There was no great schism? Only a break in communion?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ม.ค. 2025
- (Excerpted from: "Cacodoxy Within: 10 Heretical & Innovative Ideas Promoted Today" by Fr. Peter Heers)
OE is ON PATREON where we meet every Thursday evening, 8 PM EST, 5 PM PST for question and answers and discussion of contemporary issues. Join over 1,200 other serious Orthodox Christians and catechumens and inquirers into Orthodoxy:
/ frpeterheers
Welcome VIDEO on New Patreon Page: • The Orthodox Ethos is ...
Link to New Patreon Page: / frpeterheers
Link to Announcement on OE: orthodoxethos.....
- - - -
Share and Subscribe to the OE TH-cam CHANNEL:
/ orthodoxethos
OE WEBSITE:
orthodoxethos.com
UNCUT MOUNTAIN PRESS (UMP) Website:
www.uncutmount...
*For all who would like to support The Orthodox Ethos, donations can be made via Paypal at the following link:
-- paypal.me/FrPet...
Facebook: / frpeterheers
Twitter: / frpeterheers
Instagram: / frpeterheers
Amazon Author Page: www.amazon.com...
Postcards from Greece Podcast: saintkosmas.co....
Academia: hts.academia.e...
LinkedIn: / frpeterhe. .
Books:
uncutmountainp...
uncutmountainp...
Thank you Fr. Heers for this important explanation that we can share with the ill informed. May God grant you many years🙏🏽☦️
That it took time for the Great Schism to take effect does mot mean it didn't happen in 1054. This is how life works, in general. I don't know why people treat this case differently. Thanks, Fr...for taking the time to set this straight.
1054 is an arbitrary date. 1204 is more appropriate.
@@lordofhostsappreciator3075 You are just reinstating a fact now, and not interacting with my point. Was an excommunication bull issued in 1204?
@@lordofhostsappreciator3075 How is 1054 arbitrary when a verifiable and definitive event did take place at the time?
@@Nina_Mo2
Because Pope Urban II even stated that the East was part of the universal Church during his Crusader Speeches, and I'm pretty sure the Pope himself was commemorated in the East during some parts of this time period.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese
I never said anything about those things not being arbitrary doctrines.
I was talking about a finalized, definitive event that cemented a split, for an event after which it would be unthinkable to restore communion. 1054 just doesn't fullfill this criteria (see my above comment). It was rather like the "Photian" (or rather Nicolatian) Schism.
Thank you Father for you taking your time to teach us about this.🙏🇨🇦
It was definitely a full blown Schism. A “Break in communion” would be what we have today between Moscow and Constantinople
Is there any way to get that PDF? I am a Roman Catholic who wants to convert to Orthodoxy.
Thank you Fr. Heers. God bless you eternally.
Yes.
Come home.
Join us on Patreon where all class PDFs are available.
Patreon.com/frpeterheers
@@OrthodoxEthos Thank you very much!
You should definitely not convert to eastern "orthodoxy", which is a false religion. You can ask, if you have any questions regarding the Catholic-orthodox differences, and if you want proofs that the Catholic side is correct.
👍🏻
The Roman Catholic Church appeared only 1000 years ago. In the first millennium, Rome was the same as Constantinople, then Rome decided that wants to be Caesar over everyone, they introduced the Filioque heresy, thereby renouncing the Nicene Creed, and that's how the Great Schism happened! And since then Rome has changed so many things that it is fundamentally different from what it was in the first millennium! So it can no longer proclaim that it was founded by Jesus Christ! If the Filioque and the Papal Primacy (which did not exist in the first millennium, when only ecumenical councils made dogmatic decisions and the Pope, meaning the Patriarch, of Rome was only first among equals, not Caesar!) are true, then Jesus and the Apostles and the Holy Fathers and the Christians of the first millennium were all heretics! All that the Orthodox Christian Church has today is nothing more than the legacy of the Holy Tradition handed down from generation to generation for two thousand years, from Jesus Christ Himself through the Apostles and the Holy Fathers of the Church!
If you want to know what the Catholic church was like in the first millennium, study Orthodox Christianity! If a Christian from Western Europe, from the first millennium, were to travel to the present, he would recognize the doctrine and ritual of Orthodox Christianity, but of the Roman Catholic church he would recognize nothing! Orthodox Christians today live and believe as Christians in the West lived and believed in the first millennium!
The Holy Eucharist can only be received in the Orthodox Church! In any other church there are only surrogates (Pringles)!Also, the Holy Fire that only comes for the Orthodox Christians in Jerusalem for Easter, is a sign by which God wants to show the world that here, in Orthodox Christianity, His revelation has been preserved unaltered!
As a Catholic, converting to Orthodoxy means returning to the Church of Rome from the first millennium, the one founded by the holy apostles Peter and Paul! And as a Protestant, it means going back to the early church!
See "Religion of the Apostles" by Father Dr. Stephen De Young, the books of Michael Whelton, Father Seraphim Rose, and those of Jaroslav Jan Pelikan Jr., a former famous American Lutheran pastor who converted to Orthodoxy and the testimony of the famous bioethics prof., Hugo Tristram Engelhardt Jr., former Roman Catholic: journeytoorthodoxy.com/2011/03/herman-tristram-engelhardt-how-i-became-orthodox/ , The Patristic Writings, The writings of the Holy Fathers, Philokalia, Patericon and of course, The History of Christianity (and since you're at it, throw in Mircea Eliade too)
Reading St. Photios life shows the ideas behind latin break from the Church started much earlier than 1054.
That's just the date of the anathemas and then 1204 is the "point of no return" when Rome raped and pillaged Constantinople.
By the time of St. Palamas in the 1300s it is very clear how incompatible the new scholastic Aristotelian latin phronema is with the east.
Thank God for St. Mark of Ephesus.
Death to false unions.
In my humble opinion the EP now would do well to remember what happened to Constantinople less than 100 years after the attempt of selling out the faith for temporal protection at Florence.
May God preserve the Orthodox Christians and scatter their enemies. 🙏🏻☦️
You're correct. These "Latin" ideas began to appear much earlier than the great schism, something like a 1,000 years earlier. They are present in the Bible, and are clearly taught by the Church Fathers.
I DO think that “1054” is too arbitrary and that the schism wasn’t wholeheartedly embraced by the whole west simultaneously, but that there were lots of local dioceses and archdiocese that resisted the “Gregorian Reforms”, (the Stamp of Rome’s Schism) for various lengths of time. England resisted until the Norman Bishops enforced it in 1066, Ireland resisted until with the start of the English oppression of the Irish, Canterbury forced the Irish bishops to finally conform in 1179. But the LONGEST holdout was probably the Archdiocese of Ultrich in the Netherlands, and they never did accept ending independent Synodalism. Unable to force them and unwilling to lose such a large part of the North potentially to Orthodoxy with Russia, Rome was forced to negotiate to allow them to keep their synod system, to select their own bishops without necessarily asking Rome’s permission, in exchange for accepting the other norms, but they adopted these so gradually that we really can’t pinpoint when they fully stopped being Orthodox, but iT was done no later Than 1400.
Well said. Pope Urban II even stated that the East was part of the universal Church during his Crusader Speeches, and I'm pretty sure the Pope himself was commemorated in the East during some parts of this time period.
@OrthodoxyChloroQuine
Exactly. The actual break was 1204.
@OrthodoxyChloroQuine
Yeah, but I interpret Innocent 3rd as a coward more than a malicious accomplice and outright hypocrite. Most of those mercenary thugs were from Venice. To prove his sincerity he had to risk getting looted himself by declaring a war of Justice upon them, to bring the leaders, or their heads, to the emperor in apology. It doesn’t matter if he had little chance of success. Rome getting sacked would have United all of Christendom against Venice, to sink the whole overrated water clog into the sea. A common cause. Alas, he didn’t have the balls to endure a short term trial for long term gain.
@@lordofhostsappreciator3075
It’s plausible that the first crusade actually delayed and postponed further implementation of the Gregorian reforms, as well, showing that Urban at least had his priorities straight. He was probably unaware how Venetian merchants had been gradually spreading rumors of “Greek Heretics”, regarding the excommunication, so to manipulate the trade market to favor them over Greek merchants. The Franks built the hearth and started the fire but Venice fueled it.
@Elder Millennial - Before 1054 there was 1014 when the now Franco-Latin Pope of Rome was removed from the diptychs (which contained the list of the succession of bishops). “In 1009 Pope Sergius of Rome wrote a confession of faith which included the filioque in the Nicene Creed. Because of this, the Church of Constantinople removed his name and that of the Roman Church from the diptychs (the official list of sister churches and bishops who are liturgically commemorated by a given church). Then in 1014, the Roman Church, after resisting for over 200 years Germanic pressure to adopt the filioque, finally used this addition to the Creed in public worship for the first time-at the coronation of Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor. Ironically, forty years later the Latin Christians would accuse the Greek Christians of being heretical for not using the filioque.” . . . SO: In 1054 it was the POPE that initiated the excommunication, in part because the Orthodox had already, decades earlier, removed him from the Diptychs. So, not only is 1054 not arbitrary, it is not the beginning of the division, which was initiated in 1014 when Pope Sergius departed from the Orthodox Faith and inserted the heretical clause into the Symbol of Faith, thus disdaining the Infallible Voice of the Church which was heard in the 8th Oecumenical Council under Saint Photios, which the Orthodox Church of Rome then approved and supported.
Father, are the anathemas against the Latins still in force, but absent from the EP, or are they simply removed from the Orthodox Church, by virtue of the EP them away?
I've NEVER heard anyone call it a break in communion.
Every Orthodox website which explains church history calls it the great schism.
WHO calls it a break in communion, a reference please??
th-cam.com/video/jAZzxYXB7z4/w-d-xo.html
Go to 27 minutes mark
“As the Church historian and canonist Vlassios Phidas writes, “it is obvious, from a canonical point of view, that this ecclesial situation of the rupture of communion (akoinonesia) is clearly distinguished from the state of an accomplished schism, since, by the lifting up of the anathemas of 1054, we are now standing in the situation we were before their imposition”.[9] Therefore, if the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are now in a state of rupture of communion (akoinonesia), due to historical events and theological disputes, while both sides wish today to restore the full ecclesiastical communion, how can some dare, even through the voice of a local synod, not to acknowledge the Church of Rome as a Church, or to consider her members as schismatics, or even, as heretics?”
www.orthodoxcouncil.org/-/the-ecumenical-significance-of-the-holy-and-great-council-of-the-orthodox-church
@@OrthodoxEthos
My humble apologies Father, I had heard over the years about these things and read some things about them but never did I think that some of our Hierarchy, heads of the Church referred to heretics as a "Church" It seems like a lot of this started with the beginning of the 20th century, and from the lifting of the anathemas, meetings and prayer sessions with heretics, by Athenagoras, may God have mercy on his soul, it's been gaining traction ever since.
I pray always that Christ will snap our Hierarchy out of this delusion and demonic influence called ecumenism and lead them back to our ONE and ONLY Holy Religion. From the Ecumenical Patriarch to the last monk that has been influenced by this heresy, I pray they wake from the demons influence.
Also His Eminence that was being interviewed should have more faith in the Holy Father's and Theologians that named it a schism, for that is what is was, is and will be till the Roman bishop repents and embraces Orthodoxy, truthfully not as a lie to deceive the masses.
I'm sorry I went on to long, and again please forgive me, a sinner.
♡
I’m so glad to be able to learn more about this
I always wonder if it’s the “great falling away “ referenced in 2 Thessalonians with the schism
Also I wonder if the “falling away” is a process that takes time or a single instance
You need to read Fr. Seraphim Rose’s Orthodox Survival Course lectures. We did a course on these: www.crowdcast.io/e/frseraphimsurvivalcourse
You put words in his speach like the muslim do
?????
Members of ecclesiastical corporations slap fighting each other over extra-biblical dogma. **ZZZzzzZZZzzz**
Meanwhile Emmanuel was crystal clear on what needed to be done in order to save your mortal soul.
(See John 8:24, Luke 13:3, Matthew 10:32, Mark 16:15-16, John 3: 3-7 for soul-saving instructions.)
As one alienated from the Body of the Theanthropos, not in communion nor in submission to Christ through His Apostles and in His Body, your comments are entirely understandable if, however, nonetheless tragic. The same Lord who directed us to be saved, as recorded in the Holy Scriptures to which you refer to in your comment, is He Who guided and guides the Church through the innumerable temptations, schisms, heresies and delusions of every age. He promised He would be with HIS CHURCH and guide HIS PEOPLE in all truth. He did not abandon the Church and leave His people with a book to read. The Bible has a context: the Church. It is incomprehensible outside of the EXPERIENCE of the Church, of the Saints. The Church is the continuation of the Incarnation. To be grafted into the Incarnation and be redeemed, transfigured, one has to be initiated into the Church. . . which is not “me and my bible,” nor 30,000 denominations, nor an infallible pope (or millions of infallible popes with their Bible). The soul-saving instructions are understood and carried out only within Christ, which means His Body, which means the Orthodox Church.
@@OrthodoxEthos Nah. You're a corporatist Christian. No different than every other denomination, papists included. You're all the same unfortunately. Fortunately for me though, I don't need you or anyone else. You get so caught up in dogma and doctrine (all of which are man-made opinion-based extra-biblical notions) that you can't see the forest for the trees. No man can destroy my soul, nor can any man save it. I need only Emmanuel, the Holy Spirit, and my Creator God.
@@BeranM So you are saying that you are all that matters and your personal interpretation of Holy Scripture. There's a lot of "I" and "me" in your statements which isn't compatible with the Faith of Christ. That's pride and prelest.
That Romanides has no idea what he's talking about... ie he's full of bologna when he says 'Orthodox' may hope to God that protesters have Sacraments. No, that depends on Apostolic Succession not happy wishes. I see this man is willfully insincere.
@Gus V He is not himself stating that as his belief, obviously, but saying that other Orthodox claim this and hope for it. Here is what he believes: “The Orthodox at Balamand fell into this their own trap since this presupposes the validity of Latin sacraments. This is a strange phenomenon indeed since the Latins never believed that glorification in this life is the foundation of apostolic succession and the Mysteries (Sacraments) of and within the Body of Christ.” AND: “Franco-Latin official teachings on the Mysteries have been historically not only un-Orthodox, but anti-Orthodox.” As for what GOD does IN SPITE of their heresy, he says that is another matter: we cannot recognize mysteries there.
But he says they might be valid even if you don't have the authority to say whether or no Lutherans have valid "Mysteries?" That's the only reason you don't formally recognize them in his opinion? That was my impression of his words.
@@OrthodoxEthos Not to call you an idiot, I mean... but when you say that happiness and glorification are very different things, it makes you want to curse the person to hell. So what the guy is saying is that if you're glorified you won't be happy?
Or is a Catholic saying that Glorification is the ultimate hippieness? I feel bad for all the people who listen to these.
@@gusv2047 I think you are misunderstanding the meaning with which the word "happiness" is used here. Most of us, most of the time, are quite superficial and use "happiness" to describe that superficial "good feeling" that we feel, or wish we felt. It is in that sense that happiness is very different or even opposed to glorification; not that glorification is UNhappiness, but that glorification is beyond happiness. Glorification is true joy, peace, ineffable and indescribable. As such, it has little in common with that "good feeling" which most of us mean by the word "happiness" (which, by the way, literally means "luckiness", from "hap" meaning "luck", whence also "perhaps", which is equivalent to "per-chance"). Much of the time, our "happiness" is akin to what is also called "fun", which in fact is nothing but a pleasant but temporary distraction from the existential emptiness that lies within us. Which is also why happiness is so frail, for which reason the Founding Fathers acknowledged not a "right to happiness" but a "right to the pursuit of happiness", as being something elusive and like a mirage in the desert that is the existential emptiness of the man that has not God. True Joy, however, which is found only in communion with God (which ultimately is glorification) is deep and solid and cannot be lost, unless the man deny it himself. This is why St. Paul wrote, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?...For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:35, 38-39).
@@gregoryheers2633 well thanks for wasting my time in writing all that out. If you want to argue about words... there's a verse for that. Will you be more happy in a state of, to use the Greek word, Theosis, or less happy? Is happiness opposed to perfect fulfillment of God's love? So to say 'Theosis' is to say perfect happiness. To argue with the Aristotiean common sense of happiness as the end of actions is stupid, even if he didn't have Divine Revalation. St. Thomas Aquinas had to deal with people like you. Reason deniers. Those who don't use the faculty of their mind to love God. Orthodox, some, will sling mud everywhere, at their own Saints, so long as people are ignorant enough to join the band wagon.... Participating in the Divine Nature makes you more happy. It isn't 'beyond' it in the Nietzchean sense of 'beyond good and evil' because that would ether be more good, or more evil.... do you think Catholics believe Heaven is a Carnival cruise? No~ so you are lying and deceiving and will stand on gnostic mysticism with words like 'beyond' and the like.