Catholics split from Orthodox?

[yinekka]

My daughter’s, soon to be, Greek Orthodox inlaws have told her that it was the Catholics who split from the Orthodox, not the other way round. What can I say to charitably refute this?

 

[DeFide]

My daughter’s, soon to be, Greek Orthodox inlaws have told her that it was the Catholics who split from the Orthodox, not the other way round. What can I say to charitably refute this?

You might ask them first about the evidence for their claim. Then, based on what they say, you could present them with an article that addresses their point of view. Tell them you will investigate their claim and get back to them.

Sometimes it genererates less defensiveness to allow a printed tract make the point you want to address instead of putting people on the spot in a discussion.

Here are some articles that address common points of contention:

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/easternorthodoxy.html

 

[mlloyd]

I thought the split was the result of differences of opinion that were never reconciled. I’m gonna guess that if you read up on it you’ll find that either Church has just as much claim to be the one that “split”.

 

[Sixtus]

Focuss less on split and more on reconciliation.

 

[RNRobert]

I know that in 1054 the leaders of the Catholic and Orthodox churches mutually excommunicated each other. I believe that the excommunications were mutually revoked in 1965.

 

[mchale]

I thought the split was the result of differences of opinion that were never reconciled. I’m gonna guess that if you read up on it you’ll find that either Church has just as much claim to be the one that “split”.

I think it is probably safe to say that the split was mutual. While people tend to point at one or two incidents as being the cause of the split, the reality is that the split occured over centuries. The earliest cause of the split was the division of the Roman Empire and the eventual fall of the Western Empire. And like that fall, most people didn’t recognize it as having happened until some time after the fact.

While it comes down to it, the immediate cause was that the Pope claimed an authority that the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church did not recognize. Each side has their arguments but ultimately neither side could probably prove their argument in a court of law.

–
Bill

 

[Integritus]

I’m not sure if this will help you, but I remember I heard this conversion story that was very educating and very interesting. I highly recommend it.

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=jh_73.ra

Marcus Grodi, host of The Journey Home, talks with Jim Likoudis, a native Greek-American, who converted from Greek Orthodoxy to the Catholic Church. He talks about all the issues.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

My daughter’s, soon to be, Greek Orthodox inlaws have told her that it was the Catholics who split from the Orthodox, not the other way round. What can I say to charitably refute this?

Hi yinekka,

There is probably nothing you can say to “charitable refute this”.

But my approach on this subject is to identify who on earth has the supreme authority over the following:
i) the Church prior to the schism in 1054?
ii) the Catholic Church post 1054?
iii) the Orthodox Church post 1054?

I’m guessing the answers to i and ii above are the same. And iii is different. This is why I believe that it was the Orthodox who are in schism. Obviously, I’m sure the Orthodox people will disagree with me.

I know that in 1054 the leaders of the Catholic and Orthodox churches mutually excommunicated each other…

Hi RNRobert,

This doesn’t really make sense; You are implying that there were two different Churches prior to 1054.

I think it is probably safe to say that the split was mutual…

Hi mchale,

I don’t think it is safe to say this; Because it would imply that both churches are now in schism from the One True Church - and consequently the One True Church wouldn’t exist anymore.

 

[mchale]

I think it is probably safe to say that the split was mutual…

Hi yinekka,

Hi mchale,

There is a difference between stating that the split was mututal and stating that both Churches are now in schism from the One True Church. Both sides have their reasons for believing that the other is in schism, but that is a religious issue, from a historical issue, the reality is that there were issues on both sides that ultimately lead to the split from each other. Ultimately, the reason why each side claims the other started the split is precisely because neither side wants to admit the possibility that they are the Church in schism.

–
Bill

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

There is a difference between stating that the split was mututal and stating that both Churches are now in schism from the One True Church. Both sides have their reasons for believing that the other is in schism, but that is a religious issue, from a historical issue, the reality is that there were issues on both sides that ultimately lead to the split from each other. Ultimately, the reason why each side claims the other started the split is precisely because neither side wants to admit the possibility that they are the Church in schism.

–
Bill

Yes, indeed, I think you are right. However, my mind always goes back to John 21:11: “Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken.” According to Stephen Ray, the Greek word used here for broken translates to “schizo”, which is the root for the word schism. It is fascinating then that *Peter’s *net was not in schism (not broken) when he brought the fishes (which represent all nations) to Jesus. Of course, this is an interpretation, but for me it tips the scales in favor of the only Church that claims Peter as its first Pope. It is also interesting that there are a few examples of the early eastern Churches submitting to the authority of the Pope–why would they do that if the Pope did not have a special position of authority. The claim is now that the Pope in Rome never had any authority of the other Patriarchs, but there is evidence to the contrary. At least that is what I’ve read in “The Faith of our Fathers” by Cardinal Gibbons.

 

[mchale]

Yes, indeed, I think you are right. However, my mind always goes back to John 21:11: “Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken.” According to Stephen Ray, the Greek word used here for broken translates to “schizo”, which is the root for the word schism. It is fascinating then that *Peter’s *net was not in schism (not broken) when he brought the fishes (which represent all nations) to Jesus. Of course, this is an interpretation, but for me it tips the scales in favor of the only Church that claims Peter as its first Pope. It is also interesting that there are a few examples of the early eastern Churches submitting to the authority of the Pope–why would they do that if the Pope did not have a special position of authority. The claim is now that the Pope in Rome never had any authority of the other Patriarchs, but there is evidence to the contrary. At least that is what I’ve read in “The Faith of our Fathers” by Cardinal Gibbons.

Please understand here, I am Catholic and am not trying to argue the Orthodox, or indeed any Theological position here. Rather I am looking at the actual historical situation. Heck, there had already been Anti-Popes before the Catholic-Orthodox Schism. Certainly it seems logical to assume that the Orthodox truely believed that the Pope at the time was in fact not acting as the true descendent of Peter, and therefore did not believe that they were being schismatic but rather preserving the Church.

–
Bill

 

[Desertfalcon]

My first post here…so I will just ask a question. Can anyone tell me where the statement “One faith, two traditions.” comes from? I heard that a long time ago and it was ascribed to the Orthodox in defining the difference. Anyone know?