The Great Schism of 1054

Holy Trinity Website ^ | Unknown | Bishop Kallistos Ware

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Liturgy quote originated in terms of my awareness of it from Soloviev. If he's wrong, as you state, I'm surprised. I do want to look into it more since you've brought it to my attention.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Tex:

I know of Foxes Book of Martyrs and the Martyrs Mirror and the like. My dad's family is Amish-Mennonite in background. The persecutions are not different from what Catholics suffered in Elizabethan and Jacobean England, or what the early Christians suffered from Rome.

As to Purgatory, I thought that the Orthodox objected to the Matierial Fire (which is merely a pious belief, not Catholic dogma). The Orthodox Catechisms I've read pretty clearly indicate that there exists a place of cleansing of minor faults and punishments due to sin int he next life until the resurrection. We Catholics would call that purgatory, even if you chose not to.

Q. What becomes of man during the First (1st) Stage?

A. At the instant when a man dies, the body goes to the earth and is disolved into the elements of which it is composed, and the soul undergoes preliminary divine judgement.

1. If he has believed in Jesus Christ, kept His faith incorrupt, repented his sins before his death, and done good deeds, he is led where God assigns him and lives in happiness until the Second Coming of Christ.

2. But if he has been an unbeliever, or believed in Christ, but corrupted His faith, or sinned after Baptism and did not repent before he died, and did not do good deeds, he is taken where God assigns him and lives unhappy until the Second Coming of Christ.

3. But if he was a believer, and did not corrupt the faith, and having sinned, did indeed repent, but did not reach the performance of good deeds to prove his repentance by actions, then he is led where God assigns him, that he may be punished temporarily, as long as Divine Righteousness considers proper.

Q. How many therefore, and what are the conditions one or another of which each man meets immediately at the instant of death?

A. The conditions are three (3):

1. one of happiness, which will be made complete and eternal after the general judgement,

2. one of unhappiness, which will be made worse and eternal after the general judgement,

3. one of temporary unhappiness, which will be changed to happiness some time before the general judgement.

Q. Will all the saved enjoy the same happiness and all the punished suffer the same unhappiness?

A. No, each individual will be rewarded or punished according to his faith and his works.

Q. Is every tie between the living and the dead broken by death?

A. No, because those who are in happiness (the saints) pray to God for us; but those who are in temporary punishment need our prayers.

Q. How, therefore, should we act with regard to the dead?

A.
a) With regard to the Saints we properly:

1. Call upon them in our needs, that they may pray to God that He may be merciful to us.

2. Venerate their Pictures and holy Relics, and celebrate their festivals as appointed by the Church.

3. Learn to profit by their good works which we find recorded in their biographies, and of which their pictures remind us whenever we see them.

b) With regard to the wicked we properly:

1. Give alms and offer Liturgies, and Memorials.

2. Record their names that they may be remembered by the ministers of the Most High God at the Divine Liturgy and especially on the Soul-Sabbaths, which the Church appointed for memorial services for our beloved departed.

Q. Are all the dead benefited by those things which we do for them?

A. No, only those who did not attain to the doing of good works, but repented before they died; because God, being moved by our fervent and continued prayers, especially by masses, which are the sacrifice of His Son, may shorten the time of their disagreeable condition, which they spend in studying themselves, since they did what depended upon them, i.e. repentance.

I don't see how you can say #3 from pages 36 and 37 of the Eastern Orthodox Catechism is not quite identical to our belief in purgatory as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, other than the issue of purifying fire. The main issue is the forgiveness of venial sins and the remission of temporal punishment through prayers, punishment, and offering of Masses. This figures in both Churches beliefs:

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.[604] The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:[605 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.] As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come. [606 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:31.]

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."[607 2 Macc 12:46.] From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.[608 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 856.] The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.[609 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41, 5: PG 61, 361; cf. Job 1:5.]

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I'll yield to your knowledge on that. My understanding was that Latin was used in the early empire for official business. If you say otherwise, I'll believe you.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Nor was I saying that in that post. That was mostly for the benefit of a Calvinist who thought he would get the Orthodox to agree with him.

[Pahuanui]

England was "originally" a mixed settlement of Britons, Picts, and Romans. These were then Christianized. Then came pagan Anglo-Saxons who invaded and were converted into the existing Church (a rather simplified explantion, but it will suffice). Then came pagan Danes (read Angles and Jutes) who also converted into the Latin Church. Then came Normans, who were really more Danes and Norse who were also converted Pagans. All through this time the Sees did not change, rather the people did.

I don't recall it as being either that simple, or adhering to the timelines you indicate.

Britain wasn't truly christianized before the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, fill-in-the-blank invaded, and St. Gildas and others were active at the time of the invasions, so the concept of an existing Latin Church seems perhaps untenable, as the establishment of the church over time and the various invasions occured simultaneously.

I don't know how accurate it is, but the date commonly accepted as when Roman Christianity was brought to Britain was 597 BC, by Augustine. There had already been substantial tribal migrations before this date.

Belgium and northern France was originally peopled by Celts - the Belgae.

As was much of Britain.

They were Christianized and then invaded by the pagan Franks, who then subsequently became Christian under the already existing Latin ecclesial structure. The Franks divided ultimately into Frenchified people (the Walloons in Belgium and northern France), and Germans proper (Flemings, Rhinelanders, Dutch, etc.). The German origin of the Walloons can be seen by the German origin of most town names in northern France.

Austria and Bavaria below the Danube were originally settled by Celts who were Christianized in the Latin Church. These were invaded by the pagan Bavarian tribe, who were converted into this existing Church structure, and who then extended their settlement west to Vienna and Bratislava (Pressburg) and converted the subsequently invading Slav tribes.

Do you mean the Baiuoarii?

In all cases, a Curch using Latin as its sacral language was in existence prior to the conversion of the invading German tribes.

Perhaps my British history needs freshening up, but I don't recall the actual timeline supporting that.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Mary became sinless when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and conceived the Savior. NOT AT BIRTH....that is where we disagree....

That's clearly not what the Greek Fathers are saying.

"As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain." (Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1, ante AD 446)

"She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay" (Theotoknos of Livias, Panegyric for the Feast of the Assumption, 5,6, ante AD 650)

I don't believe you can find the notion of Blessed Mary being cleansed only at the Annunciation until the late Middle Ages, if that.

[TexConfederate1861]

Hermann:

First: I have never seen any official Eastern Orthodox Catechism....where did you get your information?

My understanding of the Orthodox position is that at death, ALL go to a "place of repose" to await the final judgement.

I do remember well from my instruction, that we DO NOT believe in purgatory.

As for the way Catholics were persecuted, Under Elizabeth the Great: It was mainly for political reasons...You have to remember that the Pope at the time issued a Bull releasing all Roman Catholics in England from their Oaths of Allegiance to the Queen, and encouraged them to overthrow her. That is tantamount to a flat out decleration of war, so how can you blame her for fighting back?

Though romanticized and not 100% accurate, I recommend you see the movie "Elizabeth" that came out about 3 years ago...it gives a very accurate picture of that exact problem.

[MarMema]

The Liturgy quote originated in terms of my awareness of it from Soloviev. If he's wrong, as you state, I'm surprised. I do want to look into it more since you've brought it to my attention.

Is it the one about a Pope Sylvester? :-)

[MarMema]

That was mostly for the benefit of a Calvinist who thought he would get the Orthodox to agree with him.

In the past I have found much to be "in agreement" with George. He has been a good friend to the Orthodox church in general and a friend to me as well.

[George W. Bush]

My question to you is: Would our Lord deny anything to his own Mother?

I believe that the order of heaven is ordained by the Father. That which the Father has not granted in His domain can never be. Even if Christ wished to share His seat at the Father's right hand with His own earthly mother, it would not happen if the Father had not decreed it.

The scriptures mention Christ alone at the right hand of the Father. That is enough for me. I do not seek to add to the sufficiency of scripture with the scribbling of men's opinions. Scripture is infalliby and divinely inspired and preserved but the opinions of men are a very different matter.

As far as your points that certain documents have 'teaching value', they often flatly contradict scripture. I assume that that does not reflect that their authors were necessarily heretical or damned but it does mean that what they taught were merely their own opinions or were the following of one or another ancient local church tradition or even a mere superstition. A great deal of mischief, including the filioque, have arisen out of such opinions being ratified by some temporal authority. Had any of these been measured against the canon of scripture at their inception, few would have survived. I do not, naturally, grant these opinions and teachings an equal authority with the scripture which all orthodox Christians have recognized since ancient times.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I've almost got it. So, the Russian Orthodox Church holds services in Russian, even in English speaking lands and the same for Greek Orthodox (etc), Greek language liturgy even in America?

:-)===

I like the Japanese goatee on the Japanese Orthodox sage;-)

[Flying Circus]

Greek was the common language of the church prior to Latin. Perhaps we could compromise with our Orthodox brethern by using Greek as the common language for ecumenical Christianity and keep Latin as the language of the Roman church.

[katnip]

That seems to be up to the community itself.

There are Greek Orthodox churches in my area that have the liturgy in English and/or Greek.
The Orthodox Church of America, which I have joined says the Liturgy in English.

[TexConfederate1861]

George:

The Scriptures were made for the Church, NOT the other way around. But I do not expect you to agree with this...the Reformation threw even the valid teachings out of the window in the quest for truth.

[Destro]

Official business between higher up Romans to other Romans in Rome. But it seems in that era the Romans themselves spoke Greek as a promary language. History has shown that such a condition can exist, for example the aristocracies of Europe spoke French to each other with many speaking French better than their native tongue.

Also remember that half of Italy-Magna Grecia was Greek in population so the language was well spoken even among the plebian classes.

[The_Reader_David]

Yes, almost. But in English speaking lands most of the different ethnic jurisidictions have some parishes which hold services in English (or, very often English except for a few parts of the service in some old-country language--when wiser heads prevail, the fixed parts that everyone knows in Greek or Slavonic or Arabic. . .---when less wise, the variable parts like troparia and kontakia which one is supposed to learn the faith from), while other parishes use the old country's language.

My own priest can serve in English, Greek or Arabic, but serves our mission (and its mother parish) in English (except for the priests private prayers, which he says in Greek). Of course, 'Lord Have Mercy' comes out in English, Greek, Slavonic, Arabic and Romanian in turn! (Especially when I'm serving as Reader.)

[Destro]

THE FALL OF ORTHODOX ENGLAND

[Chancellor Palpatine]

My southern/midwestern parish is Antiochian, and my Patriarch is His Beatitude, Ignatius IV, with residence in Damascus. 98% of our liturgy is in vernacular, with a few of the simpler responses in Greek, Russian and Arabic, as a measure of respect to the ethnic traditions of the parish (which is probably the most racially diverse in my city).

[FormerLib]

Well, this is a great oversimplification of what occurred in what are now termed Slavic Lands.

Yes I know. However, I figure already Deborah knew the story and I didn't want to come off as a pedantic boor.

As to the Serbs, they were an invading barbarian tribe who converted to Latin Christianity in the 8th Century...

Ah, perhaps that explains the violent attempts to force their return.

[FormerLib]

Early contraception was nothing but an abortion. As usual, the quotes you have posted are meaningless.

The Orthodox permit contraception that prevents fertilization in certain circumstances, precisely the same way that the Latin approved Natural Family Planning or Rythym Method does. No logical or theological difference.

You see where pigheaded anti-Catholicism gets you? You end up denying the veracity of your own past and contradicting your own sainted doctors just because the Pope dogmatized something for Catholics. This is ridiculous!

Yes, it is ridiculous. It is also a lie!

The Latins had to come up with something to free Mary from the nonsense of 'original sin', as if we could be guilty for a sin we did not commit. So you had to make up the Immaculate Conception and compounded error with more error.

BTW, the Orthodox believe in the 7 Sacraments as a dogma, yet none of the first 7 councils decreed that number.Oh, wrong again. The Orthodox believe in seven major sacraments. We also count things such as the blessing of our homes or our food to be sacraments. It is quite a long list.