E
East_and_West
Guest
How does one determine that all of those councils, and only those councils are infallibile?
- Status
G
grandfather
Guest
This is slightly off topic, but somewhat related to infallibility.
What I would like to do is not argue this for another thousand years and go nowhere, but instead establish what the real cause of the schism is, or is not. Then we can argue for another thousand years and continue to please Jesus and Mary by this evil division.
Let’s say the Orthodox position on the role of Peter is correct. His authority is that of any other bishop. Assume this it true. Also assume the Orthodox are correct about papal infallibility being nothing more than a modern invention. Now start with this analogy.
Assume that a couple was married and they decided to get a divorce. Assume this took place twenty years ago. Five years after the divorce the ex-husband had a sexual affair with another woman. When the wife is asked today why she divorced her husband she says it is, because he cheated on me with another woman.
This clearly would make no sense to anyone, because the separation happened long before the bad behavior.
If the big problem that caused the separation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism was the doctrine of papal infallibility why did the divorce take place many centuries before the problem existed?
The doctrine of papal infallibilty could not be the problem that caused the schism. It came centuries after. What was the real cause? Does anyone think it might have happened for political rather than theological reasons?
What I would like to do is not argue this for another thousand years and go nowhere, but instead establish what the real cause of the schism is, or is not. Then we can argue for another thousand years and continue to please Jesus and Mary by this evil division.
Let’s say the Orthodox position on the role of Peter is correct. His authority is that of any other bishop. Assume this it true. Also assume the Orthodox are correct about papal infallibility being nothing more than a modern invention. Now start with this analogy.
Assume that a couple was married and they decided to get a divorce. Assume this took place twenty years ago. Five years after the divorce the ex-husband had a sexual affair with another woman. When the wife is asked today why she divorced her husband she says it is, because he cheated on me with another woman.
This clearly would make no sense to anyone, because the separation happened long before the bad behavior.
If the big problem that caused the separation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism was the doctrine of papal infallibility why did the divorce take place many centuries before the problem existed?
The doctrine of papal infallibilty could not be the problem that caused the schism. It came centuries after. What was the real cause? Does anyone think it might have happened for political rather than theological reasons?
E
East_and_West
Guest
Good points. In the book “The Orthodox Church” by Metropolitan Ware, he admitts that the Papacy was already a problem for the east way back at the time of the schism.
M
Mickey
Guest
I do not think that anyone can deny that politics had a part. And no one claims that the cause of the schism was the odd doctrine of infallibility. The 1870 dogma only served to widen the schism. Without this doctrine, the Church would have a much greater chance to heal the ancient wound. Here are more causes:
Filioque
purgatory
IC
original sin
And then there are a plethora of disciplinary differences.
M
Mickey
Guest
Acts 15
E
East_and_West
Guest
Oh, you mean because the teachings ultimate come from Peter? Makes sense. You are well on your way to becoming Catholic again.
B
brockmac
Guest
A couple of points,
Relating to the original cause of the schism, I believe that it was an issue of pride both in Rome and New Rome (Constantinople). The Pope (Bishop of Rome) desired to hold onto the Petrine Primacy, and chose to accept into the Nicene Creed the Filioque. This was done to combat the heresy that the Son was inferior to the Father, so it was done with good cause, and I do believe is a scripturally and theologically sound statement, for Christ did say, “I will send…” However, I believe, that knowing that tensions were already high between the Pope and his fellow patriarchs in the east, It is my contention that the prudent thing would have been for him to request a council to address the matter. Instead, he relied on his understanding of the historical Church that he had the authority as the successor of Peter to unilatterally insert the Filioque without consulting his bretheren in the East.
Since this was an addition to a Creed that had been formulated at an Ecumenical council some 700 years prior, The patriarchs in the East cried foul, and stated that the Pope had no such authority. Now I believe some of the quotes previously posted on this thread support the idea that many of the early (both ante and post Nicean) fathers would support the idea that the Pope in Rome is the successor of Peter and the apostle of the apostles, called to strengthen his brother bishops (including the other patriarchs). It is my contention that rather than creating a schism, the eastern patriarchs should have requested that the Holy Father join them in an Ecumenical Council to deal with the heresy, and possibly make the addition to the Creed if the council determined it was necessary.
I contend that if either side had chosen to listen to the concerns expressed by the other, rather than pridefully isolating the other, this thousand year schism could have been avoided. Now as I said before, I do believe that there is ample evidence prior to the Schism that the Bishop of Rome was held to be the head of the brotherhood of bishops, and that the See of Rome was held to be the standard bearer of orthodoxy (small o). The best example of this is the inconclast heresy in the east, which was corrected at the insistance of Rome. Never the less, I contend that if either side had chosen to listen to the concerns expressed by the other, rather than pridefully isolating the other, this thousand year schism could have been avoided. Also, I pray that Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew, as well as the other patriarchs, will be guided by the Holy Spirit towards repairng this sad rift and re-uniting God’s Church.
With regard to Purgatory, I think by the very fact that they pray for the dead, our Orthodox bretheren are acknowledging some condition other than Hell or Heaven after death. For there is no need to pray for those in Heaven, and no point to praying for those in Hell. Whether they choose to call it purgatory or even give it a name is irrelavent. Their very prayers acknowledge the possiblity that at least some who die undergo some sort of purification or preparation prior to entering into God’s Glory.
I think we are not so far apart that the Holy Spirit cannot bring us back into the unity that our Lord prayed for in Gethsemane if we would excersise some humility and charity and listen to His call.
Relating to the original cause of the schism, I believe that it was an issue of pride both in Rome and New Rome (Constantinople). The Pope (Bishop of Rome) desired to hold onto the Petrine Primacy, and chose to accept into the Nicene Creed the Filioque. This was done to combat the heresy that the Son was inferior to the Father, so it was done with good cause, and I do believe is a scripturally and theologically sound statement, for Christ did say, “I will send…” However, I believe, that knowing that tensions were already high between the Pope and his fellow patriarchs in the east, It is my contention that the prudent thing would have been for him to request a council to address the matter. Instead, he relied on his understanding of the historical Church that he had the authority as the successor of Peter to unilatterally insert the Filioque without consulting his bretheren in the East.
Since this was an addition to a Creed that had been formulated at an Ecumenical council some 700 years prior, The patriarchs in the East cried foul, and stated that the Pope had no such authority. Now I believe some of the quotes previously posted on this thread support the idea that many of the early (both ante and post Nicean) fathers would support the idea that the Pope in Rome is the successor of Peter and the apostle of the apostles, called to strengthen his brother bishops (including the other patriarchs). It is my contention that rather than creating a schism, the eastern patriarchs should have requested that the Holy Father join them in an Ecumenical Council to deal with the heresy, and possibly make the addition to the Creed if the council determined it was necessary.
I contend that if either side had chosen to listen to the concerns expressed by the other, rather than pridefully isolating the other, this thousand year schism could have been avoided. Now as I said before, I do believe that there is ample evidence prior to the Schism that the Bishop of Rome was held to be the head of the brotherhood of bishops, and that the See of Rome was held to be the standard bearer of orthodoxy (small o). The best example of this is the inconclast heresy in the east, which was corrected at the insistance of Rome. Never the less, I contend that if either side had chosen to listen to the concerns expressed by the other, rather than pridefully isolating the other, this thousand year schism could have been avoided. Also, I pray that Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew, as well as the other patriarchs, will be guided by the Holy Spirit towards repairng this sad rift and re-uniting God’s Church.
With regard to Purgatory, I think by the very fact that they pray for the dead, our Orthodox bretheren are acknowledging some condition other than Hell or Heaven after death. For there is no need to pray for those in Heaven, and no point to praying for those in Hell. Whether they choose to call it purgatory or even give it a name is irrelavent. Their very prayers acknowledge the possiblity that at least some who die undergo some sort of purification or preparation prior to entering into God’s Glory.
I think we are not so far apart that the Holy Spirit cannot bring us back into the unity that our Lord prayed for in Gethsemane if we would excersise some humility and charity and listen to His call.
M
Mickey
Guest
There is a perfect solution. Turn back the hands of time to when the Church was undivided. What did it look like? Quite Orthodox I would say. The filioque is a no-brainer. It does not belong in the Creed. What else would the Church look like pre-schism?
No doctrine of infallibility/supremacy
No doctrine of IC
No doctrine of purgatory
Even Pope Benedict alludes to such a solution:
“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.”
Joseph Ratzinger
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
I find discussions about the origins of the Great Schism very interesting. Does anyone know if Cardinal Humbert’s Bull of excommunication contained reference to the Eastern practice of recognizing divorce and remarriage? If not, why was this practice left out, while other more minor disciplinary issues were attacked? Thanks.
God bless,
Adam
God bless,
Adam
G
grandfather
Guest
Back to the real cause of the schism.
I am no expert, but it seems that if someone wanted to understand this, one would have to look at the documents or declaration of the person who declared the schism.
If we want to understand what the problem was that caused the Protestant heresy we should not look at the reasons some Protestant denomination or person gives today for not liking Catholicism, but rather look at what the original sperator(s) gave for their reasons. We have the famous declaration Martin Luther nailed to the cathedral door.
So what does the Patriarch’s declaration of schism say about his doctrinal reasons and what was going on politically at the time?
One of the ways we should try to understand our behavior, including divisions that we create, and all the other ways we disobey Christ, as we refuse to love one another and perpetuate division, is how that defeats the mission of the Church and allows secular forces to destroy us. A house divided surely will fall. Christ commands unity of us. Disunity is a grievous sin. It harms us and offends God. Shouldn’t we keep this in mind as we go at one another?
I am no expert, but it seems that if someone wanted to understand this, one would have to look at the documents or declaration of the person who declared the schism.
If we want to understand what the problem was that caused the Protestant heresy we should not look at the reasons some Protestant denomination or person gives today for not liking Catholicism, but rather look at what the original sperator(s) gave for their reasons. We have the famous declaration Martin Luther nailed to the cathedral door.
So what does the Patriarch’s declaration of schism say about his doctrinal reasons and what was going on politically at the time?
One of the ways we should try to understand our behavior, including divisions that we create, and all the other ways we disobey Christ, as we refuse to love one another and perpetuate division, is how that defeats the mission of the Church and allows secular forces to destroy us. A house divided surely will fall. Christ commands unity of us. Disunity is a grievous sin. It harms us and offends God. Shouldn’t we keep this in mind as we go at one another?
M
Mickey
Guest
Dear grandfather,
Indeed we are called to love one another. I find it terribly depressing that we are separated. In fact, here in America, Orthodoxy and Catholicism have many internal problems. I have been Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and now Orthodox Catholic so I have a unique perspective. Forgive my generalizations but here is what I see:
Very few go to confession any more. In Catholicism, they will receive the Eucharist regardless–in Orthodoxy they will not receive because they cannot receive without confession and the priest knows who they are.
There are many Chreasters (both Churches). Those who attend only Christmas and Easter. No one cares any longer to learn the faith–from the understanding of the Sacraments—to the teaching of the veneration of the saints. No one fasts any longer.
I could go on and on and on…
How can we hope for reunion between East and West, when very few Roman Catholics even know of the existence of the Holy Orthodox Church—or think that Eastern Catholics are Orthodox.
America is descending quickly into the quagmire of secular humanism. And it greatly saddens me.
May God abundantly bless you and your loved ones!
Peace,
Mickey
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif
E
East_and_West
Guest
It is terribly sad. Its like I say quite often, “Apostolic Christianity is a mess!”Dear grandfather,
Indeed we are called to love one another. I find it terribly depressing that we are separated. In fact, here in America, Orthodoxy and Catholicism have many internal problems. I have been Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and now Orthodox Catholic so I have a unique perspective. Forgive my generalizations but here is what I see:
Very few go to confession any more. In Catholicism, they will receive the Eucharist regardless–in Orthodoxy they will not receive because they cannot receive without confession and the priest knows who they are.
There are many Chreasters (both Churches). Those who attend only Christmas and Easter. No one cares any longer to learn the faith–from the understanding of the Sacraments—to the teaching of the veneration of the saints. No one fasts any longer.
I could go on and on and on…
How can we hope for reunion between East and West, when very few Roman Catholics even know of the existence of the Holy Orthodox Church—or think that Eastern Catholics are Orthodox.
America is descending quickly into the quagmire of secular humanism. And it greatly saddens me.
May God abundantly bless you and your loved ones!
Peace,
Mickey
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif
B
brockmac
Guest
Mikey, simply restating your original position without addressing the points brought up by others does little to further this discussion. I know you firmly believe what you say and firmly believe that these are the teachings of the ancient universal Church. However, many people in this thread have made some very good arguments, using quotes from the early fathers to justify the position of at the very least Papal supremecy, and arguably, Papal Infalibility. I will concede that it was not as clearly defined at the time of the Schism as Pius IX’s statement, but it was clearly something that was believed by many.
The problem here is similar to the problem of trying to demonstrate the teaching authority of the Church or the inerrency of Apostolic Tradition with a protestant. They only accept what is in the Bible, therefore, the writings of the early fathers mean nothing to them. Likewise, Eastern Orthodox only accept the results of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils, and therefore, anything written outside of those councils is not, in their eyes, doctrinally binding. So basically, from the perspective of the Orthodox (as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong) is that unless a teaching is explicitly spelled out in the first 7 councils, it is not truly a teaching of the Church, but simply an opinion of whoever wrote it, be they bishop, patriarch, or Pope.
If this is the case, then the one hope would be for the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope to call another Ecumenical Council, involving both Catholic and Orthodox bishops. where the voting on positions of the Council is set up so that the overwhelming majority that would likely be represented by those bishops faithful to Rome would not be able to ram-rod through an agenda. Likewise it would have to also be arranged to prevent a stalemate from a determined minority. This would be a challenge, but with God, all things are possible. Another challenge as I understand it would be for the Orthodox Patriarchs to acknowledge the Apostloicity and validity of the Orders of the Catholic Bishops. Again, correct me if I’m wrong.
The problem here is similar to the problem of trying to demonstrate the teaching authority of the Church or the inerrency of Apostolic Tradition with a protestant. They only accept what is in the Bible, therefore, the writings of the early fathers mean nothing to them. Likewise, Eastern Orthodox only accept the results of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils, and therefore, anything written outside of those councils is not, in their eyes, doctrinally binding. So basically, from the perspective of the Orthodox (as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong) is that unless a teaching is explicitly spelled out in the first 7 councils, it is not truly a teaching of the Church, but simply an opinion of whoever wrote it, be they bishop, patriarch, or Pope.
If this is the case, then the one hope would be for the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope to call another Ecumenical Council, involving both Catholic and Orthodox bishops. where the voting on positions of the Council is set up so that the overwhelming majority that would likely be represented by those bishops faithful to Rome would not be able to ram-rod through an agenda. Likewise it would have to also be arranged to prevent a stalemate from a determined minority. This would be a challenge, but with God, all things are possible. Another challenge as I understand it would be for the Orthodox Patriarchs to acknowledge the Apostloicity and validity of the Orders of the Catholic Bishops. Again, correct me if I’m wrong.
M
Mickey
Guest
I’m sorry brock, but I do not glean these things from the patristic quotes. The reason that you glean such understandings is that you must justify the Latin doctrines through patristics by reading the doctrines themselves into the quotes. Otherwise you would not remain Roman Catholic.
The protestants are the wayward children of the Latin Catholic Church.
The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church attributes great value to the writings of the Early Church Fathers. But they are not supreme infallible rulers of the Universal Church–and neither is the Pope of Rome.
E
East_and_West
Guest
So are the Eastern Orthodox.
M
Mickey
Guest
I will clarify this for you:
Latin Catholicism split from Holy Orthodoxy.
Protestanism split from Latin Catholicism.
E
East_and_West
Guest
I will clarify this for you:
Latin Catholicism split from Holy Orthodoxy.
Protestanism split from Latin Catholicism.
You’re awesome. hehe
E
East_and_West
Guest
You mean non-Catholic Byzantine Christianity split from Catholicism as did the Protestants?I will clarify this for you:
Latin Catholicism split from Holy Orthodoxy.
Protestanism split from Latin Catholicism.
A
anthony022071
Guest
What do you think the 1870 dogma is about? It says that the pope does not err in doctrines of faith and morals. In other words,in Rome the faith is kept immaculate. Do you also have a problem with what those hundreds of Eastern clergymen claimed about the Apostolic See?
A
anthony022071
Guest
The Orthodox can’t admit that the ratification of the pope made the decisions of a council valid.
From this article:
bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm
< First of all, ask yourself: What is an Ecumenical Council? By this, I specifically mean the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Why were they held?
Answer: They were political, imperial-sponsored events so as to poll the bishops of the Roman Empire to see what was, and was not, orthodox doctrine. But, was this a Traditional method for determining orthodoxy? No. Rather, it was Constantine’s way of finding out what Christianity taught. And, again, because he had political concerns. He was looking for a glue to hold his Empire together, so it was of monumental importance that all the bishops be in agreement. And, in this, remember Constantine’s situation: The Empire was overflowing with Christians, yet had problems with disunity. By embracing the Church, he assumed that he could fix this in one fell swoop. However, then Constantine found out – much to his surprise – that these Christians weren’t so “unified” after all (i.e., Arianism). And, if that was the case, he needed to find out if Christianity was really (as the orthodox Christians claimed) a universal phenomenon. Otherwise, his plan was pointless.
So, what the bishops taught was never important to the powers behind Nicaea, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II. Rather, the driving force was what could be agreed on (in order to promote the “One Church, One Empire” agenda) just as it was at the illicit “ecumenical councils” :
Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism), Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism), the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine), the numerous “councils” in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox), and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism. All these Councils could have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them.
So, what trumps what? A Council, or Rome’s teaching authority? If the Orthodox wanted to be honest about history, it is clearly Rome’s teaching authority – the very thing “Saint” Photius (being an agent of the Empire himself) denied, so as to foster Byzantine primacy through an unTraditional bid to make the P. of Constantinople “Ecumenical Patriarch,” a title which, as I recently found out, was not approved of for the P. of Constantinople until after 1453. It was a title given to him by the anti-Latin TURKS! Not by the Papacy nor by the ancient Church. >
- Status