1. You write something that should be corrected. You write, “Patriarch Simeon II as the duly governing Patriarch, but when he died in exile, after being carried off by the Turks to Cyprus, the crusading army elected a Latin Patriarch.” The Latin Patriarchate in Jerusalem was established in 1099 AD. The rightful Patriarch of Jerusalem, Simeon II, lived on until 1106.
I would be curious to know the source of this. The sources I’ve consulted all indicate he probably died in 1099.
“Symeon of Jerusalem, watching from Cyprus, must have wondered about his future rights. He was never to know. He died in Cyprus, a few days before the Crusdaders entered into Jerusalem, in July 1099. The Crusaders found at Jerusalem neither a Patriarch nor the higher clergy of the Patriarchate. Symeon was dead, and his bishops were still in exile. It seemed perfectly reasonable for the Latins to elect a Patriarch from amongst their own bishops. No one bothered to consider the canonicity of the appointment, dubious though it was; and in the absence of the Greek bishops and a Greek candidate, the Orthodox throughout Palestine accept the Latin candidate without demur. ” (The Eastern Shcism, Runciman, p. 87)
“It seems likely that when Symeon died in Cyprus in 1099, the Greek bishops from Palestine who were with him there took it upon themselves to elect a successor. They could argue that they were legally justified; and, though they could not return to Palestine themselves, they regarded the Latin hierarchy set up there as intrusive. They stayed in Cyprus, out of touch with their former flocks, who had accepted the Latins” (ibid, p 91)
“By and large the arrangement established in the patriarchate of Jerusalem immediately after the fall of the Holy City to the crusaders (15 July 1099) followed the Antioch pattern. Whether the crusaders at the time were actually aware that the lawful primate incumbent, patriarch Symeon of Jerusalem, was dead, is not certain. Probably the news that he died in Cyprus, days before the fall of the Holy City, had no reached them” ( The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, Papadakis, p. 94)
“Initially the church authorities in Constantinople seem to have taken no action when, after the death of the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Symeon II, in 1099, the Franks appointed Latin Patriarchs” (The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church, Bernard Hamilton, see link)
But even if one could argue that it was possible for Simeon II to have lived until 1106, there is no evidence that the Crusaders were aware of his surviving.
2. You write, “William of Tyre, albeit recording in the Latin defense, states that John V had willfully retired seeing that he could not usefully preside over Latins as a Greek.” It sounds to me that you correctly identify that his “retirement” was either doubtful or forced. Being that he continued to consider himself Patriarch for another 55 years(!), it is safe to say he was forcefully exiled.
Probably. But he did not consider himself Patriarch for another 55 years. In 1100, John V left Antioch and resigned Patriarchal office in Constantinople. The Greeks there elected a successor for Antioch, despite being in exile from it. C.f. Runciman, Eastern Schism, pp. 91-92.
3. The schism was not complete by 1204, as you posit, and you even cite examples to the contrary. So I think your point here in saying it was not really important that the Latins set up a parallel church to be unconvincing.
Prior to the Latin patriarchs/clergy in the East, there was a real schism, nonetheless. And when these occupations ceased to exist (they are, after all, long gone, and were long gone before the Council of Lyons/Florence), the reality of schism persisted. But even then, there are exceptions to this rule. Consult Orthodox and Catholics in the Seventeenth Century: Schism or Intercommunion? (1972) by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, as well as his Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church Under Turkish Rule (1964). And this would, if anything, only further call into question the “silver bullet” of the Crusade argument that Truglia is making vis-a-vis the Optatian principle. The fact of the matter is this, the Greeks understood the Latins to have ruptured their relationship with the true Church with the filioque doctrine, its insertion into the creed, the use of azymes, and the Papal claims. These doctrinal and canonical divergences were there far before the Crusades were launched, and they were still there as the principal cause of the schism far after the parallel-church matter was long gone.
4. You cite that the Orthodox considered Latins schismatics because they were heretics, not because of the whole second chair issue. I dispute this. St Mark of Ephesus, himself a moderate Papalist and coming to Ferrara with the view the Latins could be convinced and have their views tweeked said the following one liner when he started hearing their views: “They are not only schismatics, they are also heretics!” So clearly, he was able to differentiate between their schism and their doctrinal heresies to even make the comment. So, just because some Orthodox seem not to (I think there are some Orthodox who even think it is *they* who left Rome and not the other way around), they would be both historically ignorant and ecclesiologically mistaken.
A distinction, but not always a separation. Many times a heresy is the direct cause of schism. For Mark of Ephesus, it was the addition of the filioque, which far predates the launch of the crusades by Pope Urban, and even more so before his successor Pascal. Nothing about a 2nd altar or chair comes up. Mark writes:
“The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do”
“It was they who gave grounds for the schism by openly making the addition [the Filioque] which, until then they had spoken in secret, while we were the first to separate ourselves from them, or rather, to separate and cut them off from the common Body of the Church. Why, may I ask? Because they have the right Faith or have made the addition [to the Creed] in an Orthodox fashion? Surely whoever would begin to talk like that would not be right in the head? But rather because they have an absurd and impious opinion and for no reason at all made the addition. And so we have turned away from them, as from heretics, and have shunned them.” (Encyclical Letter of Mark of Ephesus, Orthodox Ethos)
5. John X of Constantinople did not die in 1204 (the year the Latins made a replacement, it appears the Pope made it official in May of 1205). The rightful patriarch died in exile in April/May of 1206.
Was this a correction of something I said in the article?
6. I do not think you have showed from St Optatus that he viewed that Rome, if they had conducted the sort of activities the Donatists did by setting up a parallel church, would have avoided schism by virtue of being the one ecclesiastical constant that all ecclesiastical bodies hinge upon. In fact, such a view would have eviscerated his own point in even pointing out that those who set up second chairs are in fact the schismatics. This seems to me fairly obvious when reading Optatus, and other early writers like Cyprian, but I honestly believe Roman Catholic apologists are so captive to a circular epistemology that they cannot come to grips with this.
On the contrary, If you read book 2 , chapter 1, Optatus reaches a point where he will expound on the “endowments” or “adornments” given to the true Church by which he is what she is, and chapter 2 opens up with the “Chair of Peter” being one of these adornments, and plants it in Rome by the Apostle Peter himself. No preface about a Donatist schism in Rome calling forth this general reference to Rome or the Apostle Peter. That is a fact after the matter.
Doubly on the contrary, Dr. Ed Siecienski, an Eastern Orthodox scholar and chief Byzantinist on the subject at current, comments on the Optatian argumentation far extending the merely Petrine line versus Victorian line:
“In the Western Church the decades following the Council of Constantinople witnessed an increase in the power and prestige of Rome, as Damasus’s heirs continued to strengthen the ties between themselves and the great apostle. We see during this period, in the writings of Pope Siricius (384-89) and Boniface (418-22), the first indications of the Bishop of Rome’s “mystical” connection to Peter, who continued to exercise authority through his successor. Even in places like Africa, which had historically been resistant to Roman interference, the Donatist heresy led orthodox writers like Optatus to stress the church’s catholicity and the “single fellowship of communion” enjoyed by all the churches joined with the Church of Rome. Rome, after all, was “the first episcopal see . . . which was occupied by Peter the head of the apostles . . . so that in this one see unity might be preserved by all, lest the other apostles should maintain their own.” (The Papacy and the Orthodox, p. 165)
Also, check out his footnote (#124) which references Robert Eno’s article in the Thomist on Optatus and African ecclesiology.
It seems really silly, but I think it is worth everyone here watching the following clip from Big Daddy. Please watch, because it is very important because it helps us grasp the key weakness in Roman apologetics
Now, let me frame the above discussion as if it were between a RC and Orthobro:
Debate about “who started the schism”
RC: The Pope did not start the schism, because Popes cannot schism by default.
Orthobro: But, the saints literally define “schism” as setting up a parallel church body and by all accounts the RCs did this and continued this policy, maintaining Latin Patriarchates for almost 1,000 years.
RC: Well, that does not matter because even though that’s how non-Popes go into schism, Pope’s cannot go into schism by default.
This is literally the debate, and quite frankly, the Roman position is terrible. In my honest opinion, no one in good conscience can convert to Roman Catholicism precisely for this reason.
Well, I must say that I am surprised to see one who holds the receptionist view of infallible Councils to exemplify what it means for the pot to call the kettle black. Effectively, these so-called “infallible” Councils are stripped of their own authority to say they have reached final irreformability, and it is only the groups which say “I win” or “You lose” that form the criteria of infallible councils. The Orthodox themselves have called this out. But in reality, this is not all that bad. The Orthodox don’t believe the Church, by definition, can go into schism. So if an Anglican, who holds to the Branch Theory, or a history-respecting Reformed Protestant, or even a free-Church Evangelical, were to be playing cards with a traditional Eastern Orthodox, and the accusation to the Orthodox were to be stated as “The Orthodox Church is in schism from the true body of Christ”, the Eastern Orthodox Christian would insist that such a thing is impossible. There is a healthy circularity in the domain of divine revelation, and none of us should shy away from it. But there are reasons why Craig’s point really does fail to represent Catholicism. In the first place, he is wrong that the Saints simply define schism as a parallel bishopric presiding at a parallel alter (c.f. Mark of Ephesus above). If that were *the* definition of schism, then the parallel Alexandrian hierarchy established after the condemnation of Dioscorus in 451 by the Chalcedonian episcopate would have been a schismatic act, but this isn’t how Chalcedonians view it. Rather, Dioscorus withdrew himself from the Church of God, and so was excised from the Church through conciliar decree. It was not that the Chalcedonian episcopate went into schism. Similarly, schism was also understood as a withdrawal of a major clerics name from the diptcyhes (c.f. John X of Constantinople’s letter to Pope Innocent III). In the case of the Eastern Churches not in union with Rome, we are safe to say that, even though the crusades were a landmark which put the schism into the hearts of the people of both East/West, there was a schism prior to this which had causes far exceeding the nature of parallel episcopates, and this is why when the latter were done and gone, the schism persisted.
We can get into a thousand different examples, such as the whole world rejecting Victor I’s excommunication, the whole world rejecting Stephen I’s excommunication, the vast majority of the world (with the exception of the Italian peninsula perhaps) rejecting Meletius’ excommunication, and etc. How can we seriously maintain that the whole Church bought into such an absurd view of schism, as I see being expounded here by the RC side?
This is just historically erroneous. The “whole world” did not reject Victor’s excommunication. I see no sign of that from Eusebius’s account of the event. How did it end? We read from Eusebius – “Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.” (Eusebius V.24). However, it wouldn’t appear that this is how it ended, at least for long. Those who held to the Jewish schedule were soon severed from the Asian episcopate itself. At the Council of Nicaea (325), the settlement over the date of Easter was not some long-drawn out reception of Rome’s original decree on the matter from back in the 2nd-century concerning Asiatics. It would appear, that had been resolved by then. Rather, as St. Athanasius tells us, it was not the Asiatics that concerned the Council of Nicaea, but rather the “Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians” who were “out of order in celebrating the feast, and kept Easter with the Jews” (De Synodis; PG 26.688). Those who observed Eastern otherwise were considered schismatic by then. In any case, no hint of a universal rejection of Rome’s sentence on Asia. If that were the case, Eusebius would have said so. Rather, Eusebius seems to think the matter came to “peace”. But we really don’t know how it ended, truthfully. The same should be said for Stephen’s excommunication. Especially for Meletios. No evidence exists of his excommunication from the body of Christ decreed by Rome.
As for whether the universal Church accepted the Papal theory, one needn’t read further than the history behind the Councils of Ephesus (431), Ephesus (449), and Chalcedon (451) to see the Church’s belief about the Papacy. In fact, one of the most pre-eminent Saints of the Eastern tradition, St. Theodore the Studite, said this in a letter to Pope Leo:
“Because Christ the God gave to great Peter together with the keys of the kingdom the office of pastoral primacy, it is to Peter, that is, to his successor that it is necessary to refer whatever innovation is attempted by those who err from the truth. It is this that we, the humble and least, have been always taught by our fathers” (Letter 33; PG 99:1017)
Greek Orthodox Professor of Philosophy, Fr John Panteleimon Manoussakis, comments on this short passage from St. Theodore:
“It is interesting to note in the case of this letter that St. Theodore affirms three points pertinent to our discussion: a) that Peter (and subsequently his successor) is given by Christ a certain primacy in accordance with Matt 16:18; b) that this primacy is personal, that is, exercised by a person (Peter, Peter’s successor); and c) that this view was ‘always taught by our fathers’, that is, it was not a personal sentiment of St. Theodore but a perennial belief shared by the fathers of old. The history of the first millennium leaves no room for doubting that the Pope’s primacy in terms of such Petrine ministry was universally acknowledged and accepted even by the Greek-speaking Church. Theologically, there is no reason why the Orthodox Church should not do the same presently” (For the Unity of All: Contributions to the Theological Dialogue between East and West, p. 36; translation of Theodore also taken from the same)
At the end of the day, Truglia’s historical hermeneutic won’t allow for the embrace of any authoritative ecclesiology. In his mind, if there be ambiguity in primitive times, then all times are given the fate of ambiguity. But this is a crypto-Protestantism brought into the Orthodox Church. Pope’s can’t issue irreformable doctrine, nor discipline outside her Patriarchate (unless invited to). Councils can err, and are not, a priori, nor ipso facto, endowed with infallible authority. Bishops can certainly err. Saints can certainly err. And yet, for Truglia, the Church “cannot err”. Forgive me, but I fail to see how this does not match the Reformed Protestant distinctives. The Reformed believe that the “elect”, which is the “new Israel”, and thus the “Church of Christ”, cannot revert to apostasy, heresy, or schism from Christ. And so there is posited some sort of invisible infallibility existing in this invisible host of members that claim the name of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Church, for Truglia, can’t really ever specify in an authoritative manner what the faith really is. She is forever bound up in the spontaneous, the fluid, the shadow of mysticism, and the escape of rationalism. And thus, even if one were to try and espouse a sort of Conciliar Supremacy, this too, along with Papal supremacy, would be inadmissible to those of his thinking. All Conciliar decrees are at the risk of annulment, rejection, abrogation, or acceptance, and finally, entrance into the Church’s liturgy. And it is there, for once, that one might sense a note of the concrete. Lex orandi, lex credendi, as it goes. Only, I am all too curious how this works, given that Pope St. Leo the Great, a sure Papalist as acknowledged by virtually all historians, makes his way into the Orthodox Church’s hymnography. For instance:
“O Champion of Orthodoxy, and teacher of holiness, The enlightenment of the universe and the inspired glory of true believers.O most wise Father Leo, your teachings are as music of the Holy Spirit for us!Pray that Christ our God may save our souls!” (Troparian – Tone 8)
“O glorious Leo, when you rose to the Bishop’s throne, You shut the lions’ mouths with the true doctrine of the Holy Trinity:You enlightened your flock with the knowledge of God.Therefore you are glorified, O seer of things divine!” (Kontakion – Tone 3)
In the Church’s celebration of Orthodoxy Sunday, where the Synodikon is chanted, they say:
“To them who reject the teachings which were pronounced for the establishment of the true doctrines of the Church of God by the Holy Fathers Athanasios, Cyril, Ambrose, Amphilochios the God-proclaiming, Leo the most holy Archbishop of Old Rome, and by all the others, and furthermore, who do not embrace the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, especially those of the Fourth, I say, and of the Sixty”
I have cataloged more than 15 non-Catholic historians and their comments concerning the ecclesiology of St. Leo. Unless Craig thinks all 15 of these renowned scholars of history have, as he would think, pretzels for brains, I think he should take their commentary very seriously. Now, one might retort , “Nowhere in there is Leo’s Papalism endorsed!“. But that isn’t so much the point here. The point is that St. Leo is being upheld as a standard for holy orthodoxy, as a person. And since , according to Orthodox spirituality, one only obtains this through direct participation in the energies of God through which one is deified, then Leo’s Papalism was, at the very least, compatible with said deification. “It wasn’t condemned yet!“. True, and it has yet to be condemned by the Eastern Orthodox. It is interesting, however, to see how all the rationalistic apologetics for which Catholics are so pompously belittled for bringing to the table end up being the very same method coming out of the mouth of certain Orthodox apologists. Sure, “it wasn’t condemned yet!” is right, and it remains to be. And what opportunity there was! I am curious, as well, to know if, once there is a Council which condemns the “heresy” of the Papacy, if all the Sainted Popes of the East in the first 10 centuries will be cataloged, just like Honorius was cataloged alongside the Monothelites at the 6th-council, since, of course, it was by then that they were condemned. Truly, with the amount of Papal claims coming from the Orthodox Popes, one might say Honorius should be forgiven straight-away for 2 measly letters which were ambiguous anyhow. Yes, there is something to the Church’s canonization of a person, just like there is something to the Church’s anathema of a person. Moreover, something about this “Nowhere in there is Leo’s Papalism endorsed!” which carries irony. Catholics are always being chided for their rationalist conditions by which they parse out portions of the past doctrine as “infallible” versus other “fallible” material, since this serves as an opportunity to point out the post de facto pseudo-engineering of the Papal intellectual gymnastic. And yet, here we are, with the Orthodox parsing out portions of “infallible” versus “fallible” content within the Church’s Councils (can’t let Philip the Presbyter’s famous citation from Ephesus 431 be accepted!) and liturgy. Leo-the-Christologist, not Leo-the-Papalist. Agatho-the-Christologist, not Agatho-the-Papalist. Augustine-the-oops, not Augustine-the-Filioquist. So on and so forth. Ah, yes. The parsing and conditioning. I’ll remember this the next time the drone goes off about the Latins engineering their pre-made partitions by which to build the super-structure of novel heresies. But there is more, you see. “He didn’t mean what Vatican I meant!“. Let’s review. He wrote a letter to Archbishop St. Flavian with the intention that it would be sufficient to explain the correct teaching on our Lord’s duality of manhood and Godhood. He receives appeals from Ecumenical Councils, and overturns their sentences. He claims to be able to annul canons put forth by the Council, on the authority he inherited by occupying the throne of St. Peter the Apostle. The Council, when seeking to handle properly the uncanonical consecration of Maximus for the Archbishopric of Antioch (since Domnus was still technically the occupant), Chalcedon justifies the continuance of Maximus because “Leo judged”. The very Patriarch of Constantinople admits that the decrees and canons of the Council are reserved for the Pope’s decision, to which Leo undoubtedly corroborated in both word and deed. What was it that was the highest authority in the Orthodox Church? A Council? Well, here is a perfect example of a Pope exercising authority both over the Council, and without being accountable to it. And on a matter of doctrine, no less than discipline.
“It was a minority view!” – If the Papal claims are a minority view, I’d hate to have to be the one to find out what the majority was. Recall, Arianism was more hell after Nicaea; not before. Pope St. Celestine I instructed his legates to Ephesus (431) that they were to “enter into no contest“, but only to execute “what had already been decided by the Apostolic See”. Let’s say the Eastern bishops disagreed (they didn’t). What then? The legates of Rome, being the only Latins present, still represented half the oikumene! There goes the majority. So it would seem that Truglia’s hermeneutic disables him from not just any Papal theory, but also all Conciliar theories, since the latter come short of making the majority. Especially if we are going to, alongside Fr. Manoussakis, believe St. Theodore the Studite who said that every novelty must be referred to Peter’s successor, on account of Christ’s bestowal of universal pastoral authority, as a matter which had been delivered by “the fathers of old“, which is another way of saying the ecclesiastical tradition of both East and West.
“Don’t look at their words, look at their actions!” – Lastly, we are told that whatever words might have been uttered aloud, or penned down on scroll for which a copy or more exists today for us to read, it is only worth a nickel compared to the 100 dollar bill of what is done with actions. After all, actions speak louder than words. And so, just by the fact that the bishops of the 1st millennium gathered into Councils is indicative that they never held to the Papacy. I wonder, then, how the Latins, far after their promotion of the Hildebrandian Reform, continued to meet into Councils. In fact, we just had one of the largest Councils known to Church history just 50+ years ago, and whose dynamic was not so much a Pope writing the answer to everyone’s questions, but even welcomed the contribution of theologians, i.e. the un-ordained, let alone non-Bishops. Clearly, since in the first millennium, men such as St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. John of Damascus, St. Theodore the Studite, and St. Augustine are given the doctrinal crowns, where Pope’s almost rarely participate. Surely, there was no Papacy during this time. Well, I wonder then, how St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Blessed Duns Scotus, Nicholas of Cusa, St. Robert Bellarmine, and Blessed John Henry Newman all ended up influencing more of the theology which came from Popes than from Popes themselves. But you see, those Councils held in the 2nd-millennium are far different. There, it is only what the Pope ratifies that gets accepted as part of the Concilium. Well, that seems to approximate to Pope St. Celestine, Pope St. Leo, Pope St. Agatho, Vigilius, and even Pope John VIII from engagements with the Greek Councils. And do we even need to rehearse the history of the Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas? Talk about actions, minus words. Here, the Eastern Patriarchates give in to revising the Council of Chalcedon, and rejecting Pope St. Leo’s tome, and, upon venturing into a schism stretching 30+ years, have to sign a document which spells out the Papal claims in clearest fashion. “But the East didn’t really embrace that part of the Formula!” – Very well, then the East entered into communion with Papists, knowing they were Papists. And let’s not forget that with the amount of bishops, and the amount of times, the Tome of St. Hormisdas had been signed by Eastern representatives, we more assent than all the Councils of the first millennium put together. Far from a minority report.