Orthodoxy and Catholicism, A Brief History of Their Separation
An interesting overview of the seperation of Rome from the Church. Considering it's shortness, I thought it was very well written (ie. it's difficult to write accurately about 1600 years of history in so short a space). What does everyone else think?
Or... anyone interesting in a discussion on the fall of Catholicism in general? If so, how about the following, which I've been going over in my mind for a while now. Did humanism effect Roman/Western doctrine, or did certain doctrines (or theological tendencies) lead Rome/the West down a humanistic path? Or was it a bit of both? Let me give one example real quick (and there are lots of examples through which this chicken/egg problem could be explored, from icons to papal issues). Around the time that the west broke away from the Church, they started leaving off the ancient Church's practice of focusing on Christ and God (the Who of our salvation), and they started placing their focus more on the How and Why and so forth of our salvation; in other words, the focus went from God to man. The problem was not so much the asking of the questions being asked, but rather in leaving off of the focus on God; for while the focus was on God, asking the human-centered questions ("How are we saved?" "Why do we need saved?") would lead to answers from a God-centered perspective. Just as Christ himself is a God-man (both divine and human), and just as salvation itself is a theanthropic synergy (both human and divine elements), and just as the Church is theanthropic (composed of both human and divine parts), so to is the seeking after of truth (including knowledge of God and salvation) theanthropic. However, once the focus was no longer on God, but moved towards man, then the questions (even if they were fair questions), and especially the answers, grew more and more humanistic.
The question I have is, which came first? Was it distorted doctrines that corrupted the Church, and led it down the path to humanism? Ie. was it doctrine shaping doctrine (one faulty doctrine leading to another, and then to another?). Or was it more a case of humanism infecting the western mind (more on a cultural/political/societal level), and the humanism just eventually worked its way into the doctrine? Or is it a mix of both? Was there contributions towards the humanization of the west and Rome coming from both society in general and also doctrine (as unrelated influences which happen to be having the same effect)? A Catholic (or an inquirer) might very well ask us: "If you claim that the Catholic Church is humanistic, would you please tell me where, when, and why they began down that path"? And I think we have a responsibility to at least grapple with that question--even if we don't come to any definate conclusions. I've been struggling with it (in a positive way) for a couple months now... what do y'all think? As I said above, I think this chicken/egg thing could be asked regarding very many Catholic (not to mention Protestant) doctrines. I affirm the words of Justin Popovich regarding Catolicism and humanism*, but what do we mean when we affirm these words?
Justin
- I can dig up some links and quotes, if anyone is reading this and is unsure what words of Saint Justin I am speaking of.
) I asked "Was it distorted doctrines that corrupted the Church". Of course I don't think that God's Church, of which Christ is the head, could be distorted. I perhaps should have said the western Church or Roman Church, or Latin Church, differentiating it from the Orthodox Church.
