Talk:Great Schism

Schisms

I thought the schism of 1054 was a schism between the western and eastern churches (as indicated by the section title), and not between the Roman and Orthodox churches. If anything, it was my impression that the split was between the Roman and Eastern Catholic/Eastern Rite churches.

The Eastern Orthodox/Eastern Catholic history is a complicated one, but I think at the time of the schism, what we call today's Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics were still one in the same, and therefore the split was between the Western and Eastern churches.

The split was actually between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The Eastern Catholic or Eastern Rite churches follow Eastern Orthodox rites, but acknowledge the supremacy of the Pontiff of Rome in theological matters, which the Eastern Orthodox do not. This is a later development, the result of some of the Eastern schismatics converting back partially the Roman church as a compromise of sorts. In the original Schism, the Eastern Churches rejected the supreme authority of the Pope; indeed this was one of the reasons for the Schism -- there were initially five Patriarchs, the one in Rome (the Pope) attempted to assert supremacy, which was rejected by the other four. -- Delirium 08:45 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"This is a later development, the result of some of the Eastern schismatics converting back partially the Roman church as a compromise of sorts. "

No one in the catholic church would call this a compromise, simply a conversion. Remember the belief system is the only issue (not the liturgical rite), and the main difference was the primacy of the pope.

Well, in the theological sense, yes, but in some sense it was still a compromise. The Roman Church generally controls rites of its churches, and they aren't free to simply make up their own, even if there's no fundamental theological issues involved, so it was somewhat of a concession to allow these churches to use their own rites. Not a fundamental theological concession, but one of culture and central control. --Delirium 07:37 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree there. From what I understand of the Roman Catholic point of view, for example at the Council of Trent, they did not mind or change any rites which had been Catholic and established for at least 200 years before that time. Meaning they had the correct beliefs stated in them and they were a real tradition amongst the people. That is why they DID allow certain even western churches to keep their own rites when they allowed the universal use of the roman rite: these rites include the ambrosian and the dominican. The important thing is that they expressed the true Catholic doctrine. Its definately true that many Catholics at the time had a bias against the foreign rites, and it was a in way a compromise with them to get them to accept that those other rites were ok, but according to Catholic official teaching, they are unquestionably ok.

Re: a recent edit:

the claim of the Patriarch of Constantinople to be a Ecumencal or Universal Patriarch

I don't believe this was an issue in the Great Schism. The Second Ecumenical Council of 381AD affirmed that the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople had equal primacy in theological and Church matters, and this was accepted by the Eastern church. It was not until after the Schism that the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed to be the Ecumenical Patriarch: with the other "equal" now gone from the Church, it was only then (after 1054) that the Patriarch of Constantinople was left as the only remaining "first among equals" from the original two. Not reverting yet, but will soon unless you have sources supporting that the Patriarch/Bishop of Constantinople asserted supremacy over the Patriarch/Bishop of Rome prior to 1054. --Delirium 07:42 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The title "Ecumenical Patriarch" had been a sore issue of contention since Leo and then Gregory the Great. This title wasn't interpreted in the east, as it was in the west (the east heard "shepherd to the New Roman Empire", but the west heard the rather overly-literal "high bishop over all") - and the east never did claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch was like a Pope of the east, because the conciliar idea had been supreme there. I think that Wesley will confirm my impression that, it's always been and issue of the Pope vs the Councils, as far as the east has been concerned (not one bishop (Constantinople) vs another single bishop(Rome)). Still, the title has not ceased to be controversial, since Gregory:

But, when this my brother with new presumption and pride calls himself universal bishop, having caused himself in the time of our predecessor of holy memory to be designated in synod by this so proud a title, though all the acts of that synod were abrogated, being disallowed by the Apostolic See,- (Gregory to Constantina Augusta)

— Mkmcconn 05:14 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Not reverting yet, but will soon unless you have sources supporting that the Patriarch/Bishop of Constantinople asserted supremacy over the Patriarch/Bishop of Rome prior to 1054"

The Patriarch of Constantinople never did that. The problem between Rome and Constantinople was language and mind set - the Pope of Rome got Greek ecumenical patriarch translated to Latin universal patriarch and understood it as meaning the same supremacy he claimed over the other patriarchs. On the other hand, in the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Patriarch of Constantinople holds the title of ecumenical patriarch until today, this was never a problem there, but, given the conciliar mind set, no ever thought this could give him supremacy over the other patriarchs. --Irmgard 10:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I do have a history book somewhere which says that ecumenical patriarch was claimed in the 6th century, even before the council of trullio.

The Great Schism is NOT the East-West Schism of 1054!

I am offended that on this page Wikipedia blandly repeats a common fallacy as if it were fact.

The Great Schism was between Avignon and Rome, and occurred in the 14th century.

The East-West Schism (sometimes called the Great East-West Schism), happened in 1054 between the Roman and Byzantine churches.

Only the ignorant ever refer to the East-West Schism as the Great Schism.

I myself am too much of a Wikipedia newbie to know how to handle this situation, so I did not change the main page, other than to add a Fact template after the reference.

In many ways, I think a search for Great Schism should lead somewhere that would set people straight who think the Great Schism is the East-West Schism. And maybe this page is it.

But the page should certainly not repeat (and propagate) the widespread but completely mistaken notion that the two are synonymous! --Prignillius 15:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that more people who use the phrase "The Great Schism" use it to mean the 1054 split, not the internal squabble within Catholicism. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)