Are the Orthodox right?

[Onthisrock84]

I grew up Catholic but after a lot of research I have come to realize their is no fault of the Orthodox in the schism. The original church only saw the bishop of Rome as a place of respect, the first among equals. Nowhere did it ever mean the bishop was infallible. The church of Antioch also claimed and claims succession from Peter. The more I study it it seems to me that the pope only gained power from the fall of western Rome, added filioque without even addressing this in a synod first, and closed all Greek rite churches in Rome. How can this even be countered? It is all historical fact.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

It is not really a question of the Eastern Orthodox or the Western Church being right or wrong. Each are valid Churches with all seven valid sacraments. Mistakes have been made East and West. What we can say is that schism is very gravely wrong, and one of our top priorities should be re-communion.

 

[AlNg]

The church of Antioch also claimed and claims succession from Peter.

Yes. Peter was at Antioch before he was at Rome. Also Galatians 2:9 mentions James first , before Peter. If Peter was recognised as the infallible, Supreme Head of the Catholic Church with universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, why was he not mentioned first before James. James was subject to the universal jurisdiction and supreme authority of Peter, therefore is it not correct protocol to mention Peter first before James?

 

[Vonsalza]

There are quite a few protestant theologians that would argue otherwise and do so pretty effectively.

There’s nothing in scripture that indicates the Petrine office, or even the apostolic office, was to continue past the deaths of the originals. Of course, I’m not hugely convinced by those arguments, but it’s not like scripture clearly contradicts them.

Then there’s the discussion concerning the powers and limitations of that theoretical head, if indeed it is supposed to exist.
Again, scripture is either silent or very vague on the issue.

With the Eastern Orthodox, there is no clear, visible head of the entirety of Orthodoxy.

Sure there is. Your bishop.

Each national Church has an incredible amount of autonomy, which decreases unity.

Over-vague, particularly as Thomas took the gospel east to Bactria and the Indus Valley and disappeared from western Christian history. I suppose he violated the implicit requirement to look Rome-ward (or Peter-ward)?

This lack of unity [in Orthodoxy]…

Again, this is just something you state axiomatically without having actually shown it. I observe tremendous unity in Orthodoxy. If I could be so bold, I think they consistently endure less clamor than their papist cousins.

also explains the fact that there is no Supreme Pontiff for the Orthodox, and thus they cannot be the Ark of Salvation, which must have one head.

I seem to recall the Ark of the Covenant having two seraphs upon it. Presumably both with heads intact. Just pointing that out

It is often customary, but not strictly necessary, for these things to be addressed in a Synod.

Which is the big rub. From an Orthodox perspective, no man is above council. No one can unilaterally alter what council declares save other council - not even a particularly influential bishop (say, of Rome).

To say that the Pope must consult with other bishops is characteristic of the error of conciliarism.

Yes, it was anathematized by the last ecumenical council (well… ecumenical to Catholics, anyway) before the protestant reformation.

 

[semper_catholicus]

I’ve heard it said before that all the Apostled enjoyed personal infallibility in matters of faith and morals, but Peter was the head. After the Apostles, only the Pope enjoyed personal guaranteed infallibility.

 

[AlNg]

I’ve heard it said before that all the Apostled enjoyed personal infallibility in matters of faith and morals, but Peter was the head.

Did Peter have universal and supreme jurisdiction over the entire church including James? But James is mentioned first, then after James, Peter is mentioned, indicating that Peter came second. Gal 2:9.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Just because Peter was listed second does not mean that he wasn’t the head.

 

[AlNg]

Just because Peter was listed second does not mean that he wasn’t the head.

I thought that protocol would have the supreme head of the church listed first, and then those subject to his universal and supreme jurisdiction listed after.

 

[Thom18]

semper_catholicus:

I’ve heard it said before that all the Apostled enjoyed personal infallibility in matters of faith and morals, but Peter was the head.

Did Peter have universal and supreme jurisdiction over the entire church including James? But James is mentioned first, then after James, Peter is mentioned, indicating that Peter came second. Gal 2:9.

Peter is mentioned first every time all of the apostles are mentioned in the gospels (even before James).

 

[semper_catholicus]

Were did you hear that?

Of course it would be appropriate, but the simple fact of listing the Pope second somewhere does not mean he isn’t the supreme head.

 

[AlNg]

Of course it would be appropriate,

That is my point.

 

[Vonsalza]

As we read in Isaiah, keys can be lost.

Moreover, we read nowhere in scripture that the keys can be passed to a successor.

Christ placed a guarantee on the Church, NOT the petrine seat.

 

[Vonsalza]

One could make a pretty decent argument that the current Catholic understanding of a successor-pope didn’t exist until Leo I.

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s a great pro-Catholic interpretation. But that involves putting words into Christ’s mouth that he simply didn’t say, thus it’s hazardous.

 

[Vonsalza]

No, I’m not Catholic, thus the magisterium isn’t binding upon me.

Are Catholics the only ones allowed to discuss Orthodoxy and related issues?

 

[Onthisrock84]

The first among equals is the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was Rome until the horrid schism which Rome sent the worst representation possible by the way. A real hot head who actually lied to the Pope about things going on in the east for his own benefit.
Actually the schism of 1054 was only binding on those present. The schism was a slow process that began centuries before because of different traditions and east spoke Greek and the west spoke Latin. Also the addition of filioque without the bishop of Rome holding a synod was a point of contention and I would say definitively was a large part. Simple things like using leavened bread or form of worship aren’t schismatic producing. Christ established one church which doesn’t mean traditions cant vary. Eastern Catholics have most of the same traditions as Orthodox. I believe the date of 1204 is when one could say the schism was complete when the Latins sacked Constantinople. This is something they to this day hold against us. Actually it angered them so much that before Constantinople fell to the Ottomans the Patriarch allegedly said he would rather be under the authority of the Muhamaddans than the Pope. I don’t know if this is apocryphal or not but it goes to show the amount of anger that was present for a long time over that.
Relations are much better now. See as opposed to Protestantism, Orthodoxy still has valid apostolic succession. At least the Eastern Orthodox. I am not sure about the Oriental Orthodox. Our belief in transubstantiation is the same. Our view on most things are the same. The only thing that really holds us back is the papal authority issue. Even in recent days it is customary for the Pope to not push filioque on the Orthodox and even has recited the creed in Greek with the Patriarch of Constantinople without saying it. If one understands what filioque really means theologically it doesn’t really matter if it is said or not. What comes from the father ultimately comes from the son as well.
The view of purgatory is different but I don’t know if that is enough to mean schism.
Also the Orthodox view on the canon of scripture is different and less formal than Catholic view since the council of Trent when Protestants really forced the issue of a set in stone Canon. The Orthodox tend to have more books in their Bibles than Catholics but can vary. They are very much true to the Septuagint and all Orthodox accept all of the deuterocanonical books with some additional books such as 3 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, additional Esdras books, and I believe 4 Maccabees though not canon is in an appendix to the Greek Bible. Canon to them means something worthy to be read in church in liturgy. Which by the way, 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh are used in liturgy in the Catholic Church and since the Council of Trent were moved to an appendix of the Latin Vulgate.
However 3 and 4 Esdras are now more commonly known as 1 and 2 Esdras but in the Vulgate 1 and 2 Esdras are Ezra and Nehemiah.
The numbering is different in Orthodox Churches as well which is confusing for most laity who don’t research it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Thanks for the chat!

 

[Vonsalza]

Nice post.

The Orientals are largely in agreement about the nature of Christ’s humanity and divinity. That schism was more a tragic linguistic and pecking-order issue than anything else.

 

[Onthisrock84]

Also interesting because although Revelation is in their Bible, they have never read it in their liturgy. Again I don’t know if that is just a traditional thing as well. But that’s really the separation.

 

[Onthisrock84]

Yah the Oriental Orthodox accept the first four Councils where the Eastern Orthodox accept the first seven. I actually have recently become somewhat interested in the Oriental Orthodox. After the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican communion, they are the next largest Christian communion.
One could say Protestantism is the second largest branch of Christianity which it is but there’s so many different forms of Protestantism that one could not say they are a communion or anything like that.