Why 1054?

Apostolos

High Elder
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
962
Reaction score
7
Points
18
Location
NE Attica, Greece
ialmisry said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Well, I step away, and the thread is completely off course. shocking :p Some have said that 1204 is another date spoken of in regards to where the line should be drawn between the two traditions. Is this a popular view?
Especially in Greece.

A lot of dates can be provided.  If it wasn't for the drama of Cardinal Humbert, maybe 1054 wouldn't have been picked (the Pope of Rome had been struck from the diptychs a few decades earlier, when he sent a missive with the Filioque in it.  But that was done without fanfair).
...or 1305. I remember back in '95-'96, when the very famous (in Catalonia) Catalan singer Josep Tero visited Athos, he was offended by the Archontaris of a Monastery (Vatopaidi) because the latter refused to receive him due to his Catalan ethnicity. Tero asked and found out that in the Monasteries of Athos, Catalonia is synonymous to evil and Catalans are considered a villainous band of thieves. It all began in 1305 when the Catalans of the Catalan Company of the East, pillaged and plundered Athos and killed many monks. In '03 Tero with the Catalan poet and linguist Carles Duarte made a formal proposal to the autonomous Catalan Parliament to put to the vote a motion of a formal apology for the Catalan conduct in the 14th century. To show their unfeigned feelings the Catalan Parliament voted solidly for the financial support of the gentrification of a 16th century oil storage house in Vatopaidi.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So, what many are saying, is that 1054 is often touted as the end of Catholic tradition being Orthodox, but it seems that it is the furthest from the truth. Interesting.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have just started reading another article given to me by serb, and it posits that the schism was in 1484. Thoughts? Is this a common view, or a personal opinion?
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
PoorFoolNicholas said:
I have just started reading another article given to me by serb, and it posits that the schism was in 1484. Thoughts? Is this a common view, or a personal opinion?
Fairly common, especially among historians. The estrangement was sealed or institutionalized, you could say, by the Ottoman Turks, who chose the Patriarch of Constantinople and did not desire any reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christendom. Ironically, the threat of the Turks was largely the impetus for reconciliation efforts earlier in the 15th century. But once Constantinople fell and the Turks were in control of New Rome and of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, things changed.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I guess the question arises now of why doesn't the Orthodox Church recognize Catholic Tradition as Orthodox up to the date of 1484?
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
PoorFoolNicholas said:
I guess the question arises now of why doesn't the Orthodox Church recognize Catholic Tradition as Orthodox up to the date of 1484?
Or do they? Or did they?
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think what matters is what the Magisterium teaches, and not what individuals believe.  That applies on several fronts.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.
Clearly it has in places beyond that date.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
AMM said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.
Clearly it has in places beyond that date.
Could you give me some info. Or have you already? God Bless!
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PoorFoolNicholas said:
AMM said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.
Clearly it has in places beyond that date.
Could you give me some info. Or have you already? God Bless!
I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen.  Consider the implications of that.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
AMM said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
AMM said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Whether or not the Catholics think we have valid sacraments doesn't really have much bearing on this topic. Whether Orthodoxy has ever accepted the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is what I would like to know.
Clearly it has in places beyond that date.
Could you give me some info. Or have you already? God Bless!
I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen.  Consider the implications of that.
Hey, I really like your icon of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
 

NorthernPines

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Wisconsin
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Mickey said:
I always thought it was a gradual and incremental process beginning (unofficially) before 1054.  ???
Then when? That is what I can't seem to tack down. Where do our traditions finally, and authoritatively end?

I haven't read the whole thread, but what I gather from my reading and personal study there really is no hard line date. I've always read and been told that the 1054AD date is a way to tidy up Church history just so there is SOME sort of official moment in time we can point to. But From what I gather, most historians have said or written that both East and West, on the parish level were still "in communion" well after that date, despite the mutual excommunications, especially in the middle east. I'm not a professional historian or anything, but that's what I've read and how I understand this issue. IMO 1204AD is probably a better date for our split on a practical real world level. I think once those events transpired, the East looked West and said, "woah, who are these people, they're not with us because they just sacked the city"! (not saying the East was right or wrong, or the West was right or wrong, only that that was probably how most in the East felt at that moment) So in reality I think that is probably the real moment of the split, the 1054AD is "official" but I doubt it affected very many Christians or churches...it was more of a heirachical event at that point I think. 1204AD brought it down to our level (by that I mean us on the parish level). Again, this is what I've read and have been told and I can't really point to any one source, but it makes sense to me. More sense than the idea one morning we're united and the next we're not. it might work like that NOW with modern inventions like telephones, and internet, but I find that hard to believe it happened that way 1000 years ago.

However personally, I still suspect even after 1204, there may have been some sort of union in some locals, I'm not sure there was a complete and truly finalized break between East and West until the time of St. Mark of Ephesus and those events. At least up until then, I think there was "hope" one side or the other would "come home" as it were.....but I I think after florence, both East and West looked at each other and didn't really recognize their tradition in the other side anymore. So by then i think the rift was complete.  But that is my pure speculation and my own PERSONAL opinion on the matter.

I've also read the rift happened way before 1054, but again I think that puts too tidy of a date on things....the split was gradual and took centuries, and I don't think there truly is any single date or event we can point to and say "it was 100% complete" at that point. Again, just my opinion. Maybe the historians can give you more help.





 

Mickey

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
NorthernPines said:
I've also read the rift happened way before 1054, but again I think that puts too tidy of a date on things....the split was gradual and took centuries, and I don't think there truly is any single date or event we can point to and say "it was 100% complete" at that point. Again, just my opinion. Maybe the historians can give you more help.
Good post. You summed it up as good as anyone on this thread.  :)
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mickey said:
NorthernPines said:
I've also read the rift happened way before 1054, but again I think that puts too tidy of a date on things....the split was gradual and took centuries, and I don't think there truly is any single date or event we can point to and say "it was 100% complete" at that point. Again, just my opinion. Maybe the historians can give you more help.
Good post. You summed it up as good as anyone on this thread.  :)
Yes, thank you very much. Now to 1484:
Could someone give me some more info on what transpired between East, and West in that year? Thanks, and God Bless!
 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Mickey said:
NorthernPines said:
I've also read the rift happened way before 1054, but again I think that puts too tidy of a date on things....the split was gradual and took centuries, and I don't think there truly is any single date or event we can point to and say "it was 100% complete" at that point. Again, just my opinion. Maybe the historians can give you more help.
Good post. You summed it up as good as anyone on this thread.  :)
Yes, thank you very much. Now to 1484:
Could someone give me some more info on what transpired between East, and West in that year? Thanks, and God Bless!
Synod of Constantinople.  It was a series of Synods in which they denounced the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence and stated that Latin converts should be received through Chrismation and a formal renouncing of errors.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Synod of Constantinople.  It was a series of Synods in which they denounced the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence and stated that Latin converts should be received through Chrismation and a formal renouncing of errors.
What is the official name of the synod meeting? Or is Synod of Constantinople the official title? Thanks, and God Bless!
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I found this on Orthodoxwiki:

In 1484, 31 years after the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, a Synod of Constantinople repudiated the Union of Florence, making the breach between the Patriarchate of the West and the Patriarchate of Constantinople final.[1] In 1965, the Pope of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople nullified the anathemas of 1054.[1] Further attempts to reconcile the two bodies are ongoing.

A schism is a break in the Church's authority structure and communion and is different from a heresy, which means false doctrine. Church authorities have long recognized that even if their minister is in schism, the sacraments, except the power to ordain, are valid. There have been many other schisms, from the second century until today, but none as significant as the one between East and West.

So do the Orthodox consider the sacraments of Rome, and those in communion with Rome valid? Or is this just wishful thinking in this article?
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
LBK said:
A look at the vigil text for the feasts of the Veneration of the Cross (3rd Sunday of Great Lent), and the Exaltation of the Cross (September 14) make the Orthodox Church's position quite clear. Both feasts are "universal" feasts of the Church, i.e. are celebrated by all local Orthodox churches, not just the Russian. The church also has feasts for various icons of the Mother of God, for the Mandylion of Christ, the veneration of the chains of Apostle Peter, the Deposition of the belt of the Mother of God, etc. These items became holy through the actions of those who were themselves holy, and are treated with the same honour and reverence as relics and icons.
Yes, but in the liturgical books does the congregation pray to the chains, to the cross, to the deposition belt as if they are persons?  As in: "Holy Chains of St. Peter, free me from my sins!!"  Because my prayer book contains prayer to the cross, and I am wondering if it is theologically Orthodox.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
AMM said:
I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen. 
I am not sure if any Carpatho-Russians were received by being stroked with a pen.  Must be an ACROD ritual?  ;D

They were recived by Confession and Communion.  If you read the Hapgood Service Book it gives the three methods employed by the Russian Church to receive non-Orthodox Christians.  Via Confession and Communion is one of them and is the method usually, if not always, used to receive Greek Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Irish Hermit said:
AMM said:
I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen. 
I am not sure if any Carpatho-Russians were received by being stroked with a pen.  Must be an ACROD ritual?   ;D

They were recived by Confession and Communion.  If you read the Hapgood Service Book it gives the three methods employed by the Russian Church to receive non-Orthodox Christians.  Via Confession and Communion is one of them and is the method usually, if not always, used to receive Greek Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.
A Ukrainian just asked me today about this (he says he considers himself Orthodox, and has no use for the Latins).
 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
Topic Split:  Communion and Schism

The split is far from perfect, but discussions specifically about schism, communion, its effects, state of your soul, etc. should go into the above split.

This thread should get back on topic. It is to revolve around 1054 and other dates pertaining to the split between East and West.


Thank you.

-- Nebelpfade
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
AMM said:
I did mention one example before, and that is the entire Carpatho-Russian diocese was received through the stroke of a pen. 
I am not sure if any Carpatho-Russians were received by being stroked with a pen.  Must be an ACROD ritual?   ;D

They were recived by Confession and Communion.  If you read the Hapgood Service Book it gives the three methods employed by the Russian Church to receive non-Orthodox Christians.  Via Confession and Communion is one of them and is the method usually, if not always, used to receive Greek Catholics of the Byzantine Rite.
Yes, there was no chrismation involved, as the faithful had already been baptized and chrismated.  More importantly, all priests were received in their orders, including Metropolitan Orestes who was then consecrated a bishop.  In other words, at the stroke of a pen.

It's certainly not the only example of the recognition of the efficacy and validity of Catholic sacraments.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
I am not sure if any Carpatho-Russians were received by being stroked with a pen.  Must be an ACROD ritual?   ;D
Hilarious!  ;D If, the Schism is pushed "officially" to 1484 why don't we venerate saints from the Catholic tradition that fit within that window in the Orthodox Church? Why don't we participate in the Catholic devotions that fit within that window? As I asked before, St. Francis would clearly fit, as would St Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. I guess, I just don't see why we stop at 1054, the more I learn about the nature of the Schism. Thoughts?
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If, the Schism is pushed "officially" to 1484 why don't we venerate saints from the Catholic tradition that fit within that window in the Orthodox Church? Why don't we participate in the Catholic devotions that fit within that window?
Probably because of both of those for in many ways are about the the particulars of local churches.  Same reason you will find emphasis on some saints, practices, devotions, etc. in some local Orthodox churches but not in others.

Some more recent saints are commemorated though.  Here's one example

There is reason to celebrate: Last August, on the feast of the Dormition of Mary, Metropolitan Nicholas proclaimed that the second Sunday after each Pentecost “shall be celebrated as the Synaxis [assembly] of the Carpatho-Rusyn Saints.” The ruling hierarch of the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church included two 20th-century Greek Catholic martyrs in the list of saints, Blesseds Pavel Gojdic and Teodor Romzha, recognizing them for their “holiness, witness and supreme sacrifice for the Christian faith and for the Rusyn people.”

This extraordinary yet little-known gesture acknowledges not only the common faith uniting all Rusyns, but symbolically calls for the healing of all Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
http://www.cnewa.org/mag-article-bodypg-us.aspx?articleID=3229
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Are we encouraged, as Orthodox Christians, NOT to venerate saints after 1054, or would we find some that would say 1484?
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Are we encouraged, as Orthodox Christians, NOT to venerate saints after 1054, or would we find some that would say 1484?
I am encouraging you as an Orthodox Christian (you being one) to venerate Latin saints after 1054. LOL  ;D


I Jest!
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
I am encouraging you as an Orthodox Christian (you being one) to venerate Latin saints after 1054. LOL  ;D
I Jest!
Hardy Har!  :laugh: Anyone without a Catholic bias want to answer? ;)
 

NorthernPines

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Wisconsin
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Are we encouraged, as Orthodox Christians, NOT to venerate saints after 1054, or would we find some that would say 1484?
It depends on who you ask! :)

I venerate St. Francis in my personal devotions, ask for his intercessions like I do any saint. I don't see a problem. Other Orthodox would strongly disagree. In the end, the Church does not say who you can and cannot venerate in your own personal devotions. (well within in reason, I mean I suppose venerating Hitler would be problematic, but I think you get the point) After all that's how canonization begins in the Orthodox Church, by people's private devotions, and asking so and so for prayers etc...Canonization just makes it "officially" acceptable to venerate them Liturgically. (that is if I understand our process correctly)

New Skete (an Orthodox monastery that was formerly Byzantine Catholic following the Franciscan tradition I believe) I'm pretty sure  still venerates him and has icons of him. So in isolated local cases it's not totally unheard of. I also pray the Rosary, (without the meditations) as the prayers involved go back WAY before 1054AD, so again, I really do not see a problem. Other Orthodox disagree and think the Rosary is not acceptable. So it just depends.

Personally, I think 1054 is an arbitrary date, and a later date should certainly be used as the point where the schism was truly put into practical use, but that's just my opinion.

edited to clarify, hopefully I didn't muddle it even more...:)







 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NorthernPines said:
Personally, I think 1054 is an arbitrary date, and a later date should certainly be used as the point where the schism was truly put into practical use, but that's just my opinion.
I agree.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I can anticipate that some would say venerating saints of the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is problematic because of certain false teachings/heresies. But on the other end of the issue, we Orthodox have many saints that taught false ideas/heresies, and we still venerate/commemorate them. Thoughts? Am I way off?
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I can anticipate that some would say venerating saints of the Catholic Tradition up to 1484 is problematic because of certain false teachings/heresies.
Look before the East/West schism.

There are saints we commemorate even before the schism such as St. Isaac of Syria (Nestorian), St. Nicetas the Goth (Arian) and St. David of Garesja (anti Chalcedonian).  In other words the boundaries are not always well defined in the East.

I think the important thing to remember as well is private devotion and/or veneration is not the same thing as public commemoration.

Blessed Damien of Molokai pray for us all!
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
AMM said:
There are saints we commemorate even before the schism such as St. Isaac of Syria (Nestorian), St. Nicetas the Goth (Arian) and St. David of Garesja (anti Chalcedonian).  In other words the boundaries are not always well defined in the East.

I think the important thing to remember as well is private devotion and/or veneration is not the same thing as public commemoration.

Blessed Damien of Molokai pray for us all!
Good points. Are there any here that want to completely disagree?
 

serb1389

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
9,123
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Vallejo, CA (current); Gurnee, IL (greater Chicag
Website
www.greekorthodoxvallejo.org
PoorFoolNicholas said:
AMM said:
There are saints we commemorate even before the schism such as St. Isaac of Syria (Nestorian), St. Nicetas the Goth (Arian) and St. David of Garesja (anti Chalcedonian).  In other words the boundaries are not always well defined in the East.

I think the important thing to remember as well is private devotion and/or veneration is not the same thing as public commemoration.

Blessed Damien of Molokai pray for us all!
Good points. Are there any here that want to completely disagree?
First of all I'd LOVE to know what sources you are using to say that St. Isaac of Syria was Nestorian.  Also, same thing goes for St. Nicetas and St. David.  Some kind of validation of those statements is definitely necessary. 

On point, however, i think it is very complicated, but there are definitely some boundaries that usually arn't crossed. 
 
Top