Are Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox the same?

[ThatOneGuy92]

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.

Just because the Pope has officially removed the title “Patriarch” from his honor call does not mean the Orthodox have stopped viewing him as such.

 

[Hesychios]

… 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.

Sounds like manipulating the facts to me.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Sounds like manipulating the facts to me.

Not if the idea of the Pope as Patriarch was never especially meaningful or historically accurate. It seems to me the removal of the extra title was a clarification of what the Pope is, not a change or a manipulation of the facts.

 

[dvdjs]

This response is unhelpful to me, as unknowing as I am (I am a layman not qualified for “deep drilling” of theology).

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. 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. Afterward, both Rome and New Rome developed superiority complexes, but eventually “Old Rome”'s complex was great enough to finally rupture communion with every other Patriarchate in the Church. Or “New Rome”'s complex grew strong enough to only rupture communion with “Old Rome,” and maintain perfect communion with every other Patriarchate in the Church. Depending on perspective.

The deep drilling that I was talking about is in the realm of history. CTG presents a view of the history of the events around 1054 that lacks perspective. It should be noted that Cerularius was very aggressive in asserting undue authority. He had earlier removed the pope from the diptychs and authorized desecration of the Eucharist in Latin churches. These actions were the immediate precursor to the stern letter from the Pope to Cerularius, and the dispatching of the legates. Thanks to good relationship between Rome and the Emperor - forged in part because of common interests against the Norman aggression in southern Italy - there was hope that this would all be worked out. But the reception of the legates by the Patriarch was inhospitable to say the least - notwithstanding the friendly reception by the emperor. Actually Cerularius had contempt for the emperor and designs on the imperial throne. His intrigues earned him exile.

I agree with a good bit of what you write about the incidental nature of the formal excommunications, and the slow deterioration of the relations. I think this in this case, contact through the early Crusades led to the development of string mutual loathing within some parties. However the final break probably came with the collapse of Florence, finished by civil authorities - Sultan and Czar. Bishop Tikhon retired OCA DoW recently made some remarks over at Monomakhos that reinforced this latter point.

 

[Hesychios]

Not if the idea of the Pope as Patriarch was never especially meaningful or historically accurate. It seems to me the removal of the extra title was a clarification of what the Pope is, not a change or a manipulation of the facts.

Since he is in fact the patriarch at Rome, he should not pretend he is not nor pretend to be anything else.

This is the crux of the problem.

 

[Nine_Two]

Not if the idea of the Pope as Patriarch was never especially meaningful or historically accurate. It seems to me the removal of the extra title was a clarification of what the Pope is, not a change or a manipulation of the facts.

The idea of the title of “Pope” as something especially meaningful is historically inaccurate.

 

[dvdjs]

Not quite. It was the end of official Communion, though as you say Communion would continue for quite some time. While it may be absurd on the technicality that the Pope who granted Humbert authority was dead, that isn’t something that has been seen in that light until recently.

1054 is an arbitrary date to pick, and in fact only marks the break between Constantinople and Rome, but the other Patriarchies, over the next several decades sided with Constantinople, gradually removing Rome from the Diptychs - a move that effectively declared the Bishop of Rome to be outside the faith. Communion of the faithful would continue until 1204. .

There was no joint statement from Eastern Patriarchs until after Florence. The situation was clouded by the effect of the massive influx of Latins in the Crusades, and the loss of Latin territory and influence in waning years. Communion of the faithful extended beyond 1204 in many places. In fact Rome was approving Eastern bishops in Galicia areas beyond that time.

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

Does any reasonable person still think that way?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Since he is in fact the patriarch at Rome, he should not pretend he is not nor pretend to be anything else.

This is the crux of the problem.

If this is not the essence of his place in the Church, then the insistence by others that he is the patriarch of Rome demonstrates the need to get rid of the title Patriarch of the West (note, Patriarch of Rome was never an official title, unless I’m mistaken), which was only officially used since the 19th century and rarely employed in any way prior to the Counter-Reformation, when it was used in an attempt to assert greater practical control over Western Europe.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The idea of the title of “Pope” as something especially meaningful is historically inaccurate.

Not in itself, though its a convenient and originally affectionate title that to most Western Christians has come to denote the bishop of Rome specifically, whose unique role in the Church is very meaningful and historical.

 

[TheAtheist]

Pardon me, but may i toss in an interjection from the Peanut Gallery?

Tied to this question about Eastern Catholics is the whole matter between Catholics in general and their Orthodox brethren and this continual search for some sort of negotiated “unity.”

Which leads me to my question - Why bother?

Alright, i know this is the part where someone quotes the whole “One Holy Apostolic Church” line and how much of it is a travesty for these divisions that exist within what you would describe as the supernormal reality that is the body of christ.

BUT - for all intents and purposes it seems like one group is essentially waiting for the other group to submit to a specific viewpoint. And have been waiting for quite some time in fact.

Putting the practical (read: political) matters aside for a second, both of your organizations have developed in such different manners throughout the years since your schism.

And the current practices of either church re: unification seem…well… nonproductive.

 

[Nine_Two]

Not in itself, though its a convenient and originally affectionate title that to most Western Christians has come to denote the bishop of Rome specifically, whose unique role in the Church is very meaningful and historical.

But you were saying the title of Patriarch was unimportant because it in itself has been without meaning. The title of Pope should be subject to the same criteria, should it not?

The title of Patriarch is historically much more important than that of Pope, those who held it had roles which were quite meaningful and historical.

It just seems to me to be on par with the EP rejecting the title “Patriarch of Constantinople”, or the Patriarch of Alexandria rejecting that title.

My point being that you’re arguing that giving up the title is supposed to help relations with the East, and yet you make it clear that surrendering the title is something that only makes it clear in the context of the West.

 

[Nine_Two]

BUT - for all intents and purposes it seems like one group is essentially waiting for the other group to submit to a specific viewpoint. And have been waiting for quite some time in fact.

I disagree. It is a case of both groups waiting for each other to submit to their viewpoint.

I suppose we bother because it is the Christian thing to do, and even if we will never have unity it is better that we are at least cordial with each other, than that we are down each others throats, as was once the case.

 

[Hesychios]

If this is not the essence of his place in the Church, then the insistence by others that he is the patriarch of Rome demonstrates the need to get rid of the title Patriarch of the West (note, Patriarch of Rome was never an official title, unless I’m mistaken), which was only officially used since the 19th century and rarely employed in any way prior to the Counter-Reformation, when it was used in an attempt to assert greater practical control over Western Europe.

That’s OK.

This is a big reason why we cannot solve the schism. The bishops at Rome claim to be something other than they really are, and anathematize any who do not agree. They claim this is a dogma, which makes it worse than just a bold exaggeration.

We see the denial of the term as an attempt to do just what you suggest: if you don’t like the score, change the rules of the game. If the fish don’t bite, change the bait.

It’s not working. He will always be a patriarch of the west, in or out of communion with the church.

 

[Nine_Two]

There was no joint statement from Eastern Patriarchs until after Florence. The situation was clouded by the effect of the massive influx of Latins in the Crusades, and the loss of Latin territory and influence in waning years. Communion of the faithful extended beyond 1204 in many places. In fact Rome was approving Eastern bishops in Galicia areas beyond that time.

Does any reasonable person still think that way?

Do you ever not ask loaded questions?

Against my better judgement, and knowing it is a loaded question - I’ll be decried as a polemicist for sure - I’ll answer you.

It depends on what you mean.
If you mean does anyone still think that was the better way (and I suspect you do), Yes. Absolutely. The East is better off for what happened.
We saw what happened to the Eastern Catholics under the Roman Catholic Church, they’ve only just started to reclaim their heritage and the only reason they’ve been able to do that is because they can look at what we still do. Without even touching on the issues of the faith, Eastern Christianity would be dead.
The nice thing about adversity is that it preserves cultures. Just look at the Orthodox in Cyprus, or the Jews throughout Europe.

If you mean would people today rather live under the harsh rule of a modern Muslim state, or the benign rule of a modern Catholic state, absolutely not. I’d rather live in modern Rome than modern Medina, and I doubt anyone Orthodox Christian today would say otherwise.

 

[TheAtheist]

I disagree. It is a case of both groups waiting for each other to submit to their viewpoint.

Duly noted.

I suppose we bother because it is the Christian thing to do, and even if we will never have unity it is better that we are at least cordial with each other, than that we are down each others throats, as was once the case.

Pardon - i’m a little too much of the efficiency busy-body. I tend to look at problems in very hard practical terms. My friends who sit on both sides of the fence tend to bring up the idea of unity in conversation without addressing the err “mechanical matters.” that would be necessary to bring about the desired result.

But well, cordial relations are always a good thing.

 

[Peter_J]

Pardon me, but may i toss in an interjection from the Peanut Gallery?

Tied to this question about Eastern Catholics is the whole matter between Catholics in general and their Orthodox brethren and this continual search for some sort of negotiated “unity.”

Which leads me to my question - Why bother?

It’s complicated. Really, we want unity with all Christians, not just the Orthodox; but naturally we tend to pursue the good apples (the Orthodox) more than the rotten apples (Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc. – though, of course, we like some of those better than others).

On the other hand, we ourselves are the best apple of all, so the Orthodox should want unity with us.

 

[RyanBlack]

It’s complicated. Really, we want unity with all Christians, not just the Orthodox; but naturally we tend to pursue the good apples (the Orthodox) more than the rotten apples (Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc. – though, of course, we like some of those better than others).

On the other hand, we ourselves are the best apple of all, so the Orthodox should want unity with us.

We want unity with Protestants, but we refer to them as “rotten apples?” And that sort of insulting language is going to accomplish unity?

And the condescending, patronizing language towards the Orthodox is supposed to help bring unity with them? They’re good apples when compared to the Protestants, but we’re the best apples of all, so they should want unity with us? Do you really think insulting and patronizing language is going to accomplish any good thing?

 

[Cavaradossi]

We want unity with Protestants, but we refer to them as “rotten apples?” And that sort of insulting language is going to accomplish unity?

And the condescending, patronizing language towards the Orthodox is supposed to help bring unity with them? They’re good apples when compared to the Protestants, but we’re the best apples of all, so they should want unity with us? Do you really think insulting and patronizing language is going to accomplish any good thing?

Unfortunately, Peter is right on the money, despite the jocular nature of his post.

 

[ConstantineTG]

On the other hand, we ourselves are the best apple of all, so the Orthodox should want unity with us.

I’m sure everyone is running to the line towards unity when one exudes such humility.

 

[dzheremi]

It’s complicated. Really, we want unity with all Christians, not just the Orthodox; but naturally we tend to pursue the good apples (the Orthodox) more than the rotten apples (Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc. – though, of course, we like some of those better than others).

On the other hand, we ourselves are the best apple of all, so the Orthodox should want unity with us.

Haha. Wow. I think this post says more than you might’ve been planning to, Peter J!

“Such and such will unite with us” vs. “such and such will unite to the common faith”…hmmm…both would yield increased numbers, I guess, but the focus seems different. It makes it seem as though Rome is all about regaining some lost mythic “Christendom” (Empire?), which is distasteful to millions of Christians who have spent the last 1500 years opposing you and paying for it at the decrees of your holy Roman emperors and Popes.

ahem

And also, actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Roman Church show them to be much more in tune with Protestant sensibilities (e.g., Roman Catholic criticisms of VII as “Protestantizing” the RC Church) than Orthodox ones, at any rate. Honestly, and with love, I would advise any RC to clean his own house before being concerned with uniting with others. Knowing who you are and practicing your faith with strength, confidence, and humility is a lot more attractive than simply declaring yourselves the best of apples (even in jest).