Are Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox the same?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Many think them (Eastern Catholics) to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome, and I for one like this mentality, as long as Catholic teaching is completely followed.

I agree.

However, about 1000 years ago, due to a variety of unfortunate problems, the other four cities, allied with the Byzantine Empire, mutually broke off from Rome, forming the various Eastern Orthodox Churches. Although doctrinally, they are virtually identical to Catholics, they refuse to acknowledge that the pope is more than a “first among equals”. (A couple groups broke of much earlier in the 400s AD also, to form what are known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches).

The churches of Alexandria and Antioch were part of the group that rejected Chalcedon (AD 451). So I don’t think it’s true that “the other four” broke off from Rome, as those two had already long been out of communion with both Rome and Constantinople…

Could you cite the exact event that took place. Im interested and would like to look into it.

The Great Schism of 1054. You can trace the history back from there. Basically Rome is asserting more power while Constantinople says no to it. Of course from the Catholic side they say that such authority has always been there and Constantinople is merely trying to make the Pope less than what he is. From the Orthodox side, they maintain that such authority never existed in the Church in the First Millennium and thus to make a claim is “unorthodox” or heterodox.

Can’t we all admit that this is a vast oversimplification?

The pope of Rome attempted to exercise authority over eastern churches at other points as well, with no break in communion (although sometimes the other churches didn’t listen). On another thread a poster exploring both Catholic and Orthodox Christianity linked to a letter in which Pope St. Leo I “tried to boss around the Church of Alexandria” (his words).

And it didn’t work, but there was no break in communion.

Then there were times the eastern churches did cooperate: for instance, when eastern bishops signed the Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Furthermore, in 1054 no break in communion had self-evidently occurred, just excommunications of individual prelates.

I know you’re trying to keep things simple for someone asking basic questions, Constantine, but I still think accuracy matters. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say something like, “Many circumstances - cultural, linguistic, political, theological, ecclesiological - drove greater and greater wedges between Rome and Constantinople until they finally acknowledged that they were not in communion with each other in the late twelfth century”?

1054? What Pope was asserting what power of Constaninople in 1054? Do you remember why the legates were sent?

Exactly. I’m not saying that Cardinal Humbert didn’t behave like a jerk, but wasn’t he sent to discuss the closing of Latin parishes in Constantinople’s jurisdiction? And correct me if I’m wrong, but the pope of Rome did not dispute the patriarch of Constantinople’s right to do so, did he?

Politically, the unfortunate event in 1054 had the deceased Patriarch of the West excommunicating the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople through a legate, and said Patriarch of Constantinople also excommunicating said deceased Patriarch of the West.

Actually, I think two things have to be noted here:

(a) The legates’ excommunication of Patriarch Cerularius was invalid, since Pope Leo IX had died.

(b) The patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the papal legates, not the pope of Rome himself.

As I understand it, this event was taken as it was (absurd) by the faithful of East and West both, and communion and communication both continued in years to come.

Exactly.

I think the first true sign of a lack of communion took place in the late twelfth century, when a Patriarch of Antioch (not sure which one, Chalcedonian or Miaphysite) first directed that Latin Christians were not to be given Holy Communion.

Does anyone know when the pope of Rome was struck from the diptychs in churches in communion with Constantinople?

Actually, the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated Cardinal Humbert who later became Pope of Rome.

When? I’m 99% certain that Cardinal Humbert never became Pope…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can’t we all admit that this is a vast oversimplification?

The pope of Rome attempted to exercise authority over eastern churches at other points as well, with no break in communion (although sometimes the other churches didn’t listen). On another thread a poster exploring both Catholic and Orthodox Christianity linked to a letter in which Pope St. Leo I “tried to boss around the Church of Alexandria” (his words).

And it didn’t work, but there was no break in communion.

Then there were times the eastern churches did cooperate: for instance, when eastern bishops signed the Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

Furthermore, in 1054 no break in communion had self-evidently occurred, just excommunications of individual prelates.

I know you’re trying to keep things simple for someone asking basic questions, Constantine, but I still think accuracy matters. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say something like, “Many circumstances - cultural, linguistic, political, theological, ecclesiological - drove greater and greater wedges between Rome and Constantinople until they finally acknowledged that they were not in communion with each other in the late twelfth century”?

Relationship between the West and the East have been tense for centuries. 1054 was just a boiling over when the excommunications were hurled at one another then the process became irreversible.

And you’re right, it is an oversimplification. Books have been written about the Great Schism. I don’t think any of us can sum it up in one post if what you’re asking for is the complete details.

 

[malphono]

When? I’m 99% certain that Cardinal Humbert never became Pope…

No, but his companion in that fateful legation, Frederic of Lorraine, became Pope Stephen IX.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001
When? I’m 99% certain that Cardinal Humbert never became Pope…

Right, it wasn’t the head legate, Humbert, who later became Pope. Sorry, I must have been posting too fast.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

And you’re right, it is an oversimplification. Books have been written about the Great Schism. I don’t think any of us can sum it up in one post if what you’re asking for is the complete details.

Yeah, I definitely agree.

No, but his companion in that fateful legation, Frederic of Lorraine, became Pope Stephen IX.

Ah, yes. I see now.

 

[Carefree_T]

“In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.” - former Cardinal Ratzinger

Even the current Pope thinks so.

Oft-quoted, but I recall that the same man as Pope has said otherwise from what he said before.

 

[Pork_Roll]

By 1453, a vocal segment of the Orthodox people openly expressed the belief that subjugation under the Muslims was better than subjugation to Rome.

That worked out great for them didn’t it? BTW, the Latins were defending Hagia Sophia when it finally fell to the Mohammedeans.

It’s clear it was the devil who wanted the church divided so he could more easily assail it. While I don’t doubt that catholic christians have by their own fault hurt relations with the eastern church, I think for any orthodox christian to make such a statement reflects how there are pockets of unreasonable prejudice against the roman church within the orthodox church. I think most catholics have no appreciation of the eastern churches to even form an opinion unfortunately.

 

[Nine_Two]

That worked out great for them didn’t it? BTW, the Latins were defending Hagia Sophia when it finally fell to the Mohammedeans.

It’s clear it was the devil who wanted the church divided so he could more easily assail it. While I don’t doubt that catholic christians have by their own fault hurt relations with the eastern church, I think for any orthodox christian to make such a statement reflects how there are pockets of unreasonable prejudice against the roman church within the orthodox church. I think most catholics have no appreciation of the eastern churches to even form an opinion unfortunately.

You don’t want my answer to that.

 

[Pork_Roll]

You don’t want my answer to that.

The ironic thing about the current split in the church is that it likely did prevent, or at least limit, latinization of the eastern catholic churches (look at the Maronites). You know well the liturgical disarray of the roman rite and that if not for “schismatic” churches, that banality would have spread more easily. I guess what I’m trying to say is that a catholic must admit that there has been some good with the eastern orthodox’s complete autonomy from Rome. After all, the church started in the east and in some ways, has superiority in its ancient traditions and theology.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Oft-quoted, but I recall that the same man as Pope has said otherwise from what he said before.

Care to provide a quote or citation?

 

[Peter_J]

Care to provide a quote or citation?

I think I know what CarefreeT is talking about, but I don’t remember where I read it.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think I know what CarefreeT is talking about, but I don’t remember where I read it.

It may be so, but such a comment should be properly supported. Pope Benedict XVI is commited to the cause of Catholic-Orthodox unity. If he did make a seemingly contradictory statement, it should be cited and evaluated in the context of the entire message.

“Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd. Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity.”

• Pope Benedict XVI (from the homily of his inaugural Mass)

 

[Peter_J]

Pope Benedict XVI is commited to the cause of Catholic-Orthodox unity.

I don’t think anyone is saying otherwise.

 

[Carefree_T]

It may be so, but such a comment should be properly supported. Pope Benedict XVI is commited to the cause of Catholic-Orthodox unity. If he did make a seemingly contradictory statement, it should be cited and evaluated in the context of the entire message.

True, my apologies. I don’t remember what I read, either; perhaps I’m simply remembering when he removed Patriarch of the West from among his official titles, which doesn’t say much for “the doctrine of primacy [that] had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium” in an ecumenical sense.

I’ll refrain from “I remember” type statements if I can’t find what I saw to back it up

 

[ByzCathCantor]

True, my apologies. I don’t remember what I read, either; perhaps I’m simply remembering when he removed Patriarch of the West from among his official titles, which doesn’t say much for “the doctrine of primacy [that] had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium” in an ecumenical sense.

I’ll refrain from “I remember” type statements if I can’t find what I saw to back it up

If indeed your recollection relates to the suppression of the title of Patriarch of the West, it is understood that to Orthodox Christians this seemed to be a big step backward in the journey toward reunion. No need for apology - this clarification certainly puts your initial comment in perspective.

Peace!

 

[Hesychios]

The ironic thing about the current split in the church is that it likely did prevent, or at least limit, latinization of the eastern catholic churches (look at the Maronites). You know well the liturgical disarray of the roman rite and that if not for “schismatic” churches, that banality would have spread more easily. I guess what I’m trying to say is that a catholic must admit that there has been some good with the eastern orthodox’s complete autonomy from Rome. After all, the church started in the east and in some ways, has superiority in its ancient traditions and theology.

I agree, but with a heavy heart. Schism is not ultimately good for either of us.

One of the problems which was avoided in the East through the schism was the several dispensations given by various Popes to hold multiple Sees. This was seen as a serious abuse and scandal in the west which contributed to the rise of Protestant reaction and the fall of the church in many places. I think that if the east-west schism had not occurred when it did, the developing Papacy would have attempted to introduce the problem into the eastern churches.

On the other hand, if the schism had not occurred when it did, subsequent development of the Papacy and Conciliar findings would have been mitigated considerably, and we might have not seen a Papacy with the power to give such dispensations in the first place.

 

[TrueLight]

Just want to say this is an interesting thread and it has motivated me to get a good book on the Great Schism. Any recommendations?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

If indeed your recollection relates to the suppression of the title of Patriarch of the West, it is understood that to Orthodox Christians this seemed to be a big step backward in the journey toward reunion.

I think I can understand why many Orthodox would view it that way, but in my opinion it was really a huge step forward in the journey toward reunion.

As long as the ecumenical paradigm is that of one Patriarch claiming practical authority over all the others, I don’t see a meeting of minds ever happening. Removing the idea of the Pope as a Patriarch helps us focus on the unique role of the bishop of Rome in the entire Church as a whole, which is really where the substantial disagreement lies. Only by viewing the problem clearly and being honest about it can there be substantial ecumenical progress, it seems to me.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think I can understand why many Orthodox would view it that way, but in my opinion it was really a huge step forward in the journey toward reunion.

As long as the ecumenical paradigm is that of one Patriarch claiming practical authority over all the others, I don’t see a meeting of minds ever happening. Removing the idea of the Pope as a Patriarch helps us focus on the unique role of the bishop of Rome in the entire Church as a whole, which is really where the substantial disagreement lies. Only by viewing the problem clearly and being honest about it can there be substantial ecumenical progress, it seems to me.

But that idea works as well as any group with two leaders, if the one leader unilaterally changes his title to make himself seem over the others - it doesn’t help much. Especially since a number of Churches in the East (The Georgian and Armenian come to mind) have a title that is above that of Patriarch - though in inter-church relations the holders are still seen as equal to the other Patriarchs.

Besides, in the Orthodox view, there is nothing particularly special about the title “Pope”

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor
If indeed your recollection relates to the suppression of the title of Patriarch of the West, it is understood that to Orthodox Christians this seemed to be a big step backward

I’m not sure if you’re making it sound more like the latter or the former – but, in any case, I tend to think it was really neither.