|
January 20, 2004
ERP KiM Newsletter
Special Edition
Special Edition
View
of the Orthodox Church on the "Great Schism" of 1054
Manifestation of fundamental differences
The
"Great Schism" according to Orthodox tradition, is not just an
unfortunate convergence of historical events, cultural estrangement of
the Germanized West from the Orthodox East or a rhetorical disagreement
based on linguistic misunderstandings, but a visible manifestation of
numerous fundamental theological differences between the teachings of
the Orthodox Church and papism, which carried out a radical revision of
the authentic Christian faith and transformed Christianity into a
humanistic religion, turning the Church, which is Body of Christ, into a
religious organization.
Two ancient centers
of Christendom - Constantinople and Rome
once so close, but still so far apart
by hieromonk Sava Janjic
Serbian Orthodox Diocese of
Raska and Prizren
(the text was published in the Christmas issue of the "Danas" Belgrade
daily with the blessing of His Grace Bishop Artemije of Raska and
Prizren, Kosovo and Metohija)
(photo: an Orthodox fresco
showing the First ecumenical council in Niecea 318)
 The
so-called Great Schism between the Christian East and West, whose
beginning was formally marked by the mutual excommunication of the Roman
Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Kerullarios,
was a centuries-long process of gradual apostasy by the Western, Roman
Church from the Orthodox Church and the fullness of her apostolic and
catholic (universal) tradition.
Although the genesis of the schism was favored by tempestuous historic
circumstances and increasingly greater differences in language and
culture, especially after the Germanic invasions in the West in the
fifth century and Muslim expansion in the East from the seventh century
onward, in the Orthodox theological and liturgical consciousness the
former Orthodox Roman Church had succumbed to heresy.
Since the time of Justinian in the sixth century, the Roman Empire based
in Constantinople had less and less strength to preserve the temporarily
reestablished orbis romanus. In the Western provinces of the
empire, which had been flooded by hordes of Germanic barbarians, the
only torchlight remained the Roman Church, which was also the only link
between Western Romans and their Eastern brothers, and the Roman
cultural heritage of the Hellenic East.
Gradual alienation of two parts of the
Christendom
However, by the end of the eighth to the beginning of the eleventh
centuries, the Germanic influence in the Roman Church had already
gradually pushed out the Roman (i. e., Byzantine)[1]. With the support
of the Carolingian dynasty, the popes won not only spiritual power over
the once influential Western churches but also the properties that
became the basis of future papal state power. The spirit of Frankish
feudalism was also increasingly reflected in the organization of the
Roman church, in which the pope played the role of the monarch and the
bishops that of feudal nobles subjugated to him. The secularization of
the Roman church culminated especially during the period between the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, at the time of the dissipated popes
of the Renaissance, which led to the Reformation and new schisms which
continue to this day in the form of numerous sects and atheist
ideologies.
On the other hand, the Church in the East was more oriented toward the
rich Hellenic theological and cultural legacy, which crystallized even
more in the period of the seven Ecumenical Synods held from the fourth
to the eighth centuries through the works of the Holy Fathers. As the
church of the imperial city, the Patriarchate of New Rome was completely
understandably elevated to a level of honor equal to that of the church
of the old imperial capital, which provoked further suspicions. With the
fall of the Eastern provinces under Muslim rule in the seventh century,
Constantinople finally became the most influential spiritual center of
the Eastern Christian world and actively dedicated itself to the
Christianization of the Slavs. The Western and Eastern Romans found it
increasingly difficult to understand each other for two completely
different church and cultural mentalities had already been formed.
Filioque
as a stumbling block
Especially deep discord between the churches was created by the
unilateral addition of the Filioque clause to the traditional Symbol of
Faith at the Council of Toledo in 589. The main champions of filioquism
were Frankish theologians who introduced their teachings to the palace
of the Carolingians, where it was accepted as an official teaching of
the church. The crowning of Charlemagne as "Roman imperator" in the year
800 in Rome was not only a direct provocation to the Eastern Roman
(Byzantine) understanding of the unity of the Christian world headed by
the emperor (basileus) of New Rome but also opened the door to the
triumph of filioquism despite the opposition of some Italian popes.
From the second half of the ninth century, relations between the Old and
the New Rome entered a phase of dramatic confrontation. The Patriarch of
New Rome St. Photius (820-886) was the first Orthodox theologian to
clearly explain the false teachings of the Frankish theologians and warn
the Roman Church of the dangers resulting from their innovations. During
the time of Photius, the Fourth Council of Constantinople (870/880) was
held as the last joint (Eighth) Ecumenical Synod of Eastern and Western
fathers who confirmed the unity of the Orthodox faith and condemned the
revision of the Symbol of Faith, and hence the teaching on Filioque.
In the year 1009, Pope John XVIII (the last Orthodox pope to be
officially recognized by all Eastern patriarchs and mentioned in the
diptychs) was deposed. A string of Frankish popes ascended the Roman
cathedra and by 1014 Pope Benedict VIII, under pressure from Emperor
Henrik II, introduced Filioque into Roman liturgy.
Anathemas
of 1054
Conflicts between Rome and Constantinople at the end of the ninth and
beginning of the tenth centuries regarding jurisdiction in the south of
Italy, disagreements regarding the mission among the Slavs, particularly
the Bulgarians, and other differences of opinion further deepened the
chasm between the two sister churches. With the intent of resolving all
disputes by fiat, Pope Leo IX sent Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople
for negotiations with the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael
Kerullarios. The negotiations were not only unfruitful but they also
brought to light many old disputes regarding the Filioque heresy, papal
primacy and other issues regarding differences in liturgical tradition,
many of which had been tacitly tolerated in previous centuries.
The conflict between the arrogant cardinal and the unyielding patriarch
ended in mutual excommunication. Although no great dramatic significance
was attached to this event at that time, historians would later
designate it as the beginning of the so-called Great Schism which, as we
can see, had begun to develop much earlier. Although in 1965 the
Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI lifted the
respective anathemas of 1054, this symbolic act, as well as the
contemporary diplomacy of Constantinople, have not made any dramatic
change in the relationship between Orthodoxy and Rome, nor to this day has the attitude of the
Church toward the Latin false teachings essentially changed, regardless
of the ecumenistic policies of individual bishops and theologians.
Sack of
Constantinople by Crusades - the final breach
(photo: Chalice adorned with
pearls, precious stones and medallions with busts of hierarchs. The
inscription in Greek of "Drink ye all of it" suggests that it was used
for the Holy Eucharist in one of the churches of Constantinople or
possibly in the Palace, since it is known as the Chalice of Emperor Romanus II (959-963). (Venice, Treasure of S. Marco)
 Despite the existence until the thirteenth century of periodic cases of
partially reestablished intercommunion and the conviction that
theological differences were not insurmountable, the final seal on
Western apostasy from the Orthodox Church came with the Crusades, which
would frequently turn into looting expeditions by Frankish hordes, and
bloody massacres. The Crusades also worsened the position of Eastern
Christians under Muslim rule and indirectly resulted in growing hatred
of Muslim population towards Christianity in general.
In April of 1204 the Crusaders, together with Frankish bishops and
abbots wearing battle armor, ravaged Constantinople, the capital of the
Roman Empire, in barbarian fashion and soon thereafter imposed a
parallel Latin hierarchy with an illegal Latin patriarch on the
subjugated Orthodox population of one part of the Empire. While the
Patriarch and the Emperor of New Rome found refuge in Nicea, the popes
heartily supported the Latin patriarchate and Frankish dominions on the
Byzantine soil, just as they later supported Uniate policy in Eastern
Europe and the Near East. The forcible Uniate conversion of the Orthodox
and proselytism remain to this day the chief tools of the Vatican in
traditionally Orthodox territories which Rome considers as legitimate
"terra missionis". Despite unsuccessful attempts to reestablish church
unity according to Roman dictate and political pressures in Lyon (1274)
and Ferrara-Florence (1431-1445), papism already was and remains a
heresy for the Orthodox Christians.
Although there have been more or fewer compromise positions in different
periods depending on political circumstances, the Orthodox Church does
not allow Roman Catholic communion to its believers to this day, not
even in the moment of death. This generally accepted liturgical
tradition best demonstrates the traditional Orthodox view of the
validity of other Roman Catholic "sacraments".
Serious doctrinal differences:
The "Great Schism", therefore, according to Orthodox tradition, is not
just an unfortunate convergence of historical events, cultural
estrangement of the Germanized West from the Orthodox East or a
rhetorical disagreement based on linguistic misunderstandings, but a
visible manifestation of numerous fundamental theological differences
between the teachings of the Orthodox Church and papism, which carried
out a radical revision of the authentic Christian faith and transformed
Christianity into a humanistic religion, turning the Church, which is
Body of Christ, into a religious organization.
Papal primate - divine or historical institution
In the West the pope who was the Bishop of Rome and the first in honor
among the other patriarchs (primus inter pares) was proclaimed to be
Christ's vicar on earth and "the head of the whole universe" (caput
totius orbis) . According to the First Vatican Council (1870),
the pope is also ex cathedra (as universal teacher and pastor)
infallible (irreformable) "of himself (by reason of his office), and not
from the consensus of the Church" (ex sese, non autem ex consensu
Ecclesiae). Papal primacy, which is a historical institution, since
Rome was the imperial capital, in the West is interpreted exclusively as
a divine institution. It rests on the arbitrary teaching that the popes
are the unique heirs of Peter, as if the Lord (according to the majority
of Holy Fathers) had not promised that he would build a Church on the
rock (Gr. petra) of Peter's faith, i.e., faith in Christ as the Son of
God (Matt. 16:18). Today, Roman Catholic theologians are masking these
absurd and pretentious teachings with the rather abstract idea of the
papal "presiding in love", which is only a smoke screen for the rigid
papal ecclesiology behind it.
[2]
The Orthodox Church has preserved authentic conciliarity (sabornost)
among bishops with local churches headed by archbishops who excel only
in honor from the rest of their brothers. So-called collegiality in the
West remains only a fig leaf of the papal ssovereign power that has
culminated in our time in the personality cult of Pope John Paul II.
Traditional masses have been turned into open-air spectacles with
choreography focused on the person of the pope while his bishops act
more as his acolytes. The East has preserved Christ as the head of the
Church, while in the West the pope de facto became the head, as the main
cohesive element of the unity of the Church. Without papal supreme
authority, Roman Catholicism would split into hundreds of sects and that
is exactly why papism remains the cornerstone of Roman ecclesiology and
the main stumbling block to its return to its venerable Orthodox roots.
Filioque
controversy - matter of semantics or different triadology
The Filioque heresy in essence originates from the failure to
differentiate among relations between the three Divine Persons in
eternity and in the economy of salvation. Its crucial practical
consequence is the lack of true understanding of "personality" in both
divine and human aspects, which is particularly reflected in deviant
papal ecclesiology. The Orthodox East sees triadic unity primarily in
the person of God the Father, from whom the Son, who is consubstantial
(Gr. homousion) to the Father, is being eternally born; and from whom
the Spirit eternally proceeds (Gr. ekporeuetai). Although the Spirit
shares the same essence as the Son and is sent by the Son into the world
in the economy of salvation, eternally the Holy Spirit proceeds only
from the Father, as the sole source and cause (Gr. aitia) of the divine
essence. On the other hand, the medieval West saw the unity of the
divine persons more in the form of a metaphysical divine essence. In
order to confirm the unity of essence of the Father and the Son (the
main challenge of Arianism), it proclaimed that the Holy Spirit "eternally
proceeds from both the Father and the Son as from one principle and
by one single spiration" (ex Utroque aeternaliter tamquam ab uno principio et
unica spiratione procedit, Lyon 1274) [3].
Filioque, therefore, is not only an uncanonical addendum to the Orthodox
Symbol of Faith but also creates confusion in the hypostatic difference
between the Father and the Son, and denigrates the Person of the Holy
Spirit, reducing It to a mere link of their mutual love.
Teaching
on justification versus traditional Orthodox soteriology
Serious differences also exist in the understanding of man's redemption
from sin and death, especially since the time of Anselm of Canterbury
(in the eleventh century), who practically reduced soteriology from the
ontological level to the level of psychological moralism. Anselm
interpreted sin as "an insult to God's majesty", which is atoned for
through appropriate "satisfaction", while salvation from existential
death is reduced to the moralist teaching of justification by moral
merits. These and similar liturgical deviations opened the door wide to
other innovations: the teaching about purgatory and monetary
"indulgences". The popes not only proclaimed these teachings and
practices as official church doctrine, but in the thirteenth century
also introduced the infamous Inquisition, which brutally tortured and
burned thousands of people "to the greater glory of God" (ad majorem
gloriam Dei), and which to this day has not been officially
abolished and condemned but only renamed into the Sanctum Officium in
1906.
Conversely, for Orthodoxy the sin (Gr. hamartia) literary means "missing
a target", a failure to use God-given energies for their proper purpose
(skopos). Through sin, a man bases his existence on created nature and
his selfish ego and becomes alienated from God through his free will,
losing personal communion with God and dying spiritually. That is why
the sin should be healed and not punished. The Orthodox pray for the
deceased, but not to rescue them from the cleansing fire of purgatory.
Hell is not a place where God punishes the man who insulted his majesty
but a place of selfish darkness and absence of genuine love toward God.
Roman Catholicism moves between extremes. Instead of medieval obsession
with infernal fire and the "just" wrath of God, it is now overwhelmed by
the spirit of pietism and a "sweet Jesus" ready to forgive all the petty
vices of the contemporary man. [4]
Scholasticism versus hesychasm
(photo: workshops of
Orthodox theology - a solitary hermitage on Mount Athos)
 The ascetic and theological tradition of the Orthodox Church, based on
the apophatic method and an active life in prayer and holy sacraments,
in the West is reduced to the narrow rationalist confines of
scholasticism and canonic law. As the West increasingly rushed into the
embrace of rationalism, secular universities, legal regulations and
natural sciences, the Orthodox East by the fourteenth century had
carried out a creative synthesis of theological tradition (the Palamite
synods), which to the present day has been dynamically developed in the
liturgical and theological-ascetic life of the Church (tradition of
hesychasm). The spirit of Western theological and church reforms,
"aggiornamento" and the so-called dogmatic evolution have been and
remain foreign to Orthodoxy, which is both contemporary and traditional,
but never conservative and petrified.
The West is painstakingly struggling with how to interpret God's
creation and analytically define social relations and phenomena by
placing them into appropriate categories. The Orthodox East is more
concerned with knowing and seeing (Gr. eidenai) God as He is, i. e.,
achieving immediate spiritual knowledge (experience) of the Creator,
establishing an ontological personal relationship with Him (deification
– Gr. theosis). This is not achieved individually, by different
techniques and meditation methods, but within the Church – the only
workshop of salvation. This is why Orthodox Christian theology is not a
philosophical science of syllogisms but a living experience not always
necessarily always expressed in written form or through dogmatic
definitions and canonical rules. The dogmatic definitions formulated in
defense of Orthodoxy from heresies are still only the signs that show
direction and limits, but never completely exhaust the fullness of God's
mystery. In short, while Orthodox Church is trying to raise humanity to
the eternal values of Christ, the heterodox West is busy how to adapt
the Christ's teaching to the contemporary time.
Not only
a schism but an overall apostasy
Keeping in mind the entire course of aforementioned and other serious
theological differences that manifested themselves from the end of the
first millennium to today, the so-called Great Schism of 1054 is just
one of the developments that symbolically mark a centuries-long process
of gradual apostasy of the Roman Catholic West from Orthodoxy. The
Orthodox churches do not seek domination over the West, as Roman
Catholicism sought and in places still seeks over them, but only expect
Western Christians to return to the Orthodox community of churches
through a restoration of their own ancient tradition, that of the
Orthodox Roman Church, rejecting papism and other heresies which more or
less originated from it.
This process requires them to humbly delve into their own Orthodox
tradition deeply buried under the layers of centuries. However, this
cannot be accomplished through liturgical archeology, rationalistic
reform or by decree but only by overall repentance (Gr. metanoia -
changing of the mind) of every individual. Attempts to overcome
fundamental differences through political ecumenism, pietism or simply
by oblivion will never lead to true reunification of Western Christians
with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church.[5]
Footnotes:
[1] The Eastern Roman Empire was
never called by its own people and officials "Byzantine Empire" or
"Byzantium".
In fact, the Empire was considered as a political continuation of the ancient
Imperium Romanum and was
called Basileia ton Romaion (Empire of the Romans) or simply Romania till its very end in
1453. The people of the Empire called themselves Romaioi which is a
Hellenic equivalent of the corresponding Latin term. The term "Hellenes"
designated more ancient adherents of the Hellenic pre-Christian culture and
religion and not a nation in the modern sense of the word. The capital of the Empire, Constantinople, was very often
referred as New Rome (Nea Rome) which sounded perfectly normal to the
people of that time like New York sounds today. The term "Byzantine Empire"
was introduced by the Frankish West in order to show that it was the Empire
of the Franks that was a legal successor of the Christianized Roman
Empire and not what they derogatively called "Greek Empire" in the East.
More on: http://www.romanity.org/
[2] The popular papolatry went
that far that the following statement was published in the Catholic
National: "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he
is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." Catholic
National, July, 1895. Orthodox Church never denied that the Bishop of
Rome presided in love and honor among all other bishops. However, it is
totally unacceptable for the Orthodox that the Bishop of Rome has any
special attributes of divine origin which make him higher in sacerdotal
or jurisdictional powers than other bishops. Infallibility of the Church
does not rest in "irreformability" of the Bishop of Rome but in the fact
that it is the very body of Christ who is the only rock and the head of
the Church "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16,
18). The infallibility of the Church is manifested primarily through
synods of Bishops and the consensus of the entire Church, and cannot be
an exclusive prerogative of either one or more bishops. The formula "ex
sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae" is therefore directly opposite to
the centuries old practice and belief of the Christian Church. Ref: The
Rock of Apostle Peter by Panagiotis Boumis, Myriobiblos Library,
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/boumis_peter.html
[3] [Denzinger,
"Enchiridion" (1908), n. 460]: "We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds
eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but
as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single
spiration." The teaching was again laid down by the Council of Florence
(ibid., n. 691), and by Eugene IV in his Bull "Cantate Domino" (ibid.,
n. 703 sq.). The recent attempts of
Roman Catholic theologians to explain that the verb procedere has
wider meaning and does not
necessarily mean the same as the Greek ekporeuesthai are directly
challenged by this unfortunate formula by which
the Filioque teaching was officially accepted as compulsory belief of
the Roman Church. The Orthodox Church has never denied that the Son and
the Spirit share the same, constubstantial divinity but strongly denies
that Father and Son act as single principle (cause, Gr. aitia) of
eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. More about Orthodox view on
Filioque at:
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioquemain.html
[4] Theology
of the Holy fathers from the earliest times until our own days has been
primarily based on how to overcome the sin and death achieving a
personal union with God through spiritual cleansing of the heart and the
mind (nous). It has never lost its therapeutic, practical character and
become a philosophic discipline like in the medieval West. Holy Seven
Ecumenical Synods, which firmly stand on the apostolic tradition, are
seven pillars on which the entire Orthodox lex credendi and lex orandi
are based. However, dynamism of the Orthodox theology is contained in
its living
spiritual experience, while in the West it is primarily manifested in
succession of different theological systems, which are usually based on
the prevailing philosophic or social theories of the time. More about
Orthodox spirituality can be read in books of Met. Ierotheos Vlachos:
http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.00.htm
[5] Catholic (Gr. Katholikos)
means universal (containing all). This name has always remained the
official name of the Church which is more often called Orthodox to make
difference to other heterodox Christian communities. On every Holy Liturgy
Orthodox Christians recite the Creed and say that they believe
in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Consequently, the traditional
Orthodox understanding is that One Holy and Catholic Church cannot be
divided, which is contradiction in adjecto. There can only be an
apostasy from the Church. For the Orthodox the
Church is not
only the visible organization with its hierarchy (in this time
and space) but primarily the eternal Body of Christ comprising all
saints, angels, living and deceased faithful who remain in personal
unity of love with the head of the Church - The Christ.
Remark: This article and the footnotes
are written on the basis of the spiritual legacy of traditional Orthodox
theologians and may not be necessarily in concordance with some more
liberal or ecumenical views, which nevertheless exist within
contemporary Orthodox Church.
Selected links
related to the topic:
Papism as
the oldest Protestantism, by Blessed Fr. Justin Popovic (Spiritual
father of Bishop Artemije)
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/papism.htm
The
Difference between Orthodox spirituality and other traditions, by
Met. Ierotheos Vlachos
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.htm
Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy,
(Collection of texts regarding differences between Orthodox doctrine and
heterodox teachings), The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the
Baptist, Washington, D.C.
http://www.stjohndc.org/heterodoxy/heterodoxy.htm
Jοhn Ν.
Karmiris, Professor in the University of Athens, The Schism of the
Roman Church Translated by Z. Xintaras (From “Theologia” review,
Athens 1950, 400-587 pp)
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/roman_church.htm
Philip
Sherrard, From Theology to Philosophy in the Latin West (From:
The Greek East and the Latin West - A Study in the Christian Tradition,
Oxford Univ. Press 1959, Denise Harvey 1992.)
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/sherrard_philosophy.html
Milton V.
Anastos, Constantinople and Rome - A Survey of the Relations between
the Byzantine and the Roman Churches, Published by Ashgate
Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_index.html
The Great
Schism, by Met. Callistos (Timothy) Ware,
/schism.html
Orthodox
Church and Ecumenism (a great variety of critical texts)
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/index.html
Ecumenism and the Ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Fr.
Daniel Dugansky, An excerpt from Orthodox Christianity and the Spirit of
Contemporary Ecumenism, by Fr. Daniel Degyansky. (Etna: CA, The Center
for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1997 [1992]), pp. 76-83. Fr. Daniel
is a Priest in the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stcyprian_eccles.htm
Emmanuel
Clapsis, The Boundaries of the Church - An Orthodox Debate
(First published in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 35, no.
2, 1990, pp. 113‑27)
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8541.asp See
also: Papal Primacy, by the same author:
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp
Pope John Paul
II on one of his "apostolic"
visits. Contemporary papacy has evolved
into an elaborate personality cult which demonstrates devastating
effects of
secularization in the Roman Catholic world
TOP
ERP KIM Info-Service is
the official Information Service of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Raska
and Prizren and works with the blessing of His Grace Bishop
Artemije.
Our Information Service is
distributing news on Kosovo related issues. The main focus of the
Info-Service is the life of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Serbian
community in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija. ERP KIM Info Service
works in cooperation with www.serbian-translation.com
as well as the Kosovo Daily
News (KDN) News List
Disclaimer:
The views
expressed by the authors of newspaper articles or other texts which are
not official communiqués or news reports by the Diocese are their own and
do not necessarily represent the views of the Serbian Orthodox
Church
Additional information on
our Diocese and the life of the Kosovo Serb Community may be found at:
http://www.kosovo.net
Copyright 2004, ERP KIM Info-Service
|
