does the Orthodox church receive as much vitriol as the Catholic Church

[Steveabrous]

Historically, as far as I can tell, the pope from very early on had strong central authority in the West and he was viewed as the head of the college in the Universal Church by the East too, but as we both said this headship and primacy did not include universal jurisdiction.

I think that there were serious issues like Constantinople not supporting Rome against Gothic invaders when she said she would or Rome not helping Constantinople against Muslims when she said she would that fueled the schism. Also, the isolation from East and West and the Roman vs Greek developments that occurred drove a further wedge and misunderstanding between the two.

I believe that at least early mid-late first millennium the Church was understood as head of the college but the power struggles on certain issues with various actors did become more pronounced building up to the Schism on both sides, from the increase in papal authority claims and the exclusion of the West in its deliberations: and I think that both fed off each other.

I agree. I think the schism had more to do with cultural differences that developed over time, and hurt feelings on the part of major players then it did with doctrinal differences.

 

[RyanBlack]

Interesting that you have used one example Filioque which was done well before the schism, and Papal infallibility which was defined well after as the reason we are no longer Orthodox.

filioque did not cause the schism (though it always was an area of contension)

And to say Papal infalilibilty had anything to do with it it would have to have been believed prior to 1054.

Actually 1054 is not the actual date of the schism, it was a big blow. But mutual ex-communication didn’t happen till much later.

It’s difficult to define definitively the exact time of schism, but, in fact, there were mutual excommunications in 1054. They are the reason why so many point to 1054 as the date of the schism.

 

[RyanBlack]

Interesting that you have used one example Filioque which was done well before the schism, and Papal infallibility which was defined well after as the reason we are no longer Orthodox.

filioque did not cause the schism (though it always was an area of contension)

And to say Papal infalilibilty had anything to do with it it would have to have been believed prior to 1054.

Actually 1054 is not the actual date of the schism, it was a big blow. But mutual ex-communication didn’t happen till much later.

He didn’t say that papal infallibility had anything to do with the schism. However, there is no doubt that it is one of the present barriers to restoration of communion.

 

[Boston]

I recently went to Greek Fest, held at the local Orthodox parish. There was a tour of the parish and the priest? explained the icons and things inside. There was a question and answer session, and of course two or three people took it upon themselves to argue with the man under the obvious assumption that Orthodox=Roman Catholic, bringing up the typical Catholic-hating points… the inquisition, the worship of Mary, etc. etc.

The man handled them with incredible grace and patience until his refusal to answer anymore questions shut them up… the Q&A session was about the physical church and history of the faith, and not meant to be about theology.

Anyhow, in the U.S., it would seem the Orthodox don’t deal with much hatred until they are mistaken for Catholic. As previously posted, what they deal with in Asia Minor/ the Middle East is nothing short of horrific.

Pope John Paul II once said that the Eastern and Western Churches were like the two lungs of the actual Church. I like that simile.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting that you have used one example Filioque which was done well before the schism, and Papal infallibility which was defined well after as the reason we are no longer Orthodox.

filioque did not cause the schism (though it always was an area of contension)

And to say Papal infalilibilty had anything to do with it it would have to have been believed prior to 1054.

Actually 1054 is not the actual date of the schism, it was a big blow. But mutual ex-communication didn’t happen till much later.

I never said Infallibility was an issue at the end of the First Millennium. I also never said the schism happened exactly at 1054.

And given that fact, how can you say that the Filioque was defined well before the schism if you can’t even p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact time of the schism? You do know that several Popes have supported removing the Filioque after the Filioque was first added, right?

And even the mutual excommunication wasn’t the point of schism as lay people from both sides received Communion from one another’s churches for a few more centuries after the excommunication.

 

[Steveabrous]

I never said Infallibility was an issue at the end of the First Millennium. I also never said the schism happened exactly at 1054.

And given that fact, how can you say that the Filioque was defined well before the schism if you can’t even p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact time of the schism? You do know that several Popes have supported removing the Filioque after the Filioque was first added, right?

And even the mutual excommunication wasn’t the point of schism as lay people from both sides received Communion from one another’s churches for a few more centuries after the excommunication.

It was added to the creed prior to 1054. Many Popes refused to add it before it was added to avoid tension between us. Many people (not Popes) added it to the creed only to be removed but Popes. When it was officially added by a Pope to the creed i know of no Pope that tried to remove it.

The 1054 mutual excommunication was between the two men involved. They weren’t ex-communicating the east and the west.

The actual mutual excommunication between the churches was a couple hundred years later. I would say that is a more accurate time to place the schism rather then 1054. Basicaly once all hope was lost.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It was added to the creed prior to 1054. Many Popes refused to add it before it was added to avoid tension between us. Many people (not Popes) added it to the creed only to be removed but Popes. When it was officially added by a Pope to the creed i know of no Pope that tried to remove it.

The 1054 mutual excommunication was between the two men involved. They weren’t ex-communicating the east and the west.

The actual mutual excommunication between the churches was a couple hundred years later. I would say that is a more accurate time to place the schism rather then 1054. Basicaly once all hope was lost.

But here’s a thing though, if my bishop and your bishop are not in communion, can we be in communion? So if the Pope of Rome (which he didn’t because there was no Pope of Rome at that time, but let us assume there is one) excommunicates the Ecumenical Patriarch, how would the laity of Constantinople be in communion with Rome?

 

[Steveabrous]

But here’s a thing though, if my bishop and your bishop are not in communion, can we be in communion? So if the Pope of Rome (which he didn’t because there was no Pope of Rome at that time, but let us assume there is one) excommunicates the Ecumenical Patriarch, how would the laity of Constantinople be in communion with Rome?

I understand your point. But from a Modern Roman Catholic perspective If my Bishop got excommunicates (by the Pope) I would get a new Bishop and it wouldn’t effect me personally. My diocese would not have been excommunicated just that individual person.
If your patriarch, or Metropolitan excommunicated your direct bishop would that automatically excommunicate you? Or would you simply get a new bishop? I’m being sincere.
From my perspective if the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome (by proxy through his representative) excommunicated each other that doesn’t mean the members of churches are excommunicated. In an earlier post, I don’t know if it was you or one of the other Orthodox members, said that even after the mutual excommunications the members of the 2 churches still shared communion. Now granted I can see how that would cause each side anymosity.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I understand your point. But from a Modern Roman Catholic perspective If my Bishop got excommunicates (by the Pope) I would get a new Bishop and it wouldn’t effect me personally. My diocese would not have been excommunicated just that individual person.
If your patriarch, or Metropolitan excommunicated your direct bishop would that automatically excommunicate you? Or would you simply get a new bishop? I’m being sincere.
From my perspective if the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome (by proxy through his representative) excommunicated each other that doesn’t mean the members of churches are excommunicated. In an earlier post, I don’t know if it was you or one of the other Orthodox members, said that even after the mutual excommunications the members of the 2 churches still shared communion. Now granted I can see how that would cause each side anymosity.

If my bishop would be excommunicated and deposed, then the synod will have to elect someone to replace him. But individually, each of us can maintain our communion with our bishop, thus becoming excommunicated ourselves. or intend to maintain communion with the greater Church. And how is that expressed? By receiving communion or even simply continue going to a church under the omophor of the bishop. So the question now is, did the churches in Constantinople go under another bishop or under the synod of Constantinople (sans the Patriarch) or not? If they do not, then all people there are excommunicated as well. Remember that a Church is a gathering of people around the Bishop with the Eucharist present. So if you are receiving the Eucharist from a Bishop (or one of his presbyters) then you are in communion with that Bishop, and whoever he is in communion with.

 

[Surnaturel]

I agree. I think the schism had more to do with cultural differences that developed over time, and hurt feelings on the part of major players then it did with doctrinal differences.

There’s no doubt about this. The East disagreed strongly with the Filioque but they didn’t break communion with Rome over it. In fact, they even showed respect initially to the papal legates that eventually threw down the excommunication and this is LONG after the Filioque was in common use in the West.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There’s no doubt about this. The East disagreed strongly with the Filioque but they didn’t break communion with Rome over it. In fact, they even showed respect initially to the papal legates that eventually threw down the excommunication and this is LONG after the Filioque was in common use in the West.

They publicly burned the bull of excommunication, and the rude conduct of the legates almost caused a riot.

 

[Reuben_J]

I understand your point. But from a Modern Roman Catholic perspective If my Bishop got excommunicates (by the Pope) I would get a new Bishop and it wouldn’t effect me personally. My diocese would not have been excommunicated just that individual person.
If your patriarch, or Metropolitan excommunicated your direct bishop would that automatically excommunicate you? Or would you simply get a new bishop? I’m being sincere.

Some Orthodox viewpoints would suggest that even if their Bishop chooses to communion with the Pope and the laity do not like it, they will simply excommunicate the Bishop.

 

[Nine_Two]

Some Orthodox viewpoints would suggest that even if their Bishop chooses to communion with the Pope and the laity do not like it, they will simply excommunicate the Bishop.

The other bishops would excommunicate the bishop, not the Laity.

 

[Reuben_J]

The other bishops would excommunicate the bishop, not the Laity.

Thanks for the correction. I saw the comment sometimes back but could not remember the specific.

 

[Reuben_J]

But here’s a thing though, if my bishop and your bishop are not in communion, can we be in communion?

The only way, it seems for the individual laity to follow the bishop though this is not a guarantee because that bishop can be excommunicated by the other Orthodox bishops.

So if the Pope of Rome (which he didn’t because there was no Pope of Rome at that time, but let us assume there is one) excommunicates the Ecumenical Patriarch, how would the laity of Constantinople be in communion with Rome?

There was one instance when a Pope deposed a Patriarch of Constantinople in the sixth century.

Pope Agapetus I (535–536), deposed Patriarch Anthimus I of Constantinople because he was into heresy of Monophysitism.

 

[Surnaturel]

They publicly burned the bull of excommunication, and the rude conduct of the legates almost caused a riot.

Right, but prior to the laying down of the bull when they were first greeted it was a warm welcome from what I recall reading. It was after the bull that the tone changed in severity.

 

[dzheremi]

Gee, go figure…I guess being unilaterally excommunicated by legates acting on behalf of a dead Pope was one of their “buttons”! You know how hot-headed those Greeks can be!

 

[Surnaturel]

Gee, go figure…I guess being unilaterally excommunicated by legates acting on behalf of a dead Pope was one of their “buttons”! You know how hot-headed those Greeks can be!

My only point was to say that the Filioque had existed prior to the excommunication for a long time and it may have strained relations with the East but it was not seen as enough cause for rupturing communion, and this is demonstrated,'for one, by the initial warm reception of the legates by the East until the legates went off the grid, so to speak.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Greeks should have asked the Latins nicely not to brandish their Bulls of Excommunication in the sanctuary.

 

[Nine_Two]

My only point was to say that the Filioque had existed prior to the excommunication for a long time and it may have strained relations with the East but it was not seen as enough cause for rupturing communion, and this is demonstrated,'for one, by the initial warm reception of the legates by the East until the legates went off the grid, so to speak.

True, but there hadn’t been prior efforts to force the Greeks to use the Filioque before.