How can the Great Schism be resolved?

I am referring to the 1054 East-West Schism which broke up the Christian Church into two separate churches (Catholic and Orthodox). Is there any way, that post-1453 the Great Schism could be resolved?

I know both sides (or at least the Catholics) would have to make compromises, but let's say there is a Pope who is willing to do this. What would have to be changed or done so the two churches could reunify?
 

Philip

Donor
I am referring to the 1054 East-West Schism which broke up the Christian Church into two separate churches (Catholic and Orthodox). Is there any way, that post-1453 the Great Schism could be resolved?

Angelic Space Bats are likely to be required.

I know both sides (or at least the Catholics) would have to make compromises, but let's say there is a Pope who is willing to do this. What would have to be changed or done so the two churches could reunify?

From the Orthodox point of view, the Bishop of Rome would have to renounce claims of Universal Jurisdiction. All the other issues are symptoms of these claims.
 

Philip

Donor
Is that a joke, or is it really impossible after then?

Here is an Orthodox hymn concerning St Mark of Ephesus:

Clothed with invincible armor, O blessed one,
You cast down rebellious pride,
You served as the instrument of the Comforter,
And shone forth as the champion of Orthodoxy.
Therefore we cry to you: "Rejoice, Mark, the boast of the Orthodox!"
and another:
By your profession of faith, O all-praised Mark
The Church has found you to be a zealot for truth.
You fought for the teaching of the Fathers;
You cast down the darkness of boastful pride.
Intercede with Christ God to grant forgiveness to those who honor you!
He generally credited with singlehandedly blocking the Union of Florence and is stilled considered a Pillar of Orthodoxy. So, yeah ... it is that unlikely.

So what happens if a Pope does that?
In all likelihood, he is denounced by the rest of the Catholic Church as senile, incompetent, or something similar.
 
Well, if there had been actual practicing Christians in charge at the time living as Christ commanded men to live, the Schism would never have happened. There were two attempts at reconciliation during the Middle Ages, and talks of reunification between Catholics and Orthodox are still ongoing today...so you can't say such a thing is completely out of the question.

Perhaps some kind of major threat to all of Christendom might do the trick in unifying the two. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
 
Well, if there had been actual practicing Christians in charge at the time living as Christ commanded men to live, the Schism would never have happened. There were two attempts at reconciliation during the Middle Ages, and talks of reunification between Catholics and Orthodox are still ongoing today...so you can't say such a thing is completely out of the question.

Perhaps some kind of major threat to all of Christendom might do the trick in unifying the two. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

There was three or four centuries of Turkish invasion and threat, that didn't do the trick...
 
you'd pretty much have to get the Vatican to give up on the idea that the the Pope is the ruler of Christendom. Things like the 'filioque', minor differences in the theology of transubstantiation, etc., should be able to be finessed. Pope as supreme unchecked head of church is not (which problem was only made worse, of course, when Papal Infallibility (speaking ex cathedra) was declared officially). Note that this is the primary obstacle to more organic unions/relations with e.g. the Anglicans and Lutherans today.

Note that the Eastern churches have (basically) always been willing to accept (or at least discuss) the primacy of Rome as Patriarchate of Peter, the head of the early church. Note 'primus inter pares' (first among equals) is natural to other churches - the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul can NOT force any other national Orthodox church to do his bidding; nor can the Archbishop of Canterbury force any Anglican church to do so. Why should either communion give the Pope more power than their own heads?
 
I am referring to the 1054 East-West Schism which broke up the Christian Church into two separate churches (Catholic and Orthodox). Is there any way, that post-1453 the Great Schism could be resolved?

I know both sides (or at least the Catholics) would have to make compromises, but let's say there is a Pope who is willing to do this. What would have to be changed or done so the two churches could reunify?

To more directly address the challenge, I'd say that the Conciliar (sp?) movement would have to gain more power - if ultimate decisions in the West are made as often or more often by Councils (e.g. Trent, Vatican II) than by the Pope unilaterally, re-unification would be far easier.
 
This area is Hardly my forte but im glad someone posted this because I've done a little reading and it seems to me that (and correct me if I'm wrong) but were not the Crusades (the 1st one anyway) almost a direct result of the Schism since Alexius didn't trust Urban II or some such? again my knowledge is limited so my apololgies; but lets take a differen't tack...it seems mending the Great Schism isn't likley....so maybe the WI should be "What if the Great Schism Never Happens"??
 
but were not the Crusades (the 1st one anyway) almost a direct result of the Schism since Alexius didn't trust Urban II or some such?
Alexios actually appealed to the west for military aid against the Turks, and Urban II granted his request in the form of the first Crusade. I'm not sure if personal trust between the two was a factor.
 
The Council of Florence did try very hard to unify East and West. The start of the POD is that Patriarch Joseph II lives longer and circumvents calls for a synod to ratify the reunfication. When he eventually does die there is going to be an internal schism within the Orthodox between a Uniate faction and a True Believers faction. This will produce immense butterflies.
 
Top