Did the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church, or did the Orthodox split from the Catholic?

[Blue3]

Did the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church, or did the Orthodox split from the Catholic?


Since most of us have a Western Civilization background, with countries majority Catholic/Protestant or long ruled or founded or colonized by Catholic/Protestant Western European countries, it seems the most common narrative we're taught is the Eastern Orthodox Church(es) split from the Roman Catholic Church.

But from a reading from history, it seems the Orthodox viewpoint was much more common for centuries, and Rome trying to assert its official total dominance (instead of being preeminent leader in a "first among equals" way, or one of the preeminent leaders among the Pentarchy) and having a new view on a detail about the Trinity seems more like the Catholic Church was really splitting off from the Orthodox.

Which is the truth?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Western and Eastern rites evolved gradually apart over the course of centuries due to lack of contact as a result of geopolitical shifts following the Muslim conquest of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. It's certainly true that the rise of the Papacy in the West (as well as the addition of the Filioque) was by far the more striking innovation that emerged in this process, and so the Orthodox have a stronger claim to... well, orthodoxy, at the end of the day both have changed significantly from the days of the Early Church.

[Blue3]

The Western and Eastern rites evolved gradually apart over the course of centuries due to lack of contact as a result of geopolitical shifts following the Muslim conquest of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. It's certainly true that the rise of the Papacy in the West (as well as the addition of the Filioque) was by far the more striking innovation that emerged in this process, and so the Orthodox have a stronger claim to... well, orthodoxy, at the end of the day both have changed significantly from the days of the Early Church.

So a mostly-equal split, with slight tilt to it being the Catholic that split from the Orthodox?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Orthodox claim is far stronger. The Catholic claim would be like saying some random little principality in Bavaria was the successor to the Holy Roman Empire instead of the Austrian Empire.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Orthodox claim is far stronger. The Catholic claim would be like saying some random little principality in Bavaria was the successor to the Holy Roman Empire instead of the Austrian Empire.

I guess the best argument you can make for Catholicism is that the Pope being a politically autonomous entity put him in a better position to guide Christendom compared to the various Patriarchs who were usually subjects to the Byzantine emperor (although this should be caveated in a lot of ways).

[Skill and Chance]

Yes, I would say the Catholics split from the Orthodox.  Ironically, filioque was one of the earliest documented cases of elevating scripture over tradition and using a more literal reading of scripture to overturn a longstanding church tradition.  In a certain way, it was proto-Protestant!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, I would say the Catholics split from the Orthodox.  Ironically, filioque was one of the earliest documented cases of elevating scripture over tradition and using a more literal reading of scripture to overturn a longstanding church tradition.  In a certain way, it was proto-Protestant!

I don't think it makes sense to say it was "overturning" tradition. The filioque does not contradict anything in the Nicene Creed, it merely adds to it. Of course it's fair to say that it's a deviation (to put a negative spin) or development (positive spin) from existing tradition, but that's not the same as overturning. Also the reasons for it weren't primarily scriptural, but rather about combating Arianism, which both Catholics and Orthodox agree is heretical but was more of a pressing concern in the West.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The Orthodox claim is far stronger. The Catholic claim would be like saying some random little principality in Bavaria was the successor to the Holy Roman Empire instead of the Austrian Empire.

I guess the best argument you can make for Catholicism is that the Pope being a politically autonomous entity put him in a better position to guide Christendom compared to the various Patriarchs who were usually subjects to the Byzantine emperor (although this should be caveated in a lot of ways).

     Probably the most important caveat one could make would be that in the Orthodox practice Patriarchs do not occupy a role of active guarantors as the Catholics see the Pope, but rather are passive participants in a tradition they have little ability to add to or alter. That is, we don't see them as guides the same way Catholics see the Pope. As I told you in another thread, I have been watching with interest as trad Catholics have moved more towards an Orthodox understanding of the Church on account of their displeasure with Francis's pontificate.

[TDAS04]

Yes.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

They're both splinters from the original apostolic primitive Church (Anglicanism)

[RINO Tom]

They split from each other.  And both can claim, as their history, all church tradition before the split.  Similarly, a Lutheran or Anglican can rightfully claim pre-Reformation Catholic (and pre-Great Schism) church tradition as their own, as well.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

They're both splinters from the original apostolic primitive Church (Anglicanism)