talking with her that I realize how much the RC church has change post VII. I am coming to a conclusion of a 2 year process of study and prayer and love the WR of the Antiochian church. I feel like I have come home. Thanks for your information and ask prayers for me and my wife of 40 years.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2011, 05:19:18 PM »

Many years!
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2011, 05:39:39 PM »

^1054 is often cited by many scholars as the date where everything unraveled. But that's really not the case.  The other patriarchates were in infidel position and were not in a position to "take sides." 
Actually they were, but they didn't.  Indeed, in Antioch, it really did not take firm hold until 1727. 

Many years to the OP! (especially, if I understand correctly, that you have found the WRO.  May there be more!)
Logged

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

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2011, 07:47:19 PM »

One of the things that was mentioned on the last Lumen Orientale Conference was this installation of Latin bishops into the East. The retort was the East did the very same thing in the West, and therefore, should be one of those things dropped.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2011, 07:55:26 PM »

One of the things that was mentioned on the last Lumen Orientale Conference was this installation of Latin bishops into the East. The retort was the East did the very same thing in the West, and therefore, should be one of those things dropped.

Do you have examples? I mean, in southern Italy which had the largest Byzantine presence, I haven't read so much about replacements of already entrenched Latin bishops with Greek ones. Before the Byzantines came in during the time of St. Justinian, it had only been a few centuries after the end of persecutions and these years also saw barbarian incursions and Arian upheavals. I'm not sure if bishops there in the time of Justinian were replaced Latin for Greek (after all, at that time there were just Romans all), or if over time as customs changed, the bishops in Byzantine territory, formerly on Roman canonical territory were switched to Constantinopolitan authority. That's quite different from what the Crusaders did at Antioch and in the Holy Land.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2011, 07:57:30 PM »

One of the things that was mentioned on the last Lumen Orientale Conference was this installation of Latin bishops into the East. The retort was the East did the very same thing in the West, and therefore, should be one of those things dropped.

Do you have examples? I mean, in southern Italy which had the largest Byzantine presence, I haven't read so much about replacements of already entrenched Latin bishops with Greek ones. Before the Byzantines came in during the time of St. Justinian, it had only been a few centuries after the end of persecutions and these years also saw barbarian incursions and Arian upheavals. I'm not sure if bishops there in the time of Justinian were replaced Latin for Greek (after all, at that time there were just Romans all), or if over time as customs changed, the bishops in Byzantine territory, formerly on Roman canonical territory were switched to Constantinopolitan authority. That's quite different from what the Crusaders did at Antioch and in the Holy Land.

Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with this beyond what I gave. I wish I had more information, as well. I can however find the recording and post it with a timestamp for reference.

Logged


I'm going to need this.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2011, 08:05:49 PM »

One of the things that was mentioned on the last Lumen Orientale Conference was this installation of Latin bishops into the East. The retort was the East did the very same thing in the West, and therefore, should be one of those things dropped.

Do you have examples? I mean, in southern Italy which had the largest Byzantine presence, I haven't read so much about replacements of already entrenched Latin bishops with Greek ones. Before the Byzantines came in during the time of St. Justinian, it had only been a few centuries after the end of persecutions and these years also saw barbarian incursions and Arian upheavals. I'm not sure if bishops there in the time of Justinian were replaced Latin for Greek (after all, at that time there were just Romans all), or if over time as customs changed, the bishops in Byzantine territory, formerly on Roman canonical territory were switched to Constantinopolitan authority. That's quite different from what the Crusaders did at Antioch and in the Holy Land.

Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with this beyond what I gave. I wish I had more information, as well. I can however find the recording and post it with a timestamp for reference.



Thank you.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2011, 08:32:20 PM »

One of the things that was mentioned on the last Lumen Orientale Conference was this installation of Latin bishops into the East. The retort was the East did the very same thing in the West, and therefore, should be one of those things dropped.

Do you have examples? I mean, in southern Italy which had the largest Byzantine presence, I haven't read so much about replacements of already entrenched Latin bishops with Greek ones. Before the Byzantines came in during the time of St. Justinian, it had only been a few centuries after the end of persecutions and these years also saw barbarian incursions and Arian upheavals. I'm not sure if bishops there in the time of Justinian were replaced Latin for Greek (after all, at that time there were just Romans all), or if over time as customs changed, the bishops in Byzantine territory, formerly on Roman canonical territory were switched to Constantinopolitan authority. That's quite different from what the Crusaders did at Antioch and in the Holy Land.

Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with this beyond what I gave. I wish I had more information, as well. I can however find the recording and post it with a timestamp for reference.

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/orientale_lumen_xv_conference/plenary_one

This is the 45 minute part given by Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J. (Greek Catholic), which I think is well worth listening to in whole for those interested in Catholic/Orthodox relations. His opinion from an Eastern Catholic position should be interesting as being critical of BOTH Roman Catholics and Orthodox. He touches on many major topics, such as "First Among Equals", development of doctrine, ecclesiology, purgatory, etc.

While detailing this view, he mentions what I mentioned earlier among other items he believes should be dropped. Time stamp is about 30:30 and continues to about 33:00 to hear the actual quote, though I recommend starting it around 25:00 (if not the whole thing) for some of the context.

« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 08:37:08 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2011, 08:36:10 PM »

Many years, RDunbar123! May you find great joy and life in the Western Rite of the Holy Orthodox Church.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,717


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2011, 09:20:39 PM »

Thanks again, I  am due to be Chrismated by the end of the year. One of the issues is my wife is doing instructions and is interested  in  the caused of schism and the issue of authority. I am 61 a cradle observant RC(was) my wife converted in 1980 from church of Christ. She doesn't remember the old latin mass, communion in the mouth, or many of the other practices that separated us from Protestants. It is only by talking with her that I realize how much the RC church has change post VII. I am coming to a conclusion of a 2 year process of study and prayer and love the WR of the Antiochian church. I feel like I have come home. Thanks for your information and ask prayers for me and my wife of 40 years.

Many years!  angel
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2011, 11:28:13 PM »

One of the things that was mentioned on the last Lumen Orientale Conference was this installation of Latin bishops into the East. The retort was the East did the very same thing in the West, and therefore, should be one of those things dropped.

Do you have examples? I mean, in southern Italy which had the largest Byzantine presence, I haven't read so much about replacements of already entrenched Latin bishops with Greek ones. Before the Byzantines came in during the time of St. Justinian, it had only been a few centuries after the end of persecutions and these years also saw barbarian incursions and Arian upheavals. I'm not sure if bishops there in the time of Justinian were replaced Latin for Greek (after all, at that time there were just Romans all), or if over time as customs changed, the bishops in Byzantine territory, formerly on Roman canonical territory were switched to Constantinopolitan authority. That's quite different from what the Crusaders did at Antioch and in the Holy Land.

Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with this beyond what I gave. I wish I had more information, as well. I can however find the recording and post it with a timestamp for reference.



Father Taft addressed this issue some, but I'll add a bit more based on what I recall from various (secondary sources) on Southern Italian history.  Unfortunately, I can't make precise citations right now (search for histories of medieval Southern Italy on Amazon and you'll find the books I read).  More importantly, there's a whole trove of information in Italian, which I doubt will ever be translated.

During Justinian's conquest of Italy (where, IIRC, he was technically still recognized as rightful emperor by the Ostrogoths, who were theoretically reigning in his name), the Empire may very well have appointed bishops from Constantinople to sees that fell under their military jurisdiction, but I am not aware of any specific cases and so I can't compare them to the ouster of the "Greek" Patriarch of Antioch by the Crusaders and his replacement with a Latin Churchman. 

The big complaint against the Empire is that it took all the Italian sees under its political power and removed them from Old Rome's jurisdiction to Constantinople as a move against Old Rome's anti-iconoclasm.  This was not only reversed by the Norman Conquest in the 1050s.   AFAIC, this is essentially equivalent to what the crusaders did in Antioch.   

Later, in approximately the 800-900s, Greek vs. Latin rite conflict were a major factor of Southern Italian politics, as one proxy for Imperial vs. Lombard/German political conflict.  Sees and the rites used in the see would switch based on which faction was in charge at the time.  I am also told that Old Rome and most other major Italian cities (e.g. Venice) factionalized on similar lines, though Imperial troops never made it that far north and so the pro-Empire party never had that to back them up.   This conflict essentially ended with the Norman conquest of Southern Italy and their subsequent invasion of Greece, making the Empire politically powerless in Italy.   (this took place at about the same time as Manzikert - in fact, the Norman threat was arguably more serious)

Finally, as far as 1054 goes, Aristeides Papadakis' book The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy essentially argues that main factor in the schism is the "Gregorian Reform movement" - in many ways a movement to impose Northern European ecclesiastical norms developed in the 11th century - combined with the movement's actualization in the Pope's belief he that he could dictate who should sit on eastern Patriarchal sees once he had the power to do so through the crusaders, and later in the crusades to shore up the Latin Empire in Constantinople. 

To my mind, even though there are no longer crusaders and no one would seriously think today of ousting bishops from their sees and replacing them with those of the invading culture, the underlying point is still a legitimate question.  Is the bishop organic to his see, and can Rome unilaterally appoint/depose him - even if it's another patriarch, and even if the bishop is outside Rome's "canonical territory" (assuming there is even a limit for such a thing)? 
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2011, 11:34:04 PM »

One of the things that was mentioned on the last Lumen Orientale Conference was this installation of Latin bishops into the East. The retort was the East did the very same thing in the West, and therefore, should be one of those things dropped.

Do you have examples? I mean, in southern Italy which had the largest Byzantine presence, I haven't read so much about replacements of already entrenched Latin bishops with Greek ones. Before the Byzantines came in during the time of St. Justinian, it had only been a few centuries after the end of persecutions and these years also saw barbarian incursions and Arian upheavals. I'm not sure if bishops there in the time of Justinian were replaced Latin for Greek (after all, at that time there were just Romans all), or if over time as customs changed, the bishops in Byzantine territory, formerly on Roman canonical territory were switched to Constantinopolitan authority. That's quite different from what the Crusaders did at Antioch and in the Holy Land.

Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with this beyond what I gave. I wish I had more information, as well. I can however find the recording and post it with a timestamp for reference.



Father Taft addressed this issue some, but I'll add a bit more based on what I recall from various (secondary sources) on Southern Italian history.  Unfortunately, I can't make precise citations right now (search for histories of medieval Southern Italy on Amazon and you'll find the books I read).  More importantly, there's a whole trove of information in Italian, which I doubt will ever be translated.

During Justinian's conquest of Italy (where, IIRC, he was technically still recognized as rightful emperor by the Ostrogoths, who were theoretically reigning in his name), the Empire may very well have appointed bishops from Constantinople to sees that fell under their military jurisdiction, but I am not aware of any specific cases and so I can't compare them to the ouster of the "Greek" Patriarch of Antioch by the Crusaders and his replacement with a Latin Churchman. 

The big complaint against the Empire is that it took all the Italian sees under its political power and removed them from Old Rome's jurisdiction to Constantinople as a move against Old Rome's anti-iconoclasm.  This was not only reversed by the Norman Conquest in the 1050s.   AFAIC, this is essentially equivalent to what the crusaders did in Antioch.   

Later, in approximately the 800-900s, Greek vs. Latin rite conflict were a major factor of Southern Italian politics, as one proxy for Imperial vs. Lombard/German political conflict.  Sees and the rites used in the see would switch based on which faction was in charge at the time.  I am also told that Old Rome and most other major Italian cities (e.g. Venice) factionalized on similar lines, though Imperial troops never made it that far north and so the pro-Empire party never had that to back them up.   This conflict essentially ended with the Norman conquest of Southern Italy and their subsequent invasion of Greece, making the Empire politically powerless in Italy.   (this took place at about the same time as Manzikert - in fact, the Norman threat was arguably more serious)

Finally, as far as 1054 goes, Aristeides Papadakis' book The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy essentially argues that main factor in the schism is the "Gregorian Reform movement" - in many ways a movement to impose Northern European ecclesiastical norms developed in the 11th century - combined with the movement's actualization in the Pope's belief he that he could dictate who should sit on eastern Patriarchal sees once he had the power to do so through the crusaders, and later in the crusades to shore up the Latin Empire in Constantinople. 

To my mind, even though there are no longer crusaders and no one would seriously think today of ousting bishops from their sees and replacing them with those of the invading culture, the underlying point is still a legitimate question.  Is the bishop organic to his see, and can Rome unilaterally appoint/depose him - even if it's another patriarch, and even if the bishop is outside Rome's "canonical territory" (assuming there is even a limit for such a thing)? 
The history of the Meletian schism in Antioch (and the fact that the Vatican's four patriarchs of Antioch all claim to succeed Pat. St. Meletius) would answer yes, the bishop is organic, and no, Rome doesn't get to dicate a see's occupant.
Logged

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

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2011, 11:54:30 PM »

Isa,

Of course you would not get any disagreement from me on the issue. 
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2011, 08:28:50 AM »

One of the things that was mentioned on the last Lumen Orientale Conference was this installation of Latin bishops into the East. The retort was the East did the very same thing in the West, and therefore, should be one of those things dropped.

Do you have examples? I mean, in southern Italy which had the largest Byzantine presence, I haven't read so much about replacements of already entrenched Latin bishops with Greek ones. Before the Byzantines came in during the time of St. Justinian, it had only been a few centuries after the end of persecutions and these years also saw barbarian incursions and Arian upheavals. I'm not sure if bishops there in the time of Justinian were replaced Latin for Greek (after all, at that time there were just Romans all), or if over time as customs changed, the bishops in Byzantine territory, formerly on Roman canonical territory were switched to Constantinopolitan authority. That's quite different from what the Crusaders did at Antioch and in the Holy Land.

Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with this beyond what I gave. I wish I had more information, as well. I can however find the recording and post it with a timestamp for reference.



Father Taft addressed this issue some, but I'll add a bit more based on what I recall from various (secondary sources) on Southern Italian history.  Unfortunately, I can't make precise citations right now (search for histories of medieval Southern Italy on Amazon and you'll find the books I read).  More importantly, there's a whole trove of information in Italian, which I doubt will ever be translated.

During Justinian's conquest of Italy (where, IIRC, he was technically still recognized as rightful emperor by the Ostrogoths, who were theoretically reigning in his name), the Empire may very well have appointed bishops from Constantinople to sees that fell under their military jurisdiction, but I am not aware of any specific cases and so I can't compare them to the ouster of the "Greek" Patriarch of Antioch by the Crusaders and his replacement with a Latin Churchman. 

The big complaint against the Empire is that it took all the Italian sees under its political power and removed them from Old Rome's jurisdiction to Constantinople as a move against Old Rome's anti-iconoclasm.  This was not only reversed by the Norman Conquest in the 1050s.   AFAIC, this is essentially equivalent to what the crusaders did in Antioch.   

Later, in approximately the 800-900s, Greek vs. Latin rite conflict were a major factor of Southern Italian politics, as one proxy for Imperial vs. Lombard/German political conflict.  Sees and the rites used in the see would switch based on which faction was in charge at the time.  I am also told that Old Rome and most other major Italian cities (e.g. Venice) factionalized on similar lines, though Imperial troops never made it that far north and so the pro-Empire party never had that to back them up.   This conflict essentially ended with the Norman conquest of Southern Italy and their subsequent invasion of Greece, making the Empire politically powerless in Italy.   (this took place at about the same time as Manzikert - in fact, the Norman threat was arguably more serious)

Finally, as far as 1054 goes, Aristeides Papadakis' book The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy essentially argues that main factor in the schism is the "Gregorian Reform movement" - in many ways a movement to impose Northern European ecclesiastical norms developed in the 11th century - combined with the movement's actualization in the Pope's belief he that he could dictate who should sit on eastern Patriarchal sees once he had the power to do so through the crusaders, and later in the crusades to shore up the Latin Empire in Constantinople. 

To my mind, even though there are no longer crusaders and no one would seriously think today of ousting bishops from their sees and replacing them with those of the invading culture, the underlying point is still a legitimate question.  Is the bishop organic to his see, and can Rome unilaterally appoint/depose him - even if it's another patriarch, and even if the bishop is outside Rome's "canonical territory" (assuming there is even a limit for such a thing)? 

Interesting. Thanks for the history. I vaguely remember some of that. Perhaps its about that time I read about this again.  Smiley
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2011, 09:29:21 AM »

Isa,

Of course you would not get any disagreement from me on the issue. 
LOL. Of course not: the Melkite sui juris jurisdiction has one thing most others do not: good report and rapport with its Orthodox counterpart.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.1 seconds with 46 queries.