W
Wesley7
Guest
There are Orthodox who insist on not being in communion with the Pope. (Bishop of Rome)
Why? . .What are the reasons? . .
Why? . .What are the reasons? . .
- Status
M
Major_Minor
Guest
Can you properly explain why many Eastern Orthodox branches are not in communion with
-other- Eastern Orthodox branches?
Can you properly explain why Eastern Orthodoxy was always more susceptible to Arian heresy?
-other- Eastern Orthodox branches?
Can you properly explain why Eastern Orthodoxy was always more susceptible to Arian heresy?
W
Wesley7
Guest
Because most Orthodox Churches are independent and autocephalous. (self-governing)
I’m in the process of learning. I’m not sure
A
abucs
Guest
Of course the answer is for those Orthodox you mention to make/explain/clarify.
Hopefully most Catholics and Orthodox can find a way to become closer.
Hopefully most Catholics and Orthodox can find a way to become closer.
M
Major_Minor
Guest
This was taken from the “Shameless Popery” blog:
“Many of the distinctive problems plaguing Catholic-Orthodox relations are historical and ethnic. Unfortunately, partially because the Orthodox allied themselves with the Roman Empire when it transplanted its capital from Rome to Constantinople, it became a much more ethno-national Church than did Catholicism, and it fostered close ties to the state and to the people of the nation. These ties have come back to haunt the Orthodox in more recent years. They serve as a source of disunity, with the Russian Patriarch and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople sparring pretty openly (the Russians are the larger and more powerful Church, while Constantinople holds the ancient Patriarchy). This ethnic identity often serves as a barrier to would-be newcomers to the Faith. And at times, it blinds some members of the Orthodox Church to the Christian mission.”
H
Hesychios
Guest
Do you always answer a question with a question?
And of course the textbook response would be: "They aren’t really … ! doh :doh2:
Your approach to the question is nonsense.
Arianism died out in the east in the late fourth century, so it was finished in the same century it erupted. It was first condemned in 321AD and finally ended in 381AD, so that run of controversy between the Orthodox Catholics and the Arians went for sixty years. Arianism lasted in the west into the seventh century and was pernicious in Italy, Spain, north Africa and Gaul.
This is like someone saying : Can you properly explain why many Catholic branches are not in communion with -other- Catholic branches?
And of course the textbook response would be: "They aren’t really … ! doh :doh2:
Your approach to the question is nonsense.
You are really stretching with this one.
Arianism died out in the east in the late fourth century, so it was finished in the same century it erupted. It was first condemned in 321AD and finally ended in 381AD, so that run of controversy between the Orthodox Catholics and the Arians went for sixty years. Arianism lasted in the west into the seventh century and was pernicious in Italy, Spain, north Africa and Gaul.
W
WetCatechumen
Guest
Well, there are a few reasons: the Orthodox sell the gift of God like the Simoniacs, they castrate their guests, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, they claim that true baptism has perished from all except the Greek church, they allow and defend carnal marriages of ministers of the sacred altar, they say that the law of Moses is accursed, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, they state that the leave is ensouled, they do not baptize babies until the eighth day, they do not communicate or baptize menstruating or pregnant women, and they grow hair on their faces and their heads, and don’t communicate those who have accepted Roman tonsure.
That pretty much sums it up.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Odd to ask Catholics to explain why others believe something different… but my understanding is that the Orthodox believe that the Pope has a special dignity, but not that he is the head of the Church Christ founded, that he is first among equals, but not that he has special teaching authority in and of himself.
A book I read many years ago, *Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, *was very helpful when I was determining whether the Catholic or the Orthodox were correct on this point.
J
JRKH
Guest
While I am sure this is not the specific answer you are looking for, the short answer is “Pride”. Pride is the root cause for the schism in the first place and remains the main barrier between Rome and the EO as well as between Rome and the Protestants even today. In this I am not pointing fingers. Pride existed on both sides when the Schism occured and Pride exists on both sides today.
This pride can and will cause certain individuals to resist any raproachment between the two “lungs” of The Church. Such resistance attends any attempts by any groups who tries to move closer to Rome. We see it happen in the Anglican/Epischopal talks as well as in the Lutheren talks - Certain individuals declare that reunion is impossible, that they will neve “bend the knee” to Rome, or whatever. Some people are just like that.
However it will not prevent men of Good Will, including our Holy Father, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, from entering into humble and prayerful discussions to resolve the differences seperating us and bring the two communions closer together.
Let us pray humbly for the rapid movement of East and West together in Chrisian union.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
The above is a very fine example of how NOT to engage others in Christian Charity.
Your list above, written in a very accusatory way, merely points out some differences in doctrines and practices between the Catholic and the EO Church. It does not explain why some EO are dead set against reunification.
What your post does demonstrate is that there is “prideful” reisistance on both sides by its use of inflamatory adjectives. It also demonstrates some pretty silly accusations.
For example:
they grow hair on their faces and their heads -
This is wrong? I have hair on my head. I’m sure Jesus did too just as I’m sure Jesus had a beard.
they do not baptize babies until the eighth day
I was born into a Roman Catholic Family and was not baptized until the 16th day.
they allow and defend carnal marriages of ministers of the sacred altar
The Roman Catholic Church also has some married priests. Celibacy is a “practice”, a discipline that could be changed if the Church so decided. There is nothing dogmatically wrong with a priest being married.
In all this post demonstrates the reason why the two churches need to proceed, carefully and in Christian Love, through the magisterial offices of each, and not by “street corner polemics” that only serve to stir up passions.
Peace
James
C
Carlan
Guest
Yes, Yes, it was so political. We must continue to pray for unity of the whole Church.
Carlan
G
guanophore
Guest
I am curious why you are not asking this of the Orthodox?
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
As a side note, it may be interesting to some of you that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are making good headway at reunification. Not there yet, but they’re finding, for example, language that is acceptable to both about some of their doctrinal differences. The big challenge, according to one Orthodox priest is emotional/psychological on the Orthodox side. They’ve been culturally “against” us for so long that it’s going to be difficult to overcome the prejudice.
C
Carlan
Guest
I think so too, Scooby. Like the Dems and the Pubs.
Peace, Carlan
G
guanophore
Guest
Actually the name of this blog is one of the central reasons for the division. They believe the office of the Pope has grown far beyond what Christ intended.
Where on earth did you get this?! you are required to cite your sources here.
This is well stated. It does seem odd. The Orthodox affirm that the successor of Peter is first among equals, but believe we departed from the faith when he was declared to be infallible.
Of course Jesus is the head of the Church He founded, but the idea that he left a vicar is beyond the ancient teachings received by the Eastern Christians. They see in the successor of Peter an arrogance in claiming these things that Peter did not have.
Yes, together with ignorance, intolerance, and worldly cares. When the Empire left Rome and relocated to Constantinople, there was no social structure present that had the ability to administer the affairs of the citizens. Therefore, the emperor gave the Bishop of Rome the authority, responsibility, and the title of “Pontiff” and left him in charge of these things.
This conflation with secular rulership and the rule of the flock caused problems in the Latin Rite ever since. It was one of the major factors that spawned the Reformation 1000 years later.
War, poverty, and the social isolation caused by them also resulted in separations of the cultures, to the point where Rome appeared to believe she alone was left of the Churches founded by the Apostles. This is one reason why so many documents produced by the Church bear the name “Holy Roman…” even though the Church herself believes she is not just “Roman”. At the time of the schism in 1050, there had been centuries of separation and misunderstanding about culture and language. Each side was not at all sure that the other had remained in the faith, because they did not understand the language that was used to describe the doctrines of the faith.
Later, when the Latin Rite added the filoque to the creed, the rift widenened. The creed was considered to represent the Apostolic faith, so changing it was considered a “modern innovation”. The Marian doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception fall into this same category of “adding to the faith”.
.
Amen to that!
Two lungs. then we can run!
M
mardukm
Guest
I think WetCatechuman was just being purposefully cheeky, and was not being serious. I’m pretty sure he’s referring to Cardinal Humbert’s nonsensical tirade in his excommunication of Patriarch Cerularius.
Blessings
C
crazzeto
Guest
Politics
J
JRKH
Guest
Well If he is being “cheeky” a couple of “emoticons” would have been nice to demonstrate that.
I think WetCatechuman was just being purposefully cheeky, and was not being serious. I’m pretty sure he’s referring to Cardinal Humbert’s nonsensical tirade in his excommunication of Patriarch Cerularius.
Blessings
As the post now stnads, it appears to have been made in all seriousness. I hope that WetCatechuman will come by soon and clear things up.
Peace
James
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Orthodox not in communion with the Pope isolate themselves from the successors to the apostles. This is a large topic of discussion. I would like to just comment on what keeps both Orthodox and Catholics united in the body of Jesus Christ, although these Orthodox take the “protestant” stance to refrain from communion with Peter’s Chair (Pope’s) never the less what they speak can never remove what God has joined together through his Son Jesus Christ who instituted our Sacraments which both Rites maintain valid apostolic succession in holy orders and sacraments.
No matter how negative (the language) or strong the protest can come from our Orthodox brothers who protest the Popes authority and pretend to be seperated from the successors to the apostle in the Popes and other Patriarchs and Bishops in communion with Peter’s chair, they can never seperate or divide the valid sacraments of Jesus Christ or Apostolic succession in the sacrament of holy orders.
Apart from the eternal (sacramental) union that binds both Orthodox and Catholic in the body of Jesus Christ, comes the pride of men who refuse communion with the Pope which maintains a “tear” rift or schism between the two communions.
What man can seperate what God has joined together? Not even death, powers or principalities in heaven or on earth can seperate us from the love of God. For Orthodox to maintain a language of division from the Catholic Church are fooling themselves, because by our sacraments ordained by God is what unites us in the body of Christ whether they refuse “What God has joined together” or not.
If you take out the negative language from the Orthodox maintain their isolation from unity with Peter and the other world wide apostolic successors in communion with the Pope. You have one body of Christ universal world wide throught the sacramental mystical body of Jesus Christ.
No man can remove a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ once distributed.
No matter how negative (the language) or strong the protest can come from our Orthodox brothers who protest the Popes authority and pretend to be seperated from the successors to the apostle in the Popes and other Patriarchs and Bishops in communion with Peter’s chair, they can never seperate or divide the valid sacraments of Jesus Christ or Apostolic succession in the sacrament of holy orders.
Apart from the eternal (sacramental) union that binds both Orthodox and Catholic in the body of Jesus Christ, comes the pride of men who refuse communion with the Pope which maintains a “tear” rift or schism between the two communions.
What man can seperate what God has joined together? Not even death, powers or principalities in heaven or on earth can seperate us from the love of God. For Orthodox to maintain a language of division from the Catholic Church are fooling themselves, because by our sacraments ordained by God is what unites us in the body of Christ whether they refuse “What God has joined together” or not.
If you take out the negative language from the Orthodox maintain their isolation from unity with Peter and the other world wide apostolic successors in communion with the Pope. You have one body of Christ universal world wide throught the sacramental mystical body of Jesus Christ.
.
No man can remove a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ once distributed.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is not true! I will agree that they are isolated from the successor of Peter, but it was Peter who started the line of succession in Antioch, and other points East. The successors installed by Paul during his journeys are all valid successors. This is why the Roman Communion recognizes the Apsostolicity and Sacraments among our Eastern brethren.
The reason they refrain is because they don’t consider them valid. They consider that the Roman Church separated herself from communion many centuries ago and has not returned.
From their point of view, the Latin Rite has separated herself, and as further evidence of apostasy, cite the Protestant Reformation, which they see as the spawn of the Latin innovations to the faith. They are stronly urging us to reconcile that “mess” created before approaching them to reconcile. They see the Reformation as a problem created by the Latin rite that should be cleaned up by it.
From their point of view, the Pope has inflated himself to the status of “pontiff, vicar, and visible head” and taken upon the status of infallibility, doing that which is anathema, changing things handed down to us from the Apostles, by “adding”. It is the same charge the Protestants level, but for different reasons.
This is not an accurate statement. They also think the Roman Pontiff can repent, and return to the fold.
I think you understanding of sacraments may need some polishing. A person who recieves a sacrament in an unworthy manner brings grave consequences onto himself.
- Status