site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   25598 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 5, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can you expound upon where the Great Schism of 1054 was Rome going off the rails? Because this is how Catholics see it:

In 1042 Monomachus became emperor peaceably by marrying Zoe... He remembered his old friend and fellow-conspirator, [Cærularius], and gave him an ambiguous place at court, described as that of the emperor's "familiar friend and guest at meals" (Psellus, "Enkomion", I, 324). As Cærularius was a monk, any further advancement must be that of an ecclesiastical career. He was therefore next made syncellus (that is, secretary) of the patriarch, Alexius (1025-34). The syncellus was always a bishop, and held a place in the church second only to that of the patriarch himself.

In 1034 Alexius died, and Constantine appointed Cærularius as his successor. There was no election; the emperor "went like an arrow to the target" (Psellus, ibid., p. 326). From this moment the story of Cærularius becomes that of the great schism.

The time was singularly unpropitious for a quarrel with the pope. The Normans were invading Sicily, enemies of both the papacy and the Eastern Empire, from whom they were conquering that island. There was every reason why the pope (St. Leo IX, 1048-56) and the emperor should keep friends and unite their forces against the common enemy. Both knew it, and tried throughout to prevent a quarrel.

But it was forced on them by the outrageous conduct of the patriarch. Suddenly, after no kind of provocation, in the midst of what John Beccus describes as "perfect peace" between the two Churches (L. Allatius, "Græcia orthod.", I, 37)... Cærularius sent to the other patriarchs a treatise written by Nicetas Pectoratus against unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, and celibacy. Because of these "horrible infirmities", Nicetas describes Latins as "dogs, bad workmen, schismatics, hypocrites, and liars" (Will, op. cit., 127-36).... Still entirely unprovoked, [Cærularius] closed all the Latin churches at Constantinople, including that of the papal legate. His chancellor Nicephorus burst open the Latin tabernacles, and trampled on the Holy Eucharist because it was consecrated in unleavened bread.

The pope then answered the letter... He points out that no one thought of attacking the many Byzantine monasteries and churches in the West (Will, op. cit., 65-85)...

For a moment Cærularius seems to have wavered in his plan because of the importance of the pope's help against the Normans. He writes to Peter III of Antioch, that he had for this reason proposed an alliance with Leo (Will, 174).

[Pope] Leo answered this proposal [to join forces to resist Norman invasion] resenting the stupendous arrogance of [Cærularius]'s tone, but still hoping for peace. At the same time he wrote a very friendly letter to the emperor, and sent both documents to Constantinople by three legates, Cardinal Humbert, Cardinal Frederick (his own cousin and Chancellor of the Roman Church, afterwards Stephen IX, 1057-58), and Archbishop Peter of Amalfi.

The emperor, who was exceedingly annoyed about the whole quarrel, received the legates with honour and lodged them in his palace. Cærularius, who had now quite given up the idea of his alliance, was very indignant that the legates did not give him precedence and prostrate before him, and wrote to Peter of Antioch that they are "insolent, boastful, rash, arrogant, and stupid" (Will, 177).

Several weeks passed in discussion. Cardinal Humbert wrote defenses of the Latin customs, and incidentally converted Nicetas Pectoratus [The original author of the treatise against Roman practices of against unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, and celibacy].

Cærularius refused to see the legates or to hold any communication with them: he struck the pope's name from his diptychs, and so declared open schism. [A diptych was used to record the names of those in the Church, typically high-profile people like Bishops and nobility. Striking someone from a diptych is basically saying that they are no longer a member of the Church.]

The legates then prepared the Bull of excommunication against him, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents, which they laid on the altar of Sancta Sophia on 16 July, 1054. Two days later they set out for Rome. The emperor was still on good terms with them and gave them presents for Monte Cassino.

Hardly were they gone when Cærularius sent for them to come back, meaning to have them murdered (the evidence for this is given in Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 186-7). Cærularius, when this attempt failed, sent an account of the whole story to the other patriarchs so full of lies that John of Antioch answered him: "I am covered with shame that your venerable letter should contain such things. Believe me, I do not know how to explain it for your own sake, especially if you have written like this to the other most blessed patriarchs" (Will, 190).

From here, I have done some formatting because gosh that's a wall of text with names no one's heard about before.

Distilling down the barest essentials:

Patriarch of Constantinople declares, based on a document written by a local theologian, that Roman disciplines of consecrating unleavened bread and fasting on Saturday are horrible and disqualifying from being a member of the Church. They go so far as to desecrate the Eucharist in Roman churches.

Pope sends delegation that explains to the theologian how they are wrong, and that this ancient practice of the Latin Church is not disqualifying or heretical. Patriarch refuses to even see them.

Once it becomes clear that the Patriarch's side isn't going to win, he excommunicates the Pope. The papal legates excommunicate the Patriarch using the authority they have from the Pope (except at this time, unbeknownst to them, the Pope is dead so the excommunication isn't even valid on the Latin side, which was discovered shortly after).

Most of the Church didn't realize there's a permanent Schism, it slowly develops over time. The Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182 was a more significant event, with 60,000 Latins dead or sold into slavery, but the Schism probably really became permanent in the Fourth Crusade with the Sack of Constantinople.

This is the version I have always heard. Specifically, the Patriarch excommunicates the legates, not the Patriarch of Rome. Which is a crucial distinction:

Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes.[1] Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius heightened the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains. In 1054, Roman 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.[1] Cerularius refused. The leader of the Latin contingent excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated the legates.[1]

From https://orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism#cite_note-Cross-1.

Most of the Church didn't realize there's a permanent Schism, it slowly develops over time. The Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182 was a more significant event, with 60,000 Latins dead or sold into slavery, but the Schism probably really became permanent in the Fourth Crusade with the Sack of Constantinople.

This is another major issue which... is pretty unambiguously the fault of the See of Rome.

While I'm sure there are a ton of small historical details you can quibble about, to me the overall thrust makes it pretty obvious that Rome is in the wrong. That being said, I try to be ecumenical and I do hope that the Church can become whole again one day. We'll see!

to me the overall thrust makes it pretty obvious that Rome is in the wrong.

Politically or theologically?

I would say desecrating the Eucharist in 1054 and killing/expelling/enslaving all Italian Catholics in 1182 are both examples of Constantinople being in the wrong politically first.

I can't say for certain if the Papal Legates were on their best behavior or not in Constantinople. It seems like there are many sources and sides to the story, all of them undoubtedly biased.

Fortunately, what I can say is none of that matters as far as whether one should be Catholic or Orthodox. The question of if I should be Catholic or Orthodox is a theological question. Is there theological basis for Roman Primacy? I believe the answer is "Yes." I believe that the answer has been yes, and was demonstrably so even before the Synod of Chalcedon.

I would love for us to heal the schism. From Rome's perspective I don't think there's anything we'd require the other side to change, just reconfirmation of Rome's primacy. We already have many Eastern Catholic Churches that have a multiplicity of different views and practices. We see the Orthodox as having valid Holy Orders and sacraments.

I would say desecrating the Eucharist in 1054 and killing/expelling/enslaving all Italian Catholics in 1182 are both examples of Constantinople being in the wrong politically first.

Both of the churches were wrong politically in many ways - I'll be honest I haven't done a full accounting of the details as I frankly don't have the time or inclination. Part of my decision is based on looking at the 'spirit' of both churches today, and since the schism. Another part is just the fact that Rome essentially took what was an overall democratic church, and demanded to have sole power over all of Christendom. Those two things together are strong evidence from my perspective that Rome was in the wrong.

Frankly I think even the 5 sees being somehow more "legitimate" than other churches is a bit suss, although I'll say that I'm definitely a Nicene Christian.

I don't think there's anything we'd require the other side to change, just reconfirmation of Rome's primacy.

See, this is the problem! Basically the entire schism comes down to Rome asserting primacy that is not apostolic! You can't just say "we want to end the argument, you just have to give in to all of my demands that actually matter to you" and expect it to work.

There was a time when the pope was basically chosen by italians only, but with the elections today, is there really a relevant way in which Rome is asserting primacy here, if the doctrinal points are compatible? It seems to me that the church would be "overall democratic" either way - its rather about more vs less centralisation.

I mean Rome as the patriarchal seat, compared to the rest of the pentarchy. (i.e. the Orthodox church.)

So, if Rome got a separate bishop, and the pope was only head of the catholic church, that would resolve the issue? I would be surprised if its that easy.

For me absolutely. If Rome agreed to once again become just a patriarchal See instead of dominating the whole Church, I’m fine with that. Idc about the Filioque really.

My word choices are once again not optimal. What I meant was, if there was a bishop of rome, and also a different person whos the head over all the churches, christs vicar on earth etc., the way the pope is for the catholics now, would that be fine?

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats