5. Language (and Schoolin') is Crucial
Did you know that the people in Constantinople were reading Augustine at the same time as Aquinas? No? Me neither. It's pretty sad, but it's true. Language was possibly the biggest barrier to people actually understanding each other, since none of the people in the West spoke Greek, and pretty much no one spoke Latin in a non-liturgical setting. At all. Don't believe me? The current top-to-bottom command structure of the Roman Church was made in the tenth century because the lay people could no longer understand their Liturgy, and thus couldn't participate all that much in Church affairs, and so no lay person actually learned all that much theology. In Byzantium (where they still used the vernacular Greek) theology was part of training to be a statesman. That's right: if you wanted to become a part of the government you had to learn theology. Oh, and to convert you usually had to go through about 3 or so years of catechism before being admitted.
What's my point?
The West and East couldn't communicate, and therefore things fell apart. The language barrier was so great that a lot of things took a lot longer to be understood (the Seventh Ecumenical Council, for instance, where the translating was so poor the West thought the East were preaching the very thing the East was condemning), or were never really looked at at all until centuries out of context (AUGUSTINE ANYBODY???).
4. The State is a Jerk
There's this idea that religious killings were a common thing back in the day, and that if a war wasn't religious it wasn't a war. I appeal to the almighty common sense, and ask you to think about that. You're telling me that politicians actually have a group of people that are worse than them? Just look down, deep in your gut, and ask yourself that.
 | |
| No, Obama, it wasn't worth a try. |
- The Iconoclast Heresy (all sacred images are bad, essentially) was enacted by the Byzantine Emperor out of a desire to calm down his Arab buddies, who had taken most of his empire. (I know things are a little more complicated than that, but damn! It sure was convenient!)
- Charlegmane repeatedly tried to usurp Church authority, and his descendants eagerly played the Eastern and Western Churches against each other in the fillioque controversy, so they could keep their "divine right". (Moral of the story? The Germans have always been awful, awful people) The Germans even attempted to conquer Rome later on, which led to the building of the Papal States that we're all so very afraid of. Hear that? The Papal States were built in self-defense against the state. That's something Obama may need to pay attention to.
- The Arabs played both East and West against each other when they had control of Constantinople (no, I will not dignify them by calling it the new name), and made darn well sure that Christianity couldn't unite, cause they'd gotten a taste of it at the Battle of Lepanto and knew the whole of Christianity would own them faster than a hacked Halo player.
For the uninformed, the Fillioque is three words from the Western form of the Nicene Creed: "and the Son". These three words did more to damage Church unity back in the day than almost anything. Why? Well, it was sorta unilaterally inserted by the West into their Creed without asking the rest of the Church if it was OK. And back in the day when Rome was a backwater that got steamrollered by barbarians once a week? This sorta stuff just didn't fly. Rome's response was to apologize, and to command the Carolingians (Charlegmane's people, what a coincidence!) to take the Fillioque out of the Creed. But the damage was done. Pushed on by the Carolingian bishops the people kept the Fillioque in place, and it became common usage in the West.
Why's this a big deal?
Back in the day, whenever you needed to get something done doctrine-wise, you called an Ecumenical Council. This was standard procedure. A unilateral insertion was a huge no-no, and considering that Rome didn't have nearly the power and authority that it claims it has now, it couldn't just face the rest of the East without blinking.
Now, granted, there are some doctrinal concerns. The Fillioque appears to further subordinate the Holy Spirit while robbing the Father of his "monarchia" that the East is so concerned about. But considering that even the Cappodocian Fathers (y'know, the guys who basically wrote Byzantine theology) allude to the fact that the Son has something to do with the spiration of the Holy Spirit? It's not that much of a stretch, and if people actually sat down and worked out their terms? It wouldn't be that much of a problem. It's an issue that's there "because we don't wish to understand each other" (Union of Brest). Imagine that!
2. It's Like Watching a Soap Opera
The next two points may seem a bit juvenile in comparison to the first three, but only because the real reasons why everyone were arguing were... well... juvenile! Reading about these people made me think of an awful soap opera, where people are almost schizo in their decisions and the reasonings behind them, circumstances sway more than anything, and just one wrong word will bring the whole damn thing screeching to a halt. It's ridiculous, at best, and well... as soon as you get into the issue of Eastern Catholics, it gets ugly. Real ugly. Now a kid's involved, who loves Mom and Pop, but is understood by neither one of them (and loved even less), but only wants them to be back together again. There's more BS-level angst in Church history than a Twilight novel, which leads me to my next point.
1. If It Seems Like Someone's Being a Jerk, You're Right!
If you've been near the Catholic or Orthodox Church for any longer than two seconds, you've heard the following: We are the true Church, and that's that. We've kept the faith, and everything we've done is to keep it that way.
Right. Uh huh. Excuse me while I plug my nose, there's a strong smell in the area.
 |
| I thought I told you to go outside! |
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, GROW UP ALREADY! I want my family back together again.
Well, I'm kinda late to the party here, but I have a question...
ReplyDeleteWhat's your take on whether and how things have changed, on either side or on both together / in general and whether relating primarily/directly to the relationship or not, in any of the factors here?
For example, if on the one hand laypeople were expected to be educated and on the other unwillingness to learn about the other side damaged things (perhaps in part because the people who were supposedly educated were often lay secular authorities who had their own reasons for division with their rivals elsewhere in the world?), how does today compare with average joes like you and I studying this stuff and Rome (to speak of what I'm familiar with) saying on the one hand that they should and on the other that they have to submit to Church authority? (I'm personally inclined to think that that theory's right, but I dunno that people are doing it well in practice -- and more to the point, I'd like to hear what you think of the practice historically vs. the practice now and whether that theory has actually changed or if we've just followed different fragments of it over the course of history.)
In general I'd venture that things have gotten worse. Whereas the schism was only something enforced at the top a few centuries ago most of the US religiously clings to it, although a few places like Ukraine and certain parts of the Middle East are sensible enough to see it for the horseshit that it is.
ReplyDeletePart of the issue is that people can study books all they want, it won't make up for lack of actual contact. Until both sides are actually able to dialogue having experienced one another honestly we won't be able to move forward. Granted, the fact that there's plenty of study going on is wonderful, but there are a lot of things that a book can't adequately communicate.
If I understand the rest of your question correctly, I think that more people are really trying, which is nice. But until the lay people actually experience and empathize with each other union won't be possible.
As an example: Easterners don't consider their bishops to actually be an authority on religious matters in the same way Westerners do. Our authority is the Church Fathers, and that precludes bishops (to which I breathe a sigh of relief, personally). The authority of the bishops, then, is to protect the deposit, not interpret it. That's where an Ecumenical Council comes in. And since the Patriarch of Rome is out of communion with them they can't have a council.
This and so many other things are huge parts of the ethos of the rites that both sides have to learn and take care to not destroy.
I hope I answered the question. If I didn't, let me know.
I was actually curious as much about what you think of the role of the laity then and now, but quite frankly, this is probably more edifying.
ReplyDeleteI've thought similar things about smaller divisions, that even if the doctrine got settled and the practices were validated the ordinary people who'd had to make tough decisions on the matter already would be too invested in the fights they'd had over it for a real reconciliation. And I'm talking divisions that don't involve any patriarchs and originated within living memory; goodness knows it must be monumental for entire legit Churches with almost literal wars between them (or at least a good sum of martyrs), etc.
Funny story though... used to be that the bus I took down to college passed by several Catholic Churches, several Protestant houses of faith communitiness, and a Greek Orthodox Church. I tried to bow my head as I passed any of those I would surmise had the Eucharist (I've heard differing things about keeping the Blessed Sacrament in something equivalent to a tabernacle in the East, and have never felt a need to become an expert on the matter). However, none of the Catholic Churches looked like a Church, so I could usually only tell them apart from the Protestant ones by the time the bus was nearly past them. This led to me bowing most consistently to Christ in (as I presume) the Greek Orthodox Church, which led to me feeling like some kinda bad Catholic. But there it was. The stone structure and other little things Church-like about the Greek Orthodox Church there sometimes made me feel as though I was passing by a long-lost cousin I should leap off the bus and greet. (Granted, I find anything made of stone to be more real somehow than more modern manner of architecture, and I love castles -- actually been to one in Europe once, though I didn't explore as much as I'd like -- so there's the plain old old-school vibe going there. But there's also the religious vibe.) No idea how that oughtta be done if ever I was to do it, though; and I do think that's a pity...