Topic: An historical inquiry.

[Tgebar]

Consider the narrative of the schism provided here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm

I would like an Orthodox, historically and theologically rigorous, non-polemical, non-pejorative reply to the claims made by these articles. I would like this reply to be made only by those who have read these articles in their entirety, carefully, and are not incited to anger by their content. Thank you.

As an aside, I would also like the reply not to question the validity of the source while not making any other argument. I understand that the source is liable to be biased, but I want a response to the claims, not a reiteration that bias is probable.

[NicholasMyra]

I want a five course meal.

[Shiny]

I want a five course meal.

And use these articles as my plate to eat off of.

EDIT: Just started to read the first article, I'd say something on the lines of it being very slanted for RCC but it is after all.

EDIT 2: Sorry Tgebar, but yeah can you someone concise maybe exactly what you want or a portion of it? That would take a lot of work to refute and frankly I don't have my ialmisry.txt updated enough to do it.

[Bigsinner]

Consider the narrative of the schism provided here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm

I would like an Orthodox, historically and theologically rigorous, non-polemical, non-pejorative reply to the claims made by these articles. I would like this reply to be made only by those who have read these articles in their entirety, carefully, and are not incited to anger by their content. Thank you.

As an aside, I would also like the reply not to question the validity of the source while not making any other argument. I understand that the source is liable to be biased, but I want a response to the claims, not a reiteration that bias is probable.

Who is grading us?  Is there a minimum page length?  Required citation format?  Is there extra credit?  Can we just audit this course?

Sarcasm off.

How about highlighting a specific point or two or three from the articles that you find puzzleing, thought-provoking, or troubling, and asking for a response to those?

[orthonorm]

You used the word narrative.

And consider.

[Tgebar]

This is exactly what I wanted to avoid. I want to hear a response to the narrative provided by these articles for the sake of understanding the historically and theologically informed Orthodox response. This is not an attack, this is not a point I am trying to prove, it's merely an inquiry, as per the title of the thread. If I were to attempt to identify the specific claims I wanted a response to, I fear I would summarize them too simplistically. That's why I want the response to be to the claims of these articles specifically.

I also would like to add this article to the list, specifically from the section 'Characteristics of the Schismatical Eastern Churches' forward:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

[orthonorm]

This is exactly what I wanted to avoid. I want to hear a response to the narrative provided by these articles for the sake of understanding the historically and theologically informed Orthodox response. This is not an attack, this is not a point I am trying to prove, it's merely an inquiry, as per the title of the thread.

Read your OP.

Do your own work.

Get the Orthodox Church. You probably already have it.

Now try reading it.

[Tgebar]

I think you all are thinking that I'm trying to attack the Church, when I only wish to have an informed discussion about history merely out of interest. I enjoy studying such subjects, and I figured there would be fellow students of history present here.

[orthonorm]

I think you all are thinking that I'm trying to attack the Church, when I only wish to have an informed discussion about history merely out of interest. I enjoy studying such subjects, and I figured there would be fellow students of history present here.

I don't know what "we" think. [redacted what I think]

I gave you your answer. Go read your book about history.

[Tgebar]

That's rude. When I ask a friend who is more familiar with a particular subject than I am about that subject, he doesn't patronizingly tell me to 'go look it up myself'; he offers me what information he has available.

[orthonorm]

That's rude. When I ask a friend who is more familiar with a particular subject than I am about that subject, he doesn't patronizingly tell me to 'go look it up myself'; he offers me what information he has available.

Here's what's available:



Stop by tomorrow around 6 PM or so and you can borrow mine.

[NicholasMyra]

That's rude. When I ask a friend who is more familiar with a particular subject than I am about that subject, he doesn't patronizingly tell me to 'go look it up myself'; he offers me what information he has available.

The problem is that you could do this just as well as we could. Read the article, then research Orthodox claims. That's certainly what I would do if I were to attempt your OP's assignment.

Now, if you had said "this is really troubling me, and I haven't the time to do the research myself", that would have been a completely different story.

[Tgebar]

The only response I remember his grace providing in that work is that papal supremacy was not supported by the ecumenical councils which the Orthodox Church considers truly infallible. That is a good response, it answers some of the questions one may have about the validity of the papal claims. However, what I am looking for is a response to the particular narrative of these articles, not the subject of the schism in its entirety. These articles provide a more specified narrative in which they mention the political climate of the time, discuss the subject of the Apostolicity of the Constantinopolitan See, and the temperaments of the major figures involved as revealed by their correspondence and history. I don't believe these subjects were addressed in The Orthodox Church, but I will read it again so that I may be certain.

Nicholas, I apologize for not stating a sentiment I felt was obvious, but I defer to the response I made previously. No friend would react to me in such a manner if I asked the same of him, there is no reason to react with hostility. No Orthodox examination of the schism that I have encountered has responded to these particular subjects.

[NicholasMyra]

Tgebar,

The poster most equipped to respond here is Ialmisry. I would go ahead and search his posts on the topics of Michael Cerularius and the EP around the time of the Schism until he has a chance to weigh in.

[Irish Melkite]

Consider the narrative of the schism provided here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm

I would like an Orthodox, historically and theologically rigorous, non-polemical, non-pejorative reply to the claims made by these articles. I would like this reply to be made only by those who have read these articles in their entirety, carefully, and are not incited to anger by their content. Thank you.

As an aside, I would also like the reply not to question the validity of the source while not making any other argument. I understand that the source is liable to be biased, but I want a response to the claims, not a reiteration that bias is probable.

Tgebar,

I'm not Orthodox - in fact I'm Eastern Catholic, but I hope you don't bother to ask that a Catholic offer "a historically and theologically rigorous, non-polemical, non-pejorative [defense to] the claims made by these articles". Because, I think you'll wait a long time to have one (umm, maybe not, there are one or two of my co-religionists here who might be tempted to try and offer such). Frankly, there is little to say for them other than that they reflect Adrian Fortescue's bias and the bias of the era in which they were written. To any informed Catholic, Latin or otherwise, they should be immediately recognizable as polemicism of the n-th degree.

There are likely some nuggests of truth in there - one cannot imagine that the man crafted those entire pieces from whole cloth, but the headache that I'd get in the course of reading through the entirety of them isn't worth it to find that grain of salt among the sand.

Many years,

Neil

[Von Döllinger]

Strictly speaking, the present schism dates from the Eastern repudiation of the Council of Florence (in 1472).

So, Florence was suposed to be a union council, but there was no schism before Florence? 

The position, sometimes now advanced by anti-papal controversialists, and that all bishops are equal in jurisdiction, was utterly unknown in the early Church.

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another."
St Cyprian

We find, too, from the beginning the idea that a bishop inherits the dignity of the founder of his see, that, therefore, the successor of an Apostle has special rights and privileges.

With limits: Alexandria was higher than Antioch, while Antioch was founded by st Peter, and Alexandria's see by st Mark. And Jerusalem founded by st James, appointed here by the Lord was the last. The only reason for Alexandria to be higher than Antioch is the civilian rank.

The loyalty of the Eastern Christians on the other hand went first to his own patriarch, so there was here always a danger of divided allegiance — if the patriarch had a quarrel with the pope — such as would have been inconceivable in the West.

Is that why there were donatists in the west? Or the conflict between st Cyprian and Pope Stephen?

All the rest of those articles is of the same dishonnest kind.

Read it http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/open/

It should be enough to you.

[Tgebar]

Strictly speaking, the present schism dates from the Eastern repudiation of the Council of Florence (in 1472).

So, Florence was suposed to be a union council, but there was no schism before Florence? 

I believe what the author is purporting is that the issues raised by former advocates of condemning the heretical innovations of Rome were resolved at earlier councils, and that the current obstacles to reunification are the product of the Orthodox repudiation of the Florentine council. Thank you for the link you provided.

[Von Döllinger]

Strictly speaking, the present schism dates from the Eastern repudiation of the Council of Florence (in 1472).

So, Florence was suposed to be a union council, but there was no schism before Florence? 

I believe what the author is purporting is that the issues raised by former advocates of condemning the heretical innovations of Rome were resolved at earlier councils, and that the current obstacles to reunification are the product of the Orthodox repudiation of the Florentine council. Thank you for the link you provided.

The current obstacles are the same that existed prior to Florence, but with adtional inovations from Rome, wich makes a come back of Old Rome to Orthodoxy even harder than in 1439.

[Justin Kissel]

Consider the narrative of the schism provided here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm

I would like an Orthodox, historically and theologically rigorous, non-polemical, non-pejorative reply to the claims made by these articles. I would like this reply to be made only by those who have read these articles in their entirety, carefully, and are not incited to anger by their content. Thank you.

As an aside, I would also like the reply not to question the validity of the source while not making any other argument. I understand that the source is liable to be biased, but I want a response to the claims, not a reiteration that bias is probable.

I will do this for $20. Seriously. PM me for an address.

[HouseOfGod]

I read this last night, I read through most of the articles, but I wasn't sure if I was completely qualified to answer. I still don't think I necessarily am, but I enjoy speaking about this segment of history. As you've said before, you did not want to see merely a restatement of the fact that a bias is possible, so I will try to refrain from doing such. (I'm about to refer to the Orthodox Church's beliefs, and use the word "we." If anything I say is false, please correct me) In the Orthodox Church, it is believed that historically, the Schism of 1054 was less of an eruption, and more of a final whimper of sorts. In the beginning of the faith, when the five patriarchs were established, with Peter leaving Antioch originally to become the bishop of Rome, there was no such thing as either religion, as we know, and it was the Church. It was for a long time prior to the Schism, though, that the two faiths were referred to as separate, and a long time of differences gradually being established, believed by the Orthodox Church to be on the instigation of Rome. The bishop of Rome challenged the other major leaders of the church through the general objection that there was only one true successor of Peter, who was the rock on which Christ would build His Church. From this, of course, springs the issue of papal infallability. In the article it is mentioned that a reason for the schism of the churches was the mere fact that the language preferences were different. If this contributed to the final schism, it was not one of the main causes, as there are major differences in the doctrines of the two churches. The article suggests the possibility that the Eastern Church is not unified due to the fact that they were under four distinct patriarchs, but this became increasingly false as they unified in Orthodoxy, and in the present day, other heads of the Church are remembered by every priest, bishop, etc. in most (if not all) services. There is a strong sense of unity and in doctrine as well as faith in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church and Constantinople during these times did not have an inherent "jealousy of Rome," and this was not in any way the reasoning for the Schism. The East continued to live in the faith that it had always had, rather than altering doctrine as the West had.

I'm not sure if any of this helped any at all, but I hope it gave you at least a little, or encourages someone else to post something. I'd be happy to share more if someone would like me to do so. I still try everyday to learn the history of my faith, and in doing so I hope to climb my ladder of obstacles.
-Passionate Orthodox teenager

[Father H]

Consider the narrative of the schism provided here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm

I would like an Orthodox, historically and theologically rigorous, non-polemical, non-pejorative reply to the claims made by these articles. I would like this reply to be made only by those who have read these articles in their entirety, carefully, and are not incited to anger by their content. Thank you.

As an aside, I would also like the reply not to question the validity of the source while not making any other argument. I understand that the source is liable to be biased, but I want a response to the claims, not a reiteration that bias is probable.

Irish Melkite basically stated most of what needed said.  The author is self-contradictory.  For example, how can the schism date to Florence yet "in a sense" was complete after Pat. Michael in 1054?   Also, the argument is that it is largely pragmatic and emotional.  The issue that the Vatican may be wrong is not even addressed.   

The whole of the writings seems like it could be a letter of one sibling to another:   "why are you worried about the gold in Uncle Willy's house?  Its in a bad section of town anyway," in the meantime the sibling writing the letter gathers all the gold that they can and sells what they don't to the most reasonable bidder. 

[akimori makoto]

Consider the narrative of the schism provided here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm

I would like an Orthodox, historically and theologically rigorous, non-polemical, non-pejorative reply to the claims made by these articles. I would like this reply to be made only by those who have read these articles in their entirety, carefully, and are not incited to anger by their content. Thank you.

As an aside, I would also like the reply not to question the validity of the source while not making any other argument. I understand that the source is liable to be biased, but I want a response to the claims, not a reiteration that bias is probable.

Irish Melkite basically stated most of what needed said.  The author is self-contradictory.  For example, how can the schism date to Florence yet "in a sense" was complete after Pat. Michael in 1054?   Also, the argument is that it is largely pragmatic and emotional.  The issue that the Vatican may be wrong is not even addressed.   

The whole of the writings seems like it could be a letter of one sibling to another:   "why are you worried about the gold in Uncle Willy's house?  Its in a bad section of town anyway," in the meantime the sibling writing the letter gathers all the gold that they can and sells what they don't to the most reasonable bidder. 

Post of the aeon, Father.

[ialmisry]

Consider the narrative of the schism provided here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm

I would like an Orthodox, historically and theologically rigorous, non-polemical, non-pejorative reply to the claims made by these articles. I would like this reply to be made only by those who have read these articles in their entirety, carefully, and are not incited to anger by their content. Thank you.

As an aside, I would also like the reply not to question the validity of the source while not making any other argument. I understand that the source is liable to be biased, but I want a response to the claims, not a reiteration that bias is probable.

Not quite sure what you want.  As mentioned above, the question that the Vatican committed error doesn't occur to it.  The fish doesn't know it is wet, and Fortescue didn't know he was ultramontanist (he also combined that with WASP sense of superiority-the Eastern uniates, as he called them, he saw WOGs at best).

This, for instance, caught my eye:

Further points that should be noticed are the differences of rite and language. The question of rite follows that of patriarchate; it made the distinction obvious to the simplest Christian. A Syrian, Greek or Egyptian layman would, perhaps, not understand much about canon law as affecting patriarchs; he could not fail to notice that a travelling Latin bishop or priest celebrated the Holy Mysteries in a way that was very strange, and that stamped him as a (perhaps suspicious) foreigner.

The idea that an Egyptian would find a travelling Syrian or Greek bishop or priest as stamped as a foreigner as the Latin doesn't occur to him.  If it did, it would present him the problem of explaining how nonetheless the Egyptians remained in communion with the Syrians and Greeks, and in the case of Chalcedonians, with the Romanian Latins as well (the adoption of the rite of Constantinople by the Egyptian and Syrian Chalcedonians dates from about a decade before the Crusaders sacked the city and set up its usurping Latin patriarchate for the Vatican in 1204, well after Cardinal Umberto storming into Agia Sophia).

And his assertion (said, as always, with dogmatic certitude despite its baselessness)

We find, too, from the beginning the idea that a bishop inherits the dignity of the founder of his see, that, therefore, the successor of an Apostle has special rights and privileges. This graduated hierarchy is important as explaining the pope's position. He was not the one immediate superior of each bishop; he was the chief of an elaborate organization, as it were the apex of a carefully graduated pyramid. The consciousness of the early Christian probably would have been that the heads of Christendom were the patriarchs; then further he knew quite well that the chief patriarch sat at Rome.

reveals that he himself does "not understand much about canon law as affecting patriarchs."  And it shows: "The position, sometimes now advanced by anti-papal controversialists, and that all bishops are equal in jurisdiction, was utterly unknown in the early Church."  Evidently he had not ever heard of St. Cyprian, and his famous dictum in Latin: Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur ("The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.")

[ialmisry]

Consider the narrative of the schism provided here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm

I would like an Orthodox, historically and theologically rigorous, non-polemical, non-pejorative reply to the claims made by these articles. I would like this reply to be made only by those who have read these articles in their entirety, carefully, and are not incited to anger by their content. Thank you.

As an aside, I would also like the reply not to question the validity of the source while not making any other argument. I understand that the source is liable to be biased, but I want a response to the claims, not a reiteration that bias is probable.

Irish Melkite basically stated most of what needed said.  The author is self-contradictory.  For example, how can the schism date to Florence yet "in a sense" was complete after Pat. Michael in 1054?   Also, the argument is that it is largely pragmatic and emotional.  The issue that the Vatican may be wrong is not even addressed.   

The whole of the writings seems like it could be a letter of one sibling to another:   "why are you worried about the gold in Uncle Willy's house?  Its in a bad section of town anyway," in the meantime the sibling writing the letter gathers all the gold that they can and sells what they don't to the most reasonable bidder. 

Post of the aeon, Father.

+2

[Mor Ephrem]

(the adoption of the rite of Constantinople by the Egyptian and Syrian Chalcedonians dates from about a decade before the Crusaders sacked the city and set up its usurping Latin patriarchate for the Vatican in 1204, well after Cardinal Umberto storming into Agia Sophia).

Very interesting...I did not know that.  Among other things, it makes the introduction of some of John Damascene's hymnography into our liturgy that much more understandable.  Where can I read more on this?