- Here is his video:
-
Great Schism (1054)
Ryan Reeves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_s9Rcsg5UI
- Here are
- some comments and comment threads by people watching the video, and starting with a comment by myself before perhaps watching it.
- I
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I was just noting on what theology or lack thereof Ryan Reeves is embarked.
"The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible as originally written were inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible guide in faith and practice."
66 books contradicts both Judaising and Christian canon.
As originally written - so far correct.
Constitute the only infallible guide?
[key word : only]
So, if LXX gives a cultural translation in explicitating that there was a a Cainan between Arphaxad and Sela, whom Hebrew text for ritual reasons did not mention (I hypothesise this is the reason for the discrepancy between the texts), only the Hebrew text counts, and only as written, no Jewish and LXX Christian manuscripts can validate there was a Cainan between Arphaxad and Sela?
More, since Torah was originally written in Hebrew, no translation can be an infallible guide in faith and practise?
More, since only books are mentioned, neither tradition (despite being mentioned in the Greek of 27 book NT, paradosis) nor Church (despite being mentioned also in the Greek of the 27 book NT, ecclesia) is infallible in faith or practise (despite being mentioned in ways which would normally indicate infallibility)?
The very first statement of the Gordon-Conwell? | Statement of Faith is thus fairly obviously faulty.
[Not linking]
Statements 2, 3 and 4 are correct.
Statement 5 leaves out the Church.
Statement 6, now ...
"The believer, having turned to God in penitent faith in the Lord Jesus Christ"
A newly baptised infant is a believer. Has he turned to God or was he turned to God? Is his faith a penitent faith?
Is penitence rightly assigned to faith or rather to charity or hope?
" is accountable to God for living a life separated from sin"
At least mortal ones.
"and characterized by the fruit of the Spirit"
A k a good works.
"It is his responsibility to contribute by word and deed to the universal spread of the Gospel."
No, it is not every believer's responsibility to do so.
A five year old boy is not responsible for going out and witnessing to Muslims. He can pray for their conversion.
And it is moot whether praying can be considered to "contribute by word", since "contribute" suggests an external deed rather than prayer.
Is it your position that five year old boys are not believers?
[Not answered]
- II
- AssyrianEasternOrthodox
- The split happened in 996 AD, when the King of Germany invaded Rome and put his 24 year old nephew, Bruno, as "Pope of Rome", even though he was a German heretic. So the people of Rome voted for their own Pope, Ioannes Philagathus. But Bruno got Ioannes arrested, and took his eyes out and chopped his tongue and fingers. He later died in a dungeon in 1013, as the last real Pope of Rome resident in the city of Rome. The Orthodox Churches then decided to elect the Aromanian (Latin-speaking) Bishop of Ohrid in the Balkans as the exarch of the West for all Latin speaking peoples who refused to accept the German fake Pope and his heresies. Today the Patriarch of Romania holds the title as the Latin Patriarch within the Orthodox Church, as the Romanian Orthodox Church (and by extension the Moldovan Church, and the various communities of Aromanians in the Balkans) constitute the part of the Latin nation that never fell into papism but has remained Orthodox from the beginning.
- Angry Goyim
- I thought the venicians sacked Constantinople in one of the crusades 4th 5th or something? not germany
[Rome, not Constantinople.]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- When did Germans become heretics?
"even though he was a German heretic."
OK, being German is a heresy? No ...
Or, Germans had become Nestorians? No ...
"The Orthodox Churches then decided to elect the Aromanian (Latin-speaking) Bishop of Ohrid in the Balkans as the exarch of the West for all Latin speaking peoples who refused to accept the German fake Pope and his heresies."
I'd like to know more about that.
The bishop of Ohrid technically counts as Roman Catholic as long as it is before 1054.
- Latin Mass Choir
- The effective split between Constantinople and Rome was much earlier than 996A.D. It was in 768 A.D., when the pope had to look to the Franks as an ally and protector because Byzantine rule had collapsed in the Mediterranean. Without the Francs, Italy would have fallen to the Muslims. So the Pope recognised Charles the Great ( Charlemagne ) as the new Holy Roman Emperor thereby saving Italy, and the Church, from Islam. This would never have happened had Byzantium maintained a strong naval presence in the Mediterranean.
[That would be a political split like between US and Soviet some years after beating Hitler, not an ecclesiastical one.]
- Not shown in feed
- AssyrianEasternOrthodox
- Had the germanic Goths never sacked Western Europe to begin with, the Western Byzantine Empire would have protected the West from Islam. The germanic Goths of which the Franks are associated are all part of the problem rather than the solution. But the actual physical schism itself was a local schism in Rome and it happened in 996 AD when for the first time a Frank usurped the papal throne against the will of the local Roman episcopate and flock.
- Not answering in feed
- My comment here
- Franks were associated with Goths on exactly the occasion of together beating Attila, when they were also associated with the Roman Syagrius.
Actually, they were only associated with Visigoths, helping to protect Rome, not with Ostrogoths who were allies of Attila.
Franks also reduced the Visigothic presence in Southern Gaul, to protect Catholics from Arian persecution.
The Franks are if anything a Western Byzantine Empire.
Your cock and bull story about Franks is given as Gospel Truth, but it is not the history we in the West traditionally know.
It is probably also not even a story Byzantines concocted on their own.
It is a type of story of which one version was popularised among certain Anglicans in the 19th C, back when Rome had no and Canterbury plenty of reputation for clerical perversion, at least back when Cobbett wrote in 1830. Some Anglicans thought that pointing this out was trying to smudge them, and sought out ways to smudge Rome back.
- III
- Patsy Koenig
- The schism was NOT caused by two egomaniacs having temper tantrums. That is a modern interpretation of events designed to minimize the important issues. The Orthodox schism was brewing for several centuries before it was declared in 1054 AD. And attempts to heal the schism over the next several centuries all failed. So it is obvious that the schism was not simply a temper tantrum between two leaders. The issue was...and still is ... authority. Authority is a very important issue. As a result of original sin, people hate to take orders. Who does not complain about their boss? One of Martin Luther's main gripes was about authority...the authority of the pope and the authority to interpret the Bible. Authority is a huge issue. And the elements used to celebrate the Eucharist is why the Orthodox refused to accept the authority of the pope. They used leavened bread; but they should have used un-leavened bread.
- Ryan Reeves
- Yeah a good point to clarify. The issue comes down to what historians consider to be causes. Often we distinguish between the formal (or ultimate) cause, which you're right is authority. I am in complete agreement there. However, there are always material causes of events: things like two people being egotistical and letting their personal or temporary squabble lead to a final break. I suppose an analogy is the launching of WWI with the Archduke's assassination. In one sense, the assassination 'caused' it, but in another the arms race and increased nationalism before the assassination is the fundamental cause. Thanks for the great comment! :)
- Michael O'Grady
- And yet we always recognized their Sacrifice as both valid and licit. Only after the Great Schism did we view their Sacrifice as only valid, not licit. The use of leavened or unleavened bread was a matter of custom, not validity, as the Sacrifice offered by the Orthodox priests has always been valid, but now, without jurisdiction, it is illicit.
- Leo Ashe
- Patsy Koenig lol
- me myself and I
- Michael O'Grady
the fact that you think someone can make that determination is a big part of the problem. The pope in rome is a common man and is no more infallible than an addict in the gutter. The idea that he could be anything otherwise, is the root cause of these problems.
- Mark Simko
- Authority is based in "sobornost"..."catholicity" ...the agreement of all bishops, clergy, laity with the unbroken, continuous, living tradition of the church. There is no "infallibility" of any person apart from the the unbroken, unedited, continuous tradition of the church. Western Christianity has espoused the philosophy of Aquinas in opposition to the "typology" of the church fathers...falling into untruth and heresy.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "And the elements used to celebrate the Eucharist is why the Orthodox refused to accept the authority of the pope. They used leavened bread; but they should have used un-leavened bread."
What do you mean by "they should have used unleavened bread"? The Popes did not demand that.
Uniates to this day use leavened bread, and up to when it became doubtful who is the real Pope, they did so with the full blessing of the papacy.
See also my statement about Caerularius in the Contra Sproul essay:
Great Bishop of Geneva! : Contra Sproul
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2017/02/contra-sproul.html
Mark Simko, why do you lie:
"Western Christianity has espoused the philosophy of Aquinas"
Aquinas adapted Christian orthodoxy to philosophical terminology, and accepted the philosophy as good which had not been rejected as bad.
"in opposition to the "typology" of the church fathers..."
Saint Thomas was in no wise opposed to the typology of the Church Fathers and often defended it.
"falling into untruth and heresy."
You have fallen into untruth at least as far as history is concerned. And perhaps into lying as well. The question of heresy I leave aside for now.
Or, do you find it is not a lie to accept bad statements about someone without checking and clinging to them even if a honest check would have already shown him innocent? Or did you just read that in the bishops' pastoral letter and have not had time to check before posting?
- IV
- Beatles Eternally
- Eastern Orthodox Christian commenting here. The ACTUAL, final split occurred in 1204. The Roman Catholic crusaders raped our nuns, killed our priests, deacons, and bishops, and desecrated our churches. Rome has never apologized but rather created what western Christians would know as Byzantine Catholics.
- Irishandtired
- Liar. You're no Orthodox Christian.
Sorry, I had you down as another person like Up Up below. I take back the comment above.
- Beatles Eternally
- +Irishandtired Slainte! No worries.
- Kent Nauman
- The Beatles band was a psychop of the illuminati. The beatle referred to is the Egyptian scarab. LSD= Lucy in the sky with diamonds. Astier Croley is on the cover of the Yellow Submarine album.
- Beatles Eternally
- +Kent Nauman Thanks for the information! I now think The Beatles are even greater. And BTW, Crowley is on the Sgt. Pepper cover. If you are going to disseminate information - however tin foil hat it may be - please try to get your facts straight.
- Rasputin Czar
- Beatles Eternally there was a major and public apology in 2004 by pope John Paul in Athens.
- Beatles Eternally
- +Rasputin Czar Indeed but the twp Churches are very far from reunification. Will it happen? In time as Christ said that the gates of darkness shall not prevail against His Church.
- A Ma
- They would've done it in 10197, were it not for the smart emperor and the high walls!!!
- Phil
- Beatles Eternally what happened to turn the other cheek? Forgiveness is about accepting other's humanity and imperfection. That was the better part of a millennium ago. Do not pass their ancestral sins onto them.
- Dragan Ostojić
- Beatles Eternally not really correct. Pope was horified about 1204 sack of Constantinople. The whole thing about Fourth Crusade is that it never materialized and got diverted primarily because of lack of funds and Venice trying to recoup the cost by the sack. Pope and Catholic Church had nothing to do with that sorry event.
- TCB KINGZ
- Beatles Eternally you are certainly ignorant to history.
In FACT what caused the the "sack of Constantinople" from the western rites was that after schism of 1054AD Muslim invaders occupied the land of eastern churches forcing them to pay taxes if they still want to worship Christianity and keep their churches.
Since the Byzantium had no artillery force and protection from the west after the schism the Latin (catholic) inhabitants in Byzantine still occupied the maritime and financial sector but then in 1182 the Byzantine greeks then "MASSACRED THE LATINS" which then worsened relations and increased enmity between the Western and Eastern Christian churches, and a sequence of hostilities between the two followed.
The sacking of the particular churches from the west and rape that you pointed out in the medieval times was done in retaliation of the massacre in 1182 and because of its alliance with ISLAM paying taxes to them instead to the west, in which the western Catholics sponsored and built the eastern churches.
Not ONCE did the Byzantine or Orthodox Church apologised for the massacre that started first blood after the schism.
- Mark Simko
- A quote from Our Father among the Saints Mark of Ephesus: “The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do.”
- Kent Nauman
- The original Creed was correct. When the West added, "and the Son" they should have added "through the Son" as the word "dia" as in deity (dia-ity) is closely associated with Jesus Christ. "and (kai) the Son" is sloppy theology, not heresy. They obviously were having a power struggle after Constantine moved away from them.
- alex kubeck
- Beatles Eternally Blame it on the Venetians
- Cornelius Krissilas
- At the Council of Florence 200 years and so later the Eastern Orthodox united again with the Catholic Church and they became One Catholic and Apostolic Church again. So the `1204 was not a FINAL split! You need to be educated and return to the Catholic Church and stop being a schismatic!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "The Roman Catholic crusaders raped our nuns, killed our priests, deacons, and bishops, and desecrated our churches. Rome has never apologized"
Rome did not order the misdeeds and ordered stopping them.
- TCB KINGZ
- Hans-Georg Lundahl and did ever the eastern rites apologized for the "Massacre of the Latins" in 1182 prior to sacking of Constantinople in 1204??
The sacking was a retaliation cause of the massacre.
And another reason of the sacking was because the Eastern rites was spawned by Islam.
The bishops of orthodoxy had paid taxes to the Ottoman Empire instead of the western latins that initially had a financial sector and had built the Byzantium centuries before the schism.
By the way John Paul II made a humble apology, how about the orthodox bishops did they apologize?? No because the schismatic bishops are to stuck up in their prideful backward ways, they still crying about what happened and caused the first division of the churches and committed first blood and they lost overall.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "The sacking was a retaliation cause of the massacre."
True.
"And another reason of the sacking was because the Eastern rites was spawned by Islam."
False, however.
The liturgies of Sts Basil and John Chrysostom were formulated way before Mohammed was there.
If any such rumour was among crusaders, it was a false one.
"The bishops of orthodoxy had paid taxes to the Ottoman Empire instead of the western latins that initially had a financial sector and had built the Byzantium centuries before the schism."
The Ottoman Empire did not even exist at the time of the IVth Crusade.
"By the way John Paul II made a humble apology,"
One reason why he can be considered as an antipope, since the sacking was not promoted by Papal Rome and if he had been Pope he would not have any predecessors to apologise for.
Your point about Orthodox not apologising and Anglicans not apologising is a good one.
Some Anglicans prefer ecumenism with those who reject the Creed of St Athanasius and some Orthodox prefer ecumenism with people denying the Real Presence (as some Anglicans do) over apologising to Rome for anything.
Isn't one @Cornelius Krissilas on the thread?
I saw a comment in the notification and upvoted it, but can't see it when looking now.
- TCB KINGZ
- Hans-Georg Lundahl if not the ottoman, it was the Kurds, Islam forces in general occupied the east.
Before the schism in 1054AD, the Muslim army was in check because of the western protection by the first crusades who abolished them.
The Islamic force perhaps knew of this division of Christian politics in which they then forced the bishops and followers of the east to pay taxes if they want to worship Christianity or pay the price by either killing them or convert to Islam. That's a FACT.
For the 1st thousand years the eastern rites was under the pope of Rome and John of Chrysostom was devoted to the Catholic Church.
It was the Muslim legions after Mohammed that spawned orthodoxy.
And yes the western Romans sponsored and built Constantinople and most of the churches of the east. They were all united in ONE Universal church until the east decided to go AWOL.
- Tyrone Koumoundouros
- Beatles Eternally
Catholics with a brain have already left the Unholy Roman New world order of economic slavery .
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Hans-Georg Lundahl if not the ottoman, it was the Kurds, Islam forces in general occupied the east."
If you meant it, I could refute it, but lower down I see you didn't mean Muslims had created Eastern rites. Only that they had preferred these to be schismatic, which is sth else.
"Before the schism in 1054AD, the Muslim army was in check because of the western protection by the first crusades who abolished them."
The first crusade was later, in 1089.
"The Islamic force perhaps knew of this division of Christian politics in which they then forced the bishops and followers of the east to pay taxes if they want to worship Christianity or pay the price by either killing them or convert to Islam. That's a FACT."
Sure, but even Catholics have been forced to do so.
"For the 1st thousand years the eastern rites was under the pope of Rome and John of Chrysostom was devoted to the Catholic Church."
Yes, they were, but they were also rites with a separate liturgy and Church law.
"It was the Muslim legions after Mohammed that spawned orthodoxy."
If you mean the fact of going into schism.
[Edit : or rather remaining in it.]
"And yes the western Romans sponsored and built Constantinople and most of the churches of the east."
I thought the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire were the more affluent?
"They were all united in ONE Universal church until the east decided to go AWOL."
Except those who weren't, like Copts and Nestorians.
- Terra Tremuit
- They weren't crusaders. The Crusade had been officially disbanded when the ships left for Zara without Papal approval. They were mercenaries hired by one Orthodox Byzantine ruler to overthrow another one, and when the ruler who hired them couldn't pay them they did what mercenaries of the time would do and destroyed the city. Also lets not forget that these mercenaries would have remembered the Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople that occurred not long before.
- alex kubeck
- Great response...and detailed in the book "City of Fortune" -a great book about the Venetian maritime empire
- Latin Mass Choir
- Beatles Eternally, the 4th Crusade collapsed because the Byzantines lied to the Latin troops about payment of costs and wages. Having begged for help, and having got the west's army there via deception, the East refused to pay the bill. The Byzantines then used those troops for their internal squabble over succession to the Eastern Imperial Throne; it's no wonder that these "deceived" mercenaries revolted and burnt the city.
- Cornelius Krissilas
- You just said it right! Congrats Terra Tremuit!
- Latin Mass Choir
- Beatles Eternally. That anger and subsequent revolt was compounded by previous Byzantine deception during the 3rd Crusade, when the East refused to join the battle, and left the bloody fighting to the Latins. The Byzantines stayed at home, safe in Constantinople. So the West's Kings and troops rightly had a bad opinion of both the East and her lying Emperor, eventually seeing the crusader army turn on the East due to that empire's dishonesty, deception and cowardice. These historical truths are always forgotten by your side, and you complain, often whine, about the violence of the 4th Crusade, but ignore the factors that provoked the attack by that angered Latin army.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Thank you Krissilas!
Some comments show when I look at updates, but not when I look at full thread.
"Having begged for help, and having got the west's army there via deception, the East refused to pay the bill."
Someone said that about what happened about "IV Crusade" (after it had been disbanded at Zara and wasn't a Crusade any more!), but it could equally well be said about what happened in Sicily in 1033, some decades before the Schism.
Normans were recent converts, it was their ignorance to want to change Byzantine rite, when it came to what they did after taking Sicily. But WHY they took Sicily is because the Byzantine Empire had done a similar move back after Normans had been chief part of Byzantine army chasing the Arabs.
- Latin Mass Choir
- I'm trying to read your reply, but it's not coming up on the thread.
Hans.... Some one at Google / Youtube is playing around with the systems / format tonight. I think that's why these latest comments can't be either read or edited.
Hans.... I'd like to read your thoughts on the Normans, the Varangians and Byzantium in Sicily. I know the Normans did the most damage during the 4th Crusade, and they set up the Latin Kingdom in Constantinople, but your comment on the "fighting Byzantine Normans" against the Muslim marauders, is new to me. What else have you read on that.
What I'd read was that the Scandinavians ( pre-Normans ) come down into Byzantium via the Rus. They were highly valued storm-troopers ,in the service of the Emperor, and were called the Varangians. It's ironic that one lot of Norsk - acted as huge, wear-like imperial body guards, helping the Greeks, while another lot, the Normans, came down to Sicily after colonising and terrorising the Gauls in France, ended up pillaging, raping and effectively destroying Constantinople 100 years after the Varangians left the city .
On the last one, obviously someone has been tinkering with what commenters show in the comment threads, probably Ryan Reeves.
