Author Topic: The Byzantine Empire  (Read 69680 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2005, 08:48:13 AM »
These are "heavy" subjects and there is a lot to be said, but I'm very glad to talk about them with you!  :)



for the link try:


The Alexander Palace Discussion Board / Discussions about Russian History / Imperial Russian History / discussion about Orthodoxy (2)


for me there is a major difference between "Byzantium" and the "West" even in the first millennium, and that is in the understanding of language... "icon" doesn't mean the same thing in the "East" and in the "West"... to put it in a very un-sophisticated way: in the "West" language is seen as a tool - in the "East" language can never be seen as a mere tool... and this makes not only the role of art different, the implications are far greater


within the Ottoman Empire the main problem was that Christians had no right to institutionalized education... this was a radical change from "Byzantium" and had vast implications... only in some "Western" cities like Venice few wealthy Greeks could learn in schools [not under the authority of the Catholic Church]



all the best
from palimpsest
I, Claudius

Offline Branislav

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2005, 11:00:45 AM »
All pleasure is mine - "palimsest"!  :)

I will check that link, if it is more appropriate for this kind of discussion.

Regarding "icon" in "Byzantium" and in the West, and the understanding of language, I would like to hear more about that from you.

As well as about term "Middle Ages", since you said it is also not quite accurate. If you can elaborate on that, I would appreciate.

Just briefly here - in 8th (and 9th) century, during the time of Iconoclasm in "Byzantium", Rome defended Orthodoxy by proper understanding of the meaning of Icon, and rejected heretical views of the iconoclasts in Constantinople.

Are you saying that even then "Byzantium" had better understanding of language, i.e. of the notion of "Icon", then "the West" ? It definitelly had different understanding of "Icon" than "the West", but in this period this difference worked in favor of Rome who stood firmly with Orthodox understanding of the notion.

With best wishes,
Branislav

Quote
These are "heavy" subjects and there is a lot to be said, but I'm very glad to talk about them with you!  :)

for the link try:

The Alexander Palace Discussion Board / Discussions about Russian History / Imperial Russian History / discussion about Orthodoxy (2)

for me there is a major difference between "Byzantium" and the "West" even in the first millennium, and that is in the understanding of language... "icon" doesn't mean the same thing in the "East" and in the "West"... to put it in a very un-sophisticated way: in the "West" language is seen as a tool - in the "East" language can never be seen as a mere tool... and this makes not only the role of art different, the implications are far greater
.....



Offline Alexios

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Long live the Emperor! God save the Queen!
    • View Profile
    • Rollenspiel-Mittelalter
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2005, 05:01:45 PM »
Byzantium is an extremely broad topic, even though a surprising amount of people (at least in my experience) don't know what it is. As an introduction to this fascinating world I could recommend the following books:
- R.J. Lilie, Byzanz, das zweite Rom, 576 pages. (Unfortunately in German, but a good book, which successfully deals with some prejudices.)
- J.J. Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, 496 pages. (I'd take the longer version in three volumes. It's popular scientific, but still a good read in my opinion).
- G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 624 pages. (Some decades old, but still a standard work).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Alexios »


Offline Alexios

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Long live the Emperor! God save the Queen!
    • View Profile
    • Rollenspiel-Mittelalter
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2005, 06:21:31 PM »
(This is a list of the Byzantine Emperors, which I created, translated from German.)
The Byzantine Emperors: 395 until 1453.

Arkadius (* 377, † 408 ) 395-408
Theodosius II (* 401, † 450) 408-450
Markianus (* ca. 396, † 457) 450-457
Leo I (sometimes called "the Great) (* ca. 400, † 474)      457-474
Patrikius (co-ruler) 468-471
Leo II (* 467, † 474) 474
Zeno (* 426, † 491) 474-475; 476-491
Basiliskus the Younger (co-ruler) 477
Marcianus (Usurper) 479
Illus (Usurper in Asia Minor und Syria) 482-488
Leontius (Usurper in Isauria) 484-488
Basiliskus († 476) 475-476
Marcus (co-emperor) 475-476
Zeno the Younger (Caesar) 475-476
Leo the Younger (Caesar) 475-476
Anastasius I (* ca. 431, † 518 ) 491-518
Areobindus (Usurper in Constantinople) 512
Vitalianus (Usurper in Thrace and Moesia) 513-515
Justinus I (* ca. 450, † 527) 518-527
Theokritos (pretender of the throne in Constantinople)      518
Jusitnianus I the Great (* 481/82, † 565) 527-565
Justinus II (* ca. 520, † 578 ) 565-578
Tiberius II Constantine (* ca. 550, † 582) 578-582
Germanos Augustus (co-emperor) 582      
Maurikius (* 539, † 602) 582-602
Theodosius (co-emperor)      590-602
Phokas (* ca. 547, † 610) 602-610
Herakleios I (* ca. 575, † 641) 610-641
Johannes of Compsa (Usurper in Naples) 616-617
Eleutherius (Usurper in Italy) 617-619
Athalarikos (Usurper) 635-636
David Tiberios (co-emperor) 639-641
Constantine III (* 612, † 641)      641
Herakleios II Herakleonas (* 615/27, † 641) 641
Constans II. the Bearded (* 630, † 668 ) 641-668
Maurikios Chartularios (Usurper in Rome) 642
Gregorios (Usurper in Africa) 646-647
Olympios (Usurper in Italy)      649-652
Herakleios (co-emperor)      659-669
Tiberios (co-emperor)      659-669
Eleutherios the Younger (Usurper in Carthage) 665-666
Saborios (Usurper in Armenia) 667-668
Constantine IV. (* ca. 652, † 685) 668-685
Mezezios (Usurper in Sicily) 668-669
Justinianos II (* ca. 669, † 711) 685-695; 705-711
Tiberios (co-emperor) 705-711
Leontios († 706) 695-698
Tiberios III († 706) 698-705
Philippikos Bardanes († 713) 711-713
Anastasios II († 718 ) 713-715
Theodosios III († 732) 715-717
Leon III the Syrian (* ca. 685, † 741) 717-741
Tiberios Basileios (Usurper in Sicily) 718
Anastasios II Artemios (Usurper in Thessalonike) 719
Kosmas (Usurper in Hellas) 727
Tiberios Petasius (Usurper in Rome) 730
Constantine V Kopronymos (* 718, † 775) 741-775
Artabasdos (Usurper in Asia Minor/Constantinople)       742-743
Nikephoros (co-emperor of Artabasdos) 742-743
Nikephoros (Caesar) 769-776
Christophoros (Caesar) 769-776
Leon IV  (* 750, † 780) 775-780
Constantine VI Porphyrogennetos (* 770/71, † 797)      780-797
Eirene (* 752, † 803) 797-802
Nikephoros I (* ca. 765, † 811)      802-811
Bardanes Turkos (Usurper in Asia Minor)      803
Staurakios (* 790, † 812) 811
Michael I Rhangabe († 844) 811-813
Thephylaktos (co-emperor) 811-813
Leon V the Armenian  (* ca. 770/80, † 820) 813-820
Symbatios Konstantinos (co-emperor) 813-820
Michael II the Stammerer (* ca. 780, † 829) 820-829
Thomas the Slav of Klaudiopolis (Usurper in Asia Minor and Thrace)      821-823
Euphemios (Usurper in Sicily) 827-828
Theophilos (* 804/12/13, † 842)      829-842
Alexios Musele (Caesar/heir apparent) 831-840
Michael III (* ca. 840, † 867) 842-867
Theodora (mother of Michael III/Regent)      842-855
Thekla (co-empress/Regent) 842-855
Bardas (Unclel/Regent/Caesar (from 862)) 856-866
Konstantinos (co-ruler)      856-866
Basileios I the Macedonian (* ca. 812, † 886) 866-886
Konstantinos (co-emperor) 869-879
Leon VI the Wise (* 866, † 912)      886-912
Andronikos Doukas (Usurper in Asia Minor) 905-906
Alexandros (* ca. 870, † 913)      912-913
Konstantin VII. Porphyrogennetos (* 905, † 959)      913-959
Nikolaos Mystikos (Regent/Patriarch of Constantinople)      913-914; 918-919
Konstantinos Doukas (Usurper in Constantinople) 913
Zoe Karbonopsina (Empress Mother/Regent) 914-918
Leon Phokas the Elder (Usurper in Asia Minor) 919
Romanos I Lakapenos (* ca. 870, † 948 )      920-944
Christopheros Lakapenos (co-emperor) 921-931
Stephanos Lakapenos (co-emperor) 924-945
Konstantinos Lakapenos (co-emperor) 924-945
Romanos II (* 937/38/39, † 963) 959-963
Nikephoros II Phokas (* 912, † 969) 963-969
Bardas Phokas the Elder (Caesar/Basileopator) 963-968
John I Tsimiskes (* ca. 925, † 976) 969-976
Leon Phokas the Younger (Usurper in Constantinoplel)      970
Bardas Phokas the Younger (Usurper in Asia Minor)      971; 987-989
Basileios II the Bulgar Slayer (* 957, † 1025)      976-1025
Basileios Lakapenos (Regent, Parakoimomenos, Proedros)       976-985
Bardas Skleros (Usurper in Asia Minor) 976-979; 987
Nikephoros Xiphias and Nikephoros Phokas (Usurpers in Asia Minor) 1022      
Constantine VIII (* 961, † 1025) 1025-1028
Romanos III Argyros (* 968, † 1034) 1028-1034
Michael IV Paphlagonios (* ca. 1005/10, † 1041) 1034-1041
Michael V Kalaphates (* ca. 1022/25, † 1042) 1041-1042
Zoe (* ca. 978/80, † 1050) and Theodora (* ca. 985, † 1056) 1042; 1055-1056
Theodosios (Usurper in Constantinople)      1056
Constantine IX. Monomachos (* ca. 1000, † 1055)      1042-1055
Georgios Maniakes (Usurper in the Balkans and in Italy)      1042-1043
Theophilos Erotikos (Usurper in Cyprus) 1043
Leon Tornikes (Usurper in Cyprus) 1047
Michael VI. Stratiotikos (* ca. 990, † 1059)1056-1057
Nikephoros Bryennios 1057
Isaak I Komnenos (* ca. 1007, † 1061) 1057-1059
Constantine X Dukas (* 1006/7, † 1067) 1059-1067
Andronikos Dukas (co-emperor)      1067-1070
Konstantinos Dukas (co-emperor)      1067-1070
Romanos IV Diogenes (* ca. 1020, † 1072) 1068-1071
Michael VII Dukas (* before 1055, † ca. 1090) 1071-1078
Ioannes Dukas (Caesar/Usurper in Asia Minor)      1073-1074
Roussel d’Bailleul (Usurper in Asia Minor) 1073-1074
Konstantinos Dukas (co-emperor, Caesar, heir apparent)      1074-1078; 1081-1092
Nikephoros Bryennios (Usurper in Dyrrhachion)      1077-1078
Nikephoros Basilakios (Usurper in Dyrrhachion) 1078-1079
Nikephoros III Botaneiates (* ca. 1005, † 1081)      1078-1081
Nikephoros Melissenos (Usurper in Nikaia) 1080-1081      
Alexios I Komnenos (* 1048/57, † 1118 ) 1081-1118
Konstantinos Diogenes (Usurper) 1094-1095
Leon Diogenes (Usurpator in Bulgaria) 1116
John II Komnenos (* 1087, † 1143) 1118-1143
Alexios Komnenons Porphyrrogennetos (co-emperor)      1123-1142
Konstantinos Gabras (Lord of Trebizond) 1125-1139
Manuel I Komnenos (* ca. 1120, † 1180)      1143-1180
Alexios Bela of Hungary (Despotes and heir apparent)      1167-1169
Alexios II Komnenos (* 1169, † 1183) 1180-1183
Maria of Antiocheia (Empress mother/Regent)      1180-1182
Ioannes Batatzes (Usurper in Philadelphia) 1182
Andronikos I Komnenos (* ca. 1111/20/23, † 1185)      1183-1185
Isaak Komnenos (Usurper in Cyprus) 1184-1191
Theodoros Mankaphas (Usurper in Lydia, Lord of Philadelphia) 1185; 1204-1206/7
Isaak II Angelos (* ca. 1155, † 1204)      1185-1195; 1203-1204
Alexios Branas (Usurper in Adrianopolis) 1186
Leon Sguros (Archon of Nauplia) 1186-1208
Alexios Kontostephanos (Usurper in Constantinople)      1195
Pseudo-Alexios II (Usurper in Bithynia und Paphlagonia)      1195
Alexios III Angelos (* ca. 1150, † 1211) 1195-1203
Isaak Komnenos (Usurper in the Sultanate of Rum)      1195-1196
Johannes Komnenos the Fat (Usurper in Constantinople)      1200
Manuel Kamytzes (Usurper in Thessaly, Makedonia, Greece)      1201
Johannes Spyridonakes (Usurper) 1201
Manuel Komnenos (Usurper) 1201
Johannitzes (Usurper) 1201
Michael Angelos Komnenos (Usurper in the Maiandro Valley)1201
Alexios IV Angelos (* 1182, † 1204) 1203-1204
Nikolaos Kanabos (Usurper in Constantinople) 1204
Alexios V Dukas Murtzuphlos (* ca. 1160, † 1204)      1204
Manuel Maurozomes (Lord of the Maiandros Valley) 1204-1206/7
Sabbas Asidenos (Lord of Sampson at Milet)      1204-1206/7
Leon Gabalas (Lord of Rhodos)      1204-?
John Gabalas (brother of Leon)      ?-ca. 1230
Konstantine XI Laskaris (* ca. 1170, † 1205) 1204-1205
1204-1261: Residence in Nikaia.
Theodore I Laskaris (* ca. 1175, † 1222) 1205-1222
Alexios III Angelos (counter-emperor in Anatolia)      1210-1211
Johannes III Dukas Vatatzes (* ca. 1193, † 1254)      1222-1254
Theodore II Laskaris (* ca. 1221/22, † 1258 ) 1254-1258
John IV Laskaris (* 1251, † 1305?) 1258-1261
Michael VIII Palaiologos (* ca. 1224/25, † 1282) 1261-1282
John (Usurper against Akritai in Asia Minor) 1262
Andronikos II Palaiologos (* 1259, † 1332) 1282-1328
Alexios Philanthropenos (Usurper in Asia Minor) 1296
Andronikos III Palaiologos (* ca. 1296, † 1341)      1328-1341
John V Palaiologos (* 1332, † 1391) 1341-1391
Anne of Savoy (Empress mother, Regent)      1341-1347
John Kalekas (Regent, Patriarch of Constantinople)      1341-1346
Alexios Apokaukos (Leader of the Regency, Megas Dux)      1341-1345
Alexios of Velikoma (Lord of Eion-Anaktoropolis)      1345-1350
Limpidarios (Lord of Ainos)      ca. 1354/55
Matthaios Kantakuzenos (co-emperor/Prince in Thrace)      1353-1357
Alexios Palaiologos (Megas Stratopedarches, Lord of Chrysopolis, Anaktoropolis and Thasos)      1357-before 1373
John Palaiologos (Megas Primikerios, Lord of Chrysopolis, Anaktoropolis and Thasos) 1357-before 1373      
John VI Kantakuzenos (* ca. 1295, † 1383) 1347-1354
Andronikos IV Palaiologos (* ca. 1348, † 1385) 1376-1379
John VII Palaiologos (* 1370, † 1408 ) 1390
Manuel II Palaiologos (* 1350, † 1425) 1391-1425
Theodosios Kyprios (Usurper in Constantinople) 1402
John VIII Palaiologos (* 1392, † 1448 )      1425-1448
Constantin XI/XII/XIII Palaiologos (* 1404, † 1453) 1448-1453
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Alexios »


Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2005, 09:24:16 PM »
Alexios

Welcome to the forum!
I like your pseudonym!





Branislav


about iconoclasm

1. iconoclasm was the first time when the "West" [i.e. Rome] understood that "Byzantium" could be wrong, and the undisputed authority it had in Christendom gradually diminished

2. even if at that time Rome maintained an "iconodule" position this doesn't mean that it had the kind of implicit understanding of language that was in place in the "East" inspire of iconoclasm; gradually all that is related to The Holy Spirit -including icons- became down-graded [or at least in comparison with the East]; so even if they had "icons" they probably regarded them somewhat different

3. one of the reasons for iconoclasm is that icons were [in the eyes of the iconoclasts] to important; this was a problem in the East, but not so much in the West;




about the "middle ages"

1. the first problem with it is that it is supposed to grasp such a long history, so complex, that it loses its sense, it really is meaningless

2. the name itself has come to be associated with the common prejudice that this was a "problematic"/dark age, something that was “overcome” by what followed

3. no serious historian can speak today with ease about the "middle ages" in general





about language I'll speak another time





« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 04:04:10 AM by Svetabel »
I, Claudius

Offline Branislav

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2005, 11:37:56 PM »
Dear palimpsest,

Thank you for your reply. I generally agree with your point of view on Byzantium and the West. It is a very complex and rich subject though, so I don't think we completely understend everything that is important to understand there.

I looked at the other link with discussions on Orthodoxy, and I came accross one discussion exchange between you and "bluetoria".

First you said:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"bluetoria

The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west, while The Father and The Son are considered to be "uncreated", even though they are said to be "equal". These means that the powers that the Church has are only spiritual aids, and true union with God is possible only after Purgatory [not an issue in the east].  

In the east all three persons of the Trinity are "uncreated" and "full" union with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost], or Deification, is possible even from this life".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

and "bluetoria" replied:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Palimpsest, this is not quite accurate. The Western Church doesn't believe the Holy Spirit was created - because the Holy Spirit is God. It is said in the Nicene Creed:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.

The 'proceeds' from doesn't mean 'created by' it simply means the Holy Spirit is the action of God (if you will) but also a person of the Trinity, one and co-equal with the Father & the Son. (When it comes down to it these theologies do turn rather into how many angels can dance on a pin head, don't they?)".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You did not comment on one important part in this answer.

Niceene Creed does not say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", but: "who proceeds from the Father".
This is the famous "filioque", and this constitutes the main reason why Holy Ghost is understood differently in the West.

You said, on the other hand: "The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west", and "with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost]...".

I think you are mixing God's uncreated energies, with the Third Hypostasis of Holy Trinity - Holy Ghost. In the West they always believed that Holy Ghost is uncreated because He is God, third of His Hypostasis. But they did not understand St. Gregory Palamas in 14th century and his teaching about uncreated energies of God, as always believed in the Orthodox Church. Holy Ghost is not God's uncreated energies. Uncreated energies are manifestation of the whole Holy Trinity.

Here is an excerpt:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia): “The Orthodox Church”, pp. 77-78

“From this, Gregory [Palamas (1296-1359), Archbishop of Thessalonica] turned to the main problem: how to combine the two affirmations, that man knows God and that God is by nature unknowable. Gregory answered: we know the _energies_ of God, but not His _essence_. This distinction between God's essence (ousia) and His energies goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers. "We know our God from His energies", wrote Saint Basil, "but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence." ... But however remote from us in His essence, yet in His energies God has revealed Himself to men. These energies are not something that exists apart from God, not a gift which God confers upon men: they are God Himself in His action and revelation to the world. God exists complete and entire in each of His divine energies. The world, as Gerard Manley Hopkins said, is charged with the grandeur of God; all creation is a gigantic Burning Bush, permeated but not consumed by the ineffable and wondrous fire off God's energies.

It is through these energies that God enters into a direct and Immediate relationship with mankind. In relation to man, the divine energy is in fact nothing else than the _grace_of_God_; grace is not just a "gift" of God, not just an object which God bestows on men, but a direct manifestation of the living God Himself, a personal confrontation between creature and Creator. "Grace signifies all the abundance of the divine nature, in so far as it is communicated to men." [V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p 162] When we say that the saints have been transformed... by the grace of God, what we mean is that they have a direct experience of God Himself. They Know God--that is to say, God in His energies, not in His essence”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

St Gregory Palamas exposed this teaching of God's uncreated energies (which was always believed in Church) in his disputes with Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akindynos, and Nikephoros Gregoras. This was the final act in the process of divergence between East and West, in their understading of Christianity.

Regards,
Branislav

 

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Branislav »

Offline Branislav

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2005, 10:49:08 AM »
Here are the links to the three very interesting articles on so called "Palamite controversy", i.e. on God's uncreated energies through which we know Him, as opposed to His essence which we can never have knowledge about. St. Gregory Palama's writing on this topic is along the lines of  the Orthodox Church Tradition to distinguish between cataphatic ("positive") and apophatic (negative) theology. "Positive" in the sense that there are things we can know about God (like His energies), and "negative" in the sense that there are things we can not positively know about God (like His essence).

[1] Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics
Part I
by Fr. John S. Romanides


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_notes1.aspx


[2] Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics
Part II
by Fr. John S. Romanides

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_notes2.aspx


[3] THE HUMANIST QUEST FOR A UNITY OF
KNOWLEDGE AND THE ORTHODOX
METAPHYSICS OF LIGHT

A Corrective to Father Meyendorff’s
Misunderstanding of the Theology
of St. Gregory Palamas*

By The Right Reverend Dr. Auxentios
Titular Bishop of Photiki


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/MeyCorr.pdf


With best wishes,
Branislav
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Branislav »

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2005, 11:37:29 PM »
Thank you for your input on the threads of The Byzantine Empire. You have given me a start for my winter reading. God Bless !

Tatiana


Quote
Dear palimpsest,

Thank you for your reply. I generally agree with your point of view on Byzantium and the West. It is a very complex and rich subject though, so I don't think we completely understend everything that is important to understand there.

I looked at the other link with discussions on Orthodoxy, and I came accross one discussion exchange between you and "bluetoria".

First you said:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"bluetoria
 
The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west, while The Father and The Son are considered to be "uncreated", even though they are said to be "equal". These means that the powers that the Church has are only spiritual aids, and true union with God is possible only after Purgatory [not an issue in the east].  
 
In the east all three persons of the Trinity are "uncreated" and "full" union with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost], or Deification, is possible even from this life".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

and "bluetoria" replied:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Palimpsest, this is not quite accurate. The Western Church doesn't believe the Holy Spirit was created - because the Holy Spirit is God. It is said in the Nicene Creed:
 
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
 
The 'proceeds' from doesn't mean 'created by' it simply means the Holy Spirit is the action of God (if you will) but also a person of the Trinity, one and co-equal with the Father & the Son. (When it comes down to it these theologies do turn rather into how many angels can dance on a pin head, don't they?)".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You did not comment on one important part in this answer.

Niceene Creed does not say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", but: "who proceeds from the Father".
This is the famous "filioque", and this constitutes the main reason why Holy Ghost is understood differently in the West.

You said, on the other hand: "The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west", and "with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost]...".

I think you are mixing God's uncreated energies, with the Third Hypostasis of Holy Trinity - Holy Ghost. In the West they always believed that Holy Ghost is uncreated because He is God, third of His Hypostasis. But they did not understand St. Gregory Palamas in 14th century and his teaching about uncreated energies of God, as always believed in the Orthodox Church. Holy Ghost is not God's uncreated energies. Uncreated energies are manifestation of the whole Holy Trinity.

Here is an excerpt:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia): “The Orthodox Church”, pp. 77-78

“From this, Gregory [Palamas (1296-1359), Archbishop of Thessalonica] turned to the main problem: how to combine the two affirmations, that man knows God and that God is by nature unknowable. Gregory answered: we know the _energies_ of God, but not His _essence_. This distinction between God's essence (ousia) and His energies goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers. "We know our God from His energies", wrote Saint Basil, "but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence." ... But however remote from us in His essence, yet in His energies God has revealed Himself to men. These energies are not something that exists apart from God, not a gift which God confers upon men: they are God Himself in His action and revelation to the world. God exists complete and entire in each of His divine energies. The world, as Gerard Manley Hopkins said, is charged with the grandeur of God; all creation is a gigantic Burning Bush, permeated but not consumed by the ineffable and wondrous fire off God's energies.

It is through these energies that God enters into a direct and Immediate relationship with mankind. In relation to man, the divine energy is in fact nothing else than the _grace_of_God_; grace is not just a "gift" of God, not just an object which God bestows on men, but a direct manifestation of the living God Himself, a personal confrontation between creature and Creator. "Grace signifies all the abundance of the divine nature, in so far as it is communicated to men." [V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p 162] When we say that the saints have been transformed... by the grace of God, what we mean is that they have a direct experience of God Himself. They Know God--that is to say, God in His energies, not in His essence”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

St Gregory Palamas exposed this teaching of God's uncreated energies (which was always believed in Church) in his disputes with Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akindynos, and Nikephoros Gregoras. This was the final act in the process of divergence between East and West, in their understading of Christianity.

Regards,
Branislav

  


TatianaA


Offline Branislav

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2005, 11:20:32 AM »
Dear Tatiana,
Christ in our midst!

I am glad you found it interesting.

What is better than to spend winter reading books, in a warm room, and look through the window how snow is quietly falling on Earth!?  :)

I am planning to do the same!  :)

God Bless you!
In Christ,
Branislav


Quote
Thank you for your input on the threads of The Byzantine Empire. You have given me a start for my winter reading. God Bless !

Tatiana


Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2005, 12:59:52 PM »
Quote
Dear palimpsest,

Thank you for your reply. I generally agree with your point of view on Byzantium and the West. It is a very complex and rich subject though, so I don't think we completely understend everything that is important to understand there.

I looked at the other link with discussions on Orthodoxy, and I came accross one discussion exchange between you and "bluetoria".

First you said:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"bluetoria
 
The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west, while The Father and The Son are considered to be "uncreated", even though they are said to be "equal". These means that the powers that the Church has are only spiritual aids, and true union with God is possible only after Purgatory [not an issue in the east].  
 
In the east all three persons of the Trinity are "uncreated" and "full" union with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost], or Deification, is possible even from this life".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

and "bluetoria" replied:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Palimpsest, this is not quite accurate. The Western Church doesn't believe the Holy Spirit was created - because the Holy Spirit is God. It is said in the Nicene Creed:
 
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
 
The 'proceeds' from doesn't mean 'created by' it simply means the Holy Spirit is the action of God (if you will) but also a person of the Trinity, one and co-equal with the Father & the Son. (When it comes down to it these theologies do turn rather into how many angels can dance on a pin head, don't they?)".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You did not comment on one important part in this answer.

Niceene Creed does not say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", but: "who proceeds from the Father".
This is the famous "filioque", and this constitutes the main reason why Holy Ghost is understood differently in the West.

You said, on the other hand: "The Holy Ghost is considered to be "created" in the west", and "with God [his uncreated energies or Holy Ghost]...".

I think you are mixing God's uncreated energies, with the Third Hypostasis of Holy Trinity - Holy Ghost. In the West they always believed that Holy Ghost is uncreated because He is God, third of His Hypostasis. But they did not understand St. Gregory Palamas in 14th century and his teaching about uncreated energies of God, as always believed in the Orthodox Church. Holy Ghost is not God's uncreated energies. Uncreated energies are manifestation of the whole Holy Trinity.

Here is an excerpt:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia): “The Orthodox Church”, pp. 77-78

“From this, Gregory [Palamas (1296-1359), Archbishop of Thessalonica] turned to the main problem: how to combine the two affirmations, that man knows God and that God is by nature unknowable. Gregory answered: we know the _energies_ of God, but not His _essence_. This distinction between God's essence (ousia) and His energies goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers. "We know our God from His energies", wrote Saint Basil, "but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence." ... But however remote from us in His essence, yet in His energies God has revealed Himself to men. These energies are not something that exists apart from God, not a gift which God confers upon men: they are God Himself in His action and revelation to the world. God exists complete and entire in each of His divine energies. The world, as Gerard Manley Hopkins said, is charged with the grandeur of God; all creation is a gigantic Burning Bush, permeated but not consumed by the ineffable and wondrous fire off God's energies.

It is through these energies that God enters into a direct and Immediate relationship with mankind. In relation to man, the divine energy is in fact nothing else than the _grace_of_God_; grace is not just a "gift" of God, not just an object which God bestows on men, but a direct manifestation of the living God Himself, a personal confrontation between creature and Creator. "Grace signifies all the abundance of the divine nature, in so far as it is communicated to men." [V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p 162] When we say that the saints have been transformed... by the grace of God, what we mean is that they have a direct experience of God Himself. They Know God--that is to say, God in His energies, not in His essence”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

St Gregory Palamas exposed this teaching of God's uncreated energies (which was always believed in Church) in his disputes with Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akindynos, and Nikephoros Gregoras. This was the final act in the process of divergence between East and West, in their understading of Christianity.

Regards,
Branislav

  



You might be right Branislav!
I, Claudius

Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2005, 01:11:18 PM »
Quote
Here are the links to the three very interesting articles on so called "Palamite controversy", i.e. on God's uncreated energies through which we know Him, as opposed to His essence which we can never have knowledge about. St. Gregory Palama's writing on this topic is along the lines of  the Orthodox Church Tradition to distinguish between cataphatic ("positive") and apophatic (negative) theology. "Positive" in the sense that there are things we can know about God (like His energies), and "negative" in the sense that there are things we can not positively know about God (like His essence).

[1] Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics
Part I
by Fr. John S. Romanides


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_notes1.aspx


[2] Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics
Part II
by Fr. John S. Romanides

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_notes2.aspx


[3] THE HUMANIST QUEST FOR A UNITY OF
KNOWLEDGE AND THE ORTHODOX
METAPHYSICS OF LIGHT

A Corrective to Father Meyendorff’s
Misunderstanding of the Theology
of St. Gregory Palamas*

By The Right Reverend Dr. Auxentios
Titular Bishop of Photiki


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/MeyCorr.pdf


With best wishes,
Branislav


Thank you for the readings B.

I know The Right Reverend Dr. Auxentios
Titular Bishop of Photiki [and also The Right Reverend Chrisostomos
Titular Bishop of Etna]
I was a student of both of them for one year in Bucharest
Unfortunately I'm not an educated theologian so I may lack serious insights in such important matters, but I try ;D


Glad to hear that you read them Tania!


Best from
palimpsest
I, Claudius

Offline Branislav

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #26 on: November 21, 2005, 10:46:59 AM »
Dear palimsest,

You had a great privilege being able to study with them!

It is pretty worthless to know all theology and to have cold heart. I am not an educated theologian either - it just happened that I was interested in St. Gregory Palamas and this subject so I read few things about it.

You give us on this list much more - your love for the Orthodox Church, and your love toward all people who are all God's children. This is what matters, and it is a real virtue of heart, while knowledge of theology, per se,  is not.

I am still thinking about what you said - how good it would be if post-byzantine countries would turn more attention toward each other, and start to resemble again byzantine commonwealth, understanding their national(istic) differences as secondary, and their common faith - as primary in their neighborly relationships. It would be really good, indeed!

By the way, I admire Emil Cioran - Romanian/French writer and philosopher, who at first sight looks to some  maybe like a nihillist, but carefull reading reveals him as one of the rare modern philosophers who is drawing his inspiration from Early Church Fathers and desert monasticism - although always in a hidden way.

All the best,
Branislav

Quote

Thank you for the readings B.

I know The Right Reverend Dr. Auxentios
Titular Bishop of Photiki [and also The Right Reverend Chrisostomos
Titular Bishop of Etna]
I was a student of both of them for one year in Bucharest ....


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Branislav »

Offline Alexios

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Long live the Emperor! God save the Queen!
    • View Profile
    • Rollenspiel-Mittelalter
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2005, 12:28:35 PM »
Quote
I am still thinking about what you said - how good it would be if post-byzantine countries would turn more attention toward each other, and start to resemble again byzantine commonwealth, understanding their national(istic) differences as secondary, and their common faith - as primary in their neighborly relationships. It would be really good, indeed!

I hope that people become more aware of the Byzantine past in general. Byzantium, probably the most civilized state during the Middle Ages (e.g. for centuries, perhaps you could say until 1204, Constantinople was Christianity's only real metropolis), was more than some last twichtes of the Roman Empire, it managed to survive for over a thousand years after all. Today's Europe would be indeed unthinkable without the Byzantine Empire, which acted as a bulwark against Islam and saved a very considerable amout of the ancient classics, that are such an important element of our modern European culture...


Offline palimpsest

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2639
  • nulla dies sine linea
    • View Profile
    • CERHAS
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #28 on: November 21, 2005, 03:02:56 PM »
Alexios
you are right, of course, but we would have learned nothing from our history if we would become proud, even of our history!
if the West should teaches us something, then that is the importance of being humble!

Branislav
sometimes I think an Orthodox Commonwealth would be capable of cultivating a better civilization than the one we find ourselves in... however, I have serious doubts about this kind of thoughts... we should better think about our own weaknesses first and foremost [and they are many, aren't they?]

Emil Cioran is a skillful writer, I know more about him from commentaries than from his own works I'm afraid, so I don't have a definite opinion about him, just a partial admiration
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by palimpsest »
I, Claudius

Offline Branislav

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: The Byzantine Empire
« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2005, 03:54:02 PM »
Dear Alexios,

Quote
Byzantium, ...,  was more than some last twichtes of the Roman Empire, ....


It was the Roman Empire, the East Roman Empire! So as palimpsest once said, the fall of Roman Empire occured in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople, not in 476 with the fall of western part of Roman Empire.

And definitelly, the influx of "Byzantines" in the West during the final siege of Byzantium and after the fall of Constantinople, triggered Rennaissance, i.e rediscovering of ancient Greece and Rome by West Europeans, under the influence of the civilization which represented the continuation of ancient Rome (and Greece), of course within Christian framework.

I agree with palimpsest that people should not be too proud about their past and heritage in the sense that this becomes PRIDE, and that starts running against other peoples heritages. But they also should not feel humiliated, of lesser value then those who are rich and powerful today, they should not feel like second class citizens, third world citizens, etc... Indeed nobody should feel like that. Instead, they should love and know their own heritage, so that in this way, having roots in their own culture, and neccessary knowledge about it, they can love and understand other and different cultures.

regards,
Branislav