What were the main causes of the split between them? About all I know is that one group wanted the pope as the boss and one didn't, but I know there were other reasons.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
How Orthodoxy Differs From Roman Catholicism
Marcia Kurop, Special to The Christian Science Monitor
NEW YORK -- Until the Great Schism of 1054, what is now referred to as Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity were one. This single Christian church recognized three patriarchates - Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Later, Constantinople and Jerusalem were added.
From the 4th century until the 10th, the two groups sparred over questions about the nature of Jesus Christ.
The major split between East and West concerned the doctrine of the "filioque" - meaning "from the son."
At the Council of Nicea in 902, Rome accepted into the Nicene Creed that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, accepts only that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father."
The Armenian, the Coptic, and the Jacobean churches of the East split from Eastern Orthodoxy over monophystism.
Those churches maintain that the nature of Jesus Christ is divine. Both Western Christianity and Orthodoxy recognize the nature of Christ as divine and human.
The Orthodox Church, formally known as the Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church has no set of creeds in the modern use of the word. It defines itself by its acceptance of the decisions of the seven ecumenical councils of the 4th to 10th centuries, and uses the same Old Testament used in the early centuries, the Septuagint.
Orthodoxy does not recognize a pope; the hierarchy culminates in the patriarchs, of which there are today 15.
The immaculate conception is not recognized, nor is the idea of purgatory. Priests may be married prior to entering the church, but not after.
Mystery and beauty receive greater emphasis in the church than doctrine and dogma. The icon has religious status as an object of worship.
Orthodoxy stresses monasticism; fasting is frequent, covering four main fasting seasons throughout the year.
Christmas is celebrated on the seventh of January. Easter is considered more important, and is held three weeks after the first full moon of the vernal equinox.
Marcia Kurop, Special to The Christian Science Monitor
NEW YORK -- Until the Great Schism of 1054, what is now referred to as Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity were one. This single Christian church recognized three patriarchates - Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Later, Constantinople and Jerusalem were added.
From the 4th century until the 10th, the two groups sparred over questions about the nature of Jesus Christ.
The major split between East and West concerned the doctrine of the "filioque" - meaning "from the son."
At the Council of Nicea in 902, Rome accepted into the Nicene Creed that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, accepts only that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father."
The Armenian, the Coptic, and the Jacobean churches of the East split from Eastern Orthodoxy over monophystism.
Those churches maintain that the nature of Jesus Christ is divine. Both Western Christianity and Orthodoxy recognize the nature of Christ as divine and human.
The Orthodox Church, formally known as the Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church has no set of creeds in the modern use of the word. It defines itself by its acceptance of the decisions of the seven ecumenical councils of the 4th to 10th centuries, and uses the same Old Testament used in the early centuries, the Septuagint.
Orthodoxy does not recognize a pope; the hierarchy culminates in the patriarchs, of which there are today 15.
The immaculate conception is not recognized, nor is the idea of purgatory. Priests may be married prior to entering the church, but not after.
Mystery and beauty receive greater emphasis in the church than doctrine and dogma. The icon has religious status as an object of worship.
Orthodoxy stresses monasticism; fasting is frequent, covering four main fasting seasons throughout the year.
Christmas is celebrated on the seventh of January. Easter is considered more important, and is held three weeks after the first full moon of the vernal equinox.
Well, I'm a Roman Catholic, but apart from not concidering Jesus as also human, the Orthodox chuches sound better than my own.
Indeed the 'Filioque' was one of the major causes of the split.
But Catholicism can trace its roots from the days of Christ, while Orthodoxy can not. As well, Catholicism is more supranational, while Orthodoxy is more nationalised. While the Patriarchs of the East can claim to be successors of the Apostles, and rightfully so, only His Holiness, the Bishop of Rome can claim direct descendancy from St. Peter.
This is why I am Catholic.
But Catholicism can trace its roots from the days of Christ, while Orthodoxy can not. As well, Catholicism is more supranational, while Orthodoxy is more nationalised. While the Patriarchs of the East can claim to be successors of the Apostles, and rightfully so, only His Holiness, the Bishop of Rome can claim direct descendancy from St. Peter.
This is why I am Catholic.
I'm also Catholic.
I think one big reason for the split was whether or not grace was from the Father with the Son or through the Son. It dosent sound important now, but it was back then.
I think one big reason for the split was whether or not grace was from the Father with the Son or through the Son. It dosent sound important now, but it was back then.
I think that it is not really fair to say that Orthodoxy is in itself more national than Catholicism. That it is the case now doesn't say anything about the doctrine itself. Orthodoxy was a supernational creed until history gave it a bad deal. Catholicism was not supranational until history gave it a good deal. It has nothing to do with doctrine itself, but politics.
The relative power of the pope relative his eastern counterparts partly was based on his distance from the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Emperor considered himself equal of the pope and the patriarchs when it came to doctrine. This made going against the Byzantine emperor difficult. When Robert Guiscard eliminated them from Southern Italy, the pope started acting more independently. After the revolt of the Lombard League the pope became independent of the HRE and that is start of the ascendency of the papal power. The Patrimony of St. Peter also had the good fortune of just having climbed from the depths that Mazovia and her father plunged it into.
The pope had no jurisdiction over the bishops even in west, apart from in Italy, until the conflict with the HRE lead to a papal monopoly of appointing bishops eventually. Prior to this they were appointed by the local kings and therefore, de facto, vassals of the local king. This together with the destruction of the bishopric dynasties beginning in 1046 gave the pope great influence from 11th century and onwards. Before this the pope had only been influential on a irregular basis and had never had authority apart from moral authority. Ambrose didn't really consider himself lower than the Pope.
The number of competing religions was very much different between the west and the east. The Western Church managed to eliminate the scismatic Christians a lot more effectively than the Eastern Church. Arianism was eliminated early and the Cathars were also dealt with effectively. The pre-christian religions in the west were mostly rather unsophisticated comparitively speaking. The Eastern Church had great difficulty dealing with the Nestorians and the Monophysites. They also had to compete with more mystery religions, the Manicheans, the Jews, the Zoroastrian, who were all on relatively equal footing in sophistication. They then had to deal with the very successful religion: Islam, which weakened them a lot compared compared to the western church. The Eastern/Orthodox Church was successful as a supranational creation, they converted the Russians, a large part of the balkans, the Nubians, the Ethiopians and a large part of the Caucausus.
Easter is AFAIK more important in Catholism than Christmas as well.
The relative power of the pope relative his eastern counterparts partly was based on his distance from the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Emperor considered himself equal of the pope and the patriarchs when it came to doctrine. This made going against the Byzantine emperor difficult. When Robert Guiscard eliminated them from Southern Italy, the pope started acting more independently. After the revolt of the Lombard League the pope became independent of the HRE and that is start of the ascendency of the papal power. The Patrimony of St. Peter also had the good fortune of just having climbed from the depths that Mazovia and her father plunged it into.
The pope had no jurisdiction over the bishops even in west, apart from in Italy, until the conflict with the HRE lead to a papal monopoly of appointing bishops eventually. Prior to this they were appointed by the local kings and therefore, de facto, vassals of the local king. This together with the destruction of the bishopric dynasties beginning in 1046 gave the pope great influence from 11th century and onwards. Before this the pope had only been influential on a irregular basis and had never had authority apart from moral authority. Ambrose didn't really consider himself lower than the Pope.
The number of competing religions was very much different between the west and the east. The Western Church managed to eliminate the scismatic Christians a lot more effectively than the Eastern Church. Arianism was eliminated early and the Cathars were also dealt with effectively. The pre-christian religions in the west were mostly rather unsophisticated comparitively speaking. The Eastern Church had great difficulty dealing with the Nestorians and the Monophysites. They also had to compete with more mystery religions, the Manicheans, the Jews, the Zoroastrian, who were all on relatively equal footing in sophistication. They then had to deal with the very successful religion: Islam, which weakened them a lot compared compared to the western church. The Eastern/Orthodox Church was successful as a supranational creation, they converted the Russians, a large part of the balkans, the Nubians, the Ethiopians and a large part of the Caucausus.
Easter is AFAIK more important in Catholism than Christmas as well.
Last edited:
Eastern orthodoxy also considers Jesus to be both human and divine, as Western catholicism, as you can read from Adler's post, which does an excellent job at considering the diferences between them.
Bye, The Larch.
In reality, there never was a unified church except for in name only. In the early church, there were five patriarchs in five cities. They were Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. The first two had primacy over the other three. In reality, the Roman patriarch was a latin-speaking person, and the patriarch in Constantinople was a greek-speaking person. Both churches called themselves Christian, but there was no unity whatsoever between them. 1054 was the last straw in a struggle for primacy between the two patriarchs. At Nicea, the filoque stated that the spirit came from the son, but the Othodox peoples stated that the spirit came through the son.
Basically, the two sides formalized their split in 1054 by disagreeing iver the primacy of the two patriarchs, and there differences over the filoque question.
Basically, the two sides formalized their split in 1054 by disagreeing iver the primacy of the two patriarchs, and there differences over the filoque question.
It should be noted that the Patriarchate of Constantinople came quite late to the game (4th century) and was always considered an obnoxious upstart by Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria (not to mention Rome, which was always hearing about the "New Rome"). There were several schisms before the one of 1054, some lasting quite a while. 9th century disputes covered the exact same issues. But in the 11th century, there were some exceptionally stubborn and proud prelates in office who weren't in the mood to lift the mutual excommunications.
In addition to the filioque, there were also disputes over the jurisdiction of certain Italian territories long under Byzantine rule (but obviously near Rome), appointments of Balkans bishops, and so on. I believe another major sticking point was the use of the leavened vs. unleavened wafers in communion (I forget which did which, but both considered it strange - maybe heretical - that the other practiced otherwise).
The filioque itself, which is clearly not in the Nicene Creed, originated in early medieval Spain (I think the 7th century) without any official sanction, and just kind of spread throughout the western church.
If all of these differences seem minor, they were. But the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople were looking to pick a fight with each other, and so it was decided that these were life or death issues.
Aetius is quite correct to state that Orthodoxy is a universal church. Like Catholicism when they were one, they were bound into the fiber of the universal empire, the Imperium Romanum which could never diminish. Of course, then it did, and Orthodoxy found itself shrinking in practical terms with the political boundaries of the Byzantine Empire. In the west, there was no shrinkage, but a more rapid devolution, from which it took the Papacy a good half millenium to recover.
driftwood
In addition to the filioque, there were also disputes over the jurisdiction of certain Italian territories long under Byzantine rule (but obviously near Rome), appointments of Balkans bishops, and so on. I believe another major sticking point was the use of the leavened vs. unleavened wafers in communion (I forget which did which, but both considered it strange - maybe heretical - that the other practiced otherwise).
The filioque itself, which is clearly not in the Nicene Creed, originated in early medieval Spain (I think the 7th century) without any official sanction, and just kind of spread throughout the western church.
If all of these differences seem minor, they were. But the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople were looking to pick a fight with each other, and so it was decided that these were life or death issues.
Aetius is quite correct to state that Orthodoxy is a universal church. Like Catholicism when they were one, they were bound into the fiber of the universal empire, the Imperium Romanum which could never diminish. Of course, then it did, and Orthodoxy found itself shrinking in practical terms with the political boundaries of the Byzantine Empire. In the west, there was no shrinkage, but a more rapid devolution, from which it took the Papacy a good half millenium to recover.
driftwood
As a sidenote, a Roman Catholic bishop was expelled from Russia accused of "proselytising". He was to set up the biggest diocese ever : Siberia.
Source : Le Figaro from yesterday (French conservative newspaper)
Source : Le Figaro from yesterday (French conservative newspaper)
To elaborate, one arm of the Vatican was pushing to improve relations with the Russian Orthodox Church. To that end, a senior cardinal was sent to go to Russia for a major summit. Unfortunately, another arm of the Vatican announced 2 weeks before the trip that they were creating 4 new dioceses within Russia to minister to the 400,000 faithful (or however many Catholics there are in Russia - it's on that scale). Apparently, no one thought that the one move would sabotage the other. Now, not only is the trip off, but one of the bishops set to become an archbishop (of Siberia, as DB pointed out) has been banned from the country.
There's an article on the matter on www.nytimes.com
driftwood
There's an article on the matter on www.nytimes.com
driftwood
Arrghh, it is a problem really...
I think such 4 bishoprics would be suitable for admistrative purpose in so huge country like Russia. May you imagine a bishop of Moscow travelling to Irkuck in any case he need to?
It is not any agression, Orthodox church has got churches in most big Polish towns and many rural settlements, despite their populations is even lower here. And none makes rush of it. I think Russian phobies are raising again.
BTW: This bishop is a native Polish and the case is rather loud here. You should consider that most of Russian catholics are descendants of Polish deportees of long period from tsardom to Stalin ages, specially in Siberia... What a hell proselitism?
I think such 4 bishoprics would be suitable for admistrative purpose in so huge country like Russia. May you imagine a bishop of Moscow travelling to Irkuck in any case he need to?
It is not any agression, Orthodox church has got churches in most big Polish towns and many rural settlements, despite their populations is even lower here. And none makes rush of it. I think Russian phobies are raising again.
BTW: This bishop is a native Polish and the case is rather loud here. You should consider that most of Russian catholics are descendants of Polish deportees of long period from tsardom to Stalin ages, specially in Siberia... What a hell proselitism?
Most of catholic preists in Russia are polish....And I think this is a "problem" for Russians.
For Russians Pole = Catholic. Many ultra-nationalists in Russia says that this is another polish invasion (religious this time)
I am really fed up of this stupid religious quarrels.
I'm not going to defend the Russians, but it should be remembered that the Church there has immense power. The Church has also brought the Russian people through some extremely harsh times, especially in the 20th Century under Communism. The Russians are touchy about anything that undermines the power of the Church, especially now that it has finally (re-)gained power in the land.
O.
O.
Sorry guy, but you're absolutely wrong.
Russian church was collaborating with comunist regime (when it relieved a little bit after Stalin's death of course...) as it used to do the same with tsar earlier. In pre-communist Russia Orthodoxy was a state-relligion, like now it is in many muslim states (Saudi Arabia for instance).
BTW: Your story fits in 100% to Polish Catholic Church
Just to note, the New York Times is very liberal in their view of their Church. They had 'selective amnesia' to support the abolition of manditory celibacy for Priests in the Roman Rite by neglecting the Council of Elvira as well as the Council of Carthage, and isolating their view of celibacy, neglecting mainland Europe and focusing on England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. (Celibacy is a discipline in the Roman Rite)
Not to mention they usually interview Church liberals (in some cases heretics) such as Fr. Thomas Reese SJ and groups that are contrary to Church Doctrine, such as those supporting abortion, contraception, or women ordination (which is against Church Doctrine as with the others, so it will never happen, so all the groups should not hold their breath).
Originally posted by pithorr
Sorry guy, but you're absolutely wrong.
Russian church was collaborating with comunist regime (when it relieved a little bit after Stalin's death of course...) as it used to do the same with tsar earlier. In pre-communist Russia Orthodoxy was a state-relligion, like now it is in many muslim states (Saudi Arabia for instance).
BTW: Your story fits in 100% to Polish Catholic Church
Russians are afraid of the Pope's Mighty divisions !
Unlike Stalin
Comparing Orthodoxy to Wahhabism is not very kind
The ones that may be proselytising are the evangelic sects or Moslems in the Caucasus I think .
Does anyone have a decent map of Europe showing the Schism between the Catholics and Orthodox?
I have a feeling that EU has a few provinces labled under the wrong religon.
I have a feeling that EU has a few provinces labled under the wrong religon.
Originally posted by DuquedeBraganca
Russians are afraid of the Pope's Mighty divisions !
Unlike Stalin
The ones that may be proselytising are the evangelic sects or Moslems in the Caucasus I think .
Hm, Caucasus is rather default muslim except Armenia and a part of Georgia...
Comparing Orthodoxy to Wahhabism is not very kind
Why not to compare them? In the matter fact they worked in the same way...