https://en.orthodoxwiki.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Jacifus&feedformat=atomOrthodoxWiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T07:31:59ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78453Great Schism2008-12-12T02:06:39Z<p>Jacifus: /* Events in AD 1054 */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{cleanup}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the Eastern Orthodox Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East-West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that St.Leo the Great, and many of the Orthodox Pre-Schism Popes disagreed with the decision of the Toledo Council, one even going so far as to engraving the Creed without the Filioque on the doors of St. Peter's Basilica.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches'' (Lulu.com, 2008 ISBN 978-0615183619)<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'' (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836316) <br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World'' esp. pp. 64-71 (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836484)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (SVS Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0881410570)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Inquiry'' (Harvey & Co., 1978 ISBN 978-9607120113)<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church'', 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1993 ISBN 0140146563)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78449Great Schism2008-12-12T01:45:41Z<p>Jacifus: Undo revision 78444 by Chrisg (Talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{cleanup}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the Eastern Orthodox Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East-West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that St.Leo the Great, and many of the Orthodox Pre-Schism Popes disagreed with the decision of the Toledo Council, one even going so far as to engraving the Creed without the Filioque on the doors of St. Peter's Basilica.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Events in AD 1054 ==<br />
AD 1054 is the date generally given for the split between East and West.{{citation}} The trouble had started earlier with Normans forcing the Greek Churches in Northern Italy, to conform to Latin practices, which in turn caused the Greeks to do the same to Latin Churches in Constantinople. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Celarius sent a letter to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore his name to the Diptychs, and suggesting that he send legates so that differences could be resolved between them. Unfortunately, the Pope chose to send Cardinal Humbert, a German who was not known for his tact. Upon receiving an audience with the Patriarch, they acted rudely, giving him a letter from the Pope, while in fact it had been drafted by Humbert himself. The letter demanded conformity from the Greeks, and so offended the Patriarch, that he refused to negotiate with them further. On Palm Sunday, Cardinal Humbert entered the Church of the Holy Wisdom, (Hagia Sophia) and placed a Bull of Excommunication on the Altar. This Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Celarius. He then left the city immediately, before the angry crowds that were gathering could seize him. Patriarch Michael Celarius then called a meeting of the Holy Synod, and excommunicated Humbert, though not the Latin Church.<br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches'' (Lulu.com, 2008 ISBN 978-0615183619)<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'' (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836316) <br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World'' esp. pp. 64-71 (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836484)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (SVS Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0881410570)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Inquiry'' (Harvey & Co., 1978 ISBN 978-9607120113)<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church'', 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1993 ISBN 0140146563)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:ASDamick&diff=78440User talk:ASDamick2008-12-11T20:23:58Z<p>Jacifus: /* Great Schism Edit */</p>
<hr />
<div><div class="boilerplate" id="stub" style="margin: 0 auto; text-align: center; background: #EEEEEE; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #CCC; width: 60%; align: center">'''Fr. Andrew''' is currently reserving the right to make his wiki-contributions extremely sporadic.</div><br />
<br />
* [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Dec. 18, 2004 - June 17, 2005)<br />
* [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (July 5, 2005 - Dec. 15, 2005)<br />
* [[/Archive 3|Archive 3]] (Dec. 23, 2005 - Aug. 2, 2006)<br />
* [[/Archive 4|Archive 4]] (Aug. 10, 2006 - May 29, 2008)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== "Church" v. "church" ==<br />
<br />
I understand "the Church" v. "a church" when it comes to a parish. However, I thought that one could also have "a Church" meaning an entity such as the [[Church of Russia]]. Currently, that article (Jursidiction section) mentions: "This includes these self-governing Churches:" Is this wrong? (I would appreciate it if you would add some clarification to the [[OrthodoxWiki:Style_Manual#Capitalization|Style Manual]] on this so I can refer back to it.) Thank you. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 15:05, June 2, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Vandalism 10June08==<br />
Figured just after I did it... :/ ...Wonder if there's a way to have a setting where all of an editors edits can just be mass-reverted? &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 11:56, June 10, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
* Thank you very much, Fr. Andrew. It's just my duty.--''[[User:Θεοδωρος|<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #082567">Θεόδωρος</span>]]'' 12:02, June 10, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've noticed you are able to delete particular edits from the revision history. I think [[Pope Saint Dioscorus I of Alexandria (Coptic POV)]] still needs help (or just to be transferred to OrthodoxSource and deleted here), but I'd like to know how to delete selected edits, and what the "undo" button does ... without harming an actual article. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 19:47, June 11, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thank you. I hadn't even noticed the (show/hide) link until you pointed it out. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:15, June 11, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hmm. Poking it doesn't seem to work in this case. I can rollback to the previous edit, or I can undo, but each option seems to deal with single edits, when I want to go back several edits. I have tried several times to copy and paste from an [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Pope_Saint_Dioscorus_I_of_Alexandria_(Coptic_POV)&oldid=60734 older edit], but I think that there may be too much data. I feel uncomfortable transferring this article to OrthodoxSource, because I don't know whether we have the right to use most of the material from this article (most of it seems to be from [http://www.coptichymns.net/module-library-viewpub-tid-1-pid-384.html this article]). In any case, if you can get the article restored (I give up), I think it needs a significant amount of cleanup. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:52, June 11, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Help on Code ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I have looked through the various Help Files but there doesnt seem to be one that teaches you (or define) how to use the parameters (and what these are) for code. I have been working on putting a {{ }} together but I want to collapse my table. Do you know of a reference I cna read to educate myself on this code? and what will work on OrthodoxWiki? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 02:58, June 12, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Do you know if the {{#if:}} are supposed to work on OrthodoxWiki? They work on Wikipedia -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]<br />
<br />
== Recruitment of "expert" ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I wanted to ask you to help me ... I am hoping that at this point in time, the number of people who go to OrthodoxSource is limited to ...two, three at the max ...because it will get crazy before a nice sensible 'framework' is put in place ... anyway, can you pop over to Orthodox Source for a moment ... and take a look at what I have started to do and please dont freak out ... I am pretty computer savvy .. the only problem is I am having difficulty with the #if code ... which is messing up the format for this template [http://www.orthodoxsource.org/Template:Author ''Development of Template for "Author" definitions"''] which is a key template to get this site up and running. Keep it quiet that I am working on that site because otherwise too many people will start sticky beaking into it and modifying things without the framework finishing ... -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]<br />
<br />
So, who should I recruit??? See, my development so far ... I want someone to work with! Any ideas? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]<br />
<br />
== take a look .... ==<br />
<br />
http://orthodoxsource.org/Author:Raphael_Hawaweeny<br />
<br />
==Existing structure==<br />
Thanks on the revert on my addition to the "graduates". I like to follow the existing structure a best I can. A few times I've noted what appears to be more than one path, usually over using similar titles for articles and categories that I think adds confusion in navigating. At this time I can't remember my "examples!" Multiple paths may be necessary sometime, but my intent is to work within the present structure and keep the structure simple to follow. [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 14:09, June 18, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==PSCA==<br />
PSCA = "Provisional Supreme Church Authority [of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad]", aka the "Agathangelites" -- the latest schismatic jurisdiction to emerge in Ukraine. I'll get a brief article about them up. {{unsigned|Aleks}}<br />
<br />
==Stuff==<br />
1. I am not trying to live in '''"bubble" world''' where only I can edit and only I can do as I please ... so, please dont go inferring that I should "bugger off" and start my own wiki if that is what I want ...<br />
<br />
2. I am not upset because you deleted the DVD articles, or Category links (because I make OW mistakes) I never said that so please dont infer that. I am/was upset with the overall revert you made to the OrthodoxSource Main Page. That was a significant (rv) and I just would have liked the opportunity to have been treated like an equal in that case - drop me a conversational note giving me a warning that you intend to do it. That was what upset me, ''''the fact you didnt think I was worth discussing it in the first place'''<br />
<br />
3. I tend to get defensive with you because from Day One you have been pretty abrupt with me on just about every occassion ... so that pattern has made me feel like '''you dont think I am worth discussing with in the first place''' - even if you do talk to me ... it has been talking "down" on occassions, little comments in the past "highlighting" my weaknesses have made me feel inferior ... and have made me feel that everyone has a superior grasp of "English", I dont ... so ... I do note, that you are so willing to be "patient" with me; Wow, how awesome that you can exhibit ''patience'' with me? how good does that make me feel?<br />
<br />
It doesnt matter. The point is, I dont seem to do it right in here. So, goodbye from today. I wont contribute to OW anymore if you all think that my contributions lack 'quality", what is the point of wasting my time and yours? - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 04:52, June 19, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: See my response on your [[User talk:Ixthis888|talk page]]. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 05:00, June 19, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== My Apology and request for Help ==<br />
<br />
I want to apologise for coming across (in written text) as such a cry baby ... I guarantee you I get frustrated that I can not explain myself simply and quickly and appropriately and I know you are a cool priest but I do get upset on big ticket items because all i want is the opportunity to discuss ... In any case, accept my apologies for going all huffy yesterday. I still stand by the fact I will not contribute to OW any longer since I feel that I am a nuisance rather than a help. However, in OS I really do want to contribute to developing the framework/skeleton (ie. Set up all the codes and the worksheets) that can then be "filled" with the revelant Bibliographical lists by others (or even me). To do that, I really need someone to talk with over in the OS wiki. At the moment, I want to discuss a framework for Liturgical Texts (BEFORE) I go ahead and set up the entire code/framework .... Can you help me? [http://www.orthodoxsource.org/OrthodoxSource:Discussion DESIGN of Liturgical Text Portal] - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 00:35, June 20, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Estonian "Issue" ==<br />
<br />
Father:<br />
<br />
Evlogeite!<br />
<br />
Regarding your comments about the Estonian Church. You write:<br />
"The reason for the difference in naming is that the EP's Estonian church is not regarded by the EP as a constituent part—rather, the EP regards the Estonian church as autonomous, having the same status as Finland, Sinai, etc. The MP, however, regards its Estonian church as being essentially an integral part of the MP, in contrast with the Church of Ukraine, which it regards as autonomous. Thus, the distinction."<br />
<br />
Please explain to me, what the difference in status is between the Ukrainian and Estonian Churches (MP). It seems to me that both have the same status within the MP. The Primate of the Ukrainian Church is confirmed by the Moscow Patriarch; so is the Primate of the Estonian Church (MP). Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Church serve in the Council and Synod of the Russian Church; so do hierarchs of the Estonian Church (MP). In fact, the Metropolitan of Kiev is an ex officio permanent member of the Holy Synod in Moscow. The Ukrainian Church receives its chrism from the Moscow Patriarch; so does the Estonian Church (MP). The name of the Patriarch of Moscow is elevated at services in the Ukrainian Church and in the Estonian Church before the names of the Metropolitans of Kiev and Tallinn, respectively.<br />
<br />
Thus, I see no difference between their status as "integral parts of the MP" or not. I do not know what the status of the Estonian Church (EP) is within the EP. However, it seems to me that, for matters of OrthodoxWiki:<br />
<br />
1. If the Ukrainian Church is listed as an autonomous church with unrecognized autonomy in the box of autonomous / autocephalous churches, so too should be the Estonian Church (MP), alongside the Estonian Church (EP). This is already happening on the French version of the project.<br />
<br />
2. There should be two articles. One called "Church of Estonia (EP)" and one called "Church of Estonia (MP)". The article "Church of Estonia" ought to be a disambiguation page. Doing otherwise may be construed as taking sides in a canonical debate.<br />
<br />
Yours in Christ, --[[User:Aleks|Aleks]] 15:56, June 23, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== New Article - '''[[Georgii Shavelsky]]''' ==<br />
<br />
'''Hi, when you have the time, could you please create his Biography - [[Georgii Shavelsky]] - to compliment the osource Memoir you create? I have cut and paste a really bad "Google" translation of a biography I found from the 'source', see below. ... I do not read or understand Russian so there is no way I can edit the google translation for accuracy of information bc I can not cross check it with the authentic material in the Russian language. I created a OrthodoxSource article to link the Memoir you created, please visit [[osource:Author:Georgii Shavelsky]] to link the OW article and also modify the osource article.''' - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 01:22, June 26, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* Source: [http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/shavelsky_gi/pre.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DShavelsky%26hl%3Den]<br />
----<br />
Life, identity and fate of his father George Shavelski represents an unusually coherent whole. Since their memories of. George starts only in 1911, when he received the appointment as military and maritime Protopresvitera clergy, Publisher them. Chekhov is experiencing living need to give readers a better understanding of the life of this exceptional man and a prominent cleric. <br />
<br />
George O. Shavelsky was born on January 6, 1871 in the village Dubokray Vitebsk province, in the family dyachka that heavy peasant labour extractive piece of bread for his large family. Primary education has received in the future Protopresbyter Duhovnom College and then graduated from the first course Theological Seminary. Ahead holds the promise of higher education in the Theological Academy. But on. George has chosen to dedicate themselves to serving ordinary people, and in 1891 was appointed psalomshchika very poor parish of Vitebsk province. Here at the same time, and he became a teacher in rural schools. Four years later, he took the San priesthood and was appointed rector in his native village of another province. Two years later, his wife died, leaving him two-year-old girl. However, Father Georgy not fallen spirit, wholeheartedly commend pastoral work. Soon, on the recommendation of the bishop of Vitebsk, about. George was sent to St. Petersburg for the admission of Spiritual Academy. He brilliantly stood the entrance examination and immediately allocate as the best student of the Academy. [6] <br />
<br />
As far back as when his student, about. George was appointed preacher at the Alexandrovsky Engineering Plant and decent in the name of Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich in Strelna. As a student 3 - course, he became rector Suvorovskoy church. <br />
<br />
When broke out Russian-Japanese war, about. George volunteered to go to the front and received the appointment in the army regimental first priest, then divisional decent, mostly at the end of the priest Manchu armies. For his outstanding leadership and exceptional prowess (the risk to the life he visited the front line, where once suffered severe concussion), about. George was elevated to the rank of archpriest of St. and awarded honors. And St. George. Vladimir with swords. <br />
<br />
In March 1906 on. George returned to his pastoral ministry in Suvorovskoy Church in St. Petersburg. In addition to pastoral service, Fr. Georgy very early borrowed teaching activity. Since 1906 - till 1910 - the year he was zakonouchitelem in Smolny Institute, a professor of theology in 1910 Historical Studies Institute. In the same in 1910 about. George became a member of the military spiritual Protopresbyter. The next in 1911, about. George was appointed Protopresbyter military and maritime clergy Russian Empire. <br />
<br />
Events shook Russia's first revolution of 1904-5. heightened public interest Church circles to religious education officers and soldiers. O. George was the initiator of special institutions for officers theological readings. His lectures always been a huge success. At the initiative on. George, such readings have been organized in Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov and Kazan garrisons. <br />
<br />
Even before the start 1 - World War II, in the first period [7] his protopresviterstva (1911-1914's.) About. George has totally restructured and greatly raise the military and especially maritime clergy, it attracted a number of prominent clerics. It should be noted, and emphasize his ability and the ability to select a talented assistants and keep firmly in their hands, those, different abilities were not always at a height in nature. From the clergy subordinate to him, he demanded that everyone worked fully its forces and capabilities, but will certainly worked; negligent and stroptivyh he pursued and expelled. His kipuchey energy and skill to come to any good and useful case and bring it to the end, as well as their availability, responsiveness and willingness to come to the aid of everyone in need, he earned the love, respect and trust him in a subordinate of about 5,000 people (during the war) clergy, which in 1917 at its All-Russian congress elected him his life Protopresbyter. <br />
<br />
By the end of July 1914. George has prepared a draft name to the highest total reorganization of management and maritime military clergy. To carry out his he was not given. Gryanula war. George O. received the appointment in Stavku High-Chief. <br />
Further story of his life and work on. George tells himself to the attention of readers memoir. After the end of civil war. George moved to Bulgaria. Here he first became an ordinary priest. Outstanding ability and talent on the bright predicant. George was soon rated as the Bulgarian church authorities and local universities. George O. was brought to the pedagogical work first as a teacher Sophia University, then as a professor of Theological [8], Faculty of Sofia University, while he was zakonouchitelem and director of Russian grammar school. <br />
<br />
George O. and was destined to survive the Second World War. He died rather quietly ugas 2 - October 1951. Despite the fact that the death of Fr. George could not inform all his friends, relatives and acquaintances, the news of the death of Fr. George razneslas with lightning speed, not only for Sofia, but also for the province. The funeral on. George attracted a huge number of people simply wanted to ashes beloved pastor and mentor. <br />
<br />
Outstanding organizational skills, teaching skills, independence of judgement, faithful to their convictions, combined in on. Georgia with remarkable humility in his personal life and habits. This modesty especially stay invisible when compared with the breadth of its aid near and far. These qualities about. George Shavelskogo served as a source of legends, which is still in his lifetime became folded around his behalf.<br />
----<br />
<br />
== The Reason You Make the Big Bucks ==<br />
<br />
Fr. Andrew, as I noted on the main moderator page, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon article needs moderation -- more than you provided. I'm offended at being equated with my attacker, and had you bothered to read the bulk of the post, you'd note I more than presented a thorough case for why my edits improved the article. IMO, the word "almost" should be struck from the record, but the last time this same poster started three simultaneous edit-wars with me (Feb. 12-14), you threatened to ban us both if we ever did it again. (There I am getting blamed for ''responding'' again.) So, to avoid being banned by you, I'm asking you to do the moderator's job, read the background material about how the AWRV has implemented all these in actual fact (which you probably know already), and (if you're convinced) strike the word "almost" from the article (or if not, let us know why not). You're a moderator, and I'm tired of being blamed for responding -- so have at it. :) --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 03:32, June 28, 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks. I know how busy you must be with PLC coming up, but I appreciate your looking things over.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 22:56, June 28, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Deacon Ben got in trouble for "responding"? He deleted an entire article of mine. (I put it back :) ) BTW, Father Andrew, THANK YOU for being objective and noting that a page titled "Western Rite and Old Calendarists" was about the Western Rite and Old Calendarists. I would love to review what "Willibrord" was "confirming"-- forgive my presumption but the man has an agenda. I wish I had the exact quote of Patriarch Elias of Antioch the first time he saw the "St Tikhon" liturgy: to paraphrase, he expressed surprised at an Orthodox liturgy that never once mentioned the Theotokos. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 21:14, July 18, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Something the North Got Right ==<br />
<br />
"I'm a Southerner by birth and at heart, though I do wish there were more proper bakeries south of the Mason-Dixon Line. That's possibly one of the major things Yankees have gotten right."<br />
<br />
They didn't do too bad at emancipation or crop-burning, either.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 03:36, June 28, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Wikipedia: article or version permalink ==<br />
<br />
I am curious as to why you changed the Wikipedia link back to the general article (for the [[Leo VI]] article). Since the Wikipedia page was listed as a source, my understanding is that OrthodoxWiki prefers the version permalink (cf. [[OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (Importing)]]); for external links (not sources), I can understand using the interwiki for the general Wikipedia article, but this one is a source. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 16:22, July 1, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Non-standard characters ==<br />
<br />
I remember (so I hope this happened) discussing on the wiki the policy of using standard Latin characters for article names. However, I cannot find any mention of this policy or any discussion about it. I checked the move log, and the only moves for "standard characters" are mine. Do you remember anything about this, or do you have thoughts on writing this up as a policy? (I think it's a good idea to have non-standard characters within the article, and as a redirect to the article.) —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:06, July 1, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "African Orthodox Chruch" ==<br />
Hi Fr Andrew :)<br />
I wanted to ask you about a topic I just came across.... In the [[Time of Church History]] article, the entry for 1924 refers to: <br />
''"..Bp. Daniel William Alexander convenes meeting in Kimberley, South Africa, which decides to secede from the African Church (a Protestant denomination) and affiliate with the "African Orthodox Church" in New York under George McGuire;"''<br />
<br />
Anyways, I accidentally came across a webpage that discusses the history of the [http://www.coltranechurch.org/african.htm "African Orthodox Church"], stating "The A.O.C. was founded by George Alexander McGuire in 1921." <br />
<br />
After reading this short summary, I am still not sure who this group is,..obsvioulsy non-canonical with mainstream Orthodoxy?? So, should we have an article on this group in the OW, for clarification purposes? Or at least an article on George Alexander McGuire? What do you think?<br />
Cheers,<br />
Chris.<br />
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 18:32, July 4, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A request for Orthodox Christian participants in a project ==<br />
<br />
Dear Admin AsDamick,<br />
<br />
Since I believe in the unity of saints in regards to Christendom as a whole and because I have read excellent works written by Orthodox Christians, I was hoping to get the Orthodox Christian community involved in a project. <br />
<br />
The project I currently have going is the refutation of atheism on the internet. As part of this effort, I created what is likely the seventh most popular article on atheism on the internet in the English speaking world and the article can be found here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism The article is currently ranked #7 at Google USA for the search "atheism". I can use this article to help other articles rank high on the search engines for various articles on atheism by featuring those articles in the aforementioned article. <br />
<br />
I currently work in the search engine optimization field which is simplified is helping clients rank high for Google for various topics and searches. I am willing to teach you some excellent principles in regards to this field so your material would likely have prominence on the internet. The principles are easy to learn and it would be my pleasure to teach my fellow Christians involved in a anti-atheism campaign some fundamental principles in regards to getting their material to rank high for the search engines and do it on a volunteer basis.<br />
<br />
Since Orthodox Christianity suffered greatly under atheistic communism, I would like to have the Orthodox Community be a part of the anti-atheism campaign. Also, there are many Orthodox Christians. Perhaps you could provide me useful feedback in relation to the above anti-atheism article. Also, perhaps you could help me gain the contributions of Orthodox Christians to the anti-atheism campaign.<br />
<br />
I decided to start this campaign partly due to the the New Atheism that has reared its head as of late.<br />
<br />
Please let me know if you or others are interested in any of the above. You can contact me at my user talk page. [[User:Manchuria|Manchuria]] 14:49, July 13, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== OSource Main Page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, could you please replace current Main Page code with revised code that I have temporarily placed at: '''[[osource:Sandbox]]'''. Thanks - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 03:05, July 16, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Hosting copyright material on OrthodoxSource ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I have received permission from an Orthodox priest to host his articles on OrthodoxSource. Now, I wanted to make sure that this would be ok before going and dumping his articles on OS so that I dont get (a) myself into trouble and (b) OrthodoxSource into trouble. What is the process for "documenting" the permission to use the article? Its only me that has a copy of this email on my private gmail email - do I forward Father John Schroedel a copy and is that enough to cover orthodoxSource from copyright issues???? I am very interested to understand what to do from here before I start dumping his material. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 02:02, July 21, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Help Me ... please ==<br />
<br />
Can you please modify the Main Page on OrthodoxSource to '''"remove"''' the sentence ''"An online repository of archival and contemporary open-license Orthodox content..."'' which advertises orthodoxSource as "Open-license" ...<br />
<br />
I was emailing Father John Schroedel who explained that by this sentence it can be understood that: ''by open-license, I would mean something that can be freely copied, and perhaps modified. The Creative Commons licenses do a good job of allowing a range of terms and conditions while still encouraging the free use of the content.''<br />
<br />
This is one of his concerns, since he visions: ''I had envisioned, for example, putting archival/historical content there -- such as the old pamphlets that constitute a large part of the printed record of Orthodox in the U.S. in the early part of the last century, or photos of Orthodox places that are distributed under a creative commons license, or other public materials, epecially those items of significance for the history and identity of the Orthodox community.''<br />
<br />
I would like to make him happy (and do things right of course) but I can not modify the Main Page to rectify this mistake of mine :-) That sentence ''"An online repository of archival and contemporary open-license Orthodox content..."'' is a direct cut and paste from "WikiSource" when I was setting up the structure and since you have locked the Main Page, I can not rectify my edit ...<br />
- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:49, July 21, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fr John - old Pamphlets ==<br />
<br />
Hi, because I am in Australia picking up the phone is a hard thing to do :-) Can you speak with Father John and ask him which Pamphlets he would like loaded onto OrthodoxSource. I am happy to start "setting" it all up for him ...if you like you can email me the *.pdf's on my personal email ... Do you know how to access my email without me having to post it publicaly? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 00:07, July 22, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I really have no idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately, I am also unable to do much outside contact at the moment, since I am at a clergy conference and away from home. (I also don't even have Fr. John's phone number!) &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 19:31, July 23, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Taxiarhis ==<br />
<br />
Look, thanks for that. I did a OW search on the word "Taxiarhis" and did not find it ... it never occured to me to search on the "Taxiar'''c'''his" spelling ... thanks for fixing up and sorry to waste your time on something I should have picked up in the first instance. - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:14, July 30, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Good-morning ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I am a little confused because I didnt revert anyones edits (?) As for the actual note you left on my page ... Thanks and Sorry, if I "intercepted" the edit by the Publication company but I didnt think (at the time) I made any drastic changes (like I didnt delete anything). I dont believe I 'disciplined' them either I made a friendly suggestion and encouraged them by even adding a link and the potential for them to contribute! Anyway, I dont know why as a grown woman I have to explain and apologise by now you should know that I am keen in assisting here so by default - SORRY! Thanks for the heads-up! Maybe you can think about "using"/or "directing" me towards what you actually want from me because quite frankly it gets tiring doing the wrong thing all the time :-) and then being 'advised' :-) so, I will leave it up to you to leave a "task list" for me to follow through on. Cheerio and God Bless. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 22:50, August 6, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Email ==<br />
What are the steps in "My Preferences" for making my email accessible without being public? - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:07, August 6, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Talk:Sarum Use==<br />
Hello Fr, I was trying to add some comments to this discussion page, and when I tried to save it removed all existing comments. Tried to undo the revision, and the undo did not save. Not able to restore,,can you please help?? Thanks, <br />
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 21:22, August 26, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== http://www.chrysostom.org/writings.html ==<br />
<br />
Hi, two of your links do now work on the "Writings" page ... <br />
:BEATITUDES: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/matthom15.html<br />
:LORDS PRAYER: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/matthom19.html<br />
I thought you might want to know this so you could update the page.<br />
[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:28, November 2, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
PS. I also took a photo of an icon of Chrysostom within the Church of the Holy Trinity, Taksim, Constantinople. It is a gorgeous fresco of him ... I am more than happy to give you permmission to use it on your webpage ... oh yeah, and His relics (God Bless, at the Patriarchate I was weeping when I realised who I was venerating) ...one catch only ... can you change the background colour of the web page from black to something more positive and colourful like white?? LOL [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:30, November 2, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Osource ==<br />
Hey, it's getting all too hard :-)<br />
<br />
I ''have'' asked in the past for some assistance but been ignored - except for Andrew, who has legitimately stepped in and helped set up codes and stuff. Awesome guy. I can offer again, what I said months ago, ... if '''you''', or someone, can just '''DUMP material''' into a Sandbox ... that you believe should be ON Osource or you want on Osource ... I will do the clean up work and categorisation and formatting the very next day :-) if we dont all come to some working solution the site will just sit there neglected ... which would be such a shame as there are many people who are accessing it to read the articles.<br />
<br />
So, what do you say? Will you work with me? Give me 'dumps' of "anytyhing" that does not breach copyright and I will fix it up for the good of OW/OS and the Orthodox community? <br />
<br />
[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 22:29, November 20, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Updating The Great Schism ==<br />
<br />
Fr. Andrew:<br />
<br />
Who would you prefer that I get permission from to post this material? (I will do so, if possible) , because I believe it will greatly benefit this article!<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
<br />
Jaye (Jacifus)<br />
<br />
= Great Schism Edit =<br />
<br />
Fr.<br />
<br />
I respectfully disagree that the Entire Eastern Church was not excommunicated. The Bull said as much. I refer you to Bishop Kallistos "The Orthodox Church". I consider his account to be carefully researched and accurate.<br />
<br />
Jaye (jacifus)</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:ASDamick&diff=78439User talk:ASDamick2008-12-11T20:23:09Z<p>Jacifus: /* Updating The Great Schism */</p>
<hr />
<div><div class="boilerplate" id="stub" style="margin: 0 auto; text-align: center; background: #EEEEEE; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #CCC; width: 60%; align: center">'''Fr. Andrew''' is currently reserving the right to make his wiki-contributions extremely sporadic.</div><br />
<br />
* [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Dec. 18, 2004 - June 17, 2005)<br />
* [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (July 5, 2005 - Dec. 15, 2005)<br />
* [[/Archive 3|Archive 3]] (Dec. 23, 2005 - Aug. 2, 2006)<br />
* [[/Archive 4|Archive 4]] (Aug. 10, 2006 - May 29, 2008)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== "Church" v. "church" ==<br />
<br />
I understand "the Church" v. "a church" when it comes to a parish. However, I thought that one could also have "a Church" meaning an entity such as the [[Church of Russia]]. Currently, that article (Jursidiction section) mentions: "This includes these self-governing Churches:" Is this wrong? (I would appreciate it if you would add some clarification to the [[OrthodoxWiki:Style_Manual#Capitalization|Style Manual]] on this so I can refer back to it.) Thank you. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 15:05, June 2, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Vandalism 10June08==<br />
Figured just after I did it... :/ ...Wonder if there's a way to have a setting where all of an editors edits can just be mass-reverted? &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 11:56, June 10, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
* Thank you very much, Fr. Andrew. It's just my duty.--''[[User:Θεοδωρος|<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #082567">Θεόδωρος</span>]]'' 12:02, June 10, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've noticed you are able to delete particular edits from the revision history. I think [[Pope Saint Dioscorus I of Alexandria (Coptic POV)]] still needs help (or just to be transferred to OrthodoxSource and deleted here), but I'd like to know how to delete selected edits, and what the "undo" button does ... without harming an actual article. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 19:47, June 11, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thank you. I hadn't even noticed the (show/hide) link until you pointed it out. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:15, June 11, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hmm. Poking it doesn't seem to work in this case. I can rollback to the previous edit, or I can undo, but each option seems to deal with single edits, when I want to go back several edits. I have tried several times to copy and paste from an [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Pope_Saint_Dioscorus_I_of_Alexandria_(Coptic_POV)&oldid=60734 older edit], but I think that there may be too much data. I feel uncomfortable transferring this article to OrthodoxSource, because I don't know whether we have the right to use most of the material from this article (most of it seems to be from [http://www.coptichymns.net/module-library-viewpub-tid-1-pid-384.html this article]). In any case, if you can get the article restored (I give up), I think it needs a significant amount of cleanup. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:52, June 11, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Help on Code ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I have looked through the various Help Files but there doesnt seem to be one that teaches you (or define) how to use the parameters (and what these are) for code. I have been working on putting a {{ }} together but I want to collapse my table. Do you know of a reference I cna read to educate myself on this code? and what will work on OrthodoxWiki? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 02:58, June 12, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Do you know if the {{#if:}} are supposed to work on OrthodoxWiki? They work on Wikipedia -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]<br />
<br />
== Recruitment of "expert" ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I wanted to ask you to help me ... I am hoping that at this point in time, the number of people who go to OrthodoxSource is limited to ...two, three at the max ...because it will get crazy before a nice sensible 'framework' is put in place ... anyway, can you pop over to Orthodox Source for a moment ... and take a look at what I have started to do and please dont freak out ... I am pretty computer savvy .. the only problem is I am having difficulty with the #if code ... which is messing up the format for this template [http://www.orthodoxsource.org/Template:Author ''Development of Template for "Author" definitions"''] which is a key template to get this site up and running. Keep it quiet that I am working on that site because otherwise too many people will start sticky beaking into it and modifying things without the framework finishing ... -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]<br />
<br />
So, who should I recruit??? See, my development so far ... I want someone to work with! Any ideas? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]<br />
<br />
== take a look .... ==<br />
<br />
http://orthodoxsource.org/Author:Raphael_Hawaweeny<br />
<br />
==Existing structure==<br />
Thanks on the revert on my addition to the "graduates". I like to follow the existing structure a best I can. A few times I've noted what appears to be more than one path, usually over using similar titles for articles and categories that I think adds confusion in navigating. At this time I can't remember my "examples!" Multiple paths may be necessary sometime, but my intent is to work within the present structure and keep the structure simple to follow. [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 14:09, June 18, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==PSCA==<br />
PSCA = "Provisional Supreme Church Authority [of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad]", aka the "Agathangelites" -- the latest schismatic jurisdiction to emerge in Ukraine. I'll get a brief article about them up. {{unsigned|Aleks}}<br />
<br />
==Stuff==<br />
1. I am not trying to live in '''"bubble" world''' where only I can edit and only I can do as I please ... so, please dont go inferring that I should "bugger off" and start my own wiki if that is what I want ...<br />
<br />
2. I am not upset because you deleted the DVD articles, or Category links (because I make OW mistakes) I never said that so please dont infer that. I am/was upset with the overall revert you made to the OrthodoxSource Main Page. That was a significant (rv) and I just would have liked the opportunity to have been treated like an equal in that case - drop me a conversational note giving me a warning that you intend to do it. That was what upset me, ''''the fact you didnt think I was worth discussing it in the first place'''<br />
<br />
3. I tend to get defensive with you because from Day One you have been pretty abrupt with me on just about every occassion ... so that pattern has made me feel like '''you dont think I am worth discussing with in the first place''' - even if you do talk to me ... it has been talking "down" on occassions, little comments in the past "highlighting" my weaknesses have made me feel inferior ... and have made me feel that everyone has a superior grasp of "English", I dont ... so ... I do note, that you are so willing to be "patient" with me; Wow, how awesome that you can exhibit ''patience'' with me? how good does that make me feel?<br />
<br />
It doesnt matter. The point is, I dont seem to do it right in here. So, goodbye from today. I wont contribute to OW anymore if you all think that my contributions lack 'quality", what is the point of wasting my time and yours? - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 04:52, June 19, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: See my response on your [[User talk:Ixthis888|talk page]]. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 05:00, June 19, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== My Apology and request for Help ==<br />
<br />
I want to apologise for coming across (in written text) as such a cry baby ... I guarantee you I get frustrated that I can not explain myself simply and quickly and appropriately and I know you are a cool priest but I do get upset on big ticket items because all i want is the opportunity to discuss ... In any case, accept my apologies for going all huffy yesterday. I still stand by the fact I will not contribute to OW any longer since I feel that I am a nuisance rather than a help. However, in OS I really do want to contribute to developing the framework/skeleton (ie. Set up all the codes and the worksheets) that can then be "filled" with the revelant Bibliographical lists by others (or even me). To do that, I really need someone to talk with over in the OS wiki. At the moment, I want to discuss a framework for Liturgical Texts (BEFORE) I go ahead and set up the entire code/framework .... Can you help me? [http://www.orthodoxsource.org/OrthodoxSource:Discussion DESIGN of Liturgical Text Portal] - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 00:35, June 20, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Estonian "Issue" ==<br />
<br />
Father:<br />
<br />
Evlogeite!<br />
<br />
Regarding your comments about the Estonian Church. You write:<br />
"The reason for the difference in naming is that the EP's Estonian church is not regarded by the EP as a constituent part—rather, the EP regards the Estonian church as autonomous, having the same status as Finland, Sinai, etc. The MP, however, regards its Estonian church as being essentially an integral part of the MP, in contrast with the Church of Ukraine, which it regards as autonomous. Thus, the distinction."<br />
<br />
Please explain to me, what the difference in status is between the Ukrainian and Estonian Churches (MP). It seems to me that both have the same status within the MP. The Primate of the Ukrainian Church is confirmed by the Moscow Patriarch; so is the Primate of the Estonian Church (MP). Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Church serve in the Council and Synod of the Russian Church; so do hierarchs of the Estonian Church (MP). In fact, the Metropolitan of Kiev is an ex officio permanent member of the Holy Synod in Moscow. The Ukrainian Church receives its chrism from the Moscow Patriarch; so does the Estonian Church (MP). The name of the Patriarch of Moscow is elevated at services in the Ukrainian Church and in the Estonian Church before the names of the Metropolitans of Kiev and Tallinn, respectively.<br />
<br />
Thus, I see no difference between their status as "integral parts of the MP" or not. I do not know what the status of the Estonian Church (EP) is within the EP. However, it seems to me that, for matters of OrthodoxWiki:<br />
<br />
1. If the Ukrainian Church is listed as an autonomous church with unrecognized autonomy in the box of autonomous / autocephalous churches, so too should be the Estonian Church (MP), alongside the Estonian Church (EP). This is already happening on the French version of the project.<br />
<br />
2. There should be two articles. One called "Church of Estonia (EP)" and one called "Church of Estonia (MP)". The article "Church of Estonia" ought to be a disambiguation page. Doing otherwise may be construed as taking sides in a canonical debate.<br />
<br />
Yours in Christ, --[[User:Aleks|Aleks]] 15:56, June 23, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== New Article - '''[[Georgii Shavelsky]]''' ==<br />
<br />
'''Hi, when you have the time, could you please create his Biography - [[Georgii Shavelsky]] - to compliment the osource Memoir you create? I have cut and paste a really bad "Google" translation of a biography I found from the 'source', see below. ... I do not read or understand Russian so there is no way I can edit the google translation for accuracy of information bc I can not cross check it with the authentic material in the Russian language. I created a OrthodoxSource article to link the Memoir you created, please visit [[osource:Author:Georgii Shavelsky]] to link the OW article and also modify the osource article.''' - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 01:22, June 26, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* Source: [http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/shavelsky_gi/pre.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DShavelsky%26hl%3Den]<br />
----<br />
Life, identity and fate of his father George Shavelski represents an unusually coherent whole. Since their memories of. George starts only in 1911, when he received the appointment as military and maritime Protopresvitera clergy, Publisher them. Chekhov is experiencing living need to give readers a better understanding of the life of this exceptional man and a prominent cleric. <br />
<br />
George O. Shavelsky was born on January 6, 1871 in the village Dubokray Vitebsk province, in the family dyachka that heavy peasant labour extractive piece of bread for his large family. Primary education has received in the future Protopresbyter Duhovnom College and then graduated from the first course Theological Seminary. Ahead holds the promise of higher education in the Theological Academy. But on. George has chosen to dedicate themselves to serving ordinary people, and in 1891 was appointed psalomshchika very poor parish of Vitebsk province. Here at the same time, and he became a teacher in rural schools. Four years later, he took the San priesthood and was appointed rector in his native village of another province. Two years later, his wife died, leaving him two-year-old girl. However, Father Georgy not fallen spirit, wholeheartedly commend pastoral work. Soon, on the recommendation of the bishop of Vitebsk, about. George was sent to St. Petersburg for the admission of Spiritual Academy. He brilliantly stood the entrance examination and immediately allocate as the best student of the Academy. [6] <br />
<br />
As far back as when his student, about. George was appointed preacher at the Alexandrovsky Engineering Plant and decent in the name of Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich in Strelna. As a student 3 - course, he became rector Suvorovskoy church. <br />
<br />
When broke out Russian-Japanese war, about. George volunteered to go to the front and received the appointment in the army regimental first priest, then divisional decent, mostly at the end of the priest Manchu armies. For his outstanding leadership and exceptional prowess (the risk to the life he visited the front line, where once suffered severe concussion), about. George was elevated to the rank of archpriest of St. and awarded honors. And St. George. Vladimir with swords. <br />
<br />
In March 1906 on. George returned to his pastoral ministry in Suvorovskoy Church in St. Petersburg. In addition to pastoral service, Fr. Georgy very early borrowed teaching activity. Since 1906 - till 1910 - the year he was zakonouchitelem in Smolny Institute, a professor of theology in 1910 Historical Studies Institute. In the same in 1910 about. George became a member of the military spiritual Protopresbyter. The next in 1911, about. George was appointed Protopresbyter military and maritime clergy Russian Empire. <br />
<br />
Events shook Russia's first revolution of 1904-5. heightened public interest Church circles to religious education officers and soldiers. O. George was the initiator of special institutions for officers theological readings. His lectures always been a huge success. At the initiative on. George, such readings have been organized in Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov and Kazan garrisons. <br />
<br />
Even before the start 1 - World War II, in the first period [7] his protopresviterstva (1911-1914's.) About. George has totally restructured and greatly raise the military and especially maritime clergy, it attracted a number of prominent clerics. It should be noted, and emphasize his ability and the ability to select a talented assistants and keep firmly in their hands, those, different abilities were not always at a height in nature. From the clergy subordinate to him, he demanded that everyone worked fully its forces and capabilities, but will certainly worked; negligent and stroptivyh he pursued and expelled. His kipuchey energy and skill to come to any good and useful case and bring it to the end, as well as their availability, responsiveness and willingness to come to the aid of everyone in need, he earned the love, respect and trust him in a subordinate of about 5,000 people (during the war) clergy, which in 1917 at its All-Russian congress elected him his life Protopresbyter. <br />
<br />
By the end of July 1914. George has prepared a draft name to the highest total reorganization of management and maritime military clergy. To carry out his he was not given. Gryanula war. George O. received the appointment in Stavku High-Chief. <br />
Further story of his life and work on. George tells himself to the attention of readers memoir. After the end of civil war. George moved to Bulgaria. Here he first became an ordinary priest. Outstanding ability and talent on the bright predicant. George was soon rated as the Bulgarian church authorities and local universities. George O. was brought to the pedagogical work first as a teacher Sophia University, then as a professor of Theological [8], Faculty of Sofia University, while he was zakonouchitelem and director of Russian grammar school. <br />
<br />
George O. and was destined to survive the Second World War. He died rather quietly ugas 2 - October 1951. Despite the fact that the death of Fr. George could not inform all his friends, relatives and acquaintances, the news of the death of Fr. George razneslas with lightning speed, not only for Sofia, but also for the province. The funeral on. George attracted a huge number of people simply wanted to ashes beloved pastor and mentor. <br />
<br />
Outstanding organizational skills, teaching skills, independence of judgement, faithful to their convictions, combined in on. Georgia with remarkable humility in his personal life and habits. This modesty especially stay invisible when compared with the breadth of its aid near and far. These qualities about. George Shavelskogo served as a source of legends, which is still in his lifetime became folded around his behalf.<br />
----<br />
<br />
== The Reason You Make the Big Bucks ==<br />
<br />
Fr. Andrew, as I noted on the main moderator page, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon article needs moderation -- more than you provided. I'm offended at being equated with my attacker, and had you bothered to read the bulk of the post, you'd note I more than presented a thorough case for why my edits improved the article. IMO, the word "almost" should be struck from the record, but the last time this same poster started three simultaneous edit-wars with me (Feb. 12-14), you threatened to ban us both if we ever did it again. (There I am getting blamed for ''responding'' again.) So, to avoid being banned by you, I'm asking you to do the moderator's job, read the background material about how the AWRV has implemented all these in actual fact (which you probably know already), and (if you're convinced) strike the word "almost" from the article (or if not, let us know why not). You're a moderator, and I'm tired of being blamed for responding -- so have at it. :) --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 03:32, June 28, 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks. I know how busy you must be with PLC coming up, but I appreciate your looking things over.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 22:56, June 28, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Deacon Ben got in trouble for "responding"? He deleted an entire article of mine. (I put it back :) ) BTW, Father Andrew, THANK YOU for being objective and noting that a page titled "Western Rite and Old Calendarists" was about the Western Rite and Old Calendarists. I would love to review what "Willibrord" was "confirming"-- forgive my presumption but the man has an agenda. I wish I had the exact quote of Patriarch Elias of Antioch the first time he saw the "St Tikhon" liturgy: to paraphrase, he expressed surprised at an Orthodox liturgy that never once mentioned the Theotokos. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 21:14, July 18, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Something the North Got Right ==<br />
<br />
"I'm a Southerner by birth and at heart, though I do wish there were more proper bakeries south of the Mason-Dixon Line. That's possibly one of the major things Yankees have gotten right."<br />
<br />
They didn't do too bad at emancipation or crop-burning, either.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 03:36, June 28, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Wikipedia: article or version permalink ==<br />
<br />
I am curious as to why you changed the Wikipedia link back to the general article (for the [[Leo VI]] article). Since the Wikipedia page was listed as a source, my understanding is that OrthodoxWiki prefers the version permalink (cf. [[OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (Importing)]]); for external links (not sources), I can understand using the interwiki for the general Wikipedia article, but this one is a source. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 16:22, July 1, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Non-standard characters ==<br />
<br />
I remember (so I hope this happened) discussing on the wiki the policy of using standard Latin characters for article names. However, I cannot find any mention of this policy or any discussion about it. I checked the move log, and the only moves for "standard characters" are mine. Do you remember anything about this, or do you have thoughts on writing this up as a policy? (I think it's a good idea to have non-standard characters within the article, and as a redirect to the article.) —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:06, July 1, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "African Orthodox Chruch" ==<br />
Hi Fr Andrew :)<br />
I wanted to ask you about a topic I just came across.... In the [[Time of Church History]] article, the entry for 1924 refers to: <br />
''"..Bp. Daniel William Alexander convenes meeting in Kimberley, South Africa, which decides to secede from the African Church (a Protestant denomination) and affiliate with the "African Orthodox Church" in New York under George McGuire;"''<br />
<br />
Anyways, I accidentally came across a webpage that discusses the history of the [http://www.coltranechurch.org/african.htm "African Orthodox Church"], stating "The A.O.C. was founded by George Alexander McGuire in 1921." <br />
<br />
After reading this short summary, I am still not sure who this group is,..obsvioulsy non-canonical with mainstream Orthodoxy?? So, should we have an article on this group in the OW, for clarification purposes? Or at least an article on George Alexander McGuire? What do you think?<br />
Cheers,<br />
Chris.<br />
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 18:32, July 4, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A request for Orthodox Christian participants in a project ==<br />
<br />
Dear Admin AsDamick,<br />
<br />
Since I believe in the unity of saints in regards to Christendom as a whole and because I have read excellent works written by Orthodox Christians, I was hoping to get the Orthodox Christian community involved in a project. <br />
<br />
The project I currently have going is the refutation of atheism on the internet. As part of this effort, I created what is likely the seventh most popular article on atheism on the internet in the English speaking world and the article can be found here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism The article is currently ranked #7 at Google USA for the search "atheism". I can use this article to help other articles rank high on the search engines for various articles on atheism by featuring those articles in the aforementioned article. <br />
<br />
I currently work in the search engine optimization field which is simplified is helping clients rank high for Google for various topics and searches. I am willing to teach you some excellent principles in regards to this field so your material would likely have prominence on the internet. The principles are easy to learn and it would be my pleasure to teach my fellow Christians involved in a anti-atheism campaign some fundamental principles in regards to getting their material to rank high for the search engines and do it on a volunteer basis.<br />
<br />
Since Orthodox Christianity suffered greatly under atheistic communism, I would like to have the Orthodox Community be a part of the anti-atheism campaign. Also, there are many Orthodox Christians. Perhaps you could provide me useful feedback in relation to the above anti-atheism article. Also, perhaps you could help me gain the contributions of Orthodox Christians to the anti-atheism campaign.<br />
<br />
I decided to start this campaign partly due to the the New Atheism that has reared its head as of late.<br />
<br />
Please let me know if you or others are interested in any of the above. You can contact me at my user talk page. [[User:Manchuria|Manchuria]] 14:49, July 13, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== OSource Main Page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, could you please replace current Main Page code with revised code that I have temporarily placed at: '''[[osource:Sandbox]]'''. Thanks - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 03:05, July 16, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Hosting copyright material on OrthodoxSource ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I have received permission from an Orthodox priest to host his articles on OrthodoxSource. Now, I wanted to make sure that this would be ok before going and dumping his articles on OS so that I dont get (a) myself into trouble and (b) OrthodoxSource into trouble. What is the process for "documenting" the permission to use the article? Its only me that has a copy of this email on my private gmail email - do I forward Father John Schroedel a copy and is that enough to cover orthodoxSource from copyright issues???? I am very interested to understand what to do from here before I start dumping his material. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 02:02, July 21, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Help Me ... please ==<br />
<br />
Can you please modify the Main Page on OrthodoxSource to '''"remove"''' the sentence ''"An online repository of archival and contemporary open-license Orthodox content..."'' which advertises orthodoxSource as "Open-license" ...<br />
<br />
I was emailing Father John Schroedel who explained that by this sentence it can be understood that: ''by open-license, I would mean something that can be freely copied, and perhaps modified. The Creative Commons licenses do a good job of allowing a range of terms and conditions while still encouraging the free use of the content.''<br />
<br />
This is one of his concerns, since he visions: ''I had envisioned, for example, putting archival/historical content there -- such as the old pamphlets that constitute a large part of the printed record of Orthodox in the U.S. in the early part of the last century, or photos of Orthodox places that are distributed under a creative commons license, or other public materials, epecially those items of significance for the history and identity of the Orthodox community.''<br />
<br />
I would like to make him happy (and do things right of course) but I can not modify the Main Page to rectify this mistake of mine :-) That sentence ''"An online repository of archival and contemporary open-license Orthodox content..."'' is a direct cut and paste from "WikiSource" when I was setting up the structure and since you have locked the Main Page, I can not rectify my edit ...<br />
- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:49, July 21, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fr John - old Pamphlets ==<br />
<br />
Hi, because I am in Australia picking up the phone is a hard thing to do :-) Can you speak with Father John and ask him which Pamphlets he would like loaded onto OrthodoxSource. I am happy to start "setting" it all up for him ...if you like you can email me the *.pdf's on my personal email ... Do you know how to access my email without me having to post it publicaly? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 00:07, July 22, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I really have no idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately, I am also unable to do much outside contact at the moment, since I am at a clergy conference and away from home. (I also don't even have Fr. John's phone number!) &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 19:31, July 23, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Taxiarhis ==<br />
<br />
Look, thanks for that. I did a OW search on the word "Taxiarhis" and did not find it ... it never occured to me to search on the "Taxiar'''c'''his" spelling ... thanks for fixing up and sorry to waste your time on something I should have picked up in the first instance. - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:14, July 30, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Good-morning ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I am a little confused because I didnt revert anyones edits (?) As for the actual note you left on my page ... Thanks and Sorry, if I "intercepted" the edit by the Publication company but I didnt think (at the time) I made any drastic changes (like I didnt delete anything). I dont believe I 'disciplined' them either I made a friendly suggestion and encouraged them by even adding a link and the potential for them to contribute! Anyway, I dont know why as a grown woman I have to explain and apologise by now you should know that I am keen in assisting here so by default - SORRY! Thanks for the heads-up! Maybe you can think about "using"/or "directing" me towards what you actually want from me because quite frankly it gets tiring doing the wrong thing all the time :-) and then being 'advised' :-) so, I will leave it up to you to leave a "task list" for me to follow through on. Cheerio and God Bless. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 22:50, August 6, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Email ==<br />
What are the steps in "My Preferences" for making my email accessible without being public? - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:07, August 6, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Talk:Sarum Use==<br />
Hello Fr, I was trying to add some comments to this discussion page, and when I tried to save it removed all existing comments. Tried to undo the revision, and the undo did not save. Not able to restore,,can you please help?? Thanks, <br />
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 21:22, August 26, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== http://www.chrysostom.org/writings.html ==<br />
<br />
Hi, two of your links do now work on the "Writings" page ... <br />
:BEATITUDES: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/matthom15.html<br />
:LORDS PRAYER: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/matthom19.html<br />
I thought you might want to know this so you could update the page.<br />
[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:28, November 2, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
PS. I also took a photo of an icon of Chrysostom within the Church of the Holy Trinity, Taksim, Constantinople. It is a gorgeous fresco of him ... I am more than happy to give you permmission to use it on your webpage ... oh yeah, and His relics (God Bless, at the Patriarchate I was weeping when I realised who I was venerating) ...one catch only ... can you change the background colour of the web page from black to something more positive and colourful like white?? LOL [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:30, November 2, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Osource ==<br />
Hey, it's getting all too hard :-)<br />
<br />
I ''have'' asked in the past for some assistance but been ignored - except for Andrew, who has legitimately stepped in and helped set up codes and stuff. Awesome guy. I can offer again, what I said months ago, ... if '''you''', or someone, can just '''DUMP material''' into a Sandbox ... that you believe should be ON Osource or you want on Osource ... I will do the clean up work and categorisation and formatting the very next day :-) if we dont all come to some working solution the site will just sit there neglected ... which would be such a shame as there are many people who are accessing it to read the articles.<br />
<br />
So, what do you say? Will you work with me? Give me 'dumps' of "anytyhing" that does not breach copyright and I will fix it up for the good of OW/OS and the Orthodox community? <br />
<br />
[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 22:29, November 20, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Updating The Great Schism ==<br />
<br />
Fr. Andrew:<br />
<br />
Who would you prefer that I get permission from to post this material? (I will do so, if possible) , because I believe it will greatly benefit this article!<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
<br />
Jaye (Jacifus)<br />
<br />
= Great Schism Edit =<br />
<br />
Fr.<br />
<br />
I respectfully disagree that the Entire Eastern Church was not excommunicated. The Bull said as much. I refer you to Bishop Kallistos "The Orthodox Church". I consider his account to be carefully researched and accurate.</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78424Great Schism2008-12-11T19:19:29Z<p>Jacifus: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{cleanup}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the Eastern Orthodox Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East-West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that St.Leo the Great, and many of the Orthodox Pre-Schism Popes disagreed with the decision of the Toledo Council, one even going so far as to engraving the Creed without the Filioque on the doors of St. Peter's Basilica.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Events in AD 1054 ==<br />
AD 1054 is the date generally given for the split between East and West.{{citation}} The trouble had started earlier with Normans forcing the Greek Churches in Northern Italy, to conform to Latin practices, which in turn caused the Greeks to do the same to Latin Churches in Constantinople. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Celarius sent a letter to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore his name to the Diptychs, and suggesting that he send legates so that differences could be resolved between them. Unfortunately, the Pope chose to send Cardinal Humbert, a German who was not known for his tact. Upon receiving an audience with the Patriarch, they acted rudely, giving him a letter from the Pope, while in fact it had been drafted by Humbert himself. The letter demanded conformity from the Greeks, and so offended the Patriarch, that he refused to negotiate with them further. On Palm Sunday, Cardinal Humbert entered the Church of the Holy Wisdom, (Hagia Sophia) and placed a Bull of Excommunication on the Altar. This Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Celarius and the entire Eastern Church. He then left the city immediately, before the angry crowds that were gathering could seize him. Patriarch Michael Celarius then called a meeting of the Holy Synod, and excommunicated Humbert, though not the Latin Church.<br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches'' (Lulu.com, 2008 ISBN 978-0615183619)<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'' (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836316) <br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World'' esp. pp. 64-71 (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836484)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (SVS Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0881410570)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Inquiry'' (Harvey & Co., 1978 ISBN 978-9607120113)<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church'', 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1993 ISBN 0140146563)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78407Great Schism2008-12-11T14:25:53Z<p>Jacifus: Undo revision 78403 by Chrisg (Talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the Eastern Orthodox Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East-West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that St.Leo the Great, and many of the Orthodox Pre-Schism Popes disagreed with the decision of the Toledo Council, one even going so far as to engraving the Creed without the Filioque on the doors of St. Peter's Basilica.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Events in AD 1054 ==<br />
AD 1054 is the date generally given for the split between East & West. The trouble had started earlier with Normans forcing the Greek Churches in Northern Italy, to conform to Latin practices, which in turn caused the Greeks to do the same to Latin Churches in Constantinople. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Celarius sent a letter to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore his name to the Diptychs, and suggesting that he send legates so that differences could be resolved between them. Unfortunately, the Pope chose to send Cardinal Humbert, a German who was not known for his tact. Upon receiving an audience with the Patriarch, they acted rudely, giving him a letter from the Pope, while in fact it had been drafted by Humbert himself. The letter demanded conformity from the Greeks, and so offended the Patriarch, that he refused to negotiate with them further. On Palm Sunday, Cardinal Humbert entered the Church of the Holy Wisdom, (Hagia Sophia) and placed a Bull of Excommunication on the Altar. This Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Celarius, and the entire Eastern Church. He then left the city immediately, before the angry crowds that were gathering could seize him. Patriarch Michael Celarius then called a meeting of the Holy Synod, and excommunicated Humbert, though not the Latin Church.<br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches'' (Lulu.com, 2008 ISBN 978-0615183619)<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'' (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836316) <br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World'' esp. pp. 64-71 (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836484)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (SVS Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0881410570)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Inquiry'' (Harvey & Co., 1978 ISBN 978-9607120113)<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church'', 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1993 ISBN 0140146563)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Chrisg&diff=78406User talk:Chrisg2008-12-11T14:25:10Z<p>Jacifus: /* LOL HY! */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{welcome}}<br />
<br />
{{User:ASDamick/sig}} 16:52, December 28, 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Moving articles (e.g., [[Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand]]) ==<br />
<br />
In the future, if you'd like to change the name of an article, please use the '''move''' tab at the top of the article rather than creating a new article and then changing the old one to a link to the new. This preserves the article's editing history intact.<br />
<br />
In the case of this article, I was able to piece the history back together with deletion and moving, but those options aren't fully available to non-sysops. The easiest method (which is also available to everyone) is just to use the '''move''' button. Thanks! {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 20:28, December 28, 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Population estimate ==<br />
<br />
Greetings! Thank you for your contributions. I was wondering whether you had a link or a source for the population estimate for the [[Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand]]. The [http://www.cra.org.au/pages/00000226.cgi original link] cites 7,525; you changed the number to an estimated 37,525, but the link remains, now contradicting rather than supporting. I'm guessing that source is from 2001, but I may be wrong. The only other source I could find online is from 1996: [http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn27.htm 3,969]. {{User:Magda/sig}} 07:46, December 29, 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
== +Gibran ==<br />
<br />
Would you mind engaging in the discussion on [[Talk:Gibran (Rimlawi) of Australia and New Zealand]] before continuing to change the spelling everywhere? {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 13:28, January 3, 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Antiochian.org.au ==<br />
<br />
Regarding the parishes - there are a couple of parishes on OrthodoxWiki that haven't made it onto the Antiochian.org.au website: St Nicholas, Mayfield (NSW), Invercargill Mission (NZ), Hamilton Mission (NZ); and also, one that hasn't made it to OrthodoxWiki - St Cuthbert, Rowville (Vic). I didn't add the last one because I thought that you probably knew what was going on and had reasons, but just in case I thought you should know. cheers, -- {{User:Pistevo/sig}} 16:07, February 7, 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
== +Gibran (revisited) ==<br />
With recent edits, should he be listed as Bishop or Archbishop? I know that you're "closer to the action" (if you'll excuse the term), but there really should be one marker. Also, his nomination for elevation (in northern autumn?) and whether he was actually elevated is ambiguous. Thanks, {{User:Pistevo/sig}} 03:58, February 27, 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Yes, it is ambiguous, isn't it... chrisg 22:22 2006 February 27 (EAST)<br />
<br />
== [[Church of Antioch]] ==<br />
<br />
Hi there. I hope you'll address some of the issues I've brought up on [[Talk:Church of Antioch]] regarding some of your recent edits. Thanks! {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 20:18, March 13, 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Your use of Byzantine ==<br />
<br />
Chrisg,<br />
<br />
Many folks use the descriptor ''Byzantine'' for different purposes. Within Orthodoxy it is generally used to identify the specifically Greek, as opposed to Slavic, tradition. Outside of Orthodoxy it is often used to differentiate between Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and non-Chalcedonian "Oriental" Orthodoxy.<br />
<br />
In several of your recent contributions I've noticed you using the word in this latter way. However, this isn't necessary (or even desired) on OrthodoxWiki. We start from a [[NPOV|Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias]], which means that when we use the word Orthodox we generally mean Eastern or Byzantine Orthodox. We don't have to include the words "Eastern" or "Byzantine." Non-Chalcedonians, etc., are not presumed to be included.<br />
<br />
I hope this is clear. Let me know if you have any questions. {{User:Dcndavid/sig}} 06:54, March 15, 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Ordination==<br />
Congrats on your upcoming ordination[http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/385/6/]. Ever-Worthy! --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 07:48, April 3, 2006 (CDT)<br />
------<br />
Thanks. I need to hear Axios, but I cetainly do not personally feel worthy. I had a rather long discussion with Archimandrite Fr Victor Penel last century about whether candidates for priesthood are worthy or not. He disagreed with my view, but we remained friendly nonetheless. But thanks for the comment!<br />
:Reminds me of Fr Paul Nadim Tarazi's comments on Communion - if you think you're worthy, you should probably step out of the line. But, just in case, I should clarify - in the Greek, 'Panta Axios' is used from a distance (ie not in person), if I understand correctly, both as 'may you be worthy' and 'always be worthy', ie present and future tenses. Even if it's not correct, that's what I meant :) --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 23:18, April 10, 2006 (CDT)<br />
::Since the event has happened, a re-stated ''Axios!''. May God grant many years of service according to His will. &mdash; ''[[User:Pistevo|Pι]]''[[Special:Listusers/sysop|s]]'''[[User talk:Pistevo|τ]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Pistevo|é]]''[[User:Pistevo|vο]]'', at 06:29, May 29, 2006 (CDT)<br />
:::Once again, many thanks. I like the use of Axios in the exhortatory voice. And will always think of it in that positive exemplary way, thanks to your eloquent clarification. I also really like Fr Paul Tarazi's comment about stepping out of line. Fr Themi will be in Australia in June, July, August 2006, visiting Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane. Might you get an opportunity to see the "Apostle to the Poor"? :)~ chrisg 2006-05-29-2305 EAST<br />
::::Last time he came to Brisbane, I was out of the state - I hope that doesn't happen again...do you know when he's getting to Brisbane, by any chance? Assuming that I'm here, then God willing I'll definitely be there :D. &mdash; ''[[User:Pistevo|Pι]]''[[Special:Listusers/sysop|s]]'''[[User talk:Pistevo|τ]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Pistevo|é]]''[[User:Pistevo|vο]]'', at 13:30, May 29, 2006 (CDT)<br />
Sydney 5 to 24 July 2006, then straight to Brisbane, but I do not know for how long in Brisbane. chrisg 2006-05-30-1013 <br />
<br />
== SCCOCA ==<br />
<br />
Please see [[Talk:Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Churches in Australia|the talk page for SCCOCA]]. Because there seem to be wildly differing views of SCCOCA, I have placed the views of both the [[Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia|GOA]] (i.e. [[User:Nstavropoulos|Nstavropoulos' edit]]) and the [[Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand|AOA]] (i.e. your previous edits) in the article, and labelled as such. Thanks, --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 05:04, April 9, 2006 (CDT)<br />
------<br />
Until I get a citation, I have taken the safer course of deleting the Antiochian comment for the moment. An official comment could be forthcoming in the near future. <br />
Thanks<br />
chrisg 2006 April 10 1753 EAST<br />
:Quite an official comment! As I said on MetBoulos' page, please see the SCCOCA [[Talk:Standing_Conference_of_Canonical_Orthodox_Churches_in_Australia|talk page]], and the main article. --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 23:15, April 10, 2006 (CDT).<br />
-----<br />
I think someone might be a bit sick of the heavy-handed one-sidedness we have seen for so many years. <br />
<br />
Of course, the "representatives" of "SCCOCA", except for the Ecumenical representative, were unaware that Antioch had been "excluded". Not a cooperative decision. <br />
<br />
Also there was no Representative of the Moscow Patriarchate at the Vespers. The cleric who used to be the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate in Australia had that status terminated by Met Kyril of Smolensk and Kaliningrad about 4 years ago. All the Moscow clergy in Australia now report direct to Met Kyril.<br />
<br />
In addition it was ROCOR who used to be a member of SCCOCA, not Moscow. It is a bit disingenous to mention Moscow as having been represented when it was never a member of SCCOCA anyway.....<br />
<br />
It must be hard to be unbiased, having only heared the one version in the past. <br />
<br />
Who is N Stavropoulos? Is he the college registrar?<br />
<br />
Thanks<br />
<br />
:)~ chrisg 2006 April 11 : 1517 EAST<br />
<br />
:No no - college registrar is Anastasios Kalogerakis, BTh. I'm not completely sure who it is - Stavropoulos is a fairly common name, particularly amongst active members of the GOA in Sydney - but I do know of a priest by that initial.<br />
:Also, I would expect that 'representative of Moscow Patriarchate' was more 'a priest of' (rather than the leader); that being said, I'm not in Marrickville or anything.<br />
: *sigh* Australia's always been about half a generation behind America, but we must be well overdue for our huge convert influx, imho. --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 03:05, April 11, 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Exarchs==<br />
The current situation for Exarchs for the Church of Antioch for Australia and New Zealand is a little jumbled - any chance you'd be able to spare time for your preparation to shed some light on these very overlapping dates?<br />
*Fr [[Nicholas Shehadie]], 1913-1934<br />
*Fr [[George Haydar]] (Melbourne), 1948-1962<br />
*Fr [[Malatius Hussney (Sydney)]], 1953-1956<br />
*Fr [[Nicolas Mansour]], 1962-1969<br />
Thanks, {{User:Pistevo/sig}} 03:43, May 23, 2006 (CDT)<br />
:clarification: were there two exarchs in Australia at the one time? {{User:Pistevo/sig}} 04:38, May 23, 2006 (CDT)<br />
::I've attempted to clear this up as much as possible: I've tried to make it flow from Fr [[Nicholas Shehadie]] to Fr [[Nicolas Mansour]] (after that is easy, of course). Backwards it doesn't work, but I'm hoping that forwards both works and is correct. Your input, when possible, is much appreciated. &mdash; ''[[User:Pistevo|Pι]]''[[Special:Listusers/sysop|s]]'''[[User talk:Pistevo|τ]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Pistevo|é]]''[[User:Pistevo|vο]]'', at 08:07, May 27, 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Deaconesses]] ==<br />
<br />
Chrisg, this information might be better placed in the [[Diakonissa]] article as a section, with some mention in the [[Feminism in the Orthodox Church]] article. Additionally, we try not to have plural article titles. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 11:37, May 31, 2006 (CDT)<br />
:Deaconess is an order in the Church. Diakonissa, like Khourieh, are wives of those in orders. A link to deaconesses might be appropriate in the Diakonissa article, and depending on its treatment perhaps in the Feminism article. chrisg 2006-06-01-1219 EAST<br />
<br />
==[[Bishop]]==<br />
Thank you for restoring this article - much appreciated! &mdash; edited by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="red">Pι</font>]][[Special:Listusers/sysop|s]][[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="yellow">τ</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Pistevo|é]][[User:Pistevo|<font color="blue">vο</font>]] at 02:08, June 18, 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Dalmatikon ==<br />
<br />
Please see my comments on the discussion page for [[Dalmatikon|this article]]. &mdash;[[User:Dcndavid|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. David</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Dcndavid|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Dcndavid|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 13:52, June 20, 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==ROCOR ANZ==<br />
Dcn Chris, I'd love to see some citations on the recent history section of the ROCOR ANZ article. I've left your edit up because I know that, sadly, it's probably correct, but print citations would be beneficial. &mdash; edited by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 07:33, September 15, 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==LOL HY!==<br />
<br />
You're going to have to try harder there sparky. <br />
[http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&limit=2000 lol]<br />
<br />
--[[User:Themanwhowouldbeking|Themanwhowouldbeking]] 11:07, June 10, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
= Editing of Great Schism =<br />
<br />
I am changing back to the word "generally" because Palm Sunday 1054 AD is the accepted date historically for the Great Schism.<br />
If you disagree with this, please let a sysop weigh in on the question.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
<br />
Jaye</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78399Great Schism2008-12-10T20:44:01Z<p>Jacifus: /* Doctrinal issues: the Filioque */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the Eastern Orthodox Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East-West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that St.Leo the Great, and many of the Orthodox Pre-Schism Popes disagreed with the decision of the Toledo Council, one even going so far as to engraving the Creed without the Filioque on the doors of St. Peter's Basilica.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Events in AD 1054 ==<br />
AD 1054 is the date generally given for the split between East & West. The trouble had started earlier with Normans forcing the Greek Churches in Northern Italy, to conform to Latin practices, which in turn caused the Greeks to do the same to Latin Churches in Constantinople. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Celarius sent a letter to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore his name to the Diptychs, and suggesting that he send legates so that differences could be resolved between them. Unfortunately, the Pope chose to send Cardinal Humbert, a German who was not known for his tact. Upon receiving an audience with the Patriarch, they acted rudely, giving him a letter from the Pope, while in fact it had been drafted by Humbert himself. The letter demanded conformity from the Greeks, and so offended the Patriarch, that he refused to negotiate with them further. On Palm Sunday, Cardinal Humbert entered the Church of the Holy Wisdom, (Hagia Sophia) and placed a Bull of Excommunication on the Altar. This Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Celarius, and the entire Eastern Church. He then left the city immediately, before the angry crowds that were gathering could seize him. Patriarch Michael Celarius then called a meeting of the Holy Synod, and excommunicated Humbert, though not the Latin Church.<br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches'' (Lulu.com, 2008 ISBN 978-0615183619)<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'' (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836316) <br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World'' esp. pp. 64-71 (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836484)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (SVS Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0881410570)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Inquiry'' (Harvey & Co., 1978 ISBN 978-9607120113)<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church'', 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1993 ISBN 0140146563)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78397Great Schism2008-12-10T16:10:06Z<p>Jacifus: /* Doctrinal issues: the Filioque */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the Eastern Orthodox Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East-West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that St.Leo the Great, and many of the Orthodox Pre-Schism Popes disagreed with thr decision of the Toledo Council, one even going so far as to engraving the Creed without the Filioque on the doors of St. Peter's Basilica<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Events in AD 1054 ==<br />
AD 1054 is the date generally given for the split between East & West. The trouble had started earlier with Normans forcing the Greek Churches in Northern Italy, to conform to Latin practices, which in turn caused the Greeks to do the same to Latin Churches in Constantinople. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Celarius sent a letter to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore his name to the Diptychs, and suggesting that he send legates so that differences could be resolved between them. Unfortunately, the Pope chose to send Cardinal Humbert, a German who was not known for his tact. Upon receiving an audience with the Patriarch, they acted rudely, giving him a letter from the Pope, while in fact it had been drafted by Humbert himself. The letter demanded conformity from the Greeks, and so offended the Patriarch, that he refused to negotiate with them further. On Palm Sunday, Cardinal Humbert entered the Church of the Holy Wisdom, (Hagia Sophia) and placed a Bull of Excommunication on the Altar. This Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Celarius, and the entire Eastern Church. He then left the city immediately, before the angry crowds that were gathering could seize him. Patriarch Michael Celarius then called a meeting of the Holy Synod, and excommunicated Humbert, though not the Latin Church.<br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches'' (Lulu.com, 2008 ISBN 978-0615183619)<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'' (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836316) <br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World'' esp. pp. 64-71 (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836484)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (SVS Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0881410570)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Inquiry'' (Harvey & Co., 1978 ISBN 978-9607120113)<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church'', 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1993 ISBN 0140146563)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Balamand_Agreement&diff=78163Balamand Agreement2008-12-05T05:16:22Z<p>Jacifus: /* Controversy concerning the Balamand Agreement */</p>
<hr />
<div>A joint communique, signed on June 29, 1995 by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and Pope John Paul II, stating that "Our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches, responsible together for the preservation of the One Church of God." <br />
<br />
== Controversy concerning the Balamand Agreement ==<br />
<br />
The Balamand Agreement has been widely protested among conservative Orthodox. The Sacred Communities of Mt. Athos were among the Orthodox groups that protested this statement. The prevailing thought is that until the Western Church is in communion with Orthodoxy, there can be no "Sister Church" status.<br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
From the official publication of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,<br />
"Episkepsis," No. 520, July 31, 1995, p. 19</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Balamand_Agreement&diff=78162Balamand Agreement2008-12-05T04:31:23Z<p>Jacifus: </p>
<hr />
<div>A joint communique, signed on June 29, 1995 by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and Pope John Paul II, stating that "Our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches, responsible together for the preservation of the One Church of God." <br />
<br />
== Controversy concerning the Balamand Agreement ==<br />
<br />
The Balamand Statement has been widely protested among conservative Orthodox. The Sacred Communities of Mt. Athos were among the Orthodox groups that protested this statement. The prevailing thought is that until the Western Church is in communion with Orthodoxy, there can be no "Sister Church" status.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
From the official publication of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,<br />
"Episkepsis," No. 520, July 31, 1995, p. 19</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Balamand_Agreement&diff=78161Balamand Agreement2008-12-05T04:21:06Z<p>Jacifus: </p>
<hr />
<div>A joint communique, signed on June 29, 1995 by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and Pope John Paul II, stating that "Our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches, responsible together for the preservation of the One Church of God." **<br />
<br />
== Controversy concerning the Balamand Agreement ==<br />
<br />
The Balamand Statement has been widely protested among conservative Orthodox. The Sacred Communities of Mt. Athos were among the Orthodox groups that protested this statement. The prevailing thought is that until the Western Church is in communion with Orthodoxy, there can be no "Sister Church" status.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
**From the official publication of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,<br />
"Episkepsis," No. 520, July 31, 1995, p. 19</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Balamand_Agreement&diff=78160Balamand Agreement2008-12-05T04:20:30Z<p>Jacifus: </p>
<hr />
<div>A joint communique, signed on June 29, 1995 by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and Pope John Paul II, stating that "Our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches, responsible together for the preservation of the One Church of God."*<br />
<br />
== Controversy concerning the Balamand Agreement ==<br />
<br />
The Balamand Statement has been widely protested among conservative Orthodox. The Sacred Communities of Mt. Athos were among the Orthodox groups that protested this statement. The prevailing thought is that until the Western Church is in communion with Orthodoxy, there can be no "Sister Church" status.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*From the official publication of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,<br />
"Episkepsis," No. 520, July 31, 1995, p. 19</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Balamand_Agreement&diff=78159Balamand Agreement2008-12-05T04:19:38Z<p>Jacifus: New page: A joint communique, signed on June 29, 1995 by the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew, and Pope John Paul II, stating that "Our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches, responsi...</p>
<hr />
<div>A joint communique, signed on June 29, 1995 by the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew, and Pope John Paul II, stating that "Our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches, responsible together for the preservation of the One Church of God."*<br />
<br />
== Controversy concerning the Balamand Agreement ==<br />
<br />
The Balamand Statement has been widely protested among conservative Orthodox. The Sacred Communities of Mt. Athos were among the Orthodox groups that protested this statement. The prevailing thought is that until the Western Church is in communion with Orthodoxy, there can be no "Sister Church" status.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*From the official publication of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,<br />
"Episkepsis," No. 520, July 31, 1995, p. 19</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Jacifus&diff=78150User talk:Jacifus2008-12-04T20:45:28Z<p>Jacifus: /* Great Schism */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{welcome}} &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 20:08, December 3, 2008 (UTC)</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78149Great Schism2008-12-04T19:40:21Z<p>Jacifus: /* Events in AD 1054 */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the Eastern Orthodox Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East-West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Events in AD 1054 ==<br />
AD 1054 is the date generally given for the split between East & West. The trouble had started earlier with Normans forcing the Greek Churches in Northern Italy, to conform to Latin practices, which in turn caused the Greeks to do the same to Latin Churches in Constantinople. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Celarius sent a letter to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore his name to the Diptychs, and suggesting that he send legates so that differences could be resolved between them. Unfortunately, the Pope chose to send Cardinal Humbert, a German who was not known for his tact. Upon receiving an audience with the Patriarch, they acted rudely, giving him a letter from the Pope, while in fact it had been drafted by Humbert himself. The letter demanded conformity from the Greeks, and so offended the Patriarch, that he refused to negotiate with them further. On Palm Sunday, Cardinal Humbert entered the Church of the Holy Wisdom, (Hagia Sophia) and placed a Bull of Excommunication on the Altar. This Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Celarius, and the entire Eastern Church. He then left the city immediately, before the angry crowds that were gathering could seize him. Patriarch Michael Celarius then called a meeting of the Holy Synod, and excommunicated Humbert, though not the Latin Church.<br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches'' (Lulu.com, 2008 ISBN 978-0615183619)<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'' (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836316) <br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World'' esp. pp. 64-71 (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836484)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (SVS Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0881410570)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Inquiry'' (Harvey & Co., 1978 ISBN 978-9607120113)<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church'', 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1993 ISBN 0140146563)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr_Lev&diff=78148User talk:Fr Lev2008-12-04T19:39:06Z<p>Jacifus: /* Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow */</p>
<hr />
<div>== [[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow]] ==<br />
<br />
I've rolled the Talk page back, as per your request. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 01:56, August 6, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Many thanks! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:04, August 6, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Edits to Great Schism ==<br />
<br />
Fr.<br />
<br />
With all due respect, the form of date 1054 A.D. is correct english. I don't understand the edit.<br />
<br />
Jaye (Jacifus)<br />
<br />
==Talk:Sarum Use==<br />
Hello Fr,<br />
I was trying to add some comments to this page, and when i tried to save it removed all existing comments. Tried to undo the revision, and the undo did not save. Not able to restore,,can you please help?? Thanks,<br />
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 20:51, August 26, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Help on [[misotheism]] article==<br />
Hello Father I was hoping for some help on the misotheism article. <br />
[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] 17:08, August 30, 2008 (UTC)</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78142Great Schism2008-12-04T12:07:11Z<p>Jacifus: /* Events of 1054 A.D. */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the Eastern Orthodox Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of [[Nicene Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Events of 1054 A.D. ==<br />
The year 1054 A.D. is the generally agreed upon date for the split between East & West. The trouble had started earlier with Normans forcing the Greek Churches in Northern Italy, to conform to Latin practices, which in turn caused the Greeks to do the same to Latin Churches in Constantinople. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Celarius sent a letter to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore his name to the Diptychs, and suggesting that he send legates so that differences could be resolved between them. Unfortunately, the Pope chose to send Cardinal Humbert, a German who was not known for his tact. Upon receiving an audience with the Patriarch, they acted rudely, giving him a letter from the Pope, while in fact it had been drafted by Humbert himself. The letter demanded conformity from the Greeks, and so offended the Patriarch, that he refused to negotiate with them further. On Palm Sunday, Cardinal Humbert entered the Church of the Holy Wisdom, (Hagia Sophia) and placed a Bull of Excommunication on the Altar. This Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Celarius, and the entire Eastern Church. He then left the city immediately, before the angry crowds that were gathering could seize him. Patriarch Michael Celarius then called a meeting of the Holy Synod, and excommunicated Humbert, though not the Latin Church.<br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches'' (Lulu.com, 2008 ISBN 978-0615183619)<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'' (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836316) <br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World'' esp. pp. 64-71 (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836484)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (SVS Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0881410570)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Inquiry'' (Harvey & Co., 1978 ISBN 978-9607120113)<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church'', 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1993 ISBN 0140146563)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78136Great Schism2008-12-04T03:23:39Z<p>Jacifus: /* Events of 1054 A.D. */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the Eastern Orthodox Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of [[Nicene Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Events of 1054 A.D. ==<br />
The year 1054 A.D. is the generally agreed upon date for the split between East & West. The trouble had started earlier with Normans forcing the Greek Churches in Northern Italy, to conform to Latin practices, which in turn caused the Greeks to do the same to Latin Churches in Constantinople. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Celarius sent a letter to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore his name to the Diptychs, and suggesting that he send legates so that differences could be resolved between them. Unfortunately, the Pope chose to send Cardinal Humbert, a German who was not known for his tact. Upon receiving an audience with the Patriarch, they acted rudely, giving him a letter from the Pope, while in fact it had been drafted by Humbert himself. The letter demanded conformity from the Greeks, and so offended the Patriarch, that he refused to negotiate with them further. On Palm Sunday, Cardinal Humbert entered the Church of the Holy Wisdom, (Hagia Sophia) and placed a Bull of Excommunication on the Altar. This Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Celarius, and the entire Eastern Church. He then left the city immediately, before the angry crowds that were gathering could seize him. Patiarch Michael Celarius then called a meeting of the Holy Synod, and excommunicated Humbert, though not the Latin Church.<br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches'' (Lulu.com, 2008 ISBN 978-0615183619)<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'' (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836316) <br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World'' esp. pp. 64-71 (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836484)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (SVS Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0881410570)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Inquiry'' (Harvey & Co., 1978 ISBN 978-9607120113)<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church'', 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1993 ISBN 0140146563)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78135Great Schism2008-12-04T03:21:32Z<p>Jacifus: /* Events of 1054 A.D. */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the Eastern Orthodox Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of [[Nicene Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Events of 1054 A.D. ==<br />
The year 1054 A.D. is the generally agreed upon date for the split between East & West. The trouble started with Normans forcing the Greek Churches in Northern Italy, to conform to Latin practices, which in turn caused the Greeks to do the same to Latin Churches in Constantinople. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Celarius sent a letter to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore his name to the Diptychs, and suggesting that he send legates so that differences could be resolved between them. Unfortunately, the Pope chose to send Cardinal Humbert, a German who was not known for his tact. Upon receiving an audience with the Patriarch, they acted rudely, giving him a letter from the Pope, while in fact it had been drafted by Humbert himself. The letter demanded conformity from the Greeks, and so offended the Patriarch, that he refused to negotiate with them further. On Palm Sunday, Cardinal Humbert entered the Church of the Holy Wisdom, (Hagia Sophia) and placed a Bull of Excommunication on the Altar. This Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Celarius, and the entire Eastern Church. He then left the city immediately, before the angry crowds that were gathering could seize him. Patiarch Michael Celarius then called a meeting of the Holy Synod, and excommunicated Humbert, though not the Latin Church.<br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches'' (Lulu.com, 2008 ISBN 978-0615183619)<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'' (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836316) <br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World'' esp. pp. 64-71 (SVS Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0913836484)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (SVS Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0881410570)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Inquiry'' (Harvey & Co., 1978 ISBN 978-9607120113)<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church'', 2nd ed. (Penguin, 1993 ISBN 0140146563)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78132Great Schism2008-12-04T02:08:33Z<p>Jacifus: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of Eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the other Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of [[Nicene Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Events of 1054 A.D. ==<br />
The year 1054 A.D. is the generally agreed upon date for the split between East & West. The trouble started with Normans forcing the Greek Churches to conform to Latin practices, which in turn caused the Greeks to do the same to Latin Churches in Constantinople. In 1053, Patriarch Michael Celarius sent a letter to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore his name to the Diptychs, and suggesting that he send legates so that differences could be resolved between them. Unfortunately, the Pope chose to send Cardinal Humbert, a German who was not known for his tact. Upon receiving an audience with the Patriarch, they acted rudely, giving him a letter from the Pope, while in fact it had been drafted by Humbert himself. The letter demanded conformity from the Greeks, and so offended the Patriarch, that he refused to negotiate with them further. On Palm Sunday, Cardinal Humbert entered the Church of the Holy Wisdom, (Hagia Sophia) and placed a Bull of Excommunication on the Altar. This Bull excommunicated Patriarch Michael Celarius, and the entire Eastern Church. He then left the city immediately, before the angry crowds that were gathering could seize him. Patiarch Michael Celarius then called a meeting of the Holy Synod, and excommunicated Humbert, though not the Latin Church.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches''<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''<br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition'' esp pp64-71 (1978 SVS Press)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (1994 SVS Press)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism''<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church''<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:ASDamick&diff=78129User talk:ASDamick2008-12-04T00:28:31Z<p>Jacifus: </p>
<hr />
<div><div class="boilerplate" id="stub" style="margin: 0 auto; text-align: center; background: #EEEEEE; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #CCC; width: 60%; align: center">'''Fr. Andrew''' is currently reserving the right to make his wiki-contributions extremely sporadic.</div><br />
<br />
* [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Dec. 18, 2004 - June 17, 2005)<br />
* [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (July 5, 2005 - Dec. 15, 2005)<br />
* [[/Archive 3|Archive 3]] (Dec. 23, 2005 - Aug. 2, 2006)<br />
* [[/Archive 4|Archive 4]] (Aug. 10, 2006 - May 29, 2008)<br />
<br />
----<br />
== Updating The Great Schism ==<br />
<br />
Fr. Andrew:<br />
<br />
Who would you prefer that I get permission from to post this material? (I will do so, if possible) , because I believe it will greatly benefit this article!<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
<br />
Jaye (Jacifus)<br />
<br />
== "Church" v. "church" ==<br />
<br />
I understand "the Church" v. "a church" when it comes to a parish. However, I thought that one could also have "a Church" meaning an entity such as the [[Church of Russia]]. Currently, that article (Jursidiction section) mentions: "This includes these self-governing Churches:" Is this wrong? (I would appreciate it if you would add some clarification to the [[OrthodoxWiki:Style_Manual#Capitalization|Style Manual]] on this so I can refer back to it.) Thank you. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 15:05, June 2, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Vandalism 10June08==<br />
Figured just after I did it... :/ ...Wonder if there's a way to have a setting where all of an editors edits can just be mass-reverted? &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 11:56, June 10, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
* Thank you very much, Fr. Andrew. It's just my duty.--''[[User:Θεοδωρος|<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #082567">Θεόδωρος</span>]]'' 12:02, June 10, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've noticed you are able to delete particular edits from the revision history. I think [[Pope Saint Dioscorus I of Alexandria (Coptic POV)]] still needs help (or just to be transferred to OrthodoxSource and deleted here), but I'd like to know how to delete selected edits, and what the "undo" button does ... without harming an actual article. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 19:47, June 11, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thank you. I hadn't even noticed the (show/hide) link until you pointed it out. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:15, June 11, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hmm. Poking it doesn't seem to work in this case. I can rollback to the previous edit, or I can undo, but each option seems to deal with single edits, when I want to go back several edits. I have tried several times to copy and paste from an [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Pope_Saint_Dioscorus_I_of_Alexandria_(Coptic_POV)&oldid=60734 older edit], but I think that there may be too much data. I feel uncomfortable transferring this article to OrthodoxSource, because I don't know whether we have the right to use most of the material from this article (most of it seems to be from [http://www.coptichymns.net/module-library-viewpub-tid-1-pid-384.html this article]). In any case, if you can get the article restored (I give up), I think it needs a significant amount of cleanup. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:52, June 11, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Help on Code ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I have looked through the various Help Files but there doesnt seem to be one that teaches you (or define) how to use the parameters (and what these are) for code. I have been working on putting a {{ }} together but I want to collapse my table. Do you know of a reference I cna read to educate myself on this code? and what will work on OrthodoxWiki? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 02:58, June 12, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Do you know if the {{#if:}} are supposed to work on OrthodoxWiki? They work on Wikipedia -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]<br />
<br />
== Recruitment of "expert" ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I wanted to ask you to help me ... I am hoping that at this point in time, the number of people who go to OrthodoxSource is limited to ...two, three at the max ...because it will get crazy before a nice sensible 'framework' is put in place ... anyway, can you pop over to Orthodox Source for a moment ... and take a look at what I have started to do and please dont freak out ... I am pretty computer savvy .. the only problem is I am having difficulty with the #if code ... which is messing up the format for this template [http://www.orthodoxsource.org/Template:Author ''Development of Template for "Author" definitions"''] which is a key template to get this site up and running. Keep it quiet that I am working on that site because otherwise too many people will start sticky beaking into it and modifying things without the framework finishing ... -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]<br />
<br />
So, who should I recruit??? See, my development so far ... I want someone to work with! Any ideas? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]<br />
<br />
== take a look .... ==<br />
<br />
http://orthodoxsource.org/Author:Raphael_Hawaweeny<br />
<br />
==Existing structure==<br />
Thanks on the revert on my addition to the "graduates". I like to follow the existing structure a best I can. A few times I've noted what appears to be more than one path, usually over using similar titles for articles and categories that I think adds confusion in navigating. At this time I can't remember my "examples!" Multiple paths may be necessary sometime, but my intent is to work within the present structure and keep the structure simple to follow. [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 14:09, June 18, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==PSCA==<br />
PSCA = "Provisional Supreme Church Authority [of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad]", aka the "Agathangelites" -- the latest schismatic jurisdiction to emerge in Ukraine. I'll get a brief article about them up. {{unsigned|Aleks}}<br />
<br />
==Stuff==<br />
1. I am not trying to live in '''"bubble" world''' where only I can edit and only I can do as I please ... so, please dont go inferring that I should "bugger off" and start my own wiki if that is what I want ...<br />
<br />
2. I am not upset because you deleted the DVD articles, or Category links (because I make OW mistakes) I never said that so please dont infer that. I am/was upset with the overall revert you made to the OrthodoxSource Main Page. That was a significant (rv) and I just would have liked the opportunity to have been treated like an equal in that case - drop me a conversational note giving me a warning that you intend to do it. That was what upset me, ''''the fact you didnt think I was worth discussing it in the first place'''<br />
<br />
3. I tend to get defensive with you because from Day One you have been pretty abrupt with me on just about every occassion ... so that pattern has made me feel like '''you dont think I am worth discussing with in the first place''' - even if you do talk to me ... it has been talking "down" on occassions, little comments in the past "highlighting" my weaknesses have made me feel inferior ... and have made me feel that everyone has a superior grasp of "English", I dont ... so ... I do note, that you are so willing to be "patient" with me; Wow, how awesome that you can exhibit ''patience'' with me? how good does that make me feel?<br />
<br />
It doesnt matter. The point is, I dont seem to do it right in here. So, goodbye from today. I wont contribute to OW anymore if you all think that my contributions lack 'quality", what is the point of wasting my time and yours? - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 04:52, June 19, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: See my response on your [[User talk:Ixthis888|talk page]]. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 05:00, June 19, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== My Apology and request for Help ==<br />
<br />
I want to apologise for coming across (in written text) as such a cry baby ... I guarantee you I get frustrated that I can not explain myself simply and quickly and appropriately and I know you are a cool priest but I do get upset on big ticket items because all i want is the opportunity to discuss ... In any case, accept my apologies for going all huffy yesterday. I still stand by the fact I will not contribute to OW any longer since I feel that I am a nuisance rather than a help. However, in OS I really do want to contribute to developing the framework/skeleton (ie. Set up all the codes and the worksheets) that can then be "filled" with the revelant Bibliographical lists by others (or even me). To do that, I really need someone to talk with over in the OS wiki. At the moment, I want to discuss a framework for Liturgical Texts (BEFORE) I go ahead and set up the entire code/framework .... Can you help me? [http://www.orthodoxsource.org/OrthodoxSource:Discussion DESIGN of Liturgical Text Portal] - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 00:35, June 20, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Estonian "Issue" ==<br />
<br />
Father:<br />
<br />
Evlogeite!<br />
<br />
Regarding your comments about the Estonian Church. You write:<br />
"The reason for the difference in naming is that the EP's Estonian church is not regarded by the EP as a constituent part—rather, the EP regards the Estonian church as autonomous, having the same status as Finland, Sinai, etc. The MP, however, regards its Estonian church as being essentially an integral part of the MP, in contrast with the Church of Ukraine, which it regards as autonomous. Thus, the distinction."<br />
<br />
Please explain to me, what the difference in status is between the Ukrainian and Estonian Churches (MP). It seems to me that both have the same status within the MP. The Primate of the Ukrainian Church is confirmed by the Moscow Patriarch; so is the Primate of the Estonian Church (MP). Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Church serve in the Council and Synod of the Russian Church; so do hierarchs of the Estonian Church (MP). In fact, the Metropolitan of Kiev is an ex officio permanent member of the Holy Synod in Moscow. The Ukrainian Church receives its chrism from the Moscow Patriarch; so does the Estonian Church (MP). The name of the Patriarch of Moscow is elevated at services in the Ukrainian Church and in the Estonian Church before the names of the Metropolitans of Kiev and Tallinn, respectively.<br />
<br />
Thus, I see no difference between their status as "integral parts of the MP" or not. I do not know what the status of the Estonian Church (EP) is within the EP. However, it seems to me that, for matters of OrthodoxWiki:<br />
<br />
1. If the Ukrainian Church is listed as an autonomous church with unrecognized autonomy in the box of autonomous / autocephalous churches, so too should be the Estonian Church (MP), alongside the Estonian Church (EP). This is already happening on the French version of the project.<br />
<br />
2. There should be two articles. One called "Church of Estonia (EP)" and one called "Church of Estonia (MP)". The article "Church of Estonia" ought to be a disambiguation page. Doing otherwise may be construed as taking sides in a canonical debate.<br />
<br />
Yours in Christ, --[[User:Aleks|Aleks]] 15:56, June 23, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== New Article - '''[[Georgii Shavelsky]]''' ==<br />
<br />
'''Hi, when you have the time, could you please create his Biography - [[Georgii Shavelsky]] - to compliment the osource Memoir you create? I have cut and paste a really bad "Google" translation of a biography I found from the 'source', see below. ... I do not read or understand Russian so there is no way I can edit the google translation for accuracy of information bc I can not cross check it with the authentic material in the Russian language. I created a OrthodoxSource article to link the Memoir you created, please visit [[osource:Author:Georgii Shavelsky]] to link the OW article and also modify the osource article.''' - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 01:22, June 26, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* Source: [http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/shavelsky_gi/pre.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DShavelsky%26hl%3Den]<br />
----<br />
Life, identity and fate of his father George Shavelski represents an unusually coherent whole. Since their memories of. George starts only in 1911, when he received the appointment as military and maritime Protopresvitera clergy, Publisher them. Chekhov is experiencing living need to give readers a better understanding of the life of this exceptional man and a prominent cleric. <br />
<br />
George O. Shavelsky was born on January 6, 1871 in the village Dubokray Vitebsk province, in the family dyachka that heavy peasant labour extractive piece of bread for his large family. Primary education has received in the future Protopresbyter Duhovnom College and then graduated from the first course Theological Seminary. Ahead holds the promise of higher education in the Theological Academy. But on. George has chosen to dedicate themselves to serving ordinary people, and in 1891 was appointed psalomshchika very poor parish of Vitebsk province. Here at the same time, and he became a teacher in rural schools. Four years later, he took the San priesthood and was appointed rector in his native village of another province. Two years later, his wife died, leaving him two-year-old girl. However, Father Georgy not fallen spirit, wholeheartedly commend pastoral work. Soon, on the recommendation of the bishop of Vitebsk, about. George was sent to St. Petersburg for the admission of Spiritual Academy. He brilliantly stood the entrance examination and immediately allocate as the best student of the Academy. [6] <br />
<br />
As far back as when his student, about. George was appointed preacher at the Alexandrovsky Engineering Plant and decent in the name of Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich in Strelna. As a student 3 - course, he became rector Suvorovskoy church. <br />
<br />
When broke out Russian-Japanese war, about. George volunteered to go to the front and received the appointment in the army regimental first priest, then divisional decent, mostly at the end of the priest Manchu armies. For his outstanding leadership and exceptional prowess (the risk to the life he visited the front line, where once suffered severe concussion), about. George was elevated to the rank of archpriest of St. and awarded honors. And St. George. Vladimir with swords. <br />
<br />
In March 1906 on. George returned to his pastoral ministry in Suvorovskoy Church in St. Petersburg. In addition to pastoral service, Fr. Georgy very early borrowed teaching activity. Since 1906 - till 1910 - the year he was zakonouchitelem in Smolny Institute, a professor of theology in 1910 Historical Studies Institute. In the same in 1910 about. George became a member of the military spiritual Protopresbyter. The next in 1911, about. George was appointed Protopresbyter military and maritime clergy Russian Empire. <br />
<br />
Events shook Russia's first revolution of 1904-5. heightened public interest Church circles to religious education officers and soldiers. O. George was the initiator of special institutions for officers theological readings. His lectures always been a huge success. At the initiative on. George, such readings have been organized in Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov and Kazan garrisons. <br />
<br />
Even before the start 1 - World War II, in the first period [7] his protopresviterstva (1911-1914's.) About. George has totally restructured and greatly raise the military and especially maritime clergy, it attracted a number of prominent clerics. It should be noted, and emphasize his ability and the ability to select a talented assistants and keep firmly in their hands, those, different abilities were not always at a height in nature. From the clergy subordinate to him, he demanded that everyone worked fully its forces and capabilities, but will certainly worked; negligent and stroptivyh he pursued and expelled. His kipuchey energy and skill to come to any good and useful case and bring it to the end, as well as their availability, responsiveness and willingness to come to the aid of everyone in need, he earned the love, respect and trust him in a subordinate of about 5,000 people (during the war) clergy, which in 1917 at its All-Russian congress elected him his life Protopresbyter. <br />
<br />
By the end of July 1914. George has prepared a draft name to the highest total reorganization of management and maritime military clergy. To carry out his he was not given. Gryanula war. George O. received the appointment in Stavku High-Chief. <br />
Further story of his life and work on. George tells himself to the attention of readers memoir. After the end of civil war. George moved to Bulgaria. Here he first became an ordinary priest. Outstanding ability and talent on the bright predicant. George was soon rated as the Bulgarian church authorities and local universities. George O. was brought to the pedagogical work first as a teacher Sophia University, then as a professor of Theological [8], Faculty of Sofia University, while he was zakonouchitelem and director of Russian grammar school. <br />
<br />
George O. and was destined to survive the Second World War. He died rather quietly ugas 2 - October 1951. Despite the fact that the death of Fr. George could not inform all his friends, relatives and acquaintances, the news of the death of Fr. George razneslas with lightning speed, not only for Sofia, but also for the province. The funeral on. George attracted a huge number of people simply wanted to ashes beloved pastor and mentor. <br />
<br />
Outstanding organizational skills, teaching skills, independence of judgement, faithful to their convictions, combined in on. Georgia with remarkable humility in his personal life and habits. This modesty especially stay invisible when compared with the breadth of its aid near and far. These qualities about. George Shavelskogo served as a source of legends, which is still in his lifetime became folded around his behalf.<br />
----<br />
<br />
== The Reason You Make the Big Bucks ==<br />
<br />
Fr. Andrew, as I noted on the main moderator page, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon article needs moderation -- more than you provided. I'm offended at being equated with my attacker, and had you bothered to read the bulk of the post, you'd note I more than presented a thorough case for why my edits improved the article. IMO, the word "almost" should be struck from the record, but the last time this same poster started three simultaneous edit-wars with me (Feb. 12-14), you threatened to ban us both if we ever did it again. (There I am getting blamed for ''responding'' again.) So, to avoid being banned by you, I'm asking you to do the moderator's job, read the background material about how the AWRV has implemented all these in actual fact (which you probably know already), and (if you're convinced) strike the word "almost" from the article (or if not, let us know why not). You're a moderator, and I'm tired of being blamed for responding -- so have at it. :) --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 03:32, June 28, 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks. I know how busy you must be with PLC coming up, but I appreciate your looking things over.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 22:56, June 28, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Deacon Ben got in trouble for "responding"? He deleted an entire article of mine. (I put it back :) ) BTW, Father Andrew, THANK YOU for being objective and noting that a page titled "Western Rite and Old Calendarists" was about the Western Rite and Old Calendarists. I would love to review what "Willibrord" was "confirming"-- forgive my presumption but the man has an agenda. I wish I had the exact quote of Patriarch Elias of Antioch the first time he saw the "St Tikhon" liturgy: to paraphrase, he expressed surprised at an Orthodox liturgy that never once mentioned the Theotokos. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 21:14, July 18, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Something the North Got Right ==<br />
<br />
"I'm a Southerner by birth and at heart, though I do wish there were more proper bakeries south of the Mason-Dixon Line. That's possibly one of the major things Yankees have gotten right."<br />
<br />
They didn't do too bad at emancipation or crop-burning, either.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 03:36, June 28, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Wikipedia: article or version permalink ==<br />
<br />
I am curious as to why you changed the Wikipedia link back to the general article (for the [[Leo VI]] article). Since the Wikipedia page was listed as a source, my understanding is that OrthodoxWiki prefers the version permalink (cf. [[OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (Importing)]]); for external links (not sources), I can understand using the interwiki for the general Wikipedia article, but this one is a source. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 16:22, July 1, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Non-standard characters ==<br />
<br />
I remember (so I hope this happened) discussing on the wiki the policy of using standard Latin characters for article names. However, I cannot find any mention of this policy or any discussion about it. I checked the move log, and the only moves for "standard characters" are mine. Do you remember anything about this, or do you have thoughts on writing this up as a policy? (I think it's a good idea to have non-standard characters within the article, and as a redirect to the article.) —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 22:06, July 1, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "African Orthodox Chruch" ==<br />
Hi Fr Andrew :)<br />
I wanted to ask you about a topic I just came across.... In the [[Time of Church History]] article, the entry for 1924 refers to: <br />
''"..Bp. Daniel William Alexander convenes meeting in Kimberley, South Africa, which decides to secede from the African Church (a Protestant denomination) and affiliate with the "African Orthodox Church" in New York under George McGuire;"''<br />
<br />
Anyways, I accidentally came across a webpage that discusses the history of the [http://www.coltranechurch.org/african.htm "African Orthodox Church"], stating "The A.O.C. was founded by George Alexander McGuire in 1921." <br />
<br />
After reading this short summary, I am still not sure who this group is,..obsvioulsy non-canonical with mainstream Orthodoxy?? So, should we have an article on this group in the OW, for clarification purposes? Or at least an article on George Alexander McGuire? What do you think?<br />
Cheers,<br />
Chris.<br />
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 18:32, July 4, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A request for Orthodox Christian participants in a project ==<br />
<br />
Dear Admin AsDamick,<br />
<br />
Since I believe in the unity of saints in regards to Christendom as a whole and because I have read excellent works written by Orthodox Christians, I was hoping to get the Orthodox Christian community involved in a project. <br />
<br />
The project I currently have going is the refutation of atheism on the internet. As part of this effort, I created what is likely the seventh most popular article on atheism on the internet in the English speaking world and the article can be found here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism The article is currently ranked #7 at Google USA for the search "atheism". I can use this article to help other articles rank high on the search engines for various articles on atheism by featuring those articles in the aforementioned article. <br />
<br />
I currently work in the search engine optimization field which is simplified is helping clients rank high for Google for various topics and searches. I am willing to teach you some excellent principles in regards to this field so your material would likely have prominence on the internet. The principles are easy to learn and it would be my pleasure to teach my fellow Christians involved in a anti-atheism campaign some fundamental principles in regards to getting their material to rank high for the search engines and do it on a volunteer basis.<br />
<br />
Since Orthodox Christianity suffered greatly under atheistic communism, I would like to have the Orthodox Community be a part of the anti-atheism campaign. Also, there are many Orthodox Christians. Perhaps you could provide me useful feedback in relation to the above anti-atheism article. Also, perhaps you could help me gain the contributions of Orthodox Christians to the anti-atheism campaign.<br />
<br />
I decided to start this campaign partly due to the the New Atheism that has reared its head as of late.<br />
<br />
Please let me know if you or others are interested in any of the above. You can contact me at my user talk page. [[User:Manchuria|Manchuria]] 14:49, July 13, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== OSource Main Page ==<br />
<br />
Hi, could you please replace current Main Page code with revised code that I have temporarily placed at: '''[[osource:Sandbox]]'''. Thanks - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 03:05, July 16, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Hosting copyright material on OrthodoxSource ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I have received permission from an Orthodox priest to host his articles on OrthodoxSource. Now, I wanted to make sure that this would be ok before going and dumping his articles on OS so that I dont get (a) myself into trouble and (b) OrthodoxSource into trouble. What is the process for "documenting" the permission to use the article? Its only me that has a copy of this email on my private gmail email - do I forward Father John Schroedel a copy and is that enough to cover orthodoxSource from copyright issues???? I am very interested to understand what to do from here before I start dumping his material. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 02:02, July 21, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Help Me ... please ==<br />
<br />
Can you please modify the Main Page on OrthodoxSource to '''"remove"''' the sentence ''"An online repository of archival and contemporary open-license Orthodox content..."'' which advertises orthodoxSource as "Open-license" ...<br />
<br />
I was emailing Father John Schroedel who explained that by this sentence it can be understood that: ''by open-license, I would mean something that can be freely copied, and perhaps modified. The Creative Commons licenses do a good job of allowing a range of terms and conditions while still encouraging the free use of the content.''<br />
<br />
This is one of his concerns, since he visions: ''I had envisioned, for example, putting archival/historical content there -- such as the old pamphlets that constitute a large part of the printed record of Orthodox in the U.S. in the early part of the last century, or photos of Orthodox places that are distributed under a creative commons license, or other public materials, epecially those items of significance for the history and identity of the Orthodox community.''<br />
<br />
I would like to make him happy (and do things right of course) but I can not modify the Main Page to rectify this mistake of mine :-) That sentence ''"An online repository of archival and contemporary open-license Orthodox content..."'' is a direct cut and paste from "WikiSource" when I was setting up the structure and since you have locked the Main Page, I can not rectify my edit ...<br />
- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:49, July 21, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fr John - old Pamphlets ==<br />
<br />
Hi, because I am in Australia picking up the phone is a hard thing to do :-) Can you speak with Father John and ask him which Pamphlets he would like loaded onto OrthodoxSource. I am happy to start "setting" it all up for him ...if you like you can email me the *.pdf's on my personal email ... Do you know how to access my email without me having to post it publicaly? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 00:07, July 22, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I really have no idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately, I am also unable to do much outside contact at the moment, since I am at a clergy conference and away from home. (I also don't even have Fr. John's phone number!) &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 19:31, July 23, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Taxiarhis ==<br />
<br />
Look, thanks for that. I did a OW search on the word "Taxiarhis" and did not find it ... it never occured to me to search on the "Taxiar'''c'''his" spelling ... thanks for fixing up and sorry to waste your time on something I should have picked up in the first instance. - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:14, July 30, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Good-morning ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I am a little confused because I didnt revert anyones edits (?) As for the actual note you left on my page ... Thanks and Sorry, if I "intercepted" the edit by the Publication company but I didnt think (at the time) I made any drastic changes (like I didnt delete anything). I dont believe I 'disciplined' them either I made a friendly suggestion and encouraged them by even adding a link and the potential for them to contribute! Anyway, I dont know why as a grown woman I have to explain and apologise by now you should know that I am keen in assisting here so by default - SORRY! Thanks for the heads-up! Maybe you can think about "using"/or "directing" me towards what you actually want from me because quite frankly it gets tiring doing the wrong thing all the time :-) and then being 'advised' :-) so, I will leave it up to you to leave a "task list" for me to follow through on. Cheerio and God Bless. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 22:50, August 6, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Email ==<br />
What are the steps in "My Preferences" for making my email accessible without being public? - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:07, August 6, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Talk:Sarum Use==<br />
Hello Fr, I was trying to add some comments to this discussion page, and when I tried to save it removed all existing comments. Tried to undo the revision, and the undo did not save. Not able to restore,,can you please help?? Thanks, <br />
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 21:22, August 26, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== http://www.chrysostom.org/writings.html ==<br />
<br />
Hi, two of your links do now work on the "Writings" page ... <br />
:BEATITUDES: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/matthom15.html<br />
:LORDS PRAYER: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/matthom19.html<br />
I thought you might want to know this so you could update the page.<br />
[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:28, November 2, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
PS. I also took a photo of an icon of Chrysostom within the Church of the Holy Trinity, Taksim, Constantinople. It is a gorgeous fresco of him ... I am more than happy to give you permmission to use it on your webpage ... oh yeah, and His relics (God Bless, at the Patriarchate I was weeping when I realised who I was venerating) ...one catch only ... can you change the background colour of the web page from black to something more positive and colourful like white?? LOL [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:30, November 2, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Osource ==<br />
Hey, it's getting all too hard :-)<br />
<br />
I ''have'' asked in the past for some assistance but been ignored - except for Andrew, who has legitimately stepped in and helped set up codes and stuff. Awesome guy. I can offer again, what I said months ago, ... if '''you''', or someone, can just '''DUMP material''' into a Sandbox ... that you believe should be ON Osource or you want on Osource ... I will do the clean up work and categorisation and formatting the very next day :-) if we dont all come to some working solution the site will just sit there neglected ... which would be such a shame as there are many people who are accessing it to read the articles.<br />
<br />
So, what do you say? Will you work with me? Give me 'dumps' of "anytyhing" that does not breach copyright and I will fix it up for the good of OW/OS and the Orthodox community? <br />
<br />
[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 22:29, November 20, 2008 (UTC)</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78123Great Schism2008-12-03T21:08:09Z<p>Jacifus: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of Eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the other Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of [[Nicene Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<br />
== An In Depth Account of the Great Schism ==<br />
One summer afternoon in the year 1054, as a service was about to begin in the Church of the Holy Wisdom' (Hagia Sophia) at Constantinople, Cardinal Humbert and two other legates of the Pope entered the building and made their way up to the sanctuary. They had not come to pray. They placed a Bull of Excommunication upon the altar and marched out once more. As he passed through the western door, the Cardinal shook the dust from his feet with the words: 'Let God look and judge.' A deacon ran out after him in great distress and begged him to take back the Bull. Humbert refused; and it was dropped in the street.<br />
<br />
It is this incident which has conventionally been taken to mark the beginning of the great schism between the Orthodox east and the Latin west. But the schism, as historians now generally recognize, is not really an event whose beginning can be exactly dated. It was something that came about gradually, as the result of a long and complicated process, starting well before the eleventh century and not completed until some time after.<br />
<br />
In this long and complicated process, many different influences were at work. The schism was conditioned by cultural, political, and economic factors; yet its fundamental cause was not secular but theological. In the last resort it was over matters of doctrine that east and west quarrelled - two matters in particular: the Papal claims and the Filioque. But before we look more closely at these two major differences, and before we consider the actual course of the schism, something must be said about the wider background. Long before there was an open and formal schism between east and west, the two sides had become strangers to one another; and in attempting to understand how and why the communion of Christendom was broken, we must start with this fact of increasing estrangement.<br />
<br />
When Paul and the other Apostles travelled around the Mediterranean world, they moved within a closely knit political and cultural unity: the Roman Empire. This Empire embraced many different national groups, often with languages and dialects of their own. But all these groups were governed by the same Emperor; there was a broad Greco-Roman civilization in which educated people throughout the Empire shared; either Greek or Latin was understood almost everywhere in the Empire, and many could speak both languages. These facts greatly assisted the early Church in its missionary work.<br />
<br />
But in the centuries that followed, the unity of the Mediterranean world gradually disappeared. The political unity was the first to go. From the end of the third century the Empire, while still theoretically one, was usually divided into two parts, an eastern and a western, each under its own Emperor. Constantine furthered this process of separation by founding a second imperial capital in the east, alongside Old Rome in Italy. Then came the barbarian invasions at the start of the fifth century: apart from Italy, much of which remained within the Empire for some time longer, the west was carved up among barbarian chiefs. The Byzantines never forgot the ideals of Rome under Augustus and Trajan, and still regarded their Empire as in theory universal; but Justinian was the last Emperor who seriously attempted to bridge the gulf between theory and fact, and his conquests in the west were soon abandoned. The political unity of the Greek east and the Latin west was destroyed by the barbarian invasions, and never permanently restored.<br />
<br />
During the late sixth and the seventh centuries, east and west were further isolated from each other by the Avar and Slav invasions of the Balkan peninsula; lllyricum, which used to serve as a bridge, became in this way a barrier between Byzantium and the Latin world. The severance was carried a stage further by the rise of Islam: the Mediterranean, which the Romans once called mare nostrum, 'our sea', now passed largely into Arab control. Cultural and economic contacts between the eastern and western Mediterranean never entirely ceased, but they became far more difficult.<br />
<br />
The Iconoclast controversy contributed still further to the division between Byzantium and the west. The Popes were firm supporters of the Iconodule standpoint, and so for many decades they found themselves out of communion with the Iconoclast Emperor and Patriarch at Constantinople. Cut off from Byzantium and in need of help, in 754 Pope Stephen turned northwards and visited the Frankish ruler, Pepin. This marked the first step in a decisive change of orientation so far as the Papacy was concerned. Hitherto Rome had continued in many ways to be part of the Byzantine world, but now it passed increasingly under Frankish influence, although the effects of this reorientation did not become fully apparent until the middle of the eleventh century.<br />
<br />
Pope Stephen's visit to Pepin was followed half a century later by a much more dramatic event. On Christmas Day in the year 800 Pope Leo III crowned Charles the Great, King of the Franks, as Emperor. Charlemagne sought recognition from the ruler at Byzantium, but without success; for the Byzantines, still adhering to the principle of imperial unity, regarded Charlemagne as an intruder and the Papal coronation as an act of schism within the Empire. The creation of a Holy Roman Empire in the west, instead of drawing Europe closer together, only served to alienate east and west more than before.<br />
<br />
The cultural unity lingered on, but in a greatly attenuated form. Both in east and west, people of learning still lived within the classical tradition which the Church had taken over and made its own; but as time went on they began to interpret this tradition in increasingly divergent ways. Matters were made more difficult by problems of language. The days when educated people were bilingual were over. By the year 450 there were very few in western Europe who could read Greek, and after 600, although Byzantium still called itself the Roman Empire, it was rare for a Byzantine to speak Latin, the language of the Romans. Photius, the greatest scholar in ninth-century Constantinople, could not read Latin; and in 864 a 'Roman' Emperor at Byzantium, Michael III, even called the language in which Virgil once wrote 'a barbarian and Scythic tongue'. If Greeks wished to read Latin works or vice versa, they could do so only in translation, and usually they did not trouble to do even that: Psellus, an eminent Greek savant of the eleventh century, had so sketchy a knowledge of Latin literature that he confused Caesar with Cicero. Because they no longer drew upon the same sources nor read the same books, Greek east and Latin west drifted more and more apart.<br />
<br />
It was an ominous but significant precedent that the cultural renaissance in Charlemagne's Court should have been marked at its outset by a strong anti-Greek prejudice. In fourth-century Europe there had been one Christian civilization, in thirteenth century Europe there were two. Perhaps it is in the reign of Charlemagne that the schism of civilizations first becomes clearly apparent. The Byzantines for their part remained enclosed in their own world of ideas, and did little to meet the west half way. Alike in the ninth and in later centuries they usually failed to take western learning as seriously as it deserved. They dismissed all Franks as barbarians and nothing more.<br />
<br />
These political and cultural factors could not but affect the life of the Church, and make it harder to maintain religious unity. Cultural and political estrangement can lead only too easily to ecclesiastical disputes, as may be seen from the case of Charlemagne. Refused recognition in the political sphere by the Byzantine Emperor, he was quick to retaliate with a charge of heresy against the Byzantine Church: he denounced the Greeks for not using the Filioque in the Creed (of this we shall say more in a moment) and he declined to accept the decisions of the seventh Ecumenical Council. It is true that Charlemagne only knew of these decisions through a faulty translation which seriously distorted their true meaning; but he seems in any case to have been semi-lconoclast in his views.<br />
<br />
The different political situations in east and west made the Church assume different outward forms, so that people came gradually to think of Church order in conflicting ways. From the start there had been a certain difference of emphasis here between east and west. In the east there were many Churches whose foundation went back to the Apostles; there was a strong sense of the equality of all bishops, of the collegial and conciliar nature of the Church. The east acknowledged the Pope as the first bishop in the Church, but saw him as the first among equals. In the west, on the other hand, there was only one great see claiming Apostolic foundation - Rome - so that Rome came to be regarded as the Apostolic see. The west, while it accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, did not play a very active part in the Councils themselves; the Church was seen less as a college and more as a monarchy- the monarchy of the Pope.<br />
<br />
This initial divergence in outlook was made more acute by political developments. As was only natural, the barbarian invasions and the consequent breakdown of the Empire in the west served greatly to strengthen the autocratic structure of the western Church. In the east there was a strong secular head, the Emperor, to uphold the civilized order and to enforce law. In the west, after the advent of the barbarians, there was only a plurality of warring chiefs, all more or less usurpers. For the most part it was the Papacy alone which could act as a centre of unity, as an element of continuity and stability in the spiritual and political life of western Europe. By force of circumstances, the Pope assumed a part which the Greek Patriarchs were not called to play, issuing commands not only to his ecclesiastical subordinates but to secular rulers as well. The western Church gradually became centralized to a degree unknown anywhere in the four Patriarchates of the east (except possibly in Egypt). Monarchy in the west; in the east collegiality. <br />
<br />
Nor was this the only effect which the barbarian invasions had upon the life of the Church. In Byzantium there were many educated laymen who took an active interest in theology. The 'lay theologian' has always been an accepted figure in Orthodoxy: some of the most learned Byzantine Patriarch Photius, for example - were laymen before their appointment to the Patriarchate. But in the west the only effective education which survived through the Dark Ages was provided by the Church for its clergy. Theology became the preserve of the priests, since most of the laity could not even read, much less comprehend the technicalities of theological discussion. Orthodoxy, while assigning to the episcopate a special teaching office, has never known this sharp division between clergy and laity which arose in the western Middle Ages.<br />
<br />
Relations between eastern and western Christendom were also made more difficult by the lack of a common language. Because the two sides could no longer communicate easily with one another, and each could no longer read what the other wrote, misunderstandings arose much more easily. The shared 'universe of discourse' was progressively lost.<br />
<br />
East and west were becoming strangers to one another, and this was something from which both were likely to suffer. In the early Church there had been unity in the faith, but a diversity of theological schools. From the start Greeks and Latins had each approached the Christian Mystery in their own way. At the risk of some oversimplification, it can be said that the Latin approach was more practical, the Greek more speculative; Latin thought was influenced by juridical ideas, by the concepts of Roman law, while the Greeks understood theology in the context of worship and in the light of the Holy Liturgy. When thinking about the Trinity, Latins started with the unity of the Godhead, Greeks with the threeness of the persons; when reflecting on the Crucifixion, Latins thought primarily of Christ the Victim, Greeks of Christ the Victor; Latins talked more of redemption, Greeks of deification; and so on. Like the schools of Antioch and Alexandria within the east, these two distinctive approaches were not in themselves contradictory; each served to supplement the other, and each had its place in the fullness of Catholic tradition. But now that the two sides were becoming strangers to one another - with no political and little cultural unity, with no common language - there was a danger that each side would follow its own approach in isolation and push it to extremes, forgetting the value in the other point of view.<br />
<br />
We have spoken of the different doctrinal approaches in east and west; but there were two points of doctrine where the two sides no longer supplemented one another, but entered into direct conflict - the Papal claims and the Filioque. The factors which we have mentioned in previous paragraphs were sufficient in themselves to place a serious strain upon the unity of Christendom. Yet for all that, unity might still have been maintained, had there not been these two further points of difficulty. To them we must now turn. It was not until the middle of the ninth century that the full extent of the disagreement first came properly into the open, but the two differences themselves date back considerably earlier.<br />
<br />
We have already had occasion to mention the Papacy when speaking of the different political situations in east and west; and we have seen how the centralized and monarchical structure of the western Church was reinforced by the barbarian invasions. Now so long as the Pope claimed an absolute power only in the west, Byzantium raised no objections. The Byzantines did not mind if the western Church was centralized, so long as the Papacy did not interfere in the east. The Pope, however, believed his immediate power of jurisdiction to extend to the east as well as to the west; and as soon as he tried to enforce this claim within the eastern Patriarchates, trouble was bound to arise. The Greeks assigned to the Pope a primacy of honour, but not the universal supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative; the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council representing all the bishops of the Church. Here we have two different conceptions of the visible organization of the Church.<br />
<br />
The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia:<br />
<br />
My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an 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 wishes 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.'<br />
<br />
That was how an Orthodox felt in the twelfth century, when the whole question had come out into the open. In earlier centuries the Greek attitude to the Papacy was basically the same, although not yet sharpened by controversy. Up to 850, Rome and the east avoided an open conflict over the Papal claims, but the divergence of views was not the less serious for being partially concealed.<br />
<br />
The second great difficulty was the Filioque. The dispute involved the words about the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. Originally the Creed ran: 'I believe ... in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and together glorified.' This, the original form, is recited unchanged by the east to this day. But the west inserted an extra phrase 'and from the Son' (in Latin, Filioque), so that the Creed now reads 'who proceeds from the Father and the Son'. It is not certain when and where this addition was first made, but it seems to have originated in Spain, as a safeguard against Arianism. At any rate the Spanish Church interpolated the Filioque at the third Council of Toledo (589), if not before. From Spain the addition spread to France and thence to Germany, where it was welcomed by Charlemagne and adopted at the semi-lconoclast Council of Frankfort (794). It was writers at Charlemagne's court who first made the Filioque into an issue of controversy, accusing the Greeks of heresy because they recited the Creed in its original form. But Rome, with typical conservatism, continued to use the Creed without the Filioque until the start of the eleventh century. In 808 Pope Leo 111 wrote in a letter to Charlemagne that, although he himself believed the Filioque to be doctrinally sound, yet he considered it a mistake to tamper with the wording of the Creed. Leo deliberately had the Creed, without the Filioque, inscribed on silver plaques and set up in St Peter's. For the time being Rome acted as a mediator between the Franks and Byzantium.<br />
<br />
It was not until 860 that the Greeks paid much attention to the Filioque, but once they did so, their reaction was sharply critical. The Orthodox objected (and still object) to this addition to the Creed, for two reasons. First, the Creed is the common possession of the whole Church, and if any change is to be made in it, this can only be done by an Ecumenical Council. The west, in altering the Creed without consulting the east, is guilty (as Khomiakov put it) of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the Church. In the second place, most Orthodox believe the Filioque to be theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the Son as well. There are, however, some Orthodox who consider that the Filioque is not in itself heretical,. and is indeed admissible as a theological opinion - not a dogma - provided that it is properly explained. But even those who take this more moderate view still regard it as an unauthorized addition.<br />
<br />
Besides these two major issues, the Papacy and the Filioque, there were certain lesser matters of Church worship and discipline which caused trouble between east and west: the Greeks allowed married clergy, the Latins insisted on priestly celibacy; the two sides had different rules of fasting; the Greeks used leavened bread in the Eucharist, the Latins unleavened bread Around 850 east and west were still in full communion with one another and still formed one Church. Cultural and political divisions had combined to bring about an increasing estrangement, but there was no open schism. The to sides had different conceptions of Papal authority and recited the Creed in different forms, but these questions had not yet been brought fully into the open.<br />
<br />
But in 1190 Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch and a great authority on Canon Law, looked at matters very differently:<br />
<br />
For many years [he does not say how many] the western Church has been divided in spiritual communion from the other four Patriarchates and has become alien to the Orthodox ... So no Latin should be given communion unless he first declares that he will abstain from the doctrines and customs that separate him from us, and that he will be subject to the Canons of the Church, in union with the Orthodox.'<br />
<br />
In Balsamon's eyes, communion had been broken; there was a definite schism between east and west. The two no longer formed one visible Church. In this transition from estrangement to schism, four incidents are of particular importance: the quarrel between Photius and Pope Nicolas I (usually known as the 'Photian schism': the east would prefer to call it the 'schism of Nicolas'); the incident of the Diptychs in 1009; the attempt at reconciliation in 1053-4 and its disastrous sequel; and the Crusades.<br />
<br />
From Estrangement to Schism (858-1204)<br />
In 858, fifteen years after the triumph of icons under Theodora, a new Patriarch of Constantinople was appointed - Photius, known to the Orthodox Church as St Photius the Great. He has been termed 'the most distinguished thinker, the most outstanding politician, and the most skillful diplomat ever to hold office as Patriarch of Constantinople.' Soon after his accession he became involved in a dispute with Pope Nicolas I (858-67). The previous Patriarch, St Ignatius, had been exiled by the Emperor and while in exile had resigned under pressure. The supporters of Ignatius, declining to regard this resignation as valid, considered Photius a usurper. When Photius sent a letter to the Pope announcing his accession, Nicolas decided that before recognizing Photius he would look further Into the quarrel between the new Patriarch and the Ignatian party. Accordingly in 861 he sent legates to Constantinople.<br />
<br />
Photius had no desire to start a dispute with the Papacy. He treated the legates with great deference, inviting them to preside at a council in Constantinople, which was to settle the issue between Ignatius and himself. The legates agreed, and together with the rest of the council they decided that Photius was the legitimate Patriarch. But when his legates returned to Rome, Nicolas declared that they had exceeded their powers, and he disowned their decision. He then proceeded to retry the case himself at Rome: a council held under his presidency In 863 recognized Ignatius as Patriarch, and proclaimed Photius to be deposed from all priestly dignity. The Byzantines took no notice of this condemnation, and sent no answer to the Pope's letters. Thus an open breach existed between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople.<br />
<br />
The dispute clearly involved the Papal claims. Nicolas was a great reforming Pope, with an exalted idea of the prerogatives of his see, and he had already done much to establish an absolute power over all bishops in the west. But he believed this absolute power to extend to the east also: as he put it in a letter of 865, the Pope is endowed with authority 'over all the earth, that is, over every Church'. This was precisely what the Byzantines were not prepared to grant. Confronted with the dispute between Photius and Ignatius, Nicolas thought that he saw a golden opportunity to enforce his claim to universal jurisdiction: he would make both parties submit to his arbitration. But he realized that Photius had submitted voluntarily to the inquiry by the Papal legates, and that his action could not be taken as a recognition of Papal supremacy. This (among other reasons) was why Nicolas had cancelled his legates' decisions. The Byzantines for their part were willing to allow appeals to Rome, but only under the specific conditions laid down on of the Council of Sardica (343). This Canon states that a bishop, if under sentence of condemnation, can appeal to Rome, and the Pope, if he sees cause, can order a retrial; this retrial, however, is not to be conducted by the Pope himself at Rome, but by the bishops of the provinces adjacent to that of the condemned bishop. Nicolas, so the Byzantines felt, in reversing the decisions of his legates and demanding a retrial at Rome itself, was going far beyond the terms of this Canon. They regarded his behaviour as an unwarrantable and uncanonical interference in the affairs of another Patriarchate.<br />
<br />
Soon not only the Papal claims but the Filioque became involved in the dispute. Byzantium and the west (chiefly the Germans) were both launching great missionary ventures among the Slavs.' The two lines of missionary advance, from the east and from the west, soon converged; and when Greek and German missionaries found themselves at work in the same land, it was difficult to avoid a conflict, since the two missions were run on widely different principles. The clash naturally brought to the fore the question of the Filioque, used by the Germans in the Creed, but not used by the Greeks. The chief point of trouble was Bulgaria, a country which Rome and Constantinople alike were anxious to add to their sphere of jurisdiction. The Khan Boris was at first inclined to ask the German missionaries for baptism: threatened, however, with a Byzantine invasion, he changed his policy and around 865 accepted baptism from Greek clergy. But Boris wanted the Church in Bulgaria to be independent, and when Constantinople refused to grant autonomy, he turned to the west in hope of better terms. Given a free hand in Bulgaria, the Latin missionaries promptly launched a violent attack on the Greeks, singling out the points where Byzantine practice differed from their own: married clergy, rules of fasting, and above all the Filioque. At Rome itself the Filioque was still not in use, but Nicolas gave full support to the Germans when they insisted upon its insertion in Bulgaria. The Papacy, which in 808 had mediated between the Franks and the Greeks, was now neutral no longer.<br />
<br />
Photius was naturally alarmed by the extension of German influence in the Balkans, on the very borders of the Byzantine Empire; but he was much more alarmed by the question of the Filioque, now brought forcibly to his attention. In 867 he took action. He wrote an Encyclical Letter to the other Patriarchs of the east, denouncing the Filioque at length and charging those who used it with heresy. Photius has often been blamed for writing this letter: even the great Roman Catholic historian Francis Dvornik who is in general highly sympathetic to Photius, calls his action on this occasion a futile attack, and says 'the lapse was inconsiderate, hasty, and big with fatal consequences'. But if Photius really considered the Filioque heretical, what else could he do except speak his mind? It must also be remembered that it was not Photius who first made the Filioque a matter of controversy, but Charlernagne and his scholars seventy years before: the west was the original aggressor, not the east. Photius followed up his letter by summoning a council to Constantinople, which declared Pope Nicolas excommunicate, terming him 'a heretic who ravages the vineyard of the Lord'.<br />
<br />
At this critical point in the dispute, the whole situation suddenly changed. In this same year (867) Photius was deposed from the Patriarchate by the Emperor. Ignatius became Patriarch once more, and communion with Rome was restored. In 869-70 another council was held at Constantinople, known as the 'Anti-Photian Council', which condemned and anathematized Photius, reversing the decisions of 867. This council, later reckoned in the west as the eighth Ecumenical Council, opened with the unimpressive total of 12 bishops, although numbers at subsequent sessions rose to 103.<br />
<br />
But there were further changes to come. The 869-70 council requested the Emperor to resolve the status of the Bulgarian Church, and not surprisingly he decided that it should be assigned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Realizing that Rome would allow him less independence than Byzantium, Boris accepted this decision. From 870, then, the German missionaries were expelled and the Filioque was heard no more in the confines of Bulgaria. Nor was this all. At Constantinople, Ignatius and Photius were reconciled to one another, and when Ignatius died in 877, Photius once more succeeded him as Patriarch. In 879 yet another council was held in Constantinople, attended by 383 bishops - a notable contrast with the meagre total at the anti-Photian gathering ten years previously. The council of 869 was anathematized and all condemnations of Photius were withdrawn; these decisions were accepted without protest at Rome. So Photius ended victorious, recognized by Rome and ecclesiastically master of Bulgaria. Until recently it was thought -hat there was a second 'Photian schism', but Dr Dvornik has proved with devastating conclusiveness that this second schism is a myth: in Photius' later period of office (877-86) communion between Constantinople and the Papacy remained unbroken. The Pope at this time, John VIII (872-82), was no friend to the Franks and did not press the question of the Filioque, nor did he attempt to enforce the Papal claims in the east. Perhaps he recognized how seriously the policy of Nicolas had endangered the unity of Christendom.<br />
<br />
Thus the schism was outwardly healed, but no real solution had been reached concerning the two great points of difference which the dispute between Nicolas and Photius had forced into the open. Matters had been patched up, and that was all.<br />
<br />
Photius, always honoured in the east as a saint, a leader of the Church, and a theologian, has in the past been regarded by the west with less enthusiasm, as the author of a schism and little else. His good qualities are now more widely appreciated. 'If I am right in my conclusions,' so Dr Dvornik ends his monumental study, 'we shall be free once more to recognize in Photius a great Churchman, a learned humanist, and a genuine Christian, generous enough to forgive his enemies, and to take the first step towards reconciliation. <br />
<br />
At the beginning of the eleventh century there was fresh trouble over the Filioque. The Papacy at last adopted the addition: at the coronation of Emperor Henry 11 at Rome in 1014, the Creed was sung in its interpolated form. Five years earlier, in 1009, the newly-elected Pope Sergius IV sent a letter to Constantinople which may have contained the Filioque, although this is not certain. Whatever the reason, the Patriarch of Constantinople, also called Sergius, did not include the new Pope's name in the Diptychs: these are lists, kept by each Patriarch, which contain the names of the other Patriarchs, living and departed, whom he recognizes as orthodox. The Diptychs are a visible sign of the unity of the Church, and deliberately to omit a person's name from them is tantamount to a declaration that one is not in communion with him. After 1009 the Pope's name did not appear again in the Diptychs of Constantinople; technically, therefore, the Churches of Rome and Constantinople were out of communion from that date. But it would be unwise to press this technicality too far. Diptychs were frequently incomplete, and so do not form an infallible guide to Church relations. The Constantinopolitan lists before 1009 often lacked the Pope's name, simply because new Popes at their accession failed to notify the east. The omission in 1009 aroused no comment at Rome, and even at Constantinople people quickly forgot why and when the Pope's name had first been dropped from the Diptychs.<br />
<br />
As the eleventh century proceeded, new factors brought relations between the Papacy and the eastern Patriarchates to a further crisis. The previous century had been a period of grave instability and confusion for the see of Rome, a century which Cardinal Baronius justly termed an age of iron and lead in the history of the Papacy. But under German influence Rome now reformed itself, and through the rule of men such as Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) it gained a position of power in the west such as it had never before achieved. The reformed Papacy naturally revived the claims to universal jurisdiction which Nicolas had made. The Byzantines on their side had grown accustomed to dealing with a Papacy that was for the most part weak and disorganized, and so they found it difficult to adapt themselves to the new situation. Matters were made worse by political factors, such as the military aggression of the Normans in Byzantine Italy, and the commercial encroachments of the Italian maritime cities in the eastern Mediterranean during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.<br />
<br />
In 1054 there was a severe quarrel. The Normans had been forcing the Greeks in Byzantine Italy to conform to Latin usages; the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in return demanded that the Latin churches at Constantinople should adopt Greek practices, and in 1052, when they refused, he closed them. This was perhaps harsh, but as Patriarch he was fully entitled to act in this manner. Among the practices to which Michael and his supporters particularly objected was the Latin use of 'azymes' or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, an issue which had not figured in the dispute of the ninth century. In 1053, however, Cerularius took up a more conciliatory attitude and wrote to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore the Pope's name to the Diptychs. In response to this offer, and to settle the disputed questions of Greek and Latin usages, Leo in 1054 sent three legates to Constantinople, the chief of them being Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida. The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper, whose mutual encounter was not likely to promote good will among Christians. The legates, when they called on Cerularius, did not create a favourable impression. Thrusting a letter from the Pope at him, they retired without giving the usual salutations; the letter itself, although signed by Leo, had in fact been drafted by Humbert, and was distinctly unfriendly in tone. After this the Patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a Bull of Excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom: among other ill-founded charges in this document, Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the Filioque from the Creed! Humbert promptly left Constantinople without offering any further explanation of his act, and on returning to Italy he represented the whole incident as a great victory for the see of Rome. Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such). The attempt at reconciliation left matters worse than before.<br />
<br />
But 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, and people on both sides still hoped that the misunderstandings could be cleared up without too much difficulty. The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in east and west were largely unaware. It was the Crusades which made the schism definitive: they introduced a new spirit of hatred and bitterness, and they brought the whole issue down to the popular level.<br />
<br />
From the military point of view, however, the Crusades began with great éclat. Antioch was captured from the Turks in 1098, Jerusalem in 1099: the first Crusade was a brilliant, if bloody,' success. At both Antioch and Jerusalem the Crusaders proceeded to set up Latin Patriarchs. At Jerusalem this was reasonable, since the see was vacant at the time; and although in the years that followed there existed a succession of Greek Patriarchs of Jerusalem, living exiled in Cyprus, yet within Palestine itself the whole population, Greek as well as Latin, at first accepted the Latin Patriarch as their head. A Russian pilgrim at Jerusalem in 1106-7, Abbot Daniel of Tchernigov, found Greeks and Latins worshipping together in harmony at the Holy Places, though he noted with satisfaction that at the ceremony of the Holy Fire the Greek lamps were lit miraculously while the Latin had to be lit from the Greek. But at Antioch the Crusaders found a Greek Patriarch actually in residence: shortly afterwards, it is true, he withdrew to Constantinople, but the local Greek population was unwilling to recognize the Latin Patriarch whom the Crusaders set up in his place. Thus from 11000 there existed in effect a local schism at Antioch. After I 187, when Saladin captured Jerusalem, the situation in the Holy land deteriorated: two rivals, resident within Palestine itself, now divided the Christian population between them - a Latin Patriarch at Acre, a Greek at Jerusalem. These local schisms at Antioch and Jerusalem were a sinister development. Rome was very far away, and if Rome and Constantinople quarrelled, what practical difference did it make to the average Christian in Syria or Palestine? But when two rival bishops claimed the same throne and two hostile congregations existed in the same city, the division became an immediate reality in which simple believers were directly implicated. It was the Crusades that turned the dispute into something that involved whole Christian congregations, and not just church leaders; the Crusaders brought the schism down to the local level.<br />
<br />
But worse was to follow in 1204, with the taking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. The Crusaders were originally bound for Egypt, but were persuaded by Alexius, son of Isaac Angelus, the dispossessed Emperor of Byzantium, to turn aside to Constantinople in order to restore him and his father to the throne. This western intervention in Byzantine politics did not go happily, and eventually the Crusaders, disgusted by what they regarded as Greek duplicity, lost patience and sacked the city. Eastern Christendom has never forgotten those three appalling days of pillage. 'Even the Saracens are merciful and kind,' protested Nicetas Choniates, 'compared with these men who bear the Cross of Christ on their shoulders.' In the words of Sir Steven Runciman, 'The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword was to sever Christendom. The long-standing doctrinal disagreements were now reinforced on the Greek side by an intense national hatred, by a feeling of resentment and indignation against western aggression and sacrilege. After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and Christian west were divided into two.<br />
<br />
Orthodoxy and Rome each believes itself to have been right and its opponent wrong upon the points of doctrine that arose between them; and so Rome and Orthodoxy since the schism have each claimed to be the true Church. Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (None the less there is no action on the Byzantine side which can be compared to the sack of 1204.) And each side, while claiming to be the one true Church, must admit that on the human level it has been grievously impoverished by the separation. The Greek east and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the great schism has proved a great tragedy.<br />
<br />
This article was taken from www.orthodoxinfo.com<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches''<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''<br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition'' esp pp64-71 (1978 SVS Press)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (1994 SVS Press)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism''<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church''<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78122Great Schism2008-12-03T20:59:12Z<p>Jacifus: Undo revision 78120 by ASDamick (Talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of Eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the other Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of [[Nicene Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<br />
== An In Depth Account of the Great Schism ==<br />
One summer afternoon in the year 1054, as a service was about to begin in the Church of the Holy Wisdom' (Hagia Sophia) at Constantinople, Cardinal Humbert and two other legates of the Pope entered the building and made their way up to the sanctuary. They had not come to pray. They placed a Bull of Excommunication upon the altar and marched out once more. As he passed through the western door, the Cardinal shook the dust from his feet with the words: 'Let God look and judge.' A deacon ran out after him in great distress and begged him to take back the Bull. Humbert refused; and it was dropped in the street.<br />
<br />
It is this incident which has conventionally been taken to mark the beginning of the great schism between the Orthodox east and the Latin west. But the schism, as historians now generally recognize, is not really an event whose beginning can be exactly dated. It was something that came about gradually, as the result of a long and complicated process, starting well before the eleventh century and not completed until some time after.<br />
<br />
In this long and complicated process, many different influences were at work. The schism was conditioned by cultural, political, and economic factors; yet its fundamental cause was not secular but theological. In the last resort it was over matters of doctrine that east and west quarrelled - two matters in particular: the Papal claims and the Filioque. But before we look more closely at these two major differences, and before we consider the actual course of the schism, something must be said about the wider background. Long before there was an open and formal schism between east and west, the two sides had become strangers to one another; and in attempting to understand how and why the communion of Christendom was broken, we must start with this fact of increasing estrangement.<br />
<br />
When Paul and the other Apostles travelled around the Mediterranean world, they moved within a closely knit political and cultural unity: the Roman Empire. This Empire embraced many different national groups, often with languages and dialects of their own. But all these groups were governed by the same Emperor; there was a broad Greco-Roman civilization in which educated people throughout the Empire shared; either Greek or Latin was understood almost everywhere in the Empire, and many could speak both languages. These facts greatly assisted the early Church in its missionary work.<br />
<br />
But in the centuries that followed, the unity of the Mediterranean world gradually disappeared. The political unity was the first to go. From the end of the third century the Empire, while still theoretically one, was usually divided into two parts, an eastern and a western, each under its own Emperor. Constantine furthered this process of separation by founding a second imperial capital in the east, alongside Old Rome in Italy. Then came the barbarian invasions at the start of the fifth century: apart from Italy, much of which remained within the Empire for some time longer, the west was carved up among barbarian chiefs. The Byzantines never forgot the ideals of Rome under Augustus and Trajan, and still regarded their Empire as in theory universal; but Justinian was the last Emperor who seriously attempted to bridge the gulf between theory and fact, and his conquests in the west were soon abandoned. The political unity of the Greek east and the Latin west was destroyed by the barbarian invasions, and never permanently restored.<br />
<br />
During the late sixth and the seventh centuries, east and west were further isolated from each other by the Avar and Slav invasions of the Balkan peninsula; lllyricum, which used to serve as a bridge, became in this way a barrier between Byzantium and the Latin world. The severance was carried a stage further by the rise of Islam: the Mediterranean, which the Romans once called mare nostrum, 'our sea', now passed largely into Arab control. Cultural and economic contacts between the eastern and western Mediterranean never entirely ceased, but they became far more difficult.<br />
<br />
The Iconoclast controversy contributed still further to the division between Byzantium and the west. The Popes were firm supporters of the Iconodule standpoint, and so for many decades they found themselves out of communion with the Iconoclast Emperor and Patriarch at Constantinople. Cut off from Byzantium and in need of help, in 754 Pope Stephen turned northwards and visited the Frankish ruler, Pepin. This marked the first step in a decisive change of orientation so far as the Papacy was concerned. Hitherto Rome had continued in many ways to be part of the Byzantine world, but now it passed increasingly under Frankish influence, although the effects of this reorientation did not become fully apparent until the middle of the eleventh century.<br />
<br />
Pope Stephen's visit to Pepin was followed half a century later by a much more dramatic event. On Christmas Day in the year 800 Pope Leo III crowned Charles the Great, King of the Franks, as Emperor. Charlemagne sought recognition from the ruler at Byzantium, but without success; for the Byzantines, still adhering to the principle of imperial unity, regarded Charlemagne as an intruder and the Papal coronation as an act of schism within the Empire. The creation of a Holy Roman Empire in the west, instead of drawing Europe closer together, only served to alienate east and west more than before.<br />
<br />
The cultural unity lingered on, but in a greatly attenuated form. Both in east and west, people of learning still lived within the classical tradition which the Church had taken over and made its own; but as time went on they began to interpret this tradition in increasingly divergent ways. Matters were made more difficult by problems of language. The days when educated people were bilingual were over. By the year 450 there were very few in western Europe who could read Greek, and after 600, although Byzantium still called itself the Roman Empire, it was rare for a Byzantine to speak Latin, the language of the Romans. Photius, the greatest scholar in ninth-century Constantinople, could not read Latin; and in 864 a 'Roman' Emperor at Byzantium, Michael III, even called the language in which Virgil once wrote 'a barbarian and Scythic tongue'. If Greeks wished to read Latin works or vice versa, they could do so only in translation, and usually they did not trouble to do even that: Psellus, an eminent Greek savant of the eleventh century, had so sketchy a knowledge of Latin literature that he confused Caesar with Cicero. Because they no longer drew upon the same sources nor read the same books, Greek east and Latin west drifted more and more apart.<br />
<br />
It was an ominous but significant precedent that the cultural renaissance in Charlemagne's Court should have been marked at its outset by a strong anti-Greek prejudice. In fourth-century Europe there had been one Christian civilization, in thirteenth century Europe there were two. Perhaps it is in the reign of Charlemagne that the schism of civilizations first becomes clearly apparent. The Byzantines for their part remained enclosed in their own world of ideas, and did little to meet the west half way. Alike in the ninth and in later centuries they usually failed to take western learning as seriously as it deserved. They dismissed all Franks as barbarians and nothing more.<br />
<br />
These political and cultural factors could not but affect the life of the Church, and make it harder to maintain religious unity. Cultural and political estrangement can lead only too easily to ecclesiastical disputes, as may be seen from the case of Charlemagne. Refused recognition in the political sphere by the Byzantine Emperor, he was quick to retaliate with a charge of heresy against the Byzantine Church: he denounced the Greeks for not using the Filioque in the Creed (of this we shall say more in a moment) and he declined to accept the decisions of the seventh Ecumenical Council. It is true that Charlemagne only knew of these decisions through a faulty translation which seriously distorted their true meaning; but he seems in any case to have been semi-lconoclast in his views.<br />
<br />
The different political situations in east and west made the Church assume different outward forms, so that people came gradually to think of Church order in conflicting ways. From the start there had been a certain difference of emphasis here between east and west. In the east there were many Churches whose foundation went back to the Apostles; there was a strong sense of the equality of all bishops, of the collegial and conciliar nature of the Church. The east acknowledged the Pope as the first bishop in the Church, but saw him as the first among equals. In the west, on the other hand, there was only one great see claiming Apostolic foundation - Rome - so that Rome came to be regarded as the Apostolic see. The west, while it accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, did not play a very active part in the Councils themselves; the Church was seen less as a college and more as a monarchy- the monarchy of the Pope.<br />
<br />
This initial divergence in outlook was made more acute by political developments. As was only natural, the barbarian invasions and the consequent breakdown of the Empire in the west served greatly to strengthen the autocratic structure of the western Church. In the east there was a strong secular head, the Emperor, to uphold the civilized order and to enforce law. In the west, after the advent of the barbarians, there was only a plurality of warring chiefs, all more or less usurpers. For the most part it was the Papacy alone which could act as a centre of unity, as an element of continuity and stability in the spiritual and political life of western Europe. By force of circumstances, the Pope assumed a part which the Greek Patriarchs were not called to play, issuing commands not only to his ecclesiastical subordinates but to secular rulers as well. The western Church gradually became centralized to a degree unknown anywhere in the four Patriarchates of the east (except possibly in Egypt). Monarchy in the west; in the east collegiality. <br />
<br />
Nor was this the only effect which the barbarian invasions had upon the life of the Church. In Byzantium there were many educated laymen who took an active interest in theology. The 'lay theologian' has always been an accepted figure in Orthodoxy: some of the most learned Byzantine Patriarch Photius, for example - were laymen before their appointment to the Patriarchate. But in the west the only effective education which survived through the Dark Ages was provided by the Church for its clergy. Theology became the preserve of the priests, since most of the laity could not even read, much less comprehend the technicalities of theological discussion. Orthodoxy, while assigning to the episcopate a special teaching office, has never known this sharp division between clergy and laity which arose in the western Middle Ages.<br />
<br />
Relations between eastern and western Christendom were also made more difficult by the lack of a common language. Because the two sides could no longer communicate easily with one another, and each could no longer read what the other wrote, misunderstandings arose much more easily. The shared 'universe of discourse' was progressively lost.<br />
<br />
East and west were becoming strangers to one another, and this was something from which both were likely to suffer. In the early Church there had been unity in the faith, but a diversity of theological schools. From the start Greeks and Latins had each approached the Christian Mystery in their own way. At the risk of some oversimplification, it can be said that the Latin approach was more practical, the Greek more speculative; Latin thought was influenced by juridical ideas, by the concepts of Roman law, while the Greeks understood theology in the context of worship and in the light of the Holy Liturgy. When thinking about the Trinity, Latins started with the unity of the Godhead, Greeks with the threeness of the persons; when reflecting on the Crucifixion, Latins thought primarily of Christ the Victim, Greeks of Christ the Victor; Latins talked more of redemption, Greeks of deification; and so on. Like the schools of Antioch and Alexandria within the east, these two distinctive approaches were not in themselves contradictory; each served to supplement the other, and each had its place in the fullness of Catholic tradition. But now that the two sides were becoming strangers to one another - with no political and little cultural unity, with no common language - there was a danger that each side would follow its own approach in isolation and push it to extremes, forgetting the value in the other point of view.<br />
<br />
We have spoken of the different doctrinal approaches in east and west; but there were two points of doctrine where the two sides no longer supplemented one another, but entered into direct conflict - the Papal claims and the Filioque. The factors which we have mentioned in previous paragraphs were sufficient in themselves to place a serious strain upon the unity of Christendom. Yet for all that, unity might still have been maintained, had there not been these two further points of difficulty. To them we must now turn. It was not until the middle of the ninth century that the full extent of the disagreement first came properly into the open, but the two differences themselves date back considerably earlier.<br />
<br />
We have already had occasion to mention the Papacy when speaking of the different political situations in east and west; and we have seen how the centralized and monarchical structure of the western Church was reinforced by the barbarian invasions. Now so long as the Pope claimed an absolute power only in the west, Byzantium raised no objections. The Byzantines did not mind if the western Church was centralized, so long as the Papacy did not interfere in the east. The Pope, however, believed his immediate power of jurisdiction to extend to the east as well as to the west; and as soon as he tried to enforce this claim within the eastern Patriarchates, trouble was bound to arise. The Greeks assigned to the Pope a primacy of honour, but not the universal supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative; the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council representing all the bishops of the Church. Here we have two different conceptions of the visible organization of the Church.<br />
<br />
The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia:<br />
<br />
My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an 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 wishes 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.'<br />
<br />
That was how an Orthodox felt in the twelfth century, when the whole question had come out into the open. In earlier centuries the Greek attitude to the Papacy was basically the same, although not yet sharpened by controversy. Up to 850, Rome and the east avoided an open conflict over the Papal claims, but the divergence of views was not the less serious for being partially concealed.<br />
<br />
The second great difficulty was the Filioque. The dispute involved the words about the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. Originally the Creed ran: 'I believe ... in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and together glorified.' This, the original form, is recited unchanged by the east to this day. But the west inserted an extra phrase 'and from the Son' (in Latin, Filioque), so that the Creed now reads 'who proceeds from the Father and the Son'. It is not certain when and where this addition was first made, but it seems to have originated in Spain, as a safeguard against Arianism. At any rate the Spanish Church interpolated the Filioque at the third Council of Toledo (589), if not before. From Spain the addition spread to France and thence to Germany, where it was welcomed by Charlemagne and adopted at the semi-lconoclast Council of Frankfort (794). It was writers at Charlemagne's court who first made the Filioque into an issue of controversy, accusing the Greeks of heresy because they recited the Creed in its original form. But Rome, with typical conservatism, continued to use the Creed without the Filioque until the start of the eleventh century. In 808 Pope Leo 111 wrote in a letter to Charlemagne that, although he himself believed the Filioque to be doctrinally sound, yet he considered it a mistake to tamper with the wording of the Creed. Leo deliberately had the Creed, without the Filioque, inscribed on silver plaques and set up in St Peter's. For the time being Rome acted as a mediator between the Franks and Byzantium.<br />
<br />
It was not until 860 that the Greeks paid much attention to the Filioque, but once they did so, their reaction was sharply critical. The Orthodox objected (and still object) to this addition to the Creed, for two reasons. First, the Creed is the common possession of the whole Church, and if any change is to be made in it, this can only be done by an Ecumenical Council. The west, in altering the Creed without consulting the east, is guilty (as Khomiakov put it) of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the Church. In the second place, most Orthodox believe the Filioque to be theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the Son as well. There are, however, some Orthodox who consider that the Filioque is not in itself heretical,. and is indeed admissible as a theological opinion - not a dogma - provided that it is properly explained. But even those who take this more moderate view still regard it as an unauthorized addition.<br />
<br />
Besides these two major issues, the Papacy and the Filioque, there were certain lesser matters of Church worship and discipline which caused trouble between east and west: the Greeks allowed married clergy, the Latins insisted on priestly celibacy; the two sides had different rules of fasting; the Greeks used leavened bread in the Eucharist, the Latins unleavened bread Around 850 east and west were still in full communion with one another and still formed one Church. Cultural and political divisions had combined to bring about an increasing estrangement, but there was no open schism. The to sides had different conceptions of Papal authority and recited the Creed in different forms, but these questions had not yet been brought fully into the open.<br />
<br />
But in 1190 Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch and a great authority on Canon Law, looked at matters very differently:<br />
<br />
For many years [he does not say how many] the western Church has been divided in spiritual communion from the other four Patriarchates and has become alien to the Orthodox ... So no Latin should be given communion unless he first declares that he will abstain from the doctrines and customs that separate him from us, and that he will be subject to the Canons of the Church, in union with the Orthodox.'<br />
<br />
In Balsamon's eyes, communion had been broken; there was a definite schism between east and west. The two no longer formed one visible Church. In this transition from estrangement to schism, four incidents are of particular importance: the quarrel between Photius and Pope Nicolas I (usually known as the 'Photian schism': the east would prefer to call it the 'schism of Nicolas'); the incident of the Diptychs in 1009; the attempt at reconciliation in 1053-4 and its disastrous sequel; and the Crusades.<br />
<br />
From Estrangement to Schism (858-1204)<br />
In 858, fifteen years after the triumph of icons under Theodora, a new Patriarch of Constantinople was appointed - Photius, known to the Orthodox Church as St Photius the Great. He has been termed 'the most distinguished thinker, the most outstanding politician, and the most skillful diplomat ever to hold office as Patriarch of Constantinople.' Soon after his accession he became involved in a dispute with Pope Nicolas I (858-67). The previous Patriarch, St Ignatius, had been exiled by the Emperor and while in exile had resigned under pressure. The supporters of Ignatius, declining to regard this resignation as valid, considered Photius a usurper. When Photius sent a letter to the Pope announcing his accession, Nicolas decided that before recognizing Photius he would look further Into the quarrel between the new Patriarch and the Ignatian party. Accordingly in 861 he sent legates to Constantinople.<br />
<br />
Photius had no desire to start a dispute with the Papacy. He treated the legates with great deference, inviting them to preside at a council in Constantinople, which was to settle the issue between Ignatius and himself. The legates agreed, and together with the rest of the council they decided that Photius was the legitimate Patriarch. But when his legates returned to Rome, Nicolas declared that they had exceeded their powers, and he disowned their decision. He then proceeded to retry the case himself at Rome: a council held under his presidency In 863 recognized Ignatius as Patriarch, and proclaimed Photius to be deposed from all priestly dignity. The Byzantines took no notice of this condemnation, and sent no answer to the Pope's letters. Thus an open breach existed between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople.<br />
<br />
The dispute clearly involved the Papal claims. Nicolas was a great reforming Pope, with an exalted idea of the prerogatives of his see, and he had already done much to establish an absolute power over all bishops in the west. But he believed this absolute power to extend to the east also: as he put it in a letter of 865, the Pope is endowed with authority 'over all the earth, that is, over every Church'. This was precisely what the Byzantines were not prepared to grant. Confronted with the dispute between Photius and Ignatius, Nicolas thought that he saw a golden opportunity to enforce his claim to universal jurisdiction: he would make both parties submit to his arbitration. But he realized that Photius had submitted voluntarily to the inquiry by the Papal legates, and that his action could not be taken as a recognition of Papal supremacy. This (among other reasons) was why Nicolas had cancelled his legates' decisions. The Byzantines for their part were willing to allow appeals to Rome, but only under the specific conditions laid down on of the Council of Sardica (343). This Canon states that a bishop, if under sentence of condemnation, can appeal to Rome, and the Pope, if he sees cause, can order a retrial; this retrial, however, is not to be conducted by the Pope himself at Rome, but by the bishops of the provinces adjacent to that of the condemned bishop. Nicolas, so the Byzantines felt, in reversing the decisions of his legates and demanding a retrial at Rome itself, was going far beyond the terms of this Canon. They regarded his behaviour as an unwarrantable and uncanonical interference in the affairs of another Patriarchate.<br />
<br />
Soon not only the Papal claims but the Filioque became involved in the dispute. Byzantium and the west (chiefly the Germans) were both launching great missionary ventures among the Slavs.' The two lines of missionary advance, from the east and from the west, soon converged; and when Greek and German missionaries found themselves at work in the same land, it was difficult to avoid a conflict, since the two missions were run on widely different principles. The clash naturally brought to the fore the question of the Filioque, used by the Germans in the Creed, but not used by the Greeks. The chief point of trouble was Bulgaria, a country which Rome and Constantinople alike were anxious to add to their sphere of jurisdiction. The Khan Boris was at first inclined to ask the German missionaries for baptism: threatened, however, with a Byzantine invasion, he changed his policy and around 865 accepted baptism from Greek clergy. But Boris wanted the Church in Bulgaria to be independent, and when Constantinople refused to grant autonomy, he turned to the west in hope of better terms. Given a free hand in Bulgaria, the Latin missionaries promptly launched a violent attack on the Greeks, singling out the points where Byzantine practice differed from their own: married clergy, rules of fasting, and above all the Filioque. At Rome itself the Filioque was still not in use, but Nicolas gave full support to the Germans when they insisted upon its insertion in Bulgaria. The Papacy, which in 808 had mediated between the Franks and the Greeks, was now neutral no longer.<br />
<br />
Photius was naturally alarmed by the extension of German influence in the Balkans, on the very borders of the Byzantine Empire; but he was much more alarmed by the question of the Filioque, now brought forcibly to his attention. In 867 he took action. He wrote an Encyclical Letter to the other Patriarchs of the east, denouncing the Filioque at length and charging those who used it with heresy. Photius has often been blamed for writing this letter: even the great Roman Catholic historian Francis Dvornik who is in general highly sympathetic to Photius, calls his action on this occasion a futile attack, and says 'the lapse was inconsiderate, hasty, and big with fatal consequences'. But if Photius really considered the Filioque heretical, what else could he do except speak his mind? It must also be remembered that it was not Photius who first made the Filioque a matter of controversy, but Charlernagne and his scholars seventy years before: the west was the original aggressor, not the east. Photius followed up his letter by summoning a council to Constantinople, which declared Pope Nicolas excommunicate, terming him 'a heretic who ravages the vineyard of the Lord'.<br />
<br />
At this critical point in the dispute, the whole situation suddenly changed. In this same year (867) Photius was deposed from the Patriarchate by the Emperor. Ignatius became Patriarch once more, and communion with Rome was restored. In 869-70 another council was held at Constantinople, known as the 'Anti-Photian Council', which condemned and anathematized Photius, reversing the decisions of 867. This council, later reckoned in the west as the eighth Ecumenical Council, opened with the unimpressive total of 12 bishops, although numbers at subsequent sessions rose to 103.<br />
<br />
But there were further changes to come. The 869-70 council requested the Emperor to resolve the status of the Bulgarian Church, and not surprisingly he decided that it should be assigned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Realizing that Rome would allow him less independence than Byzantium, Boris accepted this decision. From 870, then, the German missionaries were expelled and the Filioque was heard no more in the confines of Bulgaria. Nor was this all. At Constantinople, Ignatius and Photius were reconciled to one another, and when Ignatius died in 877, Photius once more succeeded him as Patriarch. In 879 yet another council was held in Constantinople, attended by 383 bishops - a notable contrast with the meagre total at the anti-Photian gathering ten years previously. The council of 869 was anathematized and all condemnations of Photius were withdrawn; these decisions were accepted without protest at Rome. So Photius ended victorious, recognized by Rome and ecclesiastically master of Bulgaria. Until recently it was thought -hat there was a second 'Photian schism', but Dr Dvornik has proved with devastating conclusiveness that this second schism is a myth: in Photius' later period of office (877-86) communion between Constantinople and the Papacy remained unbroken. The Pope at this time, John VIII (872-82), was no friend to the Franks and did not press the question of the Filioque, nor did he attempt to enforce the Papal claims in the east. Perhaps he recognized how seriously the policy of Nicolas had endangered the unity of Christendom.<br />
<br />
Thus the schism was outwardly healed, but no real solution had been reached concerning the two great points of difference which the dispute between Nicolas and Photius had forced into the open. Matters had been patched up, and that was all.<br />
<br />
Photius, always honoured in the east as a saint, a leader of the Church, and a theologian, has in the past been regarded by the west with less enthusiasm, as the author of a schism and little else. His good qualities are now more widely appreciated. 'If I am right in my conclusions,' so Dr Dvornik ends his monumental study, 'we shall be free once more to recognize in Photius a great Churchman, a learned humanist, and a genuine Christian, generous enough to forgive his enemies, and to take the first step towards reconciliation. <br />
<br />
At the beginning of the eleventh century there was fresh trouble over the Filioque. The Papacy at last adopted the addition: at the coronation of Emperor Henry 11 at Rome in 1014, the Creed was sung in its interpolated form. Five years earlier, in 1009, the newly-elected Pope Sergius IV sent a letter to Constantinople which may have contained the Filioque, although this is not certain. Whatever the reason, the Patriarch of Constantinople, also called Sergius, did not include the new Pope's name in the Diptychs: these are lists, kept by each Patriarch, which contain the names of the other Patriarchs, living and departed, whom he recognizes as orthodox. The Diptychs are a visible sign of the unity of the Church, and deliberately to omit a person's name from them is tantamount to a declaration that one is not in communion with him. After 1009 the Pope's name did not appear again in the Diptychs of Constantinople; technically, therefore, the Churches of Rome and Constantinople were out of communion from that date. But it would be unwise to press this technicality too far. Diptychs were frequently incomplete, and so do not form an infallible guide to Church relations. The Constantinopolitan lists before 1009 often lacked the Pope's name, simply because new Popes at their accession failed to notify the east. The omission in 1009 aroused no comment at Rome, and even at Constantinople people quickly forgot why and when the Pope's name had first been dropped from the Diptychs.<br />
<br />
As the eleventh century proceeded, new factors brought relations between the Papacy and the eastern Patriarchates to a further crisis. The previous century had been a period of grave instability and confusion for the see of Rome, a century which Cardinal Baronius justly termed an age of iron and lead in the history of the Papacy. But under German influence Rome now reformed itself, and through the rule of men such as Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) it gained a position of power in the west such as it had never before achieved. The reformed Papacy naturally revived the claims to universal jurisdiction which Nicolas had made. The Byzantines on their side had grown accustomed to dealing with a Papacy that was for the most part weak and disorganized, and so they found it difficult to adapt themselves to the new situation. Matters were made worse by political factors, such as the military aggression of the Normans in Byzantine Italy, and the commercial encroachments of the Italian maritime cities in the eastern Mediterranean during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.<br />
<br />
In 1054 there was a severe quarrel. The Normans had been forcing the Greeks in Byzantine Italy to conform to Latin usages; the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in return demanded that the Latin churches at Constantinople should adopt Greek practices, and in 1052, when they refused, he closed them. This was perhaps harsh, but as Patriarch he was fully entitled to act in this manner. Among the practices to which Michael and his supporters particularly objected was the Latin use of 'azymes' or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, an issue which had not figured in the dispute of the ninth century. In 1053, however, Cerularius took up a more conciliatory attitude and wrote to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore the Pope's name to the Diptychs. In response to this offer, and to settle the disputed questions of Greek and Latin usages, Leo in 1054 sent three legates to Constantinople, the chief of them being Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida. The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper, whose mutual encounter was not likely to promote good will among Christians. The legates, when they called on Cerularius, did not create a favourable impression. Thrusting a letter from the Pope at him, they retired without giving the usual salutations; the letter itself, although signed by Leo, had in fact been drafted by Humbert, and was distinctly unfriendly in tone. After this the Patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a Bull of Excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom: among other ill-founded charges in this document, Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the Filioque from the Creed! Humbert promptly left Constantinople without offering any further explanation of his act, and on returning to Italy he represented the whole incident as a great victory for the see of Rome. Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such). The attempt at reconciliation left matters worse than before.<br />
<br />
But 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, and people on both sides still hoped that the misunderstandings could be cleared up without too much difficulty. The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in east and west were largely unaware. It was the Crusades which made the schism definitive: they introduced a new spirit of hatred and bitterness, and they brought the whole issue down to the popular level.<br />
<br />
From the military point of view, however, the Crusades began with great éclat. Antioch was captured from the Turks in 1098, Jerusalem in 1099: the first Crusade was a brilliant, if bloody,' success. At both Antioch and Jerusalem the Crusaders proceeded to set up Latin Patriarchs. At Jerusalem this was reasonable, since the see was vacant at the time; and although in the years that followed there existed a succession of Greek Patriarchs of Jerusalem, living exiled in Cyprus, yet within Palestine itself the whole population, Greek as well as Latin, at first accepted the Latin Patriarch as their head. A Russian pilgrim at Jerusalem in 1106-7, Abbot Daniel of Tchernigov, found Greeks and Latins worshipping together in harmony at the Holy Places, though he noted with satisfaction that at the ceremony of the Holy Fire the Greek lamps were lit miraculously while the Latin had to be lit from the Greek. But at Antioch the Crusaders found a Greek Patriarch actually in residence: shortly afterwards, it is true, he withdrew to Constantinople, but the local Greek population was unwilling to recognize the Latin Patriarch whom the Crusaders set up in his place. Thus from 11000 there existed in effect a local schism at Antioch. After I 187, when Saladin captured Jerusalem, the situation in the Holy land deteriorated: two rivals, resident within Palestine itself, now divided the Christian population between them - a Latin Patriarch at Acre, a Greek at Jerusalem. These local schisms at Antioch and Jerusalem were a sinister development. Rome was very far away, and if Rome and Constantinople quarrelled, what practical difference did it make to the average Christian in Syria or Palestine? But when two rival bishops claimed the same throne and two hostile congregations existed in the same city, the division became an immediate reality in which simple believers were directly implicated. It was the Crusades that turned the dispute into something that involved whole Christian congregations, and not just church leaders; the Crusaders brought the schism down to the local level.<br />
<br />
But worse was to follow in 1204, with the taking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. The Crusaders were originally bound for Egypt, but were persuaded by Alexius, son of Isaac Angelus, the dispossessed Emperor of Byzantium, to turn aside to Constantinople in order to restore him and his father to the throne. This western intervention in Byzantine politics did not go happily, and eventually the Crusaders, disgusted by what they regarded as Greek duplicity, lost patience and sacked the city. Eastern Christendom has never forgotten those three appalling days of pillage. 'Even the Saracens are merciful and kind,' protested Nicetas Choniates, 'compared with these men who bear the Cross of Christ on their shoulders.' In the words of Sir Steven Runciman, 'The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword was to sever Christendom. The long-standing doctrinal disagreements were now reinforced on the Greek side by an intense national hatred, by a feeling of resentment and indignation against western aggression and sacrilege. After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and Christian west were divided into two.<br />
<br />
Orthodoxy and Rome each believes itself to have been right and its opponent wrong upon the points of doctrine that arose between them; and so Rome and Orthodoxy since the schism have each claimed to be the true Church. Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (None the less there is no action on the Byzantine side which can be compared to the sack of 1204.) And each side, while claiming to be the one true Church, must admit that on the human level it has been grievously impoverished by the separation. The Greek east and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the great schism has proved a great tragedy.<br />
<br />
This article was taken from www.orthodoxinfo.com<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches''<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''<br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition'' esp pp64-71 (1978 SVS Press)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (1994 SVS Press)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism''<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church''<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza&diff=78119OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza2008-12-03T18:14:23Z<p>Jacifus: /* Adding a Photo.... */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>In a monastery, a '''[[refectory|trapeza]]''' (or ''refectory''), is the dining hall where monks and pilgrims gather for food and conversation (although monks don't usually talk during meals). The OrthodoxWiki trapeza serves as the main discussion point for our website. Please feel free to join in&mdash;ask anything, suggest an idea, make a comment. We're glad to have you here. For other, more specifically designated discussion pages, check out the [[OrthodoxWiki:Community Portal|Community Portal]]. [[Category:OrthodoxWiki]] [[bg:Project:Трапеза]] [[el:OrthodoxWiki:Τράπεζα]] [[fr:OrthodoxWiki:La Cafétéria]] [[ro:OrthodoxWiki:Cafenea]]<br />
<br />
* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 1|Archive 1]], Feb 2005 &ndash; Dec 2005 (formerly the [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Anything_Goes&oldid=22917 Anything Goes] page)<br />
* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 2|Archive 2]], Feb 2005 &ndash; Aug 2006 (formerly the [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Questions&oldid=37973 Questions] page)<br />
* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 3|Archive 3]], Oct 2005 &ndash; Aug 2006 (moved from [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=37962 Talk:Main Page])<br />
* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 4|Archive 4]], Aug 2006 &ndash; Dec 2006 (2006 Trapeza archive)<br />
* [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 5|Archive 5]], through November 2008<br />
<br />
<center><br />
Please sign and date your comments by adding four tildes at the end: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki><br />
{| style="border: solid 1px #aaaaaa"<br />
|'''[http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza&action=edit&section=new Add new post]'''<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Closing down OrthodoxSource and SR ==<br />
Friends, I apologize for being absent for awhile. Please let me know if you have any outstanding wiki issues you need to resolve!<br><br />
As of today, I am shutting down OrthodoxSource. Apologies to IXThis888, who has put in a good deal of work. However, there was not enough of a community of contibutors and moderators there, and I think it would be better for us all at this point to keep the focus on this wiki. Also, I will likely be shutting down SR soon. There has been no activity there for a long time, and I'm afraid that the required documents (about copyrights and policies) were never translated. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 12:45, November 25, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== questions ==<br />
hi, i have photos of the raifa monastary i would like to upload as well as a convent neasr yoshkar ola russia which i do not beleive yet has an article how would i create a new article for this?<br />
:Hello, on the left hand side of your screen ... scroll down until you see the words <br />
"upload file" .. then follow the steps ...its not too hard and always someone will help you categorise your work ... Good luck! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 01:16, November 29, 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Adding a Photo.... ==<br />
<br />
I have been wanting to post my photo, but do not know HTML.<br />
Could someone please give me a tip on how to do this?<br />
<br />
Thanks!</div>Jacifushttps://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Schism&diff=78118Great Schism2008-12-03T15:45:42Z<p>Jacifus: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The '''Great Schism''' is the historic sundering of Eucharistic relations between the [[Church of Rome|See of Rome]] (now the [[Roman Catholic Church]]) and the other Christian patriarchates. This division is the subject of many talks between Western and Eastern Christians.<br />
<br />
== Terminology ==<br />
In Western circles, the term ''Great Schism'' is often used to refer to the 14th century schism involving the Avignon [[Papacy]] (an event also sometimes called the "Western Schism" or "Papal Schism" or "Babylonian Captivity").<br />
<br />
To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term ''Great Ecumenical Schism'' to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. <br />
<br />
Other more recent historians prefer the term "East West Schism", because 'Ecumenical' properly means of Constantinople or of the Eastern Roman Empire. The schism involved more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. It included both East and West, and was between East and West.<br />
<br />
== Doctrinal issues: the ''Filioque'' ==<br />
: ''Main article: [[Filioque]]''<br />
<br />
While there were many other factors at work in the split, the conventional view has been that the central cause of the separation was [[dogma]]tic. It is asserted by many Orthodox that as soon as Rome endorsed the idea of the [[Filioque]], there was a split between the true faith and a schismatic faith. Further, as long as Rome continues to make this its official [[dogma]], there is still a schism.<br />
<br />
''Filioque'' is a word that changes the Latin version of [[Nicene Creed]] to include the wording ''[Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre '''Filioque''' procedit'' or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father '''and the Son'''." <br />
<br />
The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the [[Arianism|Arian]] [[heresy]]. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. [[Augustine of Hippo]], than to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from [[Gospel of John|John]] 16:7 to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. <br />
<br />
So the Creed was changed by the local [[synod]] of [[bishop]]s at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ (refuting Arianism), and asserts the unity of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] and the equality of each [[hypostasis]] of the Trinity.<br />
<br />
== Ecclesiological issues: The Papacy ==<br />
Additionally offensive to the Orthodox was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.<br />
<br />
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy.<br />
It demeaned all the other bishops.<br />
<br />
<!--- == Other doctrinal issues ==<br />
<br />
== Extra-ecclesial factors == ---><br />
<br />
== Dating the schism ==<br />
The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned although it has been conventionally dated to the year 1054. This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity before 1054, animosity and division afterward. <br />
<br />
The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photios, for example&mdash;or even earlier&mdash;or 1204, with the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or even 1453, the fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Estrangement of Eastern and Western Christendom<br />
<br />
<br />
One summer afternoon in the year 1054, as a service was about to begin in the Church of the Holy Wisdom' (Hagia Sophia) at Constantinople, Cardinal Humbert and two other legates of the Pope entered the building and made their way up to the sanctuary. They had not come to pray. They placed a Bull of Excommunication upon the altar and marched out once more. As he passed through the western door, the Cardinal shook the dust from his feet with the words: 'Let God look and judge.' A deacon ran out after him in great distress and begged him to take back the Bull. Humbert refused; and it was dropped in the street.<br />
<br />
It is this incident which has conventionally been taken to mark the beginning of the great schism between the Orthodox east and the Latin west. But the schism, as historians now generally recognize, is not really an event whose beginning can be exactly dated. It was something that came about gradually, as the result of a long and complicated process, starting well before the eleventh century and not completed until some time after.<br />
<br />
In this long and complicated process, many different influences were at work. The schism was conditioned by cultural, political, and economic factors; yet its fundamental cause was not secular but theological. In the last resort it was over matters of doctrine that east and west quarrelled - two matters in particular: the Papal claims and the Filioque. But before we look more closely at these two major differences, and before we consider the actual course of the schism, something must be said about the wider background. Long before there was an open and formal schism between east and west, the two sides had become strangers to one another; and in attempting to understand how and why the communion of Christendom was broken, we must start with this fact of increasing estrangement.<br />
<br />
When Paul and the other Apostles travelled around the Mediterranean world, they moved within a closely knit political and cultural unity: the Roman Empire. This Empire embraced many different national groups, often with languages and dialects of their own. But all these groups were governed by the same Emperor; there was a broad Greco-Roman civilization in which educated people throughout the Empire shared; either Greek or Latin was understood almost everywhere in the Empire, and many could speak both languages. These facts greatly assisted the early Church in its missionary work.<br />
<br />
But in the centuries that followed, the unity of the Mediterranean world gradually disappeared. The political unity was the first to go. From the end of the third century the Empire, while still theoretically one, was usually divided into two parts, an eastern and a western, each under its own Emperor. Constantine furthered this process of separation by founding a second imperial capital in the east, alongside Old Rome in Italy. Then came the barbarian invasions at the start of the fifth century: apart from Italy, much of which remained within the Empire for some time longer, the west was carved up among barbarian chiefs. The Byzantines never forgot the ideals of Rome under Augustus and Trajan, and still regarded their Empire as in theory universal; but Justinian was the last Emperor who seriously attempted to bridge the gulf between theory and fact, and his conquests in the west were soon abandoned. The political unity of the Greek east and the Latin west was destroyed by the barbarian invasions, and never permanently restored.<br />
<br />
During the late sixth and the seventh centuries, east and west were further isolated from each other by the Avar and Slav invasions of the Balkan peninsula; lllyricum, which used to serve as a bridge, became in this way a barrier between Byzantium and the Latin world. The severance was carried a stage further by the rise of Islam: the Mediterranean, which the Romans once called mare nostrum, 'our sea', now passed largely into Arab control. Cultural and economic contacts between the eastern and western Mediterranean never entirely ceased, but they became far more difficult.<br />
<br />
The Iconoclast controversy contributed still further to the division between Byzantium and the west. The Popes were firm supporters of the Iconodule standpoint, and so for many decades they found themselves out of communion with the Iconoclast Emperor and Patriarch at Constantinople. Cut off from Byzantium and in need of help, in 754 Pope Stephen turned northwards and visited the Frankish ruler, Pepin. This marked the first step in a decisive change of orientation so far as the Papacy was concerned. Hitherto Rome had continued in many ways to be part of the Byzantine world, but now it passed increasingly under Frankish influence, although the effects of this reorientation did not become fully apparent until the middle of the eleventh century.<br />
<br />
Pope Stephen's visit to Pepin was followed half a century later by a much more dramatic event. On Christmas Day in the year 800 Pope Leo III crowned Charles the Great, King of the Franks, as Emperor. Charlemagne sought recognition from the ruler at Byzantium, but without success; for the Byzantines, still adhering to the principle of imperial unity, regarded Charlemagne as an intruder and the Papal coronation as an act of schism within the Empire. The creation of a Holy Roman Empire in the west, instead of drawing Europe closer together, only served to alienate east and west more than before.<br />
<br />
The cultural unity lingered on, but in a greatly attenuated form. Both in east and west, people of learning still lived within the classical tradition which the Church had taken over and made its own; but as time went on they began to interpret this tradition in increasingly divergent ways. Matters were made more difficult by problems of language. The days when educated people were bilingual were over. By the year 450 there were very few in western Europe who could read Greek, and after 600, although Byzantium still called itself the Roman Empire, it was rare for a Byzantine to speak Latin, the language of the Romans. Photius, the greatest scholar in ninth-century Constantinople, could not read Latin; and in 864 a 'Roman' Emperor at Byzantium, Michael III, even called the language in which Virgil once wrote 'a barbarian and Scythic tongue'. If Greeks wished to read Latin works or vice versa, they could do so only in translation, and usually they did not trouble to do even that: Psellus, an eminent Greek savant of the eleventh century, had so sketchy a knowledge of Latin literature that he confused Caesar with Cicero. Because they no longer drew upon the same sources nor read the same books, Greek east and Latin west drifted more and more apart.<br />
<br />
It was an ominous but significant precedent that the cultural renaissance in Charlemagne's Court should have been marked at its outset by a strong anti-Greek prejudice. In fourth-century Europe there had been one Christian civilization, in thirteenth century Europe there were two. Perhaps it is in the reign of Charlemagne that the schism of civilizations first becomes clearly apparent. The Byzantines for their part remained enclosed in their own world of ideas, and did little to meet the west half way. Alike in the ninth and in later centuries they usually failed to take western learning as seriously as it deserved. They dismissed all Franks as barbarians and nothing more.<br />
<br />
These political and cultural factors could not but affect the life of the Church, and make it harder to maintain religious unity. Cultural and political estrangement can lead only too easily to ecclesiastical disputes, as may be seen from the case of Charlemagne. Refused recognition in the political sphere by the Byzantine Emperor, he was quick to retaliate with a charge of heresy against the Byzantine Church: he denounced the Greeks for not using the Filioque in the Creed (of this we shall say more in a moment) and he declined to accept the decisions of the seventh Ecumenical Council. It is true that Charlemagne only knew of these decisions through a faulty translation which seriously distorted their true meaning; but he seems in any case to have been semi-lconoclast in his views.<br />
<br />
The different political situations in east and west made the Church assume different outward forms, so that people came gradually to think of Church order in conflicting ways. From the start there had been a certain difference of emphasis here between east and west. In the east there were many Churches whose foundation went back to the Apostles; there was a strong sense of the equality of all bishops, of the collegial and conciliar nature of the Church. The east acknowledged the Pope as the first bishop in the Church, but saw him as the first among equals. In the west, on the other hand, there was only one great see claiming Apostolic foundation - Rome - so that Rome came to be regarded as the Apostolic see. The west, while it accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, did not play a very active part in the Councils themselves; the Church was seen less as a college and more as a monarchy- the monarchy of the Pope.<br />
<br />
This initial divergence in outlook was made more acute by political developments. As was only natural, the barbarian invasions and the consequent breakdown of the Empire in the west served greatly to strengthen the autocratic structure of the western Church. In the east there was a strong secular head, the Emperor, to uphold the civilized order and to enforce law. In the west, after the advent of the barbarians, there was only a plurality of warring chiefs, all more or less usurpers. For the most part it was the Papacy alone which could act as a centre of unity, as an element of continuity and stability in the spiritual and political life of western Europe. By force of circumstances, the Pope assumed a part which the Greek Patriarchs were not called to play, issuing commands not only to his ecclesiastical subordinates but to secular rulers as well. The western Church gradually became centralized to a degree unknown anywhere in the four Patriarchates of the east (except possibly in Egypt). Monarchy in the west; in the east collegiality. <br />
<br />
Nor was this the only effect which the barbarian invasions had upon the life of the Church. In Byzantium there were many educated laymen who took an active interest in theology. The 'lay theologian' has always been an accepted figure in Orthodoxy: some of the most learned Byzantine Patriarch Photius, for example - were laymen before their appointment to the Patriarchate. But in the west the only effective education which survived through the Dark Ages was provided by the Church for its clergy. Theology became the preserve of the priests, since most of the laity could not even read, much less comprehend the technicalities of theological discussion. Orthodoxy, while assigning to the episcopate a special teaching office, has never known this sharp division between clergy and laity which arose in the western Middle Ages.<br />
<br />
Relations between eastern and western Christendom were also made more difficult by the lack of a common language. Because the two sides could no longer communicate easily with one another, and each could no longer read what the other wrote, misunderstandings arose much more easily. The shared 'universe of discourse' was progressively lost.<br />
<br />
East and west were becoming strangers to one another, and this was something from which both were likely to suffer. In the early Church there had been unity in the faith, but a diversity of theological schools. From the start Greeks and Latins had each approached the Christian Mystery in their own way. At the risk of some oversimplification, it can be said that the Latin approach was more practical, the Greek more speculative; Latin thought was influenced by juridical ideas, by the concepts of Roman law, while the Greeks understood theology in the context of worship and in the light of the Holy Liturgy. When thinking about the Trinity, Latins started with the unity of the Godhead, Greeks with the threeness of the persons; when reflecting on the Crucifixion, Latins thought primarily of Christ the Victim, Greeks of Christ the Victor; Latins talked more of redemption, Greeks of deification; and so on. Like the schools of Antioch and Alexandria within the east, these two distinctive approaches were not in themselves contradictory; each served to supplement the other, and each had its place in the fullness of Catholic tradition. But now that the two sides were becoming strangers to one another - with no political and little cultural unity, with no common language - there was a danger that each side would follow its own approach in isolation and push it to extremes, forgetting the value in the other point of view.<br />
<br />
We have spoken of the different doctrinal approaches in east and west; but there were two points of doctrine where the two sides no longer supplemented one another, but entered into direct conflict - the Papal claims and the Filioque. The factors which we have mentioned in previous paragraphs were sufficient in themselves to place a serious strain upon the unity of Christendom. Yet for all that, unity might still have been maintained, had there not been these two further points of difficulty. To them we must now turn. It was not until the middle of the ninth century that the full extent of the disagreement first came properly into the open, but the two differences themselves date back considerably earlier.<br />
<br />
We have already had occasion to mention the Papacy when speaking of the different political situations in east and west; and we have seen how the centralized and monarchical structure of the western Church was reinforced by the barbarian invasions. Now so long as the Pope claimed an absolute power only in the west, Byzantium raised no objections. The Byzantines did not mind if the western Church was centralized, so long as the Papacy did not interfere in the east. The Pope, however, believed his immediate power of jurisdiction to extend to the east as well as to the west; and as soon as he tried to enforce this claim within the eastern Patriarchates, trouble was bound to arise. The Greeks assigned to the Pope a primacy of honour, but not the universal supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative; the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council representing all the bishops of the Church. Here we have two different conceptions of the visible organization of the Church.<br />
<br />
The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia:<br />
<br />
My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an 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 wishes 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.'<br />
<br />
That was how an Orthodox felt in the twelfth century, when the whole question had come out into the open. In earlier centuries the Greek attitude to the Papacy was basically the same, although not yet sharpened by controversy. Up to 850, Rome and the east avoided an open conflict over the Papal claims, but the divergence of views was not the less serious for being partially concealed.<br />
<br />
The second great difficulty was the Filioque. The dispute involved the words about the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. Originally the Creed ran: 'I believe ... in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and together glorified.' This, the original form, is recited unchanged by the east to this day. But the west inserted an extra phrase 'and from the Son' (in Latin, Filioque), so that the Creed now reads 'who proceeds from the Father and the Son'. It is not certain when and where this addition was first made, but it seems to have originated in Spain, as a safeguard against Arianism. At any rate the Spanish Church interpolated the Filioque at the third Council of Toledo (589), if not before. From Spain the addition spread to France and thence to Germany, where it was welcomed by Charlemagne and adopted at the semi-lconoclast Council of Frankfort (794). It was writers at Charlemagne's court who first made the Filioque into an issue of controversy, accusing the Greeks of heresy because they recited the Creed in its original form. But Rome, with typical conservatism, continued to use the Creed without the Filioque until the start of the eleventh century. In 808 Pope Leo 111 wrote in a letter to Charlemagne that, although he himself believed the Filioque to be doctrinally sound, yet he considered it a mistake to tamper with the wording of the Creed. Leo deliberately had the Creed, without the Filioque, inscribed on silver plaques and set up in St Peter's. For the time being Rome acted as a mediator between the Franks and Byzantium.<br />
<br />
It was not until 860 that the Greeks paid much attention to the Filioque, but once they did so, their reaction was sharply critical. The Orthodox objected (and still object) to this addition to the Creed, for two reasons. First, the Creed is the common possession of the whole Church, and if any change is to be made in it, this can only be done by an Ecumenical Council. The west, in altering the Creed without consulting the east, is guilty (as Khomiakov put it) of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the Church. In the second place, most Orthodox believe the Filioque to be theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the Son as well. There are, however, some Orthodox who consider that the Filioque is not in itself heretical,. and is indeed admissible as a theological opinion - not a dogma - provided that it is properly explained. But even those who take this more moderate view still regard it as an unauthorized addition.<br />
<br />
Besides these two major issues, the Papacy and the Filioque, there were certain lesser matters of Church worship and discipline which caused trouble between east and west: the Greeks allowed married clergy, the Latins insisted on priestly celibacy; the two sides had different rules of fasting; the Greeks used leavened bread in the Eucharist, the Latins unleavened bread Around 850 east and west were still in full communion with one another and still formed one Church. Cultural and political divisions had combined to bring about an increasing estrangement, but there was no open schism. The to sides had different conceptions of Papal authority and recited the Creed in different forms, but these questions had not yet been brought fully into the open.<br />
<br />
But in 1190 Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch and a great authority on Canon Law, looked at matters very differently:<br />
<br />
For many years [he does not say how many] the western Church has been divided in spiritual communion from the other four Patriarchates and has become alien to the Orthodox ... So no Latin should be given communion unless he first declares that he will abstain from the doctrines and customs that separate him from us, and that he will be subject to the Canons of the Church, in union with the Orthodox.'<br />
<br />
In Balsamon's eyes, communion had been broken; there was a definite schism between east and west. The two no longer formed one visible Church. In this transition from estrangement to schism, four incidents are of particular importance: the quarrel between Photius and Pope Nicolas I (usually known as the 'Photian schism': the east would prefer to call it the 'schism of Nicolas'); the incident of the Diptychs in 1009; the attempt at reconciliation in 1053-4 and its disastrous sequel; and the Crusades.<br />
<br />
From Estrangement to Schism (858-1204)<br />
In 858, fifteen years after the triumph of icons under Theodora, a new Patriarch of Constantinople was appointed - Photius, known to the Orthodox Church as St Photius the Great. He has been termed 'the most distinguished thinker, the most outstanding politician, and the most skillful diplomat ever to hold office as Patriarch of Constantinople.' Soon after his accession he became involved in a dispute with Pope Nicolas I (858-67). The previous Patriarch, St Ignatius, had been exiled by the Emperor and while in exile had resigned under pressure. The supporters of Ignatius, declining to regard this resignation as valid, considered Photius a usurper. When Photius sent a letter to the Pope announcing his accession, Nicolas decided that before recognizing Photius he would look further Into the quarrel between the new Patriarch and the Ignatian party. Accordingly in 861 he sent legates to Constantinople.<br />
<br />
Photius had no desire to start a dispute with the Papacy. He treated the legates with great deference, inviting them to preside at a council in Constantinople, which was to settle the issue between Ignatius and himself. The legates agreed, and together with the rest of the council they decided that Photius was the legitimate Patriarch. But when his legates returned to Rome, Nicolas declared that they had exceeded their powers, and he disowned their decision. He then proceeded to retry the case himself at Rome: a council held under his presidency In 863 recognized Ignatius as Patriarch, and proclaimed Photius to be deposed from all priestly dignity. The Byzantines took no notice of this condemnation, and sent no answer to the Pope's letters. Thus an open breach existed between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople.<br />
<br />
The dispute clearly involved the Papal claims. Nicolas was a great reforming Pope, with an exalted idea of the prerogatives of his see, and he had already done much to establish an absolute power over all bishops in the west. But he believed this absolute power to extend to the east also: as he put it in a letter of 865, the Pope is endowed with authority 'over all the earth, that is, over every Church'. This was precisely what the Byzantines were not prepared to grant. Confronted with the dispute between Photius and Ignatius, Nicolas thought that he saw a golden opportunity to enforce his claim to universal jurisdiction: he would make both parties submit to his arbitration. But he realized that Photius had submitted voluntarily to the inquiry by the Papal legates, and that his action could not be taken as a recognition of Papal supremacy. This (among other reasons) was why Nicolas had cancelled his legates' decisions. The Byzantines for their part were willing to allow appeals to Rome, but only under the specific conditions laid down on of the Council of Sardica (343). This Canon states that a bishop, if under sentence of condemnation, can appeal to Rome, and the Pope, if he sees cause, can order a retrial; this retrial, however, is not to be conducted by the Pope himself at Rome, but by the bishops of the provinces adjacent to that of the condemned bishop. Nicolas, so the Byzantines felt, in reversing the decisions of his legates and demanding a retrial at Rome itself, was going far beyond the terms of this Canon. They regarded his behaviour as an unwarrantable and uncanonical interference in the affairs of another Patriarchate.<br />
<br />
Soon not only the Papal claims but the Filioque became involved in the dispute. Byzantium and the west (chiefly the Germans) were both launching great missionary ventures among the Slavs.' The two lines of missionary advance, from the east and from the west, soon converged; and when Greek and German missionaries found themselves at work in the same land, it was difficult to avoid a conflict, since the two missions were run on widely different principles. The clash naturally brought to the fore the question of the Filioque, used by the Germans in the Creed, but not used by the Greeks. The chief point of trouble was Bulgaria, a country which Rome and Constantinople alike were anxious to add to their sphere of jurisdiction. The Khan Boris was at first inclined to ask the German missionaries for baptism: threatened, however, with a Byzantine invasion, he changed his policy and around 865 accepted baptism from Greek clergy. But Boris wanted the Church in Bulgaria to be independent, and when Constantinople refused to grant autonomy, he turned to the west in hope of better terms. Given a free hand in Bulgaria, the Latin missionaries promptly launched a violent attack on the Greeks, singling out the points where Byzantine practice differed from their own: married clergy, rules of fasting, and above all the Filioque. At Rome itself the Filioque was still not in use, but Nicolas gave full support to the Germans when they insisted upon its insertion in Bulgaria. The Papacy, which in 808 had mediated between the Franks and the Greeks, was now neutral no longer.<br />
<br />
Photius was naturally alarmed by the extension of German influence in the Balkans, on the very borders of the Byzantine Empire; but he was much more alarmed by the question of the Filioque, now brought forcibly to his attention. In 867 he took action. He wrote an Encyclical Letter to the other Patriarchs of the east, denouncing the Filioque at length and charging those who used it with heresy. Photius has often been blamed for writing this letter: even the great Roman Catholic historian Francis Dvornik who is in general highly sympathetic to Photius, calls his action on this occasion a futile attack, and says 'the lapse was inconsiderate, hasty, and big with fatal consequences'. But if Photius really considered the Filioque heretical, what else could he do except speak his mind? It must also be remembered that it was not Photius who first made the Filioque a matter of controversy, but Charlernagne and his scholars seventy years before: the west was the original aggressor, not the east. Photius followed up his letter by summoning a council to Constantinople, which declared Pope Nicolas excommunicate, terming him 'a heretic who ravages the vineyard of the Lord'.<br />
<br />
At this critical point in the dispute, the whole situation suddenly changed. In this same year (867) Photius was deposed from the Patriarchate by the Emperor. Ignatius became Patriarch once more, and communion with Rome was restored. In 869-70 another council was held at Constantinople, known as the 'Anti-Photian Council', which condemned and anathematized Photius, reversing the decisions of 867. This council, later reckoned in the west as the eighth Ecumenical Council, opened with the unimpressive total of 12 bishops, although numbers at subsequent sessions rose to 103.<br />
<br />
But there were further changes to come. The 869-70 council requested the Emperor to resolve the status of the Bulgarian Church, and not surprisingly he decided that it should be assigned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Realizing that Rome would allow him less independence than Byzantium, Boris accepted this decision. From 870, then, the German missionaries were expelled and the Filioque was heard no more in the confines of Bulgaria. Nor was this all. At Constantinople, Ignatius and Photius were reconciled to one another, and when Ignatius died in 877, Photius once more succeeded him as Patriarch. In 879 yet another council was held in Constantinople, attended by 383 bishops - a notable contrast with the meagre total at the anti-Photian gathering ten years previously. The council of 869 was anathematized and all condemnations of Photius were withdrawn; these decisions were accepted without protest at Rome. So Photius ended victorious, recognized by Rome and ecclesiastically master of Bulgaria. Until recently it was thought -hat there was a second 'Photian schism', but Dr Dvornik has proved with devastating conclusiveness that this second schism is a myth: in Photius' later period of office (877-86) communion between Constantinople and the Papacy remained unbroken. The Pope at this time, John VIII (872-82), was no friend to the Franks and did not press the question of the Filioque, nor did he attempt to enforce the Papal claims in the east. Perhaps he recognized how seriously the policy of Nicolas had endangered the unity of Christendom.<br />
<br />
Thus the schism was outwardly healed, but no real solution had been reached concerning the two great points of difference which the dispute between Nicolas and Photius had forced into the open. Matters had been patched up, and that was all.<br />
<br />
Photius, always honoured in the east as a saint, a leader of the Church, and a theologian, has in the past been regarded by the west with less enthusiasm, as the author of a schism and little else. His good qualities are now more widely appreciated. 'If I am right in my conclusions,' so Dr Dvornik ends his monumental study, 'we shall be free once more to recognize in Photius a great Churchman, a learned humanist, and a genuine Christian, generous enough to forgive his enemies, and to take the first step towards reconciliation. <br />
<br />
At the beginning of the eleventh century there was fresh trouble over the Filioque. The Papacy at last adopted the addition: at the coronation of Emperor Henry 11 at Rome in 1014, the Creed was sung in its interpolated form. Five years earlier, in 1009, the newly-elected Pope Sergius IV sent a letter to Constantinople which may have contained the Filioque, although this is not certain. Whatever the reason, the Patriarch of Constantinople, also called Sergius, did not include the new Pope's name in the Diptychs: these are lists, kept by each Patriarch, which contain the names of the other Patriarchs, living and departed, whom he recognizes as orthodox. The Diptychs are a visible sign of the unity of the Church, and deliberately to omit a person's name from them is tantamount to a declaration that one is not in communion with him. After 1009 the Pope's name did not appear again in the Diptychs of Constantinople; technically, therefore, the Churches of Rome and Constantinople were out of communion from that date. But it would be unwise to press this technicality too far. Diptychs were frequently incomplete, and so do not form an infallible guide to Church relations. The Constantinopolitan lists before 1009 often lacked the Pope's name, simply because new Popes at their accession failed to notify the east. The omission in 1009 aroused no comment at Rome, and even at Constantinople people quickly forgot why and when the Pope's name had first been dropped from the Diptychs.<br />
<br />
As the eleventh century proceeded, new factors brought relations between the Papacy and the eastern Patriarchates to a further crisis. The previous century had been a period of grave instability and confusion for the see of Rome, a century which Cardinal Baronius justly termed an age of iron and lead in the history of the Papacy. But under German influence Rome now reformed itself, and through the rule of men such as Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) it gained a position of power in the west such as it had never before achieved. The reformed Papacy naturally revived the claims to universal jurisdiction which Nicolas had made. The Byzantines on their side had grown accustomed to dealing with a Papacy that was for the most part weak and disorganized, and so they found it difficult to adapt themselves to the new situation. Matters were made worse by political factors, such as the military aggression of the Normans in Byzantine Italy, and the commercial encroachments of the Italian maritime cities in the eastern Mediterranean during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.<br />
<br />
In 1054 there was a severe quarrel. The Normans had been forcing the Greeks in Byzantine Italy to conform to Latin usages; the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in return demanded that the Latin churches at Constantinople should adopt Greek practices, and in 1052, when they refused, he closed them. This was perhaps harsh, but as Patriarch he was fully entitled to act in this manner. Among the practices to which Michael and his supporters particularly objected was the Latin use of 'azymes' or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, an issue which had not figured in the dispute of the ninth century. In 1053, however, Cerularius took up a more conciliatory attitude and wrote to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore the Pope's name to the Diptychs. In response to this offer, and to settle the disputed questions of Greek and Latin usages, Leo in 1054 sent three legates to Constantinople, the chief of them being Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida. The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper, whose mutual encounter was not likely to promote good will among Christians. The legates, when they called on Cerularius, did not create a favourable impression. Thrusting a letter from the Pope at him, they retired without giving the usual salutations; the letter itself, although signed by Leo, had in fact been drafted by Humbert, and was distinctly unfriendly in tone. After this the Patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a Bull of Excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom: among other ill-founded charges in this document, Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the Filioque from the Creed! Humbert promptly left Constantinople without offering any further explanation of his act, and on returning to Italy he represented the whole incident as a great victory for the see of Rome. Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such). The attempt at reconciliation left matters worse than before.<br />
<br />
But 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, and people on both sides still hoped that the misunderstandings could be cleared up without too much difficulty. The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in east and west were largely unaware. It was the Crusades which made the schism definitive: they introduced a new spirit of hatred and bitterness, and they brought the whole issue down to the popular level.<br />
<br />
From the military point of view, however, the Crusades began with great éclat. Antioch was captured from the Turks in 1098, Jerusalem in 1099: the first Crusade was a brilliant, if bloody,' success. At both Antioch and Jerusalem the Crusaders proceeded to set up Latin Patriarchs. At Jerusalem this was reasonable, since the see was vacant at the time; and although in the years that followed there existed a succession of Greek Patriarchs of Jerusalem, living exiled in Cyprus, yet within Palestine itself the whole population, Greek as well as Latin, at first accepted the Latin Patriarch as their head. A Russian pilgrim at Jerusalem in 1106-7, Abbot Daniel of Tchernigov, found Greeks and Latins worshipping together in harmony at the Holy Places, though he noted with satisfaction that at the ceremony of the Holy Fire the Greek lamps were lit miraculously while the Latin had to be lit from the Greek. But at Antioch the Crusaders found a Greek Patriarch actually in residence: shortly afterwards, it is true, he withdrew to Constantinople, but the local Greek population was unwilling to recognize the Latin Patriarch whom the Crusaders set up in his place. Thus from 11000 there existed in effect a local schism at Antioch. After I 187, when Saladin captured Jerusalem, the situation in the Holy land deteriorated: two rivals, resident within Palestine itself, now divided the Christian population between them - a Latin Patriarch at Acre, a Greek at Jerusalem. These local schisms at Antioch and Jerusalem were a sinister development. Rome was very far away, and if Rome and Constantinople quarrelled, what practical difference did it make to the average Christian in Syria or Palestine? But when two rival bishops claimed the same throne and two hostile congregations existed in the same city, the division became an immediate reality in which simple believers were directly implicated. It was the Crusades that turned the dispute into something that involved whole Christian congregations, and not just church leaders; the Crusaders brought the schism down to the local level.<br />
<br />
But worse was to follow in 1204, with the taking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. The Crusaders were originally bound for Egypt, but were persuaded by Alexius, son of Isaac Angelus, the dispossessed Emperor of Byzantium, to turn aside to Constantinople in order to restore him and his father to the throne. This western intervention in Byzantine politics did not go happily, and eventually the Crusaders, disgusted by what they regarded as Greek duplicity, lost patience and sacked the city. Eastern Christendom has never forgotten those three appalling days of pillage. 'Even the Saracens are merciful and kind,' protested Nicetas Choniates, 'compared with these men who bear the Cross of Christ on their shoulders.' In the words of Sir Steven Runciman, 'The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword was to sever Christendom. The long-standing doctrinal disagreements were now reinforced on the Greek side by an intense national hatred, by a feeling of resentment and indignation against western aggression and sacrilege. After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and Christian west were divided into two.<br />
<br />
Orthodoxy and Rome each believes itself to have been right and its opponent wrong upon the points of doctrine that arose between them; and so Rome and Orthodoxy since the schism have each claimed to be the true Church. Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (None the less there is no action on the Byzantine side which can be compared to the sack of 1204.) And each side, while claiming to be the one true Church, must admit that on the human level it has been grievously impoverished by the separation. The Greek east and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the great schism has proved a great tragedy.<br />
<br />
This article was taken from www.orthodoxinfo.com<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!--- == Attempts at reconciliation and continuing divergence ==<br />
<br />
== Current situation == ---><br />
<br />
== An alternate view ==<br />
<br />
'If one wishes to find a villain on the Orthodox side for the development of the schism, [Absentee Greek Patriarch of Antioch] Balsamon is a far stronger candidate than either [Patriarchs of Constantinople] Photius or Cerularius. Hitherto the chief asset of the Orthodox in the controversy had been their doctrine of Economy, the charity that enabled them to overlook and even to condone divergences in the interest of peace and goodwill. But Balsamon was a lawyer; and lawyers like things to be cut and dried. Charity is not one of their characteristics.'<br />
<br />
[[Steven Runciman]], ''The Eastern Schism'', Wipf & Stock, Oregon, 3/3/2005, p138<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Filioque]]<br />
*[[Photius the Great]]<br />
*[[Michael Cerularius]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*[[Laurent Cleenewerck]], ''His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches''<br />
*[[Vladimir Lossky]], ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''<br />
*[[John Meyendorff]], ''Living Tradition'' esp pp64-71 (1978 SVS Press)<br />
*[[Aristeides Papadakis]] ''The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy'' (1994 SVS Press)<br />
*[[Philip Sherrard]], ''Church, Papacy and Schism''<br />
*[[Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church''<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.orthodox.org.ph/content/view/211/50/ The East-West Schism]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Church History]]<br />
[[Category:Creeds]]<br />
[[Category:Heresies]]<br />
[[Category:Inter-Christian]]<br />
<br />
[[el:Σχίσμα του 1054]]<br />
[[es:Gran Cisma]]</div>Jacifus