Topic: Antioch-Rome Schism After 1054?

[Nephi]

As I'm sure we've all heard, the 1054 date for schism is said to be a bit arbitrary and more for convenience' sake than any stone-solid cut off date between East and West.

However, there's something I've heard a lot of and am having trouble finding academic work on. Supposedly, Antioch did not excommunicate Rome until a long time (I've heard up to a couple hundred years) after 1054, and I'm wondering if anyone has any more information on this or sources I could look into.

If anyone has any information on any other EO churches that didn't break communion with Rome until a while after after 1054, that'd be greatly appreciated too!

[Samn!]

The claim that Antioch didn't break communion with Rome until well after 1054 is kind of a moderation of the older claim by Melkite Greek Catholics that Antioch had never officially broken communion with Rome, thus making the Catholic line of succession of the See of Antioch the legitimate one.


 I'm unaware of any evidence about Antioch's relationship with Rome in the period between 1054 and the capture of Antioch by the Crusaders in 1097. The Orthodox patriarch of Antioch at that time, John the Oxite does seem to have been willing to cooperate with the Crusaders, but he was exiled to Constantinople in 1100 where he soon died. From then on there were parallel Latin and Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch, the latter living in exile. So certainly, the schism existed in Antioch, if not by 1054, then by 1100.

In 1054, Antioch was under Byzantine rule, and would remain so until 1085. It's very unclear what type of bilateral contacts would've existed with Rome at the time. Though, immediately before 1054 we do have the correspondence of the patriarch of Antioch Peter III with Dominic of Venice. In it, Peter doesn't seem to be as zealously anti-Latin as the other party of the correspondance, Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Keroularios, but he is solidly against Latin practices and is very dismissive both of Papal claims to authority as well as the bishop of Venice's claim to be a patriarch....

[Nephi]

The claim that Antioch didn't break communion with Rome until well after 1054 is kind of a moderation of the older claim by Melkite Greek Catholics that Antioch had never officially broken communion with Rome, thus making the Catholic line of succession of the See of Antioch the legitimate one.


 I'm unaware of any evidence about Antioch's relationship with Rome in the period between 1054 and the capture of Antioch by the Crusaders in 1097. The Orthodox patriarch of Antioch at that time, John the Oxite does seem to have been willing to cooperate with the Crusaders, but he was exiled to Constantinople in 1100 where he soon died. From then on there were parallel Latin and Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch, the latter living in exile. So certainly, the schism existed in Antioch, if not by 1054, then by 1100.

In 1054, Antioch was under Byzantine rule, and would remain so until 1085. It's very unclear what type of bilateral contacts would've existed with Rome at the time. Though, immediately before 1054 we do have the correspondence of the patriarch of Antioch Peter III with Dominic of Venice. In it, Peter doesn't seem to be as zealously anti-Latin as the other party of the correspondance, Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Keroularios, but he is solidly against Latin practices and is very dismissive both of Papal claims to authority as well as the bishop of Venice's claim to be a patriarch....

Very interesting, thank you.

Do you happen to know about the other churches, and if any of them broke off communion with Rome sometime after the mid-late 11th century period?

[Peter J]

As I'm sure we've all heard, the 1054 date for schism is said to be a bit arbitrary and more for convenience' sake than any stone-solid cut off date between East and West.

Depends. If you mean schism as "not in full communion", then yes it does make sense to say that we've had schism since 1054. But then it should be noted that Rome and Constantinople were in and out of full communion many times in the first millennium.

On the other hand, I've suggested before that the schism wasn't set in stone until the Council of Florence in the 15th century. (Many posters have disagreed with me.)

[montalban]

The claim that Antioch didn't break communion with Rome until well after 1054 is kind of a moderation of the older claim by Melkite Greek Catholics that Antioch had never officially broken communion with Rome, thus making the Catholic line of succession of the See of Antioch the legitimate one.

Is this the line going back to Meletius who was not in communion with Rome?

I believe also that there's 4 different 'legitimate' Antiochian leaders that Rome now recognises (part of their push for 'unity'  )

[age234]

I've suggested before that the schism wasn't set in stone until the Council of Florence in the 15th century. (Many posters have disagreed with me.)

I would agree with that assessment. The schism was more of a slow fade from about 1000 (maybe earlier) to 1450 than a sudden cutoff in 1054. Florence would be a definite end-point though IMO.

[Peter J]

I've suggested before that the schism wasn't set in stone until the Council of Florence in the 15th century. (Many posters have disagreed with me.)

P.S. I'll just add, with regard to the last sentence, that it isn't necessarily that other posters insisted on dating the schism to 1054. In the particular disagreement that comes to mind, the issue was my assertion that the Council of Florence worsened matters rather than improving them.

I would agree with that assessment. The schism was more of a slow fade from about 1000 (maybe earlier) to 1450 than a sudden cutoff in 1054. Florence would be a definite end-point though IMO.

That sounds about right.