When did the split between East and West really happen?

Christogram (labarum) with Jesus Prayer in Rom...
Christogram (labarum) with Jesus Prayer in Romanian. Jesus Prayer in Romanian Doamne Iisuse Hristoase, Fiul lui Dumnezeu, miluieste-ma pe mine pacatosul. English translation Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, the sinner. This image appears on the cover of all editions of Romanian translation of Philokalia Français : Christogramme entouré de la Prière de Jésus en roumain (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Allan “I’ll be a Duke fan regardless of how awful they are until the day I die” Bevere points out another blogger’s post regarding the theological showdown in the Fourth Century. I’m just going to meme this and say it happened not just in the Fourth Century, but in 343 in the city of Sophia, Bulgaria, formerly known as Serdica. This council was called to remedy the continued war between those who were supporting a more reconciling station with Arius (the East) and those who sought to maintain the Apostolic tradition as handed down by the only begotten, but not made Son of God (the West).

Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra stood there, accused of blasphemy, murder, and treason. The Bishop of Rome, Julius I, defended them through his representatives. After all, he had shield them for some time now. But the Eastern bishops, being the sniveling little sots and sons of Arius that they were, refused to allow these two mighty men of God to take their place rightfully as Bishops, even though they were recognized and sponsored by the Pope. The Eastern bishops soon abandoned the council as they would abandon God the Father and the God the Son, to separate them as if one was lesser than the other. The Western Bishops attended to their duty and established a most forthright and beautiful creed, it was, to unite the one true Church. It reads:

We declare those men excommunicate from the Catholic Church who say that Christ is God, but not the true God; that He is the Son, but not the true Son; and that He is both begotten and made; for such persons acknowledge that they understand by the term ‘begotten,’ that which has been made; and because, although the Son of God existed before all ages, they attribute to Him, who exists not in time but before all time, a beginning and an end. Valens and Ursacius have, like two vipers brought forth by an asp, proceeded from the Arian heresy. For they boastingly declare themselves to be undoubted Christians, and yet affirm that the Word and the Holy Ghost were both crucified and slain, and that they died and rose again; and they pertinaciously maintain, like the heretics, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of diverse and distinct essences. We have been taught, and we hold the catholic and apostolic tradition and faith and confession which teach, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have one essence, which is termed substance by the heretics. If it is asked, ‘What is the essence of the Son?’ we confess, that it is that which is acknowledged to be that of the Father alone; for the Father has never been, nor could ever be, without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. It is most absurd to affirm that the Father ever existed without the Son, for that this could never be so has been testified by the Son Himself, who said, ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in Me;’ and ‘I and My Father are one.’ None of us denies that He was begotten; but we say that He was begotten before all things, whether visible or invisible; and that He is the Creator of archangels and angels, and of the world, and of the human race. It is written, ‘Wisdom which is the worker of all things taught me,’ and again, ‘All things were made by Him.’ He could not have existed always if He had had a beginning, for the everlasting Word has no beginning, and God will never have an end. We do not say that the Father is Son, nor that the Son is Father; but that the Father is Father, and the Son of the Father Son. We confess that the Son is Power of the Father. We confess that the Word is Word of God the Father, and that beside Him there is no other. We believe the Word to be the true God, and Wisdom and Power. We affirm that He is truly the Son, yet not in the way in which others are said to be sons: for they are either gods by reason of their regeneration, or are called sons of God on account of their merit, and not on account of their being of one essence, as is the case with the Father and the Son. We confess an Only-begotten and a Firstborn; but that the Word is only-begotten, who ever was and is in the Father. We use the word firstborn with respect to His human nature. But He is superior (to man) in the new creation (of the Resurrection), inasmuch as He is the Firstborn from the dead. We confess that God is; we confess the divinity of the Father and of the Son to be one. No one denies that the Father is greater than the Son: not on account of another essence, nor yet on account of their difference, but simply from the very name of the Father being greater than that of the Son. The words uttered by our Lord, ‘I and My Father are one,’ are by those men explained as referring to the concord and harmony which prevail between the Father and the Son; but this is a blasphemous and perverse interpretation. We, as Catholics, unanimously condemned this foolish and lamentable opinion: for just as mortal men on a difference having arisen between them quarrel and afterwards are reconciled, so do such interpreters say that disputes and dissension are liable to arise between God the Father Almighty and His Son; a supposition which is altogether absurd and untenable. But we believe and maintain that those holy words, ‘I and My Father are one,’ point out the oneness of essence which is one and the same in the Father and in the Son. We also believe that the Son reigns with the Father, that His reign has neither beginning nor end, and that it is not bounded by time, nor can ever cease: for that which always exists never begins to be, and can never cease. We believe in and we receive the Holy Ghost the Comforter, whom the Lord both promised and sent. We believe in It as sent. It was not the Holy Ghost who suffered, but the manhood with which He clothed Himself; which He took from the Virgin Mary, which being man was capable of suffering; for man is mortal, whereas God is immortal. We believe that on the third day He rose, the man in God, not God in the man; and that He brought as a gift to His Father the manhood which He had delivered from sin and corruption. We believe that, at a meet and fixed time, He Himself will judge all men and all their deeds. So great is the ignorance and mental darkness of those whom we have mentioned, that they are unable to see the light of truth. They cannot comprehend the meaning of the words: ‘that they may be one in us.’ It is obvious why the word ‘one’ was used; it was because the apostles received the Holy Spirit of God, and yet there were none amongst them who were the Spirit, neither was there any one of them who was Word, Wisdom, Power, or Only-begotten. ‘As Thou,’ He said, ‘and I are one, that they, may be one in us.’ These holy words, ‘that they may be one in us,’ are strictly accurate: for the Lord did not say, ‘one in the same way that I and the Father are one,’ but He said, ‘that the disciples, being knit together and united, may be one in faith and in confession, and so in the grace and piety of God the Father, and by the indulgence and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be able to become one.’

No doubt, Marcellus himself, the sainted man of God and loyal soldier of Christ, drafted most of this himself. Blessed be he.

If only we could replace Basil with Marcellus.

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

4 Replies to “When did the split between East and West really happen?”

  1. Interesting observation. Is “But the Eastern bishops, being the sniveling little sots and sons of Arius that they were…” a legitimate theological critique or actual historical fact? Do you have documentation of the snot? Or is there anecdotal evidence.

    I’m just ribbing you. Your post is very good, but when discussing historical events, let the history speak for itself. It’s fascinating to study the history of the battle over the heresy of Arianism. This conflict shaped much of our belief systems and continues today with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians.

    When writing about the events of the fourth century, you have to keep in mind what was going on at that time. The city of Rome was an ancient has-been, a run down slum. Think: the ancient version of Detroit. The Empire’s seat of power had moved on long before Constantine settled on Constantinople for his capitol (for a long time Roman emperors moved about the empire rarely visiting Rome and the senate followed) and by 343 the Italian peninsula was considered to be semi-abandoned and semi-civilized. The world was moving away from the city of Rome, even the international language of business had changed from Latin to Greek centuries before.

    So when conflict between the eastern and western bishops occurred you have to keep in mind that the Eastern bishops were considered the ‘true’ church because they moved with the seat of government to Constantinople and they considered their western brothers poor uncouth hicks who stayed behind. The western bishops in turn considered the eastern bishops rich stuffed shirts who had the ear of the emperor and little more (other than money). When viewing the personal conflicts this way the disputes of the 4th and 5th centuries start to sound a whole lot like the disputes of the 20th and 21st centuries.

  2. Wait a minute. No comments on this? Geez, I expected a little something.
    “maintain the Apostolic tradition as handed down by the only begotten”
    “But the Eastern bishops, being the sniveling little sots and sons of Arius that they were”
    “refused to allow these two mighty men of God”
    “established a most forthright and beautiful creed, it was, to unite the one true Church”

    I think this was a joke, but it is hard for me to tell when Joel is joking, and when he is serious. I vote for the East. The creed the biggest grouping of double-talk that I can imagine. :-). Maybe something got lost in the translation.

  3. As we know, Athanasius and Marcellus were the strongest advocates of the “Nicene party”, and had similar difficulties with the opposing Arians, semi-Arians and Eusebians. Then Athanasius (the more “political” of the two), ended up gradually abandoning the “one hypostasis” and, at the Synod of Alexandria (362 AD), sealed the “Great Compromise” with the Cappadocian scoundrels (with their “one ousia in three hypostases”). Marcellus never compromised, and ended up isolated and treated like a heretic, although he was never formally condemned as one, and, at least, Athanasius never pandered to Basil of Caesarea’s request to betray him.

    So, here are two little thoughts.

    Isn’t it funny that the staunchest and uncompromising advocate of the (original!) Nicene creed (325), which is conventionally considered as the foundation of the established doctrine of the “trinity”, was himself the staunchest and uncompromising opposer (not only of Arians, semi-Arians, homoiousians, anomoeans etc., but also) of the “orthodox doctrine” of the “trinity” (“one ousia in three hypostases”)?
    And why is it that Protestants early champions (Luther, Calvin, the lot), while they criticized so many Catholic doctrines, went mad at Michael Servetus, when he exposed the “trinity” for the Greek-heathen mysterian mess that it is?

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.