OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 07:34:56 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: State of the Church prior to the Schism?  (Read 2017 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« on: January 13, 2005, 01:45:20 PM »

I have often wondered if it werent for the excommunication by Cardinal Humberto <sp?>would the church have split eventually? I know that there were a lot of theological differences that existed prior to the Schism and yet the church stayed "together". I know that Dogmas such as the IC, and papal supremacy would have been a bone of contention I cant help but think that these Dogmas may not have been an issue had the Church remained together.

This is prognostication at its best, but lets assume for the sake of argument the church hadnt spit at that time. Roll Eyes

JoeS Huh
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2005, 01:56:02 PM »

I have often wondered if it werent for the excommunication by Cardinal Humberto <sp?>would the church have split eventually?

Absolutely - The Roman Pope wanted ultimate power.
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2005, 02:25:12 PM »

There are two sides to a coin, there are two or more versions for the schism, there would be a devoted board to accomodate the many who-did-what to who's.

There were errors on both sides my friends, and compounded over the years, so blaming one is going to solve & heal all ?

Hmmm... pass that smoking thingy around, I need a hit.

JB
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2005, 03:23:07 PM »

BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA


The answer is yes.

That's because BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA.

Therefore, BLA BLA BLA and it must have been yes.

BLA
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2005, 03:25:31 PM »

Oh, and they didn't like each other very much back then either.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2005, 04:11:52 AM »

Quote
Hmmm... pass that smoking thingy around, I need a hit.

:hippy: lol  Cheesy
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2005, 09:11:10 PM »

Well,,,,,,,,that went well.

JoeS      Sad
Logged
francis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2005, 09:16:27 AM »

Actually, the "excommunication by Cardinal Humberto" isn't really what caused the split. Even after that event, most Christians, East and West, didn't consider themselves in schism. You see this in much of the history after 1054 - there is no recognition of an official split, and many instances of continued communion. The 1054 excommunications were simply one event among many.

Estrangement between East and West started as early as the 4th century, and true schism was not really completed until at least the 13th century, and had deep religious, political, and cultural reasons. So even if the events of 1054 had never happened, the schism would still exist today, probably no different than it is now.

My guess is that since it took about 1,000 years to cause, it might take that many to heal.  Sad

Theotokos, pray for us!

Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,371



« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2005, 09:36:58 AM »

I think (speaking both chronologically and substantively) that by the time St. Gregory the Great (GÇá604) was done writing, the split was inevitable.
Logged

Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2005, 11:33:29 AM »

That is my opinion as well, Paradosis. Maybe even earlier.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
francis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2005, 12:05:04 PM »

Quote
I think (speaking both chronologically and substantively) that by the time St. Gregory the Great (GÇá604) was done writing, the split was inevitable.

I'm in basic agreement with your timeline as well (although I'd probably put "inevitability" a little bit later than you), but I'm curious: do you see the writings of St. Gregory as being fundamentally instrumental in the split, or are you just using that as an historical marker?

Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,371



« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2005, 12:22:55 PM »

A bit of both I guess. Certainly Bl. Augustine's thoughts on the filioque, created grace, apostolic succession, etc. are pointed to (rightly) as the beginnings of some important differences, and maybe ecclesiological statements or claims made by certain 5th century Roman Popes can be thrown in as well. But I think St. Gregory the Great sort of took the idea of Roman primacy to a whole different level, and it was after that that things started to truly go apart. I admit that I haven't tried to do anything close to a systematic study of St. Gregory, but just from what I've read of his writings, what others (including Catholics) say about him, and what was going on at the time (e.g., the severe decline of rival sees in the west like Milan) his time and his theological writings seems to be the turning point. I guess "inevitable" is indeed too strong a word, though.
Logged

Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2005, 05:41:42 PM »



Absolutely - The Roman Pope wanted ultimate power.

Is it possible that papal supremacy is just a throwback to Ceasor?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2005, 07:05:27 PM »



Is it possible that papal supremacy is just a throwback to Ceasor?

Yes, very possible.

JoeS
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2005, 07:16:11 PM »

Im no buff on history but after the Fall of Rome, (aka the western empire because the eastern part was still very much intact), a vacuum of sorts resulted and this vacuum needed to be filled.  The Roman emperor was still on the throne but in Constantinople (New Rome) and old Rome felt left out in the cold so-to-speak. Again, my history is fuzzy.  Charlemagne established a new "Holy Roman Empire" and had himself crowned by the pope.  Now we have a ligitament Roman government in the east and a psuedo Roman government in the west.  Here is where I personally think the Supremacy issue raised its ugly head.
My initial inquirey should have delt with "What did the Eastern Patriarchs think of this new situation in the west?".  This new Rome in the west must have had them scratching their collective heads.

JoeS
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2005, 04:19:50 PM »

Yes, all those factors were involved. Even if they weren't the East and West would have split.

After the "fall" of "Old Rome" there was a political vacuum in Western Europe. In the chaos to follow any position of authority with some stability would be looked to for guidance. This sent a lot of political power to Rome.

In 756, Pepin the Short gave lands to the Roman See, which became the Papal States. This wasn't just a charitable gift given out of the goodness of Pepin's heart or his love for the Church. Pepin became recognized as the leader of all the Franks in return and Rome received help against the Lombards and Ravenna. As time went on, the Roman See became wealthy and the Roman See became more active as a political body and the Pope acted as a prince.

As JoeS mentioned, Charlemagne did have an immediate effect on the situation. When he was made emperor of an area that claimed to be a successor of the Roman Empire, the Byzantines became rather upset. The papacy was "married" to this new empire which was opposed by the Byzantine. Of course, at times, they weren't and the pope was fighting with the "Holy Roman Empire" for a long time after, so everything is complicated.

In the 10th century the activities of the popes started to become scandalous (see, for instance, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm). The papacy was a position of wealth and privilege and people wanted it for reasons other than spreading the Gospel.

Don't forget Photius and Pope Nicholas, the fact that practices were different (leavened vs. unleavened bread, etc.), Bulgaria, St. Gorazd, etc. etc. etc.

In reality it all boils down to whether or not you believe Rome has the absolute right to manage/interfere with all churches in the universe and whether or not the pope can speak with absolute infallibility on any subject, given the right formula (ex cathedra, although RCs can't seem to figure out what the heck that means). I know some will say that's extreme and that, as a practical matter, that's not what happens (I disagree). But this isn't about what someone practically does, it's what someone has the power and competence to do.

So, yes, they would have split anyway.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2005, 04:24:10 PM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
BJohnD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 213


St. John of Damascus, pray for us.


« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2005, 04:51:42 PM »

Charlemagne did have an immediate effect on the situation. When he was made emperor of an area that claimed to be a successor of the Roman Empire, the Byzantines became rather upset. The papacy was "married" to this new empire which was opposed by the Byzantine. Of course, at times, they weren't and the pope was fighting with the "Holy Roman Empire" for a long time after, so everything is complicated.

I quite like J.J. Norwich's line about Charlemagne's coronation on Christmas Day, 800: "One of the most convenient dates in all of history."  Smiley
Logged
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 0.095 seconds with 44 queries.