A question on Catholics view of Eastern Orthodoxy

[steve_b]

Hello,

I’ve been reading what the Catholic Church’s view is of the Eastern Orthodox, and from what I’ve read (correct me if I’m wrong) the Catholic Church admits that the Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments(and not just 1 or 2 but all 7), valid apostolic succession, valid priests,valid Eucharist, valid everything.

So if the above is true, what is to keep one from leaving the Catholic Church & converting to the Eastern Orthodox Church, I mean the Catholic Church readily recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodoxy, yet the Eastern Orthodox do not readily recognize the Catholic Church’s validity (Catholics are considered separated brothers at best, heretics at worst) and they say that salvation is attained through Holy Orthodoxy.

So it seems that the Catholic Church is saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is a valid church & the Eastern Orthodox are saying they are, in fact the true church that Christ founded, so it almost looks like the Catholic Church is pointing people to Eastern Orthodoxy (from this perspective)

Any thoughts?

Thanks for the opinions on this, I’m not looking to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, I was simply noting that while reading about the things we (Catholics) and our Orthodox brothers and sisters have in common, differences etc. the thought occurred to me that this (the op) perspective or line of thought could perhaps lead one whom is looking into Catholicism (or whom is Catholic) into looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, and how would someone go about convincing them to become (or stay) Catholic if the above argument is given?

Schism = **2089 ** *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Your original question is excellent. Short answer, schism is condemned in scripture. The consequences for which, (in scripture) once one knows the facts of their situation, and chooses to remain in schism, that person won’t be going to heaven when they die.

Where you ask is that in scripture?

This Greek word διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / schism / factions /sedition / sects, is used in the following 2 selections.

Romans 16:17-20 (links operational)
Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions διχοστασίας] and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil. And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, διχοστασίας] sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

Note the consequence (in red) for that sin?

see also 1 Cor 12::25 (no divisions σχίσμα )
IOW they who do such things and die in that sin go to hell

those are not my words

 

[CathBoy1]

Schism = **2089 ** *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Your original question is excellent. Short answer, schism is condemned in scripture. The consequences for which, (in scripture) once one knows the facts of their situation, and chooses to remain in schism, that person won’t be going to heaven when they die.

Where you ask is that in scripture?

This Greek word διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / schism / factions /sedition / sects, is used in the following 2 selections.

Romans 16:17-20 (links operational)
Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions διχοστασίας] and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil. And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, διχοστασίας] sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

Note the consequence (in red) for that sin?

see also 1 Cor 12::25 (no divisions σχίσμα )
IOW they who do such things and die in that sin go to hell

those are not my words

Thanks for the reply, but I must ask?

Who is truly in schism with whom?
It is my belief that we’re both in this together.

We do view Eastern Orthodoxy in schism with the Catholic Church, likewise they consider the Catholic Church in schism with Eastern Orthodoxy.
From our point of view the Pope is the head of the entire Catholic Church, so to be separated from unity with the Pope of Rome would be considered schism.
But from the Orthodox perspective the Pope would be considered Patriarch Of The West & therefore only the leader of the western church, whereas the Eastern Patriarchs would be considered the leaders of the eastern churches, with all Patriarchs considered equal & the Pope considered first among equals.

All that is to say in a nutshell that the Eastern Orthodox view would say the Pope of Rome fell into schism with the other Patriarchs.

My personal opinion is that both churches are to blame for the schism, with that said I think the Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to correct the disunity (we Catholics on a whole recognize the Validity of the Eastern Churches) but it is my opinion that if both east and west had full unity that would bring about the fullness of The Catholic Church.

 

[mattp0625]

Thanks for the reply, but I must ask?

Who is truly in schism with whom?
It is my belief that we’re both in this together.

We do view Eastern Orthodoxy in schism with the Catholic Church, likewise they consider the Catholic Church in schism with Eastern Orthodoxy.
From our point of view the Pope is the head of the entire Catholic Church, so to be separated from unity with the Pope of Rome would be considered schism.
But from the Orthodox perspective the Pope would be considered Patriarch Of The West & therefore only the leader of the western church, whereas the Eastern Patriarchs would be considered the leaders of the eastern churches, with all Patriarchs considered equal & the Pope considered first among equals.

All that is to say in a nutshell that the Eastern Orthodox view would say the Pope of Rome fell into schism with the other Patriarchs.

My personal opinion is that both churches are to blame for the schism, with that said I think the Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to correct the disunity (we Catholics on a whole recognize the Validity of the Eastern Churches) but it is my opinion that if both east and west had full unity that would bring about the fullness of The Catholic Church.

Who did Jesus give the keys to?

Who did that person subsequently give the keys to?

It’s not complex.

 

[prodromos]

Who did Jesus give the keys to?

Who did that person subsequently give the keys to?

It’s not complex.

Unless you read the Church Fathers and recognise they understood all the Apostles and subsequently, all right believing bishops, held the keys.

 

[dochawk]

Who did Jesus give the keys to?

Who did that person subsequently give the keys to?

It’s not complex.

not until you actually look at the issue, and how it was seen in the first millennium.

Once you do that, you find bishops of Rome writing things like the three Petrine sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch being in many ways a single see, and sharing the Petrine ministry.

And so forth.

There is NO denial in Orthodoxy of Peter’s primacy; what it means, what the Petrine ministry is, and who exercises/holds it are all questions.

Even if the premise that Rome alone holds it, the questions of what it means and whether it is authority, honor, or other remains.

Frankly, I find the common EO position that all bishops share equally in the Petrine ministry to be internally inconsistent: it means that all bishops share in a ministry that the other Apostles did no.

But there’s a lot of room between that position and that the other bishops, patriarchs, and pentarchs are subordinate to the bishop of Rome.

AMDG

hawk

 

[mattp0625]

not until you actually look at the issue, and how it was seen in the first millennium.

Once you do that, you find bishops of Rome writing things like the three Petrine sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch being in many ways a single see, and sharing the Petrine ministry.

And so forth.

There is NO denial in Orthodoxy of Peter’s primacy; what it means, what the Petrine ministry is, and who exercises/holds it are all questions.

Even if the premise that Rome alone holds it, the questions of what it means and whether it is authority, honor, or other remains.

Frankly, I find the common EO position that all bishops share equally in the Petrine ministry to be internally inconsistent: it means that all bishops share in a ministry that the other Apostles did no.

But there’s a lot of room between that position and that the other bishops, patriarchs, and pentarchs are subordinate to the bishop of Rome.

AMDG

hawk

Irenaeus of Lyon was explicit about the matter.

 

[mattp0625]

Unless you read the Church Fathers and recognise they understood all the Apostles and subsequently, all right believing bishops, held the keys.

Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon indicated something quite different than this.

Apostolic succession? Yes. First among equals? No.

 

[steve_b]

Thanks for the reply, but I must ask?

Who is truly in schism with whom?
It is my belief that we’re both in this together.

We do view Eastern Orthodoxy in schism with the Catholic Church, likewise they consider the Catholic Church in schism with Eastern Orthodoxy.
From our point of view the Pope is the head of the entire Catholic Church, so to be separated from unity with the Pope of Rome would be considered schism.
But from the Orthodox perspective the Pope would be considered Patriarch Of The West & therefore only the leader of the western church, whereas the Eastern Patriarchs would be considered the leaders of the eastern churches, with all Patriarchs considered equal & the Pope considered first among equals.

All that is to say in a nutshell that the Eastern Orthodox view would say the Pope of Rome fell into schism with the other Patriarchs.

My personal opinion is that both churches are to blame for the schism, with that said I think the Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to correct the disunity (we Catholics on a whole recognize the Validity of the Eastern Churches) but it is my opinion that if both east and west had full unity that would bring about the fullness of The Catholic Church.

1. 
   *] What you describe is sin on both sides. That in itself doesn’t change or nullify Jesus establishment of Peter as the leader over al the Church, or Peter’s office, which Jesus established. Peter’s office is to continue after Peter’s death. because not even the gates of Hell shall prevail against Our Lord’s Church. Peter’s last see was Rome. Therefore one bishop at a time, in succession from Peter at Rome, has been the leader of the Church ever since.
   *]Re: “fullness of the Catholic Church” 837
   *]Note: “Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not 'in heart.” IOW those who follow what was just said in 837, need to always maintain charity.
   
   Re: Eastern Orthodox
   
   I would ask, when is the first time, in history, in writing, properly referenced, that we see the name “Orthodox Church”?

 

[steve_b]

Unless you read the Church Fathers and recognise they understood all the Apostles and subsequently, all right believing bishops, held the keys.

Technically, scripture never mentions anyone else but Peter, received the keys from Jesus.

The others could bind and loose, Mt 18, but that was when 2 or 3 agreed after taking it to the Church.

Peter alone could bind and loos Mt 16, AND Peter was the one Jesus would give the keys to. Keys in scripture, were given to the chief steward.

The keys come through Peter to the Church

 

[steve_b]

not until you actually look at the issue, and how it was seen in the first millennium.

Once you do that, you find bishops of Rome writing things like the three Petrine sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch being in many ways a single see, and sharing the Petrine ministry.

And so forth.

historically speaking, it brings up this point

(BC) before Constantinople

The ancient ranking of sees was

1. • Rome
   • Alexandria
   • Antioch
   • Jerusalem
   (AC) After Constantinople in the 4th century
   
   1. • Rome
      • -]Byzantium/-], -]Constantinople/-],Istanbul
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      One could ask then, historically speaking
      • If those sees ( Rome Alexandria Antioch) were equal, as the Orthodox say, (keep in mind there is no Orthodox Church then) why is there any ranking in order, of 1st 2nd 3rd etc.?
      • How then could Constantinople in the 4th century insert itself 2nd and push those other sees behind it,?
      • Why to this day, among the “Orthodox”, does Alexandria and Antioch not have any special authority over other sees? Not to mention, Constantinople which inserted itself 2nd in ranking, even lost its name.
      d:
      

      There is NO denial in Orthodoxy of Peter’s primacy; what it means, what the Petrine ministry is, and who exercises/holds it are all questions.
      
      Even if the premise that Rome alone holds it, the questions of what it means and whether it is authority, honor, or other remains.

      Technically the fight over authority and who is the greatest, already took place and was settled by Jesus, in of all places, at the Last Supper. #[812 (https://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11159277&postcount=812) ,
      
      in addition
      Fiction 1 - Peter was not the first Pope
      Fiction 2- The Pope cannot be the Successor of Peter
      d:
      

      Frankly, I find the common EO position that all bishops share equally in the Petrine ministry to be internally inconsistent: it means that all bishops share in a ministry that the other Apostles did no.

      It actually denies the hierarchy of authority that Jesus established in His Church, and it goes back to denying the very settlement that Jesus already settled in the upper Room with His apostles.
      
      It also falls into the definition of schism
      
      **2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; **schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
      .
      Let’s nor forget
      • who got the apostles in that argument over who is the greatest among THEM, in the first place. SATAN
      • Who has a vested interest in keeping that argument going after Jesus settled it? SATAN

 

[prodromos]

Technically, scripture never mentions anyone else but Peter, received the keys from Jesus.

The others could bind and loose, Mt 18, but that was when 2 or 3 agreed after taking it to the Church.

Peter alone could bind and loos Mt 16, AND Peter was the one Jesus would give the keys to. Keys in scripture, were given to the chief steward.

The keys come through Peter to the Church

I don’t recall your name among the Church Fathers.

 

[prodromos]

Irenaeus of Lyon was explicit about the matter.

You misinterpret him.

 

[mattp0625]

You misinterpret him.

Translating from Latin to English is not limited to the Orthodox Church.

Additionally, much of the English language is based on Latin, so the idea that there is a limited patent on correct Latin translation is silly.

You can then try to go down the Protestant response, that is to say Irenaeus wrote in sarcasm. The bishop wrote his letters on the faith and church using sarcasm? No.

 

[FatherSebastian]

Agreed that we need to love our separated brethren.

At the same time, many sitting duck Catholics are lured into other faiths when approached. While the reasons are many, one common theme seems to be poor understanding of the faith compared to others. On the other hand, converts to Catholicism often did the research and found the truth.

On EO, while we share many things in common, the schism is largely based in historical events. In addition, there are some differences in liturgy, on primacy of Peter, and a slight difference in the nicene creed.

That said, there does seem to be a rather deep hatred of Latin rite Catholicism and the pope which is based on the historical events that lead to the initial schism. Of course, this can’t be applied to all people, but usually the keen awareness is there.

Your description of a deep hatred is simply inflammatory. So the ecumenical patriarch’s invitation of Pope Benedict to bless along with him the people present at the end of vespers was an act of hatred? The question of the pope has nothing to do with his role as bishop of Rome or successor of Peter, but rather a question regarding a statement from a document from Vatican I regarding extent of jurisdiction. The official form of the Creed in the Catholic Church is in Greek, since this is how it came from the council. The pope even reads it in Greek on the yearly commemoration of the council. There is no filioque. This is because the filioque is a Latin word that was added to the Latin “translation” of the Creed. The concern of the Orthodox is the exact same concern the West had for almost 500 years about the issue. That is that you don’t mess with the stuff we have received from the Fathers. Ever Read Dominus Iesus? Ever seen the Creed in that official Roman Document? Ever notice the absence of the filioque there?

Fr. Sebastian
steliasmelkite.org

 

[mattp0625]

Your description of a deep hatred is simply inflammatory. So the ecumenical patriarch’s invitation of Pope Benedict to bless along with him the people present at the end of vespers was an act of hatred? The question of the pope has nothing to do with his role as bishop of Rome or successor of Peter, but rather a question regarding a statement from a document from Vatican I regarding extent of jurisdiction. The official form of the Creed in the Catholic Church is in Greek, since this is how it came from the council. The pope even reads it in Greek on the yearly commemoration of the council. There is no filioque. This is because the filioque is a Latin word that was added to the Latin “translation” of the Creed. The concern of the Orthodox is the exact same concern the West had for almost 500 years about the issue. That is that you don’t mess with the stuff we have received from the Fathers. Ever Read Dominus Iesus? Ever seen the Creed in that official Roman Document? Ever notice the absence of the filioque there?

Fr. Sebastian
steliasmelkite.org

Most EO I have interacted with exhibit this trait. That’s my experience.

Perhaps you’ve heard something similar to the following:

We cannot forgive the pope for what he did to us- referring to the blame applied to the pope for unfortunate sack of Constantinople during the crusades. Yes?

 

[mattp0625]

I need to make one correction. I interacted with one Coptic who did not refer to these narratives or express hatred.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t recall your name among the Church Fathers.

I’m happy to give a reference out of many I could give, properly referenced.

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).

BTW, at that date there was no Church that went by the name
“Orthodox Church”

unless of course you have a historical reference in writing , properly referenced, to the contrary

 

[dochawk]

Noonone (save certain loopier types of Protestants) deny Peter’s primacy; that is a non-issue and red herring. No Orthodox (other than some loopy individuals) dispute that if communion were restored, Rome would be first and have some level of something.

The question is how much and in what way that primacy is held by the bishops of Rome and possibly Antioch and Alexandria.

The churches used to have a functioning arrangement in which their views were “close enough”. Rome now claims much more command authority than it did at that time, thus the issue.

“Orthodox” and “Catholic” were used by both east and west prior to schism. Not as names of churches, but as adjectives.

AMDG

hawk

 

[steve_b]

“Orthodox” and “Catholic” were used by both east and west prior to schism. Not as names of churches, but as adjectives.

AMDG

Maybe you have this answer, I have asked it many times.

Could you quote a reference properly referenced, when in history, the name Orthodox Church is first mentioned ?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Hello,

I’ve been reading what the Catholic Church’s view is of the Eastern Orthodox, and from what I’ve read (correct me if I’m wrong) the Catholic Church admits that the Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments(and not just 1 or 2 but all 7), valid apostolic succession, valid priests,valid Eucharist, valid everything.

So if the above is true, what is to keep one from leaving the Catholic Church & converting to the Eastern Orthodox Church, I mean the Catholic Church readily recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodoxy, yet the Eastern Orthodox do not readily recognize the Catholic Church’s validity (Catholics are considered separated brothers at best, heretics at worst) and they say that salvation is attained through Holy Orthodoxy.

So it seems that the Catholic Church is saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is a valid church & the Eastern Orthodox are saying they are, in fact the true church that Christ founded, so it almost looks like the Catholic Church is pointing people to Eastern Orthodoxy (from this perspective)

Any thoughts?

For the same reason Cyprian of Carthage said this in the mid 200s:

“If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church *4)

The Petrine ministry, which the bishop of Rome has as successor to St. Peter, is primarily to act as the visible sign of unity in the church. There is only one church, founded on Peter:

"The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it” [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair " (Cyprian, Ibid.)

All Christian churches and traditions have maintained some degree of truth and institutional/ecclesial structures (like bishops and priests). But why settle for less? The Orthodox have maintained beautiful liturgical and spiritual practices as well as the historic faith. But the office of Pope was instituted by Christ as an essential part of that faith.

Because of Orthodoxy’s apostolic continuity, there is no reason why any Eastern Orthodox should feel they have to leave behind their spiritual, liturgical, and even theological traditions in order to claim the Pope as their own and re-join the full unity of the faith. There are Eastern Catholic traditions and churches in full communion with the church. We must pray and actively work for union between East and West.