M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
How can they be Catholic when 1) they are not in union with the Holy See, 2) differ in matters of morals and 3) aren’t even in communion with each other?
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Hi Margaret Ann,
Orthodox hold the view that catholicity is determined by adherence to Holy Tradition/the Deposit of Faith, not the views of one obviously fallible man.
As far as differing on morals, I’m not sure they do in a material way.
And on supposed breaches of communion with each other (church discipline), it’s not super-common. Is there a particular example that you wish to discuss from history?
Orthodox hold the view that catholicity is determined by adherence to Holy Tradition/the Deposit of Faith, not the views of one obviously fallible man.
As far as differing on morals, I’m not sure they do in a material way.
And on supposed breaches of communion with each other (church discipline), it’s not super-common. Is there a particular example that you wish to discuss from history?
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Hey, to answer original question, Orthodox officially recognize Eucharist from unleavened bread invalid and therefore not as real body of Christ- but there have been numerous occasions where Lord has shown us miracles connected with His Holy Body even if matter for consecration was unleavened bread.
Another thing is many pre-schism saints like Saint Gregory the Great who fought for Papal Authority and even Papal Infalliblity. They also say that “mistakes of West lie in Augustine’s theology” and regard him as saint, and one of Ecumenical Councils (infallible in Orthodoxy states that Fathers of the Council agree with everything Church Fathers, amongst whom Saint Augustine is named, stated.
To also show that Rome, not Antioch nor Alexandria, hold Chair of Peter, I believe Ecumenical Councils or historical documents revolved around them (I believe it was 1st one in Nicea, I am not sure about this however) state Pope is pontiff who is also successor of Peter. I am not sure about this one as much as I am about the fact that many Church Fathers state Rome is sucessor of Peter- Rome holds/held (in orthodox view) primacy not because it was imperial city as stated in canon of Chalcedon which Catholics reject- but because it holds Petrine Succession. If they accept this canon they contradict history and truth, as they do on matter of Saint Augustine- there are no contradictions in truth.
Now, I do not want to seem offensive. I hold Orthodox Church in high respect with valid sacraments and apostolic succession. I hope for reconciliation in love and truth, and of course, in God himself.
Another thing is many pre-schism saints like Saint Gregory the Great who fought for Papal Authority and even Papal Infalliblity. They also say that “mistakes of West lie in Augustine’s theology” and regard him as saint, and one of Ecumenical Councils (infallible in Orthodoxy states that Fathers of the Council agree with everything Church Fathers, amongst whom Saint Augustine is named, stated.
To also show that Rome, not Antioch nor Alexandria, hold Chair of Peter, I believe Ecumenical Councils or historical documents revolved around them (I believe it was 1st one in Nicea, I am not sure about this however) state Pope is pontiff who is also successor of Peter. I am not sure about this one as much as I am about the fact that many Church Fathers state Rome is sucessor of Peter- Rome holds/held (in orthodox view) primacy not because it was imperial city as stated in canon of Chalcedon which Catholics reject- but because it holds Petrine Succession. If they accept this canon they contradict history and truth, as they do on matter of Saint Augustine- there are no contradictions in truth.
Now, I do not want to seem offensive. I hold Orthodox Church in high respect with valid sacraments and apostolic succession. I hope for reconciliation in love and truth, and of course, in God himself.
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
That’s not true. I know a few Orthodox who have attended our Typicas and they have received. (We use the reserved Hosts from the RC Chapel). Also, wouldn’t they then have a problem with Christ using the unleavened bread at the Last Supper?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
That is after all reason they broke communion with us- or rather, reason why Patriarch of Constantinople and Pope of Rome got into conflict in the first place. It is official stance of the Orthodox Church- some Orthodox Christians can dissagree or be unaware of it, but officially this is what their church stands for.
They also believe Our Lord did not use unleavened bread at last supper- they believe that because it was certain day in Passover (apologies, but I do not fully understand this part yet so I am unable to tell you full answer), Our Lord used leavened bread. They say that use of greek word “artos” which usually (but not always) means leavened bread in Gospel. It has been point of discussion but Eastern Orthodox Church holds that unleavened bread is not proper matter for Eucharist- after all, that is why Photius of Constantinople called this “judaistic practice of Latins”.
They also believe Our Lord did not use unleavened bread at last supper- they believe that because it was certain day in Passover (apologies, but I do not fully understand this part yet so I am unable to tell you full answer), Our Lord used leavened bread. They say that use of greek word “artos” which usually (but not always) means leavened bread in Gospel. It has been point of discussion but Eastern Orthodox Church holds that unleavened bread is not proper matter for Eucharist- after all, that is why Photius of Constantinople called this “judaistic practice of Latins”.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I could be wrong here (I’m not Orthodox) but even if a Church has broken Eucharistic communion with another, for example Jerusalem and Antioch, they still recognize the other as a True Church and part of the Apostolic faith. Maybe an Orthodox member can chime in and correct me.
ZP
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
The First Council of Nicaea says nothing of the Pope being the successor of Saint Peter. The canons in that council which refer to the seniority of honor of the primates of the patriarchal Churches are the 6th and 7th canon:
6th canon - The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.
7th canon - Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan.
ZP
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Yes, but I thought there was text from around time of the council (not explicitly canon). I might however be wrong of course.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
If Peter has supreme authority and universal jurisdiction over the entire church, why is he mentioned second after James. James is supposed to be under the authority of Peter, who is the supreme head of the church, so the correct protocol would be to name Peter first, and then James second. Gal 2:9 names James before Peter, indicating that the protocol was not to put Peter first over all the others.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
It’s how they affect church discipline since no bishop has authority outside their own jurisdiction. If an Orthodox Church gets too far out of line despite multiple attempts at dialogue on the issue then Orthodox Churches will break communion with them as a form of protest.Margaret_Ann:
I could be wrong here (I’m not Orthodox) but even if a Church has broken Eucharistic communion with another, for example Jerusalem and Antioch, they still recognize the other as a True Church and part of the Apostolic faith. Maybe an Orthodox member can chime in and correct me.
ZP
It’s usually pretty effective.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Ah, the famous “Incident at Antioch”.
C
Catholicwife32
Guest
I don’t think that we should be doing that.
Imagine it like this. You’ve got a husband and a wife. The husband is a domineering bully and uses the words of St. Paul to tell his wife that she must always obey and serve him and that fearing him is even a good thing. That certainly is one way to interpret that passage. The woman prays and recognizes that the interpretation is wrong and that her husband’s pride is making him blind.
She responds by standing up for herself and arguing with him, but her abandonment of codependency infuriates the husband. Their last argument is over something extremely petty (the filioque). The husband responds by filing for divorce, attaching a note stating “This is also an annullment. I’m not sinning against you. I’m too good for that.” The wife becomes enraged by his hypocracy and files for a divorce. She acknowledges this break is a sin, but she doesn’t embrace her husband’s legalism. As such, she sees the divorce as a statement of how things are now. We are not united. We are not married, and the divorce is sinful, but just like I needed to stand up to you, I need to do this. Your legalistic view of morality is your downfall.
In reality, the couple is still married. The attempt to claim nullity was rooted in the west’s pride. And we have been making efforts to reconcile with the east. We now deny that they are heretics. But what holds us apart is still the perception that papal infallibility was rooted in the west’s pride. The east cannot trust the pride of the Pope claiming to have such an authority.
But perhaps God had the counsel of Trent rule it not because the Pope is supposed to be our dictator, but because reconcilation of the churches will come through the Pope making some infallable statement that reconciles them. As such, the Catholic Church’s focus is on the catholocity of the faith and the Orthodox church is about the teachings. So we need to look to the east for wisdom, abandon our pride, and maybe one day the Pope will actually speak ex cathedra for only the sake of leading the whole church back into communion rather than allowing it to fragment. Perhaps the original statements about the Immaculate conception and assumption of Mary are to really challenge those who would deny their Catholic faith if the Pope made such a humble ex cathedra statement.
But now may not be the time. Reconciling a divorced couple takes much time to heal wounds and rebuild trust. And both churches have a lot of people involved whose faiths may be shaken by any grand acts to attempt to bring about unity.
Imagine it like this. You’ve got a husband and a wife. The husband is a domineering bully and uses the words of St. Paul to tell his wife that she must always obey and serve him and that fearing him is even a good thing. That certainly is one way to interpret that passage. The woman prays and recognizes that the interpretation is wrong and that her husband’s pride is making him blind.
She responds by standing up for herself and arguing with him, but her abandonment of codependency infuriates the husband. Their last argument is over something extremely petty (the filioque). The husband responds by filing for divorce, attaching a note stating “This is also an annullment. I’m not sinning against you. I’m too good for that.” The wife becomes enraged by his hypocracy and files for a divorce. She acknowledges this break is a sin, but she doesn’t embrace her husband’s legalism. As such, she sees the divorce as a statement of how things are now. We are not united. We are not married, and the divorce is sinful, but just like I needed to stand up to you, I need to do this. Your legalistic view of morality is your downfall.
In reality, the couple is still married. The attempt to claim nullity was rooted in the west’s pride. And we have been making efforts to reconcile with the east. We now deny that they are heretics. But what holds us apart is still the perception that papal infallibility was rooted in the west’s pride. The east cannot trust the pride of the Pope claiming to have such an authority.
But perhaps God had the counsel of Trent rule it not because the Pope is supposed to be our dictator, but because reconcilation of the churches will come through the Pope making some infallable statement that reconciles them. As such, the Catholic Church’s focus is on the catholocity of the faith and the Orthodox church is about the teachings. So we need to look to the east for wisdom, abandon our pride, and maybe one day the Pope will actually speak ex cathedra for only the sake of leading the whole church back into communion rather than allowing it to fragment. Perhaps the original statements about the Immaculate conception and assumption of Mary are to really challenge those who would deny their Catholic faith if the Pope made such a humble ex cathedra statement.
But now may not be the time. Reconciling a divorced couple takes much time to heal wounds and rebuild trust. And both churches have a lot of people involved whose faiths may be shaken by any grand acts to attempt to bring about unity.
S
steve-b
Guest
If interested, be sure to read the entire article. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/was-james-not-peter-the-head-of-the-church-after-jesusAnonymousSinner:
If Peter has supreme authority and universal jurisdiction over the entire church, why is he mentioned second after James. James is supposed to be under the authority of Peter, who is the supreme head of the church, so the correct protocol would be to name Peter first, and then James second. Gal 2:9 names James before Peter, indicating that the protocol was not to put Peter first over all the others.
problems (rules about circumcision, etc) at the time that needed addressing, were coming from the Judaizers which were from James AND the famous statement by Paul about Peter’s actions.
Last edited:
O
Onthisrock84
Guest
You can’t. If anything as a Catholic the more I research it the more it seems the Orthodox were right.
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
I found your analogy quite intriguing, interesting, and thought provoking. Definitely a different perspective to approach the situation than is usually tossed about here.
O
Onthisrock84
Guest
They are in communion with each other.
It’s a communion just like the Anglican communion.
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 is 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.
It’s a communion just like the Anglican communion.
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 is 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.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Just to add some info, Oriental Orthodoxy has valid apostolic succession. Pope does not even push FIlioque on Eastern Catholics, as in greek translation it can (and may not at the same time) be heretical. In Latin however, it is pure truth. Purgatory is basically perceived by canons of Orthodoxy very similarly to ours- after all, afaik at Council of Florence their bishop Mark of Ephesus won purgatorial debate therefore we included his stance as dogma, even if he did not accept the council in the full meaning.
Orthodox also hold bible canon differently than us- canon in their sense means it is used in liturgy. Basically speaking, they see some books as divinely-inspired but not canon (as they are not part of liturgies) and so on. When it comes down to it, we don’t really differ that much- thing that made it worse was translation during middle ages but we professed same thing- we just thought we did not.
D
dochawk
Guest
Statements like this are the biggest problems problem–on both sides–in Othodox/Catholic relations.
It simply isn’t true; it is a western perception fro some statements made at some times from some Orthodox polemicists. You can find parallel misstatements about the west just as easily.
It’s really a side issue that this just isn’t an accurate or fair statement of Orthodox position in general,.
The real issue here is that western polemicists decide what the eastern position is and argue against that misperception, and vice versa.
It was perhaps best stated in the first article of the Union of Brest: "because we do not want to understand what the other is saying.
Taking details from some argument or another and stating that as the “position” of the other is counterproductive (and also results in imposing directly conflicting “positions” of the other, but, again, a minor detail compared to the real issue).
hawk, who really intended to never post again in this thread, and looked out of sheer horrified fascination
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
The Oriental Orthodox do not accept the Council of Chalcedon and some Oriental Orthodox only accept the first one or two ecumenical councils! How can the Orthodox be in communion with them if they can’t accept an infallible ecumenical council?
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
I posted an example to OnThisRock on this thread.
- Status