Hello our siblings in Christ, I’m Bojan
and I’m Miloš
and in this episode we will give a bit of context on how on earth did Orthodox and Catholic Churches separate in that fateful summer of ‘54.
Look, we’re no historians, but we did our research (meaning we’ve based this whole thing completely off of Wikipedia and the inflamed sermons of zealous Orthodox priests).
We know that this topic is a bit controversial, so bear in mind that we’ve tried our best to keep this as low key as possible. The purpose of this video is not to insult, but to entertain and educate. Emphasis on: entertain.
There are many factors that have contributed to the Great Shazam of 1054. These can be roughly broken into three groups: political, theological and idiots. Idiots galore. We’ll start off with the political one because it is most boring, and end with idiots, because we’ve saved the best for last.
Let us first go through the political issues. For starters, the Eastern Roman Empire was Greek, the Western was Latin. However, after the invasion of the Frankish tribes, Western Roman politics, language and thought became increasingly Frankish. Of course, two parts of the Church speaking different languages didn’t really help matters much, and bishops fighting over the borders of their dioceses was a standard fare (just like today).
Deciding on who spiritually presides over the newly Christianized kahnate of Bulgaria was one of the major political issues at the time. The strawman version of this goes something like this: Saint Boris, the ruler of Bulgarians, decided that his country needs some good ol’ Christianization. So he opts for Eastern Christianity, and the Byzantines give back some territories to Bulgarians. However, they refused to give the Bulgarian Church its autonomous status.
So, St. Boris is like “hmm, let’s see what’s on this bouffet table” and calls for Latin missionaries to visit Bulgaria and share their thoughts on how St. Boris can profit politically the most from their offers.
Now the Byzantines were FURIOUS. Like, they really let the Latins have it! This was one of the earliest offensive clashes between the different practices of Eastern and Western Christians. So, in Constantinople, the Byzantine capital, an urgent council was convened. The outcome? The pope was anathematized. And as a response, the pope anathematized the Ecumenical Patriarch, you know, the works.
However, St. Boris did not have much luck with the Pope either, because the pope kept ignoring Boris’ request to send an archbishop; instead, he kept offering a list of problematic individuals, each more incapable than the last, one of which couldn’t serve the Mass without adult supervision.
Boris decided that he’s had enough and he contacted Constantinople with a very pennant ‘Heeeeeeey…’ Luckily for Boris, and due to political changes in Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch was now best buds with the pope, Bulgarians got their very own Archbishop...
… which totally won’t backfire into the face of the Orthodox when everyone starts getting their own national archbishop patriarch.
But the first major cracks appeared, and all the issues Byzantines had with the the Latin missionaries in Bulgaria were a ticking time bomb that will explode soon enough.
By the way, if you’re one of those types that go: “It’s not Byzantine, it’s Eastern Roman Empire, we wuz all Romans once, that is Western word,” Listen, it’s shorter to say Byzantine instead of Eastern Roman, and you don’t call it ‘Eastern Roman Chant’ but ‘Byzantine chant’ so your argument is abolished forever. I am not denying that Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire, it is just easier to differentiate this way.
Now that we’ve finished with the deep dive into politics, let us pay a visit to the theological part. This can essentially be divided into three separate compartments: the filioque clause, unleavened bread and - you know it - papal supremacy. Let’s start with the Filioque. And for that, we have to take a trip into a bit more distant past, some six centuries prior to the Great Shazam, we need to go back to the first two ecumenical councils.
The First Ecumenical Council firmly established the Divinity of Christ, declaring that Jesus Christ is of one essence, or consubstantial, to the Father. This was aimed against Arians, who claimed that the Son isn’t of one essence with the Father and that there was a time when the Son was not. The Fathers of the Council also made a draft1 version of what will later be called The Nicene Creed; however, this version of the creed only declared faith in the Holy Spirit, without specifying Who or what He is.
Enter Macedonists, or Pnevmatomahi, the fighters against the Spirit, who claimed that the Holy Spirit isn’t a person, but a force. So the heresy begins to spread, and the bishops have an urgent conference call:
‘’Okay, guys, we dropped the ball during Nicea. We totally forgot to name the Holy Spirit as a Person of the Godhead.’’
“How can an impersonal force be a member of the Godhead?’’
>:-(
So the bishops finally convened the Second Ecumenical Council where they agreed on the text of a strongly worded letter. They really let them have a good ol “as per our last e-mail.” And they were clear: “The Holy Spirit is a person, cease this tomfoolery.” Macedonianism was done away with, and the faith of the Most Holy Trinity shined brighter than ever.
But new trouble was brewing in Spain, the capital of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
The local bishops had their share of trouble fighting Arianism, which was surprisingly persistent. So the bishops had this amazing idea:
“We should say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well because that way we will emphasize the divinity of the Son!”
“But the Creed already states that the Son is True God of True God, and of one essence with the Father. How is your proposal going to accomplish anything?”
>:-(
After that guy was burned at the pyre for standing up to a bishop, a new practice of inserting the phrase into the Creed has started. What previously was “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father” now became “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” These words “and the Son” are called ‘the Filioque clause’ from their Latin rendering.
Now, some of you will beare like: “Are you kidding me? All that fighting over a couple of words!” Well, from a Christian point of view, this is like talking to a chemist and saying: “Are you kidding? Why are you getting so worked up about these particles you can’t even see?”
Yes, the Filioque and lack thereof is a big indicator of how the Trinity exists, and how the Trinity exists is the very basis of not only our faith, but our very existence.
While the Filioque existed as a teaching with some Latin saints, its use in the divine liturgy slowly spread from Spain to the rest of the Western Church. However, there was an additional issue: the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils strictly forbade any inclusions in the Creed.
By the way, if you’re one of those guys “Well, the Nicene Creed doesn’t say that the Spirit does not proceed from the Father,” remember that Macedonists were also probably like “Well, the Nicene Creed does not say that the Spirit is a Person.”
So, Filioque started to spread. It had some half-hearted opposition to it, too. For example, pope Leo III opposed the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed in the services. He did this by placing two large silver tablets containing the Creed without the Filioque in St. Peter’s, even though he personally believed in it.
Also, if you think that a couple of words weren’t worth fighting over, wait till we get to the yeast.
Indeed. Тhe fungus of discord, if you will.
The shroom of doom.
The Mushroom Kingdom of Heaven.
And that takes us to the issue of leavened and unleavened bread.
At one point, the Eastern Church noticed that the Western Church was using a suboptimal amount of leaven in their eucharistic bread.
Meaning none.
Luckily, there’s a plethora of historical evidence to show that… nah just kidding, Christians barely discussed the Eucharist in the early material, much less their favorite bread recipes, so we are left with guesswork.
Easterners were outraged by this culinary innovation, as they saw it. In fact, the debate got so heated that it overshadowed the filioque!
Now you’re wondering - how is yeast that important? And, again, we need to go way way waaay back, even further than the first two ecumenical councils, we have to go back to Old Testament times AD.
God commanded *a lot* of bread to be used in the Old Testament worship. Now, we all know the unleavened bread of the Passover, the most important of Jewish festivals. However, there was an additional sacrifice, the sacrifice of thanksgiving, that included loaves of bread made with yeast.
“Sacrifice,” “thanksgiving”... sounds suspiciously like the Eucharist.
But the primary focus of the controversy was which bread Christ was using during the Last Supper? Was it leavened or unleavened?
I’ll play the devil... ‘ZZZ advocate. So, the Latins were of the opinion that Christ was using unleavened bread because, well, the Last Supper occurred in the days of the Unleavened Bread, based on the synoptic Gospels.
Buuuut, the Orthodox argue, according to the Gospel of John, the Last Supper occurred during the preparation for the Passover. More importantly the word used for ‘unleavened bread’ in the Bible is ‘azyma,’ whereas leavened bread is ‘arthos.’ And while the all the Gospels state that the Last Supper occurred during the Days of the Unleavened Bread, or Preparation for them, using the word ‘azyma,’ all the Gospels and St. Paul call the bread used for the Last Supper ‘arthos’, or leavened bread.
As the designated devil’Z advocate, I must mention here that there are instances in the Bible where the word ‘arthos’ is used to indicate bread in general, meaning leavened and unleavened.
Which is like two or three times. Like, of all the instances of Bible mentioning bread, which is quite a lot, only two or three times does it refer to bread in general with ‘arthos.’
The reason for this fungal infection of a controversy is theological. Latins saw yeast as a symbol of corruption, or, to quote St. Paul, Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
But the Byzantines saw that using unleavened bread symbolized a soulless Christ, a weak God. They thought Latins to be Apollinarians, or, even worse, Episcopalian! Furthermore, they saw in this continuation of a Jewish practice, and we know how Christians were opposed to Judaizers, or Christians who continued with Jewish practices once they became Christians. Heck, Christians fasted on Wednesday and Friday in part to separate themselves from the Jewish practice of fasting on Monday and Thursday.
But didn’t t I just mention the sacrifice of praise from the Old-
Shut up.
And there you have it folks. We have a toxic concoction here that we expect to explode. We still lack one final ingredient, but we will discuss that in the next episode. Us Christians split up faster than stupid people in horror movies. We have also learned that before they got into the habit of backstabbing Serbs, the Bulgarians first backstabbed the Byzantines, then the Pope, then they did an undo on the Byzantine backstab. I can never hope to achieve such level of productivity.
No comments:
Post a Comment