 |
|
|
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
|
|
|
|
 |
|
THE SCHISM
Patricia McCarthy
Listening to this programme by chance (late for work!) I was fascinated by the discussion about the cause the split between the Eastern and Western churchs and the place of the 'Filioque' in this. I am currently looking a late 15th century portrait of Fra Luca Pacioli (a Franciscan and teacher of mathematics and philosophy). His portrait is of interest mainly because, being the first person to write down the principles of doubleentry bookkeeping, he is known as the father of accounting. What has this got to do with the Filioque, you may ask? In his portrait he is describing a geometric figure on a slate. All analyses of this portrait I have found to date have been from a mathematical perspective and the argument goes around which of Euclid's theorums he is teaching. But when it came to the descriptions of the visualization of God used by the Greek and Roman churches, namely a circle with an open A or a circle with a vertical line, it suddenly flashed into my mind that the figure he is describing is a combination of the two ideas; is he actually trying to reunite the Greek and Roman theology as well as to expound the latest mathematical thought of the Italian Renaissance? Does anyone have any information or knowledge which could help me investigate this further?
James Leahy
This is an outstanding series, but we do need a space to debate past programmes as well as the current ones. For example: in the first(?) programme of the last series, film epics were given only a cursory and ill-informed dismissal, despite initial promises to the contrary. Why is it acceptable for people who know little about film to treat it so casually? This is something the contributors are careful not to do when discussing specialist areas within their own disciplines.
Jim Johnson
I learned things I had never known, things that helped to make sense of large movements and later events. This always happens when I listen to this programme, the most astonishing product of the BBC. Bragg is the most necessary person working in the media, able to elicit clarity and coherence from any speaker and to offer a range of topics, not only in IOT, that honours the BBC and endows the listener/viewer.
Chris Wade
Slightly off topic but you may be interested to learn how the Turks looked at the Christian West and how this still survives in modern Turkish. The term in Turkish for the Byzantines was Rum (as in Roman). Today, Greeks are now "Yunanli" and Greece "Yunanistan" but the official title in Turkish for Cyprus (or the bit that is run by the Greek Cypriots) is "Guney Kibris Rum Yonetimi" or in direct translation "Roman-administrated Southern Cyprus".
Rosemary Hamilton
I have an extremely minor point to make: I don't believe the actual meaning of the word 'filioque' ('from the Son')was provided in the programme. Probably it was assumed that listeners would know this. More to the point, I valued the programme tremendously, as always when one happens to have an interest in the subject of the week. The word 'privilege' is horribly over-used these days, but it does apply to these programmes, where one can hear the best experts talk - and succinctly, so that one gets the core points - about their subject. I only wish transcripts were available but I suppose this is a question of copyright. (Thank goodness (or the Beeb) for the 'replay' facility, so that one can at least make notes!) Rosemary Hamilton
Anne Powell
On the subject of filioque, I wonder if the Byzantine and the Roman churches didn't get it wrong, were not representing Man in thier symbols rather than God. Niether the Byzantine circle-with-A-minus-bar nor the Roman circle-split-in-two seem to represent the all-in-oneness of God, rather, they symbolise Division, the Fall from Grace, the creation of Time and Space and our belief that we are not of God. Isn't God best represented by a circle with a central dot? Three in one, one in all, no domination of one aspect over another, unity as opposed to division, us part of everything as everything is part of us.
mischa Wilson
Completely stunned ! I did not have any knowledge or awareness of this schism and thus could do with some good reading on the whole area.
Jim Chim
Europe the loser? Rome frequently sacked--> Headquarters of Empire moved to Byzantium--> Turkish and Mongol invasions. Disunity in Christendom. Byzantium falls. Trade routes E/W blocked/taxed--> European voyages of discovery to the rest of the world encouraged. Rightly or wrongly, Europe financially richer, culture dispersed and promoted.
Clive Strutt
The discussion on the "Great Schism" was interesting, but I felt suffered from the lack of an Orthodox Church perspective. The Orthodox Churches believe that The Church is not, and cannot be, divided (as it is "the body of Christ"); this means that the Roman Church's splitting away in 1054 rendered it schismatic. My belief is that the Roman Church went on to become heretical, as well. There are many ways in which Roman doctrine differs fundamentally from Orthodox: the date of Easter; the failure to give wine to the people at Holy Communion (only the priest has wine!); the use of leavened bread, when it should be unleavened; the sale of indulgences; papal infallibility; celibacy of priests; divorce, etc. There is also the belief, well expressed in Laurence Gardner's fascinating book "The Bloodline of the Holy Grail", that the Roman Catholic Church is basically simply the continuation of the Roman Empire by other means! Certainly, in my reading of history, the Roman pontiffs have often behaved like secular power-seeking princes rather than spiritual leaders. I think that the programme's guests ought to have included at least one person who was capable of presenting an Orthodox perspective. Another point that it would be useful to have presented, and in almost any religious discussion which involves Christianity taking place in the Western world, is the role of The Bible in the Orthodox Church! My understanding of it is that the Bible is not taken as the ultimate authority on any question; the ultimate authority is Church Tradition! The Bible is merely a part of that tradition. The tradition came first, the Bible was formulated only centuries later.
Stephen Bailey
What an interesting and inspiring progamme. Latin Rome, Greek Byzantines, Normans, Moslems,the Holy Roman Emperor and the Crusades. How i've been inspired to re-read these periods of history and find out more about those I have only an outline of, and then to find that they are all interelated! So many picsals of information to show the whole picture. Who said history is about the dead. This schism was like many a divorce; a gradual parting of the ways with a number of arguements and inevitably a lot of unanswered questions for the children ( in this case us ) to ponder over and to live with the consequences of their parents actions.
Nicholas Crampton
Sadly, you could only scratch the surface of a history so fascinating and extraordinary that if it were written as fiction it would be unbelieveable. Constantinople only exists because a young man fled from Nicomedia to Boulogne to be with his dad (who happened to be Emperor) and went with him to Britain on a campaign where in died at York in 306. Had Constantine remained in NW Turkey, we would never have heard of him or his town, Diocletian's persecution might never have ended, and Christianity never have gained the backing of the imperial state that created the eastern church. It was imperial backing that made Nicaea and the subsequent Councils. It is at Constantinople that the Land Walls make the greatest defensive structure ever built to defend the Christian faith (and never breached till a 21 year old Sultan used gunpowder against them 1100 yerars later). It was Justinian who built Hagia Sophia following the Nika riots and gave us the world's greatest church, and who subjected the Papacy to the will of the imperial and eccesiastical authorities in Constantinople in 553. The whole edifice falls in the early 7th century with the islamic victory at Yarmuk, the worst defeat ever experienced by a 'Christian' army, even worse than Manzikert. Then there is the extraordinary story of the hermits of Egypt leaving the wealth of Alexandria for the solitude of the desert, who 'carry on their struggle in the dens and caves of the earth', as the eastern liturgy of St. James puts it, creating monasticism. These are huge stories, and there are so many of them...
Tom Stafford
This incident in the 11th century in evocative of the Norman's tremendous will-to-power. A norman army in Spain was marching on a Muslim stronghold when they encountered a large patrol from that city, which they slaughtered. The Muslims carried with them the latest in communications technology, a carriage of carrier-pigeons for sending messages back home. The Normans covered the pigeons in Muslim blood and released them to fly back to the city and annnounce their coming. A superb and terrifying example of early psychological warfare.
Philip Hurst
Dear Lord Bragg, Apropos your newsletter this week, I too found the discussion on Byzantium fascinating. I missed the first 15 minutes, but look forward to catching up with that on line tonight. We Europeans have such an occidental bias to our view of history, it is stimulating and refreshing to have that challenged. I know you have a massive amount to read, but you might be interested to look at Viscount Norwich's History of Byzantium, if not all three (!) volumes, then at his excellent one-volume version. Yours is without doubt the most intelligent and intellectually exciting programme on radio in Britain: it shows a beacon in a world dominated by the flashy, the tawdry and the vulgar. Kind regards, Philip Hurst
Roger O'Brien
really enjoyed the programme on the Schism and the Crusades. Mind you, I doubt if your presenters can really be right because I agreed with almost every word. The recent James Clerk Maxwell was also a joy. I have been a fan of this Scot for years and was delighted to hear a full treatment of his life and works.
David Wallace
This week, I came to the programme as a listener and learner, with neither knowledge no opinion. However, as the discussion progressed, more and more questions arose, mostly because of the history and culture I see round about me every time I leave my front door. I live in Toledo (Spain) - a city recaptured from the Moors in 1085 by the Christians under Alfonso VI. Despite this, in the centuries that followed (until Isabel de Castilla married Fernando de Aragon in 1474) Jewish, Moslem and Christian cultures flourished side by side. Expertise was pooled and wealth was created. The famous School of Translators here, housed the talents of Gerard of Cremona who came here to see and work from a copy of Ptolemy's "Almagest" and who stayed to translate Archimedes, Hippocrates, Galen & Euclid. It was here in Toledo that Alhazen first recognised that we see an object because it reflects light into the eye, rather than the Greek opinion that light goes from the eye to the object. - So I ended up by asking myself how the panel could claim so confidently that western Europe was "the loser" after the sack of Constantinople in 1204. Probably because then, as now, Spain is the European outsider, that peninsula tacked on to Europe, but separated from it by the Pyrenees. - From all I can discover, Alhazen does not crop up in European thought again until C15, when he is noticed by Lorenzo Ghiberti in Florence. (There is a copy of Alhazen's "Optics" in the vatican Library with annotations by Ghiberti.)
Z bairu
I enjoyed listening to the great Schism debate. Unfortunately 41 minutes is not enough to debate such a massive subject. We need a sequel to today's debate. May I also know if it is on sale either in a tape or on a CD because I would like to listen to it again at a future date. Thanks. Keep up the good work Mr Melvyn Bragg and the BBC!
R K Cook
The subject at large for In Our Time is our civilisation. At 9 on Thursday mornings there is broadcast, free, a live conversation on the radio with the unspoken assumption that it will be interesting to its audience to hear of, say, the importance of filioque (a word previously unfamiliar to some of us) in the dispute over the nature of the Trinity, and the importance of that in the schism 1000 years ago between Constantinople and Rome. In bringing together people who know and in yourself representing we who don't know, your programme isn't just about civilisation. It embodies it. Pompously put, but there we are and I'm very grateful.
Clive Baulch
"It was all Greek to me". The Schism had been developing for centuries before 1054. The part that historical/cultural/language differences between East and West played, cannot be underestimated. It has been claimed that at the Council of Chalcedon (451) the bishops from the west didn't have enough Greek between them, to follow all the debates! Another factor may have been that Rome never saw itself as a "Patriarchate" - they never bought into the Pentarchy theory. The Primacy of Rome grew from its connection with St.Peter, and to the Scriptural claim (Mathew 16:18) Pope Leo added Roman law concerning Inheritance, in effect claiming that the Roman Pope was St. Peter. From the late 4th/early fifth century, Rome was on its own. There was no Imperial authority in the west, the church was the only stable source of authority/learning/law. Hence Rome grew the trappings of secular monarchism.
Pam Lunn
just to let web readers know: when Rowan Williams was enthroned at Canterbury last February, the filioque clause was omitted from the creed in the order of service, in order to be inclusive for all the orthodox priests present. Of course, all the people who recited the creed they knew from memory, and didn't read the order sheet, said the line anyway! - but the attempt had been made to be inclusive.
Frank Smith
This week's topic was a real eye-opener. I had not realised before the tripartite nature of events that developed at that time. The main lesson of the programme was how the present events in the Middle East seem to mirror those of the past.
ray campbell
Didn't the iconoclast controversy have a serious impact on the relationship between east and west? And didn't this contribute to the final schism of 1054? I didn't hear much of this mentioned. And wasn't the Photian schism a precursor to the ultimate event?
brian stern
Melvyn discussion on eastern schism very interesting. Having just finished Umberto Ecos Baudolino, I went browsing for information on the legend of Prester John and found myself at the Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org) There is a wealth of information here, so i had a read through their explanation of the schism. Contrary to the views put forward by your panel, the view given here is that heresy played no part. Although the filioque is mentioned briefly at the end of their piece, it is only to dismiss its significance, along with other doctrinal differences. Strangely though, there is a separate entry under filioque, where it is stated as the cause of the schism. Is this heresy? keep up the good work
Sue Carslaw
I find this series stimulating and interesting.The 'Schism' was particularly so,as I always wondered how the divide came about. I would like to hear more about the issues which came up and were mentioned as being possible other programmes. Medieval periods and the height of the Byzantine rule are also fascinating.
George Norman
This was a fascinating insight into how events dictate history. The unpredictable Normans really threw a spanner in the works there! But the point which rang a little bell in Melvyn's head, and which would be a great topic to delve into, is the use of Greek in the Easten Church. This of course touches on the issue of the influence of Greek philosophy on the evolution of Christian ideas and how much the New Testament is a mish-mash of Socratic ideas and what influence that may even have had on the mind of Christ if there was one! And by the way, what about those scrolls?
Fred Lomax
Excellent programme, all of it interesting, but one aspect which caught my attention was the reference to Normans. My ignorance has limited me to 1066 and their influence here. I understood them to be Viking descendants.Are we talking about the same people and if so can we know more about their activities.
Bede Gerrard
May I first thank you for this morning's discussion. I felt that the balance was well expressed and the wide knowledge of the contributors was similarly articulated. From the point of view of a member of the Orthodox Church I would like to add, expand, two points. First; the 'filioque' and its definition as the only acceptable description of relationships within the Holy and Undivided Trinity has, from an Orthodox viewpoint, led to the possibility of introducing a monarchical structure in Church governance. In the east the emphasis is on the Holy and Undivided Trinity as community, and the ideal structure for the Church is seen also as community, the structure of the Church reflecting the structure of the Holy and Undivided Trinity. However, in the west the Holy and Undivided Trinity came to be seen as linear monarchical, and consequently the power, authority, structure in the Church is also seen as linear monarchical. The doctrine of the Holy and Undivided Trinity has influenced many aspects of human thought and I believe that this influence is consciously or subconsciously responsible for other imbalances in western Church thought. Secondly the Chalcedonian schism has in many ways a more influential position than the Great Schism in the thought of the Eastern Church. The division of the Church into, simplistically speaking, the Church of the Empire and the Church outside the Empire has paved the way for the conduct of schism that involves two roughly equal contingents. The cloaking in theological niceties of what is essentially a secular power struggle established the pattern for the Great Schism and enabled theological options to be used to perpetuate what began as a secular, worldly, difference of opinion. Again, thank you for the balance of today's programme.
John Mitchell
Interesting point that the history of the Church has always been one of division often leading to violent and bitter conflict from within. The current divisions in the Anglican Church is a contemporary example of intellectual warfare. It all stems from one basic problem, I believe, which is the difficulty and confusion in understanding the figure of Christ.Obviously there can be no one definitive grasp of Christ: each group has their own interpretation and usually regards it as the only true view. But this problem is the cause of these historic problems and the problems of today and the future.
Listeners in France
This was the most wonderful programme! The West (so-called) hits out at its cultural roots in the Mediterranean basin and Eastwards to India, not simply by the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, but in today's misguided and misbeggoten crusade against Bagdad .... And today, the country of the Franks has not purused the policy of its neighbour to the North, subjugated by the Normans.... However, the contributors to the discussion were not only lucid but delightfully flexible in their interchanges, and, what is always the most important thing, did NOT draw the above parallel, and go all "political". The conclusions they drew, insofar as they did, were even more thought-provoking, as they raised in the discussion, replete with concrete historical details (from breaking bread, to St Paul's Holy Fools to the Triniry, not to mention fascinating dates connecting things normally unconnected...), the much more important question of how far the "West was the loser", if so, was the loser by its desire to conquer. What a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful programme. Many and heartfelt thanks. The speakers and the chairman interrelated in the most fascinating way.... Inexpressibly wonderful.
Mark Vernon
Re: The Schism What good timing to talk about the ancient schism between the East and West on the very day when modern schism is threatened at Lambeth Palace (in part along boundaries between the West and the South?). Then the crux was ostensibly the filioque clause: now it is ostensibly homosexuality. But as the programme demonstrated so well, and as perhaps history will say of today, a whole complex of politics and power lies behind ecclesiastical disagreements over any presenting theological problem.
Brian Hughes
Fascinating as ever but why not more discussion about the Arian heresy and the production of the Nicene Creed? This politically inspired creed has lead to all sorts of trouble for Christians over the last 1,700 or so years. And every Sunday millions still mouth words that many of them cannot really believe to be wholly true. It would be better if it stopped after the fourth word (in the CofE version)!
David Couling
Having reached the early 1200's - and the sack of Constantinople - with interesting discussions of the major forces then at play, will another programme deal with the other powerful force active at that time (but much played down by conventional historians and the corresponding ecclesiastical and other vested interests) namely, the 'Great Heresy' of the Cathars / Albigensians / Patarini / Bogomils, which extended from the Bulgarian Empire through northern Italy to southern France (Occitania) and beyond?
Daniel Hill
Today's programme on the East - West schism was very interesting, but the 'filioque' clause says that the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, not, as Melvyn had it, that the Son is created by the Father and the Spirit. Procession is quite different from creation: none of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is created. The Western view is that the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from both Father and Son; the Eastern view is that he proceeds from the Father through the Son. Finally, as the programme did suggest, the debate wasn't so much about the truth of `filioque' as about its place in the creed: one of today's leading Orthodox theologians, Prof. Richard Swinburne, defends `filioque' in his book The Christian God!
|
|
|
|
|
