From a political point of view, the separation of the empire into two camps was an inevitability the moment Constantine split the empire between his two sons, as the empire itself was already in decline, and would be unable to maintain a central hold over such a vast estate.
From a doctrinal perspective, Jerusalem should have been the centre of the Christendom. Paul regarded Jerusalem as the 'mother church' and collected monies from his Gentile churches to bring to her, before commencing his mission to Rome, and thence to Spain.
For Luke, the author of Acts, it wasn't to be. The disputes between Christians and Jews were never so severe than at Jerusalem, as the attempts to assassinate Paul signify. The Fathers of the Church in Jerusalem obliged Paul to participate in a PR stunt to mollify the hardliners, which backfired. Paul was taken into protective custody by the Romans. The hardliners then forced the Church Fathers to participate in another attempt on his life, by making them call for Paul's return to Jerusalem to face charges, at which point he would be killed. Jerusalem had lost its moral centre and was subject to hardline coercion from without. The Church would never flourish there.
Rome it was, then.
+++
Meanwhile the empire in the East, at Constantinople, or 'New Rome' as they saw themselves, began their political ascendency. Under the emperor, the See of Constantinople usurped the traditional authority of its older brothers, Jerusalem (only nominal now), Alexandria and Antioch. Only Rome stood in the way.
+++
In the West, the Church had shown itself resistant to all attempts to determine doctrine according to political expediency. The East was not so successful. When Egypt separated from Rome over a Christological dispute, the empire lost the Egyptian wheatcrop, the breadbasket of the empire, and a huge economic resource.
The East moved to prevent any repetition of such events simply by forbidding the discussion of doctrine — which failed. The State was moving to control the Church, its thinking and its freedom, and was resisted. The Fathers of the East looked to Rome, and Pope Martin I, assisted by the genius of the monk Maximos, continued to argue against heresy.
The Pope and the monk were tricked, arrested and conveyed to Constantinople, where they were tortured and exiled, to die of the injuries they suffered. Maximos, his hand cut off and his tongue torn out, was hailed 'The Confessor' for refusing to allow 'the true doctrine' to be declared subservient to political expediency.
Matters came to a head a century later when, in an attempt to offer a sop to their Moslem neighbours, Emperor Leo III sought to ban religious imagery, and this led to the persecutions of Iconoclasm. Here the State was resisted by the people (there were riots in Constantinople) but moreso by the monks. The State reacted with violence against its own Christian community with slaughters not seen since the Roman persecutions.
Whilst the East will cite theological reasons for the reality of the schism, this is not the case. St Maximus himself pointed out that disputes arose because of the difference of language, not of theology, and could easily be resolved. He went unheeded. Constantinople was bent on succeeding Rome as the seat of the Empire.
It is a tragic fact that the theology of the Church was shaped by the Greek Fathers, but it was the enforced 'integralism' of Constantinople that brought an end to that rich stream of theological thought. St John Damascene for example, who although Christian served the office of the Caliph of Damascus and was an ambassador between Christianity and Islam, vigourously opposed the Iconoclasm and wrote much defending the images and relics that Leo III was destroying. Leo III then forged a letter, supposedly signed by John, offering to betray Damascus to her enemies. The Caliph had his right hand cut off, and sent him away.
St John Damascene is regarded as the last of the Fathers, and in fact is regarded as the only Father never to have put pen to a theological error, despite his magisterial "A Complete Exposition of the True Faith". He was a member of the council that decided the dispute.
But Eastern Theological freedom would never rise to its former glory as more and more the Church in the East was seen as an extension of the State. It was only a matter of time before East and West would separate, seemingly irrevocably.
On what theological nicety that was, was largely immaterial.
Thomas
From a doctrinal perspective, Jerusalem should have been the centre of the Christendom. Paul regarded Jerusalem as the 'mother church' and collected monies from his Gentile churches to bring to her, before commencing his mission to Rome, and thence to Spain.
For Luke, the author of Acts, it wasn't to be. The disputes between Christians and Jews were never so severe than at Jerusalem, as the attempts to assassinate Paul signify. The Fathers of the Church in Jerusalem obliged Paul to participate in a PR stunt to mollify the hardliners, which backfired. Paul was taken into protective custody by the Romans. The hardliners then forced the Church Fathers to participate in another attempt on his life, by making them call for Paul's return to Jerusalem to face charges, at which point he would be killed. Jerusalem had lost its moral centre and was subject to hardline coercion from without. The Church would never flourish there.
Rome it was, then.
+++
Meanwhile the empire in the East, at Constantinople, or 'New Rome' as they saw themselves, began their political ascendency. Under the emperor, the See of Constantinople usurped the traditional authority of its older brothers, Jerusalem (only nominal now), Alexandria and Antioch. Only Rome stood in the way.
+++
In the West, the Church had shown itself resistant to all attempts to determine doctrine according to political expediency. The East was not so successful. When Egypt separated from Rome over a Christological dispute, the empire lost the Egyptian wheatcrop, the breadbasket of the empire, and a huge economic resource.
The East moved to prevent any repetition of such events simply by forbidding the discussion of doctrine — which failed. The State was moving to control the Church, its thinking and its freedom, and was resisted. The Fathers of the East looked to Rome, and Pope Martin I, assisted by the genius of the monk Maximos, continued to argue against heresy.
The Pope and the monk were tricked, arrested and conveyed to Constantinople, where they were tortured and exiled, to die of the injuries they suffered. Maximos, his hand cut off and his tongue torn out, was hailed 'The Confessor' for refusing to allow 'the true doctrine' to be declared subservient to political expediency.
Matters came to a head a century later when, in an attempt to offer a sop to their Moslem neighbours, Emperor Leo III sought to ban religious imagery, and this led to the persecutions of Iconoclasm. Here the State was resisted by the people (there were riots in Constantinople) but moreso by the monks. The State reacted with violence against its own Christian community with slaughters not seen since the Roman persecutions.
Whilst the East will cite theological reasons for the reality of the schism, this is not the case. St Maximus himself pointed out that disputes arose because of the difference of language, not of theology, and could easily be resolved. He went unheeded. Constantinople was bent on succeeding Rome as the seat of the Empire.
It is a tragic fact that the theology of the Church was shaped by the Greek Fathers, but it was the enforced 'integralism' of Constantinople that brought an end to that rich stream of theological thought. St John Damascene for example, who although Christian served the office of the Caliph of Damascus and was an ambassador between Christianity and Islam, vigourously opposed the Iconoclasm and wrote much defending the images and relics that Leo III was destroying. Leo III then forged a letter, supposedly signed by John, offering to betray Damascus to her enemies. The Caliph had his right hand cut off, and sent him away.
St John Damascene is regarded as the last of the Fathers, and in fact is regarded as the only Father never to have put pen to a theological error, despite his magisterial "A Complete Exposition of the True Faith". He was a member of the council that decided the dispute.
But Eastern Theological freedom would never rise to its former glory as more and more the Church in the East was seen as an extension of the State. It was only a matter of time before East and West would separate, seemingly irrevocably.
On what theological nicety that was, was largely immaterial.
Thomas
