This small treatise will closely examine the theological
controversies that resulted in the unfortunate Schism in 1054 (known also as
the East-West Schism) which resulted in the final split between the Eastern
Churches of Constantinople (Orthodox) and the Western Church (Roman Catholic).
This split led to both the Eastern Churches of Constantinople and the Western
Church to place mutual excommunications upon each other and these were not
lifted until Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras revoked the excommunication
decrees in 1964.
One of the principle problems related to terminological difficulties
on both sides when dealing with understanding the Trinity. For the Eastern
Church their approach was to start with the Three Persons in God and try to
reconcile the Unity of God whereas with the Western Church they started with
the Unity of God and were trying to reconcile the Three Persons in the Trinity.
From an historical perspective, the West looked upon some of the
Eastern Fathers, as for example the Cappadocian Fathers Gregory of Nyssa and
Basil of Caesareas with great suspicion of preaching as it were ‘Tri-theism’,
that is, of three gods. This was due to terms that were employed by the East
and misunderstood by the West[1].
For the Greeks (East), they applied the word hypostasis to mean
person. For the Latins (West) the word hypostasis for them meant substance,
which meant essence. So the West thought
that the Greeks were implying three gods. However the Greeks were using the
word hypostasis to signify a concrete individual substance and when applied to
God was translated as person[2].
Thus the terminological confusion that gave great misunderstandings and
eventually a rupture between the West and the Eastern Churches.
Coupled with this however was also the doctrine of the filioque,
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. For the East, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
only whereas for the West the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
This doctrine of the filioque was also a point of contention.
However these differences consisted in approach, emphasis and terminology,
not in doctrine. Thus if only both sides would have heeded with what St
Augustine had said centuries earlier “Unity in essential matters, diversity in
non essential matters but above all else, charity”
There can be no mistake that both sides were guilty of not taking
heed, nor trying to understand each other. Thus they should have exercised
charity when dealing with these terminological issues because after all, it was
the terms used that caused confusion. However both sides were saying exactly
the same thing but with a different approach, a different emphasis and
different terminology, but in terms of doctrine there was and is unity in
essential matters
What is also of importance to note is that whilst the theological
controversies were central to the East-West Schism there were other factors
such as political e.g. the Pope’s claim to universal jurisdiction, the place of
Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy and whether in the Eucharist use of
leavened or unleavened bread is to be used.
With all these factors in mind and in hindsight (which
is 20/20 vision) what expired on Saturday the 16th of July, 1054[3]
should never have happened. As is explained by Dr. George T Dennis, professor
of history at the Catholic University of America “…Today no serious scholar
maintains that the schism began in 1054. The process leading to the definitive
break was much more complicated, and no single cause or event can be said to
have precipitated it”[4]
Thus we must constantly pray for the reunification of the Eastern and Western Churches
[1] What needs to be remembered here is that both sides were
misunderstanding each other. The East misunderstood the Western Church because
they preferred to leave things as great ‘mysteries’. Because the Western Church
had more of a practical and legal understanding, the clarification of terms was
of vital importance to the Western Church. This is because the West was having
to deal with heresies that arose since the 3rd Century AD and
therefore needed clarification and strict terminologies. Furthermore the West
misunderstood the East precisely because the Eastern mentality was more
speculative, not practical.
[2] Lecture Series by Dr. Don Boland at the Catholic Adult Education
Centre, Lidcombe Sydney on 5th April 2010
[3] This is when the legate of Pope Leo IX, Cardinal Humbert placed a parchment
that declared Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, to be
excommunicated
No comments:
Post a Comment