» » East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence (Oxford History of the Christian Church)

Download East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence (Oxford History of the Christian Church) fb2

by Henry Chadwick
Download East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence (Oxford History of the Christian Church) fb2
World
  • Author:
    Henry Chadwick
  • ISBN:
    0199280169
  • ISBN13:
    978-0199280162
  • Genre:
  • Publisher:
    Oxford University Press; 1 edition (July 14, 2005)
  • Pages:
    316 pages
  • Subcategory:
    World
  • Language:
  • FB2 format
    1885 kb
  • ePUB format
    1551 kb
  • DJVU format
    1986 kb
  • Rating:
    4.1
  • Votes:
    471
  • Formats:
    mobi mbr rtf azw


The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 1071-1453 . (Church History). The history drops off at Florence with the words 'The Roman Curia would then treat them as Uniates' (final sentence in the book, and indicative of its lack of organization or narrative sense).

The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 1071-1453 . Aristeides Papadakis. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450-680 . The Church in History). The main thrust of the book is that of geography turned in to theology (denounced by Plested in his 'Orthodox Readings of Aquinas') - here, the case of the centripetal West and centrifugal East.

The greatest Christian split of all has been that between East and West, between Roman Catholic .

The greatest Christian split of all has been that between East and West, between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, a rift that is still apparent today. Drawing on an encyclopaedic command of the literature, the book starts with the roots of the divergence in apostolic times and takes the story right up to the Council of Florence in the 15th century.

Oxford History of the Christian Church). Starting with the roots of the divergence in Apostolic times, he takes the story right up to the Council The greatest Christian split of all has been that between east and west, between Roman Catholic and eastern Orthodox, which is still apparent today.

Oxford History of the Christian Church. ENG. Number of Pages. Oxford University Press (UK).

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 60. 0 19 926457 0 East and west. The making of a rift in the Church. From apostolic times until the Council of Florence. Oxford History of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 0 19 926457 0 - - Volume 55 Issue 2 - JOHN BINNS. Got it. We value your privacy.

Part of the Oxford History of the Christian Church Series). The greatest Christian split of all has been that between east and west, between Roman Catholic and eastern Orthodox, a rift that is still apparent today

Part of the Oxford History of the Christian Church Series). The greatest Christian split of all has been that between east and west, between Roman Catholic and eastern Orthodox, a rift that is still apparent today.

Series: Oxford History of the Christian Church (2003).

From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence. Drawing on his encyclopaedic command of the literature, he starts with the roots of the divergence in apostolic times and takes the story right up to the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century.

Publish date unknown, OXFORD UNIV PRESS. Created December 11, 2009.

East and west: the making of a rift in the church: from apostolic time. Publish date unknown, OXFORD UNIV PRESS. Libraries near you: WorldCat.

The greatest Christian split of all has been that between east and west, between Roman Catholic and eastern . Yazar hakkında (2003). Henry Chadwick is Emeritus Regius Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge.

The greatest Christian split of all has been that between east and west, between Roman Catholic and eastern Orthodox, which is still apparent today. Henry Chadwick provides a compelling and balanced account of the emergence of divisions between Rome and Constantinople. Starting with the roots of the divergence in Apostolic times, he takes the story right up to the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century.

Rleillin
There is certainly a fair amount of interest in the Orthodox Church as well as the causes of its estrangement from the west. The brilliant scholar Henry Chadwick (who died in 2008) has dedicated an entire volume to the controversy. As an Anglican Chadwick has no obvious bias. He has no vested interest in the papacy and no real sympathy with the Orthodox Church. Ironically the Anglican Church is less and less concerned with their continuity with the early church so many of them will find this book irrelevant as they would see the dispute to be about obscure trinitarian doctrine or unimportant liturgical practices. As an Orthodox Christian I would beg to differ!

Chadwick follows the school that sees the Great Schism as inevitable. This school places the roots in the earliest days of Christianity. I would disagree with him. Yes, there were disputes and squabbles that resulted in temporary breaks in communion with nothing to indicate this was inevitable. Chadwick glosses over the pre-ninth century fairly quickly. The heart of this book is the dispute between Popes Nicholas I, Hadrian, John and Patriarch Photius (chapters 16 to 30). There is a chapter on the azymes and 1054 (chapter 33). The rest of the book deals with various conciliatory individuals, conferences and schemes ending with the Council of Florence in 1439. The information becomes less detailed after the dispute over Photius which leads me to think that Chadwick originally wrote about Photius and then expanded it to cover a longer period of time. It is obvious that Chadwick considers the ninth century as much more important than 1054.

One thing I noticed is that Chadwick does not see the dispute between Ignatios and Photius as between a pro-Roman faction (Ignatians) and anti-Roman faction (Photians). Chadwick states 'Ignatius' record shows that he was not as pro-Roman as some of his supporters' (page 157). When Ignatios was restored to the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 867 he refused to allow Roman missionaries back into Bulgaria.

Chadwick doesn't have a lot of sympathy for Photius. I find his statement that 'Photius' Mystagogia is an irate work by an irritated angry man' (page 187) to be overly harsh. In fact the Mystagogia on the Holy Spirit is a fairly solid defence of traditional trinitarian theology. Chadwick finds it hard to reconcile Photius' conciliatory interactions with the papacy with the Mystagogia so he speculates that it was written after his second deposition. Of course, there is no evidence for this. Chadwick seems inclined to think that Photius might have been motivated by personal ambition.

One of the highlights of this book was the notes. I'm still trying to wrap my head around some of the primary sources so it's given me direction for further reading. The bibliography is equally useful.

This book is best read in conjunction with Steven Runciman's The Eastern Schism, Francis Dvornik's The Photian Schism and Aidan Nichols' Rome and the Eastern Churches. Chadwick's book is useful but it certainly isn't the definitive study on the estrangement between east and west.
Winn
6/10

Five stars for information, 4.5 for even-handedness, 2 for writing, 1 for organization and ending: the brief may just have been too big to fit in to 300 pages, but the task is in no way helped by Chadwick's scattered and sometimes annalistic style.

The history drops off at Florence with the words 'The Roman Curia would then treat them as Uniates' (final sentence in the book, and indicative of its lack of organization or narrative sense).

The main thrust of the book is that of geography turned in to theology (denounced by Plested in his 'Orthodox Readings of Aquinas') - here, the case of the centripetal West and centrifugal East. Thus Chadwick argues:

In the West: the fall of empire leading to the rise of the Church as an autonomous and overarching political authority, consisting of a slow trend towards centralization under the autocratic rule (and great temporal influence) of the Patriarch of the West, the Bishop of Old Rome, founded on the Western political situation and the Donation, and buttressed by centuries of decretals and canon law and his reception at various councils, especially in the Tome of Leo, and the tendency of some (like Cyril and others) to appeal to Rome as a court of last resort.

In the East, the existence but slow decay of empire; Imperial meddling in ecclesiastical policies and debates, and a sort of trend towards the devolution of power on several sees (at first, three of the patriarchates falling to the Hagarist armies by 700), the Constantinopolitan one usually having the Imperial backing (but sometimes not: sometimes the Pope allied with the Byzantine emperor against the Patriarch, sometimes the Pope and Patriarch allied against the emperor). In short, the existence of empire in the East and caesaropapism kept the church in the East from gathering to itself the autonomous exercise of temporal political power and even complete autonomy in spiritual matters taken for granted by the Patriarchs of the West, who were the Popes of Rome and the Princes of the Papal States.

This created two divergent church-political cultures, inversely mirroring their respective secular-political ones.

Now the schism: The Pope, used to autonomy and political authority (not to mention growing ecclesiastical autocracy) in the West, tried to extend his religious authority to the East (where caesaropapism and figurehead patriarchs of Constantinople meant this also was meddling in political authority); the emperor of Byzantium, used to imperium in the East, tried to extend his political authority to the West and 'regain the Western provinces' on several occasions. Since the Pope was also a prince and directly ruled many of these lands, and was used to spiritual and political autonomy, the Byzantine emperors' meddling in Western politics also meddled in religious authority.

Add to this a farce of errors with councils attempting to impose Eastern usages on the West and vice versa; several rounds of mutual excommunications; a lack of shared language and intercourse causing Western and Eastern religious usages to progressively diverge along with culture and national feeling; and at last a crusade which sacked Constantinople in 1204 and enforced the Latin usages in the Byzantine capital, and the schism - Chadwick admirably points this out, that the schism was a process, not an event: as known to every student of church history, the date of 1054 is a meaningless component of hagiographies and demonologies - which was 500 years in the making (from before the time of Leo the Isaurian) was consummated irreperably (though the hierarchies didn't acknowledge this in full until the failure of the Union of Brest/the Unia and the failure of the council of Basel-Florence-Ferrara): a schism which was political more than theological. A schism based in a clash of imperial politics with Petrine supremacy, a clash of a secular/caesaropapist Eastern empire with the temporal and political authority of the Pope in the regions of the former Western empire, with azymes, filioque, icons and statuary, epiclesis, etc. functioning more as pretexts, and with theological differences (in theology as opposed to customary usage) purposefully exaggerated for political purposes by both sides.

Note:

If you can't at least identify the main Western and all of the Alexandrine and Cappadocian fathers, trends in early theology, the organization, major events in, and trends in late Roman (ca 300 to 450) and Byzantine (ca 640-1450) imperial and military politics (cf Komnena, Procopius), the first seven councils (especially the Trinitarian and Christological ones), characters of the Fourth Crusade and its impact on Byzantium, Hadrian, John Cantacuzene, John, Ignatius, Hadrian, Photius (and familiar with which one of the Johns and Hadrians and Ignatii it is!), the Photian schism, its personalities and causes, the Acacian schism, the controversies of the icons, azymes, and filioque - if these things and men are foreign to you, skip this for now and go read John Julian Norwich, Leo Donald Davis, the 2nd through 3rd volumes of Jaroslav Pelikan, Duchesne, and the 3rd volume of Runciman's history of the fourth crusade first.

The thesis of this book is dependent on that history, and is continually cited by Chadwick - who, however, never gives more than a few-sentence precis of the events: the reader must already understand them, for Chadwick chains them together in new ways. The development of canon law, the decretals, Gelasius, etc. is elucidated here so you don't need to know much more about canon law than what it is; many but not all of the relevant political developments are also treated, though with a great variation of depth (limited by compressing 1500 years in to 300 pages), so you don't need to be an expert in medieval, papal, and Byzantine politics to follow the argument. Nevertheless, caveat lector.
Mr_Mix
It was not what I expected