Eastern Orthodox Christian theology originated with the life ofJesus and the establishment theChristianity in the 1st century AD. Major events include theChalcedonian schism of 451 with theOriental Orthodoxmiaphysites, theIconoclast controversy of the 8th and 9th centuries, thePhotian schism (863-867), theGreat Schism (culminating in 1054) betweenEast andWest, and theHesychast controversy (c. 1337-1351). The period after the end of theSecond World War in 1945 saw a re-engagement with theGreek, and more recentlySyriac Fathers that included a rediscovery[when?] of the theological works of St.Gregory Palamas, which has resulted in a renewal of Orthodox theology in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the original church started by Christ and his apostles. For the early years of the church, much of what was conveyed to its members was in the form of oral teachings. Within a very short period of time traditions were established to reinforce these teachings. The Orthodox Church asserts to have been very careful in preserving these traditions. When questions of belief or new concepts arise, the Church always refers back to the primitive faith. They see the Bible as a collection of inspired texts that sprang out of this tradition, not the other way around; and the choices made in forming the New Testament as having come from comparison with already firmly established faith. The Bible has come to be a very important part of "Tradition", but not the only part.
Likewise, the Orthodox Church has always recognized the gradual development in the complexity of the articulation of the Church's teachings. It does not, however, believe that truth changes and therefore always supports its previous beliefs all the way back to the direct teachings from the Apostles. The Church also understands that not everything is perfectly clear; therefore, it has always accepted a fair amount of contention about certain issues, arguments about certain points, as something that will always be present within the Church. It is this contention which, through time, clarifies the truth. The Church sees this as the action of the Holy Spirit on history to manifest truth to man.
The Church is unwavering in upholding itsdogmatic teachings, but does not insist upon those matters of faith which have not been specifically defined. The Orthodox believe that there must always be room for mystery when speaking of God. Individuals are permitted to holdtheologoumena (private theological opinions) so long as they do not contradict traditional Orthodox teaching. Sometimes, various Holy Fathers may have contradictory opinions about a certain question, and where no consensus exists, the individual is free to follow his conscience.
Tradition also includes theNicene Creed, the decrees of the SevenEcumenical Councils, the writings theChurch Fathers, as well as Orthodox laws (canons),liturgical books andicons, etc. In defense of the extra-biblical tradition, the Orthodox Church quotes Paul: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by our spoken word, or by our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The Orthodox Church also believes that theHoly Spirit works through history to manifest truth to the Church, and that He weeds out falsehood in order that the Truth may be recognised more fully.
Orthodoxy interprets truth based on three witnesses: theconsensus of the Holy Fathers of the Church; the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit guiding the life of the Church through thenous, or mind of the Church (also called the "Catholic Consciousness of the Church"[1]), which is believed to be the Mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16); and thepraxis of the church (including among other thingsasceticism,liturgy, hymnography andiconography).
The consensus of the Church over time defines itscatholicity—that which is believed at all times by the entire Church.[2] Those who disagree with that consensus are not accepted as authentic "Fathers." All theological concepts must be in agreement with that consensus. Even those considered to be authentic "Fathers" may have some theological opinions that are not universally shared, but are not thereby considered heretical. Some Holy Fathers have even made statements that were later defined as heretical, but their mistakes do not exclude them from position of authority (heresy is a sin ofpride; unintended error does not make one a heretic, only the refusal to accept a dogma which has been defined by the church). Thus an Orthodox Christian is not bound to agree with every opinion of every Father, but rather with the consensus of the Fathers, and then only on those matters about which the church is dogmatic.
Some of the greatesttheologians in the history of the church come from the fourth century, including theCappadocian Fathers and theThree Hierarchs. However, the Orthodox do not consider the "Patristic era" to be a thing of the past, but that it continues in an unbroken succession of enlightened teachers (i.e., thesaints, especially those who have left us theological writings) from the Apostles to the present day.
Christianity first spread in the predominantlyGreek-speaking eastern half of theRoman Empire. TheApostles traveled extensively throughout the Empire, establishing communities in major cities and regions, seeEarly centers of Christianity, with the first community appearing inJerusalem, and thenAntioch,Alexandria and others, and then the two political centers of Rome and Greece and then laterByzantium which becameConstantinople. Orthodoxy believes in theapostolic succession that was established by the Apostles in theNew Testament; this played a key role in the communities' view of itself as the preserver of the original Christian tradition. Originally, the word "church" did not mean a building (which would be a "basilica"), but a community or gathering of like-minded people (an "ekklesia").
The earliest forms of Christianity were Greek as contemporary ecclesiastical historianHenry Hart Milman writes: "For some considerable (it cannot but be an undefinable) part of three first centuries, the Church of Rome, and most, if not all the Churches of the West, were, if we may so speak, Greek religious colonies. Their language was Greek, their organization Greek, their writers Greek, their scriptures Greek; and many vestiges and traditions show that their ritual, their Liturgy, was Greek."[3]
The original church or community of the East before theschisms, is theGreek communities founded by Saint Paul and theAntiochian,Asia Minor (Byzantine) churches founded bySaint Peter, theCoptic (or Egyptian) churches founded bySaint Mark (including theEthiopian of Africa orAbyssinia), theSyrian (or Assyrian), along with theGeorgian andRussian churches founded bySaint Andrew. By tradition, theArmenian church, as well as the churches of Samaria andJudea were founded bySaint Jude andSaint Bartholomew, while the church ofIsrael was founded bySaint James.[4]
TheBiblical canon began with the officially accepted books of theKoine GreekOld Testament (which predates Christianity). Thiscanon is called theSeptuagint orseventy and is accepted as the foundation of the Christian faith along with theGood news (gospels),Revelations and Letters of the Apostles (includingActs of the Apostles and theEpistle to the Hebrews). The earliest text of theNew Testament was written in common or Koine Greek, according toGreek primacy. The many texts in the many tribal dialects of the Old Testament were all translated into a single language, Koine Greek, in the time ofPtolemy II Philadelphus in 200 BC.[5]
The early Christians had no way to have a copy of the works that later became the canon and other church works accepted but not canonized (seeChurch Fathers andPatristics). Much of the original churchliturgical services functioned as a means of learning these works. Orthodox Church services today continue to serve this educational function. The issue of collecting the various works of the eastern churches and compiling them into a canon, each being confirmed as authentic text was a long protracted process. Much of this process was motivated by a need to address various heresies. In many instances, heretical groups had themselves begun compiling and disseminating text that they used to validate their positions, positions that were not consistent with the text, history and traditions of the Orthodox faith.
Much of the official organizing of theecclesiastical structure, clarifying true from false teachings was done by the bishops of the church. Their works are referred to asPatristics. This tradition of clarification can be seen as established in the saints of the Orthodox church referred to as theApostolic Fathers, bishops themselves established byapostolic succession. This also continued into the age when the practice of the religion of Christianity became legal (see the Ecumenical Councils).
UnlikeProtestantism which posits the Bible as eitherthe sole or theprimary infallible authority, Orthodoxy believes the Bible is a part of Sacred Tradition, representing those texts approved by the church for the purpose of conveying the most important parts of what it already believed. The oldest list of books for the canon is theMuratorian fragment dating to ca. 170 (see alsoChester Beatty Papyri). The oldest complete canon of the Christian Bible was found atSaint Catherine's Monastery (seeCodex Sinaiticus) and later sold to the British by the Soviets in 1933.[6] These texts (as a whole) were not universally considered canonical until the church reviewed, edited, accepted and ratified them in 368 (also see theCouncil of Laodicea). Salvation orsoteriology from the Orthodox perspective is achieved not by knowledge of scripture but by being a member of the church or community and cultivatingphronema andtheosis through participation in the church or community.[7][8]
Christian monasticism started in Egypt. The first monks lived in cities and villages, but only received great renown as they left for the wilderness and became hermits (eremitic monks).[9] By the end of the early Christian era, SaintPachomius was organizing his followers into a community and founding the tradition of monasticism in community (cenobitic monks).
With the elevation of Christianity to the status of a legal religion within the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great, with the edict of Milan (313), many Orthodox felt a new decline in the ethical life of Christians. In reaction to this decline, many refused to accept any compromises and fled theworld or societies of mankind, to become monastics.Monasticism thrived, especially inEgypt, with two important monastic centers, one in the desert ofWadi Natroun, by the Western Bank of the Nile, with Abba Ammoun (d. 356) as its founder, and one calledScetis in the desert of Skete, south ofNitria, with SaintMakarios of Egypt (d. ca. Egypt 330) as its founder. These monks wereanchorites, following the monastic ideal of St.Anthony the Great,Paul of Thebes and SaintPachomius. They lived by themselves, gathering together for common worship on Saturdays and Sundays only. This is not to say that Monasticism or Orthodox Asceticism was created whole cloth at the time of legalization but rather at the time it blossomed into a mass movement. Charismatics, as the ascetic movement was considered, had no clerical status as such. Later history developed around the Greek (Mount Athos) and Syrian (Cappadocia) forms of monastic life, along with the formation ofMonastic Orders or monastic organization. The three main forms of Ascetics' traditions beingSkete,Cenobite andHermit respectively.
Several doctrinal disputes from the 4th century onwards led to the calling ofecumenical councils which from a traditional perspective, are the culmination and also a continuation of previous churchsynods. These pre-ecumenical councils include theCouncil of Jerusalem c. 50,Council of Rome (155),Second Council of Rome 193,Council of Ephesus (193),Council of Carthage (251),Council of Iconium 258,Council of Antioch (264),Councils of Arabia 246–247,Council of Elvira 306,Council of Carthage (311),Synod of Neo-Caesarea c.314Council of Ancyra 314,Council of Arles (314). The first ecumenical council in part was a continuation of Trinitarian doctrinal issues addressed in pre-legalization of Christianity councils or synods (for examples seeSynods of Antioch between 264–26 andSynod of Elvira). These ecumenical councils with their doctrinal formulations are pivotal in the history of Christianity in general and to the history of the Orthodox Church in particular. Specifically, these assemblies were responsible for the formulation of Christian doctrine. As such, they constitute a permanent standard for an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the person or hypostasis of Christ, the incarnation.[10]
The tradition of councils within the church started with the apostoliccouncil of Jerusalem, but this council is not numbered as an ecumenical council. It was convened to address theAbrahamic tradition ofcircumcision and its relation to converted Gentiles (Acts 15). Its decisions are accepted by all Christians,[11] and later definitions of an ecumenical council to conform to this sole Biblical council.
TheFirst seven Ecumenical Councils were held between 325 (theFirst Council of Nicaea) and 787 (theSecond Council of Nicaea), which the Orthodox recognize as the definitive interpretation of Christian dogma.
The Orthodox Church does not recognize asdogma any ecumenical councils other than these seven.[12] Orthodox thinking differs on whether theFourth andFifth Councils of Constantinople were properly Ecumenical Councils, but the majority view is that they were merely influential rather than dogmatic and therefore not binding.[citation needed]
The first ecumenical council was convened to address again thedivinity of Christ (seePaul of Samosata and theSynods of Antioch) but this time through the teachings ofArius, an Egyptian presbyter fromAlexandria. Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine but created, both sides likened Jesus to theAngel of the Lord.[13][14][15][16] Arius taught that Jesus was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but was not uncreated and not God in essence. It was this teaching, that Jesus Christ was not God in Essence (the uncreated logos) from the Father (infinite, primordial origin) and uncreated just as the Holy Spirit (giver of life), that came to be known as Arianism. Under Arianism, Christ was instead notconsubstantial with God the Father.[17] Since both the Father and the Son under Arius where of "like" essence or being (seehomoiousia) but not of the same essence or being (seehomoousia).[18] Much of the distinction between the differing factions was over thekenotic phrasing that Christ expressed in the New Testament to express submission to God the Father.[19]This Ecumenical council declared that Jesus Christ was a distinct being of God in existence or reality (hypostasis). Hypostasis was translated as persona by the Latin fathers. Jesus was God in essence, being and or nature (ousia). Ousia was translated as substantia by the Latin fathers.
The first council did not end the conflict, for when EmperorConstantine I was baptized, the baptism was performed by an Arian bishop and relative,Eusebius of Nicomedia. Also the charges of Christian corruption by Constantine (see theConstantinian shift) ignore the fact that Constantine deposedAthanasius of Alexandria and later restored Arius, who had been branded aheresiarch by theNicene Council.[20][21][22][23][24]
Constantine I after his death was succeeded by two Arian EmperorsConstantius II (son of Constantine I) andValens. The Eastern Empire also saw its last Pagan Emperor inJulian the Apostate after the death of Constantine I. Even after Constantine I, in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East Christians remained persecuted. Though to a much lesser degree than when Christianity was an illegal community (seePersecution of early Christians by the Romans,Shapur II andBasil of Ancyra). Constantine I by making Christianity legal, did not make Christianity the official religion of the Empire. It was not until EmperorGratian (West) and Spaniard EmperorTheodosius I (East), as Orthodox Emperors both East and West, that Christianity was made so. It was not until the co-reigns of Gratian and Theodosius that Arianism was effectively wiped out among the ruling class and elite of the Eastern Empire. Theodosius' wife StFlacilla was instrumental in his campaign to end Arianism. This later culminated into the killing of some 300,000 Orthodox Christians at the hands of Arians inMilan in 538.[25]
Theschism between the Oriental Orthodox and the rest of Christendom occurred in the 5th century. The separation resulted in part from the refusal ofPope Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the other 13 Egyptian Bishops, to accept theChristologicaldogmas promulgated by the Council of Chalcedon, which held thatJesus is in two natures: one divine and one human. They would accept only "of or from two natures" but not "in two natures."To the hierarchs who would lead the Oriental Orthodox, the latter phrase was tantamount to acceptingNestorianism, which expressed itself in a terminology incompatible with their understanding of Christology. Founded in the Alexandrine School of Theology it advocated a formula ("one nature of the Incarnate Word of God") stressing the unity of the Incarnation over all other considerations.
The Oriental Orthodox churches were therefore often calledMonophysite, although they reject this label, as it is associated with Eutychian Monophysitism; they prefer the term "Miaphysite" churches. Oriental Orthodox Churches reject what they consider to be the heretical Monophysite teachings ofApollinaris of Laodicea andEutyches, theDyophysite definition of the Council of Chalcedon, and the Antiochene Christology ofTheodore of Mopsuestia,Nestorius of Constantinople,Theodoret of Cyrus, andIbas of Edessa.
Christology, although important, was not the only reason for the Alexandrian Church's refusal to accept the declarations of the Council of Chalcedon; political, ecclesiastical and imperial issues were hotly debated during that period.
In the years following Chalcedon the patriarchs of Constantinople intermittently remained in communion with the non-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, (seeHenotikon) while Rome remained out of communion with the latter and in unstable communion with Constantinople. It was not until 518 that the new Byzantine Emperor,Justin I (who accepted Chalcedon), demanded that the Church in the Roman Empire accept the Council's decisions.[26] Justin ordered the replacement of all non-Chalcedonian bishops, including the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. The extent of the influence of theBishop of Rome in this demand has been a matter of debate.Justinian I also attempted to bring those monks who still rejected the decision of the Council of Chalcedon into communion with the greater church. The exact time of this event is unknown, but it is believed to have been between 535 and 548.St Abraham of Farshut was summoned to Constantinople and he chose to bring with him four monks. Upon arrival, Justinian summoned them and informed them that they would either accept the decision of the Council or lose their positions. Abraham refused to entertain the idea.Theodora tried to persuade Justinian to change his mind, seemingly to no avail. Abraham himself stated in a letter to his monks that he preferred to remain in exile rather than subscribe to a faith contrary to that ofAthanasius.
TheChurch of Caucasian Albania existed as an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox church from 313 to 705.[citation needed] Located inCaucasian Albania in what is nowAzerbaijan, the church was absorbed by theArmenian Apostolic Church following the Muslim conquest of the region.[citation needed]
By the 20th century the Chalcedonian schism was not seen with the same importance, and from several meetings between the authorities of theHoly See and the Oriental Orthodoxy, reconciling declarations emerged in the common statement of the Syriac Patriarch (MarIgnatius Zakka I Iwas) and the Pope (John Paul II) in 1984.
The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.[27]
According to the canons of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the four bishops of Rome,Alexandria,Ephesus (later transferred toConstantinople) andAntioch were all given status asPatriarchs; in other words, the ancient apostolic centres of Christianity, by the First Council of Nicaea (predating the schism) — each of the four patriarchs was responsible for those bishops and churches within his own area of the Universal Church, (with the exception of thePatriarch of Jerusalem, who was independent of the rest). Thus, the Bishop of Rome has always been held by the others to be fully sovereign within his own area, as well as "First-Among-Equals", due to the traditional belief that theApostlesSaint Peter andSaint Paul were martyred in Rome.
The technical reason for the schism was that the bishops of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated the non-Chalcedonian bishops in 451 for refusing to accept the "in two natures" teaching, thus declaring them to be out of communion. Recent declarations indicate that the Holy See now regards itself as being in a state of partial communion with the other patriarchates.
Resolved under the Seventh Ecumenical Council,Iconoclasm was a movement within the Eastern Christian Byzantine church to establish that the Christian culture of portraits (seeicon) of the family of Christ and subsequent Christians and biblical scenes were not of a Christian origin and therefore heretical.[28] There were two periods of Iconoclasm 730-787 and 813-843. This movement itself was later defined as heretical under theSeventh Ecumenical council. The group destroyed much of the Christian churches' art history, which is needed in addressing the traditional interruptions of the Christian faith and the artistic works that in the early church were devoted to Jesus Christ or God. Many Glorious works were destroyed during this period.[29]Two prototypes of icons would be theChrist Pantocrator and theIcon of the Hodegetria. In the West the tradition of icons have been seen as the veneration of "graven images" or against "no graven images."[30] From the Orthodox point of view graven then would be engraved or carved. Thus this restriction would include many of the ornaments that Moses wascommanded to create in the passages right after the commandment was given, i.e., the carving of cherubim.[31] The commandment as understood by such out of context interpretation would mean "no carved images". This would include the cross and other holy artifacts. The commandment in the East is understand that the people of God are not to create idols and then worship them. It is "right worship" to worship which is of God, which is Holy and that alone.[32]
The cracks and fissures in Christian unity which led to theEast–West Schism started to become evident as early as the 4th century. Although 1054 is the date usually given for the beginning of the Great Schism, there is, in fact, no specific date on which the schism occurred. What really happened was a complex chain of events whose climax culminated with the sacking of Constantinople by theFourth Crusade in 1204 .
The events leading to schism were not exclusively theological in nature. Cultural, political, and linguistic differences were often mixed with the theological. Any narrative of the schism which emphasizes one at the expense of the other will be fragmentary.Unlike the Coptics or Armenians who broke from the Church in the 5th century and established ethnic churches at the cost of their universality and catholicity, the eastern and western parts of the Church remained loyal to the faith and authority of the seven ecumenical councils. They were united, by virtue of their common faith and tradition, in one Church.
Nonetheless, the transfer of the Roman capital to Constantinople inevitably brought mistrust, rivalry, and even jealousy to the relations of the two great sees, Rome andConstantinople. It was easy for Rome to be jealous of Constantinople at a time when it was rapidly losing its political prominence. In fact, Rome refused to recognize the conciliar legislation which promoted Constantinople to second rank. But the estrangement was also helped along by the German invasions in the West, which effectively weakened contacts. The rise of Islam with its conquest of most of the Mediterranean coastline (not to mention the arrival of the pagan Slavs in the Balkans at the same time) further intensified this separation by driving a physical wedge between the two worlds. The once homogeneous unified world of the Mediterranean was fast vanishing. Communication between theGreek East and Latin West by the 7th century had become dangerous and practically ceased.[33]
Two basic problems—the primacy of the bishop of Rome and the procession of the Holy Spirit—were involved. These doctrinal novelties were first openly discussed during the patriarchate ofPhotius I.
By the 5th century, Christendom was divided into a pentarchy of five sees with Rome holding the primacy. This was determined by canonical decision and did not entail hegemony of any one local church or patriarchate over the others. However, Rome began to interpret her primacy in terms of sovereignty, as a God-given right involving universal jurisdiction in the Church. The collegial and conciliar nature of the Church, in effect, was gradually abandoned in favor of a supremacy of unlimited papal power over the entire Church. These ideas were finally given systematic expression in the West during theGregorian Reform movement of the 11th century. The Eastern churches viewed Rome's understanding of the nature of episcopal power as being in direct opposition to the Church's essentially conciliar structure and thus saw the two ecclesiologies as mutually antithetical.[citation needed]
This fundamental difference in ecclesiology would cause all attempts to heal the schism and bridge the divisions to fail. Rome bases her claims to "true and proper jurisdiction" (as the Vatican Council of 1870 put it) on St. Peter. This "Roman" exegesis of Mathew 16:18, however, has been unacceptable for the Orthodox Church. For them, specifically, St. Peter's primacy could never be the exclusive prerogative of any one bishop. All bishops must, like St. Peter, confess Jesus as the Christ and, as such, all are St. Peter's successors. The churches of the East gave the Roman See, primacy but not supremacy. The Pope being the first among equals, but not infallible and not with absolute authority.[34]
The other major irritant to Orthodoxy was the Western interpretation of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Like the primacy, this too developed gradually and entered the Creed in the West almost unnoticed. This theologically complex issue involved the addition by the West of theLatin phrase filioque ("and from the Son") to the Creed. The original Creed sanctioned by the councils and still used today by the Orthodox Church did not contain this phrase; the text simply states "the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father." Theologically, the Latin interpolation was unacceptable to Orthodoxy since it implied that the Spirit now had two sources of origin and procession, the Father and the Son, rather than the Father alone.[35] In short, the balance between the three persons of the Trinity was altered and the understanding of the Trinity and God confused.[35] The result, the Orthodox Church believed, then and now, was theologically indefensible. But in addition to the dogmatic issue raised by the filioque, the Byzantines argued that the phrase had been added unilaterally and, therefore, illegitimately, since the East had never been consulted.[36][37]
In the final analysis, only another ecumenical council could introduce such an alteration. Indeed, the councils, which drew up the original Creed, had expressly forbidden any subtraction or addition to the text.
The phraseFilioque,Latin for "and the Son", was added in 589 to theCatholic Church'sNicene Creed. This creed, foundational to Christian belief since the 4th century, defines the three persons of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In its original Greek form, the creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father". The Latin text speaks of the Holy Spirit as proceeding "from the Fatherand the Son".
The wordFilioque was first added to the Creed at theThird Council of Toledo (589) and its inclusion spread later throughout the Frankish Empire.[38] In the 9th century,Pope Leo III, while accepting, like his predecessorPope Leo I, the doctrine, tried to suppress the singing of theFilioque in theMass of theRoman rite.[38] In 1014, however, inclusion ofFilioque in the Creed was adopted in Rome.[38] Since its denunciation byPhotios I of Constantinople,[38] it has been an ongoing source of conflict between the East and West, contributing to theEast–West Schism of 1054 and proving an obstacle to attempts to reunify the two sides.[39]
In the 9th-century, a controversy arose between Eastern (Byzantine, later Orthodox) and Western (Latin, Roman Catholic) Christianity that was precipitated by the opposition of the RomanPope John VII to the appointment by the ByzantineEmperor Michael III ofPhotius I to the position of patriarch of Constantinople. Photios was refused an apology by the pope for previous points of dispute between the East and West. Photius refused to accept the supremacy of the pope in Eastern matters or accept the filioque clause, which the Latin delegation at his council of his consecration pressed him to accept in order to secure their support.
The controversy also involved Eastern and Western ecclesiastical jurisdictional rights in the Bulgarian church, as well as a doctrinal dispute over theFilioque ("and from the Son") clause. That had been added to theNicene Creed by the Latin church, which was later the theological breaking point in the ultimate GreatEast–West Schism in the 11th century.
Photius did provide concession on the issue of jurisdictional rights concerning Bulgaria and the papal legates made do with his return of Bulgaria to Rome. This concession, however, was purely nominal, as Bulgaria's return to the Byzantine rite in 870 had already secured for it an autocephalous church. Without the consent ofBoris I of Bulgaria, the papacy was unable to enforce any its claims.
In the 11th century theEast–West Schism took place between Rome andConstantinople, which led to separation of the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church. There were doctrinal issues like thefilioque clause and the authority of thePope involved in the split, but these were exacerbated by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks. Prior to that, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during the periods oficonoclasm and thePhotian schism.[40]The Orthodox East perceived the papacy as taking on monarch-type characteristics that were not inline with the Church's historical tradition as can be seen in the words of ArchbishopNicetas ofNicomedia of the 12th century:
My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy among the five sister patriachates and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at the Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman pontiff seated on the lofty throne of his glory wished to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves not the sons, of such a church and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves
Under church tradition the practice of Hesychasm has it beginnings in the bible, Matthew 6:6 and thePhilokalia. The tradition of contemplation with inner silence or tranquility is shared by all Easternascenticism having its roots in the Egyptian traditions of monasticism exemplified by such Orthodox monastics asSt. Anthony of Egypt.About the year 1337Hesychasm attracted the attention of a learned member of the Orthodox Church,Barlaam, a Calabrian monk who at that time held the office of abbot in the Monastery of Holy Saviour's in Constantinople and who visitedMount Athos. There, Barlaam encountered Hesychasts and heard descriptions of their practices, also reading the writings of the teacher in Hesychasm of St.Gregory Palamas, himself an Athonite monk. Hesychasm is a form of constant purposeful prayer or experiential prayer, explicitly referred to ascontemplation. It is to focus one's mind on God and pray to God unceasingly. The hesychasts stated that at higher stages of their prayer practice they reached the actualcontemplation-union with theTabor Light, i.e., Uncreated Divine Light or photomos seen by the apostles in the event of the Transfiguration of Christ and Saint Paul while on the road toDamascus. It is depicted in icons and theological discourse also as tongues of fire.[41]
Trained in WesternScholastic theology, Barlaam was scandalized by Hesychasm and began to campaign against it. As a teacher of theology in the Western Scholastic mode, Barlaam propounded a more intellectual and propositional approach to the knowledge of God than the Hesychasts taught. In particular, Barlaam took exception to, asheretical andblasphemous, the doctrine entertained by the Hesychasts as to the nature of theuncreated light, the experience of which was said to be the goal of Hesychast practice. It was maintained by the Hesychasts to be of divine origin and to be identical to that light which had been manifested to Jesus' disciples onMount Tabor at theTransfiguration. Barlaam held this concept to bepolytheistic, inasmuch as it postulated two eternal substances, a visible (immanent) and an invisible God (transcendent).
On the Hesychast side, the controversy was taken up byAthonite St.Gregory Palamas, afterwards Archbishop ofThessalonica, who was asked by his fellow monks on Mt Athos to defend Hesychasm from Barlaam's attacks. St. Gregory was well-educated in Greek philosophy (dialectical method) and thus able to defend Hesychasm using Western precepts. In the 1340s, he defended Hesychasm at three different synods inConstantinople, and also wrote a number of works in its defense.
In 1341 the dispute came before asynod held atConstantinople and was presided over by the EmperorAndronicus; the synod, taking into account the regard in which the writings of thepseudo-Dionysius were held, condemned Barlaam, who recanted and returned toCalabria, afterwards becoming a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church. Three other synods on the subject were held, at the second of which the followers of Barlaam gained a brief victory. But in 1351 at a synod under the presidency of the EmperorJohn VI Cantacuzenus, Hesychast doctrine and Palamas'Essence-Energies distinction was established as the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
One of Barlaam's friends,Gregory Akindynos, who originally was also a friend of Gregory's, later took up the controversy. Another opponent of Palamism wasManuel Kalekas who sought to reconcile the Eastern and Western Churches. Following the decision of 1351, there was strong repression against anti-Palamist thinkers. Kalekas reports on this repression as late as 1397, and for theologians in disagreement with Palamas, there was ultimately no choice but to emigrate and convert to Catholicism, a path taken by Kalekas as well asDemetrios Kydones andIoannes Kypariossiotes. This exodus of highly educated Greek scholars, later reinforced by refugees following theFall of Constantinople of 1453, had a significant influence on the first generation (that ofPetrarca andBoccaccio) of the incipientItalian Renaissance.
According to John Binns, Western influence is "generally seen as destructive, introducing non-Orthodox ways of thinking into the Church".[42]Georges Florovsky characterized Orthodox theology as having gone through a "pseudomorphosis" during the "Western Captivity" of the seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. He argued that Orthodox theologians of this period were trapped in the paradigms of Western thought and were unable to fully appreciate the teachings of theChurch Fathers.[43]
John Binns describes the relocation of Greek scholarship to Italy after the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottoman Turks. The lack of Christian educational institutions within the Ottoman Empire led to a decline of education among the clergy. According to Binns, it was estimated that, when Greece won its independence from the Ottoman Empire, only ten out of the thousand priests could write their own names.[42]
The Hesychast traditions survived throughout Ottoman period, particularly in the monastic centres onMount Athos. During the eighteenth century, an important spiritual revival (whose effects are still felt today) began and spread to many Orthodox regions. Central to this renewal was thePhilokalia, an anthology of spiritual writings compiled bySaint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain ("the Hagiorite", 1748–1809), with the aid ofSaint Macarius (Notaras), the Metropolitan of Corinth (1731–1805). The anthology was also printed at Venice, in 1782, and it contained the works of authors from the fourth century to the fifteenth, dealing mainly with the theory and practice of prayer (especially theJesus Prayer). It has proven to be one of the most influential publications in Orthodox history, being widely read not only by monks, but also by many living in the world.[44]
This spiritual movement was also expanded to other regions, by the efforts ofSaint Paissy Velichkovsky (1722–1794), who after being disappointed by the secular tones used at the theological academy of Kiev, became a monk and travelled to Mount Athos, to learn aboutHesychasm. In 1763, he moved to the Romanian principality ofMoldavia, where he was chosen abbot of theNeamț Monastery, which soon became a great spiritual centre, gathering more than 500 brethren. Under his guidance, the community translated thePhilokalia into Slavonic, which was published at Moscow, in 1793. Paissy himself din not return to Russia, but many of his disciples travelled there, from Romania, and established many new monastic centres, dedicated to the Hesychast tradition (such as theOptina Monastery). Important Russian Hesychasts of the 19th century, includedSaint Seraphim of Sarov (1759–1833), and the Optino elders, Leonid (1768–1860), Macarius (1788–1860) andAmbrose (1812–1891). During the period 1876–1890, SaintTheophan the Recluse (1815–1894) also completed an expanded translation of thePhilokalia, in Russian. This spiritual renewal contributed heavily to the flowering of Orthodox theology in the 20th century.[44][45]
TheSlavophiles promoted Orthodox Christianity as Russia's defining feature, hoping to make the Orthodox Church synonymous with Russian native culture.[46] Starting withVladimir Soloviev,sobornost was put forth as the basis for theecumenical movement within theRussian Orthodox Church.Sergei Bulgakov,Nikolai Berdyaev,Pavel Florensky were notable proponents for the spirit ofsobornost between different Christian factions.
John Behr characterizes Orthodox theology as having been "reborn in the twentieth century."[47] Norman Russell describes Orthodox theology as having been dominated by an "arid scholasticism" for several centuries after the fall of Constantinople. Russell describes the postwar re-engagement of modern Greek theologians with theGreek Fathers with the help of diaspora theologians and Western patristic scholars.[48] A significant component of this re-engagement with the Greek Fathers has been a rediscovery of Palamas by Greek theologians who had previously been given less attention than the other Fathers.[49]
According to Michael Angold, the "rediscovery of [Palamas'] writings by theologians of the last century has played a crucial role in the construction of present-day Orthodoxy.[50] Bishop Kallistos (Ware) has predicted that "the twentieth century will be remembered as the century of Palamas".
After the Russian Revolution, many Orthodox theologians fled Russia and founded centers of Orthodox theology in the West. The most notable of these were the Orthodox Theological Institute of St. Serguis in Paris and Orthodox Seminary of St. Vladimir in New York.[51] Daniel Payne asserts that, in the 1940s, "Russian émigré theologians rediscovered the ascetic-theology of St. Gregory Palamas." From this rediscovery, according to Payne, "Palamas' theology became the basis for an articulation of an Orthodox theological identity apart from Roman Catholic and Protestant influences. Florovsky and Lossky opposed the efforts of the Slavophile movement to identify a uniquely Russian approach to Orthodox theology. They advocated instead a return to the Greek fathers in what Florovsky called a "Neo-Patristic Synthesis".[52] Payne characterizes the work ofGeorges Florovsky andVladimir Lossky as having "set the course for Orthodox theology in the twentieth century."[53]
Metropolitan Hilarion Alfayev identifies five main streams within the theology of the "Paris school".
The first, associated with the names of Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern), Fr. Georges Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, Archbishop Basil (Krivocheine) and Fr. John Meyendorff, was dedicated to the cause of "Patristic revival."
The second stream, represented in particular by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, is rooted in the Russian religious renaissance of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; here, the influence of Eastern patristics was interwoven with German idealism and the religious views of Vladimir Soloviev stream.
The third prepared the ground for the "liturgical revival" in the Orthodox Church and is related to the names of Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff and Fr. Alexander Schmemann.
Characteristic of the fourth stream was an interest in Russian history, literature, culture and spirituality; to this stream belong G. Fedotov, K. Mochulsky, I. Kontzevich, Fr. Sergius Tchetverikoff, A. Kartashev and N. Zernov, to name but a few.
The fifth stream developed the traditions of Russian religious philosophical thought and was represented by N. Lossky, S. Frank, L. Shestoff and Fr. Basil Zenkovsky.
One of the central figures of "Russian Paris" was Nicholas Berdyaev, who belonged to none of these...[54]
According to Michael Gibson, "Lossky's paradigm pivots on a double-sided narrative that posits a theological failure of the West characterized as 'rationalist' and 'philosophical,' the antithesis of which is the unbroken Eastern theological tradition of pure apophaticism and mystico-ecclesial experience."[55]
As the first generation of Russian emigre theologians died out, the torch was taken up by Greek theologians in the postwar period. Until the 1950s, Greek theology had tended towards ascholastic approach. David Ford characterizes it as "doctrinal 'capita' with patristic catenae added". The impact of Florovsky and Lossky began to spread beyond the Slavic Orthodoxy.[56]
According to Daniel Payne, "Romanides andYannaras want(ed) to remove the Western and pagan elements from the Hellenic identity and replace it with the Orthodox identity rooted in Hesychast spirituality based on the teachings of Gregory Palamas."[53]
John Romanides developed a theology which was vehemently anti-Augustinian. His work had a significant influence on theological dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox Church and theOriental Orthodox Churches.[57]
Christos Yannaras argues that the introduction of Western Scholasticism into Orthodox theology inevitably led to the confusion present in the modern Hellenic identity. The adverse effects of this corruption of Greek Orthodox thought for the rise of Greek nationalism, the acceptance and formation of the modern Hellenic nation-state, and the establishment of the Greek Orthodox Church as an autocephalous national church separate from the patriarchate of Constantinople.[58]
John Zizioulas is arguably the most widely read Orthodox theologian in the West.[57]
Modern Ecumenism between different Orthodox groups of the Mideast is a long and evolving process, as evidenced by the activeecumenical movement between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, as well as the recent reconciliation between thePatriarch of Moscow andROCOR (seeAct of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate), and the active communication between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communities.[citation needed]
Over the last century, a number of moves have been made to reconcile theschism between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches. Although progress has been made, concerns over papal primacy and the independence of the smaller Orthodox churches has blocked a final resolution of the schism. Some of the most difficult questions in relations with the ancientEastern Churches concern some doctrine (i.e.Filioque,Scholasticism, functional purposes of asceticism, theessence of God,Hesychasm,Fourth Crusade, establishment of theLatin Empire,Uniatism to note but a few) as well as practical matters such as the concrete exercise of the claim to papal primacy and how to ensure that ecclesiastical union would not mean mere absorption of the smaller Churches by the Latin component of the much larger Catholic Church (the most numerous single religious denomination in the world), and the stifling or abandonment of their own rich theological, liturgical and cultural heritage.
On 7 December 1965, a Joint Catholic–Orthodox Declaration of Pope Paul VI and theEcumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I was issued lifting the mutual excommunications of 1054.
In June 2004 theEcumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I's visit to Rome for theFeast of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June) afforded him the opportunity for another personal meeting with Pope John Paul II, for conversations with thePontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and for taking part in the celebration for the feast day inSt. Peter's Basilica.
The Patriarch's partial participation in the Eucharistic liturgy at which the Pope presided followed the program of the past visits of Patriarch Dimitrios (1987) andPatriarch Bartholomew I himself: full participation in theLiturgy of the Word, joint proclamation by the Pope and by the Patriarch of the profession of faith according to theNicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in Greek and as the conclusion, the final Blessing imparted by both the Pope and the Patriarch at the Altar of the Confessio.[59] The Patriarch did not fully participate in the Liturgy of the Eucharist involving the consecration and distribution of theEucharist itself.[60][61]
In accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's practice of including the clause when reciting the Creed in Latin,[62] but not when reciting the Creed in Greek,[63] PopesJohn Paul II andBenedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with PatriarchsDemetrius I andBartholomew I in Greek without theFilioque clause.[64][65] The action of these Patriarchs in reciting the Creed together with the Popes has been strongly criticized by some elements of Eastern Orthodoxy, such as the Metropolitan of Kalavryta, Greece, in November 2008.[66]
Thedeclaration of Ravenna in 2007 re-asserted these beliefs, and re-stated the notion that the bishop of Rome is indeed theprotos, although future discussions are to be held on the concrete ecclesiological exercise of papal primacy.
The Arians had preferred the title of "angel" for Christ because the term allowed them to reserve a special status for the figure of Jesus without actually linking Him with the Godhead.
Both Arius and Alexander thought that Jesuswas the Son of God. More than that, they both thought that he was God, the God who created the universe. Hewas *not* God the Father, but God the Son. But still he was God. The question focused on what sense Christ was God.
...Saint Gregory is not well known to the common pious, and his study by theologians is scant compared to the tomes that have been dedicated to the other Fathers. In Greece, it was not until the recent past that anyone showed any critical attention toward a collection of the Saint's writings. And, greatly owing to his rejection by the West and the proverbial "Western captivity" of many Orthodox theologians, some Greek theologians have only a rudimentary familiarity with Saint Gregory and his importance to Orthodox thought. (Happily, the state of Palamite studies in the Slavic traditions is better developed and more profound.)
Russian emigre theologians.
| Autocephalous churches |
|  | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autonomous churches |
| |||||||
| Diaspora Assemblies | ||||||||
| History | ||||||||
| Liturgy | ||||||||
| Other | ||||||||
 Christianity portal
| ||||||||
