Areas of agreement and differences between Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholic Christians

[rakovsky]

Back in 451 AD, the Egyptian Church split with the Roman/Greek Church. The split came after the Chalcedon council created a new patriarchy in Constantinople with greater authority than the existing one in Alexandria, Egypt. I suspect that change was far more important in the split than theological fine points.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lost subtext of Church politics and jockeying for power. However, I recommend reading more about the Chalcedonian split before putting it in those terms. This conflict could be traced back further than Chalcedon, even back to Nestorius and Cyril (of Egypt) and the Second Ecumenical Council.
- Nestorius theorized that Christ had two hypostases, and Cyril denied this, saying that two hypostases would entail that Christ had two persons. Nestorius denied that his theory entailed that Christ had two persons. I am open-minded on whether Cyril interpreted Nestorius correctly or not, since two hypostases could be translated as either two substances or two subsistences, and the Churches have agreed that Christ has two substances. But in any case the 2nd Ecumenical Council decided that Cyril was correct and that Christ had only two hypostases.
- The conflict led over into Cyril debating with the Antiochian school over whether Christ had two natures or just one. The Antiochians said Christ had two, Cyril asserted that Christ had one (miaphysia), and eventually Cyril said that he (Cyril) and the Antiochians were really in agreement, and he smoothed relations over. Problem averted? Unfortunately not, because...
- ... Cyril's successors in Egypt asserted that it was a heresy to teach that Christ had two natures. Meanwhile, the Patriach of Constantinople deposed Eutyches for claiming, among other things, that Christ didn't have two natures. Eutyches' statements included: Christ had two natures before the union, but only one afterward.
- Pat. DIoscorus in Egypt supported Eutyches, called another council in Ephesus and reinstated Eutyches and excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople.
- The EO and RC side called Chalcedon to teach that Christ had two natures.

 

[rakovsky]

Yes, church governance has always been a driving issue.
....
Politics matter in real life.

Probably in real life terms, the imperial power of Rome played a key role in building up the power claims of the Vatican. Before then, the Eastern Roman empire was comparable in political power, and so it would be harder politically for the Vatican to press or puff up its claims.

 

[Theophilos]

You may be interested in this book about the period from 450 to 680 AD:

Imperial Unity And Christian Divisions: The Church from…

Almost without exception, the "histories of the Church"…

www.goodreads.com

I found the history of this period to be interesting because in many ways it is the reverse of recent history. Here are some examples:

1) The western Church was fragmented into regional churches that operated more-or-less independently of Rome. In many parts of western Europe had Germanic rulers who followed Arian Christianity, but the population was mainly Catholic. Remote areas such as Ireland had little contact with Rome.

2) On the other hand, the areas of the eastern Church were under the control of the emperor in Constantinople. The emperor also ruled over most of Italy including Rome.

3) The popes were elected by the people of Rome, but the emperor approved the selection. Most other bishops were not subject to approval of the emperor. Several of the popes spoke Greek as their native language.

 

[rakovsky]

You may be interested in this book about the period from 450 to 680 AD:

Imperial Unity And Christian Divisions: The Church from…

Almost without exception, the "histories of the Church"…

www.goodreads.com

I found the history of this period to be interesting because in many ways it is the reverse of recent history. Here are some examples:

1) The western Church was fragmented into regional churches that operated more-or-less independently of Rome.

2) On the other hand, the areas of the eastern Church were under the control of the emperor in Constantinople.

It's true that in Western Europe after the fall of Rome to the Goths in about the 5th century, political power was more regional, whereas the eastern emperor retained control of the eastern meditteranean until the rise of Islam (7th century) and the conquest of Constantinople (15th century). But in contrast, in the west, it's considered that Church power was more centralized under the Pope than Church power was with Constantinople- in the East there were 4 Patriarchates. Still, one would want a theory of how it happened that Rome ended up claiming such strong supremacy claims for itself, claims that grew over time, to where in the 19th or 20th century, the Pope began asserting Papal Ex Cathedra Infallibility dogmatically, which his office hadn't asserted in medieval times.