Orthodoxy: Pre-Schism Christianity?

[Skorzeny]

Hello, all. This is a question I've been wondering about for a while, but I have been unable to find any resources that offer me an answer - whether it be straightforward or in-depth.

My question is this: Is Orthodox Christianity the same form of Christianity that was practiced throughout the Latin west prior to the Great Schism? I have heard it referred to as such, but I was immediately suspicious of this claim. The layout of churches, the prayers & chants, the order of Liturgies... Is this really how the Latin west practiced Christianity? Did the Roman Church really change everything that much in order to separate itself from the Greeks?

Excuse my ignorance, I'm unsure if I'm even understanding the claims correctly. Any information you could all offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for any and all genuine responses.

 

[lovemuffin]

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that at least some differences in theological understanding, as well as some liturgical differences, go back much further than the schism itself. After all, the schism didn't come out of nowhere, it was the breaking point, in a certain sense, of existing tensions, both political and religious.

Liturgically, I think other than linguistic differences they were still fairly close together, but I haven't found very good information on this. I believe that the latin churches started using unleavened bread in the eucharist in the 8th century or so. Beyond that I don't know, but it's obvious even in the present that the latin mass and the eastern liturgy share the same root and basic structure. It's not clear to me the exact differences in the liturgy, but it does appear there are some, even fairly early on. See for example: Ch 2: The Earlier Medieval Liturgy (570-1073)

Theologically, I've heard people mention (for example) an Augustinian view of sin and salvation, the aristotelian metaphysics that predominated in latin theology, the development of kataphatic theology that was later exemplified by the scholastic movement, compared to the more neo-platonic influenced and apophatic view of the eastern church, which emphasized Christ's victory over sin and death somewhat more than the idea of "atonement", and heard salvation as referring more to theosis than to a "legal" sort of justification. I haven't been able to find very reliable sources that categorize those sorts of differences historically, especially in the last couple centuries before the schism, but those distinctions make sense to me based on what I have read, for example:

- comparing Augustine's way of approaching some theological issues to the Cappadocian fathers (Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great)
- looking at the argument about hesychasm in the eastern church a couple hundred years later, where Barlaam appears to have had more of a latin point of view, and the arguments seem to draw out the same theological distinctions

So, what I would say is that when the orthodox claim that the modern form of orthodoxy is the "same form" that was practiced everywhere prior to the schism, they are certainly oversimplifying things. The latin church definitely has made liturgical changes over the centuries since, more so than the orthodox, but there were always some liturgical differences. It is not as though there was one single liturgical rite everywhere until the roman church modified it. Probably the underlying theological and philosophical differences, and the ecclesiastical differences centered around the supremacy of the pope, are much more important than the liturgical, which by itself certainly wouldn't rise to a cause for schism.

 

[Nietzsche]

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that at least some differences in theological understanding, as well as some liturgical differences, go back much further than the schism itself. After all, the schism didn't come out of nowhere, it was the breaking point, in a certain sense, of existing tensions, both political and religious.

Liturgically, I think other than linguistic differences they were still fairly close together, but I haven't found very good information on this. I believe that the latin churches started using unleavened bread in the eucharist in the 8th century or so. Beyond that I don't know, but it's obvious even in the present that the latin mass and the eastern liturgy share the same root and basic structure. It's not clear to me the exact differences in the liturgy, but it does appear there are some, even fairly early on. See for example: Ch 2: The Earlier Medieval Liturgy (570-1073)

Theologically, I've heard people mention (for example) an Augustinian view of sin and salvation, the aristotelian metaphysics that predominated in latin theology, the development of kataphatic theology that was later exemplified by the scholastic movement, compared to the more neo-platonic influenced and apophatic view of the eastern church, which emphasized Christ's victory over sin and death somewhat more than the idea of "atonement", and heard salvation as referring more to theosis than to a "legal" sort of justification. I haven't been able to find very reliable sources that categorize those sorts of differences historically, especially in the last couple centuries before the schism, but those distinctions make sense to me based on what I have read, for example:

- comparing Augustine's way of approaching some theological issues to the Cappadocian fathers (Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great)
- looking at the argument about hesychasm in the eastern church a couple hundred years later, where Barlaam appears to have had more of a latin point of view, and the arguments seem to draw out the same theological distinctions

So, what I would say is that when the orthodox claim that the modern form of orthodoxy is the "same form" that was practiced everywhere prior to the schism, they are certainly oversimplifying things. The latin church definitely has made liturgical changes over the centuries since, more so than the orthodox, but there were always some liturgical differences. It is not as though there was one single liturgical rite everywhere until the roman church modified it. Probably the underlying theological and philosophical differences, and the ecclesiastical differences centered around the supremacy of the pope, are much more important than the liturgical, which by itself certainly wouldn't rise to a cause for schism.

This is an excellent post, but there is one thing I would like to add regarding the non-theological sources of the Schism;

Other than Linguistic differences(Latin vs Greek), there was also a significant difference in how the Greek & Latin portions of the Church(and Empire) made their money. The West had gold, silver & such deposits while the East acted as a gate towards the further-east, namely with products such as silks, spices, Jade, other hard-to-get items. Eventually the Eastern half began to be a drain on the West(which had a far more stable supply of income and thus a more stable power-base, but was still weaker as a whole than the East). This is what starting adding serious fuel to the fire, and this is what magnified the already-present differences between the two.