www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What Will It Take to Reunite the Churches?

One could plausibly say that was the tradition of the undivided church. Regardless, it certainly wouldn't hold up for either side. Emperors convoked councils and called them ecumenical only to later have the result rejected by the church. The church has also continued to define dogma in councils that were not convoked by the emperor.

The original meaning of "ecumenical" was "imperial." The Ecumenical Barber was the emperor's barber. The Ecumenical Physician was the equivalent of our Surgeon General. An Ecumenical Council was called on imperial authority from all places of the empire (as opposed to a local or provincial council).

And the Ecumenical Patriarch was the Patriarch of the Imperial City, New Rome.

That was all it meant.

The problem is/was there is no history of an undivided Christendom. The Assyrian Church of the East was out the door by council #2, the Oriental O's by #4... And before the Assyrians left, there were other groups (now defunct) that had seperated themselves.

The first millenia marks a period of time where the Eastern and Western Romans were able to work things out and accept Ecumenical Councils together... But even the period itself isn't a time of unity.

East and west broke ranks on at least six occasions before 1054:

The Arian schisms (343-98);
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415);
The Acacian schism (484-519);
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681);
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43).

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the side of the debate finally considered "orthodox" by both sides.

Interesting idea, but not the case.

Maybe you could show me how it was not the case?

True, and that is a very important point.

And to expand on that point, there were political and cultural dimensions to those schisms too. What would later be called catholic-orthodoxy was the state religion of the Roman Empire. If you were living in the Parthian/Persian Empire, it raised eyebrows to be a member of the religion of the arch-enemy, Rome . . . because in that age religion and the state were one. Hence, to be a heretic of Rome meant being a loyal citizen of Persia. Etc.

Personally, I suspect that politics and culture were large parts of the Christological debates of the first millennium. I don't ignore the genuine differences in religious beliefs. But, I suspect that there was a lot more to those schisms than just theology.

For example, Arianism was a sign of the pagan mindset of the classical world that was not quite fully able to accept that GOD the almighty had fully incarnated. However, it was also later adopted by the barbarians as, I would argue, an expression of political independence from imperial Roman authorities.

For another example, I suspect that Monophysitism was (in addition to genuine religious belief) an expression of Egyptian nationalism . . . in an era when nationalism, per se had not yet developed.

Etc.

Then came Islam, and a lot of those questions became moot (except for iconoclasm) because the political and cultural milieu had so radically changed. The Eastern Roman Empire --a multi-national empire-- was no more after the coming of Islam. What was left were the Greeks, and they were decisively separated from the Syrians and the Egyptians by the Muslims. The Greeks were also separated (in effect) from the Romans by the barbarian invasions.

Put another way, a lot of the Christological debates of the first millennium can be seen as attempts by the Romans and Greeks of the late Roman Empire to dominate the other ethnicities within their empire by religion and those other ethnicities trying to assert their independence by different religious views. Yet, with the barbarian invasions cutting off the West, and with the Muslim invasions cutting off the East, all that was left independent was the Greek Church in the East and the Roman Church in the West. About eight hundred years later, the Greeks would have their own turn to say "Better the Muslim turban than the Roman miter," but the Monophysites were saying that (in effect) in the first millennium.

In short, I suspect that what became known as the catholic-orthodox faith of a supposedly undivided Christendom was simply the official state religion of the later Roman Empire. And when, over time, Eastern Rome became Byzantium and Old Rome became the Papacy, there was the split between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East.

I don't want to overemphasize the political and cultural dimensions to theological controversies . . . but I don't want to underestimate them either. Consider, as a contemporary example, here is the U.S. There are the conservatives and there are the liberals, and they have grown ever more polarized over the years, including in their forms of religion. And never the twain shall meet because "I can't be like them . . . " not just in religion but overall.

Etc.

So, I am not holding my breath about religious reunification. Much of it has nothing to do with religion, but, instead, with culture and politics. Yes, denominations go into and out of communion with each other over time; and that is still happening today. Who knows? Maybe the Patriarch of "Constantinople" and the Pope of Rome will go back into communion with each other. And maybe not. But anymore, the more I think on this, the more I doubt it -- because the political and cultural situations (and agendas) are just so different.

I suspect that the real reunion of the churches is only in Heaven and in the compassion of human hearts.

-- John

The condemnation of the sixth ecumenical council.

The condemnation of the sixth council is an interesting case. Honorius I was never guilty of espousing an error but of not outright condemning error. The council condemned him for not acting as a Pope should, not for advocating positively an error. While the wording of the council portrays him as a heretic, the letter upon which it is based contains no positive heresy but waffling.

See the Catholic Encyclopedia at NewAdvent.com for clarification.

Fr., personally this would not be a source I would consider unbiased or even historically accurate for a few reasons. I also believe the condemnation speaks for itself.

Regardless, I don't think it will serve much to engage in an argument along these lines, and it's not my intent (and the period after 700 is no less critical than the period before). The real issue for me regarding this issue is that there are no "It was always the case that..." statements that really hold up. There are always exceptions, and that is one of the reasons I believe what I stated about the reception of doctrine in to the church is not only the reality the church lives with, but is in fact the only realistic way forward for both churches. Both churches are going to have to look and see what are the truths that have entered the consciousness of the church and can be affirmed by both. This may involve drastically revising or reversing, depending on one's viewpoint. To think otherwise really means impasse.

This is a very interesting statement and one that is confirmed by a study of history -- although the Monophysites would not have talked about the "roman miter" but the "Orthodox crown." One additional point should be made: the early Muslim world was MUCH MORE tolerant towards the Monophysites than the Byzantine world. Monophysites lived in peace and without fear as residents in Muslim territories whereas they lived in constant dread and fear as citizens of the Byzantine world.

Try reading the article, then we'll talk.

I've read it.

This is quite an interesting statement--rather frightening to think about. It's certainly an example of the lessons that can be learned from history!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Brother John,

I appreciate your analysis, and agree that culture and politics have been a much more important factor in Church history than most of us realize or are willing to admit.

However, I don't see this as reason for discouragment; rather, I believe that by identifying the true factors underlying some of these historical controversies, we can come closer to that unity that comes from truth.

In other words, simply re-stating the same arguments that both sides have heard numerous times before will do little to break down any barriers, but new information (that is, not previously considered) casts a fresh light on these issues and allows both sides to examine them from a new perspective.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

In addition to Pope Honorius whom you have mentioned, you all are forgetting that the infamous Pope Vigilius was condemned (perhaps leaned on is a better choice of words) at the 2nd Council of Constantinople, a council convened by the Emperor Justinian.

James Allan Evans, in his essay on Justinian in De Imperatoribus Romanis, notes, "All this happened on the eve of Belisarius' invasion of Italy and Justinian may have had strategic reasons for wanting to keep the pope on his side. But when Agapetus died shortly after consecrating a successor to Anthimus, Theodora, apparently with Justinian's support, plotted to have elected as the next pope Vigilius, a deacon who had come to Constantinople with Agapetus and promised flexibility. But before Vigilius could return to Rome, a new pope, Silverius, the son of Pope Hormisdas, had been chosen with Theodahad's backing. However, during the one year and nine day siege of Rome by the Goths, Silverius was deposed by Belisarius and Antonina at Theodora's behest and replaced by Vigilius. Thus it was Vigilius who represented Rome and Catholicism during the 'Three Chapters' dispute.

This dispute arose from an edict issued by Justinian in 544 condemning the teachings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ibas of Edessa and Theodore of Mopsuestia. The last of these was one of the theologians whose teachings fathered Nestorianism and Theodoret and Ibas had been friends and supporters of Nestorius. By condemning these three theologians of the previous century, Justinian hoped to make it clear that the orthodox position differed sharply from Nestorianism and to give the lie to those Monophysites who argued that the theology of the Nestorians and that of the Chalcedonians on the nature of the Trinity was essentially the same. However the Council of Chalcedon had brought Theodoret and Ibas back into communion with the Church and Theodore, who had died before the council took place, was held in respect by the Chalcedonians. It was Justinian's theological adviser of the moment, Theodore Askidas, who suggested that a condemnation of the Three 'Chapters' would make for harmony between the Catholics and the Monophysites. Additionally, he was probably motivated in part by animosity towards the papal nuncio in Constantinople, Pelagius, later to become pope himself. In fact, the condemnation was irrelevant as far as the Monophysites were concerned and it aroused hostility in the west, particularly in Africa. Sentiment among Catholics in the west was such that Vigilius had little choice but to refuse to accept the condemnation.

Justinian had his way in the end, but Vigilius did not give up the fight until February 554 when at last he anathematized the 'Three Chapters'. "(http://www.roman-emperors.org/justinia.htm)