Divisions between East and West

[Genesis315]

The main issue boils down to the Petrine ministry. Even in the times when we were both united, there were instances when schismatical or heretical churches seemed more pristine than the true Church–the fact is that the Church is always going to be in the midst of storms, buffeted by the waves. There are ups and downs. There were also a diversity of rites in the early church–some are still around, some are not, and some were better than others. The early Roman rite, for example, was much more austere and with less ceremony than certain Eastern rites–yet in those times it was the East that was plagued with heresies.

The problem with the EO today is there is no voice of Peter. Read Acts and it becomes evident that Peter has a role that is special compared the rest of the Apostles–often they are even called “Peter and the Apostles”–he often speaks for the rest, his voice rising above the din of the crowds.

Now, look at the Catholic Church which maintains this office and the Orthodox Church which does not. The Successor of Peter’s voice rises above the din of the world and is heard by all–whether they choose to listen, hate what he says, or ignore him. No Patriarch has such a voice–the one voice for the whole Church is missing. Likewise, there are communion issues in the EO. Moscow is in communion with Constantinople, Constantinople is in communion with Estonia, but Moscow is not in communion with Estonia. There is no one to give a definitive and binding resolution. Extreme eucharistic eccelesiology to the exclusion of a universal ecclesiology is very new (there should be a balance of both–for a good treatment of this, I recommend then Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Called to Communion”). The idea that the faithful are the supreme judge of an ecumenical Council and determine whether it is binding is also new–tell that to the people who were anathemitized and excommunicated for judging such a council to be in error. This doctrine exists because from the EO perspective, some general councils post-schism have erred in their judgment and done some things they don’t agree with

Besides reading Acts, read what the Church fathers have to say about the Petrine ministry–read especially Eastern fathers like St. John Chrysostom (see his commentaries on the gospels, especially on the Petrine passages), read many others too. Look at history and see how the Roman See is treated, even before Christianity was legalized. See how St. Clement is treated.

The early church had an element that is no where to be found in the Eastern Churches. I think names, however they come about in history, are often telling (if only be coincidence). The separated Eastern Church’s have generally maintained orthodoxy but they do not have catholicity as such–that universal oneness and wholeness.

[Moderator Note: This discussion on the divisions between East and West was sufficiently off-topic to create a new thread from them. Please http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=213092”]see here for the original discussion.]

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

What should I do? I want to receive the Mystery of Chrismation this year and receive the gifts therein. I assume that I should finish my RCIA program and be received into the Universal Church in the Roman rite, and then perhaps begin attending the Melkite parish later on. Is that a good idea? Or should I check into receiving the Mysteries of Initiation according to the Byzantine Rite? I don’t know what Canon Law states so I am a little confused.

 

[Harpazo]

What should I do? I want to receive the Mystery of Chrismation this year and receive the gifts therein. I assume that I should finish my RCIA program and be received into the Universal Church in the Roman rite, and then perhaps begin attending the Melkite parish later on. Is that a good idea? Or should I check into receiving the Mysteries of Initiation according to the Byzantine Rite? I don’t know what Canon Law states so I am a little confused.

Canon Law as of recently, I believe states that whichever Church you come into in the Catholic Church, you’re brought in in the Roman Rite. It’s silly, I know. At my Maronite Parish, there was a couple recently that converted from Lutheranism and the priest catechized them privately and in a few months, they were received into the Church, but then they had to undergo a Canonical Transfer to be officially made Maronite in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

It’s tricky, but wherever God is calling you, take that path, but not without much prayer, reading, etc. I myself knew nothing of the Eastern Churches when I came into the Church, but I’m seriously contemplating a Canonical Transfer to the Maronite Rite, because my spirituality and theology is more Eastern.

Talk to the priest at the Melkite parish and ask him to offer you some advice on what to do. But above all, consult our High Priest, Jesus, as well.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[Alexios]

Actually, I’m almost positive that a Protestant can enter the Church through which sui iuris Church he prefers. In other words, Antonius, you could enter the Church through the Melkite Church (which would be the Byzantine Rite, though originally it was Antiochene).

An Eastern Orthodox convert enters the Church through the corresponding Catholic sui iuris Church. If he wishes to be Roman, he has to seek a canonical transfer once he has entered through that corresponding Eastern Catholic Church. So, if you’re Russian Orthodox and convert, you immediately are switched into the Russian Catholic Church. Same for Greek, Ukrainian, Romanian, etc. I know someone who’s done exactly this. Of course, there are a few Eastern Catholic Churches which don’t have Eastern Orthodox counterparts (Chaldean Catholic, Syro-Malankara, Syro-Malabar, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syrian, etc.). Those have mostly either Assyrian or Oriental Orthodox counterparts, though the Maronite Church has no non-Catholic counterpart since it’s always been united to the Holy See of Rome.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Antonius,

I have endured some of the same problems in considering Eastern Orthodoxy and have, in the past swayed towards it. In my honest opinion, from what I gather from historical analysis, the East is more “orthodox” in the sense that the Papcy represents a genuine development that re-structured the Church.

Perhaps some can delve into this greater than I can, but I feel the Orthodox Church ultimately is proven to be lacking precisely because of its orthodoxy- by this I mean an over-emphasis on things staying the same.

The Catholic Church headed by Rome accepts the notion of development of doctrine. The Orthodox do not. This is what leads me to place my trust in the Catholic Church as being guided by the Spirit.

Does doctrine develop? The Orthodox say no. Yet I think there are good reasons as to why the Apostles did not teach the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union- they had never heard of them. If you had asked St. Paul about the Hypostatic Union or the question of the substance within the Trinity I am confident he would have been clueless as to what you are saying.

In short, I feel the foundational Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox/Catholic Church represent precisely a “development of doctrine”, certainly an inspired development. I see something more mature about the doctrines of the Church in 800 than in 60 CE.

The Catholic Church has a more organic concept of the Body of Christ. The Deposit of Faith, the Church herself, began as an embryo (the primitive New Testament Church). The potential is pre-scribed by the genes, and the adult will look different than the child, yet the child and adult are not in contradiction to one another. The adult grows, in organic continuity, out of the child’s potential, just as the child grew out of the embryo’s potential.

This is why we can confidently teach Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Petrine Supremacy and the Immaculate Conception. All represent a more mature Church, in my opinion. There is no point in trying to pretend they were always understood this way, any more than there is a point in trying to demonstrate that I have always been a young adult.

The general Orthodox belief that everything they teach is what the Apostles taught is, in my opinion, evidently false. It arises out of what the Apostles taught in organic continuity. Or conversely, as some might counter, why say that the Church matures with the Patristics, then stops?

This concept of the Church is really the pivotal question for me. The Catholic concept of the Church, for me, is more real. I sometimes think the Orthodox forget that the Church is situated in history, among human beings, as a Body…so we would expect it to behave as such.

 

[teadough]

Jordan Francis

i like how you summed up that post in regards to how the Church grows. That paints a great picture for me.

 

[Subrosa]

Hi Antonius -

I am curious - what claims have the Orthodox made that you find conflict with Catholicism?

You say in your OP that the Orthodox claim to be the true church Jesus founded. So does Catholicism. In fact, both have a valid right to the claim given the succession of bishops.

The Greek Orthodox have a valid succession from the Apostle Andrew and the Romans from the Apostle Peter.

These two churches were in fact ONE church up until ca. 1054ad., when they seperated. Since then each claims to be the one true faith. The question “Which one?” is misguided. They both have valid claim to thier origin in Christ. Both validly practice seven sacred sacraments.

As a matter of fact both the Catholic Church and a group of bishops representing the Orthodox Church (Russia walked out due to the inclusion of a small Orthodox Church they do not recognize as valid, Estonia I think) met this last October and drafted this joint statement that spells it out…

orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2

Subrosa

 

[Alexios]

But just because a Church has Apostolic Succession doesn’t mean it hasn’t strayed into error. Both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will readily admit this.

 

[ematouk]

Well for the first time in my journey home to the Catholic Church I am experiencing doubts about my calling. It all began when I did some study into the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. In short, I am falling in love with the Byzantine/Melkite Rite of the Church. This however placed me into contact with Eastern Orthodoxy, which I have found to be highly anti-Catholic in nature. They claim to be the true Church Jesus founded, and unlike groups like Mormons, the EO have valid Apostolic Succession to back up that claim.

…

The worst part of this is that I am not being spiritually fulfilled in my own Roman Church. It just doesn’t have the awe of the liturgies of the East. I live in the Deep South, so it is a blessing that there is even a Catholic Church in my county. As far as I know there is not a single Eastern Catholic Church anywhere I live, BUT ironically there is an Eastern Orthodox Church LESS THAN 5 MINUTES FROM MY HOUSE!!!

I am tempted to go to the Divine Liturgy at the Eastern Orthodox Church on Sunday and not to the Catholic Church, but I know that that would be a sin since the EO are in schism. I am soooo confused! Any thoughts???

Being Orthodox, I hope to answer some of your concerns.

Let me tell you, some Orthodox do fester some anti-Catholic vibes, but so do some Catholics fester anti-Orthodox vibes. Please do not look at the extremes and start to look at the general feel of the churches.

Study the Orthodox Church view, study the Catholic church view and make a decision. It will take time, a single prayer wont provide the right answer to you. God wants you to work to find the answer. “knock and He will answer”.

Let me tell you there is a quite a few unfair comments on this thread. Some here have made the allegation that the Orthodox church does not have a leader - like we are all running around chasing our tails not knowing what to do. But in fact, we understand ecclesiology in a different way to the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church understands ecclesiology in terms of external power - that of the Pope - he is the symbol of unity. In other words, the Catholic Church teaches “universal ecclesiology” - that each local church is only “part” of the universal church.

This is not the Orthodox teaching. The Early church believed in “eucharistic ecclesiology” of which I’m not going to go into too much detail here since it is an exhaustive topic involving many questions and issues.

Basically Eucharistic ecclesiology teaches that each local church contains the fullness of the church - not just part of it “You are the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:27) “in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (Romans 12:5). This is likened to when you partake of the Eucharist, you partake of the whole of Christ, not just part of Him.

Each local church is headed by a bishop. Therefore there can be no authority greater then that of the bishop. If there is then there is authority over the body of Christ and that does not make sense. Ecumenical councils are not authoritative “over” bishops, they are the unified voice of bishops. The “pope” is not an authority over other bishops, he is merely a bishop himself.

But some assert the Orthodox do not believe in primacy. This is not true! We do believe in primacy - more so we believe in the primacy of Rome. But, we also believe that Rome overstepped her grounds as primate when she began directly interfering in matters in the East. The Roman Church has the role of “presiding in love”, much like that of the eldest brother who keeps the peace amongst the other brothers of the family. But, when Rome began making claims about herself by which the East had no knowledge she broke herself apart from the Eastern Church. This then means the primacy was passed to the second in priority - that of Constantinople.

Please read the book “The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology” editted by John Meyendorff. It is a very good read and explains the Eastern view much better then critics of the EO church.

I truly wish my response could be longer explaining the nitty gritty, but I’m sure you just wanted to hear the basic summary which doesnt cover much at all.

Nevertheless, we all pray for unity and hope for the schisms to end. I honestly think Pope John Paul II has done much good in supporting Eastern Christianity and bringing back Eastern Christian relations to Rome. We should all pray for unity and hope the schisms can be ended.

God bless.

 

[Subrosa]

I think that you might fail to see your own answer to the question that you raised.
There are a couple of sore points, historically, such as the original bull of excommunication, the sack of Constantinople and Ustase problems in WWII. But there are many theological issues that Orthodox may regard as serious and do not like it when Catholics say that the belief that Orthodox are correct on these serious theological issues “falls short of the ideals and teachings of Christianity, those of forgivness and reconciliation.”
Orthodox have serious theological differences with Catholicism and now you are telling us that " this kind of attitude falls short of the ideals and teachings of Christianity, those of forgivness and reconciliation." while at the same time, Catholics do not want to change their teachings to correspond with those of the Orthodox Church. So one can just as easily assert that this kind of attitude on the part of Catholics, in their refusal to change their Catholic teachings today to correspond to the teachings of the Churches before 1054 AD, falls short of the ideals and teachings of Christianity, those of forgivness and reconciliation.

Hi Bill and thanks for responding.

The issue I am trying to address is contained in the statement by the OP, “This however placed me into contact with Eastern Orthodoxy, which I have found to be highly anti-Catholic in nature.”

Your post mentioned a few things…“There are a couple of sore points, historically, such as the original bull of excommunication, the sack of Constantinople and Ustase problems in WWII.”

The original bull was not that of Rome alone, but mutual. The Orthodox Patriarch also excommunicated the Pope. In 1965 both churches rescinded the excommunications. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20051126_bartholomew_en.html

Holding the excommunications hostage serves only to prolong the conflict and only some Orthodox are doing so. I have not heard or read any Catholics holding on to this issue. It runs counter to the Christian ideals of forgiveness and reconciliation and only for negative reasons. It also ignores recent history between our two great churches.

As far as the sack of Constantinople, Pope John Paul II personally apologized and asked for forgiveness which the Patriarch granted…query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E5D71138F936A35756C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Holding onto the issue of the sack runs counter to the Christian ideals of forgiveness and reconciliation and only for negative reasons. It also ignores recent history between our two great churches.

I am unaware of the “Ustase problems of WWII.” Is it possible that it was in the “long list of grievances” mentioned in the NYTimes article posted above? If so, the issue was addressed and, again, holding onto it runs counter to the Christian ideals of forgiveness and reconciliation and only for negative reasons. It also ignores recent history between our two great churches.

Also, please notice that the article mentions the issue I raised concerning the uniate churches and the obstacle that it forms. It says that the patriarch raised the issue and "he stressed the issue of Eastern-rite churches that are loyal to Rome as a crucial stumbling block. "

It is good to see posts showing that this issue is easing and working itself out.

The theological issues are presently being worked out by theologians of our two communions with the intent of coming to full communion. Our present Pope Benedict XVI has publicly stated that the Orthodox cannot be compelled to accept anything that occured after the schism if 1054, so please don’t be so judgemental. The issues are being discussed.

All this points out what I have called the “culture of negativity” on the part of some Orthodox. The “culture of negativity” stands to get in the way of any reconciliation as Jesus prayed for (John 17:6-19) and Paul admonished the Corinthians against (1 Cor 1:10-17). It also runs counter to the work and wishes of our two patriarchs who are striving to end the schism papalvisit.ecupatriarchate.org/.

Subrosa

 

[prodromos]

The original bull was not that of Rome alone, but mutual. The Orthodox Patriarch also excommunicated the Pope.

I’m amazed that people continue to perpetuate the error the Patriarch Michael excommunicated the Pope. He did no such thing. The synod excommunicated only Cardinal Humbert and the other legates.

John

 

[Subrosa]

I’m amazed that people continue to perpetuate the error the Patriarch Michael excommunicated the Pope. He did no such thing. The synod excommunicated only Cardinal Humbert and the other legates.

John

I may be mistaken in my assessment of the history, but please explain why this document (vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html) read together by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople rescinds the mutual excommunications?

Also, why has no one responded to my earlier post?

Subrosa

 

[Alexios]

Subrosa,

The lifting of the excommunications between Paul and Athenagoras were largely symbolic.

Thinking about it, there is very little substance behind the lifting of the excommunications, since the excommunications were not aimed at each other’s Churches in the first place but rather at the persons of Cardinal Humbert and his entourage and Patriarch Michael Cerularius.

The schism runs much deeper than a lifting of a 1,000 year old excommuniation of a patriarch and a cardinal.

 

[Hesychios]

Also, why has no one responded to my earlier post?

Subrosa

Possibly because the level of traffic here is not comparable to other sections of the CAF by any stretch. It’s pretty anemic.

Michael

 

[prodromos]

I may be mistaken in my assessment of the history, but please explain why this document (vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html) read together by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople rescinds the mutual excommunications?

Perhaps you should read it again more carefully: 2. Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.

1. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

John

 

[Subrosa]

Subrosa,

The lifting of the excommunications between Paul and Athenagoras were largely symbolic.

Thinking about it, there is very little substance behind the lifting of the excommunications, since the excommunications were not aimed at each other’s Churches in the first place but rather at the persons of Cardinal Humbert and his entourage and Patriarch Michael Cerularius.

The schism runs much deeper than a lifting of a 1,000 year old excommuniation of a patriarch and a cardinal.

Symbolic? Were the excommunications themselves symbolic?

Indeed the lifting opened the door to more civil dialogue between our two communions, a dialogue that has now occured for 30 years or more.

There are conservative Orthodox elements that espouse the continuance of seperated communions and anger at the strides of friendship that have occured between the bishops of our churches.

To call the lifting of excommunication “symbolic” serves only to placate those conservative elements. Are you one to placate, or are you one of these conservative elements?

Show me any document in the whole of Orthodoxy that actually says that the lifting of excommunication is symbolic and I will concede that you are correct and stop my line of debate. Prove what you say.

Subrosa

 

[Subrosa]

Perhaps you should read it again more carefully:2. Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.

1. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.
   John

Thank you for this clarification, John. God bless.

Subrosa

 

[Alexios]

Subrosa,

The fact that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in communion despite the rescinded excommunications is proof enough, isn’t it?

 

[bobzills]

Symbolic? Were the excommunications themselves symbolic?

Indeed the lifting opened the door to more civil dialogue between our two communions, a dialogue that has now occured for 30 years or more.

There are conservative Orthodox elements that espouse the continuance of seperated communions and anger at the strides of friendship that have occured between the bishops of our churches.

To call the lifting of excommunication “symbolic” serves only to placate those conservative elements. Are you one to placate, or are you one of these conservative elements?

Show me any document in the whole of Orthodoxy that actually says that the lifting of excommunication is symbolic and I will concede that you are correct and stop my line of debate. Prove what you say.

Subrosa

It looks to me like the excommunication of Cardinal Humbertus in 1054 was not symbolic since it resulted in the division of the two Churches which we now see today. However, it looks to me like the lifting of the excommunications was symbolic for several reasons. First of all the Churches are not in communion. Secondly, there was a Catholic priest in the diocese of San Bernadino, CA who decided to join the Orthodox Church. It was announced publicly by the local bishop that he was excommunicated for that. If the excommunications had been lifted in reality and not symbolically, then why would a Catholic be excommunicated if he decided to join the Orthodox Church?

 

[mgy100]

The whole issue of the division between the East and West is much more complex than the act in Constantinople in 1054. So in a sense to understand the division one must dig deeper than 1054. It always seems to come back to this 1054 incident when in fact that is but one chapter in this unfinished book.