Difference between revisions of "Great Schism"

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Developing the Alternate View)
(Dating the Schism)
Line 39: Line 39:
  
 
== Dating the Schism ==
 
== Dating the Schism ==
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054.  This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054,  animosity and division afterward.  The schism actually took several centuries to crystalize.  Some would place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example -- or even earlier -- or as late as 1204, the year of the Fourth Crusade.
+
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054.  This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054,  animosity and division afterward.   
 +
 
 +
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize.  Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example -- or even earlier -- or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.
  
 
== Attempts at Reconciliation and Continuing Divergence ==
 
== Attempts at Reconciliation and Continuing Divergence ==

Revision as of 17:42, March 13, 2006

This article or section is a stub (i.e., in need of additional material). You can help OrthodoxWiki by expanding it.


The Great Schism caused a split between the See of Rome (now the Roman Catholic Church) and the other Christian Patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.

The Name of the Event

In western circles, the term "the Great Schism" is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon Papacy (an event also sometimes called the "Babylonian Captivity").

To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term "The Great Ecumenical Schism", to succinctly explain what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself.

Others prefer the term "the East West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire, and the schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire.

Doctrinal Issues: The Filioque

While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was dogmatic. It was asserted that as soon as the See of Rome endorsed the idea of the Filioque, there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Also, as long as the See of Rome continues to make this its official dogma, there is still a schism.

To summarize an already extensive article on the matter, the Filioque is a word that changes the Nicene Creed into "[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Spain where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the Arian heresy. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. Augustine of Hippo, than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from John 16:7 to emphasis that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other.

So the Creed was changed by the local synod of bishops at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the Trinity, and the equality of each hypostases within the Trinity.

Ecclesiological Issues: The Bishop of Rome

But even more offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed was agreed at an Ecumenical Council and varied at another Ecumenical Council. The whole Church was seen to agree with the Creed as decided by the two True-believing Church Councils.

For the Bishop of Rome to unilaterally change the Creed without reference to an ecumenical council, was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates, and to all the eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy. The bishops were brothers in Christ. Together they acted to properly understand the teachings of Christ. For any one bishop, whether of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, or Rome, or of Milan or Hippo or any other see for that matter, to go off and make changes on their own say so, was a supreme arrogance.

It demeaned all the other bishops.

Not one of the Eastern bishops was prepared to tolerate that.

The Eastern bishops then used the age old method of accusing their opponent of heresy, to try and effect a change, and to elevate their own status as true-believers and champions of correct Christian teaching.

Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, became moot points. The Orthodox theologians, bishops, and people, were not prepared to consider that question, because the real problem for them was the shattering of collegiality and the supreme arrogance of Rome.

Other Doctrinal Issues

Extra-Ecclesial Factors

Dating the Schism

The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward.

The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example -- or even earlier -- or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.

Attempts at Reconciliation and Continuing Divergence

The Current Situation

An Alternate View

'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'

Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism, Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138

Developing the East-West View

The East-West Schism

Related Articles

References