Did Rome leave Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joseph651
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Basically the Orthodox split over more political reasons than theological one. They used the excuse of the “filioque” as the reason for the split. When the Roman Empire split
between the Eastern Empire and the Western empire with two “co-emperors”., the real
power rested wiht the Easten half. Therefore, the Eastern Church fathers thought that they
should have the authority to control all church matters, since the claim was that most of the laity was in the East. But Rome insisted that it alone was the See of Peter and therefore all Church authority rested there. That is probably the true reason for the split.
It should be kept in mind that The Orthodox are in schism with Rome and NOT in heresy.
Their teachings, dogmas, sacraments, etc. are just as valid as the Western Church’s,
but, in the eyes of Rome, since they are in schism they are not licit.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
They see the Pope as merely the Bishop of Rome… an equal to all other bishops, yet I think they see the Patriarch of Constantinople as the “first among equals”–equal to all other bishops, yet he is given more respect as sort of the eldest brother… and they would then see the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) as sort of a “2nd among equals”.

They do not accept the Papal authority over the whole Church.

The split did occur though because of a lack of understanding on both parts… the split really did occur because of stupid little reasons… it wasn’t until after the split had begun that the major differences came out.
 
Javl said:
Basically the Orthodox split over more political reasons than theological one. They used the excuse of the “filioque” as the reason for the split. When the Roman Empire split
between the Eastern Empire and the Western empire with two “co-emperors”., the real
power rested wiht the Easten half. Therefore, the Eastern Church fathers thought that they
should have the authority to control all church matters, since the claim was that most of the laity was in the East. But Rome insisted that it alone was the See of Peter and therefore all Church authority rested there. That is probably the true reason for the split.
It should be kept in mind that The Orthodox are in schism with Rome and NOT in heresy.
Their teachings, dogmas, sacraments, etc. are just as valid as the Western Church’s,
but, in the eyes of Rome, since they are in schism they are not licit.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Click to expand...
This is not accurate in the least.

To make this a short post though, for the first thousand years, Greeks and Latins coexisted peacefully. When the Latin west attempted to interfere in Greek affairs, the long accepted differences in theology and practice became irreconcilable differences as the Latins sought to impose their practices upon the East. The East, revolted at an attempt to subvert their Traditions handed down to them by the Apostles, chose to end communion with Rome.

Currently the Byzantine Orthodox view the Patriarch of Constantinople as first among equals, but before the separation they viewed Rome as the first among equals as per the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.
 
Heliotropium said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wait, you actually think that whether or not a church had members in both the Western and Eastern sides of the former Roman Empire determined whether they were the Church of Christ or not???

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
 
PhanxicoXavier said:
No, the Orthodox are schismatic, not the Roman Catholics.
Click to expand...
Well, you’re both schismatic from the Oriental Orthodox Church, but as to the latter Chalcedonian church, it’s quite clear that the Church of Rome was the schismatic party from the Byzantines.
 
So, and answer is yes the Eastern Churches are under the Pope?, No, the Eastern Churches are not under the Pope?

Maybe God has a plan, as he did with the bulk of mankind united to build a city and a tower to prevent their separating Gen. 11:1-9. “Tower of Babel”

A question? Does God want one church and only one church? If he did, then it would be so. We started as one church with the earliest church fathers, but God gave us all our own wills. The only way we can get to God is through his Son in our religion, other religions are for God to judge and not man.

After reading most of the information you folks have provided, I am coming to the conclusion that it really does not matter. It IS what your belief in God is that matters, who said what or used a different translation to a word really has no purpose to God’s plan.

If we sit in our Church and feel the presents of God, then we have achieved God’s plan using OUR free will that he gave us, for we have come to him on OUR own. Just as he wanted from the beginning.

Praise God for his Glory
 
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...
Nah, it’s a typically misstated piece of apologetics from the Eastern Orthodox or Anglo-Catholics (and don’t get me wrong, we Catholics do the same thing). History was a good bit more complicated than that.

There isn’t anything wrong with our ecclesiology. We see a “universal Church”, a communion of Bishops, which is the fullest representative of Christ’s Church. The EO/Anglo-Catholics often argue that each diocese is the full Church. There are lots of problems with this.

For one thing, when it comes to Ecumenical Councils, we Catholics (if memory serves) see their ecumenicity as stemming from the fact that all Bishops are represented. The EO will often say that what makes them Ecumenical is that they are “accepted by the faithful.” Obvious problem with that: who are the faithful? When the Nicene Council took place there were many Christians who recognized themselves as such, and were even devout, who were Arians. The Nicene Creed was then accepted by “the faithful” - what faithful? The faithful who accepted the Nicene Creed. See the contradiction? The whole point of the Nicene Council was to define what “the faithful” believed, so to say that it’s ecumenical because it was accepted by the faithful, “the faithful” being defined as tose who accepted the Council, is contradictory.

There are lots of other problems too. For example, if each Bishop is, in fact, or at least in theory, fully autonomous, what is to stop him from teaching heresy? And how would disputes between Bishops be ruled out, when both believe themselves to be orthodox? etc. etc.

The EO definitely have some valid criticisms of us, and I might be misunderstanding some (or a lot) of their ecclesiology here, in which case I’m sure one of them will correct me. We should respect them, and they us, and we should pray that we come back to full communion some day (which will, unfortunately, necessarily involve one or the other side admitting that it’s been wrong for about 1000 years if not longer).

Edit: Ehh quite frankly I’m starting to think I shouldn’t have opened my mouth on this. All I’ve done is been reading here and there from a book called “His Broken Body” by an Orthodox priest which argues for the Eucharistic ecclesiology idea, so a.) his ideas aren’t necessarily going to be held by all Orthodox, though they are popular and b.) I might be misrepresenting even this.

But, like I said, Eastern Orthodox/Eastern Catholics tend to be pretty knowledgeable folks on this forum so hopefully they can correct me.
 
Vico said:
jimmy you asked: “What does the occupation by Muslims have to do with anything?”

It has to do with the conditions of 1054; a relatively small number of Christians (due to the Muslims) were present there and were vassals of Constantinople.
Click to expand...
I am having trouble understanding this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...5.svg/310px-Map_Byzantine_Empire_1045.svg.png
Map of the Byzantine empire in the eleventh century, before the schism.

Those two provinces in Italy were just about to be lopped off, not by Muslims, but by Catholic Normans who immediately began replacing the bishops (and eventually suppressing the Byzantine rite). This was a major problem.

The Cardinals went east to smooth things over with the emperor to discuss an alliance with the Pope against the Normans, because Rome was militarily threatened.

It is not perfectly clear about the negotiations. I don’t think anyone knows what was discussed so this is just speculation, but it may be that Rome wanted to split the Byzantine provinces between them, or possibly that Rome proposed assigning the political control to the emperor, but leaving the Latin bishops in place under the Pope.

In any case the meetings with the emperor went a lot more smoothly than the meetings with the patriarch. Ultimately nothing came of the military proposals.

As can be seen, the Byzantine empire was a big as six modern nations. It had issues: tax revenues down - expenditures way up, bandits at the borders, that sort of thing.

Islam was not a factor in the theological discussions.
 
Hesychios, here is a more detailed explaination. Because of the war with the Muslims, Constantinople gained in importance, and so did Rome because it was more isolated from the war-front.

In 1054, the Muslim Fatimid Caliphate controlled Alexandria and Jerusalem, but not Antioch. But Antioch was in the war-front continuously for hundreds of years controlled by the Muslims. However, Antioch was recovered from the Muslims for the Byzantine Emperor in 969 (by Michael Burza and Peter the Eunuch). Yet, Antioch remained Byzantine for just 115 years because in 1078 Armenians took power, then in 1084 the Seljuk Turks captured Antioch, and then in 1098 the Crusaders arrived.

So that is why I say that in 1054, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were Muslims cities; and the Christian communities there were small and of mostly Byzantine Greeks who were vassals of Constantinople. (But, it is not correct to say that Antioch was Muslim controlled in 1054.)

You said: “Islam was not a factor in the theological discussions.”

I suppose not, just of political importance.
 
Luke65 said:
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.
Click to expand...
When I first joined this forum I would answer the question “did Rome split from orthodoxy” was the answer of “yes it did”. I’m still Eastern Orthodox but my view has changed on this matter, in part due to what I have learned here in this forum. I don’t think Rome split from orthodoxy, nor do I think orthodoxy split from Rome. We are today two parts of the same separated church. Neither half has the capacity to cause the other half to join it; our split occurred at by mutual decisions on both parties and so our union must occur by mutual decisions on both parties. This can only happen if both sides are willing to admit that they have made errors. I think we can start by admitting an error that we made when we were still one church. This is the error of the came about at the Council of Chalcedon. By correcting this error we can kill two birds with one stone. By admitting that both Orthodox and Roman Catholic were wrong a very big step towards reunion between East and West will take place. Additionally, by correcting the error of Chalcedon a full reunion between the Catholic Church (including the Eastern Orthodox) and the Oriental Orthodox will likewise take place.
 
Claire_from_DE said:
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.
Click to expand...
i believe King Henry VIII requested only 1 annulment from his first wife in order to marry anne boleyn. he patiently waited after presenting his case to the Pope for several years.
at one point, the Pope actually gave King Henry VIII the title “Defender of the Faith” because King Henry VIII sided with the Pope against what Martin Luther was trying to do.
i believe King Henry believed in the Catholic faith, however, in the end, his advisors convinced him that he should start the Church of England. i grew up in the anglican communion and i feel that i was taught the basics of the Catholic faith. i am happy that our Pope has extended the invitation to current Anglicans and Episcopalians to reunite with Rome. i converted a year a half ago. if we look back through history, many kings needed a male heir. i am not totally defending KHVIII because i don’t approve of his multiple marriages and the fate he gave to the wives he no longer wanted. however, by the time the Church of England was well established, protestantism had already gained a strong foothold. it was not something new. in my opinion, the king might have started his own church, but he still was holding to the teachings and traditions of the Catholic faith.
granted, he removed himself from the authority of the Pope, but he was not the only one.,
i grew up saying the “Our Father”, “Glory Be”, “The Apostle’s Creed”, “The Nicene Creed”.
“Holy, holy, holy . . .” and " the Lamb of God …" as well as confessing my sins and receiving Holy Communion. also, one thing i do miss about the anglican faith, is that i always received communion from the priest and at the altar rail which are two things that are missing in the Catholic church. i have had to become accustomed to eucharistic ministers and receiving Holy Communion while standing and not kneeling.
 
a lot of blood was shed in england over protestantism vs. catholicism. i definitely don’t approve of the way the british treated the irish as my ancestors fled ireland to immigrate to america. the anglican communion did not have the fullness of the faith because they split from the authority of the Church and the Pope, but i do believe that it still tried to hold close and practice the Catholic faith considering the conditions and the historical events unfolding at the time.
 
i don’t know a lot about the history between england and ireland, but i know it has not been smooth. did Ireland have an anglican church at one time? i have always thought of Ireland as Catholic. i read somewhere where the Church of England is actually using some of the Catholic churches in France to meet.
 
thanks for the history. i have heard of a recent abuse report involving some Catholic schools in ireland or something like that. has the report been released yet? i also had heard that some are wanting a similar investigative report to be done here in the u.s.
 
Formosus said:
This is not accurate in the least.

To make this a short post though, for the first thousand years, Greeks and Latins coexisted peacefully. When the Latin west attempted to interfere in Greek affairs, the long accepted differences in theology and practice became irreconcilable differences as the Latins sought to impose their practices upon the East. The East, revolted at an attempt to subvert their Traditions handed down to them by the Apostles, chose to end communion with Rome.

Currently the Byzantine Orthodox view the Patriarch of Constantinople as first among equals, but before the separation they viewed Rome as the first among equals as per the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.
Click to expand...
Ok, whatever. But I still say that the split was more political than theological, even though
theology has been used as an excuse. If it weren’t so, then how come many of the
Eastern Churches have rejoined Rome, since their the theology is the the same as
today’s Orthodox?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Javl said:
Ok, whatever. But I still say that the split was more political than theological, even though theology has been used as an excuse. If it weren’t so, then how come many of the Eastern Churches have rejoined Rome, since their the theology is the the same as today’s Orthodox?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Click to expand...
The original split was complex, and yes political, but not quite in the way most would assume by that term.

For all of the decrying of the Greek Orthodox being ‘under’ the emperor, it is interesting to see how hard the western church tried to subordinate the eastern church through that means. In spite of cooperation on the part of the emperors it did not work!

Actually the ‘unions’ or ‘reunions’ were almost all definitely political. Two notable exceptions: The Bulgarian Catholic church and the Russian Catholic church.
 
Javl said:
Ok, whatever. But I still say that the split was more political than theological, even though
theology has been used as an excuse. If it weren’t so, then how come many of the
Eastern Churches have rejoined Rome, since their the theology is the the same as
today’s Orthodox?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Click to expand...
I’d agree with this in respect to the filioque, priestly celibacy, chrismation after baptism, whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Host, etc., but really the major break is over ecclesiology. The West and East developed very different understandings of The Church and what The Church was and how it was to be governed, and these disputes can actually be perceived at a very early date. It was only a matter of time before they came to a head.
 
JohnVIII, you said “Additionally, by correcting the error of Chalcedon a full reunion between the Catholic Church (including the Eastern Orthodox) and the Oriental Orthodox will likewise take place.”

We have the four major groups: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church.

Did you know that the “Nestorian” Assyrian Church and three major Oriental Churches (Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox) already signed declarations with Rome agreeing that they have a common Christological faith?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top