Early Church Fathers Agree: Peter has the Keys

[Seraphim73]

I think John Paul II officially apologized for atrocities against the Eastern Churches. Didn’t he also give back a precious Holy Icon that belonged to the Orthodox?

And he returned the relics of St Gregory and St John Chrysostom, which was wonderful. But the point of still discussing it I think is the historical realities of what the sack of Constantinople did. When the crusaders pillaged the city and the pope put a Latin bishop on the throne, in the minds of the Greeks, it transformed the Latins from fellow Christians into adversaries who would use any means to destroy Orthodoxy. That has had extremely far reaching consequences. And the subsequent history of the unia simply confirmed that sentiment over and over.

When the Greeks were willing to say “better a Turkish turban that a Latin mitre” you know there is a problem. At least the Turks were just repressive. But the Catholic Church was seen as actively trying to destroy and consume Orthodoxy. I mean unia as a method of reconciliation really didn’t start to slow down until the early 20th century. So this stuff isn’t as distant as you think. These problems still effect many people in a very direct way. If you don’t believe me look at the relations between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics here in the US, where families were torn apart, spouses buried in different cemeteries, the lawsuits over church properties and so on. To use a more understandable example of Americans slavery here in the US ended 150 years ago and there are still far reaching consequences and still a very deep seated historical mistrust. As wonderful and loving as apologies may be it simply takes time to rebuild trust after so many centuries of distrust.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Considering that the Great Schism was essentially caused by the crusades, they do remain relevant when discussing, even in a scholarly context, the history of the Great Schism.

As has been discussed by you and others at length, the origins of the Great Schism date back to Photius and Cerularius before the Crusades.

 

[JamalChristophr]

And he returned the relics of St Gregory and St John Chrysostom, which was wonderful. But the point of still discussing it I think is the historical realities of what the sack of Constantinople did. When the crusaders pillaged the city and the pope put a Latin bishop on the throne, in the minds of the Greeks, it transformed the Latins from fellow Christians into adversaries who would use any means to destroy Orthodoxy. That has had extremely far reaching consequences. And the subsequent history of the unia simply confirmed that sentiment over and over.

When the Greeks were willing to say “better a Turkish turban that a Latin mitre” you know there is a problem. At least the Turks were just repressive. But the Catholic Church was seen as actively trying to destroy and consume Orthodoxy. I mean unia as a method of reconciliation really didn’t start to slow down until the early 20th century. So this stuff isn’t as distant as you think. These problems still effect many people in a very direct way. If you don’t believe me look at the relations between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics here in the US, where families were torn apart, spouses buried in different cemeteries, the lawsuits over church properties and so on. To use a more understandable example of Americans slavery here in the US ended 150 years ago and there are still far reaching consequences and still a very deep seated historical mistrust. As wonderful and loving as apologies may be it simply takes time to rebuild trust after so many centuries of distrust.

Thanks for the enlightening perspective, Seraphim. That helps.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ryan, I think it stemmed originally from Randy’s question to me specifically:

To Randy, I gently but firmly suggest that there is no such thing as “partial” communion…one’s hierarchy is either commemorated in the diptychs or not (and I know I’ve seen this discussed before…maybe even on one of your TEN or more threads circulating on page 1 of the “Non-Catholic Religions” forum, concerning Orthodoxy). Our churches are not in communion. What happens outside of Orthodoxy, I know not. And my plate is full enough, working out my own salvation within what I do know to be Truth.

I can accept that your sacraments are valid while acknowledging that you are not in communion with Rome. This is possible because, while we are separated for a variety of reasons, the laying on of hands and consecration that occurs during the ordination of bishops and priests has been maintained properly in Orthodox Churches.

Perhaps you and your Church feel differently, of course.

 

[RyanBlack]

As has been discussed by you and others at length, the origins of the Great Schism date back to Photius and Cerularius before the Crusades.

Contributing factors to the Great Schism date back even further. Also, let us Catholics not state things in such a way as to make it sound as if we all of the blame for the Schism falls on the Orthodox, since the hierarchy of our own Church does not hold this to be the case.

 

[RyanBlack]

I can accept that your sacraments are valid while acknowledging that you are not in communion with Rome. This is possible because, while we are separated for a variety of reasons, the laying on of hands and consecration that occurs during the ordination of bishops and priests has been maintained properly in Orthodox Churches.

Perhaps you and your Church feel differently, of course.

The Orthodox, or at least some of them, view Apostolic Succession a bit differently. A view held by many is that a bishop who separates himself from the communion of the Church ceases to be a bishop and therefore, “loses” his role as a successor to the Apostles.

 

[prodromos]

As has been discussed by you and others at length, the origins of the Great Schism date back to Photius and Cerularius before the Crusades.

Don’t you mean the Papal sponsored non-canonical meddling within Constantinople’s jurisdiction?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Contributing factors to the Great Schism date back even further. Also, let us Catholics not state things in such a way as to make it sound as if we all of the blame for the Schism falls on the Orthodox, since the hierarchy of our own Church does not hold this to be the case.

Good point. My apologies to all.

 

[Cavaradossi]

As has been discussed by you and others at length, the origins of the Great Schism date back to Photius and Cerularius before the Crusades.

The origins of the great schism date to when the Frankish crusaders decided to depose the legitimate local Eastern bishops by force and install their own schismatic bishops in their place. You had earlier asked for a scholarly assessment of the schism. Why not read Runciman then, who revolutionized how historians understand the crusades and the schism?

 

[JamalChristophr]

I kind of figured the origins of the schism were mainly original sin and poor communication. :ehh: