Not a single one. They are all part of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
This is greatly inaccurate. The Holy Roman Emperor had already forced most of the West to accept the filioque clause before the 10 century, more like the 9th. The BoR didn’t really have much to do with it. As a matter of fact, he resisted this move of the HRE for centuries. Leo III explicitly engraved the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan in stone and placed it in Saint Peter’s square to spite the filioquists. The Pope did not submit (yes I will use this word despite it probably offending some Ultramontanist sentiments here) until 1014 at the coronation Henry II. The promulgation of the filioque was more of a Frankish phenomenon than a Latin one.
I’m not surprised. This is the same deity who poured out the wrath which he had built up against the human race upon his obedient son on the cross.
History is unfinished. If you are reading tea leaves remember there is always another pour coming.
So would you say that Charles V sack of Rome with both Catholic and Lutheran soldiers was a chastisement as well?.. was it Providential?.. did we learn something from it?
No, of course I wouldn’t try to “read the tea leaves” of every event in history. But we’re talking about a 1000 year pattern here. I’m sorry you can’t see the difference.
But then you would have to assume that the pattern of martyrdom and suppression of Christianity in the first 300 years of Christian history was a chastisement as well. The early Church lived under the tyranny of Rome. If the eastern Christians of the second millenium lived under the tyranny of the muslims that is no different.
So whenever a Catholic or the Catholic Church is persecuted it’s a “sign of contradiction” and evidence of God’s favor, but when the Orthodox suffer the worst persecutions in the history of the Church it’s evidence of God’s judgment.
Orthodox left the Catholic Church. This is evident because before the schism the Catholic Church was made up of both Eastern and Western churches and after the schism there were still both East and Western Catholics united under the Pontiff. This means that a group of churches within the East left and because of that they were schismatic groups which are known as the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox left the Catholic Church which was comprised of both Eastern and Western Churches. Rome did not leave the Orthodox Church since they didn’t exist until they left the Catholic Church in its entirety.
Oops, my error. Just my CRS acting up.
It might be helpful for you to remember that the Lord singled out Peter in a special way. The church in Rome where Peter had been bishop was considered by the early Christians to be the one that had the most reliable teachings and special authority (not the church in Jerusalem which was the older one, or Antioch which was where Peter had first been bishop).
This is a fallacy.
I think the point Michael is trying to make is that in the ancient Church being in communion with Rome didn’t mean “being under the Pope” in the modern sense of the phrase. The other four ancient Patriarchates were in communion with Rome but not in submission to her. If the Maronites were in communion with Rome they weren’t under papal jurisdiction the way they are now.It’s true I don’t know everything about My Maronite faith. What you said does have a kernal of truth to it. Do to the geographic and social political currents at that time the Maronites were seperate from Rome. However, I feel you err when you say our communion with Rome was a myth. We may not have been able to keep ongoing talks with Rome but we didn’t schism from it either. We did and do accept the the Pope’s status as leader of the Catholic church. But we also have a Patriarch too who is our Maronite leader. Atleast I believe I said it right.
They also signed the Henoticon of Zeno, which essentially broke union with Rome. The Alexandrian and Antiochene patriarchates both rejected Rome as heretical within the century. The patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem both later rejected Rome as heretical in the 11th century. To isolate the formula of Hormisdas and say the east viewed the Roman bishop as infallible is dishonest because it rejects the previous history and the subsequent history. It takes a political event and makes it absolute. It ignores the fact that the previous patriarch of Antioch, Severus, strongly opposed Rome as heretical and the only reason why he was not patriarch in 519 was because he was forced to leave Antioch because Justin had become emperor. The same was true of Alexandria.
What does the occupation by Muslims have to do with anything? The city of Rome was occupied by pagan Romans who persecuted Christians until the fourth century.
It seems that Mark Bonocore distorts history. The fact is that the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has never been resolved. If that were the case there would have been intercommunion. You seem to think that excommunication is some kind of claim of jurisdiction. Historically it is actually simply a break of communion (ex -communication). You can read writings of Catholics and Orthodox from the 60’s and 70’s which speak polemically against the other. The lifting of anathemas did not change anything. The schism with the Oriental Orthodox has never been resolved either. Rome is still heretical to the Oriental Orthodox. The schism with the Church of the East has never been healed either.
I recall people saying that the Orthodox and Catholics sort of split from each other… they let themselves become separate, while Catholics held on to the Truth… the Orthodox need to accept the Papacy.