FREE ROME AND THE EASTERN CHURCHES: A STUDY IN SCHISM PDF

Aidan Nichols | 400 pages | 01 Jun 2010 | Ignatius Press | 9781586172824 | English | San Francisco, United States Cardinals and the Greek and Eastern Churches in: A Companion to the Early Modern Cardinal

The period from is one of the most fascinating, dynamic, exciting, and tragic in the history of the Church. Inthe Council of Chalcedon would debate and reformulate a Christian theology of the Incarnation, yet this work of Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism would result in a massive schism that would reshape the map of Christianity, a schism which is still with us to the present day. In the fallout of the Chalcedonian divide, bishops and emperors would continuously seek reunion between the two new church families, both through theological dialogue and political force. Remarkable figures like the Justinian the Great forged powerful empires while seeking theological accord. Such attempts at reunion were, at times, momentarily successful. At other times, however, they created even further division within the Church, as in the case of the Monothelite controversy of the 7 th Century, and the iconoclastic controversy soon to follow. Ecumenical councils would solve some of these debates with the help of great thinkers like Maximus the Confessor and John the Damascene, but never without cost. Meanwhile, an increasing divide between the eastern and western Churches was beginning to become obvious. By the 9 th Century, the problems of the filioque and the papacy began to break the Church apart Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism the Photian schism. Yet, in spite of the increasing pressure, a centuries long unity would be forged amid the controversy, one of the greatest feats of Christian reunion ever accomplished. Still, by the 11 th Century, the fractures within Christianity continued to grow. The breakdown of relations between what would become the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches began to take shape. Theological and ecclesial controversy would be solidified by the crusades, especially the sac of Constantinople in The age of schisms Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism come to a close with Christianity divided East to West, and Chalcedonian to non-Chalcedonian, with over a half dozen schisms, both temporary and lasting, in between. Through it all, the eastern Mediterranean would be embroiled in invasions and counter-invasions, the long, slow collapse of the last remnants of the Roman Empire, the arrival and sudden rise of Islam, the growth of Russian and Slavic power, followed by the Christianization of the same, with riots, sieges, and intrigues standing next to long periods of peace, prosperity, and genuine Christian charity. The world we know today would begin to become visible, while an older order faded away, leaving the Church to find her bearings amid a new political landscape and the scars of Christian division. In this course, we explore the history of this remarkable age of schisms. Crucially, we will ask what Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism is, politically and theologically, that causes Christians to separate from one another. Yet, of equal importance, we will also ask what drives Christians to seek unity in nearly every generation of the Church, and what strategies for crafting unity have been most effective over time. Emphasis will be on the complex politics of the period, contextualizing the theological and ecclesiological debates of the time. Skip to main content. Download Syllabus:. TRH - Age of Schisms. Last Offered:. Next Offered:. Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism - Aidan Nichols - Google книги

Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism differences and theological disputes. InRoman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches. The leader of the Latin contingent excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated the legates. The Western legate's acts are of doubtful validity because Leo had died, while Cerularius's excommunication applied only to the legates personally. Western cruelty during the Crusades, the capture and sack of Constantinople inand the imposition of Latin Patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult. On paper, the two churches actually reunited in by the Second Council of Lyon and in by the Council of Florencebut in each case the councils were repudiated by the Orthodox as a whole, on the grounds that the hierarchs had overstepped their authority in consenting to reunification. In31 years after the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turksa Synod of Constantinople repudiated the Union of Florencemaking the breach between the Patriarchate of the West and the Patriarchate of Constantinople final. A schism is a break in the Church's authority structure and communion and is different from a heresywhich means false doctrine. Church authorities have long recognized that even if their minister is in schism, the sacraments, except the power to ordain, are valid. There have been many other schisms, from the second century until today, but none as significant as the one between East and West. The Great Schism was a gradual estrangement to which no specific date can be assigned, although it has been conventionally dated to the year This date is misleading since it seems to imply that there was peace and unity beforeanimosity and division afterward. The schism actually took centuries to crystalize. Some place the split in the time of Saint Photiosfor example — or even earlier — orwith the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, or eventhe fall of Constantinople, when the Latins gave no help to prevent it. In Western circles, the term Great Schism is often used to refer to the fourteenth century schism involving the Avignon Papacy an event also sometimes called the 'Western Schism', 'Papal Schism' or 'Babylonian Captivity'. To distinguish from that event, some historians prefer the term Great Ecumenical Schism to explain succinctly what happened and to capture the complexity of the event itself. The schism Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism more than just Constantinople, or the Byzantine Empire. Leading to the Great Schism, Eastern and Western Mediterranean Christians had a history of differences and disagreements dating back to the second Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism. John Binns writes that, after the fall and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the natural leading centres of the Church were Antioch and Alexandria. Alexandria had been assisted by Mark [2]one of the Seventy Apostles. Antioch had attracted Peter and Paul and Barnabas, plus others of the Seventy. Antioch was the base from which Paul made his missionary journeys to the pagans. The Church of Antioch sent the apostles Peter and Paul to Rome to assist the fledgling church there in its growth, and because Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire. Antioch regarded Peter as its first bishop [4]. Will Durant writes that, after Jerusalem, the church of Rome naturally became the primary church, the capital of Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox liturgy calls Peter and Paul "the wisest Apostles and their princes" and "the radiant ornaments of Rome". Leading Orthodox theologian, Father Thomas Hopko has written: "The church of Rome held a special place of honor among the earliest Christian churches. It was first among the communities that recognized each other as catholic churches holding the orthodox faith concerning God's Gospel in Jesus. According to St Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch who died a martyr's death in Rome around the year'the church which presides in the territories of the Romans' was 'a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, bearer of the Father's name. It was founded on the teaching and blood of the foremost Christian apostles Peter and Paul. And it was the church of the capital city of the Roman empire that then constituted the 'civilized world oikoumene '. Saint Thomas went east, and was said to be instrumental in establishing the Church in the Persian Empire and satellite kingdoms, although Addai and Mari, two of the Seventy Apostles were credited with most of the work of establishment in Persia itself. The Persian Church was larger than the Mediterranean Church for some centuries, especially in the sixth to eighth centuries with its highly successful movement into India, Mongolia, China, Tibet, [Korea, and Japan [12]. In Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism fourth century when the Roman emperors were trying to control the Church, theological questions were running rampant throughout the Roman Empire [13]. The influence of Greek speculative thought on Christian thinking led to all sorts of divergent and conflicting opinions [14]. Christ's commandment Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism love others as He loved, seemed to have been lost in the intellectual abstractions of the time. Theology was also used as a weapon against opponent bishops, since being Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism a heretic was the only sure way for a bishop to be removed by other bishops. Incompetence was not sufficient grounds for removal. In the early church up until the ecumenical councils, Rome was regarded as an important centre of Christianity, especially since it was the capital of the Roman Empire. The eastern and southern Mediterranean bishops generally recognized a persuasive leadership and authority of the Bishop of Rome, because the teaching of the bishop of Rome was almost invariably correct. But the Mediterrtanean Church did not regard the Bishop of Rome as any sort of infallible source, nor did they acknowledge any juridical authority of Rome. After the sole emperor of all the Roman Empire Constantine the Great built the new imperial capital on the Bosphorous, the centre of gravity in the empire was fully recognised to have completely shifted to the eastern Mediterranean. Rome lost the senate to Byzantium and lost its status and gravitas as imperial capital. The patriarchs of Constantinople often tried to adopt an imperious position over the other patriarchs. In the case of Nestoriuswhose actual teaching is now recognised to be not overtly heretical, although it is clearly deficient, Saint Cyril called it 'slippery'[15]other patriarchs were able to make the charge of heresy stick and successfully had him deposed. This was probably more because his christology was delivered with a heavy sarcastic arrogance which matched his high-handed personality [16]. The opinion of the Bishop of Rome was often sought, especially when the patriarchs of the Eastern Mediterranean were locked in fractious dispute. The bishops of Rome never obviously belonged to either the Antiochian or the Alexandrian schools of theology, and usually managed to steer a middle course between whatever extremes were being propounded by theologians of either school. Because Rome was remote from the centres of Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean, it was frequently hoped its bishop would be more impartial. For instance, inCyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, appealed to Pope Celestine Ias well as the other patriarchs, charging Nestorius with heresy, which was dealt with at the Council of Ephesus. The opinion of the bishop of Rome was always canvassed, and was often longed for. However, the Bishop of Rome's opinion was by no means automatically right. For instance, the Tome of Leo of Rome was highly regarded, and formed the basis for the ecumenical council's formulation. But it was not universally accepted and was even called "impious" and "blasphemous" by some. Although the Bishop of Rome was well-respected even at this early date, the concept of papal infallibility was developed much later. Following the Sack of Rome by invading European Goths, Rome slid into Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism Dark Ages which afflicted most parts of Western Europe, and became increasingly isolated and irrelevant to the wider Mediterranean Church. This was a situation which suited and pleased a lot of the Eastern Mediterranean patriarchs and bishops [18]. It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose out of obscurity on the back of the military successes of the western Mediterranean adventurers. The bishops at the Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism confirmed the position of the metropolitan sees of Rome and Alexandria as having authority outside their own province, and also the existing privileges of the churches in Antioch and the other provinces. In a separate canon the Council also approved the special honor given to Jerusalem over other sees subject to the same metropolitan. Soon, Constantine erected a new capital at Byzantiuma strategically-placed city on the Bosporus. The Second Ecumenical Councilheld at the new capital innow elevated the see of Constantinople itself, to a position ahead of the other chief metropolitan sees, except that of Rome. The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon inconfirming the authority already held by Constantinople, granted its archbishop jurisdiction over the three provinces mentioned by the First Council of Constantinople:. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops [i. The council also ratified an agreement between Antioch and Jerusalem, whereby Jerusalem Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism jurisdiction over three provinces, [24] numbering it among the five great sees. Disunion in the Roman Empire further contributed to disunion in the Church. Theodosius the Greatwho established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, died in and was the last Emperor to rule Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism a united Roman Empire; following his death, the Empire was divided into western and eastern halves, each under its own Emperor. By the end of the fifth century, the Western Roman Empire had been overrun by the Germanic tribes, while the Eastern Roman Empire known also as the Byzantine Empire continued to thrive. Thus, the political unity of the Roman Empire was the first to fall. In the West, the collapse of civil government left the Church practically in charge in many areas, and bishops took to administering secular cities and domains. In the East, however, imperial and, later, Islamic rule dominated the Eastern bishops. Many other factors caused the East and West to drift further apart. The dominant language of the West Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism Latin, whilst that of the East was Greek. Soon after the fall of the Western Empire, the number of individuals who spoke both Latin and Greek began to dwindle, and communication between East and West grew much more difficult. With linguistic unity gone, cultural unity began to crumble as well. The two halves of the Church were naturally divided along similar lines; they developed different rites and had different approaches to religious doctrines. Although the Great Schism was still centuries away, its outlines were already perceptible. It caused Charlemage to task his frankish theologians with the wording of a refutation "Libri Carolini". Compounding the dogmatic issue was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an Ecumenical Council and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church. For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was considered by the Eastern bishops to be offensive to other bishops, as it undermined the collegiality and right of the episcopacy. This led to the primary causes of the Schism - the disputes over conflicting claims of jurisdiction, in particular over papal authority. Eastern Orthodox today state that the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople. The seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus declared:. Eastern Orthodox today state that this Canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed drawn up by the First Ecumenical Council inthe wording of which but, it is claimed, not Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism substance, had been modified by the First Council of Constantinoplemaking additions such as "who proceeds from the Father". In the Orthodox view, the Bishop of Rome i. Filioque is a word that changes the Latin version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed to include the wording [Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre Filioque procedit or " Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son. The first appearance of this insertion into the Creed happened in Toledo, Spain, where Latin theologians were trying to refute a brand of the Arian heresy. Those theologians had better access to the writings of Latin theologians, particularly of St. Augustine of Hippothan to Greek theologians. Augustine used the teaching from John to emphasize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that neither is subordinate to the other. So the Creed was changed by the local synod of bishops at Toledo with the justification that it asserts the divinity of Christ refuting Arianismand asserts the unity of the Trinity and the equality of each hypostasis of the Trinity. It should also be noted that St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome, and many other pre-schism Popes disagreed with the decision of the Toledo Council, one even going so far as to engraving the Creed without the Filioque on the doors of St. Peter's Basilica. There were other less significant catalysts for the Schism however, including variance over liturgical practices. Some scholars [33] have Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism that the Schism between East and West has very Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism roots, and that sporadic schisms in the common unions took place under Pope Victor I second centuryPope Stephen I third century and Pope Damasus I fourth and fifth century. Later on, Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism about theological and other questions led to schisms between the Churches in Rome and Constantinople for 37 years from to the Acacian Schismand for 13 years from see Patriarch Photios the Great. Most of the direct causes of the Great Schism, however, are far less grandiose than the famous filioque. “Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism” | Eirenikon

A succession of ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes between the Greek East and Latin West pre-dated the formal split that occurred in Inthe first step in the process which led to a formal schism was taken: the Greek churches in southern Italy were forced to conform to Latin practices and if any of them did not, they were forced to close. Inthe papal legate sent by Leo IX travelled to Constantinople for purposes that included refusing Cerularius the title of " Ecumenical Patriarch " and insisting that he recognize the pope 's claim to be the head of all of the churches. The historian, Axel Bayer, says the legation was sent in response to two letters, one from the emperor seeking assistance in arranging a common military campaign by the eastern and western empires against the Normansand the other from Cerularius. The validity of the Western legates' act is doubtful because Pope Leo died and Cerularius' excommunication only applied to the legates personally. The Latin-led Crusadesthe Massacre of the Latins inthe West's retaliation in the Sacking of Thessalonica inthe capture and pillaging of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism, and the imposition of Latin patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult. InPope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras I nullified the anathemas of[1] although this nullification of measures which were taken against a few individuals was essentially a goodwill gesture and did not constitute any sort of reunion. The absence of full communion between the churches is even explicitly mentioned when the Code of Canon Law accords Catholic ministers permission to administer Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and the anointing of the sick to spontaneously requesting members of eastern churches such as the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the Oriental Orthodox churches and the Church of the East and members of western churches such as the Old Catholic Church. The efforts of the Ecumenical Patriarchs towards reconciliation with the Catholic Church have often been the target of sharp criticism from some fellow Orthodox. Jaroslav Pelikan emphasizes that "while the East-West schism stemmed largely from political and ecclesiastical discord, this discord also reflected basic theological differences". Pelikan further argues that the antagonists in the 11th century Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism exaggerated their theological differences, whereas modern historians tend to minimize them. Pelikan asserts that the documents from that era evidence the "depths of intellectual alienation that had Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism between the two sections of Christendom. Pelikan describes much of the dispute as dealing with "regional differences in usages and customs," some of which were adiaphorus i. However, he goes on to say that while it was easy in principle to accept the existence of adiaphora, it was difficult in actual practice to distinguish customs which were innocuously adiaphoric from those that had doctrinal implications. Philip Sherrard, an Orthodox theologian, asserts that the underlying cause of the East-West schism was and continues to be "the clash of these two fundamentally irreconcilable ecclesiologies. Cyprian of Carthage according to which only one true and universal church can exist. Another point of controversy was celibacy among Western priests both monastic and parishas opposed to the Eastern discipline Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism parish priests could be married men. However, the Latin church has always had some priests who were legally married. They have been a small minority since the 12th century. There are several different ecclesiologies: "communion ecclesiology", "eucharistic ecclesiology", "baptismal ecclesiology", "trinitarian ecclesiology", "kerygmatic theology". The Eastern Churches maintained the idea that every local city-church with its bishop, presbyters, deacons and people celebrating the eucharist constituted the whole church. In this view called eucharistic ecclesiology or more recently holographic ecclesiologyevery bishop is Saint Peter 's successor in his church "the Church"and the churches form what Eusebius called a common union of churches. This implied that all bishops were ontologically equal, although functionally particular bishops could be granted special privileges by other bishops and serve as metropolitansarchbishops or patriarchs. Within the Roman Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism, from the time of Constantine to the fall of the empire inuniversal ecclesiology, rather than eucharistic, became the operative principle. These two views are still present in modern Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism and can be seen as foundational causes for the schisms and Great Schism between East and West. The Orthodox have synods where the highest authorities in each Church community are brought together, but, unlike the Catholic Church, no central individual or figure has the absolute and infallible last word on church doctrine. In practice, this has sometimes led to divisions among Greek, Russian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, as no central authority can serve as an arbitrator for various internal disputes. Starting from the second half of the 20th century, eucharistic ecclesiology is upheld by Catholic theologians. Henri de Lubac writes: "The Church, like the Eucharist, is a mystery of unity — the same mystery, and one with inexhaustible riches. Both are the body of Christ — the same body. If each celebration of the Eucharist is a matter not only of Christ's sacramental presence on the altar but also of his ecclesial presence in the gathered community, then each local eucharistic church must be more than a subset of the universal church; it must be the body of Christ 'in that place'. The ecclesiological dimension of the East-West schism revolves around the authority of bishops within their dioceses [30] and the lines of authority between bishops of different dioceses. It is common for Catholics to insist on the primacy of Roman and papal authority based on patristic writings and conciliar documents. Principal among the ecclesiastical issues that separate the two churches is the meaning of papal primacy within any future unified church. The Orthodox insist that it should be a "primacy of honor", as in the ancient church, and not a "primacy of authority", [34] whereas the Catholics see the pontiff's role as required for its exercise power and authority the exact form of which is open to discussion with other Christians. It is not defined by adherence to any particular see. It is the position of the Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. Referring to Ignatius of Antioch, [37] Carlton says:. Contrary to popular opinion, the word catholic does not mean "universal"; it means "whole, complete, lacking nothing. Thus, to confess the Church to be catholic is to say that She possesses the fullness of the Christian faith. To say, however, that Orthodox and Rome constitute two lungs of the same Church is to deny that either Church Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism is catholic in any meaningful sense of the term. This is not only contrary to the teaching of Orthodoxy, it is flatly Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism itself truly catholic. The church is in the image of the Trinity [38] and reflects the reality of the incarnation. The body of Christ must always be equal with itself… The local church which manifests the body of Christ cannot be subsumed into any larger organisation or collectivity which makes it more catholic and more in unity, for the simple reason that the principle of total Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism and total unity is already intrinsic to it. The iconoclast policy enforced by a series of decrees of Emperor Leo III the Isaurian in — was resisted in the West, giving rise to friction that ended inwhen the Second Council of Nicaea reaffirmed that images are to be venerated but not worshipped. The Libri Carolinicommissioned by Charlemagnecriticized what a faulty translation gave as the council's decision, but their objections were rebutted by Pope Adrian I. From the Catholic Church's perspective, the ecclesiological issues are the central issue, which is why they characterize the split between the two churches as a schism. In their view, the Eastern Orthodox are very close to them in theology, and the Catholic Church does not consider the Orthodox beliefs to be heretical. However, from the perspective of Orthodox theologians, there are theological issues that run much deeper than just the theology around the primacy of the Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism. In fact, unlike the Catholics, who do not generally consider the Orthodox heretical and speak instead about the Eastern "schism", [39] some prominent Orthodox theologians do consider the Catholic Church to be heretical on fundamental doctrinal issues of theology, such as the Filioque. These issues have a long history as can be seen in the 11th-century works of Orthodox theologian and Saint Nikitas Stithatos. In the Catholic Church too, some writers can be found who speak pejoratively of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its theology, but these writers are marginal. In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. Where the authentic theological traditions of the Eastern Church are concerned, we must recognize the admirable way in which they have their roots in Holy Scripture, and how they are nurtured and given expression in the life of the liturgy. They derive their strength too from the living tradition of the apostles and from the works of the Fathers and spiritual writers of the Eastern Churches. Thus they promote the right ordering of Christian life and, indeed, pave the way to a full vision of Christian truth. Although the Western churches do not consider the Eastern and Western understanding of the Trinity Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism be radically different, Eastern theologians such as John Romanides and Michael Pomazansky argue that the Filioque clause is symptomatic of a fatal flaw in the Western understanding, which they attribute to the influence of Augustine and, by extension, to that of Thomas Aquinas. Filioque states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, a doctrine accepted by the Catholic Church[52] by Anglicanism [53] and by Protestant churches in general. Nonetheless, these groups recognize that Filioque is not part of the original text established at the First Council of Constantinople in[57] and they do not demand that others too should use it when saying the Creed. At the — Council of Constantinople the Eastern Orthodox Church anathematized the Filioque phrase, "as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed", and in their encyclical the Eastern Patriarchs spoke of it as a heresy. The Eastern church believes by the Western church inserting the Filioque unilaterally without consulting or holding council with the East into the Creed, that the Western Church broke communion with the East. Orthodox theologians such as Vladimir Lossky criticize the focus of Western theology of God in 'God in uncreated essence' as misguided, which he alleges is a modalistic and therefore a speculative expression of God that is indicative of the Sabellian heresy. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences. Lossky argues the difference in East and West is because of the Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy and scholasticism rather than actual experience of God called theoriato validate the theological dogmas of Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky states that Eastern Orthodox and Catholics have become "different men". Orthodox theologians charge that, in contrast to Orthodox theologywestern theology is based on philosophical Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism which reduces humanity and nature to cold mechanical concepts. The Orthodox Church has no metaphysical theory of Transsubstantiation, and there is no need of such a theory. Christ is the Lord of the elements and it is in His power to do so that 'every thing, without in the least changing its physical substance' could become His Body. Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not physical flesh. Orthodox theologians argue that the mind reason, rationality is the focus of Western theology, whereas, in Eastern theology, the mind must be put in the heart, so they are united into what is called nous, this unity as heart is the focus of Eastern Orthodox Christianity [66] involving the unceasing Prayer of the heart. In Orthodox theology, in the Eastern ascetic traditions one of the goals of ascetic practice is to obtain sobriety of consciousness, awakeness nepsis. For humankind this is reached in the healing of the whole person called the soul or heart. When a person's heart is reconciled with their mind, this is referred to as a healing of the nous or the "eye, focus of the heart or soul". Orthodox theologians assert that the theological division of East and West culminated into a direct theological conflict known as the Hesychasm controversy during several councils at Constantinople between and They argue that this controversy highlighted the sharp contrast between what is embraced by the Catholic Church as proper or orthodox theological Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism and how theology is validated and what is considered valid theology by the Eastern Orthodox. The essence of the disagreement is that in the East a person cannot be a true theologian or teach the knowledge of God, without having experienced God, as is defined Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism the vision of God theoria. At the heart of the issue was the teaching of the Essence-Energies distinctions which states that while creation can never know God's uncreated essence, it can know his uncreated energies by Gregory Palamas. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept Augustine 's teaching of original sin. His interpretation of ancestral sin is rejected in the East as well. Nor is Augustine's teaching accepted in its totality in the West. Its teaching on original sin is largely based on but not identical with that of Augustine, and is opposed to the interpretation of Augustine advanced by Martin Luther and John Calvin. Its teaching departs from Augustine's ideas in some respects. Another Orthodox view is expressed by Christos Yannaraswho described Augustine as "the fount of every distortion and alteration in the Church's truth in the West". What the Eastern Orthodox accepts is that ancestral sin corrupted their existence their bodies and environment that each person is born into and thus we are born into a corrupted existence by the ancestral sin of Adam and Eve [75] and that "original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. All of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. Similarly, what the Catholic Church holds is that Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism sin of Adam that we inherit, and for the remission of which even babies who have no personal sin are baptized, [78] is called "sin" only in an analogical sense Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism it is not an act committed like the personal sin of Adam Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism Eve, but a fallen state-contracted by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. Both East [ citation needed ] and West [79] hold that each person is not called to atone for the actual sin committed by Adam and Eve. According to the Western Church, "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants", [79] and the Eastern Church teaches that "by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin". The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conceptionwhich claims that God protected the Virgin Mary from original sin through no merit of her own, [81] [82] was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius IX in Orthodox theology proclaims that Mary was chosen to bear Christ, having first found favor of God by her purity and obedience. Another point of theological contention between the western and eastern churches is the doctrine of purgatory as it was shown at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Ferrara—Florence. The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that "there is a state beyond death where believers continue to be perfected and led to full divinization". The traditional Orthodox teaching is that "those who reject Christ will face punishment. According to the Confession of Dositheuspersons go immediately to joy in Christ or to the torments of punishment". In eternity there is no hiding from God.