Did Rome leave Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joseph651
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joseph651

Guest
Did Rome leave the Orthodox around 1054, completely out by 1400?

Is this statement true?

Quote:
“About the 10th Century, the Catholic church officially decided to take illegal authority over all dioceses in the West (by forcing them to adopt an illegally altered Nicene Creed as the key decision in that)–many of them were politically dependent on Rome, so they accepted without too much fuss, as it wasn’t upsetting the Status Quo. When the Anglican church ‘split’ from the Catholic church, what was happening was in reality, a return back to an older model of leadership in the church–a more Biblical and a model more in line with the whole tradition of the church. The Catholic church was wielding political authority as theology, and bad theology at that. When they refused to recognize Anglican orders it was a POLITICAL decision, not a theological one.”

I tried asking this question in another post, did not get too many replies. The answers I received were from more of the Eastern side answers then the CC.

Thanks
Joseph
 
No, the Orthodox are schismatic, not the Roman Catholics.
 
Joseph651 said:
Did Rome leave the Orthodox around 1054, completely out by 1400?

Is this statement true?

Quote:
“About the 10th Century, the Catholic church officially decided to take illegal authority over all dioceses in the West (by forcing them to adopt an illegally altered Nicene Creed as the key decision in that)–many of them were politically dependent on Rome, so they accepted without too much fuss, as it wasn’t upsetting the Status Quo. When the Anglican church ‘split’ from the Catholic church, what was happening was in reality, a return back to an older model of leadership in the church–a more Biblical and a model more in line with the whole tradition of the church. The Catholic church was wielding political authority as theology, and bad theology at that. When they refused to recognize Anglican orders it was a POLITICAL decision, not a theological one.”

I tried asking this question in another post, did not get too many replies. The answers I received were from more of the Eastern side answers then the CC.

Thanks
Joseph
Click to expand...
Catholic Encyclopedia

Try this link. Would you please provide a link for your statement. It can be demonstrated that the Pope from Peter was the final authority. Warren H. Carroll history series demonstrated this aptly.
 
The Orthodox church was part of the Catholic Church until the split in 1054. At the council of Florence, which took place in 1441, the Orthodox renounced their errors and returned to the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the unity did not last long and they fell back into the same errors soon thereafter.

Here is a quote from the Council of Florence that the Orthodox accepted at the time:

**Council of Florence: **“The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, and almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder, 1954), p. 230, #714).
 
Joseph651 said:
Did Rome leave the Orthodox around 1054, completely out by 1400?

Is this statement true?

Quote:
“About the 10th Century, the Catholic church officially decided to take illegal authority over all dioceses in the West (by forcing them to adopt an illegally altered Nicene Creed as the key decision in that)–many of them were politically dependent on Rome, so they accepted without too much fuss, as it wasn’t upsetting the Status Quo. When the Anglican church ‘split’ from the Catholic church, what was happening was in reality, a return back to an older model of leadership in the church–a more Biblical and a model more in line with the whole tradition of the church. The Catholic church was wielding political authority as theology, and bad theology at that. When they refused to recognize Anglican orders it was a POLITICAL decision, not a theological one.”

I tried asking this question in another post, did not get too many replies. The answers I received were from more of the Eastern side answers then the CC.

Thanks
Joseph
Click to expand...
Good grief. Where did you get that quote? The Anglican split with the Catholic church was due to Henry VIII’s determination to marry successive wives until he got a male heir (which he never did) and the Catholic church finally stopped giving him the annulments he wanted so he broke with it. He wanted to have control over the Church in England instead of the pope. For HIM it was a political decision. Having spiritual and temporal power over his people was what it was all about. He didn’t want any pope being able to limit his power.

This isn’t an answer to the question you asked but I think I would distrust any information you get from this source.

If you ask a Catholic, the Orthodox left the Church. I’m sure Orthodox Christians would give the opposite response.
 
Claire_from_DE said:
Henry VIII’s determination to marry successive wives until he got a male heir (which he never did)
Click to expand...
He did have one son (there are those who say he had another) Edward VI 12 October 1537 – 6 July 1553. He never reached maturity so his reign was ruled by a Regency Council.
 
Luke 65 #7

Here is what I have been referred to some folk from the Eastern Church. Maybe you might know if these Pope’s and Patriarch are under the See of Peter?

Patriarch of Constantinople is His All Holiness, Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch ec-patr.org/athp/index.php?lang=en

Pope Theodoros II is the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all of Africa patriarchateofalexandria.com/

Patriarch of Antioch is His All Holiness, Ignatius IV (Hazim) antiochpat.org/

Patriarch of Jerusalem is His All Holiness, Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III jerusalem-patriarchate.info/

Patriarch of Moscow is His Holiness Kirill mospat.ru/en/the_patriarch/

Patriarch of Serbia is His Holiness Pavle (Stojcevic)

Patriarch of Romania is His Beatitude Daniel patriarhia.ro/en/patriarch/

Patriarch of Bulgaria is His Holiness Maxim bg-patriarshia.bg/photos.php

Patriarch of Georgia is His Holiness Ilia II

The reason I put this question on this post is because under the Other Religions I was getting feed back from mostly Eastern Churches.
 
Hello Clair from DE

A Anglican gave me this quote, of course this is what he read, or heard from some source. The point is that it looks to me we all have our own take on a subject. The problem lays with what one is correct? I am an Anglican, I want to come over to the CC, I have been doing alot of study and research on the CC never even considering the Eastern Church, another problem when I have more then one source explaining to me they are the true church according to what has been past down, or placed into the writings of the church. All have good references, I just do not know who to believe over the other? The poblem with answered questions they lead to other question that need answers!
Lord place me on the path that you want me to take. Amen
Good grief. Where did you get that quote? The Anglican split with the Catholic church was due to Henry VIII’s determination to marry successive wives until he got a male heir (which he never did) and the Catholic church finally stopped giving him the annulments he wanted so he broke with it. He wanted to have control over the Church in England instead of the pope. For HIM it was a political decision. Having spiritual and temporal power over his people was what it was all about. He didn’t want any pope being able to limit his power.
Click to expand...
This isn’t an answer to the question you asked but I think I would distrust any information you get from this source.
Click to expand...
If you ask a Catholic, the Orthodox left the Church. I’m sure Orthodox Christians would give the opposite response.
Click to expand...
 
josephdaniel29 said:
So God allowed Constantinople to be sacked by the Muslims because it split from Rome? 🤷
Click to expand...
Well actually, most of the Orthodox lands were conquered by Muslims, and later by communists. So yes, I believe God chastised the Orthodox. But God has been chastising the Catholic Church for the last century too, because of the rampant heresies, etc. And of course, Protestants have chastised themselves rejecting many of the gifts of the Holy Spirit - the Sacraments. God doesn’t show favoritism. May we all be one. God bless.
 
Joseph651 said:
Luke 65 #7

Here is what I have been referred to some folk from the Eastern Church. Maybe you might know if these Pope’s and Patriarch are under the See of Peter?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t know, but most of them look like Orthodox.
 
Luke65 said:
Well actually, most of the Orthodox lands were conquered by Muslims, and later by communists. So yes, I believe God chastised the Orthodox. But God has been chastising the Catholic Church for the last century too, because of the rampant heresies, etc. And of course, Protestants have chastised themselves rejecting many of the gifts of the Holy Spirit - the Sacraments. God doesn’t show favoritism. May we all be one. God bless.
Click to expand...
So God chastised the Orthodox by allowing the vicious torture and murder of millions of innocent, simple Orthodox peasants who were simply following the faith they had inherited for centuries?

Is that really the view you have of God?

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
josephdaniel29 said:
So God chastised the Orthodox by allowing the vicious torture and murder of millions of innocent, simple Orthodox peasants who were simply following the faith they had inherited for centuries?

Is that really the view you have of God?

Yours in Christ
Joe
Click to expand...
Did God allow it? Yes, He did. Did God bless America? Yes, He did. Is He now chastising America? Yes, He is. Will it get worse? Yes, it will. Yes, I love my God, and I love His ways which are good and just. The Orthodox split His Church and they paid a heavy price for it. But God works in all things for the good of those who love Him. He chastises His own, and then He relents. Do you remember what happened to the Israelites when they were disobedient? Love the truth.
 
It sure seems there would have been a bit of a schism when Constantine The Great moved to Constantinople from Rome in the 4th century. What happened to Pontifex Maximus? Would this not have been the beginnings of an East and West rivalry? Probably more than a football game. The “official” split came later when the East would not bow to the Holy See of the West, and the papacy in particular. Does that not continue to be the basic departure? There are others: Virgin Mary and celebacy, etal.

All roads lead to Rome–it appears the Anglicans are coming back–not sure about the Episcopals. As long as the East thinks they are more orthodox than the West, and vice versa, there probably will not be much ecumenical movement.

Most any separated brethren can return–if they recant.

Where will you be in 100 years?

Shalom,

James Least
 
Luke65 said:
No, Rome is still there - but Constantinople isn’t. (seriously, think about it)
Click to expand...
Think about what?

Rome is still there, yes but the Roman Empire isn’t

Constantinople isn’t there? Well it’s name got change to Istanbul in 1930 but it’s just as there as Rome is. And it was the head of the Eastern Roman empire. Just as Rome was the head of the Western Roman empire. It’s not like Rome was never sacked it was sacked 7 times.
 
adrift said:
He did have one son (there are those who say he had another) Edward VI 12 October 1537 – 6 July 1553. He never reached maturity so his reign was ruled by a Regency Council.
Click to expand...
Seriously, don’t they watch the Tudors? 😉
 
Joseph651 said:
Did Rome leave the Orthodox around 1054, completely out by 1400? Is this statement true? Quote:
"About the 10th Century, the Catholic church officially decided to take illegal authority over all dioceses in the West (by forcing them to adopt an illegally altered Nicene Creed as the key decision in that…
Click to expand...
There are really two issues here. The controversy has been over the primacy of The Pope, and the meaning of primary. There ware also multiple claims to the Papacy (1378–1417) which was resolved and Pope Martin V was elected. The remark is that the filoque was forced on the West illegally. That reference is to the ecumenical council decision not to alter the creed. The addition of the filioque is historicaly contentious issue but is no longer an issue between Roman Catholic and Orthodox as an understanding of the difference between Latin and Greek requires it to be added to the Latin version to preserve the same meaning as the Creed of 381 when written in Greek.

There was an excommunication that occurred in 1054 leading to the split of the Roman Catholic Church into the Latin Church and Orthodox Church, the authority controversy began earlier after the seventh ecumenical council with the Photian schism (which was resolved). There other schisms earlier in 431 and 451 that formed the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox churches. Some of the members of these churches reunited with Roman Catholic Church beginning about 1552 up until the current times forming autonomous (but under The Pope) Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top