Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Great Schism of 1054
Holy Trinity Website ^ | Unknown | Bishop Kallistos Ware

Posted on 07/06/2003 6:31:26 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861

THE GREAT SCHISM The Estrangement of Eastern and Western Christendom

By

Bishop Kallistos Ware

One summer afternoon in the year 1054, as a service was about to begin in the Church of the "Holy Wisdom" (Hagia Sophia) at Constantinople, Cardinal Humbert and two other legates of the Pope entered the building and made their way up to the sanctuary. They had not come to pray. They placed a Bull of Excommunication upon the altar and marched out once more. As he passed through the western door, the Cardinal shook the dust from his feet with the words: 'Let God look and judge.' A deacon ran out after him in great distress and begged him to take back the Bull. Humbert refused; and it was dropped in the street.

It is this incident which has conventionally been taken to mark the beginning of the great schism between the Orthodox east and the Latin west. But the schism, as historians now generally recognize, is not really an event whose beginning can be exactly dated. It was something that came about gradually, as the result of a long and complicated process, starting well before the eleventh century and not completed until some time after.

In this long and complicated process, many different influences were at work. The schism was conditioned by cultural, political, and economic factors; yet its fundamental cause was not secular but theological. In the last resort it was over matters of doctrine that east and west quarreled - two matters in particular: the Papal claims and the Filioque. But before we look more closely at these two major differences, and before we consider the actual course of the schism, something must be said about the wider background. Long before there was an open and formal schism between east and west, the two sides had become strangers to one another; and in attempting to understand how and why the communion of Christendom was broken, we must start with this fact of increasing estrangement.

When Paul and the other Apostles traveled around the Mediterranean world, they moved within a closely-knit political and cultural unity: the Roman Empire. This Empire embraced many different national groups, often with languages and dialects of their own. But all these groups were governed by the same Emperor; there was a broad Greco-Roman civilization in which educated people throughout the Empire shared; either Greek or Latin was understood almost everywhere in the Empire, and many could speak both languages. These facts greatly assisted the early Church in its missionary work.

But in the centuries that followed, the unity of the Mediterranean world gradually disappeared. The political unity was the first to go. From the end of the third century the Empire, while still theoretically one, was usually divided into two parts, an eastern and a western, each under its own Emperor. Constantine furthered this process of separation by founding a second imperial capital in the east, alongside Old Rome in Italy. Then came the barbarian invasions at the start of the fifth century: apart from Italy, much of which remained within the Empire for some time longer, the west was carved up among barbarian chiefs. The Byzantines never forgot the ideals of Rome under Augustus and Trajan, and still regarded their Empire as in theory universal; but Justinian was the last Emperor who seriously attempted to bridge the gulf between theory and fact, and his conquests in the west were soon abandoned. The political unity of the Greek east and the Latin west was destroyed by the barbarian invasions, and never permanently restored.

During the late sixth and the seventh centuries, east and west were further isolated from each other by the Avar and Slav invasions of the Balkan peninsula; Illyricum, which used to serve as a bridge, became in this way a barrier between Byzantium and the Latin world. The severance was carried a stage further by the rise of Islam: the Mediterranean, which the Romans once called mare nostrum, 'our sea', now passed largely into Arab control. Cultural and economic contacts between the eastern and western Mediterranean never entirely ceased, but they became far more difficult.

The Iconoclast controversy contributed still further to the division between Byzantium and the west. The Popes were firm supporters of the Iconodule standpoint, and so for many decades they found themselves out of communion with the Iconoclast Emperor and Patriarch at Constantinople. Cut off from Byzantium and in need of help, in 754 Pope Stephen turned northwards and visited the Frankish ruler, Pepin. This marked the first step in a decisive change of orientation so far as the Papacy was concerned. Hitherto Rome had continued in many ways to be part of the Byzantine world, but now it passed increasingly under Frankish influence, although the effects of this reorientation did not become fully apparent until the middle of the eleventh century.

Pope Stephen's visit to Pepin was followed half a century later by a much more dramatic event. On Christmas Day in the year 800 Pope Leo III crowned Charles the Great, King of the Franks, as Emperor. Charlemagne sought recognition from the ruler at Byzantium, but without success; for the Byzantines, still adhering to the principle of imperial unity, regarded Charlemagne as an intruder and the Papal coronation as an act of schism within the Empire. The creation of a Holy Roman Empire in the west, instead of drawing Europe closer together, only served to alienate east and west more than before.

The cultural unity lingered on, but in a greatly attenuated form. Both in east and west, people of learning still lived within the classical tradition which the Church had taken over and made its own; but as time went on they began to interpret this tradition in increasingly divergent ways. Matters were made more difficult by problems of language. The days when educated people were bilingual were over. By the year 450 there were very few in western Europe who could read Greek, and after 600, although Byzantium still called itself the Roman Empire, it was rare for a Byzantine to speak Latin, the language of the Romans. Photius, the greatest scholar in ninth-century Constantinople, could not read Latin; and in 864 a 'Roman' Emperor at Byzantium, Michael III, even called the language in which Virgil once wrote 'a barbarian and Scythic tongue'. If Greeks wished to read Latin works or vice versa, they could do so only in translation, and usually they did not trouble to do even that: Psellus, an eminent Greek savant of the eleventh century, had so sketchy a knowledge of Latin literature that he confused Caesar with Cicero. Because they no longer drew upon the same sources nor read the same books, Greek east and Latin west drifted more and more apart.

It was an ominous but significant precedent that the cultural renaissance in Charlemagne's Court should have been marked at its outset by a strong anti-Greek prejudice. In fourth-century Europe there had been one Christian civilization, in thirteenth century Europe there were two. Perhaps it is in the reign of Charlemagne that the schism of civilizations first becomes clearly apparent. The Byzantines for their part remained enclosed in their own world of ideas, and did little to meet the west half way. Alike in the ninth and in later centuries they usually failed to take western learning as seriously as it deserved. They dismissed all Franks as barbarians and nothing more. These political and cultural factors could not but affect the life of the Church, and make it harder to maintain religious unity. Cultural and political estrangement can lead only too easily to ecclesiastical disputes, as may be seen from the case of Charlemagne. Refused recognition in the political sphere by the Byzantine Emperor, he was quick to retaliate with a charge of heresy against the Byzantine Church: he denounced the Greeks for not using the Filioque in the Creed (of this we shall say more in a moment) and he declined to accept the decisions of the seventh Ecumenical Council. It is true that Charlemagne only knew of these decisions through a faulty translation that seriously distorted their true meaning; but he seems in any case to have been semi-iconoclast in his views.

The different political situations in east and west made the Church assume different outward forms, so that people came gradually to think of Church order in conflicting ways. From the start there had been a certain difference of emphasis here between east and west. In the east there were many Churches whose foundation went back to the Apostles; there was a strong sense of the equality of all bishops, of the collegial and conciliar nature of the Church. The east acknowledged the Pope as the first bishop in the Church, but saw him as the first among equals. In the west, on the other hand, there was only one great see claiming Apostolic foundation - Rome - so that Rome came to be regarded as the Apostolic see. The west, while it accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, did not play a very active part in the Councils themselves; the Church was seen less as a college and more as a monarchy- the monarchy of the Pope.

This initial divergence in outlook was made more acute by political developments. As was only natural, the barbarian invasions and the consequent breakdown of the Empire in the west served greatly to strengthen the autocratic structure of the western Church. In the east there was a strong secular head, the Emperor, to uphold the civilized order and to enforce law. In the west, after the advent of the barbarians, there was only a plurality of warring chiefs, all more or less usurpers. For the most part it was the Papacy alone that could act as a center of unity, as an element of continuity and stability in the spiritual and political life of western Europe. By force of circumstances, the Pope assumed a part that the Greek Patriarchs were not called to play, issuing commands not only to his ecclesiastical subordinates but to secular rulers as well. The western Church gradually became centralized to a degree unknown anywhere in the four Patriarchates of the east (except possibly in Egypt). Monarchy in the west; in the east collegiality.

Nor was this the only effect that the barbarian invasions had upon the life of the Church. In Byzantium there were many educated laymen who took an active interest in theology. The 'lay theologian' has always been an accepted figure in Orthodoxy: some of the most learned Byzantine Patriarch Photius, for example - were laymen before their appointment to the Patriarchate. But in the west the Church provided the only effective education that survived through the Dark Ages for its clergy. Theology became the preserve of the priests, since most of the laity could not even read, much less comprehend the technicalities of theological discussion. Orthodoxy, while assigning to the episcopate a special teaching office, has never known this sharp division between clergy and laity that arose in the western Middle Ages.

Relations between eastern and western Christendom were also made more difficult by the lack of a common language. Because the two sides could no longer communicate easily with one another, and each could no longer read what the other wrote, misunderstandings arose much more easily. The shared 'universe of discourse' was progressively lost.

East and west were becoming strangers to one another, and this was something from which both were likely to suffer. In the early Church there had been unity in the faith, but a diversity of theological schools. From the start Greeks and Latins had each approached the Christian Mystery in their own way. At the risk of some oversimplification, it can be said that the Latin approach was more practical, the Greek more speculative; Latin thought was influenced by juridical ideas, by the concepts of Roman law, while the Greeks understood theology in the context of worship and in the light of the Holy Liturgy. When thinking about the Trinity, Latins started with the unity of the Godhead, Greeks with the threeness of the persons; when reflecting on the Crucifixion, Latins thought primarily of Christ the Victim, Greeks of Christ the Victor; Latins talked more of redemption, Greeks of deification; and so on. Like the schools of Antioch and Alexandria within the east, these two distinctive approaches were not in themselves contradictory; each served to supplement the other, and each had its place in the fullness of Catholic tradition. But now that the two sides were becoming strangers to one another - with no political and little cultural unity, with no common language - there was a danger that each side would follow its own approach in isolation and push it to extremes, forgetting the value in the other point of view.

We have spoken of the different doctrinal approaches in east and west; but there were two points of doctrine where the two sides no longer supplemented one another, but entered into direct conflict - the Papal claims and the Filioque. The factors that we have mentioned in previous paragraphs were sufficient in themselves to place a serious strain upon the unity of Christendom. Yet for all that, unity might still have been maintained, had there not been these two further points of difficulty. To them we must now turn. It was not until the middle of the ninth century that the full extent of the disagreement first came properly into the open, but the two differences themselves date back considerably earlier.

We have already had occasion to mention the Papacy when speaking of the different political situations in east and west; and we have seen how the centralized and monarchical structure of the western Church was reinforced by the barbarian invasions. Now so long as the Pope claimed an absolute power only in the west, Byzantium raised no objections. The Byzantines did not mind if the western Church was centralized, so long as the Papacy did not interfere in the east. The Pope, however, believed his immediate power of jurisdiction to extend to the east as well as to the west; and as soon as he tried to enforce this claim within the eastern Patriarchates, trouble was bound to arise. The Greeks assigned to the Pope a primacy of honor, but not the universal supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative; the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council representing all the bishops of the Church. Here we have two different conceptions of the visible organization of the Church.

The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia:

My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office . . . How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.

That was how an Orthodox felt in the twelfth century, when the whole question had come out into the open. In earlier centuries the Greek attitude to the Papacy was basically the same, although not yet sharpened by controversy. Up to 850, Rome and the east avoided an open conflict over the Papal claims, but the divergence of views was not the less serious for being partially concealed.

The second great difficulty was the Filioque. The dispute involved the words about the Holy Spirit in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Originally the Creed ran: 'I believe . . . in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and together glorified.' This, the original form, is recited unchanged by the east to this day. But the west inserted an extra phrase 'and from the Son' (in Latin, Filioque), so that the Creed now reads 'who proceeds from the Father and the Son'. It is not certain when and where this addition was first made, but it seems to have originated in Spain, as a safeguard against Arianism. At any rate the Spanish Church interpolated the Filioque at the third Council of Toledo (589), if not before. From Spain the addition spread to France and thence to Germany, where it was welcomed by Charlemagne and adopted at the semi-iconoclast Council of Frankfort (794). It was writers at Charlemagne's court who first made the Filioque into an issue of controversy, accusing the Greeks of heresy because they recited the Creed in its original form. But Rome, with typical conservatism, continued to use the Creed without the Filioque until the start of the eleventh century. In 808 Pope Leo 111 wrote in a letter to Charlemagne that, although he himself believed the Filioque to be doctrinally sound, yet he considered it a mistake to tamper with the wording of the Creed. Leo deliberately had the Creed, without the Filioque, inscribed on silver plaques and set up in St Peter's. For the time being Rome acted as a mediator between the Franks and Byzantium.

It was not until 860 that the Greeks paid much attention to the Filioque, but once they did so, their reaction was sharply critical. The Orthodox objected (and still object) to this addition to the Creed, for two reasons. First, the Creed is the common possession of the whole Church, and if any change is to be made in it, this can only be done by an Ecumenical Council. The west, in altering the Creed without consulting the east, is guilty (as Khomiakov put it) of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the Church. In the second place, most Orthodox believe the Filioque to be theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the Son as well. There are, however, some Orthodox who consider that the Filioque is not in itself heretical and is indeed admissible as a theological opinion - not a dogma - provided that it is properly explained. But even those who take this more moderate view still regard it as an unauthorized addition.

Besides these two major issues, the Papacy and the Filioque, there were certain lesser matters of Church worship and discipline which caused trouble between east and west: the Greeks allowed married clergy, the Latins insisted on priestly celibacy; the two sides had different rules of fasting; the Greeks used leavened bread in the Eucharist, the Latins unleavened bread Around 850 east and west were still in full communion with one another and still formed one Church. Cultural and political divisions had combined to bring about an increasing estrangement, but there was no open schism. The to sides had different conceptions of Papal authority and recited the Creed in different forms, but these questions had not yet been brought fully into the open.

But in 1190 Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch and a great authority on Canon Law, looked at matters very differently:

For many years [he does not say how many] the western Church has been divided in spiritual communion from the other four Patriarchates and has become alien to the Orthodox . . . So no Latin should be given communion unless he first declares that he will abstain from the doctrines and customs that separate him from us, and that he will be subject to the Canons of the Church, in union with the Orthodox.

In Balsamon's eyes, communion had been broken; there was a definite schism between east and west. The two no longer formed one visible Church. In this transition from estrangement to schism, four incidents are of particular importance: the quarrel between Photius and Pope Nicolas I (usually known as the 'Photian schism': the east would prefer to call it the 'schism of Nicolas'); the incident of the Diptychs in 1009; the attempt at reconciliation in 1053-4 and its disastrous sequel; and the Crusades.

From Estrangement to Schism (858—1204) In 858, fifteen years after the triumph of icons under Theodora, a new Patriarch of Constantinople was appointed - Photius, known to the Orthodox Church as St Photius the Great. He has been termed 'the most distinguished thinker, the most outstanding politician, and the most skillful diplomat ever to hold office as Patriarch of Constantinople.' Soon after his accession he became involved in a dispute with Pope Nicolas I (858-67). The previous Patriarch, St. Ignatius, had been exiled by the Emperor and while in exile had resigned under pressure. The supporters of Ignatius, declining to regard this resignation as valid, considered Photius a usurper. When Photius sent a letter to the Pope announcing his accession, Nicolas decided that before recognizing Photius he would look further Into the quarrel between the new Patriarch and the Ignatian party. Accordingly in 861 he sent legates to Constantinople.

Photius had no desire to start a dispute with the Papacy. He treated the legates with great deference, inviting them to preside at a council in Constantinople, which was to settle the issue between Ignatius and himself. The legates agreed, and together with the rest of the council they decided that Photius was the legitimate Patriarch. But when his legates returned to Rome, Nicolas declared that they had exceeded their powers, and he disowned their decision. He then proceeded to retry the case himself at Rome: a council held under his presidency In 863 recognized Ignatius as Patriarch, and proclaimed Photius to be deposed from all priestly dignity. The Byzantines took no notice of this condemnation, and sent no answer to the Pope's letters. Thus an open breach existed between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople.

The dispute clearly involved the Papal claims. Nicolas was a great reforming Pope, with an exalted idea of the prerogatives of his see, and he had already done much to establish an absolute power over all bishops in the west. But he believed this absolute power to extend to the east also: as he put it in a letter of 865, the Pope is endowed with authority 'over all the earth, that is, over every Church'. This was precisely what the Byzantines were not prepared to grant. Confronted with the dispute between Photius and Ignatius, Nicolas thought that he saw a golden opportunity to enforce his claim to universal jurisdiction: he would make both parties submit to his arbitration. But he realized that Photius had submitted voluntarily to the inquiry by the Papal legates, and that his action could not be taken as recognition of Papal supremacy. This (among other reasons) was why Nicolas had cancelled his legates' decisions. The Byzantines for their part were willing to allow appeals to Rome, but only under the specific conditions laid down on of the Council of Sardica (343). This Canon states that a bishop, if under sentence of condemnation, can appeal to Rome, and the Pope, if he sees cause, can order a retrial; this retrial, however, is not to be conducted by the Pope himself at Rome, but by the bishops of the provinces adjacent to that of the condemned bishop. Nicolas, so the Byzantines felt, in reversing the decisions of his legates and demanding a retrial at Rome itself, was going far beyond the terms of this canon. They regarded his behavior as an unwarrantable and uncanonical interference in the affairs of another Patriarchate.

Soon not only the Papal claims, but the Filioque became involved in the dispute. Byzantium and the west (chiefly the Germans) were both launching great missionary ventures among the Slavs.' The two lines of missionary advance, from the east and from the west, soon converged; and when Greek and German missionaries found themselves at work in the same land, it was difficult to avoid a conflict, since the two missions were run on widely different principles. The clash naturally brought to the fore the question of the Filioque, used by the Germans in the Creed, but not used by the Greeks. The chief point of trouble was Bulgaria, a country which Rome and Constantinople alike were anxious to add to their sphere of jurisdiction. The Khan Boris was at first inclined to ask the German missionaries for baptism: threatened, however, with a Byzantine invasion, he changed his policy and around 865 accepted baptism from Greek clergy. But Boris wanted the Church in Bulgaria to be independent, and when Constantinople refused to grant autonomy, he turned to the west in hope of better terms. Given a free hand in Bulgaria, the Latin missionaries promptly launched a violent attack on the Greeks, singling out the points where Byzantine practice differed from their own: married clergy, rules of fasting, and above all the Filioque. At Rome itself the Filioque was still not in use, but Nicolas gave full support to the Germans when they insisted upon its insertion in Bulgaria. The Papacy, which in 808 had mediated between the Franks and the Greeks, was now neutral no longer.

Photius was naturally alarmed by the extension of German influence in the Balkans, on the very borders of the Byzantine Empire; but he was much more alarmed by the question of the Filioque, now brought forcibly to his attention. In 867 he took action. He wrote an Encyclical Letter to the other Patriarchs of the east, denouncing the Filioque at length and charging those who used it with heresy. Photius has often been blamed for writing this letter: even the great Roman Catholic historian Francis Dvornik who is in general highly sympathetic to Photius, calls his action on this occasion a futile attack, and says 'the lapse was inconsiderate, hasty, and big with fatal consequences'. But if Photius really considered the Filioque heretical, what else could he do except speak his mind? It must also be remembered that it was not Photius who first made the Filioque a matter of controversy, but Charlemagne and his scholars seventy years before: the west was the original aggressor, not the east. Photius followed up his letter by summoning a council to Constantinople, which declared Pope Nicolas excommunicate, terming him 'a heretic who ravages the vineyard of the Lord'.

At this critical point in the dispute, the whole situation suddenly changed. In this same year (867) the Emperor deposed Photius from the Patriarchate. Ignatius became Patriarch once more, and communion with Rome was restored. In 869-70 another council was held at Constantinople, known as the 'Anti-Photian Council', which condemned and anathematized Photius, reversing the decisions of 867. This council later reckoned in the west as the eighth Ecumenical Council, opened with the unimpressive total of 12 bishops, although numbers at subsequent sessions rose to 103.

But there were further changes to come. The 869-70 council requested the Emperor to resolve the status of the Bulgarian Church, and not surprisingly he decided that it should be assigned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Realizing that Rome would allow him less independence than Byzantium, Boris accepted this decision. From 870, then, the German missionaries were expelled and the Filioque was heard no more in the confines of Bulgaria. Nor was this all. At Constantinople, Ignatius and Photius were reconciled to one another, and when Ignatius died in 877, Photius once more succeeded him as Patriarch. In 879 yet another council was held in Constantinople, attended by 383 bishops - a notable contrast with the meager total at the anti-Photian gathering ten years previously. The council of 869 was anathematized and all condemnations of Photius were withdrawn; these decisions were accepted without protest at Rome. So Photius ended victorious, recognized by Rome and ecclesiastically master of Bulgaria. Until recently it was thought -hat there was a second 'Photian schism', but Dr Dvornik has proved with devastating conclusiveness that this second schism is a myth: in Photius' later period of office (877-86) communion between Constantinople and the Papacy remained unbroken. The Pope at this time, John VIII (872-82), was no friend to the Franks and did not press the question of the Filioque, nor did he attempt to enforce the Papal claims in the east. Perhaps he recognized how seriously the policy of Nicolas had endangered the unity of Christendom.

Thus the schism was outwardly healed, but no real solution had been reached concerning the two great points of difference that the dispute between Nicolas and Photius had forced into the open. Matters had been patched up, and that was all.

Photius, always honored in the east as a saint, a leader of the Church, and a theologian, has in the past been regarded by the west with less enthusiasm, as the author of a schism and little else. His good qualities are now more widely appreciated. 'If I am right in my conclusions,' so Dr Dvornik ends his monumental study, 'we shall be free once more to recognize in Photius a great Churchman, a learned humanist, and a genuine Christian, generous enough to forgive his enemies, and to take the first step towards reconciliation.

At the beginning of the eleventh century there was fresh trouble over the Filioque. The Papacy at last adopted the addition: at the coronation of Emperor Henry 11 at Rome in 1014, the Creed was sung in its interpolated form. Five years earlier, in 1009, the newly elected Pope Sergius IV sent a letter to Constantinople that may have contained the Filioque, although this is not certain. Whatever the reason, the Patriarch of Constantinople, also called Sergius, did not include the new Pope's name in the Diptychs: these are lists, kept by each Patriarch, which contain the names of the other Patriarchs, living and departed, whom he recognizes as orthodox. The Diptychs are a visible sign of the unity of the Church, and deliberately to omit a person's name from them is tantamount to a declaration that one is not in communion with him. After 1009 the Pope's name did not appear again in the Diptychs of Constantinople; technically, therefore, the Churches of Rome and Constantinople were out of communion from that date. But it would be unwise to press this technicality too far. Diptychs were frequently incomplete, and so do not form an infallible guide to Church relations. The Constantinopolitan lists before 1009 often lacked the Pope's name, simply because new Popes at their accession failed to notify the east. The omission in 1009 aroused no comment at Rome, and even at Constantinople people quickly forgot why and when the Pope's name had first been dropped from the Diptychs.

As the eleventh century proceeded, new factors brought relations between the Papacy and the eastern Patriarchates to a further crisis. The previous century had been a period of grave instability and confusion for the see of Rome, a century which Cardinal Baronius justly termed an age of iron and lead in the history of the Papacy. But under German influence Rome now reformed itself, and through the rule of men such as Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) it gained a position of power in the west such as it had never before achieved. The reformed Papacy naturally revived the claims to universal jurisdiction that Nicolas had made. The Byzantines on their side had grown accustomed to dealing with a Papacy that was for the most part weak and disorganized, and so they found it difficult to adapt themselves to the new situation. Matters were made worse by political factors, such as the military aggression of the Normans in Byzantine Italy, and the commercial encroachments of the Italian maritime cities in the eastern Mediterranean during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

In 1054 there was a severe quarrel. The Normans had been forcing the Greeks in Byzantine Italy to conform to Latin usages; the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in return demanded that the Latin churches at Constantinople should adopt Greek practices, and in 1052, when they refused, he closed them. This was perhaps harsh, but as Patriarch he was fully entitled to act in this manner. Among the practices to which Michael and his supporters particularly objected was the Latin use of 'azymes' or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, an issue that had not figured in the dispute of the ninth century. In 1053, however, Cerularius took up a more conciliatory attitude and wrote to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore the Pope's name to the Diptychs. In response to this offer, and to settle the disputed questions of Greek and Latin usages, Leo in 1054 sent three legates to Constantinople, the chief of them being Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida. The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper, whose mutual encounter was not likely to promote good will among Christians. The legates, when they called on Cerularius, did not create a favourable impression. Thrusting a letter from the Pope at him, they retired without giving the usual salutations; the letter itself, although signed by Leo, had in fact been drafted by Humbert, and was distinctly unfriendly in tone. After this the Patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a Bull of Excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom: among other ill-founded charges in this document, Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the Filioque from the Creed! Humbert promptly left Constantinople without offering any further explanation of his act, and on returning to Italy he represented the whole incident as a great victory for the see of Rome. Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such). The attempt at reconciliation left matters worse than before.

But even after 1054 friendly relations between east and west continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them, and people on both sides still hoped that the misunderstandings could be cleared up without too much difficulty. The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in east and west were largely unaware. It was the Crusades that made the schism definitive: they introduced a new spirit of hatred and bitterness, and they brought the whole issue down to the popular level.

From the military point of view, however, the Crusades began with great éclat. Antioch was captured from the Turks in 1098, Jerusalem in 1099: the first Crusade was a brilliant, if bloody,' success. At both Antioch and Jerusalem the Crusaders proceeded to set up Latin Patriarchs. At Jerusalem this was reasonable, since the see was vacant at the time; and although in the years that followed there existed a succession of Greek Patriarchs of Jerusalem, living exiled in Cyprus, yet within Palestine itself the whole population, Greek as well as Latin, at first accepted the Latin Patriarch as their head. A Russian pilgrim at Jerusalem in 1106-7, Abbot Daniel of Tchernigov, found Greeks and Latins worshipping together in harmony at the Holy Places, though he noted with satisfaction that at the ceremony of the Holy Fire the Greek lamps were lit miraculously while the Latin had to be lit from the Greek. But at Antioch the Crusaders found a Greek Patriarch actually in residence: shortly afterwards, it is true, he withdrew to Constantinople, but the local Greek population was unwilling to recognize the Latin Patriarch whom the Crusaders set up in his place. Thus from 11000 there existed in effect a local schism at Antioch. After I 187, when Saladin captured Jerusalem, the situation in the Holy land deteriorated: two rivals, resident within Palestine itself, now divided the Christian population between them - a Latin Patriarch at Acre, a Greek at Jerusalem. These local schisms at Antioch and Jerusalem were a sinister development. Rome was very far away, and if Rome and Constantinople quarreled, what practical difference did it make to the average Christian in Syria or Palestine? But when two rival bishops claimed the same throne and two hostile congregations existed in the same city, the division became an immediate reality in which simple believers were directly implicated. It was the Crusades that turned the dispute into something that involved whole Christian congregations, and not just church leaders; the Crusaders brought the schism down to the local level.

But worse was to follow in 1204, with the taking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. The Crusaders were originally bound for Egypt, but were persuaded by Alexius, son of Isaac Angelus, the dispossessed Emperor of Byzantium, to turn aside to Constantinople in order to restore him and his father to the throne. This western intervention in Byzantine politics did not go happily, and eventually the Crusaders, disgusted by what they regarded as Greek duplicity, lost patience and sacked the city. Eastern Christendom has never forgotten those three appalling days of pillage. 'Even the Saracens are merciful and kind,' protested Nicetas Choniates, 'compared with these men who bear the Cross of Christ on their shoulders.' In the words of Sir Steven Runciman, 'The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword was to sever Christendom. The long-standing doctrinal disagreements were now reinforced on the Greek side by an intense national hatred, by a feeling of resentment and indignation against western aggression and sacrilege. After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and Christian west were divided into two.

Orthodoxy and Rome each believes itself to have been right and its opponent wrong upon the points of doctrine that arose between them; and so Rome and Orthodoxy since the schism have each claimed to be the true Church. Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (None the less there is no action on the Byzantine side that can be compared to the sack of 1204.) And each side, while claiming to be the one true Church, must admit that on the human level it has been grievously impoverished by the separation. The Greek east and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the great schism has proved a great tragedy.


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach; Orthodox Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; great; pope; schism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181 next last
To: Hermann the Cherusker
Maybe you miss point, when there was One Church, there was no POPE, there was patriarch of Rome. And they were from GREEK rite...again, little points you seem to miss.
141 posted on 07/08/2003 9:09:45 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: RussianConservative
when there was One Church, there was no POPE
"...O arch-shepherd of the church... save us now... For if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene a heretical council, whereas those who follow ancient custom do not even have the right of convening an orthodox one without your knowledge, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare to say to you, that your divine primacy should call together a lawful council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive out heresy and that your primacy may neither be anathematized by these new voices lacking authority... It is in order to obey your divine authority as chief pastor that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness..." - St. Theodore the Studite to Pope Leo III [PG 99: 1017-21]

"... O apostolic head, divinely established shepherd of Christ?s sheep, doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, rock of the faith on which the Catholic Church has been built. For you are Peter-- you are the successor of Peter, whose throne you grace and direct... To you did Christ our God say, "When you have been converted, strengthen your brethren." Now is the time and the place: help us, you who have been established by God for that purpose..." St. Theodore the Studite to Pope Paschal [PG 99: 1152-3]


142 posted on 07/08/2003 9:12:50 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: RussianConservative

143 posted on 07/08/2003 9:14:51 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Call him what want, he was not head of unified church, was subservant to Ecomunical Councils...after 1054 they become "overlords" of Church, minus other half of Christiandom.
144 posted on 07/08/2003 9:16:06 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
St. Methodius worked in Moravia and Pannonia (Hungary), not Bohemia.

Christianity was introduced by saints Cyril and Methodius while Bohemia was part of the great Moravian empire, from which it withdrew at the end of the century to become an independent principality. St. Wenceslaus , the first great Bohemian ruler (920-29), successfully defended his land from Germanic invasion; but his brother, Boleslav I (929-67), was forced to acknowledge (950) the rule of Otto I, and Bohemia became a part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Bohemian principality retained autonomy in internal affairs, however. Later Pemyslide rulers acquired Moravia and most of Silesia .

Note well that he worked as commanded by the Pope.

After working among the Khazars , they were sent (863) from Constantinople by Patriarch Photius to Moravia (remember, while Bohemia was part of Moravia). This was at the invitation of Prince Rostislav, who sought missionaries able to preach in the Slavonic vernacular and thereby check German influence in Moravia.

145 posted on 07/08/2003 9:16:43 AM PDT by katnip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: RussianConservative
St Theodore the Studite was born in 759 and died in 826. Now, where does that put him on your map?

146 posted on 07/08/2003 9:19:23 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Naturally, you are forced to resort to the writings of mere men to support Rome's preposterous claims.

Let's illuminate the canons of Rome against the true light and steady guide of scripture, our sure and unfailing guide.



            IMMACULATE CONCEPTION --  Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception. (Catechism 490-492).

            In Luke 1:46-47, Mary said: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour”.   Mary knew that she needed a savior.

            The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was first introduced by a heretic (a man whose teachings were officially declared to be contrary to Church doctrine).  For centuries this doctrine was unanimously rejected by popes, Fathers and theologians of the Catholic Church.

            ALL-HOLY -- Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life.  (Catechism 411, 493)

            Romans 3:23 says “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”.   Revelation 15:4 says, “Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name?  For thou only art holy”.  Romans 3:10 says, “There is none righteous, no, not one”.

            Jesus is the only person who is referred to in Scripture as sinless.  Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”  2  Corinthians 5:21 says, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”  1  Peter 2:22 says, Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth”.

            In contrast, Mary said that God is her Savior. (Luke 1:47)  If God was her Savior, then Mary was not sinless.  Sinless people do not need a Savior.

            In the Book of Revelation, when they were searching for someone who was worthy to break the seals and open the scroll, the only person who was found to be worthy was Jesus.  Nobody else in Heaven or on earth (including Mary) was worthy to open the scroll or even look inside it. (Revelation 5:1-5)

            PERPETUAL VIRGINITY -- Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ. (Catechism 496-511)

            Matthew 1:24-25 says, “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”  “Till” (until) means that after that point, Joseph did “know” (have sexual relations with) Mary.  (See Genesis 4:1 where Adam “knew” Eve and she conceived and had a son.)

            Jesus had brothers and sisters.  The Bible even tells us their names.  Matthew 13:54-56 says,

“And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hatch this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?  Is not this the carpenter’s son?  Is not his mother called Mary?  And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?  And his sisters, are they not all with us?”

Other Scripture verses which specifically refer to Jesus’ brothers are:  Matthew 12:46; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; and Galatians 1:19.

            I was always taught that “brothers” and “sisters” were general terms that really could refer to any kind of kinsman, including cousins.  This is true in the Hebrew language.  However, the New Testament is written in Greek, which is an extremely precise language.  It makes a clear distinction between the words used to describe family relationships.  There is a Greek word which refers to people who are relatives but not of the immediate family, such as aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces and cousins.  There are other Greek words which refer specifically to a person’s brother or sister within a family.

            MOTHER OF GOD -- Because she is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the Mother of God. (Catechism 963, 971, 2677).

            The Incarnation means that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.  Mary was only the mother of Jesus as man, and not the mother of Jesus as God.  According to the Bible, the world was created through Jesus.  This was long before Mary was born.  Hebrews 1:1-2 says,

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”.

Colossians 1:16-17 says,

“For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things [including Mary] were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things [including Mary] , and by him all things consist”.

            John 8:58 says, “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.” Jesus existed before Abraham was born.  That means that He also existed before Mary was born.  In John 17:5, Jesus says, “And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”  So Jesus existed even before the world began.  Jesus came first -- not Mary.

           

            MOTHER OF THE CHURCH -- Mary is the Mother of the Church. (Catechism 963, 975).

            Acts 1:13-14 gives a picture of a group of people praying together.  Mary is mentioned as one of them, but nothing indicates any special prominence.

“And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Phillip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.  These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.”

<![if !supportEmptyParas]>

            Mary was probably in the Upper Room when the tongues of fire fell upon the 120 disciples.  However, she is never mentioned again in the Book of Acts, which is our only historical record of how the Church was born.   She is also not specifically identified in the epistles.  Paul did send greetings to “Mary”, but that was a common name.  (In the Gospels and in the Book of Acts, she is referred to as “Mary the mother of Jesus” to distinguish her from other women named Mary.)

            It is notable that John, who took Mary into his home after Jesus was crucified, does not mention her in his epistles, and he only mentions her on two occasions in his Gospel (the wedding at Cana and the crucifixion of Jesus).  John mentions Mary Magdalene more than he mentions Jesus' mother.

            ASSUMPTION -- At the end of her life, Mary was taken up (“assumed”)  body and soul into Heaven. (Catechism 966, 974)

            There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary.  The Gospel of John was written around 90 A.D., which is more than 100 years after Mary was born.  (Surely Mary was more than ten years old when Jesus was conceived.)  If Mary had been supernaturally assumed into Heaven, wouldn’t John (the disciple that Mary lived with) have mentioned it?  When Enoch and Elijah were taken up to Heaven, the Bible recorded it.  With Elijah it was recorded in some detail.  (See Genesis 6:24 and 2 Kings 2:1-18.)

            The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950.  This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it.  However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.

            In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics.  In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.  The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation.  Here we have “infallible” popes declaring something to be a heresy.  Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible” pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine.

            CO-MEDIATOR -- Mary is the Co-Mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. (Catechism 968-970, 2677) 

            There is only one mediator and that is Jesus.  1 Timothy 2:5-6 says, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”   Hebrews 7:25 says,Wherefore he [Jesus] is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.”  Ephesians 3:12 says, “In whom [Jesus} we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.”

            If Jesus is constantly interceding for us and He is able to save us “to the uttermost,” (utterly, completely)  then He doesn’t need Mary’s help.  If we can approach God with “boldness” and “confidence”  because of our faith in Jesus, then we don't need Mary’s help either.

            QUEEN OF HEAVEN -- God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and earth. (Catechism 966)  She is to be praised with special devotion.  (Catechism 971, 2675)

            Psalm 148:13 says, “Let them praise the name of the Lord: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.”  This makes it quite clear that only God’s name (not Mary’s) is to be exalted.  (In Catholic Bibles the numbering of the chapters and verses of some of the Psalms is slightly different.)

            When people tried to give Mary special honor and pre-eminence because she was His mother, Jesus corrected them.

“And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.  But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”  (Luke 11:27-28)

            In chapters four and five of the Book of Revelation, we are given a quite detailed picture of Heaven.  God is seated on the throne, surrounded by 24 elders and four living creatures.  The Lamb (Jesus) is standing in the center of the throne.  Thousands upon thousands of angels circle the throne, singing God's praises.  And Mary is not in the picture at all.




Mary, pope and priests: this is your faith in modern times. It is the choice of your hierarchy. No Orthodox or Protestant forced this upon you.
147 posted on 07/08/2003 9:45:06 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
There is a very simple proof of the reality of the Assumption. The body and relics of Holy Mary are not to be found in any ancient Church, be it Roman Catholic, Eastern, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or the Church of the East.

Simple-minded is a more apt description. Should we then assume that any prophet or holy person in the Bible was similarly miraculously transported to heaven merely because we do not have (or claim to have) their remains?

Only in the Holy Rosary. In the Holy Mass and the Breviary, the ratio is quite reversed.

But the rosary is offered as a get-out-of-jail-free card since Mary will come free you from purgatory on the Saturday night following your death if you faithfully practiced the rosary. No such promise has been claimed for devotion to Mass.
148 posted on 07/08/2003 9:56:02 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
YOU are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT...it is a "Holy Mystery".

We Orthodox don't feel like we have to be legalistic and define every single iota of our faith like you Latins seem compelled to do on every ocasion.

We simply accept things on faith.
149 posted on 07/08/2003 10:44:26 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 ("believing in the 7 Ecumenical Councils!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Without going into details, I will simply state I disagree with a portion of your statements....
150 posted on 07/08/2003 10:50:20 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 ("believing in the 7 Ecumenical Councils!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Excuse me, George:

Don't bring Orthodox into your statement...we venerate the Mother of God at every Liturgy, and with the exception of certain dogmatic differences, we AGREE with the Romans on most things about the Virgin Mary.

We are NOT Protestants, and don't agree with their beliefs
151 posted on 07/08/2003 10:55:15 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 ("believing in the 7 Ecumenical Councils!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
I do not suggest that the Orthodox are Protestants. But I have never seen the sort of doctrinal extremism among the Orthodox that I see in the Roman church. I consider the Orthodox to have avoided the most serious erros of the Roman church. They have a far greater reverence for scripture, for instance.
152 posted on 07/08/2003 11:04:46 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
You are correct there...

We do have a great reverence for the Holy Scriptures, and myself personally, as I was raised a Southern Baptist...

But, as I have stated earlier, there was much which wasn't included in the Canon of Scripture, which is valuable for teaching, and also the Protestants choose to ignore the Apochrypha, which WAS in the Canon....the English Puritans just decided on their own not to include them.
153 posted on 07/08/2003 11:16:59 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 ("believing in the 7 Ecumenical Councils!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Heck, Luthern talked from dropping Mathews and Revolations.
154 posted on 07/08/2003 11:22:36 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861; RussianConservative
RussianConservative: Heck, Luthern talked from dropping Mathews and Revolations.

Yes, Luther had his opinions, perhaps best-known for his calling of James an 'epistle of straw'. I think it raised difficulties for his theology and that caused his intemperate remarks about James. Like Luther, but even more so, Jerome held a disparaging view of Revelation and its place in the canon. Calvin said nothing about Revelations but, perhaps a bit tellingly, did not produce a scriptural commentary on its contents.

So we can regard many as holding various opinions on the canon. Let's look at some ancient Fathers:
Athanasius
(b. 296)

Origen
(b. 185)

Irenaeus
(b. 130)

Marcion*
(b. 85)

Matthew Matthew Matthew
Mark Mark Mark
Luke Luke Luke Luke
John John John
Acts Acts Acts
Romans Romans Romans Romans
1 Corinthians 1 Corinthians 1 Corinthians 1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 2 Corinthians 2 Corinthians 2 Corinthians
Galatians Galatians Galatians Galatians
Ephesians Ephesians Ephesians Ephesians
Philippians Philippians Philippians Philippians
Colossians Colossians Colossians Colossians
1 Thessalonians 1 Thessalonians 1 Thessalonians 1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy 1 Timothy 1 Timothy
2 Timothy 2 Timothy 2 Timothy
Titus Titus Titus
Philemon Philemon Philemon Philemon
Hebrews Hebrews Hebrews
James James James
1 Peter 1 Peter 1 Peter
2 Peter 2 Peter 2 Peter
1 John 1 John 1 John
2 John 2 John 2 John
3 John 3 John 3 John
Jude Jude Jude
Revelation** Revelation Revelation

*Marcion's views were peculiar to his sect. He was aware of the fact that many of the other books were read as scripture in most churches.

**The Revelation of John was first received and then rejected by many churches in Asia Minor.
If you wish, I could assemble a more comprehensive list of ancient Fathers and their opinions, both positive and negative on both the canon and particularly their views on the worthiness of the Apocrypha.

TexConfederate1861: But, as I have stated earlier, there was much which wasn't included in the Canon of Scripture, which is valuable for teaching, and also the Protestants choose to ignore the Apochrypha, which WAS in the Canon....the English Puritans just decided on their own not to include them.

To begin with, the Apocrypha were never recognized as scripture by any western church until the Council of Trent in 1546. What status the East accorded them is beyond my knowledge; googling shows that there were several canons of the Old Testament. However, there certainly was never a time prior to 1546 when the Apocrypha were granted any scriptural standing in the West. Therefore, one can make no claim that they were included in the sacred canon from ancient times, namely, that period when Rome and the East still enjoyed a substantial unity. I suspect that the Orthodox still maintain the original wall against the Apocrypha being considered scripture just as they did at the time of the Council of Hippo. They seem to regard the Apocrypha as holy books worthy of study but not divinely inspired scripture if my impression is correct.

Perhaps it would be useful to look at the sources of the traditional NT canon. Athanasius, the man most responsible for assembling a full canon, endorses all of the above books as belonging to the canon. Notice the ommissions by other great authorities. So we might forgive Luther's little frustrations with a few books that ruined his relentlessly systematic and characteristically German theology.

In his 39th Festal Letter as bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius for the first time publishes a list of the canon of NT scripture. He sharply divides the true canon from the apocryphal. He concludes his list of the canon with the following observation:
Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them... But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.
With regard to the Orthodox church, Athanasius also has a few interesting and little-known tidbits of history. During the preliminaries of the establishment of the canon, Athanasius made some comments that the Eastern church insisted that the book of Hebrews be included. Given the devastating applicability of the teachings in, for instance, Hebrews 10 to the claims of the Roman church, we have good reason to be glad for the prudence of the Eastern church to correctly insist on its inclusion.

But Athanasius is probably most justly famous for quelling the major Arian heresy of the fourth century. And he won the battle against Arianism without inventing a filioque!!!
155 posted on 07/08/2003 12:44:02 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; MarMema
Should we then assume that any prophet or holy person in the Bible was similarly miraculously transported to heaven merely because we do not have (or claim to have) their remains?

Yes. And I say this not just about Enoch and Elijah who were translated to heaven, and Moses, whom St. Michael the Archangel took possession of (Jude 9), but many, if not all of the Old Testament Saints. Cf. Matthew 27.52 and Ephesians 4.6-8.

Christ at his Ascension took the Saints of the Old Testament times to heaven, having awaken them from their graves at his Crucifixion and Resurrection. Or do you believe that some men die TWICE? (Cf. Hebrews 9.27)

But the rosary is offered as a get-out-of-jail-free card since Mary will come free you from purgatory on the Saturday night following your death if you faithfully practiced the rosary. No such promise has been claimed for devotion to Mass.

You're confusing the wearing of the Scapular with the recitation of the Rosary. Our Lady promised those who devoutly wore the Brown Scapular that they would spend no more than a week in Purgatory. As for Holy Mass, devout participation in it with frequent worthy reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion is a sure way to heaven with no stops in Purgatory, because reception of Holy Communion remits venial sins and temporal punishments. I can tell you all about our pious beliefs regarding this if you need it, but quite simply, its all based on John 6 - "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life within you."

156 posted on 07/08/2003 1:19:45 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
When you have some time, I'd be curious to know what you do disagree with. Maybe you could write me privately about it.
157 posted on 07/08/2003 1:24:15 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Our Lady promised those who devoutly wore the Brown Scapular that they would spend no more than a week in Purgatory. As for Holy Mass, devout participation in it with frequent worthy reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion is a sure way to heaven with no stops in Purgatory, because reception of Holy Communion remits venial sins and temporal punishments.

You know, some would say that this comprises a salvation by works.
158 posted on 07/08/2003 1:28:03 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
George:

Be careful when quoting Marcion and Origen....Both were heretics.....

You are correct about the Council of Trent, but the Orthodox use the same Canon of Scripture as the RC's....though, yes in the same context you mention.

The "Didache" is the basis for most of the Early Church Canon Law, both for Latins and Orthodox.
159 posted on 07/08/2003 1:31:48 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 ("believing in the 7 Ecumenical Councils!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Doesn't devoutly wearing the brown scapular have also as one of the conditions the recitation of the rosary, or is there another promise concerning the scapular?

"You at least try to console me. Announce in my name that I promise to help at the hour of death, with the graces needed for salvation, whoever on the First Saturday of five consecutive months shall:

1. Confess and receive Holy Communion;

2. Recite five decades of the Rosary;

3. Keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me."

160 posted on 07/08/2003 1:32:56 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson