D
diggerdomer
Guest
Eastern Orthodox are not considered Catholics.
- Status
H
Hesychios
Guest
Is this thread leaning into the ‘banned topic’ sphere, or what?
H
Hesychios
Guest
Perhaps not to you.
But Eastern Orthodox have always considered themselves Catholic, and that does not mean that they identify themselves with those people who are under the Pope’s authority.
According to the wishes of the administrators here, we Orthodox do not ‘self-identify’ as Catholics for purposes of discussion on this website. However, that does not change the fact that Orthodox are Catholics in the truest sense.
Eastern Orthodox do not want to be confused with your church in any way, shape or form, but will always consider themselves Catholic.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
It’s not just me, it’s the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that recognize this distinction.
H
Hesychios
Guest
To get back to this original question, which is really a good one …
I think what is confusing you is that the Papacy recognizes that Holy Orthodoxy has Apostolic succession of it’s bishops and Patriarchs, and a ‘valid’ priesthood to confect’ valid’ sacraments. For the Lutheran church that is not thought to be the case.
We (Orthodox and Latin Catholics) also share the notion that there is really only one Mass, a ‘cosmic’ event. In other words we are not re-sacrificing Jesus with every Eucharist, but we are participating in the ONE divine liturgy which is outside of time. We do this with Jesus Himself, all the angels and saints, the Holy Spirit of God and all past, present and future Christians mystically and inexplicably present.
When we perform this most sacred liturgy, we are where heaven and earth actually meet, or intermingle.
Therefore, if a church does have a ‘valid’ Eucharist according to our understanding, it has to be the one and the same Heavenly Eucharist. To claim that a church has a valid Eucharist but is not at the same time the true church is confusing, I agree.
http://www.nd.edu/~slidelib/Snite_Icons/Icon_Links/Divine_Liturgy/divine.jpg
H
Hesychios
Guest
No, that is not true.
Orthodox recognize a distinction with your church, but always insist that they themselves are Catholic, that is an absolute certainty. It is your church which attempts to somehow ‘de-certify’ the Catholicity of the Orthodox, but it really does not have the ability to do that.
Pax et Bonum,
Michael
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Maybe we are using “Catholic” differently? I mean that Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not in communion with each other. Catholics recognize the jurisdiction of the Pope (Bishop of Rome) over all their churches; Orthodox do not.
On the other hand, all Christians accept “catholic” as used in the Nicene Creed.
Do you agree?
H
Hesychios
Guest
Perhaps.
Agreed.
Agreed. Most especially since the definition of Papal Universal Jurisdiction in 1870AD. This was not operative in the first millennium church.
Orthodox have never had anything like a bishop anywhere with universal administrative authority, even when we shared communion.
If anyone would care to see how much actual authority the Primus inter Pares (once the bishops of Rome) had in the eastern church in the first millennium, they need only look at the modern Patriarch of Constantinople today.
He now holds that office and discharges the duties.
Orthodox Catholic Christians are not to be lumped with all Christians, and are not using the term in any new sense, but in the original sense of Catholic we Orthodox and Latin Catholics once shared.
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop.
On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.
Ingatios of Antioch — Letter to the Smyrnaeans
Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest
Ingatios of Antioch * — Letter to the Magnesians *
P
Petergee
Guest
Thank you for your reply. If you are saying that it is “the truth” that the Eastern Catholic Churches do not fully endorse the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, and all other Catholic doctrines, I must respectfully but most vehemently disagree.Petergee… Greetings and peace to you in the Lord. I had a lengthy response to much of what you said. Since my computer bummed out on me I’ll simply shorten my reply. Thank you for your call to deeper humility and please pray for me.That being said, I do stand behind my last post as it is supported by a great deal of work and research, including personal conversations with very prominent theologians in the Vatican, bishops, priests, etc. It is not pride to state the truth.
C
cathguy
Guest
To my understanding, this is incorrect.
By definition, the Orthodox Churches are Churches (the protestants are ecclesial communities).
There is ONLY one Church and that is the Catholic (universal) Church.
The Greek Orthodox have apostolic succession, valid sacraments, and profess the true faith.
Therefore, they are Catholic in a very important way.
They are in schism…
But they are Catholic.
Unlike the protestants…
S
Symeon
Guest
cathguy, I am trying make a few basic facts clear for the original poster (a baptist in RCIA), who clearly didn’t understand that there are eastern Churches, all real apostolic Churches, some of which are in communion with the Church of Rome, and some that are not. The word “Catholic” is used in several different senses, but one common one is to denote those Churches in communion with Rome. And in that sense, my statement was not incorrect. And I do agree with what you wrote above.
N
ntisawesome
Guest
So let me see if I got this right:
At some point, due to strictly disciplinistic (is that a word?) and/or stylistic disagreements, there was a split in the early church, into partition A and partition B.
At this point, the split was minor and did not actually separate the church from being in communion with eachother?
Then later, one of the partitions, say A, defined a dogma that said the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morales.
Since the partitions had already split by this point, partition B is not required to adopt this new dogma in order to still be considered in communion with partition A.
So because of this, partition A and partition B disagree no longer on simply disciplinary issues, but now instead disagree on a dogmatic issue and are still in communion with eachother.
BUT, let’s start over, and say it happened like this:
The early church splits into two partitions, A and B. A and B disagree on some dogmatic issue that was defined before the split, then they are not in communion with eachother?
At some point, due to strictly disciplinistic (is that a word?) and/or stylistic disagreements, there was a split in the early church, into partition A and partition B.
At this point, the split was minor and did not actually separate the church from being in communion with eachother?
Then later, one of the partitions, say A, defined a dogma that said the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morales.
Since the partitions had already split by this point, partition B is not required to adopt this new dogma in order to still be considered in communion with partition A.
So because of this, partition A and partition B disagree no longer on simply disciplinary issues, but now instead disagree on a dogmatic issue and are still in communion with eachother.
BUT, let’s start over, and say it happened like this:
The early church splits into two partitions, A and B. A and B disagree on some dogmatic issue that was defined before the split, then they are not in communion with eachother?
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
I’m not sure if this is quite accurate, but you’re starting to get it.
The more I look into it, the more I realize just how complicated it is. In 1054 there were mutual excommunications between Cardinal Humbert (not the Pope!) and Patriarch Cerularius. Those excommunications are now seen more as symbolic of the split rather than actuating the split. After that period there was roughly 1000 years of growing apart and mutual ignorance. From what I’ve gathered, the Protestant Reformation is what solidified the denial of “communicatio in sacris” (roughly “sharing the Sacraments”) because the Orthodox were pretty much lumped in with the Protestants by Catholics. Papal infallibility and jurisdiction were not issues until Vatican I in the late 1800s (the same could be said of the Immaculate Conception).As Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia (Greek Orthodox) has pointed out, purgatory, the filioque and even the Immaculate Conception are non-issues. The only real issue that divides us today is the role of the papacy and whether or not he is infallible. One could say that yes the pope is infallible, but so is every other bishop when he’s preaching the Apostolic Faith in accordance with Scripture and Tradition.
I’m sure that’ll just complicate things though.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Thanks. I understand and agree.
N
ntisawesome
Guest
To be honest if that isn’t accurate, I am completely lost.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No, the split was not only due to “disciplinistic” or stylistic disagreements. It was much more significant, although political, cultural, and linguistic differences certainly played a significant role.
H
Hesychios
Guest
In the early church there were regional differences (custom mostly) in how worship was to be performed. All the basics were in place but there were regional variations. Not a problem.
There were also differences in spirituality, this being mainly due to the uneven distribution of manuscripts, I think. The liturgical prayers also varied, and the way people thought about God was influenced by their prayer life. Some writers were better known in one region than another. Not a problem.
The church decided early on to organize the regions (as synods) around certain Metropolitan bishops: Egypt (and nearby lands) was under the Metropolitan at Alexandria, Italy (and nearby lands) was under the Metropolitan at Rome and Syria/Asia was under the Metropolitan at Antioch. We have come to call these most esteemed bishops patriarchs. Not a problem.
Later Constantinople and Jerusalem were added to this list to make five Patriarchates, or the Pentarchy. Rome was seen to be the most esteemed, especially due to it’s origins in the work of Ss Peter and Paul. Not a problem.
Much of the issue today is over the patriarchate at Rome. There is no agreement on how much actual authority the bishop of Rome (called the Pope) has had in the past, or should have going forward.
Since the schism of 1054AD, bishops of Rome have called Councils in the west and defined new dogmas. These did not apply in the east. The Popes would like the eastern churches to accept these new Latin dogmas, the Patriarchs in the east would like the Popes to withdraw the new dogmas.
So far, no real progress either way.
We all want to get along, and have much in common.
That is correct.
This was in 1870AD, about 820 years after the schism.
Not quite right.
The two ‘partitions’ are not in formal communion. Partition A has recognized the validity of partition B, but B is not entirely sure of A anymore and does not comment upon the validity of A. It’s up in the air.
The two church groups do not concelebrate. In other words when hierarchs (now on more friendly terms) are visiting they do not jointly share in confecting the Holy Eucharist or other sacraments. Communion is definitely impaired.
Some day that might change.
No. They are not in formal communion. Partition A has stated or implied that partition B, while true churches, are defective for not having the Pope as their spiritual leader and practical administrator. Partition B for their part tend to think partition A are defective as well, which is evidenced by the refutation of errors most converts from A are expected to make.
No, that does not apply here.
N
ntisawesome
Guest
So the difference (from either Roman or Eastern’s individual perspective) between the “other Catholics” and Protestants is simple Apostolic Succession and the fact that the Protestants supposedly don’t have it?
H
Hesychios
Guest
It seems like this could be an accurate statement, at least from the Latin (Roman) Catholic perspective. Since you are in discernment I assume that is the perspective that particularly interests you at present.
From the Orthodox perspective it can be a bit more complicated. Some Orthodox feel that the Latin Catholic church is like the first Protestant church. In other words, there was this first fracture, then a series of further fractures coming out of that. That is a rather extreme position (not all Orthodox would say that in such blunt language), but I relate it for you to get a sense of the perspective.
Orthodox certainly hold the Latin Catholic church in high regard, much more so than the various Protestant confessions, but in Orthodox thinking a bishop is irrelevant if he leaves (or is outside) the church. That means the Apostolic succession argument does not really apply from an Orthodox perspective, it is much more a Latin Catholic argument.
Once, long ago, Protestant scholars tried to enlist the east in their criticism of many Latin Catholic practices and beliefs by exchange of letters. Most of these theological points and practices which the Orthodox also believed in and accepted as holy tradition from the fathers of the church (the Patristic witness), and this placed him in the position of having to refute the Protestants, even while they discounted the arguments from tradition which he would necessarily rely upon as an Orthodox theologian.
Patriarch Jeremiah in exasperation finally broke of any discussion with them by letter. It is worth reading what he had to say in conclusion:
… we request that from henceforth you do not cause us more grief, nor write to us on the same subject if you should wish to treat these luminaries and theologians of the Church in a different manner. You honor and exalt them in words, but you reject them in deeds. For you try to prove our weapons which are their holy and divine discourses as unsuitable.* And it is with these documents that we would have to write and contradict you. Thus, as for you, please release us from these cares. Therefore, going about your own ways, write no longer concerning dogmas; but if you do, write only for friendship’s sake.
*
Farewell.
*Jeremiah,
Patriarch of Constantinople
1581AD
*
- Status