Pretty much from the beginning, Eastern and Western Christianity were distinct in many ways. Both of them have, of course, evolved over time, but Eastern Christians can trace their traditions, etc, back to the traditions of Eastern Christianity before the Great Schism, and Western Christians likewise.
The Great Schism was not a sudden departure or change of course by either Eastern or Western Christians, but rather the final formal dissolution of a relationship which had been deteriorating for some centuries. For the record, Eastern and Western leaders mutually excommunicated each other in 1054 so if you are looking for a date, this is it. You would be hard put, though, to find either Eastern or Western Christians believing or doing any radically different just after 1054 from what they had been believing and doing just before.
From the Catholic perspective, it was the East which strayed, since the essence of Catholicity is to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. From the Eastern perspective, the breach was caused – or at least contributed to – by theological innovations in the West or, perhaps more fairly, by the more assertive proclamation by the West of theological views which they had held for a long term, but which were not (and are not) accepted in the East.
Which branch you choose to regard as authentic depends on what you think the badge of authenticity it – continuing communion, or the holding of certain theological views. Take your pick!
Thank you tomndebb as well as nani and UDS both who summarised everyting so nicely into an easy to understand package… especially…
The point is, that the lineages did not really split off for doctrinal reasons, in my view, and that the doctrinal disputes that the East tends to have is a byproduct of the geopolitical situation. It doesn’t really matter which crowd you follow, both have relatively ok lineages. So, from the Catholic perspective, the split is really just a superfluous tragedy that will one day be corrected when people get their heads out of their a****, 1000 years at least too late.
Thank you guys… I can go to sleep in peace now
OK… gotta go now, someone higher than God is breaking my balls (the wife :D)
I am reminded of arguments over which linguistic use is correct.
When concepts are developed de novo, by humans, to what authority will you appeal for being the most “true”? The broad themes of modern Christianity (sin as separation and condemnation; grace and the work of Christ as redemption) are still fundamentally Pauline in their appeal to authority, in my view.
If you extend your appeal to lineage before canonization of modern scriptures, you might have a tighter argument for being closer to “true” post-Jesus thought, but it would be a stretch, in my view, to call that Christianity. Still, since “Christian” and “Christianity” are also self-appointed terms I do not hold that my position is superior to any other.
“Messianic Judaism” is 20th century Evangelical Christianity wearing a Jewish nose and glasses. It’s not Judaism and it has no theological or historical kinship to the original Jewish Jesus sects. It’s Southern Baptists with yarmulkes on. It’s not religious Judaism, it’s a tactic to try to convert ethnic Jews to Christianity.
That’s Jews for Jesus, Dio. While they consider themselves Messianics, many do not, including groups founded as early as 1850 (in England - so substitute “19th century” and “Anglicans with yarmulkes” into your rant).
well, the orthodox side does have 5 major patriarchs to the 1 on the roman catholic side… it could be quite the tag team event.
the othodox side tends to be more james, (patriarch of jerusalem and relative of jesus) oriented. the catholic side tends to be more on the paul side. the simple version is that james felt that it should hold closer to jewish observance, paul felt that it needed to be more gentile friendly. antioch, jerusalem, alexandria, rome, each started feeling its oats and claiming that it knew best what jesus was teaching. remember these fellows were jewish and very accustomed to having deep discussions on how a word is used and does it mean this or that or the other.
while the early church was finding its feet, politically things were a bit haywire, then the the fall of jerusalem didn’t help as communication between leaders got even slower. the major players did have a bit of a difference of opinion on how things should go. there were breakaways on all manner of doctrine points. people being jailed, martyred, hiding, etc., made it tough for them to get together to hammer things out.
one of the big hurdles early on was on the topic of communion. the orthodox church is still a bit uneasy talking about it, where the catholic church doesn’t have have that unease.
then due to emperors having iron fists, and unrest in the areas of the east with invasions and the rise of islam the orthodox side had more of a clampdown on the power of the patriarchates than in the west.
the “clampdown” held any free discussions and doctrine theories to a minimum. every now and again someone would get a wild hair and do some sort of sweeping thing that would result in an uproar (see russian orthodox old believers). for the most part change is not a word that the orthodox world knows, it just doesn’t translate. the old believer situation even though it was quite a bit ago, and the calendar craziness has most of the hierarchy spooked on the subject of change.
Archie) It doesn’t matter 'cause there’s only one true religion
Mike) And, of course, that’s the one you belong to
Archie) Well I’d be pretty stupid if I didn’t
Thanks Rocking Chair, I read into that as well… wow … in just one post I learned sooo much
Ignore the below… (must have made my current God angry) I realised that I pressed the wrong link, and THOUGHT I was in GQ… but alas, still in GD
OH… and I just noticed that this POST was moved back to GQ… maybe I should follow the religion of the GOD who made that happen … THANK YOU
And from some of the Southern Baptist persuasion, Roman Catholics aren’t even Christians. Generally, both deny Communion to the other. I find both views very narrow-minded. To each his own. (shrug)
In Catholicism, you have to have made your first Communion beforehand. It’s considered a sacriment, not just a ritual. You cannot take Communion unless you are Catholic (I believe Eastern Orthodox are allowed, though.) That, I don’t think is narrow-minded so much, it’s simply a part of Catholic practices.
“narrow-minded catholic practices” … but who can argue the church. I’ve always believed those who wish to take the (this) sacrament - should be able to. When Jesus was handing out his body and blood, he gave it to normal people that believed in him. So whether you’re catholic or not, for that matter a Jew*, who believes in Christ, should be able to accept it.
Yeah, I know, a Christ-believing Jew is a Christian
All religions are true religions,because they are faith based and are a religion. The question maybe what religion has the truth about God,what god is, and no one really knows. It is a human thought. Every one tends to go with what they were taught or learned from another person.
I believe that the Catholic Church now allows Episcopals and possibly some other Protestants to take Communion as well. Perhaps someone who’s really up on this stuff can come in and provide a definite answer.
There’s a fair argument that Roman Catholicism is partly a corruption of Apostolic Christianity & partly a continuation of it. I certainly consider the Eastern Church to have fewer traits of schismatic cultism, so yeah, it’s probably more the primitive church & less a breakaway heresy. [del]But then again, the non-schismatic character also means the Eastern Church is less dogmatically consistent[/del]–never mind, Roman Catholicism may be too diverse for that to be a serious point now.
Don’t feel bad. I remember rolling my eyes as a kid when listening to some older relatives who were (schismatic Baptist) Protestant missionaries talking about how Catholics weren’t really Christians & didn’t know the doctrines well enough to be real Christians, but, “the real Christians have always been there.”
I suppose there’s a germ of truth in that, in that there is a difference between public/cultural identification with a religion & personal devotion/enlightenment/ethics, but the way they said it just sounded daft to me. As if their version of Christianity would exist in any numbers without the cultural conquest of Europe by Apostolic Christianity.
Oh, there are objective ways. When somebody starts insisting that his chair is the only reliable chair & infallible, & everyone else has lapsed into heresy & is untrustworthy forevermore, he’d damn well better hope that his chair never has any spot of doubt cast on its legitimacy.
Since that clearly is not the case, I think claims of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome are objectively hooey.
I’m afraid I’m with Dio here. But then, I’m far from an expert, & admit to having an unusually strong bias toward Hyam Maccoby & other Twentieth-Century “Jewish Position” Jesus scholars.
Oh, & by the way, this little graph? That “claimed separate lineage” for Restorationists is completely ahistorical. The various restoration movements tried to reform the church according to a close reading of the Scriptures. Out of that came the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Campbellites, et cetera–but they were all the children of previously existing Western (& mainly Protestant) traditions, such as Anglicanism & Congregationalism.
… THANK YOU