Catholic: Eastern Schism (church, bishop, communion, verse, Orthodox)

[Uncertaindrummer]

For all those Orthodox on the site: What is the position of the Orthodox Church on WHY they split from Rome? When do you say it happened, why do you say it happened, over what, etc.

I think this would be an interesting thing to debate.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Uncertaindrummer

For all those Orthodox on the site: What is the position of the Orthodox Church on WHY they split from Rome? When do you say it happened, why do you say it happened, over what, etc.

I think this would be an interesting thing to debate.

The Orthodox position is that Rome split from us, not the reverse, so I can't directly answer your first question. The issues that lead to the split were, in the main, Papal claims to supremacy over the Church (which none of the Eastern Patriarchates would accept) and the unilateral addition of the filioque into the Creed. The direct cause of the Schism, initially, was the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by Rome, which is why it is conventionally dated to 1054, but this is merely convention. There had been tensions earlier and a schism which was later healed (what you call the 'Photian Schism', though we would not agree that St. Photios caused it) so it's plain that the estrangement began in the first millennium. I'd also suggest that it wasn't really cemented until much later with such events as the 4th Crusade and the Palamite Councils playing their part. I guess I'd view it more as a long process than as a single event.

James

[Uncertaindrummer]

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

The Orthodox position is that Rome split from us, not the reverse, so I can't directly answer your first question. The issues that lead to the split were, in the main, Papal claims to supremacy over the Church (which none of the Eastern Patriarchates would accept) and the unilateral addition of the filioque into the Creed. The direct cause of the Schism, initially, was the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by Rome, which is why it is conventionally dated to 1054, but this is merely convention. There had been tensions earlier and a schism which was later healed (what you call the 'Photian Schism', though we would not agree that St. Photios caused it) so it's plain that the estrangement began in the first millennium. I'd also suggest that it wasn't really cemented until much later with such events as the 4th Crusade and the Palamite Councils playing their part. I guess I'd view it more as a long process than as a single event.

James

Well this is interesting... The Orthodox Church broke away because of the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople? Exactly what authority did the Orthodox Church have to deny an exommunication, and if you think the problem lies with the lack of authortiy of Rome to assert that excommunication, than how exactly does one get excommunicated? Is it only by the authority of all the bishops in unison?

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Uncertaindrummer

Well this is interesting... The Orthodox Church broke away because of the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople? Exactly what authority did the Orthodox Church have to deny an exommunication, and if you think the problem lies with the lack of authortiy of Rome to assert that excommunication, than how exactly does one get excommunicated? Is it only by the authority of all the bishops in unison?

No, that's not quite right. We see Rome as breaking away from us, as I said. The Ecumenical Patriarch refused to go along with the changes that Rome was demanding and hence Rome (absolutely and incontrovertibly uncannonically) excommunicated him. He responded in kind (which strictly speaking wasn't exactly cannonical either - but people aren't perfect and I can easily undertand his anger with Rome) and the other three Patriarchs sided with Constantinople, leaving four of the Pentarchy in communion with one another and one (Rome) outside of our communion. It is undeniable that Rome (and certainly not the cardinal responsible) had no power to excommunicate the EP. The canons clearly limit the power of a bishop to his own See and forbid interference outside of that See. Constantinople was most certainly not part of the See of Rome. If the EP had been teaching heresy (and he wasn't, the new teachings were coming from Rome), then it would have been up to either his Church (most probably via the Holy Synod) or the Church at large via an Ecumenical Council to depose and excommunicate him (and incidentally, the canonical discipline in this case would normally be deposition, perhaps followed by excommunication - excommunicating a sitting Patriarch was the equivalent of excommunicating his entire See). Having said all this, the excommunications were merely the beginning of the formal Schism - they were a symptom of the estrangement, not its cause - had this not been the case the Schism could have been healed relatively easily by the successors at Rome and Constantinople. This was impossible, however, because Rome continued to proclaim Papal Supremacy and clung to the filioque despite its anathematisation by the Council that had reinstated St. Photios and healed the previous Schism. In fact, given that both sides have, in the last century, recognised the uncannonical nature of the anathemas and lifted them but the Schism still remains, it is clear that they were not the cause cause nor did they perpetuate the Schism, though I wouldn't deny that they played a part in amongst the wider and more serious issues.

James