LoveMonkey (talk | contribs) |
→The Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty: moving section to talk page for revision/discussion |
||
Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
THE HELLENIC CIVILIZATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, |
THE HELLENIC CIVILIZATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, |
||
CHARLEMAGNE'S LIE OF 794, AND HIS LIE TODAY [[John S. Romanides]]]</ref> |
CHARLEMAGNE'S LIE OF 794, AND HIS LIE TODAY [[John S. Romanides]]]</ref> |
||
====The Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty==== |
|||
{{see|Nous|Spiritual Warfare}} |
|||
In Eastern Christianity the heart or spirit of the person is often referred to as the [[Nous]].<ref>[http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/neptic_monasticism.html]</ref><ref>Orthodox Psychotherapy CHAPTER III by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos published by Birth of Theotokos Monastery,Greece (January 1, 2005) ISBN-13: 978-9607070272[http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.03.htm]</ref> Nous can also be loosely translated as the whole experience of [[consciousness|conscious]] reality both internal (dianoia and [[intuitive]]) and external ([[sensory perception]]). Consciousness or the human spirit (noetic) as energy of the soul, the nous is called the "eye of the heart or soul". <ref>What is the Human Nous? by [[John Romanides]] [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/patristic-theology-romanides-chapter-1-what-is-the-human-nous.aspx]</ref><ref>"Before embarking on this study, the reader is asked to absorb a few Greek terms for which there is no English word that would not be imprecise or misleading. Chief among these is NOUS, which refers to the `eye of the heart' and is often translated as mind or intellect. Here we keep the Greek word NOUS throughout. The adjective related to it is [[NOETIC]] (noeros)." Orthodox Psychotherapy Section The Knowledge of God according to St. Gregory Palamas by Metropolitan [[Hierotheos (Vlachos)|Hierotheos Vlachos]] published by Birth of Theotokos Monastery,Greece (January 1, 2005) ISBN-13: 978-9607070272 |
|||
- [http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.000.htm]</ref>When dealing with the satisfaction of the spirit one must live according to the spirit as the laws of God are written on the heart. It is stated that if the Orthodox Church appeared now in the world, and new it would appear as a hospital for the spirit, heart, soul or nous of mankind. [[Noesis]] as characteristics or the experiences of the spirit or heart, i.e. when one loves or grieves these are not things "learned" by external reality nor experienced as such. These internal experiences are intrinsic to the whole person the whole person in the East is called the soul.<ref>Orthodox Psychotherapy Section The Knowledge of God according to St. Gregory Palamas by Metropolitan [[Hierotheos (Vlachos)|Hierotheos Vlachos]] published by Birth of Theotokos Monastery,Greece (January 1, 2005) ISBN-13: 978-9607070272 [http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.000.htm]</ref> Where as philosophical discourse ([[dialect]]) is very mechanical and [[attenuate]]s reality into [[analytical]] concepts. Thereby reducing man and nature to cold mechanical concepts.<ref>Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter [[Michael Pomazansky]] Appendices New currents in Russian philosophico-theological thought Philosophy and Theology.[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P2N.HTM ]</ref><ref>"Roman Catholicism rationalizes even the sacrament of the Eucharist: it interprets spiritual action as purely material and debases the sacrament to such an extent that it becomes in its view a kind of atomistic miracle. The Orthodox Church has no metaphysical theory of Transsubstantiation, and there is no need of such a theory. Christ is the Lord of the elements and it is in His power to do so that 'every thing, without in the least changing its physical substance' could become His Body. Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not physical flesh." History of Russian Philosophy by Nikolai Lossky ISBN-13: 978-0823680740 p. 87 </ref> Eastern Christianity seeks to restore mankind to his pre-Knowledge of Good and Evil ([[fall of man]]) condition of full communion with the Creator and Trinity. The subject of mankind's soul as it learns to struggle against the world of passions and corruptions as called [[asceticism]]. Critical to Eastern Christian Ascetism is the experience of the soul and nous and the articulation of the various kinds of conflicts, experiences and thoughts that trouble the spirit or heart of mankind (called the arena). Some of the concepts critical to addressing the needs of man such as sober introspection called [[Introspection|nepsis]] are specific to watchfulness of the human heart.<ref>"NEPSIS is the kind of sober-minded vigilance that characterises the ascetic life of the Fathers. It is usually translated as watchfulness." Orthodox Psychotherapy Section The Knowledge of God according to St. Gregory Palamas by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos published by Birth of Theotokos Monastery,Greece (January 1, 2005) ISBN-13: 978-9607070272 [http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.000.htm]</ref> and address the conflicts of the human [[nous]], heart or mind are also at conflict between East and West. Also [[noetic]] understanding can not be circumvented nor satisfied by rationalizing or discursive thought (i.e. systemization).<ref>[http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/neptic_monasticism.html]</ref> In [[Eastern Christianity]] the [[Dark Night of the Soul]] is not considered a normal or necessary phrase for the human heart to achieve a relationship with God, nor is it considered one that is good or healthy.<ref>pg 226 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by V Lossky, SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9) V Lossky </ref> |
|||
====Original Sin==== |
====Original Sin==== |
Revision as of 19:47, 2 February 2009
Part of a series on |
Christianity |
---|
The East-West Schism, or the Great Schism, divided medieval Mediterranean Christendom into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches, which later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, respectively. Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes.[1] Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius heightened the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains. In 1054, Roman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches.[1] Cerularius refused. The leader of the Latin contingent, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and other legates.[1]
The Western legate's acts are of doubtful validity because Leo had died, while Cerularius's excommunication applied only to the legates personally.[1] Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed. Western cruelty during the Crusades, the capture and sack of Constantinople in 1204, and the imposition of Latin Patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult.[1] This included the taking of many precious religious artifacts and the destruction of the Library of Constantinople. On paper, the two churches actually reunited in 1274 (by the Second Council of Lyon) and in 1439 (by the Council of Florence), but in each case the councils were repudiated by the Orthodox as a whole, on the grounds that the hierarchs had overstepped their authority in consenting to reunification. 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 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 are valid. There have been many other schisms, from the 2nd century until today.
History
Leading to the Great Schism, Eastern and Western Mediterranean Christians had a history of differences and disagreements dating back to the second century. Among the most significant disagreements are the Quatrodeciman controversy at the time of Victor of Rome (circa 180) and the Rebaptism controversy at the time of Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage (250s).
Ecclesiology
At the root of what became the Great Schism is the question of ecclesiology. The Eastern Churches maintained the idea that every local city-Church with its bishop, presbyters, deacons and people celebrating the Eucharist constituted the whole Church. In this view called Eucharistic ecclesiology (or more recently holographic ecclesiology), every bishop is Peter's successor in his Church ("the Church") and the Churches form what Eusebius called a common union of Churches. This implied that all bishops were ontologically equal, although functionally particular bishops could be granted special privileges by other bishops and serve as metropolitans, archbishops or patriarchs. Early on, the ecclesiology of the Roman Church was universal in nature, with the idea that the Church was a worldwide organism with a divinely (not functionally) appointed center: the Church/Bishop of Rome. These two views are still present in modern Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and can be seen as foundational causes for the schisms and Great Schism between East and West.
Rise of Rome
- See also: First phase of papal supremacy
John Binns writes that, after the fall and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the natural leading centres of the Church were Antioch and Alexandria. Alexandria had been assisted by Mark [2], one of the Seventy Apostles. Antioch had attracted Peter and Paul and Barnabas, plus others of the Seventy. Antioch was the base from which Paul made his missionary journeys to the pagans. [3]. The Church of Antioch sent the apostles Peter and Paul to Rome to assist the fledgling church there in its growth, and because Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire. Antioch regarded Peter as its first bishop [4].
The historian Will Durant writes that, after Jerusalem, the church of Rome naturally became the primary church, the capital of Christianity.[5] Rome had an early and significant Christian population.[5] It was closely identified with the Apostle Paul, who preached[6] and was martyred there, and the Apostle Peter, who was a martyr there as well. The Eastern Orthodox liturgy calls Peter and Paul "the wisest Apostles and their princes" and "the radiant ornaments of Rome".[7][8] Peter is seen as founder of the Church in Rome,[9] and the bishops of Rome as his successors.[10][11] While the Eastern cities of Alexandria and Antioch produced theological works, the bishops of Rome focused on what Romans admittedly did best: administration.[5]
In the early church up until the ecumenical councils, Rome was regarded as an important centre of Christianity, especially since it was the capital of the Roman Empire. The eastern and southern Mediterranean bishops generally recognized a persuasive leadership and authority of the Bishop of Rome, because the teaching of the bishop of Rome was almost invariably correct.[citation needed] But the Mediterrtanean Church did not regard the Bishop of Rome as infallible, nor did they acknowledge any juridical authority of Rome.[citation needed]
Father Thomas Hopko, a leading Orthodox theologian, has written: "The church of Rome held a special place of honor among the earliest Christian churches. It was first among the communities that recognized each other as catholic churches holding the orthodox faith concerning God's Gospel in Jesus. ... The Roman church held this place of honor and exercised a 'presidency in love' among the first Christian churches for two reasons. It was founded on the teaching and blood of the foremost Christian apostles Peter and Paul. And it was the church of the capital city of the Roman empire that then constituted the 'civilized world (oikoumene)'."[12]
In the fourth century when the Roman emperors were trying to control the Church, theological questions were running rampant throughout the Roman Empire[13]. The influence of Greek speculative thought on Christian thinking led to all sorts of divergent and conflicting opinions [14]. Christ's commandment to love others as He loved seemed to have been lost in the intellectual abstractions of the time. Theology was also used as a weapon against opponent bishops, since being branded a heretic was the only sure way for a bishop to be removed by other bishops. Incompetence was not sufficient grounds for removal.[citation needed]
The patriarchs of Constantinople often tried to adopt an imperious position over the other patriarchs.
After the sole emperor of all the Roman Empire Constantine built the new imperial capital on the Bosphorous, the centre of gravity in the empire was fully recognised to have completely shifted to the eastern Mediterranean. Rome lost the Senate to Byzantium and lost its status and gravitas as imperial capital.
Papal primacy
The opinion of the Bishop of Rome was often sought, especially when the patriarchs of the Eastern Mediterranean were locked in fractious dispute. The bishops of Rome never obviously belonged to either the Antiochian or the Alexandrian schools of theology, and usually managed to steer a middle course between whatever extremes were being propounded by theologians of either school. Because Rome was remote from the centres of Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean, it was frequently hoped its bishop would be more impartial. For instance, in 431, Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, appealed to Pope Celestine I, as well as the other patriarchs, charging Nestorius with heresy, which was dealt with at the Council of Ephesus.
The opinion of the bishop of Rome was always canvassed, and was often longed for. However the Bishop of Rome's opinion was by no means automatically right. For instance, the Tome of Leo of Rome was highly regarded, and formed the basis for the ecumenical council's formulation. But it was not universally accepted and was even called "impious" and "blasphemous" by some.[15] The next ecumenical council corrected a possible imbalance in Pope Leo's presentation. Although the Bishop of Rome was well-respected even at this early date, the concept of the primacy of the Roman See and Papal Infallibility were only developed much later.
New Rome
When the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great embraced Christianity, he summoned the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325 to resolve a number of issues which troubled the Church. The bishops at the council confirmed the position of the metropolitan sees of Rome and Alexandria as having authority outside their own province, and also the existing privileges of the churches in Antioch and the other provinces.[16] These sees were later called Patriarchates and were given an order of precedence: Rome, as capital of the empire was naturally given first place, then came Alexandria and Antioch. In a separate canon the Council also approved the special honor given to Jerusalem over other sees subject to the same metropolitan.[17]
Constantine
Soon, Constantine erected a new capital at Byzantium, a strategically-placed city on the Bosporus. He renamed his new capital Nova Roma ("New Rome"), but the city would become known as Constantinople. The Second Ecumenical Council, held at the new capital in 381, now elevated the see of Constantinople itself, to a position ahead of the other chief metropolitan sees, except that of Rome.[18] Mentioning in particular the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, it decreed that the synod of each province should manage the ecclesiastical affairs of that province alone, except for the privileges already recognized for Alexandria and Antioch.[19]
Council of Chalcedon
The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, confirming the authority already held by Constantinople, granted its archbishop jurisdiction over the three provinces mentioned by the First Council of Constantinople. The council also ratified an agreement between Antioch and Jerusalem, whereby Jerusalem held jurisdiction over three provinces,[20] numbering it among the five great sees.[21] There were now five patriarchs presiding over the Church within the Byzantine Empire, in the following order of precedence: the Patriarch of Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem (see Pentarchy).
Dark Ages
Following the Sack of Rome by invading European Goths, Rome slid into the Dark Ages which afflicted most parts of Western Europe, and became increasingly isolated and irrelevant to the wider Mediterranean Church. This was a situation which suited and pleased a lot of the Eastern Mediterranean patriarchs and bishops [22].
It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose out of obscurity on the back of the military successes of the western Mediterranean adventurers.
Empires East and West
Disunion in the Roman Empire further contributed to disunion in the Church. The Emperor Diocletian famously divided the administration of the eastern and western portions of the Empire in the early 4th century, though subsequent leaders (including Constantine) aspired to and sometimes gained control of both regions. Theodosius the Great, who established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, died in 395 and was the last Emperor to rule over a united Roman Empire; following his death, the division into western and eastern halves, each under its own Emperor, became permanent. By the end of the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire had been overrun by the Germanic tribes, while the Eastern Roman Empire (known also as the Byzantine Empire) continued to thrive. Thus, the political unity of the Roman Empire was the first to fall.
In the West, the collapse of civil government left the Church practically in charge in many areas, and bishops took to administering secular cities and domains.[5] When royal and imperial rule reestablished itself, it had to contend with power wielded independently by the Church. In the East, however, imperial and, later, Islamic rule dominated the Eastern bishops.[5]
Language and culture
Many other factors caused the East and West to drift further apart. The dominant language of the West was Latin, whilst that of the East was Greek. Soon after the fall of the Western Empire, the number of individuals who spoke both Latin and Greek began to dwindle, and communication between East and West grew much more difficult. With linguistic unity gone, cultural unity began to crumble as well. The two halves of the Church were naturally divided along similar lines; they developed different rites and had different approaches to religious doctrines. Although the Great Schism was still centuries away, its outlines were already perceptible.[23]
Papal Supremacy and Pentarchy
The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over conflicting claims of jurisdiction, in particular over papal authority—Pope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs (see also Pentarchy) — and over the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Western patriarch in 1014 [24]. Eastern Orthodox today state that the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople.[citation needed] The seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus declared:
- It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized[25]
Eastern Orthodox today state that this Canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed drawn up by the first Ecumenical Council in 325, the wording of which but, it is claimed, not the substance, had been modified by the second Ecumenical Council, making additions such as "who proceeds from the Father".
In the Orthodox view, the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) would have universal primacy in a reunited Christendom, as primus inter pares without power of jurisdiction.[26]
There were other less significant catalysts for the Schism however, including variance over liturgical practices.
Other points of conflict
Many other issues increased tensions.
- Emperor Leo III the Isaurian outlawed the veneration of icons in the 8th century. This policy, which came to be called Iconoclasm, was rejected by the West.
- The Western Church's insertion of "Filioque" into the Latin version of the Nicene Creed.
- Disputes in the Balkans, Southern Italy, and Sicily over whether Rome or Constantinople had ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
- In the East, endorsement of Caesaropapism, subordination of the church to the religious claims of the dominant political order, was most fully evident in the Byzantine Empire at the end of the first millennium,[27] while in the West, where the decline of imperial authority left the Church relatively independent,[28] there was growth of the power of the Papacy.
- As a result of the Muslim conquests of the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, only two rival powerful centres of ecclesiastical authority, Constantinople and Rome, remained.[29]
- Certain liturgical practices in the West that the East believed represented illegitimate innovation: the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, for example (see Azymite).
- Celibacy among Western priests (both monastic and parish), as opposed to the Eastern discipline whereby parish priests could be married men.
Mutual excommunication of 1054
Most of the direct causes of the Great Schism, however, are far less grandiose than the famous filioque. The relations between the papacy and the Byzantine court were good in the years leading up to 1054. The emperor Constantine IX and the Pope Leo IX were allied through the mediation of the Lombard catepan of Italy, Argyrus, who had spent years in Constantinople, originally as a political prisoner.
Meanwhile, the Normans were busy imposing Latin customs, including the unleavened bread—with papal approval. Patriarch Michael I then ordered Leo, Archbishop of Ochrid, to write a letter to the bishop of Trani, John, in which he attacked the "Judaistic" practices of the West, namely the use of unleavened bread. The letter was to be sent by John to all the bishops of the West, Pope included. John promptly complied and the letter was passed to one Humbert of Mourmoutiers, the cardinal-bishop of Silva Candida, who translated the letter into Latin and brought it to the pope, who ordered a reply to be made to each charge and a defence of papal supremacy to be laid out in a response.
Although he was hot-headed, Michael was convinced, probably by the Emperor and the bishop of Trani, to cool the debate and prevent the impending breach. However, Humbert and the pope made no concessions and the former was sent with legatine powers to the imperial capital to solve the questions raised once and for all. Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi set out in early spring and arrived in April 1054. Their welcome was not to their liking, however, and they stormed out of the palace, leaving the papal response with Michael, whose anger exceeded even theirs. The patriarch refused to recognise their authority or, practically, their existence.[30]
When Pope Leo died on April 19,1054, the legates' authority legally ceased, but they did not seem to notice.[31] The patriarch's refusal to address the issues at hand drove the legatine mission to extremes: on July 16, the three legates entered the church of the Hagia Sophia during the divine liturgy on a Saturday afternoon and placed a Papal Bull of Excommunication (1054) on the altar. The legates left for Rome two days later, leaving behind a city near riots. The patriarch had the immense support of the people against the Emperor, who had supported the legates to his own detriment. To assuage popular anger, the bull was burnt, and the legates were anathematised—the Great Schism had begun.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when this unfortunate sequence of events took place. This conclusion, however, is not correct, because in the bull composed by Humbert, only Patriarch Michael I was excommunicated. The validity of the bull is questioned because Pope Leo IX was already dead at that time. On the other side, the Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legates.
It should be noted that the bull of excommunication issued against Patriarch Michael stated as one of its reasons for the excommunication the Eastern Church's deletion of the word "filioque" from the original Nicene Creed. It is now common knowledge that the Eastern Church did not delete anything, it was the Western Church that added this word to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
East and West since 1054
"Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".[32]
There was no single event that marked the breakdown. Rather, the two churches slid into and out of schism over a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations.
Fourth Crusade
During the Fourth Crusade, however, Latin crusaders and Venetian merchants sacked Constantinople itself, looting The Church of Holy Wisdom and various other Orthodox Holy sites. This event and the final treaty established the Latin Empire of the East and the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople (with various other Crusader states). This period of chaotic rule over the sacked and looted lands of the Byzantine Empire is still known among Eastern Christians as Frangokratia.
Second Council of Lyon
The Second Council of Lyon, which was convoked to act on a pledge by Byzantine emperor Michael VIII to reunite the Eastern church with the West.[33] Wishing to end the Great Schism that divided Rome and Constantinople, Gregory X had sent an embassy to Michael VIII Palaeologus. On June 29, 1274, Gregory X celebrated a Mass in St John's Church, where both sides took part. The council declared that the Roman church possessed “the supreme and full primacy and authority over the universal Catholic Church.”
The council was seemingly a success, but did not provide a lasting solution to the schism; the Emperor was anxious to heal the schism, but the Eastern clergy proved to be obstinate. Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople abdicated, and was replaced by John Bekkos, a convert to the cause of union. In spite of a sustained campaign by Bekkos to defend the union intellectually, and vigorous and brutal repression of opponents by Michael, the vast majority of Byzantine Christians remained implacably opposed to union with the Latin "heretics". Michael's death in December 1282 put an end to the union of Lyons. His son and successor Andronicus II repudiated the union, and Bekkos was forced to abdicate, being eventually exiled and imprisoned until his death in 1297. He is to this day reviled by many in the Eastern Church as a traitor to Orthodoxy.
First Vatican Council
The doctrine of papal primacy was further developed in 1870 at the First Vatican Council which declared that "in the disposition of God the Roman church holds the preeminence of ordinary power over all the other churches". This council also affirmed the dogma of papal infallibility, declaring that the infallibility of the Christian community extends to the pope himself, when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
Second Vatican Council
A major event of the Second Vatican Council, known as Vatican II, was the issuance by Pope Paul and Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras of a joint expression of regret for many of the past actions that had led up to the Great Schism between the western and eastern churches, expressed as the Catholic-Orthodox Joint declaration of 1965. At the same time, they lifted the mutual excommunications dating from the eleventh century.[34]
Recent efforts at reconciliation
On June 29, 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople again withdrew the excommunications imposed in the 11th century and concelebrated the Eucharist together. In May 1999, John Paul II was the first pope since the Great Schism to visit an Eastern Orthodox country: Romania. Upon greeting John Paul II, the Romanian Patriarch Teoctist stated: "The second millennium of Christian history began with a painful wounding of the unity of the Church; the end of this millennium has seen a real commitment to restoring Christian unity."
Pope John Paul II visited other heavily Orthodox areas such as Ukraine, despite lack of welcome at times, and he said that healing the divisions between Western and Eastern Christianity was one of his fondest wishes.
The Roman Catholic Church recently[citation needed] has shown some flexibility on the Filioque issue. In accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's practice of including the clause when reciting the Creed in Latin,[35] but not when reciting the Creed in Greek,[36] Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause.[37][38] The action of these Patriarchs in reciting the Creed together with the Popes has been strongly criticized by some elements of Eastern Orthodoxy, such as the Metropolitan of Kalavryta, Greece in November 2008[39]
Extant disputes
The Roman Catholic Church's current official teachings about papal privilege and power that are unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox churches are the dogma of the pope's infallibility when speaking officially "from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra Petri)" on matters of faith and morals to be held by the whole Church, so that such definitions are irreformable "of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church" (ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae)[40] and have a binding character for all (Catholic) Christians in the world; the pope's direct episcopal jurisdiction over all (Catholic) Christians in the world; the pope's authority to appoint (and so also to depose)[citation needed] the bishops of all (Catholic) Christian churches except in the territory of a patriarchate;[41] and the affirmation that the legitimacy and authority of all (Catholic) Christian bishops in the world derive from their union with the Roman see and its bishop, the Supreme Pontiff, the unique Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth.[citation needed]
Ecclesiological issues
Several of the issues mentioned below have been raised against the Western Church for centuries, as can be seen in The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins, by Tia M. Kolbaba (University of Illinois Press, 2000), which treats of the Latins' prohibition of clerical marriage, the addition to the creed, improper Lenten fasting, fasting on the Sabbath, azymes in the Eucharist, errors involving baptism, marriage within forbidden degrees, failure to revere icons, bishops wearing rings, insufficient reverence for the Virgin Mary, making the sign of the cross incorrectly, various liturgical differences and many similar errors.
Papal authority
Many of the issues that currently separate the two churches are ecclesiological. Principal among them is the meaning of papal primacy within any future unified church. The Orthodox insist that it should be a "primacy of honor", as in the ancient church and not a "primacy of authority",[42] whereas the Catholics see the pontiff's role as requiring for its exercise power and authority the exact form of which is open to discussion with other Christians.[43]
The declaration of Ravenna in 2007 re-asserted these beliefs, and re-stated the notion that the bishop of Rome is indeed the protos, although future discussions are to be held on the concrete ecclesiological exercise of papal primacy.
Celibacy of the Priestly Order
Celibacy of the clergy is also a dividing point. Although the Catholic Church does allow married men to be ordained in the Eastern Catholic Churches, it does so only rarely in the Western Church.[44] Celibacy is based on the notion that the priest is In persona Christi and that Jesus-Christ was himself celibate all his life.
The Catholic Church's practice of not allowing parish priests to be married men is not a tradition in Eastern Christianity and is a tradition established in the Roman Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodox priests cannot marry (after becoming priests), but married men may become Eastern Orthodox parish priests but they are not allowed to be parish priests unless they are indeed married.[citation needed] Unmarried and (widowed) clergy in Eastern Orthodoxy are most important to the ascetic community in the East. Also higher level clergy should be unmarried or widowed (for positions like Bishops and above for example).
Divorce
There is disagreement on divorce : the Catholic Church forbids it, whereas the Orthodox permits it in practice, though allowing remarriage only in penitential form. For a time period, Orthodox who divorce will be excommunicated.
The Catholic Church has the doctrine of Sponsa Christi : since the Church is the Bride of Christ, the man is held to be symbolically like Christ while the woman is similar to the Church. Therefore divorce is canonically prohibited, it is assimilated to a kind of schism. There are also bible verses that are cited to oppose divorce.
Ecclesiological economy
A major sticking point is the style of church government. The Orthodox Church has always maintained the original position of collegiality of the bishops resulting in the structure of the church being closer to a confederacy in structure.[45] The Orthodox have synods where the highest authorities in each Church community are brought together, but unlike Roman Catholicism no central individual or figure has the absolute and infallible last word on church doctrine. In practice, this has sometimes led to divisions among Greek, Russian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, as no central authority can serve as a rallying point for various internal disputes.
The Second Vatican Council has re-asserted the importance of collegiality to a degree that appears satisfying to most if not all ecclesial parties.[citation needed]
Rejection of Uniatism
At a meeting in Balamand, Lebanon in June 1993, the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church declared that these initiatives that "led to the union of certain communities with the See of Rome and brought with them, as a consequence, the breaking of communion with their Mother Churches of the East ... took place not without the interference of extra-ecclesial interests" (section 8 of the document); and that what has been called "uniatism" "can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking" (section 12).
At the same time, the Commission stated:
- 3) Concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in response to the spiritual needs of their faithful.
- 16) The Oriental Catholic Churches who have desired to re-establish full communion with the See of Rome and have remained faithful to it, have the rights and obligations which are connected with this communion.
Apostolic succession and sacraments
Some of the Orthodox Churches unofficially acknowledge Apostolic succession within the Catholic Church and admit the validity of its episcopal ordination.[citation needed] The relationship between the Antiochian Orthodox and the Maronite Catholic bishops is a case in point. Some Orthodox Churches do not require baptism in the case of a convert already baptized in the Catholic Church. Most Orthodox Churches allow marriages between members of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
The Catholic Church allows its clergy to administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, if these spontaneously ask for the sacraments and are properly disposed.[46] It also allows Catholics who cannot approach a Catholic minister to receive these three sacraments from clergy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided.[47] Catholic canon law allows marriage between a Catholic and an Orthodox only if permission is obtained from the Catholic bishop.[48]
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches authorizes the local Catholic bishop to permit a Catholic priest, of whatever rite, to bless the marriage of Orthodox faithful who being unable without great difficulty to approach a priest of their own Church, ask for this spontaneously.[49] In exceptional circumstances Catholics may, in the absence of an authorized priest, marry before witnesses. If a priest who is not authorized for the celebration of the marriage is available, he should be called in, although the marriage is valid even without his presence.[50] The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches specifies that, in those exceptional circumstances, even a "non-Catholic" priest (and so not necessarily one belonging to an Eastern Church) may be called in.[51]
Theological issues
Some Eastern Orthodox theologians point to a number of theological issues outstanding. These issues have a long history as can be seen in the 11th Century works of Orthodox theologian and saint Nikitas Stithatos.
Contemplation (Theoria)
Vladimir Lossky, a noted modern Eastern Orthodox theologian, argues the difference in East and West is due to the Roman Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and scholasticism) rather than actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Roman Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky argues that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have become "different men".[52] Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides[53] and Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos have made similar pronouncements.[54]
Hesychasm controversy
This great theological division of East and West, as is believed and taught by the Eastern Orthodox, can be seen to have culminated into a direct theological conflict known as the Hesychasm controversy. This controversy showing the sharp contrast between what is embraced by the Roman Catholic Church as proper (or orthodox) theological dogma and how theology is validated and what is considered valid theology by the Eastern Orthodox. The essence of the disagreement is that in the East one cannot be a genuine or true theologian or teach knowledge of God without having experienced God, as is defined as the vision of God (theoria). At the heart of the issue was the teaching of the Essence-Energies distinctions by Gregory Palamas.
Hesychasm was one of the ways in which the various ascetics of the East attained the vision of God. It is important to note also that the Roman Catholic Church has explicitly taught that Hesychasm was a new phenomenon that was specific to the 13th century and a heresy which goes against the Roman Catholic theologians validation of theology using the Pagan philosopher Aristotle's Metaphysical and scholastic arguments such as actus and potentia.[55][56]
Original Sin
Another point of theological contention is the Roman Catholic teaching on Original Sin. Orthodox theologians trace this position to having its roots in the works of Saint Augustine. Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism, which together make up Eastern Christianity, acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind, but never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[57] The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos. The Greek Fathers emphasized the metaphysical dimension of the Fall of Man, whereby Adam's descendants are born into a fallen world, but at the same time held fast to belief that, in spite of that, man remains free.[citation needed] Orthodox Churches accept the teaching of John Cassian, which rejects the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally.
Trinity
Eastern Orthodox charge that the Eastern and Western churches have different approaches to understanding the Trinity. The influence of St Augustine and, by extension, that of Thomas Aquinas in the western Mediterranean on this issue are not generally accepted in the Orthodox Church.[58] Michael Pomazansky argues that the Filioque clause is symptomatic of this difference.[59][60][61][62] The Eastern church believes by the Western church interjecting the filioque unilaterally (without consulting or holding council with the East) into the Creed that the Western church broke communion with the East.[63]
While the Eastern Orthodox Church has never formally declared the "Filioque" phrase to be heretical, some of its saints have qualified it as such, including Photios I of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, Gregory Palamas, who have been called the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy. Eastern theologians view the heart of the conflict to be the presence of modalism, in specific the Sabellian heresy of modalism, in the use of the word person by the Latin West in its translation of the Greek word hypostasis. The Eastern Orthodox theologian, Vladimir Lossky charges that the Western understanding of God is 'God in uncreated essence', which he alleges is a modalistic and therefore speculative expression of God.[64] Eastern theologians state for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son in the Creed, there would have to be two sources in the deity (double procession), whereas in the one God there can only be one source of divinity, which is the Father hypostasis of the Trinity, not God's essence per se.[65]
The acceptance of the Latin West translating the word hypostasis (which is sometimes translated as existence or reality) into the Latin word person by the Greek fathers was called into question (by St Basil as one) and made into open conflict when the Latin church, later added to the translation difference, the addition to the Nicene Creed of the filioque, which appears to the Greek fathers as direct modalism. .[66]
The doctrine expressed by the Filioque is accepted by the Catholic Church,[67] by Anglicanism[68] and by Protestant churches in general.[69] Christians of these groups generally include it when reciting the Nicene Creed. Nonetheless, these groups recognize that Filioque is not part of the original text established at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 and they do not demand that others too should use it when saying the Creed. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church does not add the phrase corresponding to Filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) to the Greek text of the Creed, even in the liturgy for Latin Rite Catholics.[70] Pope John Paul II has recited the Nicene Creed several times with patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Greek according to the original text.[71]
The Roman Catholic Church's practice has been to include the Filioque clause when reciting the Creed in Latin,[72] but to omit it when reciting the Creed in Greek,[73] Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause.[74][75]
The action of these patriarchs in reciting the Creed together with the Pope has been strongly criticized by some elements of Eastern Orthodoxy, such as the Metropolitan of Kalavryta, Greece.[76][77][78]
The concept of Hell
Some Eastern Orthodox theologians see another example of distinction between East and West in the teaching of Hell as a created place[79][80][81][82]. For the Eastern Orthodox, Heaven is not a place in the sky, it is being with God.[83] Salvation in the East, is not salvation from the wrath of God,[84]as St Isaac teaches that the love of God is the Tree of Life.[85] According to Eastern Christianity people are not sent down to Hell by an angry God.[86] Hell as professed in the East is not the absence of God nor the separation of one from God but rather the opposite both are being with God in the presents of God. [87][88] [89] Finally the theological concept of hell or eternal damnation also via theoria is expressed different in the West,[citation needed] then in the East.[90]
The East teaches that hell or eternal damnation and heaven are the same place, which is being with God, God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of God and Heaven. [91]God is a fire [92], God is the River of Fire God is the Lake of Fire for those who hate existence and creation. For one who hates God (as existence, as Life for example called Misotheism) such a place as in the presence of God, will be eternal suffering.[93][94]
The Eastern Church teaches that Heaven and Hell are the same place, and that Hell is not separation from God symbolically or physically,[95][96]
Hell as taught in the East is a place chosen.[97]The Western understanding of hell (called inferno or infernus) can be understood from the works of Augustine as being a place possibly located under the earth.[98] Saint Gregory of Nyssa argued that Hades (the place "which serves as a receptacle for souls after death" not the place of Hell per se) is a subterranean locale.[99]
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that neither Heaven nor Hell is, in the proper sense, a place, created or uncreated, and that each is a question of one's personal relationship with the Trinity.[100]<--Non sequitur--> Nor does it teach that being with God in any form is Hell, as being in the presents of God. The Eastern Church also holds that each is a condition of relationship with God that is either theosis or perdition, both of which are often spoken of as the effect of being in the presence of God.
Pope John Paul II declared that, while Scripture uses the image of place in relation to eternal damnation, what is really involved is a state of self-exclusion from God.[101]
The West too teaches that God does not cut off anyone off from himself, and that the non-physical separation from God of those in hell is only a self-exclusion on their own part.[102] [103]
As the Church both Eastern and Western teaches, there is no place where God is not, and God's love is for all human beings, including sinners. Hell is described as self-exclusion from communion with that universal love,[104] as cutting oneself off from love,[105] or but as an enemy of God.[106] Only of a human heart that excludes God can it be said that, in a sense, God is not there, and so Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote that Hell is "the place where God is not" (emphasis in the original).[107] In his review of the Bishop's book Hieromonk Patapios criticized this expression as unorthodox.[108]
Roman Catholic attitude towards Eastern Orthodox
In the Roman Catholic Church too, some writers can be found who speak pejoratively of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its theology, but these writers are marginal.[109] The general view is that expressed in the Decree Unitatis redintegratio of the Second Vatican Council:
In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. Where the authentic theological traditions of the Eastern Church are concerned, we must recognize the admirable way in which they have their roots in Holy Scripture, and how they are nurtured and given expression in the life of the liturgy. They derive their strength too from the living tradition of the apostles and from the works of the Fathers and spiritual writers of the Eastern Churches. Thus they promote the right ordering of Christian life and, indeed, pave the way to a full vision of Christian truth.[110]
The Roman Catholic Church's attitude was expressed by Pope John Paul II in the image of the Church "breathing with her two lungs".[111][112] He meant that there should be a combination of the more rational, juridical, organisation-minded "Latin" temperament with the intuitive, mystical and contemplative spirit found in the east.[113]
Notes
- ^ a b c d e f g Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005, s.v. "Great Schism"
- ^ John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2002, p144
- ^ Acts 11:19-26, Acts 12:24-25, Acts 13:1-3, Acts 14:24-28, Acts 15:1-2, Acts 15:22-40, Acts 18:22-23, Acts 19:21-22, Gal 2:11-14
- ^ John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2002, p144
- ^ a b c d e Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972
- ^ Acts 28:17–31
- ^ Great Vespers of 29 June
- ^ Menaion, 29 June
- ^ The Illuminator, The Newspaper of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh, Oct.-Dec. 2004, p.7
- ^ "Linus was bishop of Rome after the holy apostle Peter"
- ^ Pope Benedict XVI is "the 265th successor of the St Peter" (Order of Saint Andrew the Apostle, 2007 Annual Report to His All Holiness Bartholomew
- ^ Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time
- ^ John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2002, pp 162-164
- ^ John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2002, p68
- ^ The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, vol. II, p. 254
- ^ "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges" (First Ecumenical Council, Canon VI).
- ^ "Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour" (First Ecumenical Council, Canon VII
- ^ "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome" (Second Ecumenical Council, Canon III)
- ^ "Let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs" (Second Ecumenical Council, Canon II)
- ^ Fourth Ecumenical Council, Decree on the Jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Antioch
- ^ Bishop Kallistos (Ware) (1963), The Orthodox Church (Penguin Books, London, ISBN 0-14-020592-6), p. 34
- ^ Aristeides Papadakis The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, SVS Press, NY, 1994 esp p14
- ^ http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/
- ^ Aristeides Papadakis The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, SVS Press, NY, 1994 p14)
- ^ (Extracts from the Acts of the Council of Ephesus). The creed quoted in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (the Third Ecumenical Council) is that of the first Ecumenical Council]], not the creed as modified by the second Ecumenical Council, and so does not have additions such as "who proceeds from the Father" (ibidem).
- ^ Emmanuel Clapsis. "Papal primacy". Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
The regional primacy can be conceived not as power or jurisdiction but only as an expression of the unity and unanimity of all the bishops, and consequently of all the churches, of an area. We must understand the universal primacy of the Roman Church similarly. Based on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the church of Rome's claims of universal primacy. [...] Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction.
{{cite web}}
: line feed character in|quote=
at position 191 (help) - ^ Church and State in the Byzantine Empire
- ^ Church and State in Western Europe
- ^ "During the decade following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, his followers captured three of the five 'patriarchates' of the early church — Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — leaving only Rome and Constantinople, located at opposite ends of the Mediterranean and, eventually, also at opposite ends of the Schism of 1054" (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
- ^ Norwich, John Julius. The Normans in the South 1016-1130. (1967) pg 102.
- ^ Norwich, John Julius Byzantium, The Apogee. New York: Alfred A. Knoff (1992) p.320
- ^ Bishop Kallistos (Ware), p. 67
- ^ Wetterau, Bruce. World history. New York: Henry Holt and company. 1994.
- ^ "JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I".
- ^ Missale Romanum 2002 (Roman Missal in Latin), p. 513
- ^ Ρωμαϊκό Λειτουργικό 2006 (Roman Missal in Greek), vol. 1, p. 347
- ^ programme of the celebration
- ^ Video recording of joint recitation
- ^ The Metropolitan's own blog, reported also by this Religious News Agency and the Russian Orthodox
- ^ Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, chapter 4
- ^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 181
- ^ as can be seen in the words of Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia of the Twelfth Century: “My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy among the five sister patriachates and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at the Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office… How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman pontiff seated on the lofty throne of his glory wished to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves not the sons, of such a church and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.”The Orthodox Church London by Ware, Kallistos St. Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN-13: 978-0913836583
- ^ In 1995 Pope John Paul II wrote: "With the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches." He invited "Church leaders and their theologians to examine with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea 'that they may all be one ... so that the world may believe that you have sent me' (Encyclical Ut unum sint section 96). The Ravenna document of 13 October 2007 is one response to this invitation.
- ^ The Times, A married father of four ordained as a Catholic priest
- ^ Quoting Aleksey Khomyakov pg 87 The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not super-rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of transferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house. History of Russian Philosophy by Nikolai Lossky ISBN-13: 978-0823680740 p. 87
- ^ Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 125; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844 §3 and Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 671 §3
- ^ Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 123; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844 §2 and Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 671 §2
- ^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 813 and Code of Canon Law, canon 1124
- ^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 833
- ^ Code of Canon Law, canon 1116 and Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 832
- ^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 832
- ^ In the Introduction pg 21 "We have become different men" The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)
- ^ FRANKS, ROMANS, FEUDALISM, AND DOCTRINE/EMPIRICAL THEOLOGY VERSUS SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY Father John S. Romanides [1] A basic characteristic of the Frankish scholastic method, misled by Augustinian Platonism and Thomistic Aristotelianism, had been its naive confidence in the objective existence of things rationally speculated about. By following Augustine, the Franks substituted the patristic concern for spiritual observation, (which they had found firmly established in Gaul when they first conquered the area) with a fascination for metaphysics. They did not suspect that such speculations had foundations neither in created nor in spiritual reality. No one would today accept as true what is not empirically observable, or at least verifiable by inference, from an attested effect. So it is with patristic theology. Dialectical speculation about God and the Incarnation as such are rejected. Only those things which can be tested by the experience of the grace of God in the heart are to be accepted. "Be not carried about by divers and strange teachings. For it is good that the heart be confirmed by grace," a passage from Hebrews 13.9, quoted by the Fathers to this effect.
- ^ As I have indicated, Barlaam insisted that knowledge of God depends not on vision of God but on one's understanding. He said that we can acquire knowledge of God through philosophy, and therefore he considered the prophets and apostles who saw the uncreated light, to be below the philosophers. He called the uncreated light sensory, created, and "inferior to our understanding". However, St. Gregory Palamas, a bearer of the Tradition and a man of revelation, supported the opposite view. In his theology he presented the teaching of the Church that uncreated light, that is, the vision of God, is not simply a symbolic vision, nor sensory and created, nor inferior to understanding, but it is deification. Through deification man is deemed worthy of seeing God. And this deification is not an abstract state, but a union of man with God. That is to say, the man who beholds the uncreated light sees it because he is united with God. He sees it with his inner eyes, and also with his bodily eyes, which, however, have been altered by God's action. Consequently theoria is union with God. And this union is knowledge of God. At this time one is granted knowledge of God, which is above human knowledge and above the senses.[2]
- ^ There was a very faint echo of Hesychasm in the West. Latin theology on the whole was too deeply impregnated with the Aristotelean Scholastic system to tolerate a theory that opposed its very foundation. That all created beings are composed of actus and potentia, that God alone is actus purus, simple as He is infinite -- this is the root of all Scholastic natural theology. Nevertheless one or two Latins seem to have had ideas similar to Hesychasm. Gilbertus Porretanus (de la Porrée, d. 1154) is quoted as having said that the Divine essence is not God -- implying some kind of real distinction; John of Varennes, a hermit in the Diocese of Reims (c. 1396), said that the Apostles at the Transfiguration had seen the Divine essence as clearly as it is seen in heaven. About the same time John of Brescain made a proposition: Creatam lucem infinitam et immensam esse. But these isolated opinions formed no school. We know of them chiefly through the indignant condemnations they at once provoked. St. Bernard wrote to refute Gilbert de la Porrée; the University of Paris and the legate Odo condemned John of Brescain's proposition. Hesychasm has never had a party among Catholics. In the Orthodox Church the controversy, waged furiously just at the time when the enemies of the empire were finally overturning it and unity among its last defenders was the most crying need, is a significant witness of the decay of a lost cause. New Advent - Hesychasm
- ^ The Carolingian Franks began their doctrinal career knowing fully only Augustine. But Augustine was a Neo-Platonist before his baptism and remained so the rest of his life. Because of this Franco-Latin Christianity remained Neo-Platonic until Occam and Luther lead sizable portions of Western Europe away from Neo-Platonic metaphysics and mysticism and their monastic supports. What Luther and Occam had done was to liberate whole sections of Franco-Latin Christianity from the metaphysical part of Augustinian paganism. However, Augustine's pagan understanding of original sin, predestination and revelation were still adhered to. [http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.02.en.the_cure_of_the_neurobiological_sickness_of_rel.02.htm THE CURE OF THE NEUROBIOLOGICAL SICKNESS OF RELIGION THE HELLENIC CIVILIZATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, CHARLEMAGNE'S LIE OF 794, AND HIS LIE TODAY John S. Romanides]
- ^ stmaryorthodoxchurch.org
- ^ A basic characteristic of the Frankish scholastic method, mislead by Augustinian Platonism and Thomistic Aristotelianism, had been its naive confidence in the objective existence of things rationally speculated about. By following Augustine, the Franks substituted the patristic concern for spiritual observation, (which they had found firmly established in Gaul when they first conquered the area) with a fascination for metaphysics. They did not suspect that such speculations had foundations neither in created nor in spiritual reality. Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine — [ Part 2 ] Empirical Theology versus Speculative Theology -Empirical Theology- John S. Romanides [3]
- ^ The ancient Orthodox teaching of the personal attributes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was distorted in the Latin Church by the creation of a teaching of the procession, outside of time and from all eternity, of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son — the Filioque. The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son originated in certain expressions of Blessed Augustine. It became established in the West as obligatory in the ninth century, and when Latin missionaries came to the Bulgarians in the middle of the ninth century, the Filioque was in their Symbol of Faith. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Michael Pomazansky [4]
- ^ Augustine unknowingly rejects the doctrine of the ecumenical councils concerning the Old Testament Lord of glory incarnate and his Vatican and Protestant followers do the same - Part I: Augustine's Teachings Which Were Condemned As Those of Barlaam the Calabrian by the Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1351.John S. Romanides [5]
- ^ The pretext of the Filioque controversy was the Frankish acceptance of Augustine as the key to understanding the theology of the First and Second Ecumenical Synods.John S. Romanides Filioque [6]
- ^ During the ensuing centuries long course of the controversy, the Franks not only forced the Patristic tradition into an Augustinian mold, but they confused Augustine's Trinitarian terminology with that of the Father's of the First and Second Ecumenical Synods. This is nowhere so evident as in the Latin handling of Maximos the Confessor's description, composed in 650, of the West Roman Orthodox Filioque at the Council of Florence (1438-42). The East Romans hesitated to present Maximos' letter to Marinos about this West Roman Orthodox Filioque because the letter did not survive in its complete form. John S. Romanides Filioque [7]
- ^ Quoting Aleksey Khomyakov on the filioque and economy of the Eastern Churches and Roman Catholicism pg 87 The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority.History of Russian Philosophy by Nikolai Lossky ISBN-13: 978-0823680740
- ^ pgs 50-59 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)
- ^ Oneness of Essence, and it is absolutely essential to distinguish this from another dogma, the dogma of the begetting and the procession, in which, as the Holy Fathers express it, is shown the Cause of the existence of the Son and the Spirit. All of the Eastern Fathers acknowledge that the Father is monos aitios, the sole Cause” of the Son and the Spirit. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology Michael Pomazansky [8]
- ^ pgs 50-59 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)
- ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246-248
- ^ Article 5 of the Thirty-Nine Articles
- ^ Lutheranism (Book of Concord, The Nicene Creed and the Filioque: A Lutheran Approach), Presbyterianism (Union Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, Reformed Presbyterian Church); Methodism (United Methodist Hymnal)
- ^ Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit (scanned image of the English translation on L'Osservatore Romano of 20 September 1995); also text with Greek letters transliterated and text omitting two sentences at the start of the paragraph that it presents as beginning with "The Western tradition expresses first …"
- ^ Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, 25 October 2003
- ^ Missale Romanum 2002 (Roman Missal in Latin), p. 513
- ^ Ρωμαϊκό Λειτουργικό 2006 (Roman Missal in Greek), vol. 1, p. 347
- ^ programme of the celebration
- ^ Video recording of joint recitation
- ^ The Metropolitan's own blog
- ^ [9]
- ^ [10]
- ^ This is an analogy to how the presence of God is light and warmth to those who love him, and pain and destruction to those who oppose him, yet it is the same "fire." It's also useful to consider the ancient Greco-Roman pagan understanding of the heavens and Hades. Though it was not fundamental to Hebrew theology, the Greek view was still sometimes referenced or borrowed, because these ideas were familiar and prevalent in the culture. This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible. [11]
- ^ "Paradise and Hell are an energy of the uncreated grace of God, as men experience it, and therefore they are uncreated. According to the holy Fathers of the Church, there is not an uncreated Paradise and a created Hell, as the Franco-Latin tradition teaches". [12]
- ^ Besides this, the biblical concept of heaven and hell also becomes distorted, since the eternal fires of hell and the outer darkness become creatures also whereas, they are the uncreated glory of God as seen by those who refuse to love. Thus, one ends up with the three-story universe problem, with God in a place, etc., necessitating a demythologizing of the Bible in order to salvage whatever one can of a quaint Christian tradition for modern man. However, it is not the Bible itself which need demythologizing, but the Augustinian Franco-Latin tradition and the caricature which it passed off in the West as Greek Patristic theology. [13]
- ^ "The Orthodox Church understands hell as a place of eternal torment for those who willfully reject the grace of God" (The Orthodox Church: Teaching)
- ^ This is an analogy to how the presence of God is light and warmth to those who love him, and pain and destruction to those who oppose him, yet it is the same "fire." It's also useful to consider the ancient Greco-Roman pagan understanding of the heavens and Hades. Though it was not fundamental to Hebrew theology, the Greek view was still sometimes referenced or borrowed, because these ideas were familiar and prevalent in the culture. The ancient pagan Greek view, later adopted by the Romans, was that heaven was a physical place up in the sky. The word for heaven is used interchangeably with the location of the objects of the sky, as in "heavenly bodies", and for the dwelling place of the gods. That is why the Greek word for heaven and sky is the same; there was no distinction made between them in the earliest writings, but eventually they were also understood to be more as a metaphor for the spiritual heaven. [14]
- ^ As Saint Isaac the Syrian says: "He who applies pedagogical punishments in order to give health, is punishing with love, but he who is looking for vengeance, is devoid of love. God punishes with love, not defending Himself — far be it — but He wants to heal His image, and He does not keep His wrath for long. This way of love is the way of uprightness, and it does not change with passion to a defense. A man who is just and wise is like God because he never chastises a man in revenge for wickedness, but only in order to correct him or that others be afraid" (Homily 73). So we see that God punishes as long as there is hope for correction. After the Common Resurrection there is no question of any punishment from God. Hell is not a punishment from God but a self condemnation. As Saint Basil the Great says, "The evils in hell do not have God as their cause, but ourselves."
- ^ Saint Isaac the Syrian says that "Paradise is the love of God, in which the bliss of all the beatitudes is contained," and that "the tree of life is the love of God" (Homily 72).
- ^ The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God. [15]
- ^ Augustinian Christians, both Vaticanians and Protestants, are literally unbalanced humans, and had been indeed very dangerous up to the French Revolution and are potentially still quite dangerous. They were never capable of understanding that God loves equally both those who are going to hell and those who are going to heaven. God loves even the Devil as much as He loves the saint. "God is the savior of all humans, indeed of the faithful" (1 Tim. 4:10). In other words, Hell is a form of salvation although the lowest form of it. God loves the Devil and his collaborators but destroys their work by allowing them to remain inoperative in their final "actus purus happiness" like the God of Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, De Deo Uno, q. 26./ [16]
- ^ So Hell is the torment of the love of God. Besides, as St. Isaac says, the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against the love of God, "is more poignant than any fear of punishment"8. It really is a punishment when we deny and oppose anyone's love. It is terrible when we are loved and we behave inappropriately. If we compare this to the love of God, we can understand the torment of Hell. And it is connected with what St. Isaac says again, that it would be improper for a man to think "that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God"9. So even those being punished will receive the love of God. God will love all men, both righteous and sinners, but they will not all feel this love at the same depth and in the same way. In any case it is absurd for us to maintain that Hell is the absence of God.[17]
- ^ This interpretation concerning Paradise and Hell is not only that of St. Isaac the Syrian and St. Basil the Great, but is a general teaching of the Fathers of the Church, who interpret apophatically what is said about the eternal fire and eternal life. When we speak of apophaticism we do not mean that the Fathers distort the teaching of the Church, speaking abstractly and reflectively, but that as they interpret these themes they try to free them from the categories of human thought and from images of sensory things13. On this point too one can see how the Orthodox-Greek Fathers differ from the Franco-Latins who considered these realities as created [18]
- ^ Thus Hell is the torment of the love of God. Besides, as St. Isaac says, the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against the love of God, "is more poignant than any fear of punishment". It really is a punishment when we deny and oppose anyone's love. It is terrible when we are loved and we behave inappropriately. If we compare this to the love of God, we can understand the torment of Hell. And it is connected with what St. Isaac says again, that it would be improper for a man to think "that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God"9. So even those being punished will receive the love of God. God will love all men, both righteous and sinners, but they will not all feel this love at the same depth and in the same way. In any case it is absurd for us to maintain that Hell is the absence of God. [19]
- ^ "Paradise and Hell exist not in the form of a threat and a punishment on the part of God but in the form of an illness and a cure. Those who are cured and those who are purified experience the illuminating energy of divine grace, while the uncured and ill experience the caustic energy of God."[20]
- ^ Hebrews 12:28-29
- ^ "Those who have selfless love and are friends of God see God in light - divine light, while the selfish and impure see God the judge as fire - darkness". [21]
- ^ Man has a malfunctioning or non-functioning noetic faculty in the heart, and it is the task especially of the clergy to apply the cure of unceasing memory of God, otherwise called unceasing prayer or illumination. "Those who have selfless love and are friends of God see God in light - divine light, while the selfish and impure see God the judge as fire - darkness". [22]
- ^ Thus Hell is the torment of the love of God. Besides, as St. Isaac says, the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against the love of God, "is more poignant than any fear of punishment"8. It really is a punishment when we deny and oppose anyone's love. It is terrible when we are loved and we behave inappropriately. If we compare this to the love of God, we can understand the torment of Hell. And it is connected with what St. Isaac says again, that it would be improper for a man to think "that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God"9. So even those being punished will receive the love of God. God will love all men, both righteous and sinners, but they will not all feel this love at the same depth and in the same way. In any case it is absurd for us to maintain that Hell is the absence of God. LIFE AFTER DEATH by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos [23]
- ^ God himself is both heaven and hell, reward and punishment. All men have been created to see God unceasingly in His uncreated glory. Whether God will be for each man heaven or hell, reward or punishment, depends on man's response to God's love and on man's transformation from the state of selfish and self-centered love, to Godlike love which does not seek its own ends. [24]
- ^ Hell is not so much a place where God imprisons man, as a place where man, by misusing his free will, chooses to imprison himself. And even in Hell the wicked are not deprived of the love of God, but by their own choice they experience as suffering what the saints experience as joy. ‘The love of God will be an intolerable torment for those who have not acquired it within themselves’ (V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 234).
- ^ St. Augustine expressed the view that "the nature of hell-fire and the location of hell are known to no man unless the Holy Ghost made it known to him by a special revelation", though elsewhere he says: "It is my opinion that the nature of hell-fire and the location of hell are known to no man unless the Holy Ghost made it known to him by a special revelation", (City of God XX.16). Elsewhere he expresses the opinion that hell is under the earth (Retract., II, xxiv, n. 2 in P.L., XXXII, 640).[25]
- ^ "St. Gregory then cites Philippians 2:10, 'that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth'; in support of the notion that Hades is a geographical location, namely that the 'things under the earth' would be the beings in Hades" (Saint Gregory of Nyssa On the Soul and the Resurrection).
- ^ Heaven "is neither an abstraction not a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit" (Pope John Paul II on 21 July 1999); "Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy" (Pope John Paul II, 28 July 1999
- ^ "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: 'To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell"' (n. 1033)" (Pope John Paul II).
- ^ "Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy" (Pope John Paul II, 28 July 1999
- ^ "Vatican officials said that the Pope — who is also the Bishop of Rome — had been speaking in 'straightforward' language 'like a parish priest'. He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that Hell is a 'state of eternal separation from God', to be understood 'symbolically rather than physically'" (The Times).
- ^ "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033).
- ^ "A detailed study of the Fathers as they handle Scripture on these issues describes the same scenario. Heaven is being with and in God, theosis, divinisation. Hell is separation from God, a self inflicted suffering of cutting oneself off from the Source of life and love itself" (Fr. Gregory's Orthodox Catechism: Heaven and Hell - Pascha Cycle - Love and Judgement)
- ^ Paradise and Hell according to Orthodox Tradition
- ^ The Orthodox Church, revised edition (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1993), p. 106
- ^ "Without a single citation from the Fathers, His Grace baldly asserts that Hell is 'the place where God is not' (ibid. [emphasis in the text]). He then notes, parenthetically, that 'God is everywhere!' If God is everywhere, as the doctrine of Divine omnipresence entails, then how can there be any place from which He is absent? And yet, Bishop Kallistos reasons, if Christ descended into Hell, He must have descended into the depths of the absence of God. There are problems, here, not only with regard to an Orthodox understanding of Heaven and Hell, but also in terms of His Grace's misuse of terminology; that is, as we shall see, his failure to distinguish between Hell as a place of torment for unrepentant sinners and Hades as the place where death prevailed over man before the Resurrection. These words are used interchangeably, we admit, and the distinction to which we have referred is a subtle one; however, it is one essential to any response to the innovative and theologically troublesome idea that Christ, descending into Hades, supposedly went to a place from which God was absent" (Hieromonk Patapios's review of the book in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVI, Nos. 3&4, pp. 30-51).
- ^ An example is Curiosities from the "Orthodox" Arena, by Atila Sinke Guimarães
- ^ Unitatis Redintegratio 17
- ^ Encyciclical Ut unum sint, 54
- ^ Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones
- ^ Obituary of Pope John Paul II
See also
- Western Christianity
- Eastern Christianity
- Western Rite Orthodoxy
- Sobornost (journal)
- Library of Constantinople destroyed by Western Crusaders during the sack of Constaninople.
References
- Joseph P. Farrell. God, History, & Dialectic: The Theological Foundations of the Two Europes and Their Cultural Consequences. Bound edition 1997. Electronic edition 2008.
- Aidan Nichols. Rome and the Eastern Churches: a Study in Schism. 1992
External links
- Byzantium: The Great Schism, by Bp. Kallistos Ware
- Catholic Encyclopedia: The Eastern Schism
- Encyclopaedia Britannica: Schism of 1054
- Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I, 7 December 1965
- BBC Radio 4 round table: In Our Time: Schism (16 October 2003) (audio)
- Orthodox Church in the Philippines: East-West Schism
- The Great Schism from Orthodox SCOBA