Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[steve_b]

That does not fit the historical record. The Popes claimed ecumenical authority on the basis of their vision of their rights as successors to St. Peter. The Popes objected to Canon 28 of Chalcedon on purely grounds of their claim to universal jurisdiction. At first, the whole affair of St. Photius had nothing to do with the filioque. That came later.

Archpriest John W. Morris

That’s an accurate account.

 

[steve_b]

And I still haven’t seen such evidence.

Perhaps I should clarify. When I say “Appealed to the pope” I mean there is no evidence that he asked the Pope, as leader of the Church to step in and use his powers to stop this. I don’t mean that he didn’t ask him, as an influential person, to step in. Perhaps this is my fault, I had hoped it would be contextually clear. Asking an influential person to step into a dispute is a very different thing than asking a person who has direct power to save you to do so.

As I said, I hope context would make clear what I meant. My mistake.

That isn’t a personal attack, but I agree it is not the most charitable. But since you turn every last thing into a battle (see below) you shouldn’t be too surprised.

My mistake I missed that one. You did indeed show evidence that St. John was in contact with Rome, and appealed for help. I think the most important bit is at the end of the first letter, the help that St. John asks for. He doesn’t ask him to help using Universal Jurisdiction, he asks him to “exert zeal”.
He’s asking Rome to pick up his fight.

What’s instructive for me is to see the condition Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria are in, as Chrysostom describes in his letters. newadvent.org/fathers/1918.htm

It’s why I said the seeds of schism were already there.
N:

It’s what I mean by you turning everything into a battle. All I was doing was informing you that Jerusalem came later (actually I said same time, but corrected myself). I was making no argument about the “pentarchy and the Patriarchal system” as you suggest. I had no agenda beyond a helpful correction, which you took with all the grace I have come to expect from you.

How is it then, that Jerusalem came later than Constantinople if you’re NOT talking about the pentarchy or Patriarchal system? Please explain

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dear sister Josie,

FYI, Fr. John is a professional historian. I’m sure he knows about the suffering and martyrdoms of Latin Catholic martyrs in the missions. I’m sure he knows that the imperial strategy was to use the Church to “pacify” natives.

And I’m pretty sure the only thing he meant was that since the secular powers in the Catholic countries had heavy colonial interests, it was easier for the missionary Church to “hitch” along. Wouldn’t you agree? (face it, the Vatican historically did not have its own navy for like 95% of the colonial period). The traditional Orthodox countries were mostly either landlocked or did not have the kind of relationship with the secular government that the Catholic Church had. The closest comparable relationship between Church and State was in Russia, but AFAIK, Ruissia’s maritime capability was nowhere near that of the Western European countries.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

One must also remember that during the greatest period of imperialism, most Orthodox were living under Muslim domination and were struggling to survive. The Russians evangelize Siberia and Alaska, which was quite feat. The fact is that without the benefits of a colonial power to support us, Orthodox missionaries are active all over the world. If the best argument that Catholics can make is “We are right because we are bigger,” is adolescent and makes the pro-Catholic position look rather weak.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

One must also remember that during the greatest period of imperialism, most Orthodox were living under Muslim domination and were struggling to survive. The Russians evangelize Siberia and Alaska, which was quite feat. The fact is that without the benefits of a colonial power to support us, Orthodox missionaries are active all over the world. If the best argument that Catholics can make is “We are right because we are bigger,” is adolescent and makes the pro-Catholic position look rather weak.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Adolescent?

No, Father, we simply look at the facts of history and determine that yes, the EO have been blocked at almost every turn from fulfilling the Great Commission. Don’t get me wrong: you’ve served admirably under difficult circumstances. Well done, good and faithful servants!

But Jesus told the disciples to make disciples of all nations, and since building the Church is His work, not man’s, I do not believe God would or could be boxed in by Muslims or by Communists. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Orthodox Church does not qualify as the one and only true Church as some EO seem to assert.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Adolescent?

No, Father, we simply look at the facts of history and determine that yes, the EO have been blocked at almost every turn from fulfilling the Great Commission. Don’t get me wrong: you’ve served admirably under difficult circumstances. Well done, good and faithful servants!

But Jesus told the disciples to make disciples of all nations, and since building the Church is His work, not man’s, I do not believe God would or could be boxed in by Muslims or by Communists. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Orthodox Church does not qualify as the one and only true Church as some EO seem to assert.

One could argue that the suffering of the Orthodox Church is proof that it is the true Church because the evil one made such an effort to stop it from spreading the truth of Orthodoxy.
We do not assert that the Orthodox church is the True Church, we believe it. That should not offend you since Catholics believe the same about the Roman Catholic Church. Obviously we disagree or we would become Catholics. We do seek reunion, but not on the basis of submission to papal domination, but on the basis of going back to the Faith of the ancient undivided Faith of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils.
Remember, we did not start the schism, Cardinal Humbert and the Crusaders did.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

One could argue that the suffering of the Orthodox Church is proof that it is the true Church because the evil one made such an effort to stop it from spreading the truth of Orthodoxy.

Good rejoinder.

We do not assert that the Orthodox church is the True Church, we believe it. That should not offend you since Catholics believe the same about the Roman Catholic Church.

Not offended in the least. But, to be concise, I am a Coptic Catholic, not a Roman Catholic.

We do seek reunion, but not on the basis of submission to papal domination, but on the basis of going back to the Faith of the ancient undivided Faith of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Amen. I’m certain that is the wish of our hierarchs as well.

Remember, we did not start the schism, Cardinal Humbert and the Crusaders did.

There are historians who attribute the cause also to the desecration of Latin Churches and mobbing of Latin Catholics under Patriarch Cerularius. I think both sides have their part in the blame for the schism.

Humbly.
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

How is it then, that Jerusalem came later than Constantinople if you’re NOT talking about the pentarchy or Patriarchal system? Please explain

I was making a simple correction to a statement you made. Much as if you had made an argument including the statement “the sky is usually green”, if I told you “the sky is usually blue” I’m not making a comment on colours, I’m making a simple correction so that you might argue more intelligently in the future.

The fact that you have to argue about that and ascribe motives to things like that confirms what I saw earlier. Any discussion with you will be fruitless.

 

[Randy_Carson]

One could argue that the suffering of the Orthodox Church is proof that it is the true Church because the evil one made such an effort to stop it from spreading the truth of Orthodoxy.

One could. And I would go so far as to say that the Orthodox were formally part of the one true Church, but that communion has been broken.

We do not assert that the Orthodox church is the True Church, we believe it. That should not offend you since Catholics believe the same about the Roman Catholic Church.

No, that is completely fair and reasonable. Everyone should be confident in their own minds that they are on the right path. Logically, however, not all who believe it are correct.

Obviously we disagree or we would become Catholics.

Obviously.

We do seek reunion, but not on the basis of submission to papal domination, but on the basis of going back to the Faith of the ancient undivided Faith of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

I’m sure that would please you very much. However, it would be like trying to unlearn the advances of medicine or technology or even the social sciences. How do you envision this actually working out in real life, Father? Should we say, “Okay, the five of you are all equal now…and never mind all these theology books over here…we’re just going to pretend that they were never written”?

Remember, we did not start the schism, Cardinal Humbert and the Crusaders did.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re right. So, what? The Apostle Paul was all over you here, Father:

1 Corinthians 6:6-8
6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers! **7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? **8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.

Do you see it, Father? Paul is saying if you’ve been mistreated, turn the other cheek. It is better to be wronged, to be cheated, than to argue and go to court over injustices whether real or imagined.

No, I do not see a way for you to come back to Rome because you have been defeated…you cannot forgive, you WILL NOT forgive. Thus, you would rather things remain as they are than to allow ROME to “dominate” you. You love your “rights”, your history, your superiority as an “oppressed” people more than you love your brothers in Rome.

Well, you have a long memory, Father, if you wish to cling to thousand-year old sleights and injustices, but I would not want to face my maker with “But they started it” as my only defense for my actions in this life.

 

[RyanBlack]

No, I do not see a way for you to come back to Rome because you have been defeated…you cannot forgive, you WILL NOT forgive. Thus, you would rather things remain as they are than to allow ROME to “dominate” you.

Well, you have a long memory, Father, if you wish to cling to thousand-year old sleights and injustices, but I would not want to face my maker with “But they started it” as my only defense for my actions in this life.

This is among the most offensive and presumptuous posts I’ve ever read on this forum.

 

[josie_L]

Dear sister Josie,

FYI, Fr. John is a professional historian. I’m sure he knows about the suffering and martyrdoms of Latin Catholic martyrs in the missions. I’m sure he knows that the imperial strategy was to use the Church to “pacify” natives.

And I’m pretty sure the only thing he meant was that since the secular powers in the Catholic countries had heavy colonial interests, it was easier for the missionary Church to “hitch” along. Wouldn’t you agree? (face it, the Vatican historically did not have its own navy for like 95% of the colonial period). The traditional Orthodox countries were mostly either landlocked or did not have the kind of relationship with the secular government that the Catholic Church had. The closest comparable relationship between Church and State was in Russia, but AFAIK, Ruissia’s maritime capability was nowhere near that of the Western European countries.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, I read his credentials in some earlier post of his (Ph.d, books …etc.), quite impressive, what I was not impressed with, was his post, hence, the reason I replied. I just felt that his response was a little disrespectful, and as such, I chose to clarify/remind him and others who are reading this thread what I felt was necessary, i.e., that Catholic missionaries risked their lives and suffered hardships to bring the Word of God to areas that were yet unknown and dangerous. As to whether it was easier for these missionaries to hitch along, I would agree (I said so in my earlier post), however, European colonialism did not make the task of converting the indigenous people easier for Catholic missionaries, in fact, I would argue that it made it more difficult (Greed and God don’t mix well). Furthermore, I made no mention of Orthodoxy and evangelization in my post (for a reason), although if my geography is still good, Russia is connected to a landmass that has two of the most populous countries in the world, China and India, i.e., it would not need maritime capabilities to evangelize these countries or other countries connected to this landmass.

Blessings,

Josie

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, I read his credentials in some earlier post of his (Ph.d, books …etc.), quite impressive, what I was not impressed with, was his post, hence, the reason I replied. I just felt that his response was a little disrespectful, and as such, I chose to clarify/remind him and others who are reading this thread what I felt was necessary, i.e., that Catholic missionaries risked their lives and suffered hardships to bring the Word of God to areas that were yet unknown and dangerous. As to whether it was easier for these missionaries to hitch along, I would agree (I said so in my earlier post), however, European colonialism did not make the task of converting the indigenous people easier for Catholic missionaries, in fact, I would argue that it made it more difficult (Greed and God don’t mix well). **Furthermore, I made no mention of Orthodoxy and evangelization in my post (for a reason), although if my geography is still good, Russia is connected to a landmass that has two of the most populous countries in the world, China and India, i.e., it would not need maritime capabilities to evangelize these countries or other countries connected to this landmass. **

Blessings,

Josie

Josie-

Your post makes a lot of sense. Expect to take some heat for it.

 

[theistgal]

This is among the most offensive and presumptuous posts I’ve ever read on this forum.

Agreed.

And seriously - to say that the Orthodox Church can’t be the “true church” because it has been the victim of so much persecutions*? Hmm - didn’t some people say that Jesus couldn’t have been the Messiah for that same reason?

(*and note, I’m not saying they ARE the true Church™ - just saying that this is a rather silly reason to give as to why.)

 

[Anthony86]

RyanBlack:

This is among the most offensive and presumptuous posts I’ve ever read on this forum.

We should, however, not let all sorts of historical grievances overwhelm us in our search for the true Church - even when these concerns are legitimate. If the salvation of our soul depends on finding the true Church, we really shouldn’t allow ourselves to remain outside because ‘their’ predecessors were cruel towards ‘our’ predecessors 500 / 1000 / 1500 years ago. I went from Protestantism to Catholicism, and I didn’t let the fact that Rome persecuted and burned the fathers of my previous faith prevent me from converting to the Catholic Church. That is, I believe, what Randy Carson was trying to communicate, though he chose a more confrontational style than I think he should have.

 

[dzheremi]

No, I do not see a way for you to come back to Rome because you have been defeated…you cannot forgive, you WILL NOT forgive.

Come on now. Really? Fr. John Morris and I have certainly had our disagreements (see: the rest of this thread), but this is really ascribing to the Byzantines a level of personal contemptuousness and intransigence that isn’t fair. It’s not even borne out in the historical record. Remember that the mutual excommunications were likewise mutually lifted following the joint declaration of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965. If you’re honest with yourself, I think you would have to conclude that both Roman Catholics and Byzantines have been far more conciliatory towards one another in recent history than at any time within the last thousand years, so to say that they won’t forgive…why are things better right now than they used to be, if that’s the case?

Thus, you would rather things remain as they are than to allow ROME to “dominate” you. You love your “rights”, your history, your superiority as an “oppressed” people more than you love your brothers in Rome.

Why do you put rights, oppression, etc. in quotes like that? Do you deny that the Eastern Orthodox have rights, or that they have been oppressed throughout history, including the very recent past? Far be it for me to speak for any of them, but the Russians, Bulgarians, etc. who I know could tell you some stories about oppression at the hands of the communists that would make you never want to put anything in scare quotes again. You don’t have to agree with them to recognize the reality of what they’ve been through, but doing what you’re doing now is just needlessly patronizing and rude.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by steve b How is it then, that Jerusalem came later than Constantinople if you’re NOT talking about the pentarchy or Patriarchal system? Please explain

If I’m not mistaken, steve b saw your statement that

I was making no argument about the “pentarchy and the Patriarchal system” as you suggest.

and took it to mean that you were not talking about the pentarchy or Patriarchal system.

 

[josie_L]

One could argue that the suffering of the Orthodox Church is proof that it is the true Church because the evil one made such an effort to stop it from spreading the truth of Orthodoxy.
We do not assert that the Orthodox church is the True Church, we believe it. That should not offend you since Catholics believe the same about the Roman Catholic Church. Obviously we disagree or we would become Catholics. We do seek reunion, but not on the basis of submission to papal domination, but on the basis of going back to the Faith of the ancient undivided Faith of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils.
Remember, we did not start the schism, Cardinal Humbert and the Crusaders did.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Are you not aware of the “Massacre of the Latins” which precedes (1182) the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders (think there’s a connection)? Or why not go further back and talk of the sacking of Naples by General Belisarius under Emperor Justinian:

In May of 536, the Byzantine Army of Belisarius laid siege to, captured, and sacked Naples:

◦Belisarius had warned the Neapolitans at the beginning of the siege that if they put up any resistance he would be unable to restrain his army–which, he reminded them, was largely composed of semi-savage barbarians–from the murder, rapine and pillage which they would consider their just reward after the capture of the city. But the warning had been ignored, and the miserable citizens now paid the price of their heroism. It was many hours before Belisarius was able to persuade his motley hordes of Alans and Isaurians, Herulians and Huns–these last the most terrifying of all time, being pagans, they had no compunction in burning down the churches in which their intended victims had sought asylum–to put up their swords and spears and return to their various camps.

{J.J. Norwich, Byzantium: The Early Centuries (1989), p. 216}

users.uoa.gr/~nektar/history/2romanity/reflections_on_the_sack_of_constantinople_(1204).htm

Do you think that this would be reason enough for us Latins to say that it was in fact the Byzantines who caused the schism?

 

[josie_L]

Notwithstanding the fact that I’m a fellow Catholic, I nevertheless find this ^^ too difficult of swallow. (Whitewash tend to stick in the throat. )

From one fellow Catholic to another, I’m not whitewashing anything, and if you’re having difficulty swallowing, may I suggest some water?

 

[RyanBlack]

We should, however, not let all sorts of historical grievances overwhelm us in our search for the true Church - even when these concerns are legitimate. If the salvation of our soul depends on finding the true Church, we really shouldn’t allow ourselves to remain outside because ‘their’ predecessors were cruel towards ‘our’ predecessors 500 / 1000 / 1500 years ago. I went from Protestantism to Catholicism, and I didn’t let the fact that Rome persecuted and burned the fathers of my previous faith prevent me from converting to the Catholic Church. That is, I believe, what Randy Carson was trying to communicate, though he chose a more confrontational style than I think he should have.

I really don’t think there are many Orthodox who refuse to become Catholic on the basis of acts of cruelty in the past. Rather, I think most Orthodox who even consider the Catholicism and reject it do so on the basis of their belief that the Orthodox Church, not the Catholic Church, is the true Church.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

Good rejoinder.

Not offended in the least. But, to be concise, I am a Coptic Catholic, not a Roman Catholic.

Amen. I’m certain that is the wish of our hierarchs as well.

There are historians who attribute the cause also to the desecration of Latin Churches and mobbing of Latin Catholics under Patriarch Cerularius. I think both sides have their part in the blame for the schism.

Humbly.
Marduk

If you study your history, you will find that the Latins were forcing Byzantine Churches in Italy to adopt the Latin Rite. Patriarch Michael I simply responded by closing the Latin Rite parishes in Constantinople, something that he had right to do as the Archbishop of Constantinople. When Patriarch Michael I sent a letter to the Pope asking for negotiations to settle the dispute, Pope Leo IX sent the arrogant Cardinal Humbert, who insulted the Patriarch by not showing him the proper respect during their first meeting. Then news arrived at Constantinople that Pope Leo IX had died. From that point on, the Patriarch refused to suffer any further indignities from the Cardinal. After he alienated the Orthodox clergy by his haughty attitude, especially telling the married clergy that they were living in a sinful relationship with their wives, Humbert took it upon himself on his own authority to march into the Cathedral and place a bull excommunicating the Patriarch in the name of the Pope, something he had no legal right to do.
However, it was the Crusades that really finalized the schism. When the Latin Crusaders took cities with Orthodox Bishops, they removed the Orthodox Bishops and put Latin Bishops in their place.

Archpriest John Morris