www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Schism of East and West

what were the Roman Catholic saints thoughts on the schism between the east and the west after 1054? Are there resources available? Did the west stopped commemorating the eastern patriarchs after this date?

In fact, what happened in 1054 was seen as a tiff between two churchmen which had no real impact on the unity of the Church at the time at all.

There was an Eastern patriarch (and memory serves me very poorly nowadays) who once upbraided another patriarchal colleague about his hard thrusts at the Latins worshipping with the Orthodox in Jerusalem at the holy shrines and said, "Remember that these Latins are our brothers." This happened well after 1054.

It was really after the Sack of Constantinople that one could say there was a definitive schism between East and West.

Alex

thanks

I would put it even later: there was no definitive schism until the Council of Florence in the 15th century.

Not even then. The overwhelming evidence suggests that the schism never entirely hardened into an airtight barrier to communion, and only achieved its present rigor some time in the 18th century. See, e.g. David Bentley Hart's Myth of Schism [fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com] , which also cites the work of Father Chrysostom Frank.

That is a superb entry by Hart you have linked us to, Stuart. Thanks for that. It is very germane to something I have been trying articulate for days now.

Wow. That article was a bit of a difficult read, but I'm so glad I did read it. It's very timely for me as well. I'm wishing right now that I could have read it a long time ago because it puts so many things in perspective that I've been struggling with for almost a year now. Thank you!

Dear Royal Stuart,

Yes, there is a pathological element in certain Orthodox theologians' definitions of Orthodoxy on the anti-Roman bases on which they ground their conclusions.

Have never understood that, especially how certain theologs have done such a hatchet job on Augustine and Aquinas - all true.

I recently translated into English an article by a young Ukrainian Catholic doctor of theology, Mykola Krokosh, who did a critical review of the UGCC Catechism.

He raises a similar issue with what he came close to calling "EC propaganda" that prior to the Union of Brest there was never any real separation between East and West. He affirmed that if that were true, then why the need for the Union of Brest? And for its "bloody aftermath?"

This is obviously a matter for extensive discussion. Suffice it to say, however, that Orthodoxy itself sees 1054 as a kind of "cut off" point when it comes to acknowledging saints for its own veneration.

Rome is more liberal in this regard and allowed, for example, the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church ("Ruskaya Pravoslavno-Kafolichnaya Tserkva") to continue to venerate the saints they've always had in their calendar. Rome has also elevated certain Orthodox Saints to univeral veneration within its own calendar as well.

Alex

A wonderful blog, sir! We can expect nothing less from the Benedictines . . .

Papal ego, perhaps.

The need for the union was secular, not sacred: the Kyivan bishops wanted the legal, social and economic protections extended only to the Catholic Church in Catholic Poland. The evidence for continuing (if sporadic) communion between Latins and Orthodox along the borderlands is overwhelming (if nothing else, repeated broadsides from hierarchs of both Churches condemning the practice shows how common it was), but this did not suffice to protect the Orthodox from persecution by the Catholic government of the Kingdom of Poland.

In fact, the Catholic Church was barely involved in the negotiation of the Treaty, which is actually between Poland and a group of Kyivan bishops. Rome was presented with a fait accompli, and was a bit up in the air about how to respond (some things don't change). The Jesuits, contrary to Orthodox mythology, opposed the Union, preferring instead to evangelize the Orthodox and bring them into the Catholic Church as Latins, but they were overridden (thank goodness).

Rite baiting.

[quote=Orthodox Catholic]Dear Royal Stuart,

Yes, there is a pathological element in certain Orthodox theologians' definitions of Orthodoxy on the anti-Roman bases on which they ground their conclusions.

Have never understood that, especially how certain theologs have done such a hatchet job on Augustine and Aquinas - all true.

I recently translated into English an article by a young Ukrainian Catholic doctor of theology, Mykola Krokosh, who did a critical review of the UGCC Catechism.

He raises a similar issue with what he came close to calling "EC propaganda" that prior to the Union of Brest there was never any real separation between East and West. He affirmed that if that were true, then why the need for the Union of Brest? And for its "bloody aftermath?"

This is obviously a matter for extensive discussion. Suffice it to say, however, that Orthodoxy itself sees 1054 as a kind of "cut off" point when it comes to acknowledging saints for its own veneration.

Rome is more liberal in this regard and allowed, for example, the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church ("Ruskaya Pravoslavno-Kafolichnaya Tserkva") to continue to venerate the saints they've always had in their calendar. Rome has also elevated certain Orthodox Saints to univeral veneration within its own calendar as well.

Alex [/quote]

I would be really careful with Krokosh.

His views are so extreme that he is under suspicion on being on a payroll. This won't be the first time, as you know, in the history of UGCC. The first time was about 100 years ago

Could you expand on that, Peter?

Alex