Eastern/Western Catholicism?

[bookish]

Hello,

I’ve am a Roman Catholic, and being in the west, I know next to nothing about Eastern/Orthodox Christianity. I do know that at one point, the two were once united and split up for some reason. Can anyone tell me in simple terms why this happened? And why the two churches remain divided today? If this has been addressed somewhere on this forum before, I apologize for asking.

Thank you for taking the time to read this!

 

[Aramis]

Hello,

I’ve am a Roman Catholic, and being in the west, I know next to nothing about Eastern/Orthodox Christianity. I do know that at one point, the two were once united and split up for some reason. Can anyone tell me in simple terms why this happened? And why the two churches remain divided today? If this has been addressed somewhere on this forum before, I apologize for asking.

Thank you for taking the time to read this!

Boils down to this: Hot-blooded papal legates excommunicated the Constantinoplian Patriarch, exacerbating pre-extant tensions to a breaking point. He excommunicated them and Rome… Both sets of excommunications/anathemas have been lifted… but in almost a millenium, ecclesiological and theological differences have arisen.

Some of the Eastern Churches remained in union, some did not. Some who broke union later returned.

Reunion is going to take ironing out these differences, either a few priests and/or parishes at a time (as has been going on for centuries), or a particular church at a time (a patriarchate or other Autocephalous church at a time) as has been the major means of reunification so far… resulting in a total of 23 churches in union with Rome, and a formal limited communion with the Assyrian Church of the East as well.

 

[bookish]

This all seems quite complicated. Thanks for clearing some of it up for me!

 

[esr]

I have a question on the eastern part of the church letting priests be married. Are those priest able to consecrate???

 

[Aramis]

I have a question on the eastern part of the church letting priests be married. Are those priest able to consecrate???

Yes.

A married priest is fully a priest, able to consecrate the Eucharist, as well as all the other sacraments (except ordination*).

A married deacon is fully a deacon, with the full faculties his church grants any deacon.

Those historical bishops who were married were fully bishops. Including St. Peter.

At the moment the church does not permit married men who are not widowers to be elevated to the episcopacy (bishops). But there have been, in the past, some who were.

There may yet be again… that is up to the Pope.

*Ordination is reserved to being performed by the Bishops universally. Priests have restrictions on the sacraments of Reconcilliation, non-ordained religious orders, and chrismation/confirmation, but these are part of the normative roles of priests. Priests may ordain only when specific orders are given by the bishop, and the bishop is unable to perform the ordination due to civil law or poor health. It is frequent only in China… it is almost unheard of elsewhere.

 

[mgy100]

St. Peter was an Apostle, not a bishop, or presbyter (as noted in the lingo of the time, koine greek). Of course he obviously acted in the capacity of a Presybter, but still he was an Apostle!

 

[Aramis]

St. Peter was an Apostle, not a bishop, or presbyter (as noted in the lingo of the time, koine greek). Of course he obviously acted in the capacity of a Presybter, but still he was an Apostle!

Married bishops were normative until the 3rd century.

All bishops are part of the Apostolic church. And Peter very much WAS the Bishop of Rome.

 

[mgy100]

Married bishops were normative until the 3rd century.

All bishops are part of the Apostolic church. And Peter very much WAS the Bishop of Rome.

Um, um… Peter was an Apostle. I never argued about the status of married bishops. Peter ordained bishops. He didn’t need to become a bishop, he was an apostle. IE, he was one of the originals.

 

[Aramis]

Um, um… Peter was an Apostle. I never argued about the status of married bishops. Peter ordained bishops. He didn’t need to become a bishop, he was an apostle. IE, he was one of the originals.

And it would appear all the apostles, most of whom served as bishops, and most of the bishops they created as well, were all married.

 

[Diak]

Hello,

I’ve am a Roman Catholic, and being in the west, I know next to nothing about Eastern/Orthodox Christianity. I do know that at one point, the two were once united and split up for some reason. Can anyone tell me in simple terms why this happened? And why the two churches remain divided today? If this has been addressed somewhere on this forum before, I apologize for asking.

Thank you for taking the time to read this!

Bookish, an excellent introduction by an Eastern Catholic priest is Father Lawrence Cross, Eastern Christianity: The Byzantine Tradition which deals with historical, liturgical, and spiritual topics (he was a deacon when he wrote this); Bishop Kallistos Ware is also good from the Orthodox perspective.
FDRLB

 

[mgy100]

And it would appear all the apostles, most of whom served as bishops, and most of the bishops they created as well, were all married.

What does what I have to say about married bishops in the early church? I haven’t even mentioned the word marriage.
Remember in the earliest of early days there was a Presbyter and deacon(s) in each Church. Later on priests were ordained to represent the bishop. Ie, why in the Church a priest must use antimension to conduct the Divine Liturgy. As the antimension is signed by his bishop, the bishop is always there in other words.
Just remember I still haven’t said anything about marriage.

 

[Allyson]

St. Peter was an Apostle, not a bishop, or presbyter (as noted in the lingo of the time, koine greek). Of course he obviously acted in the capacity of a Presybter, but still he was an Apostle!

Not to mention that he was married!

(Okay, as read on this was brought up - so to clarify my statement…)

The question of whether married men who are given orders can consecrate seemed odd to me, because many well known men of orders (be he priest, bishop, ect.) obviously were believed to have this capacity - including Peter!

It is not the current disciple of Catholic OR Orthodox (some rare exceptions exist) Churches to ordain married men to the priesthood. In the East where married men are ordained as a norm of discipline, a widower may be consecrated but much of the time Bishops are taken from monasteries. This does not make the discipline of the early centuries of the Church wrong, I didn’t think that anyone suggested that or was ignoring the presence of married men as bishops. (Even then, were these men widowed first, does anyone know?)

God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

Hello,

I’ve am a Roman Catholic, and being in the west, I know next to nothing about Eastern/Orthodox Christianity. I do know that at one point, the two were once united and split up for some reason. Can anyone tell me in simple terms why this happened? And why the two churches remain divided today? If this has been addressed somewhere on this forum before, I apologize for asking.

Thank you for taking the time to read this!

Hello Bookish,

Experience is the greatest teacher.

If you haven’t already been to a Divine Liturgy, I recommended attending one. I also recommend going about three times to really get an idea of what is going on. Many people I know find it weird the first time, although I didn’t. My first three Divine Liturgies (Ruthenian Rite [Byzantine] - the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom) were in a chapel at a secular university (the closest parish was at least an hour away - no car). While beautiful there in itself, the full parish experience gives you a greater sense of the community, and they should have more icons! The members of the parish may also be able to answer many of your questions.
My first parish was especially welcoming. If there is more than one Eastern Rite where you live, go see them all!

God Bless,
R.