Divisions between East and West

[Aramis]

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?

Let me list the ways…
Leaving one’s post without letters of release…
Trying to take parishioners with him…
Not releasing his hold on church property…

All of which carry excommunication.

Actually, there are quite a few peripheral issues that could beyond these.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

If the above was true, then the Fathers would have confessed their faith “in One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Petrine Church,” or “in One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church.” They didn’t.

And there would have been another order of clergy: deacon, priest, bishop, pope. There isn’t.

Once more, Rome had no hand in the composition of the Creed.

You’re confusing conforminity with catholicism. I’ve been to 10 different Autocephalous Churches: they were, and are, one Church.

Read Acts: St. James the Brother of God presided, lay down the decision and issued the encyclical.

Btw, your idea that the pope’s approval of an Ecumenical Council is what makes it ecumenical is new.

 

[Hesychios]

Btw, your idea that the pope’s approval of an Ecumenical Council is what makes it ecumenical is new.

Absolutely.

That has been demonstrated countless times. It may be an article of faith for Roman Catholics, but it is historically incorrect.

 

[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?

I know of a nun here on the East Coast who asked the bishop to convert to Greek Orthodox and he let her go with his blessing.

But, I think I see what you are saying, i.e., that in fact because our two communities are not in communion the schism still exists and the excommunications de facto exist. I can do no other than agree.

So the question is still open - what of the “culture of negativity” I speak of? Why not an attitude of hope instead of continuing seperation?

Subrosa

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

Actually my Patriarch, Ignatius IV of Antioch has his succession from St. Peter, in his original see. The Orthodox have plenty of Apostolic Sees.

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

By the way - if you were to join an “Eastern Catholic Church” you would be offending the Orthodox Church that you find so intriguing. The topic of Uniatism in those churches is one of the most volitile subjects that confronts both east and west. The Orthodox don’t want them to exist.

Quite a few of the Latin rite under Rome don’t want them to exist either.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

Actually my Patriarch, Ignatius IV of Antioch has his succession from St. Peter, in his original see. The Orthodox have plenty of Apostolic Sees.

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

By the way - if you were to join an “Eastern Catholic Church” you would be offending the Orthodox Church that you find so intriguing. The topic of Uniatism in those churches is one of the most volitile subjects that confronts both east and west. The Orthodox don’t want them to exist.

Quite a few of the Latin rite under Rome don’t want them to exist either.

 

[Mickey]

Why not an attitude of hope instead of continuing seperation?

I suppose there are many reasons. I think the two main ones are doctrinal differences and remembrance of wrongs. But if somehow the Churches would reunite in my lifetime–I mean really reunite–I would die the happiest man alive.

Peace and blessings

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

That we cannot commune in your church, and you cannot commune in ours. THAT shows that it was symbolic.

Btw, I’ve read that the lifting was supposed to happen in Jerusalem or Bethlehem, but the Patriarch of Jerusalem adamently refused to have anything to do with it, hence the location change.

 

[Hesychios]

…the question is still open - what of the “culture of negativity” I speak of? Why not an attitude of hope instead of continuing seperation?

One can hope, I have hope.

When we speak of reunion (an inadequate term) or reconciliation, what does that mean to you?

Would communion between us suffice?

Or are you thinking of the Orthodox accepting all 14 of the General Councils of the West and also the Ex Cathedra proclamations?

There is a huge difference.

*** We all have hope***, but I wonder if we are not simply praying for different things, after all?

 

[Hesychios]

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.

Methinks dost protest too much!

All bishops are successors of Peter. All bishops are successors of all the Apostles. That is the foundation of the church.

The rest of the argument you make is mythologizing. It was not the “office” which the early church honored in Roma, but the community of Faith there, established by the blessed Apostles Paul and Peter, fed by the blood of martyrs and constantly renewed by Christians from every corner of the world.

One needs to understand that Christians from everywhere worshiped in Roma and it was easily seen that the Apostolic Faith was present there when they (Greeks, North Africans, Egyptians and Gauls) were all in agreement. This was possible in other cities as well, but Roma was quite nearly at the geographical center and a most important large cosmopolitan community from the earliest days.

The idea that this manifested in some magical quality in the line bishops arose later, as those bishops were making claims over the rest of Christianity. Thus the confusion.

Today, it is quite clear that the special charism claimed by the bishops of Rome has not protected them from teaching heresy. They are not Teflon ™ coated bishops.

The regime they have created has not run the church better, nor protected it and it’s extensions from a multitude of sins.

It was then ironic to Orthodox bishops, that a church already understood by them to be in error proclaimed to all the world that it had the ability to make infallible judgments in Faith and Morals for everyone everywhere, and the right to run their churches down to the level of doorkeeper and janitor, in 1870AD.

We are still astounded.

 

[Subrosa]

One can hope, I have hope.

When we speak of reunion (an inadequate term) or reconciliation, what does that mean to you?

Would communion between us suffice?

Or are you thinking of the Orthodox accepting all 14 of the General Councils of the West and also the Ex Cathedra proclamations?

There is a huge difference.

We all have hope, but I wonder if we are not simply praying for different things, after all?

I would like to see an attitude of brotherly christian love replace the “culture of negativity.”

In modern terms, I would like to see the end of the “dysfunctional family” in christianity. High hopes, I know, but truly achievable.

So what are we to do? Should the Catholics renounce theological dogma such as Immaculate Conception or Purgatory? Should the Orthodox be compelled to accept them?

These are questions for the theologians. The Orthodox have not bent on these issues for a thousand years, it is unrealistic to think that any bending will occur now or in the future.

My concern is this: that when I meet an Orthodox person I am treated with love and respect as a fellow christian, not condemned as a “heterodox”, or worse, a “heretic.” I would like to offer that person I meet the christian “kiss of peace” as a brother or sister and not be rejected during the attempt.

This is not to say that there is disagreement, of course, but simply redress the attitude.

Many Orthodox here convey this good and loving attitude, but I have seen others that do not. The priests of Mt. Athos are a good example. As long as the negative attitude predominates, there can be no hope of reconciliation. Right and wrong aside, let christian love be first.

Baby steps lead to giant steps. Let us start from the ground floor and let the theologians decide which issues need to be decided for true communion between our respective churches.

Subrosa

 

[bobzills]

The Orthodox have not bent on these issues for a thousand years,

Does that mean that the teaching of the E. Orthodox Church today is exactly the same as it was one thousand years ago, before the split, when the R Catholic Church taught the same thing? Is there any teaching of the Orthodox Church which has changed over the last one thousand years? If not, then would that imply that, jsince the teachings of the two Chuirches differ on certain points, that the teachings of the R. Catholic Church have changed, whereas those of the E. Orthodox Church have not changed over the past one thousand years?