/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>MLK

>>542265

I'll say it: it was politics.

The western chruch had been operating under the auspicies of the holy roman empire since charlemagne (which had been a point of contention with the east even then.)

The HRE Emperor wanted the creed changed, so the pope changed it, to the dismay of the east.

Geographical and cultural separation for a long enough period of time that we developed differences in theology and perspective that became difficult to reconcile

>>542324

I think you mean "I AM racist, and"

You can't stop reading now can you

Which schism?

If you meant the Great Schism: since it didn't happen overnight, this is going to be a bit long.

Although the filioque had been popular in the Latin West, Rome had always refused to use it liturgically or embrace it doctrinally, because 1) they were known as a bastion of orthodoxy and they received the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without the filioque, so no reason to change it; and 2) the Greek East got autistic once the filioque was put on the forefront with the schism of the 9th century, and Rome was well aware of that, so they did not want to take the risk of causing another schism over something as basic as one word in one creed. However, the orthodoxy of the doctrine expressed by the filioque was recognized in the whole West - Rome did not add it to the creed more to continue being as unchanging as possible, rather than as a protest against the doctrine.

By the 11th century, the West already had a good understanding of why it is correct to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, while the East did not have such an elaborate pneumatology, as it had stagnated after the whole debate with the Pneumatomachoi ended - the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, through the Son. Photius went a bit further and argued that "through the Son" is only in the temporal aspect, and furthermore, in his Mystagogy, that if the Fathers occasionally didn't point out that "through the Son" was purely temporal, or if the Latin Fathers said "from the Father and the Son", they simply used clumsy wording. But no one really picked up his argument - he tried to rile up the East against Rome on the issue of the filioque, but after the controversy ended, no one cared anymore, and besides Photius died in communion with Rome. And before the 9th century, the East already had a negative exposure to the filioque, due to the Franks' absolutely stupid understanding of it.

But in 1014, King Henry II of Germany was coroned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Benedict VIII. King Henry II of Germany found out Rome did not use the filioque in the creed. King Henry II of Germany grew up with the filioque and found offense to this. Pope Benedict VIII was indebted to King Henry II, so he could not afford to merely stand his ground and not change the contents of the creed. Then the East slowly came to learn of this.

Constantinople has always had a habit to attack Rome for each and every difference that could be found in practice, but this was made worse in the 11th century, as the age old accusation that Rome embraces the filioque became true for once. In 1053, Ecumenical Patriarch Michael I Cerularius decided to exercise his geopolitical power to rile up the Byzantines against the Latin West, and most particularly the Pope, again highlighting every single difference in practice and theology as being archeresy. In response to Archbishop Leo of Ohrid's offensive epistle aimed at all Latin bishops, Pope Leo IX, in response, wrote an epistle to the Patriarch and to the Archbishop, where he defends the Roman practices, and notably defends his authority as successor of Peter and heir of the Apostolic See. Then we know what happened next: the dispute got worse up until the mutual excommunication (although we know today that it was not valid, which is why it was lifted in 1963).

I'll continue in the next post…

>>542265

The age-old hubris and pride of Constantinople.

>>542334

While this schism between Rome and Constantinople didn't help geopolitical and social relations, it wasn't seen as a huge deal by the other Patriarchs. We know from the Patriarch of Antioch's epistles to another bishop that the schism was seen as a personal thing between Rome and Constantinople, that didn't split the Church in half, and that was mostly caused by Ecumenical Patriarch Cerularius's bad temper and tribal hatred for the Latins. But Rome was not seen as innocent either - the filioque is a real issue, that must be addressed, because it is a doctrine that no one in the East understands (and that many in the West do not understand either, as history had shown before), and it is an interpolation to an ancient and ecumenical creed that had become the global statement of faith of the Church, at least in the East. The Patriarchs thought they would simply deal with the issue with the Pope in a brotherly manner later, and the issue was swept under the rug.

Later on, the Crusades happened. Hoping to soften the relations between the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire (well, among other, much more important issues, but this is a relevant one), the Byzantine Emperor, Alexios I Komnenos, asked for military help to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims. Pope Urban II responded positively, and the First Crusade took place in 1095-1099, however, it actually worsened the relations between Western Christians and Eastern Christians, because of the cultural and liturgical shock, and the creation of the Latin crusader states. The Second Crusade took place in 1147-1149 and was a disaster. By this time, the relations between Constantinople and Rome had gotten to the point of pure ethnic hatred, leading to the Massacre of the Latins in 1182. The Third Crusade took place in 1189-1192 and was another disaster.

At this point, relations between Eastern and Western Christians were pretty bad - those of Constantinople had nothing but hatred for the heretical, schismatic, uneducated, sub-human Latins; those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were getting increasingly frustratred by the failures of the Crusades and the Latins' behavior; and the Romans increasingly (if not completely) saw the Eastern Churches as being separated from them, and them of course being in the right. What began as a doctrinal dispute fueled by geopolitics and hubris, turned into a game of ethnic hatred between the two halves of the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Then it blew up with the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204). Constantinople was ransacked by crusaders, and its people shown no dignity in the slightest. And while Pope Innocent III first condemned the catastrophe and excommunicated those responsible, he then changed his tune once he found a practical aspect to it: with Constantinople ransacked, the schism could be solved by having Latin occupation in Constantinople make the Constantinopolitans follow the same practices, thus creating a standard to be followed by all: that of Rome. The Pope justified the sack of Constantinople by calling it divine punishment of the Greek heretics, and went on to proceed with his plan (which failed atrociously).

With the horrible behavior of the crusaders, and the cynical reaction of the Pope, the hatred for Rome that was originally Constantinople's spread over to the other Eastern Churches, and Constantinople was recognized as having been right all along after all: the Latins are heretics, schismatics, God-less, prideful, and so on, and their different practices and theology (the filioque, the use of statues, the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, clerical celibacy, etc) prove it.

I'll continue in the next post…

>>542324

I agree, anyone willing to kowtow to hysterical anti-racists like that isn't worth listening to tbh, even if he is woke on the martin looter kang question

>>542347

Historically, the Pope had been seen in the East as the Vicar of Peter, the bastion of orthodoxy, and the loving big brother of all bishops, who would solve the many disputes that would arise between the other, younger bishops. But with the sack of Constantinople, the Eastern bishops could not recognize him as one of their own anymore, and similarly, the Western bishops couldn't recognize much of themselves in Eastern Christendom.

Now that it was recognized that the small crack between Rome and Constantinople had become a true schism between West and East, it became necessary to address the issue, although it was not recognized as a priority by Rome, and rather a mean to prove the authority and competence Rome could have. The issue of the schism was brought up at the Second Council of Lyons. The Second Council of Lyons was a tone-deaf catastrophe. It was mainly motivated by the Byzantine Emperor's geopolitical needs, and the debate was very one-sided: the Greek bishops were made to submit to the Latin doctrines, were more or less forced to sing the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with the filioque three times during a Mass, and the "union" was finalized. Although it would be strongly supported by Ecumenical Patriarch John Bekkos, who agreed entirely to the Latin doctrine, the union would be repudiated completely by Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus, who would also convoke the Council of Blachernae to allow for a more complete and accurate expression of Greek pneumatology rather than simply submitting to what the Latin language teaches.

Another attempt at reunion was made with the Council of Ferrara-Florence, in the 15th century. It was not a one-sided, political mess like Lyons II was, but it was not pretty regardless: the shock of the differences between Latin West and Greek East made it very difficult for the Orthodox bishops to not feel like Rome is completely estranged from the Church. Notably, they were greatly shocked that the Pope's feet had to be kissed, rather than the traditional brotherly embrace between Patriarchs that the Orthodox expected. The Orthodox's complete lack of knowledge of Catholic tradition also made it difficult for them to even recognize them as Christians.

The Orthodox bishops had prepared their own defense for the Greek doctrines, and the Catholic bishops had prepared their own defenses for the Latin doctrines. But the Catholic bishops completely annihilated the Orthodox bishops on the subject of pneumatology (which was seen as the main issue), thanks to their theological forefathers having strongly developped their understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, while the Greeks were not even aware of what St Augustine taught, for instance.

After months upon months of deliberation, the Orthodox bishops, seeing no progress, felt homesick and agreed to sign the union of the two Churches (although, technically speaking, the schism was rather seen as being a schism within the one Catholic Church). However, they requested that synods be held back home to complete the union, and due to the extremely negative reception of the council's decisions, no such synods were held, and so the union of the Churches only really concerned the bishops who signed in the first place (and the Eastern Catholic Churches who would later join Rome under the agreements made at Florence). Although both sides were motivated by love for one another and a desire to reunite, the second attempt at reunification still failed through.

Next is the last part…

>>542359

But we cannot say the schism was fully consommated at this point. Notably: the Ukrainian (Ruthenian) Church remained in communion with both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, up until the Union of Brest in 1595 ended this double communion, as the Ukrainian Church was seen as heretical and schismatic by Rome anyway. We can see the consequences of this today, with the negative sentiments between the Ukrainian Catholics and the Ukrainian Orthodox.

Similarly, Antioch had technically been in double communion up until the Melkite schism of 1724-1729. The Antiochian Church, being in communion with both Rome and Constantinople, had always had a bit of a pro-Latin party within itself, but this was exarcebated by Jesuit evangelism since the 16th century. In 1724, the Melkite Patriarch Cyril VI Tanas was elected, but, being seen as a threatening pro-Catholic by the Ecumenical Patriarch, the latter replaced him with Patriarch Sylvester of Antioch. Left thunderstruck by the Ecumenical Patriarch's abuse of power, the pro-Latin party within Antioch cut communion with Constantinople and seeked for the Pope to recognize Cyril VI as the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch. Although it took a while, this was eventually done, under the condition that communion be cut with the other Eastern Churches, and thus the church of Antioch was divided in two halves - the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Canonically, this is when the schism is fully consommated.

>>542364

What was the deal with the earlier schisms like the Oriental and the Nestorian one?

>>542689

About to go to church so I'll be quick.

Nestorian schism: Nestorius is anathematized as a heretic. On one hand he didn't really deserve it (indeed, he tried his best to express the relationship between Jesus's humanity and His divinity, and in fact the Oriental Orthodox say that us Chalcedonians are Nestorians, and furthermore, I'd argue that most Protestants today are Nestorians, notably with their aversion to the term "Mother of God") and on another hand he seriously asked for it (he was strongly stubborn and aggressive). His followers fled eastward, and seeked asylum at the Assyrian Church, thus shaping its Christology with Nestorius's doctrine and language. But the actual schism between the Assyrian Church and the rest of the Orthodox Catholic Church did not happen overnight: due to the large distance between the far-Eastern Assyrian Church and the Mediterranean Eastern Churches, communication was not frequent, and the Nestorian party within the Assyrian Church received political support by the emperor of the Sasanian Empire, who wanted geopolitical independency from the Byzantine Empire. So, although communication between both sides were infrequent, both were anathema to one another technically. This did not prevent the Nestorian Church from recognizing the orthodoxy of most of the Council of Chalcedon a couple of centuries later though.

Chalcedonian schism: The three biggest Churches, and also the three major centres of influence around the Mediterranean Sea, were Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria. The Copts of Alexandria came to be very nationalistic and proud, and latched completely onto St Cyril of Alexandria's theology as a cultural and religious statement, including his formulation of Jesus Christ having one nature. However, this focus on "one nature" led to the heresy of Monophysitism, formulated by Eutyches, and this heresy came to rank among Arianism and Nestorianism as a Church-dividing heresy. The Coptic Pope Dioscoros, a student of Eutyches, had the Alexandrian Church formally embrace Monophysitism, and so the fire that was aimed at Eutyches came to be aimed at Dioscoros too. But Dioscoros was stubborn, and furthermore, the Coptic people wanted independency from the Byzantine Empire, thus they convoked their own "ecumenical council", the Second Council of Ephesus, at which those who reject Dioscoros's doctrine as orthodox were anathematized, including the Pope. The Council of Chalcedon anathematized this as a robber council, but furthermore, it wanted Dioscoros to show up so that he would explain, clearly, and in a true ecumenical setting, what his doctrine is. Ultimately, Dioscoros did not show up, so his doctrine was deemed to be the same as Eutyches's, and those who would reject the Tome of Leo's Christology were anathematized. But today, it's widely acknowledged that Dioscoros (and the Oriental Orthodox)'s Christology is Miaphysite, rather than Monophysite, and notably, both the Orthodox/Catholic Church and the Oriental Church have anathematized both Eutyches and Nestorius.

cont.

>>542715

But again, it wasn't a quick and clean cut… The Armenians and the Georgians would side with the Copts, and this division within Christendom would be followed by two attempts to solve the schism: the Second Council of Constantinople (which regards both Pope Leo and Cyril of Alexandria's Christologies as orthodox) and the Third Council of Constantinople (anathematizing Monothelitism, a kind of Monophysitism applied to Christ's wills rather than natures). Unfortunately, this did not reconcile the Chalcedonian Church and the Miaphysite Church, and while the Patriarch of Alexandria would alternate between being Chalcedonian and being Miaphysite, after 536 there would be a clear division between the Chalcedonian Church of Alexandria and the Miaphysite Church of Alexandria.

You'll notice how much politics have been involved in those schisms… The Nestorian Schism happened because the Sasanian Empire wanted to be free of the Byzantine Empire's influence. The Chalcedonian Schism happened because a powerful country was tired of being submissive to the Byzantine Emperor. And the Great Schism happened because the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire couldn't get along. Then independant theological developments happened on all sides, and trying to figure out who is the continuation of the early undivided Church is a giant mess to untangle. I'm Orthodox, so you know who I side with, but I won't blame someone for disagreeing - with the several meetings between the Orthodox and Catholic bishops we've had in the past years, they've found out history sides with both and neither at the same time. Or rather, there were early developing thoughts in the Church, that developed in different directions because of cultural and geopolitical differences and expectations, up until the abysmal lack of clear communication between Rome and the Eastern Churches led to schism (the filioque and papal supremacy could've easily been taken care of with a council, but instead the Council of Constantinople of 879 swept them under the rug).

>>542716

Also, let me add that technically, all those schisms aren't fully, 100% consommated on any side. The Catholic Church allows Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East to have communion if their bishop allows it. We Eastern Orthodox allow Oriental Orthodox to have communion if their bishop allows it. And the Assyrian Church of the East gives communion to any Christian who confesses the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and was validly baptized and chrismated.

Note that I haven't included the Anglican Church, because while we don't see any reason to see them as less valid than the Catholic Church for instance, we haven't had communication with one another at all for centuries, and their schism only had Rome in mind rather than us, so the English Reformation really doesn't concern us. So I know nothing about it, except "le divorce church xDDD" and a complete abuse and misunderstanding of oikonomia to the point of allowing gay marriage and female clergy.

>>542716

Ah, and you will also notice that without prideful churchmen, these schisms may very well never have happened…

The Nestorian Schism can be blamed on Nestorius, who would not just shut up and at least hear out Cyril of Alexandria's arguments on why his Christology is problematic.

The Chalcedonian Schism can be blamed on Dioscoros, who would not speak up to explain his Christology precisely, and preferred to sulk (indeed, his Christology was very likely correct - Miaphysitism is regarded to really be St Cyril of Alexandria's Christology, and to be reconciliable to St Pope Leo's Christology as the ecumenical councils have shown already).

The Great Schism can be blamed on several Ecumenical Patriarchs who couldn't tolerate the idea of diversity of traditions within the Church, and on several Popes who held to a "we don't need them, they're the ones who need us" mentality toward the rest of the Church.

If anybody needs proof that pride is the devil's favorite sin, Church history is sufficient.

>>542718

Anglican orders are invalid and always will be while article 25 of the Anglican church still stands.

>>542716

> Georgians would side with the Copts

That's odd, since i remember georgians are orth..

>At first, the Catholicoi of Kartli chose the anti-Chalcedonian camp together with the Armenians, even though diversity of opinions was always present among the clergy, and tolerated by the hierarchy.[27] The king of Kartli, Vakhtang Gorgasali, who sought an alliance with Byzantium against the Persians, accepted the Henotikon, a compromise put forward by the Byzantine Emperor Zeno in 482.[28] Such conciliation was attempted again at the First Council of Dvin in 506, and the status quo was preserved during the 6th century.

>Around 600 however, tensions flared between the Armenian Apostolic Church and the church in Kartli, as the Armenian Church attempted to assert prominence in the Caucasus, in both hierarchical and doctrinal matters, whereas the Catholicos of Mtskheta, Kirion I, leaned towards the Byzantine, Chalcedonian side of the debate, as Kartli was once again seeking imperial support against the Sassanid Empire, who had abolished the Kingdom in 580. The Third Council of Dvin, in 607, sanctioned the rupture with the Armenian Church.[28][29]

>Between the 11th and the early 13th centuries, Georgia experienced a political, economical and cultural golden age, as the Bagrationi dynasty managed to unite western and eastern halves of the country into a single kingdom. To accomplish that goal, kings relied much on the prestige of the Church, and enrolled its political support by giving it many economical advantages, immunity from taxes and large appanages.[31] At the same time, the kings, most notably David the Builder (1089–1125), used state power to interfere in church affairs. Notably, he summoned the 1103 council of Ruisi-Urbnisi, which condemned Armenian Miaphysitism in stronger terms than ever before, and gave unprecedented power, second only to the Patriarch, to his friend and advisor George of Chqondidi.

Oh, politics again.

They will be the death of us.

>>542265

Bread, -que and beards.

Black people in America have a "holier than thou" attitude because that's how america raises them to think

>>542778

>At first, the Catholicoi of Kartli chose the anti-Chalcedonian camp together with the Armenians

Though its amazing that we didnt learn this small detail in our own history books… maybe because its an exaggeration?

Ok, with all seriousness though, theres a misconception and exaggeration on this subject. First of all, this was more of a pressure and influence from Persia, than actual support within. And besides that, since foundation of autocephalous church, it remained as Chalcedonite and never severed with ties with preceeding church of Antioch. Though politics did play a role in this, due to the "testament" of the King, who said "I for my life glorified you and all of our race. And do not insult our home and do not abandon the love of the Greeks (a.k.a. Pro-Byzantine policy)"

>>542265

Both sides had the misfortune of being led by stubborn people at the time, and then the fourth crusade mishap made reunification more difficult.

None of the people originally involved would have expected it to last a century.