Byzantium became an interest to me as I learned that it is where Constantine decided to build Constantine's city, Constantinople. The fact that it became a "second center" of religion, the Orthodox with the Emperor as the "head" of the church, even above the patriarch, as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church headed by the pope. The "schism" that culminated in 1054 between the Catholic Church with the Orthodox Church, over Icons, Instrumental music as well as papal claim of pre-eminence over all the churches and the controversy over the filioque. My interest continued as the Byzantines appealed to pope Urban II over the threat posed by the Seljuk Turks that was a secondary reason for the crusades. The sad fact of the fourth crusade resulting in the "sack" of Constantinople by the crusaders who were supposed to be the allies of the Byzantines and who took the treasures of Constantine's city to Western Europe! Thus weakening the city when in greatest need of a loyal ally. In my opinion, truly reprehensible, the greed of the Catholic crusaders. The defense of the city for centuries against great odds posed by the Muslim Turks until 1453. The fact that the Jannisaries were among the significant forces that stormed the walls of Constantinople, especially when considering they were defeating those that they were most ethnically related too. Incomprehensible to my mind.
My lack of interest on Bizantium is based, probably, in a fallacy. The idea that Bizantium didn't contribute to the advance of Science and Technology.
Would you some of the Bizantium experts in here prove my prejudice is wrong, please?
So, what were the more outstanding advancements in Science and Tech that Bizantium produced. Of course I know thinks like the building of the Hagia Sophia and the development of the "greek" fire canons. However, I am more interested in genious in mathematics, physics and medicine, in inventors and similar secular contributors.
So, please show me the way so I also get interested in the topic.
Byzantines did not so much innovate but preserve what the ancient world left for humanity. The Arabs who developed algebra, arts etc took all their first influences from what they found in conquered Byzantine Syria and Egypt. Don't forget that it was actually a agricultural economy like most in the Middle Ages, plus the church even if it wasn't as strict as the Western part, discouraged new ideas.
Please refrain from the fallacious schism theory. It never happened in 1054. Ako and I have discussed this one in a previous thread already.
I do not agree with you as far as it being a mere theory. It could be that the date 1054 represents a complete division after a gradual process that culminated when the pope first excommunicated the patriarch and the patriarch responded in kind. This is from, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587056/Schism-of-1054 Political jealousies and interests intensified the disputes; and at last, after many premonitory symptoms, the final break came in 1054, when Pope Leo IX struck at Michael Cerularius and his followers with an excommunication and when the Patriarch retaliated with a similar excommunication. There had been mutual excommunications before, but they had not resulted in permanent schisms.
1054 is a convenient and useful date because it represents an encounter between the hierarchy of the East and the legatine delegation headed by Humbert (although the latter was representing a dead pope, and thus by canonical precedent was not entitled to legatine status). It should not be discarded, because it represents a valuable point of reference in what was a gradual process of separation. Many ofthe issues included in Humbert's Anathema maranatha, as well as Cerularius' synodal response had been building up over the course of centuries, were never addressed during the remained of the period of separation, and ultimately have led to a protracted debate between the Eastern and Western Churches. Thus, we may rightly use the date A.D. 1054 when attempting a general explanation of the Schism between the Eastern and Western churches.
That said, if we want to be more specific, we must note that the Schism was a gradual process. Most scholars would place it in a period roughly bounded by the Iconoclastic Controversy and the Crusade of 1204 (which represented the "point of no return", so to speak). The issues that had caused the earlier Photian Schism had not been sufficiently addressed, and the filioque had gained a lot of ground in the West in the interim. What's more, as a means of strengthening their argument during the Investiture Controversy, the Western Church had gradually begun to repudiate the legitimate pro-Photian synod of 879 in favor of the condemned anti-Photian synod of 869 (the latter synod is still held to be the 8th Ecumenical Council in the West). The excommunications pronounced by Humbert were directed at Cerularius and his followers, not the Eastern Church, and Cerularius' excommunication was directed solely at the legates. The general populations of both East and West, as well as most of the clergy, were unaware of any permanent break at this point. There were, certainly, critiques levelled from both sides over practices and theology, and treatises were drawn up over the "Errors of the Latins" or the "Errors of the Greeks". Still, during this period the Churches remained in communion, for the most part. Gradually the situation became more heated, and by the time of the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204 there was a definite break. There were several attempts to re-impose union from the top down (the last being at Ferrara-Florence in A.D. 1439), but these were ultimately fruitless.
So can we say that the Schism happened in 1054? No, not if we are speaking in specific terms. Still, we cannot discard the date, as it represents the best point of reference in the whole debate, and sums up almost all of the grievances on both sides. While we cannot say that the Great Schism "occurred" in 1054, we certainly cannot afford to minimize the importance of the date.
Sorry that I haven't had a chance to read the discussion; busy and all that. When I get the time, I'd love to participate in this thread. Hope everyone is doing well.
Please refrain from the fallacious schism theory. It never happened in 1054. Ako and I have discussed this one in a previous thread already.
I do not agree with you as far as it being a mere theory. It could be that the date 1054 represents a complete division after a gradual process that culminated when the pope first excommunicated the patriarch and the patriarch responded in kind. This is from, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587056/Schism-of-1054 Political jealousies and interests intensified the disputes; and at last, after many premonitory symptoms, the final break came in 1054, when Pope Leo IX struck at Michael Cerularius and his followers with an excommunication and when the Patriarch retaliated with a similar excommunication. There had been mutual excommunications before, but they had not resulted in permanent schisms.
I have had a discussion with a Medieval Studies Professor who has pointed out the fallacity of this quite a few times. Aside from that we had a discussion on here, and read Ako's post above. The two churches had been seperate for quite some time, that is the whole point of patriarchates, separate in administration, but in communion.
The separation begun when the Byzantines lost Rome, allowing the Pope to propagate freely and develop his power over earthly matter except from theological ones. When the Pope turned to the Franks for protection against the Lombards inviting them into Italy (Byzantine territory in paper), he actually committed treason against his lawful emperor. Not even mention crowing Charlemagne emperor.
Please refrain from the fallacious schism theory. It never happened in 1054. Ako and I have discussed this one in a previous thread already.
I do not agree with you as far as it being a mere theory. It could be that the date 1054 represents a complete division after a gradual process that culminated when the pope first excommunicated the patriarch and the patriarch responded in kind. This is from, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587056/Schism-of-1054 Political jealousies and interests intensified the disputes; and at last, after many premonitory symptoms, the final break came in 1054, when Pope Leo IX struck at Michael Cerularius and his followers with an excommunication and when the Patriarch retaliated with a similar excommunication. There had been mutual excommunications before, but they had not resulted in permanent schisms.
I have had a discussion with a Medieval Studies Professor who has pointed out the fallacity of this quite a few times. Aside from that we had a discussion on here, and read Ako's post above. The two churches had been seperate for quite some time, that is the whole point of patriarchates, separate in administration, but in communion.
The point es_bih your missing, as I agree that the liturgy of the churches were different, there is no question about that, however before 1054, churches of both liturgies existed in Contantinople, the headquarters for the Orthodox church! In addition there were Orthodox churches practicing the Orthodox liturgy in Italy! This simply came to an end due to the clear division that had been developing. One has to recognise the date of 1054 as the Orthodox was tiring of the continued papal claim of pre-eminence and head of all the churches, as well as the introduction of instruments in the worship, that in fact had been going on for sometime. It is actually amazing both rights existed in areas where each group had authority. Thus it is clear the denominations were once united, slowly drifted a part til its culmination and continued distansing til 1054. Who deny the meddling of the pope in the Iconic band by the head of the Orthodox church, the Emperor? The Emperor, merely basing his position on the passage that bans making an image of anything from heaven or earth in Exodus 20? The date however is clearly significant. I can give countless of "authorities" that site that date and thus you are contradicting accepted authorities.
Also the Roman claim of complete dominance came after the 11th century not before. Read primary accounts where the Bishop of Rome is rather the Pope of Rome and head figuratively, but mostly through respects paid not as an actual head. It is the Innvestiture controversy that started off a real Papal revival of claims.
Please refrain from the fallacious schism theory. It never happened in 1054. Ako and I have discussed this one in a previous thread already.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
I do not agree with you as far as it being a mere theory. It could be that the date 1054 represents a complete division after a gradual process that culminated when the pope first excommunicated the patriarch and the patriarch responded in kind. This is from, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587056/Schism-of-1054 Political jealousies and interests intensified the disputes; and at last, after many premonitory symptoms, the final break came in 1054, when Pope Leo IX struck at Michael Cerularius and his followers with an excommunication and when the Patriarch retaliated with a similar excommunication. There had been mutual excommunications before, but they had not resulted in permanent schisms.
Originally posted by es_bih
I have had a discussion with a Medieval Studies Professor who has pointed out the fallacity of this quite a few times. Aside from that we had a discussion on here, and read Ako's post above. The two churches had been seperate for quite some time, that is the whole point of patriarchates, separate in administration, but in communion.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
The point es_bih your missing, as I agree that the liturgy of the churches were different, there is no question about that, however before 1054, churches of both liturgies existed in Contantinople, the headquarters for the Orthodox church! In addition there were Orthodox churches practicing the Orthodox liturgy in Italy! This simply came to an end due to the clear division that had been developing. One has to recognise the date of 1054 as the Orthodox was tiring of the continued papal claim of pre-eminence and head of all the churches, as well as the introduction of instruments in the worship, and other doctrinal developements, that in fact had been going on for sometime. It is actually amazing both rites existed in areas where each group had authority. Thus it is clear the denominations were once united, slowly drifted apart til its culmination and continued distancing til 1054. Who can deny the meddling of the pope in the Iconic ban by the head of the Orthodox church, the Emperor? The Emperor, merely basing his position on the passage that bans making an image of anything from heaven or earth on Exodus 20? The date however is clearly significant. I can give countless of "authorities" that site that date and thus you are contradicting accepted authorities.
Originally posted by es_bih
There were no excommunications in 1054AD so how is there a schism
You clearly mistaken here, es_bih, this is from, and clearly shows the significance of the date 1054 and exactly what happened in that year.
One summer afternoon in the year 1054, as a service was about to begin in the great Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople, Cardinal Humbert and two other legates of the Roman pope entered. They made their way to the sanctuary. They placed a sealed papal document—called a "bull"—on the altar and marched out. The bull proclaimed the patriarch of Constantinople and his associates excommunicated, no longer in communion with the church, no longer allowed to receive the grace of God through the sacraments.
When the cardinal passed through the western door, he shook the dust from his feet and said, "Let God look and judge." A deacon, guessing the contents of the bull, ran after Humbert in great distress and begged him to take it back. Humbert refused, and the deacon dropped the document in the street.
This incident is usually portrayed as the key moment in the Great Schism between the Orthodox East and the Latin West. But this incident is but one of many on the path to permanent schism—though surely the bloody events of 1204 put a seal on a break that lasts to this day.
The schism's causes are manifold and complex, and they reveal much of the uniqueness of what we now call the Eastern Orthodox Church—and how the Orthodox understand this chapter of Christian History.
As you can see, this event is recorded as a horendous development and as I stated earlier was a culmination of events that had been developing. Next let me point out your mistaken in another area. First here is your claim,
Originally posted by es_bih
Also the Roman claim of complete dominance came after the 11th century not before. Read primary accounts where the Bishop of Rome is rather the Pope of Rome and head figuratively, but mostly through respects paid not as an actual head. It is the Innvestiture controversy that started off a real Papal revival of claims.
I am going to cite another authority that does not agree with what your saying. In fact the papal claim of primacy happened quite early in history. The fact that the pope did not have "actual primacy," does not dismiss the reprehensible claim or arogance indicated by making such a claim as being the head of all the churches. This source is from,
The First Council of Constantinople (AD 381) suggested strongly that Roman primacy was already asserted; however, it should be noted that, because of the controversy over this claim, the pope did not personally attend this ecumenical council, which was held in the eastern capital of the Roman empire, rather than at Rome. It was not until 440 that Leo the Great more clearly articulated the extension of papal authority as doctrine, promulgating in edicts and in councils his right to exercise "the full range of apostolic powers that Jesus had first bestowed on the apostle Peter". It was at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 that Leo I (through his emissaries) stated that he was "speaking with the voice of Peter". At this same council, the Bishop of Constantinople was given a primacy of honour equal to that of the Bishop of Rome, because "Constantinople is the New Rome."
Thus es_bih, you can see that your mistaken that the claim to primacy happened in the 11th century. Again the fact that in reality complete dominance, NEVER existed over Eastern Orthodox churches shows not even in the 11th centuries did the pope ever have complete dominance. In reality you are stating a fallacy. I don't think it is legitimate to contradict authorities. You cite a professor as your source, however if the professor is contradicting sources or accepted authorities, his opinion should come into question.
Roman primacy in matters of esteem was never questioned. However, from the start Roman primacy in matters of authority were disputed from the outset. With the creation of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate you have a new capital based see that the subsequent Emperors protected and helped to expand. The traditional eastern ones always had their own local autonomy. By the 700s you had the first real claims of supremacy. The latter ones of the period of Investiture controversy really brought out a pap ideology of supremacy. Fulcher mentions the pope as pope of Rome, and does not make him to be the supreme matter of christianity. However, by the time of Villehardouin you have a author claiming the young prince Alexius accepting roman supremacy.
the legates had no authority thus there had not been an excommunication. Also The patriarch excommunicated the legates.
es_bih, this is total misunderstanding of what went on in the summer of 1054. First of all you only mention the legates. However, you failed to mention the "cardinal." I am not sure if your aware of the power inherit in that position of cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, there is what is called the college of cardinals. Cardinals are the second most powerful position in the church below the pope. It is the college of cardinals who select the next pope to succeed a pope upon his death. Thus the fact that a cardinal was sent from the "West" to deliver this communication shows the "high priority" placed upon the delivery of this decision by the pope. Secondly, you failed to observe that the cardinal delivered what is called a "papal bull." It is actually the papal bull that has the seal and represents of the power of the "head" of the church on earth! Thus the legates were not the ones with the authority as you mentioned and I agree with that, however you failed to mention the cardinal and the papal bull that was the decision that was made by the pope! The legates were probably the servants of the cardinal. In any event, we are not talking about a parish priest or a monk from a monastery, nor a bishop of a diocese or even an arch-bishop who has under his authority a number of bishops with dioceses! I am a former Catholic and am now a Christian. Here is the definition of a papal bull, it is from the site,
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
http://www.lexic.us/definition-of/papal_bull
Definition of Papal bull
1.Noun. A formal proclamation issued by the pope (usually written in antiquated characters and sealed with a leaden bulla).
The real power thus was the papal bull that was placed on the altar, by the powerful cleric, the cardinal! Thus far from not having any authority, the cardinal and the papal bull shows the significance of what was done in the Church of the Hagia Sophia, and which resulted in the Schism of 1054. Once again here is the post of the horrendous act that was done in the summer of 1054,
One summer afternoon in the year 1054, as a service was about
to begin in the great Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople,
Cardinal Humbert and two other legates of the Roman pope entered. They
made their way to the sanctuary. They placed a sealed papal
document—called a "bull"—on the altar and marched out. The bull
proclaimed the patriarch of Constantinople and his associates
excommunicated, no longer in communion with the church, no longer
allowed to receive the grace of God through the sacraments.
When the cardinal passed through the western door, he shook the dust
from his feet and said, "Let God look and judge." A deacon, guessing
the contents of the bull, ran after Humbert in great distress and
begged him to take it back. Humbert refused, and the deacon dropped the
document in the street.
This incident is usually portrayed as the key moment in the Great
Schism between the Orthodox East and the Latin West. But this incident
is but one of many on the path to permanent schism—though surely the
bloody events of 1204 put a seal on a break that lasts to this day.
The schism's causes are manifold and complex, and they reveal much
of the uniqueness of what we now call the Eastern Orthodox Church—and
how the Orthodox understand this chapter of Christian History.
As you can see, this ambassador of the pope, the cardinal, was of the highest authority and the papal bull was handled with the highest of priorities, and it was the papal bull that represented the real power and decision of the pope. Thus your conclusion is a misunderstanding of the what the actual events in the summer of 1054 represented.
Originally posted by es_bih
Roman primacy in matters of esteem was never questioned. However, from
the start Roman primacy in matters of authority were disputed from the
outset. With the creation of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate you
have a new capital based see that the subsequent Emperors protected and
helped to expand. The traditional eastern ones always had their own
local autonomy. By the 700s you had the first real claims of supremacy.
The latter ones of the period of Investiture controversy really brought
out a pap ideology of supremacy. Fulcher mentions the pope as pope of
Rome, and does not make him to be the supreme matter of christianity.
However, by the time of Villehardouin you have a author claiming the
young prince Alexius accepting roman supremacy.
es_bih, this is an misrepresentation of the facts. The source is clear that I cited earlier, how can I say it better, the papal claim of primacy happened quite early in history. The fact
that the pope did not have "actual primacy," does not dismiss the
reprehensible claim or arrogance indicated by making such a claim as
being the head of all the churches. This source is from,
The First Council of Constantinople
(AD 381) suggested strongly that Roman primacy was already asserted;
however, it should be noted that, because of the controversy over this
claim, the pope did not personally attend this ecumenical council, which was held in the eastern capital of the Roman empire, rather than at Rome. It was not until 440 that Leo the Great
more clearly articulated the extension of papal authority as doctrine,
promulgating in edicts and in councils his right to exercise "the full
range of apostolic powers that Jesus had first bestowed on the apostle
Peter". It was at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon
in 451 that Leo I (through his emissaries) stated that he was "speaking
with the voice of Peter". At this same council, the Bishop of
Constantinople was given a primacy of honour equal to that of the
Bishop of Rome, because "Constantinople is the New Rome."
I don't understand contradicting authorities. The dates clearly are earlier then the 700s. As I mentioned earlier, the primacy of the pope, never really existed historically. It has always been nothing more then a claim.
I am saying that the Patriarchates never accepted even theoretical dominance of the Roman see, but rather saw it as a more promiment see due to St. Peter. All equal and the Roman one most prestigious. That is not exactly a Roman primacy in theoretical terms.
The Papal bull in effect until the Pope lives, new pope new authority new legates. That is common knowledge.
btw
Nicene Creed
6. The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.
What followed next was a tragedy of errors. In an attempt to quell the disturbance, the pope sent a three-man delegation, led by Cardinal Humbert, to visit Patriarch Cerularius, but matters worsened. The legates presented the patriarch with the pope’s reply to his charges. Both sides managed to infuriate each other over diplomatic courtesies, and when the smoke cleared, a serious rift had developed.
This was not, however, the actual break between the two communions. It’s a popular myth that the schism dates to the year 1054 and that the pope and the patriarch excommunicated each other at that time, but they did not. Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware) writes, “The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Cerularius 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 Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom. . . . Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such)” (The Orthodox Church, 67). 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 Cerularius 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 and abstained from any attack on the pope or the Latin Church.” There was no single event that marked the schism, but rather a sliding into and out of schism during a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Discovering Byzantium
