East-West Schism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The East-West Schism, or the Great Schism, divided medieval Mediterranean Christendom into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches, which later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, respectively. Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes.^[1] Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius heightened the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains. In 1054, Roman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches.^[1] Cerularius refused. The leader of the Latin contingent, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and other legates.^[1]

The Western legate's acts are of doubtful validity because Leo had died, while Cerularius's excommunication applied only to the legates personally.^[1] Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed. Western cruelty during the Crusades, the capture and sack of Constantinople in 1204, and the imposition of Latin Patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult.^[1] This included the taking of many precious religious artifacts and the destruction of the Library of Constantinople. On paper, the two churches actually reunited in 1274 (by the Second Council of Lyon) and in 1439 (by the Council of Florence), but in each case the councils were repudiated by the Orthodox as a whole, on the grounds that the hierarchs had overstepped their authority in consenting to reunification. In 1484, 31 years after the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, a Synod of Constantinople repudiated the Union of Florence, making the breach between the Patriarchate of the West and the Patriarchate of Constantinople final.^[1] In 1965, the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, nullified the anathemas of 1054.^[1] Further attempts to reconcile the two bodies are ongoing.

A schism is a break in the Church's authority structure and communion and is different from a heresy, which means false doctrine. Church authorities have long recognized that even if their minister is in schism, the sacraments are valid. There have been many other schisms, from the 2nd century until today.

Contents 1 Origins 1.1 Ecclesiology 1.2 Rise of Rome 1.3 New Rome 1.4 Five patriarchs 1.5 Empires East and West 1.6 Language 1.7 Papal Supremacy and Pentarchy 1.8 Other points of conflict 1.9 Previous schisms 2 Mutual excommunication of 1054 3 East and West since 1054 4 Extant disputes as seen by Orthodox theologians 4.1 Ecclesiological issues 4.1.1 Papal Authority 4.1.2 Celibacy of the Priestly Order 4.1.3 Divorce 4.1.4 Ecclesiological economy 4.1.5 Apostolic succession 4.2 Theological issues 4.2.1 Theoria 4.2.2 Nous, Noesis, and the Heart as Noetic faculity 4.2.3 Hesychasm controversy 4.2.4 Original Sin 4.2.5 Filioque 4.2.6 The concept of eternal punishment as Hell - East and West 5 Roman Catholic attitude towards Eastern Orthodox 6 Notes 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

[edit] Origins

Part of a series of articles on Christianity
Jesus Christ
Virgin birth · Crucifixion · Resurrection
Foundations
Church · New Covenant Apostles · Kingdom · Gospel · Timeline
Bible
Old Testament · New Testament Books · Canon · Apocrypha
Christian theology
Trinity · (Father · Son · Holy Spirit) History of · Theology · Apologetics
History and traditions
Early · Councils · Creeds · Missions East-West Schism · Crusades · Reformation
Denominations
Catholicism Roman Catholic · Eastern Catholic · Anglican · Independent Catholic · Old Catholic · Protestantism Lutheran · Reformed · Anabaptist · Baptist · Methodist · Adventist · Evangelicalism · Holiness · Pentecostal Orthodoxy Eastern Orthodoxy · Oriental Orthodoxy (Miaphysite) · Syriac Christianity (inc. Nestorian Assyrians) Nontrinitarian Jehovah's Witnesses · Latter Day Saint movement · Unitarianism · Christadelphians · Oneness Pentecostalism
Topics in Christianity
Preaching · Prayer · Ecumenism Relation to other religions · Movements Music · Liturgy · Calendar Symbols · Art · Criticism
Christianity Portal
This box: view • talk • edit

See also: History of Christianity

Leading to the Great Schism, Eastern and Western Mediterranean Christians had a history of differences and disagreements dating back to the second century. Among the most significant disagreements are the Quatrodeciman controversy at the time of Victor or Rome (circa 180) and the Rebaptism controversy at the time of Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage (250s).

[edit] Ecclesiology

At the root of what became the Great Schism is the question of ecclesiology. The Eastern Churches maintained the idea that every local city-Church with its bishop, presbyters, deacons and people celebrating the Eucharist constituted the whole Church. In this view called Eucharistic ecclesiology (or more recently holographic ecclesiology), every bishop is Peter's successor in his Church ("the Church") and the Churches form what Eusebius called a common union of Churches. This implied that all bishops were ontologically equal, although functionally particular bishops could be granted special privileges by other bishops and serve as metropolitans, archbishops or patriarchs. Early on, the ecclesiology of the Roman Church was universal in nature, with the idea that the Church was a worldwide organism with a divinely (not functionally) appointed center: the Church/Bishop of Rome. These two views are still present in modern Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and can be seen as foundational causes for the schisms and Great Schism between East and West.

[edit] Rise of Rome

This article or section contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (December 2008)

See also: First phase of papal supremacy

John Binns writes that, after the fall and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the natural leading centres of the Church were Antioch and Alexandria. Alexandria had been assisted by Mark ^[2], one of the Seventy Apostles. Antioch had attracted Peter and Paul and Barnabas, plus others of the Seventy. Antioch was the base from which Paul made his missionary journeys to the pagans. ^[3]. The Church of Antioch sent the apostles Peter and Paul to Rome to assist the fledgling church there in its growth, and because Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire. Antioch regarded Peter as its first bishop ^[4].

The historian Will Durant writes that, after Jerusalem, the church of Rome naturally became the primary church, the capital of Christianity.^[5] Rome had an early and significant Christian population.^[5] It was closely identified with the Apostle Paul, who preached^[6] and was martyred there, and the Apostle Peter, who was a martyr there as well. The Eastern Orthodox liturgy calls Peter and Paul "the wisest Apostles and their princes" and "the radiant ornaments of Rome".^[7][8] Peter is seen as founder of the Church in Rome,^[9] and the bishops of Rome as his successors.^[10][11] While the Eastern cities of Alexandria and Antioch produced theological works, the bishops of Rome focused on what Romans admittedly did best: administration.^[5]

Father Thomas Hopko, a leading Orthodox theologian, has written: "The church of Rome held a special place of honor among the earliest Christian churches. It was first among the communities that recognized each other as catholic churches holding the orthodox faith concerning God's Gospel in Jesus. According to St Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch who died a martyr's death in Rome around the year 110, 'the church which presides in the territories of the Romans' was 'a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, bearer of the Father's name.' The Roman church held this place of honor and exercised a 'presidency in love' among the first Christian churches for two reasons. It was founded on the teaching and blood of the foremost Christian apostles Peter and Paul. And it was the church of the capital city of the Roman empire that then constituted the 'civilized world (oikoumene)'."^[12]

Saint Thomas went east, and was said to be instrumental in establishing the Church in the Persian Empire and satellite kingdoms, although Addai and Mari, two of the Seventy Apostles were credited with most of the work of establishment in Persia itself. The Persian Church was larger than the Mediterranean Church for some centuries, especially in the sixth to eighth centuries with its highly successful movement into India, Mongolia, China, Tibet, Korea, and Japan ^[13].

In the fourth century when the Roman emperors were trying to control the Church, theological questions were running rampant throughout the Roman Empire^[14]. The influence of Greek speculative thought on Christian thinking led to all sorts of divergent and conflicting opinions ^[15]. Christ's commandment to love others as He loved, seemed to have been lost in the intellectual abstractions of the time. Theology was also used as a weapon against opponent bishops, since being branded a heretic was the only sure way for a bishop to be removed by other bishops. Incompetence was not sufficient grounds for removal.

In the early church up until the ecumenical councils, Rome was regarded as an important centre of Christianity, especially since it was the capital of the Roman Empire. The eastern and southern Mediterranean bishops generally recognized a persuasive leadership and authority of the Bishop of Rome, because the teaching of the bishop of Rome was almost invariably correct.^{[citation needed]} But the Mediterrtanean Church did not regard the Bishop of Rome as any sort of infallible source, nor did they acknowledge any juridical authority of Rome.

After the sole emperor of all the Roman Empire Constantine built the new imperial capital on the Bosphorous, the centre of gravity in the empire was fully recognised to have completely shifted to the eastern Mediterranean. Rome lost the senate to Byzantium and lost its status and gravitas as imperial capital.

The patriarchs of Constantinople often tried to adopt an imperious position over the other patriarchs. In the case of Nestorius, whose actual teaching is now recognised to be not overtly heretical, although it is clearly deficient, (Saint Cyril called it 'slippery'), ^[16], other patriarchs were able to make the charge of heresy stick and successfully had him deposed. This was probably more because his christology was delivered with a heavy sarcastic arrogance which matched his high-handed personality ^[17].

The opinion of the Bishop of Rome was often sought, especially when the patriarchs of the Eastern Mediterranean were locked in fractious dispute. The bishops of Rome never obviously belonged to either the Antiochian or the Alexandrian schools of theology, and usually managed to steer a middle course between whatever extremes were being propounded by theologians of either school. Because Rome was remote from the centres of Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean, it was frequently hoped its bishop would be more impartial. For instance, in 431, Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, appealed to Pope Celestine I, as well as the other patriarchs, charging Nestorius with heresy, which was dealt with at the Council of Ephesus.

The opinion of the bishop of Rome was always canvassed, and was often longed for. However the Bishop of Rome's opinion was by no means automatically right. For instance, the Tome of Leo of Rome was highly regarded, and formed the basis for the ecumenical council's formulation. But it was not universally accepted and was even called "impious" and "blasphemous" by some.^[18] The next ecumenical council corrected a possible imbalance in Pope Leo's presentation. Although the Bishop of Rome was well-respected even at this early date, the concept of the primacy of the Roman See and Papal Infallibility were only developed much later.

Following the Sack of Rome by invading European Goths, Rome slid into the Dark Ages which afflicted most parts of Western Europe, and became increasingly isolated and irrelevant to the wider Mediterranean Church. This was a situation which suited and pleased a lot of the Eastern Mediterranean patriarchs and bishops ^[19].

It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose out of obscurity on the back of the military successes of the western Mediterranean adventurers.

[edit] New Rome

When the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great embraced Christianity, he summoned the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325 to resolve a number of issues which troubled the Church. The bishops at the council confirmed the position of the metropolitan sees of Rome and Alexandria as having authority outside their own province, and also the existing privileges of the churches in Antioch and the other provinces.^[20] These sees were later called Patriarchates and were given an order of precedence: Rome, as capital of the empire was naturally given first place, then came Alexandria and Antioch. In a separate canon the Council also approved the special honor given to Jerusalem over other sees subject to the same metropolitan.^[21]

[edit] Five patriarchs

Soon, Constantine erected a new capital at Byzantium, a strategically-placed city on the Bosporus. He renamed his new capital Nova Roma ("New Rome"), but the city would become known as Constantinople. The Second Ecumenical Council, held at the new capital in 381, now elevated the see of Constantinople itself, to a position ahead of the other chief metropolitan sees, except that of Rome.^[22] Mentioning in particular the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, it decreed that the synod of each province should manage the ecclesiastical affairs of that province alone, except for the privileges already recognized for Alexandria and Antioch.^[23]

The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, confirming the authority already held by Constantinople, granted its archbishop jurisdiction over the three provinces mentioned by the First Council of Constantinople:

[T]he Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops [i.e., the Second Ecumenical Council], actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople.^[24]

The council also ratified an agreement between Antioch and Jerusalem, whereby Jerusalem held jurisdiction over three provinces,^[25] numbering it among the five great sees.^[26] There were now five patriarchs presiding over the Church within the Byzantine Empire, in the following order of precedence: the Patriarch of Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem (see Pentarchy).

[edit] Empires East and West

Disunion in the Roman Empire further contributed to disunion in the Church. The Emperor Diocletian famously divided the administration of the eastern and western portions of the Empire in the early 4th century, though subsequent leaders (including Constantine) aspired to and sometimes gained control of both regions. Theodosius the Great, who established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, died in 395 and was the last Emperor to rule over a united Roman Empire; following his death, the division into western and eastern halves, each under its own Emperor, became permanent. By the end of the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire had been overrun by the Germanic tribes, while the Eastern Roman Empire (known also as the Byzantine Empire) continued to thrive. Thus, the political unity of the Roman Empire was the first to fall.

In the West, the collapse of civil government left the Church practically in charge in many areas, and bishops took to administering secular cities and domains.^[5] When royal and imperial rule reestablished itself, it had to contend with power wielded independently by the Church. In the East, however, imperial and, later, Islamic rule dominated the Eastern bishops.^[5]

[edit] Language

Many other factors caused the East and West to drift further apart. The dominant language of the West was Latin, whilst that of the East was Greek. Soon after the fall of the Western Empire, the number of individuals who spoke both Latin and Greek began to dwindle, and communication between East and West grew much more difficult. With linguistic unity gone, cultural unity began to crumble as well. The two halves of the Church were naturally divided along similar lines; they developed different rites and had different approaches to religious doctrines. Although the Great Schism was still centuries away, its outlines were already perceptible.^[27]

[edit] Papal Supremacy and Pentarchy

The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over conflicting claims of jurisdiction, in particular over papal authority—Pope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs (see also Pentarchy) — and over the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Western patriarch in 1014 ^[28]. Eastern Orthodox today state that the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople.^{[citation needed]} The seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus declared:

It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized^[29]

Eastern Orthodox today state that this Canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed drawn up by the first Ecumenical Council in 325, the wording of which but, it is claimed, not the substance, had been modified by the second Ecumenical Council, making additions such as "who proceeds from the Father".

In the Orthodox view, the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) would have universal primacy in a reunited Christendom, as primus inter pares without power of jurisdiction.^[30]

There were other less significant catalysts for the Schism however, including variance over liturgical practices.

[edit] Other points of conflict

Many other issues increased tensions.

• Emperor Leo III the Isaurian outlawed the veneration of icons in the 8th century. This policy, which came to be called Iconoclasm, was rejected by the West.
• The Western Church's insertion of "Filioque" into the Latin version of the Nicene Creed.
• Disputes in the Balkans, Southern Italy, and Sicily over whether Rome or Constantinople had ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
• In the East, endorsement of Caesaropapism, subordination of the church to the religious claims of the dominant political order, was most fully evident in the Byzantine Empire at the end of the first millennium,^[31] while in the West, where the decline of imperial authority left the Church relatively independent,^[32] there was growth of the power of the Papacy.
• As a result of the Muslim conquests of the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, only two rival powerful centres of ecclesiastical authority, Constantinople and Rome, remained.^[33]
• Certain liturgical practices in the West that the East believed represented illegitimate innovation: the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, for example (see Azymite).
• Celibacy among Western priests (both monastic and parish), as opposed to the Eastern discipline whereby parish priests could be married men.

[edit] Previous schisms

Some scholars^[34] have argued that the Schism between East and West has very ancient roots, and that sporadic schisms in the common unions took place under Pope Victor I (second century), Pope Stephen I (third century) and Pope Damasus I (fourth and fifth century). Later on, disputes about theological and other questions led to schisms between the Churches in Rome and Constantinople for 37 years from 482 to 519 (the Acacian Schism), and for 13 years from 866-879 (see Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople).

[edit] Mutual excommunication of 1054

Most of the direct causes of the Great Schism, however, are far less grandiose than the famous filioque. The relations between the papacy and the Byzantine court were good in the years leading up to 1054. The emperor Constantine IX and the Pope Leo IX were allied through the mediation of the Lombard catepan of Italy, Argyrus, who had spent years in Constantinople, originally as a political prisoner. Leo and Argyrus led armies against the ravaging Normans, but the papal forces were defeated at the Battle of Civitate in 1053, which resulted in the pope being imprisoned at Benevento, where he took it upon himself to learn Greek. Argyrus had not arrived at Civitate and his absence caused a rift in papal-imperial relations.

Meanwhile, the Normans were busy imposing Latin customs, including the unleavened bread—with papal approval. Patriarch Michael I then ordered Leo, Archbishop of Ochrid, to write a letter to the bishop of Trani, John, an Easterner, in which he attacked the "Judaistic" practices of the West, namely the use of unleavened bread. The letter was to be sent by John to all the bishops of the West, Pope included. John promptly complied and the letter was passed to one Humbert of Mourmoutiers, the cardinal-bishop of Silva Candida, who was then in John's diocese. Humbert translated the letter into Latin and brought it to the pope, who ordered a reply to be made to each charge and a defence of papal supremacy to be laid out in a response.

Although he was hot-headed, Michael was convinced, probably by the Emperor and the bishop of Trani, to cool the debate and prevent the impending breach. However, Humbert and the pope made no concessions and the former was sent with legatine powers to the imperial capital to solve the questions raised once and for all. Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi set out in early spring and arrived in April 1054. Their welcome was not to their liking, however, and they stormed out of the palace, leaving the papal response with Michael, whose anger exceeded even theirs. The seals on the letter had been tampered with and the legates had published, in Greek, an earlier, far less civil, draft of the letter for the entire populace to read. The patriarch determined that the legates were worse than mere barbarous Westerners, they were liars and crooks. He refused to recognise their authority or, practically, their existence.^[35]

When Pope Leo died on April 19, 1054, the legates' authority legally ceased, but they did not seem to notice.^[36] The patriarch's refusal to address the issues at hand drove the legatine mission to extremes: on July 16, the three legates entered the church of the Hagia Sophia during the divine liturgy on a Saturday afternoon and placed a Papal Bull of Excommunication (1054) on the altar. The legates left for Rome two days later, leaving behind a city near riots. The patriarch had the immense support of the people against the Emperor, who had supported the legates to his own detriment, and Argyrus, who was seen still as a papal ally. To assuage popular anger, Argyrus' family in Constantinople was arrested, the bull was burnt, and the legates were anathematised—the Great Schism had begun.

Orthodox bishop Kallistos (formerly Timothy Ware) writes, that the choice of cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Patriarch Michael I were men of stiff and intransigent temper... . After [an initial, unfriendly encounter] the patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a bull of excommunication against Patriarch Michael I on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom... . Michael and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when this unfortunate sequence of events took place. This conclusion, however, is not correct, because in the bull composed by Humbert, only Patriarch Michael I was excommunicated. The validity of the bull is questioned because Pope Leo IX was already dead at that time. On the other side, the Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legates.

It should be noted that the bull of excommunication issued against Patriarch Michael stated as one of its reasons for the excommunication the Eastern Church's deletion of the word "filioque" from the original Nicene Creed. It is now common knowledge that the Eastern Church did not delete anything, it was the Western Church that added this word to the original Nicene Creed.

[edit] East and West since 1054

"Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".^[37]

There was no single event that marked the breakdown. Rather, the two churches slid into and out of schism over a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations. During the Fourth Crusade, however, Latin crusaders and Venetian merchants sacked Constantinople itself, looting The Church of Holy Wisdom and various other Orthodox Holy sites. This event and the final treaty established the Latin Empire of the East and the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople (with various other Crusader states). This period of chaotic rule over the sacked and looted lands of the Byzantine Empire is still known among Eastern Christians as Frangokratia. Later attempts at reconciliation, such as the Second Council of Lyon, met with little or no success until the middle of the Twentieth Century.^{[citation needed]}

In 1965, the Catholic Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted the mutual excommunications dating from the eleventh century.^[38]. In 1995 (Jun 29), Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople again withdrew the previous 11th Century excommunications and concelebrated the Eucharist together.

In May 1999, John Paul II was the first pope since the Great Schism to visit an Eastern Orthodox country: Romania. Upon greeting John Paul II, the Romanian Patriarch Teoctist stated: "The second millennium of Christian history began with a painful wounding of the unity of the Church; the end of this millennium has seen a real commitment to restoring Christian unity."

Pope John Paul II visited other heavily Orthodox areas such as Ukraine, despite lack of welcome at times, and he said that healing the divisions between Western and Eastern Christianity was one of his fondest wishes.

[edit] Extant disputes as seen by Orthodox theologians

[edit] Ecclesiological issues

[edit] Papal Authority

A lot of the issues that currently separate the two churches are ecclesiological. Principal among them is the content of papal primacy within any future unified church. The Orthodox insist that it should be a "primacy of honor", as in the ancient church and not a "primacy of authority",^[39] whereas the Catholics see the pontiff's role as requiring for its exercise power and authority the exact form of which is open to discussion with other Christians.^[40]

[edit] Celibacy of the Priestly Order

Celibacy of the clergy is also a dividing point. Although the Catholic church does allow married men to be ordained in the Eastern Catholic Churches, it does so only rarely in the Western Church.^[41] The Catholic church's practice of not allowing parish priests to be married men is not a tradition in Eastern Christianity and is a tradition established in the Roman Catholic church. Eastern Orthodox priests cannot marry (after becoming priests), but married men may become Eastern Orthodox parish priests; they are not allowed to be parish priests unless they are indeed married.^{[citation needed]} Unmarried and (widowed) clergy in Eastern Orthodoxy are most important to the ascetic community in the East. Also higher level clergy should be unmarried or widowed (for positions like Bishops and above for example).

[edit] Divorce

There is disagreement on divorce: the Catholic church forbids it, whereas the Orthodox permits it, though allowing remarriage only in penitential form.

[edit] Ecclesiological economy

See also: Eastern Orthodox Church organization

A major sticking point is the style of church government. The Orthodox Church has always maintained the original position of collegiality of the bishops. The Orthodox Church has also emphasised 'economia', or a certain amount of flexibility in the rules depending upon the exigencies of a particular situation. The Orthodox church's structure being closer to a confederacy in structure with no functioning centralization as a constant. The Orthodox do have synods where the highest authorities in each Church community are brought together, but unlike Roman Catholicism no central individual or figure has the absolute and infallible last word on church doctrine.^[42]

[edit] Apostolic succession

Some of the Orthodox Churches unofficially acknowledge Apostolic succession within the Catholic Church and admit the validity of its episcopal ordination.^{[citation needed]} The relationship between the Antiochian Orthodox and the Maronite Catholic bishops is a case in point. Some Orthodox Churches do not require baptism in the case of a convert already baptized in the Catholic Church. Most Orthodox Churches allow marriages between members of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church allows its clergy to administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, if these spontaneously ask for the sacraments and are properly disposed.^[43] It also allows Catholics who cannot approach a Catholic minister to receive these three sacraments from clergy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided.^[44] Catholic canon law allows marriage between a Catholic and an Orthodox only if permission is obtained from the Catholic bishop.^[45] The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches authorizes the local Catholic bishop to permit a Catholic priest, of whatever rite, to bless the marriage of Orthodox faithful who being unable without great difficulty to approach a priest of their own Church, ask for this spontaneously.^[46] In exceptional circumstances Catholics may, in the absence of an authorized priest, marry before witnesses. If a priest who is not authorized for the celebration of the marriage is available, he should be called in, although the marriage is valid even without his presence.^[47] The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches specifies that, in those exceptional circumstances, even a "non-Catholic" priest (and so not necessarily one belonging to an Eastern Church) may be called in.^[48]

[edit] Theological issues

Some Eastern Orthodox theologians point to a number of theological issues outstanding. These issues have a long history as can be seen in the 11th Century works of Orthodox theologian and saint Nikitas Stithatos.

[edit] Theoria

See also: Sobornost (journal)

Vladimir Lossky, a noted modern Eastern Orthodox theologian, notes the difference in East and West is due to the Roman Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and scholasticism) rather then actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Roman Catholic Christianity. That Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic, Christians have become radically different."^[49] Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides^[50] and Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos^[51] say the same. This same sentiment was also expressed by the early Slavophil movements in the works of Ivan Kireevsky and Aleksey Khomyakov. The slavophil sought reconciliation (sobornost) with all various forms of Christianity as can be seen in the works of its most famous proponent Vladimir Solovyov. Theoria here is something more then simply a theological position. In that theoria was and is what established for the early church fathers the validation of Christianity and the ecclesiastical faith in God. Against the position of allegorical, literal and now philosophical interruptions of the Christian understanding and knowledge of God (theology)^[52][53]. Ancient church fathers like Gregory of Nyssa validated that theoria was the proper way to interrupt Christian traditions such as the bible and liturgical services.^[54]

[edit] Nous, Noesis, and the Heart as Noetic faculity

In Eastern Christianity the heart or spirit of the person is often referred to as the Nous.^[55] Nous can also be loosely translated as the whole experience of consciousness internal (dianoia and intuitive) and external reality (sensory perception) called the "eye of the heart or soul". When dealing with the satisfaction of the spirit one must live according to the spirit as the laws of God are written on the heart. Noesis as characteristics or the experiences of the spirit or heart, i.e. when one loves or grieves these are not things "learned" by external reality nor experienced as such. These things are intrinisic to the whole person. Where as philosophical discourse (dialect) is very mechanical and attenuates reality into analytical concepts. Eastern Christianity seeks to restore mankind to his pre-Knowledge of Good and Evil (fall of man) condition of full communion with the Creator and Trinity. The subject of mankind's soul as it learns to struggle against the world of passions and corruptions as called asceticism. Critical to Eastern Christian Ascetism is the experience of the soul or nous and the articulation of the various kinds of conflicts, experiences and thoughts that trouble the spirit or heart of mankind. Some of the concepts critical to addressing the needs of man such as nepsis are specific to watchfulness of the human heart and address the conflicts of the human nous, heart or mind are also at conflict between East and West. Also noetic understanding can not be circumvented nor satisfied by rationalizing or discursive thought.^[56] In Eastern Christianity the Dark Night of the Soul is not considered a normal or necessary phrase for the human heart to achieve a relationship with God, nor is it considered one that is good or healthy.^[57]

[edit] Hesychasm controversy

This great theological division of East and West, as is believed and taught by the Eastern Orthodox, can be seen to have culminated into a direct theological conflict known as the Hesychasm controversy. This controversy showing the sharp contrast between what is embraced by the Roman Catholic Church as proper (or orthodox) theological dogma and how theology is validated and what is considered valid theology by the Eastern Orthodox. The essence of the disagreement is that in the East one cannot be a genuine or true theologian or teach knowledge of God without having experienced God, as is defined as the vision of God (theoria). Hesychasm was one of the ways in which the various ascetics of the East attained the vision of God. It is important to note also that the Roman Catholic church has explicitly taught that Hesychasm was a new phenomenon that was specific to the 13th century and a heresy which goes against the Roman Catholic theologians validation of theology using the Pagan philosopher Aristotle's Metaphysical and scholastic arguments such as actus and potentia.^[58]That Hesychasm is the only form of mysticism of the Eastern Christian community is a very disrespectful distortion of just how diverse Eastern Orthodox asceticism is. This can be seen for example in V Lossky's history of the movement before Gregory Palamas in Lossky's book the Vision of God. This can be seen as very disrespectful to the ascetic history of Hesychasm as it is also outlined within the spiritual text of the Philokalia.

[edit] Original Sin

Another point of theological contention is the Roman Catholic teaching on Original Sin. Orthodox theologians trace this position to having it's roots in the works of Saint Augustine. Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism, which together make up Eastern Christianity, acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind, but never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.^[59] The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos. The Greek Fathers emphasized the metaphysical dimension of the Fall of Man, whereby Adam's descendants are born into a fallen world, but at the same time held fast to belief that, in spite of that, man remains free. Orthodox Churches accept the teaching of John Cassian, which rejects the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally. From the works of Saint Augustine, some Orthodox theologians conclude that, though a Saint, Augustine did not have theoria and many of his theological conclusions appear to be arrived at not from experiencing God and writing about his experience(s) of God. Augustine's conclusions appear to them to be arrived at by means of philosophical or logical speculation and conjecture.^[60] Hence Augustine is still revered as a Saint, but does not qualify as a theologian in the Eastern Orthodox church.^[61] Some of Augustine's Trinitarian conclusions appear to them to immanentize characteristics of theology which would be improper treatment of those things divine.^[62] In the view of Eastern theologians who in light of their experiences would articulate their expressions of those things differently Augustine's treatment of the inner relationship of the realities of God in Trinity and how God has manifested himself to mankind throughout time are an overview of this attitude.^[63].

[edit] Filioque

The two Churches have different approaches to understanding the Trinity. ^[64] The influence of St Augustine and by extension Thomas Aquinas in the western Mediterranean on this issue is not generally accepted in the Orthodox Church.^[65] The Filioque clause first introduced by the Council of Toledo (589)^[66][67] under the influence of^{[not in citation given]} the teaching of St Augustine of Hippo is symptomatic of this difference. ^[68][69][70] The heart of the conflict is the Eastern Orthodox detect modalism, in specific the Sabellian heresy of modalism, in the using of the word person by the Latin West in it's translation of the Greek work hypostasis.^[71] The acceptence of the Latin West translating the word hypostasis (which is sometimes translated as existence or reality) into the Latin word person by the Greek fathers (St Basil as one) was called into question and made into open conflict when the Latin church, later added to the translation difference, the addition to the Nicene Creed of the filioque, which appears to the Greek fathers as direct modalism. ^[72] However the Roman Catholic Church recently^{[citation needed]} has shown some flexibility on the Filioque issue. In accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's practice of including the clause when reciting the Creed in Latin,^[73] but not when reciting the Creed in Greek,^[74] Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause.^{[75][76][77][78][79][80]} The action of these Patriarchs in reciting the Creed together with the Popes has been strongly criticized by some elements of Eastern Orthodoxy, such as the Metropolitan of Kalavryta, Greece in November 2008^[81]

[edit] The concept of eternal punishment as Hell - East and West

See also: Hell in Christian beliefs and Damnation

Some Eastern Orthodox theologians see another example of distinction between East and West in the teaching of Hell as a created place^[82][83] Hell as professed in the East is not the absents of God nor the separation of one from God but rather the opposite. ^[84]So Hell is the torment of the love of God. Besides, as St. Isaac says, the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against the love of God, "is more poignant than any fear of punishment"8. It really is a punishment when we deny and oppose anyone's love. It is terrible when we are loved and we behave inappropriately. If we compare this to the love of God, we can understand the torment of Hell. And it is connected with what St. Isaac says again, that it would be improper for a man to think "that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God"9. So even those being punished will receive the love of God. God will love all men, both righteous and sinners, but they will not all feel this love at the same depth and in the same way. In any case it is absurd for us to maintain that Hell is the absence of God.[30]</ref> ^[85]Finally the theological concept of hell or eternal damnation also via theoria is expressed completely different in the West then in the East. ^[86]Hell in the West is a created place of damnation, pictured most vividly in Dante's classic poetic work, Inferno^[87][88]. The East teaches that hell or eternal damnation and heaven are the same place, which is being with God, God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of God and Heaven.^[89] For one who hates God (as existence, as Life for example called Misotheism) such a place as in the presence of God, will be eternal suffering.^{[90][91] [92]} The Western understanding of hell (called inferno or infernus) can be understood from the works of Augustine as being a place possible located under the earth.^[93] No where does the Roman Catholic dogma and or teachings on hell, clarify that Heaven and Hell are the same place. Nor does it teach that being with God in any form is Hell. This is reflected in it's teachings that Hell is the abscents of God or being cut off from God. ^[94]

This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (January 2009)

This representation of the Western teaching is false, since the Western Church declares that, while Scripture uses the image of place in relation to eternal damnation, what is really involved is a state of self-exclusion from God.^[95]

[edit] Roman Catholic attitude towards Eastern Orthodox

See also: Adrian Fortescue (priest)

In the Roman Catholic Church too, some writers can be found who speak pejoratively of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its theology, but these writers are marginal.^[96] The general view is that expressed in the Decree Unitatis redintegratio of the Second Vatican Council:

In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. Where the authentic theological traditions of the Eastern Church are concerned, we must recognize the admirable way in which they have their roots in Holy Scripture, and how they are nurtured and given expression in the life of the liturgy. They derive their strength too from the living tradition of the apostles and from the works of the Fathers and spiritual writers of the Eastern Churches. Thus they promote the right ordering of Christian life and, indeed, pave the way to a full vision of Christian truth.^[97]

[edit] Notes