Why 1054?

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Nicetas the Goth (the Great) M (RM)
Died c. 378. Saint Sabas and Nicetas are the two most renowned martyrs among the Goths. It is interesting to note that Nicetas, an Ostrogoth born along the Danube, should rightly be considered a heretic, yet he is listed in the Roman Martyrology. Through no fault of his own, he and many of his kinsmen and neighbors were converted to Christianity by the Arian Ulphilas. In good faith, he was also ordained as an Arian priest. But doctrinal differences are often forgotten in the name of Jesus. Nicetas was martyred by King Athanaric, in his attempt to eradicate the name of Christ from his territory bordering on the Roman Empire. About 370, Athanaric began a systematic persecution. He caused an idol to be carried in a chariot through all the towns and villages he suspected were sheltering Christians. Those who refused to adore were put to death, usually by burning the Christians with their children in the houses or those assembled together in churches. At other times they were stabbed at the foot of the altar. Nicetas was burnt to death. His body was taken to Mopsuestia in Cilicia, which is why his name is especially remember in the East (Attwater, Benedictines, Husenbeth).
http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0915.shtml

I believe St. Sabbas the Goth was also technically an arian.

St Isaac was born in Qatar on the Western shore of Persian Gulf. He was a member of the Church of the East, commonly known as ‘Nestorian’, though historically it had nothing to do with Nestorius. This Church followed a strongly diophysite Antiochene Christology and did not recognize the most important Christological Councils of the early Church: Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Isaac was ordained a Bishop of Nineveh some time between 660 and 680. After he had held this office for five months he resigned (‘by reasons known to God’, as one of the sources says) and ascended the mountain of Matout in the province of Huzistan (modern Iran). Then he moved to the monastery of Rabban Shabur. An anonymous West Syrian source of an uncertain date[1] specifies that in his old age Isaac became blind and because of that was called ‘second Didymos’, after Didymos the Great, a famous Alexandrian theologian of the 4th century. The exact dates of Isaac’s birth and death are not known.
http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_6_1

The life of Saint David, founder of the David-Garejeli monastery in Eastern Georgia, belongs to the cycle of biographies known as The Lives of the Syrian Fathers, most of which were composed by the Catholicos Arsenius II of Georgia (c. 955-80). To these Syrian Fathers is ascribed the introduction of monastic institutions into Georgia. The historical background of their mission has been the subject of considerable discussion, especially as their biographies, in their present form, were not composed until four centuries after their deaths, with the result that facts are overlaid with legend and myth.

The approximate date of the Syrian Fathers' mission to Georgia can, however, be established by references to real personages and events. Thus, the life of St. David of Garesja mentions the Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem (494-513). Lives of the twelve other Syrian Fathers refer to a visit to St. Simeon Stylites the Younger (521-97), who is described as sitting in an oven, which he is known to have done between the years 541 and 551. There is also a reference to the Persian king Khusraus’s siege of Edessa, which took place in 544. The Georgian chronicle known as The Conversion of Georgia says that the Syrian Fathers arrived some two hundred ears after St. Nino’s apostolate. These allusions combine to show that the Syrian Fathers arrived, or were traditionally supposed to have arrived in the Caucasus at various times between the end of the 5th and the middle of the 6th centuries.

While the Syrian Fathers are revered among the fathers of the Orthodox Georgian Church there can be no doubt that they belonged to the Monophysite persuasion, as did Peter the Iberian, whose life we have read in the last chapter. Syria was a great centre of opposition to the edicts of the Council of Chalcedon. We have already seen with what vigour the Emperor Marcian (450-57) persecuted those who refused to accept the Chalcedonian formulation of the doctrine of Christ’s two natures. After a period of respite under Zeno and Anastasius, there was a fresh outburst of persecution between the years 520 and 545 under Justin I and Justinian. Contemporary analysts give a lurid picture of the excesses committed by the Byzantine authorities against the Syrian clergy and monks, many of whom were forced to flee abroad.
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Georgian/david.html

There are other similar Georgian saints as well.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
PoorFoolNicholas said:
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Good points. Are there any here that want to completely disagree?
Guess not...
Four hours is often not enough time for those here who want to reply, especially in the middle of the day for the Western Hemisphere. Patience, grasshopper.
 

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
AMM said:
Nicetas the Goth (the Great) M (RM)
Died c. 378. Saint Sabas and Nicetas are the two most renowned martyrs among the Goths. It is interesting to note that Nicetas, an Ostrogoth born along the Danube, should rightly be considered a heretic, yet he is listed in the Roman Martyrology. Through no fault of his own, he and many of his kinsmen and neighbors were converted to Christianity by the Arian Ulphilas. In good faith, he was also ordained as an Arian priest. But doctrinal differences are often forgotten in the name of Jesus. Nicetas was martyred by King Athanaric, in his attempt to eradicate the name of Christ from his territory bordering on the Roman Empire. About 370, Athanaric began a systematic persecution. He caused an idol to be carried in a chariot through all the towns and villages he suspected were sheltering Christians. Those who refused to adore were put to death, usually by burning the Christians with their children in the houses or those assembled together in churches. At other times they were stabbed at the foot of the altar. Nicetas was burnt to death. His body was taken to Mopsuestia in Cilicia, which is why his name is especially remember in the East (Attwater, Benedictines, Husenbeth).
http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0915.shtml

I believe St. Sabbas the Goth was also technically an arian.

St Isaac was born in Qatar on the Western shore of Persian Gulf. He was a member of the Church of the East, commonly known as ‘Nestorian’, though historically it had nothing to do with Nestorius. This Church followed a strongly diophysite Antiochene Christology and did not recognize the most important Christological Councils of the early Church: Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Isaac was ordained a Bishop of Nineveh some time between 660 and 680. After he had held this office for five months he resigned (‘by reasons known to God’, as one of the sources says) and ascended the mountain of Matout in the province of Huzistan (modern Iran). Then he moved to the monastery of Rabban Shabur. An anonymous West Syrian source of an uncertain date[1] specifies that in his old age Isaac became blind and because of that was called ‘second Didymos’, after Didymos the Great, a famous Alexandrian theologian of the 4th century. The exact dates of Isaac’s birth and death are not known.
http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_6_1

The life of Saint David, founder of the David-Garejeli monastery in Eastern Georgia, belongs to the cycle of biographies known as The Lives of the Syrian Fathers, most of which were composed by the Catholicos Arsenius II of Georgia (c. 955-80). To these Syrian Fathers is ascribed the introduction of monastic institutions into Georgia. The historical background of their mission has been the subject of considerable discussion, especially as their biographies, in their present form, were not composed until four centuries after their deaths, with the result that facts are overlaid with legend and myth.

The approximate date of the Syrian Fathers' mission to Georgia can, however, be established by references to real personages and events. Thus, the life of St. David of Garesja mentions the Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem (494-513). Lives of the twelve other Syrian Fathers refer to a visit to St. Simeon Stylites the Younger (521-97), who is described as sitting in an oven, which he is known to have done between the years 541 and 551. There is also a reference to the Persian king Khusraus’s siege of Edessa, which took place in 544. The Georgian chronicle known as The Conversion of Georgia says that the Syrian Fathers arrived some two hundred ears after St. Nino’s apostolate. These allusions combine to show that the Syrian Fathers arrived, or were traditionally supposed to have arrived in the Caucasus at various times between the end of the 5th and the middle of the 6th centuries.

While the Syrian Fathers are revered among the fathers of the Orthodox Georgian Church there can be no doubt that they belonged to the Monophysite persuasion, as did Peter the Iberian, whose life we have read in the last chapter. Syria was a great centre of opposition to the edicts of the Council of Chalcedon. We have already seen with what vigour the Emperor Marcian (450-57) persecuted those who refused to accept the Chalcedonian formulation of the doctrine of Christ’s two natures. After a period of respite under Zeno and Anastasius, there was a fresh outburst of persecution between the years 520 and 545 under Justin I and Justinian. Contemporary analysts give a lurid picture of the excesses committed by the Byzantine authorities against the Syrian clergy and monks, many of whom were forced to flee abroad.
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Georgian/david.html

There are other similar Georgian saints as well.
Interesting.  Do you happen to also know what days they are commemorated, and which churches commemorate them?  Or even a calendar which would have them listed?  Just trying to connect the dots. 

I think there could be several factors here:  Depending on when they were canonized they could have been declared saints before an Ecumenical Council declared their particular faith a heresy.  Also, if they were the missionaries to a country which later became orthodox, that is a different category as well. 

I would think though that canonically speaking, these saints should not be commemorated.  If I remember correctly the bishop that converted St. Ambrose of Milan was an Arian, and he is not commemorated in the synaxarion.  So...
 

witega

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
0
Points
0
AMM said:
http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0915.shtml

I believe St. Sabbas the Goth was also technically an arian.
And what's their source? Unattributed data on a website is meaningless. The fact that Nicetas (or Sabbas) are *not* Gothic names (unlike the Gothic and Arian Wulfilas) but Greek names and that immediately after his death, his body was transported to Cilicia, deep in Orthodox Greek territory make their account highly suspicious. They appear to be assuming that the fact that he was an Ostrogoth means he had to be an Arian, when in fact that was never the case--while the Ostrogoths were predominantly Arian, there was plenty of interaction on the edges with Orthodoxy and Goths who embraced the Orthodox version of the faith. Here's another source (one that identifies where it got its information) that states St. Nicetas' ordination to the priesthood was at the hands of St. Theophilus, who was a participant in the 1st Ecumenical Council on the *anti*-Arian side:


The life of Saint David, 
Another one that does not make a case for considering St. David a heretic. The entire argument is that he, and his contemporaries, came from Syria, there were lots of Monophysites in Syria, many of whom traveled. So St. David must have been one of them. That's guesswork, not evidence--especially since it doesn't account for why, if St. David and his contemporaries, who founded monasticism in Georgia, were 'Monophysites' then why was the Georgian church *not* Monophysite or at least non-Chalcedonian--like, say, its neighbor Armenia.


The only actually questionable one on your list is St. Isaac. And he's a lot more questionable than you think.
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
serb1389 said:
Interesting.  Do you happen to also know what days they are commemorated, and which churches commemorate them?  Or even a calendar which would have them listed?  Just trying to connect the dots.
Here are the entries in the Prologue for St. David and St. Nicetas

http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=September&day=15
http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=May&day=27

This dictionary

http://books.google.com/books?id=l-pwoTFp31kC&pg=PA605&lpg=PA605&dq=nicetas+the+goth+%2B+arian&source=bl&ots=H6rf1V_ym4&sig=L9gfqjPz-yJMtwdf4d1iTZ9uy5w&hl=en&ei=nBv7Sf6VLszJtgeD2eiQBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

Says that Nicetas was ordained by an Arian missionary and that he was likely Arian.

There was a post here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11487.msg158132.html#msg158132 talking about the Anti-Chalcedonian Georgian saints including St. David and Peter the Iberian.  There is more about St. Peter here http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Georgian/iber.html and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Iberian.  I'm sure there's other sources.  This also says something on the subject http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=38099&postcount=3.

Bishop Hilarion in his article says that St. Isaac was a bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East.

Interesting history I must say!
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Many thanks to those of you who have steered me in the right historical direction, so to speak, but could anyone give some info on the year 1717 that came up previously? What does this date have to do with the Schism? God Bless!
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
PoorFoolNicholas said:
Many thanks to those of you who have steered me in the right historical direction, so to speak, but could anyone give some info on the year 1717 that came up previously? What does this date have to do with the Schism? God Bless!
The Patriarch elected for Antioch followed his relatives into submission to the Vatican, and the schism resulted in the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church.
 

witega

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
0
Points
0
AMM said:
serb1389 said:
Interesting.  Do you happen to also know what days they are commemorated, and which churches commemorate them?  Or even a calendar which would have them listed?  Just trying to connect the dots.
Here are the entries in the Prologue for St. David and St. Nicetas

http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=September&day=15
http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=May&day=27

This dictionary

http://books.google.com/books?id=l-pwoTFp31kC&pg=PA605&lpg=PA605&dq=nicetas+the+goth+%2B+arian&source=bl&ots=H6rf1V_ym4&sig=L9gfqjPz-yJMtwdf4d1iTZ9uy5w&hl=en&ei=nBv7Sf6VLszJtgeD2eiQBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

Says that Nicetas was ordained by an Arian missionary and that he was likely Arian.
So we have the Prologue of Ochrid and a site which both of which specifically state that St. Nicetas was a disciple of and ordained by one of the Nicean fathers who *condemned* Arius vs. an unsourced site and a book without references which both think Nicetas was 'probably' an Arian and doesn't know the name of his ordainer--with no evidence other than the fact that he was Gothic. That with that basis you want to accuse St. Nicetas of Arianism says more about your preconceptions that it does about him.

There was a post here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11487.msg158132.html#msg158132 talking about the Anti-Chalcedonian Georgian saints including St. David and Peter the Iberian.  There is more about St. Peter here http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Georgian/iber.html and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Iberian.  I'm sure there's other sources.  This also says something on the subject http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=38099&postcount=3.
Quoting from the Wikipedia post:  :Various eastern Churches (Armenian, Coptic, etc) believe that Peter the Iberian was a Monophysite and an anti-chaldeonian, whereas this point of view is not shared by the Georgian Orthodox Church. Although his biographies do not discuss this ussue, some of the scholars who side with the Armenian sources accept the idea that he was an anti-chaldeonian, while others do not. For example, David Marshall Lang believes in the possibility that he was a monophysite (see Lang, D M. "Peter the Iberian and his biographers." Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 1951: 158-168), while Shalva Nutsubidze (Georgia, 1942) and Ernest Honingmann (Belgium, 1952) believe that he was a neoplatonic philosopher. (Horn (2006), p. 167.)"

In other words, for St. Peter--who is far better documented than St. David--the issue is disputed not settled. For St. David, the only evidence that he was non-Chalcedonian given in any of your posted documents continues to be that he came from Syria in a period where there were lots of non-Chalcedonians there. Given that there were also Orthodox and Nestorians in Syria at the time, it could be argued from the same evidence that he was Orthodox or Nestorian. And the simple fact is that the Georgians who glorified him are Chalcedonian and considered him such when they canonized him.

Bishop Hilarion in his article says that St. Isaac was a bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East.
Yes, St. Isaac was the Church of the East bishop of Ninevah--for 5 months. Unlike the other two, St. Isaac actually is an ambiguous case. The problem is, his veneration throughout Orthodoxy is based on the works he produced after leaving his Church of the East episcopacy (for completely unknown reasons) and retiring to the life a solitary. And those works do not reflect Nestorian teaching at all--in fact, until this century, when documentation of that ordination came to light, he was also claimed by the Syrian Non-Chalcedonian Church as one of theirs. Given the overlapping situation in Syria, the evidence of his works, and the fact that movement between the Church of the East and Orthodoxy involved only confession, the best we can say is that he was definitely a member of the Church of the East for a time, and *probably* continued as such. But there is no firm evidence.


 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I can still feel grace in the RCC , it is my opinion , i consider part of something special like us , maybe a bigger grace . I always had a sympathy for them cause they are our brothers and our sister and we were one , I am a romantic . I feel they have something special with Mary . I remmeber seing a documentary with people who were in the Battle of Monte Cassino in WW2 . On that mountain there was a beautiful catholic monastery , there still is a new one , rebuild on the same spot from what i heard . I remmember a testimony of one saying that all the monastery(church not sure) was on ruin and destroy except for the statue of Mary , and he said that from that spot where the statue was he could see a beautiful landscape .No matter what many say here , I feel sanctity on catholics and Vatican , and I believe them to be as sacred as us , I feel sanctity on the Pope , maybe more than on our Patriarchs , I feel Vatican is a sacred place . Make love . Let us love each other , and remmeber we were one . In memory of the true Church , peace and love.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,587
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
56
Location
USA
The Crab Nebula was visible in the daytime sky in 1054. I have looked to see if it had any influence on Humbert but cannot find any records. The fact that a comet is so prominent in the Bayeaux Tapestry as alleging justification of the defeat of the Saxon church, I wondered if a similar logic applied to 1054 (the C nebula being only recently faded away).
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
recent convert said:
The Crab Nebula was visible in the sky in 1054. I have looked to see if it had any influence on Humbert but cannot find any records. The fact that a comet is so prominent in the Bayeaux Tapestry as alleging justification of the defeat of the Saxon church, I wondered if a similar logic applied to 1054 (the C nebula being only recently faded away).
Did anyone else hear that sound? It was my brain exploding...... :-\
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That with that basis you want to accuse St. Nicetas of Arianism says more about your preconceptions that it does about him.
I'm not accusing him of anything, I'm pointing out that there's a good chance he may have been one in his life.  Same with St. David, etc.

What it should say about me is I'm not paranoid and defensive about the idea of the church saying there is sanctity to be found in those not in the visible bounds of the church.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
AMM said:
What it should say about me is I'm not paranoid and defensive about the idea of the church saying there is sanctity to be found in those not in the visible bounds of the church.
I would have to agree.
 

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:
recent convert said:
The Crab Nebula was visible in the sky in 1054. I have looked to see if it had any influence on Humbert but cannot find any records. The fact that a comet is so prominent in the Bayeaux Tapestry as alleging justification of the defeat of the Saxon church, I wondered if a similar logic applied to 1054 (the C nebula being only recently faded away).
Did anyone else hear that sound? It was my brain exploding...... :-\
I heard it!  OOH OOH!  PICK ME! 
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Patriarch of Antioch, Macarios III Zaim (1647-1672), who succeeded Euthymios III of Chios, also had very good relations with Rome since he is called cryptocatholic, but he hesitated to declare himself. It is certain that in 1633 this patriarch sent a letter to the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in which he affirmed "his irrevocable intention to work for the union of the Eastern Church until the last breath of his life... and to undermine the wall of enmity posed by the enemy of all good (the devil),” entirely professing that it is "Christ who is the head of the holy Church.” The Congregation sent him a chalice and the patriarch thanked them in the letter cited above. The journey of this patriarch to Russia was considered by the missionaries at that time as the voyage of an apostle who "with prudence and catholic zeal goes to confirm the good begun by the Latin missionaries.”
Excerpt from:http://phoenicia.org/greek_melkite_catholic.html

What implications does this have on someone who is in an Antiochian parish? Does this mean that Catholic saints up to the year 1717 may be venerated? Does this also include Catholic devotions up to the year of 1717?
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
PoorFoolNicholas said:
What implications does this have on someone who is in an Antiochian parish? Does this mean that Catholic saints up to the year 1717 may be venerated? Does this also include Catholic devotions up to the year of 1717?
None whatever. We don't care about Catholic saints. We don't care about Catholic devotions. We care only about those in whom we find faith. If the Catholics also recognize their faith, goody for them, but it means absolutely nothing whether they do or not.

You're not going to get the answers you seek, because you seek a concrete date and a concrete act for the Schism. There is none. We have told you this repeatedly, yet you persist. Why? Are you trying to justify a Catholic devotion that means something to you?
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ytterbiumanalyst said:
You're not going to get the answers you seek, because you seek a concrete date and a concrete act for the Schism. There is none. We have told you this repeatedly, yet you persist. Why? Are you trying to justify a Catholic devotion that means something to you?
No, not at all. The history of the Church, and the Schism, just completely confuses me. How do I understand the history of Orthodoxy, and its development of Tradition, if I don't understand when Catholic Tradition broke itself away? It is very muddy, and I can't seem to put my finger on it.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
^ You don't need to understand Catholicism to understand Orthodoxy. Yes, it's muddy, because history is not as simple as the history texts make it out to be. We began very early to grow apart, and we are still growing apart now. Much more important than when or how we broke communion is why. There was much pride and misunderstanding, as well as real theological issues such as the Pope's position as first among equals and the role of the laity in ecclesiastical government. I believe that the primary reason for schism was an inability to distinguish what was theological and what was personal. I believe in 1054, the schism could still have been prevented. To an extent it was, because the schism was not finalized until much later. When exactly that was eludes us, but we do know that we are now two religions and not one.
 

PoorFoolNicholas

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Something still troubles me though. If we don't really know when the official split happened, is 1054 just a modern "sign post" for the Schism?
 
Top