Author Topic: Pre- and post-Schism  (Read 1311 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caelestinus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
Pre- and post-Schism
« on: August 27, 2012, 12:21:56 PM »
One can quite often read here the both terms, but what do they realls mean?

What is pre-Schism, what is post-Schisma? before when, after when?




Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,276
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2012, 02:52:45 PM »
Some like to think they have this figured out, but it's really quite complicated. What is the nature of schism? How does it really affect things? When Rome and Constantinople's hierarchs mutually excommunicated each other (individually), did it automatically change something on the coasts of Ireland, almost as if a plug were pulled from its socket? Some seem to think so. Others don't.

Determining when, and to what extent, a supposed schism has occurred, especially in regards to the Western Rite, seems to be at the heart of many disagreements about what has value and worth and a genuine place in an Orthodox context. For many, it seems, it's really as simple as the date with which we can identify the arrival of the thing in question. Sacred Heart? No, it didn't come about until the 13th century (or whenever), and it was propagated by an evidently mentally ill woman. Never mind its liturgical context (as opposed to devotional), or the actual texts of its Office, or how Orthodox Christians might actually understand it; its time, place, and personal associations are enough. We'll have none of it.

Pick your hot button issue: Corpus Christi, Rosary, Tridentine Mass, Book of Common Prayer services, Benediction, who wears what and when, etc., it all seems to focus on the timeframe of its provenance and the reasons (real or imagined) for which these various things occurred.

It's not that those factors aren't important (even if mostly logically fallacious, e.g. Genetic Fallacy, Slipper Slope Fallacy, Non Sequitur, etc.) but that the conversation hardly ever seems to be centered on how actual Orthodox Christians, under Orthodox bishops, holding to the Orthodox faith, understand these things. If it's after a certain date, we can label it "Roman Catholic" or "Anglican" or "Protestant" and be done with it.

I say all that to say, I personally find a narrative framework built upon "schism" to be largely useless. History isn't clean like that.

Offline Fr.Aidan

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam
    • Oremus blog for Roman Rite Orthodoxy
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2012, 11:36:08 AM »
Pre-Schism means before A.D. 1054. Post-Schism means after 1054.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,654
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2012, 06:35:34 PM »
Pre-Schism means before A.D. 1054. Post-Schism means after 1054.
Fr. Aidan,
Is it really that simple? I have heard from many posters here that parts of the west and parts of the east could be said to have been in communion with one another until some time after 1054 AD.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Online Justin Kissel

  • Formerly a *, now a ☆
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,047
  • High five! (I'm watching)
  • Faith: Agnosticish
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2012, 08:28:52 PM »
One can quite often read here the both terms, but what do they realls mean?

What is pre-Schism, what is post-Schisma? before when, after when?

IMO... pre-schism is early 11th century and before, and post-schism is early 13th century and after, with everything in between a grey area.
"One part dream, one part sound business decision"

Offline Fr.Aidan

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam
    • Oremus blog for Roman Rite Orthodoxy
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2012, 11:45:05 AM »
Nevertheless, when one hears the terms pre-Schism and post-Schism, they are used in reference to the year 1054, and not in reference to some other year.

A Schism definitely occurred in that year. As in the case of all schisms, one could debate, to the end of time, all the fine points, timing, signification for what is "the Church" and what is not, etc., etc.

Online Justin Kissel

  • Formerly a *, now a ☆
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,047
  • High five! (I'm watching)
  • Faith: Agnosticish
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2012, 02:20:52 PM »
Nevertheless, when one hears the terms pre-Schism and post-Schism, they are used in reference to the year 1054, and not in reference to some other year.

Maybe when you hear those terms you think 1054, but I don't, at least not solely that year...
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 02:24:13 PM by Asteriktos »
"One part dream, one part sound business decision"

Offline Fr.Aidan

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam
    • Oremus blog for Roman Rite Orthodoxy
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2012, 08:52:42 PM »
Okay, so when you hear "post-Schism," you are thinking of what year or decade or time frame?

Offline Ashman618

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2012, 09:30:09 PM »
I like to use the analogy of unzipping a jacket when it comes to the schism, each tooth comes apart gradually till the final one at the end and it's always bigger then the rest of them.  The thing about a zipper though is that it works in both directions, but ya just gotta start with a big tooth  ;)

Offline braish

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2012, 11:21:33 PM »
Far be it for me to "hijack" this thread, but I've been trying to research the Great Schism in regards to when Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Russia formally declare a schism between themselves and Rome?  Many thanks in advance!

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,009
  • Scarecrow is watching you
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2012, 11:27:51 PM »
Antioch and Jerusalem were declared to be in schism by Rome when the patriarchs were dismissed by the crusaders and Rome appointed theirs.

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2012, 04:42:14 AM »
Far be it for me to "hijack" this thread, but I've been trying to research the Great Schism in regards to when Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Russia formally declare a schism between themselves and Rome?  Many thanks in advance!

Russia would be covered by Constantinople. The Russian church didn't become autocephalous until long after the Schism. I'm not so sure you'll find much in the line of formal declarations of schism for any church, though. It didn't really work like that.

James
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Offline Cyrillic

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,477
  • Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2012, 05:28:16 AM »
Antioch and Jerusalem were declared to be in schism by Rome when the patriarchs were dismissed by the crusaders and Rome appointed theirs.

This. Patriarch John IV "the Oxite" of Antioch was kicked out of town by the crusaders and replaced by one of the Pope's lackeys.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 05:30:11 AM by Cyrillic »
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me"
-Benjamin Disraeli

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,802
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2012, 05:34:18 AM »
1054

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,165
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Pre- and post-Schism
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2012, 11:59:21 AM »
The reality of the schism in terms of on the ground practice, rather than Bishops and monks turning their backs on each other (for good reason on the part of the Orthodox) probably was uniform by the middle of the 13th century following the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople. http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx  While there were pockets of 'unity' in Europe following the end of the 13th century, around the end of the 13th or early 14th century, the last western Benedictine monks had departed Athos and the schism was much as it has remained to the present times. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/st-benedict-on-mt-athos/  Certainly the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453 was the absolute end of that period by any reckoning.

(I hesitate to use the word 'final' for in God, all things are possible.)