As I am known to shy away from controversial topics. :rolleyes:

I read this today and wanted some opinions of it.

http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/nichols.htm

Please don't shoot the messenger!

Father Aidan Nichols (a man whom I have always admired) raises some interesting points, and in his final few paragraphs suggests that Orthodox catholic Christianity could use some of the improvements being under Roma would bring... Any changes to the ecclesiology which would return us to the state of the early church are most welcome in my book. However if he should suggest even one new discipline not actually in force (and verifiable) before the time of St Photios I say no, not acceptable.

He does certainly make several positive suggestions, it shows that he is sympathetic to Orthodoxy's point of view and is thinking in the right direction.

But restoration and reconciliation are what we should pursue in building the universal church of Christ, not compromise. The Latin church is always free to become a fully autocephalic Orthodox Christian Apostolic church in communion with all the other fully autocephalic churches. The gate is not locked.

+T+
Michael

An excellent article. I think the defining moment of the schism between East and West occurred on December 25, 800 A.D. when the Pope crowned Charlemagne as the Holy Roman Emperor.

Prior to that date, the West ostensibly looked to the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Emperor as the political head of the empire, although most of the western half of the empire had been overrun by the barbarians. Emperor Justinian actually managed to take back much of the West, including Rome itself, from the barbarians in the 6th century, but subsequest emperors were unable to hold on to the conquests.

Nevertheless, the fiction remained that the Emperor in New Rome (Constantinople) was the Emperor of the entire Roman Empire. The crowning of Charlemagne in 800 A.D. ended the fiction once and for all.

It is interesting to note that the last General Council recognized by both East and West was a mere 13 years before the crowning of Charlemagne.

One final thought: The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

There were supposed to be 2 Emperors for the Empire. At one stage they even subdivided the 1/2 again to include an area in each 1/2 ruled by Augusti. That does not seem to have lasted very long before they went back to the 2 Emperor model. It is incredible that the Roman Emperors lasted right up to the capture of Constantinople. I dont hink the Eastern Emperor was ever regarded as the Emperor of the whole empire. He was the only one of the 2 Emperors left when the western line ceased.

KB! BB!

ICXC
NIKA

At one time the ideal of one world-encompassing Christian commonwealth was widely accepted in the Roman Empire after Constantine, naturally by the Christian subjects of that empire.

As the Roman State continued to shrink the hope remained, and the emperors in the East understood the value of a unified Christianity within the bounds of empire as well as appreciated the value of Christian missions as a first step in incorporating (or reincorporating) the known world into the empire.

Of course nowadays we see that idea has gone the same way the 'Divine Right of Kings' has gone. But at the time of the crowning of Charlemagne the dream of one unified Christian Commmonwealth was thoroughly shattered. The west had turned it's back on the old east and things were never the same since.

The western 'Holy' empire continued to morph, and became a danger to the church as much as or more than a help. The papacy, left to it's own devices and threatened by the empire it had all but once created was immersed in Italian politics for centuries.

+T+
Michael

I'd be pedantic and say 'when the Pope ATTEMPTED TO CROWN Charlemagne as the Holy Roman Emperor'. Pope St Leo had no right to do that in the first place.

In AM 1460 and 1080 we have a Catholic radio station that has 2 different signals to reach the St. Louis area which actually spreads even down where I live. (Which is about an hour south of St. Louis.)

Anyway, one day after driving home from Divine Liturgy with my son in the back seat (he got some Legos for being a good boy during the Liturgy which was 90% in Ukrainian!) we heard a program about Medieval Church History by Fr. Michael Witt.

He describes the coronation of Charlemagne as written by his biographer. Supposedly Charlemagne was kneeling in prayer in St. Peter's and all of a sudden the Pope came up right behind him and put the crown on his head. The gesture infuriated the new emperor as he was a humble man.

Yeah right! Charlemagne was huge for his day and age, he was somewhere between 6'3" and 6'4" when most men were lucky to be over 5 and a half feet tall. How is anyone going to sneak up on a guy with huge clod hoppers and drop a crown on him. Also, did the choir and orchestra that were there also sneak up as well?

Even way back then people were politicking and using spin doctors!

What is interesting is that had he married Irene as was proposed, the Old Roman Empire would have been reunified in toto.