How can apostolic churches reject each other?

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

The church in Rome succeeds from St Peter, Constantinople from St Andrew, Jerusalem from St James etc.

How did the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople etc. who all have apostolic authority from various apostles, break off union with Rome? How is it possible for apostolic churches to disagree with each other and break away from each other? How can they deny the supremacy of the Petrine church, having inherited apostolic authority themselves and knowing the truth?

Perhaps the apostles’ successors can disagree with each other, but to outright break out of union with each other and to reject each other’s teachings? How is that possible?

 

[datritle]

i don’t have an answer, but i pray someone does. great question.

 

[R_C]

The church in Rome succeeds from St Peter, Constantinople from St Andrew, Jerusalem from St James etc.

How did the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople etc. who all have apostolic authority from various apostles, break off union with Rome? How is it possible for apostolic churches to disagree with each other and break away from each other? How can they deny the supremacy of the Petrine church, having inherited apostolic authority themselves and knowing the truth?

Perhaps the apostles’ successors can disagree with each other, but to outright break out of union with each other and to reject each other’s teachings? How is that possible?

Who told you they broke off union with Rome?

The Catholic Church is one and universal, and we have legitimate successors of the apostles both in the West and in the East.

Some have entered in schism with the Apostolic See of Rome, which means they are in partial communion. Some do have the apostolicity, but the Church in its fulness subsists in the Catholic Church, in which we find oneness, apostolicity, universality, and holiness.

As you learn more about how ever since the very beginning the primacy of the Apostolic See of Rome was acknowledged by the universal Church - consider, for instance, the writings of the Church Fathers - you will understand why separation from the Apostolic See is problematic.

But it is not quite correct to say that there was a Church in Rome, another in Antioch, etc. There is one bread, one body, one Church, of which we are all members. The term ekklesia was understood to mean community. And a community can make mistakes, even if lead by a valid successor of the apostles. Judas, after all, was one of the original 12 apostles chosen by Christ, he knew everything, and yet did what he did. I am not trying to compare his betrayal of Christ to sins against the unity of the Church, only to show that a bishop, valid successor of the apostles, can err. And definitely separation from the Apostolic See of Rome is one such error.

 

[devoutchristian]

How did the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople etc. who all have apostolic authority from various apostles, break off union with Rome?

Pride.

 

[josephback]

Pride.

Pride for the first generation and for all sucessive generations an inherited and self justifying view of history. My ancestors and family are Lutheran. With Lutheran heritage and Reformation surroundings not once did I hear (nor I suspect did my family) any notion of that Luther was a heretic and schismatic. Furthermore, a devout Protestant who studies history from a pro-Reformation perspective gets exposed to the original Protestant leaders hostility to Rome, hostility from men we’ve been taught to admire. Thus we’re taught to perpetuate the proud rebellion of our ancestors.

 

[Hasire]

Pride.

Yep, we are so proud.

Now, for the answer:

-The Persians (Assyrian Church, Church of the East) separated because of political reasons (Rome vs. Persia) and because the Roman Imperial Church (Pentarchy) accused them of teaching heresy (Christotokos, Nestorianism).

-The Non-Chalcedonians (Armenian Church, Coptic Church, Syrian Church, Ethiopian Church, etc.) separated because they perceived that Rome and Constantinople (Imperial capitals) were teaching Nestorianism and they didn’t like the Empire that much. On the other hand, Rome and Constantinople banished them because they perceived the Non-Chalcedonians were teaching Monophysism.

-The Orthodox (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Russia at the time) separated (We would argue that Rome was the one to separate herself, but that’s not the topic and I won’t discuss that) because we perceived that Rome was teaching heresy.

Also, it sounds funny that the successor of St. Peter broke communion with the successor of St. Peter (Rome vs. Antioch).

 

[Shiranui117]

The church in Rome succeeds from St Peter, Constantinople from St Andrew, Jerusalem from St James etc.

How did the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople etc. who all have apostolic authority from various apostles, break off union with Rome? How is it possible for apostolic churches to disagree with each other and break away from each other? How can they deny the supremacy of the Petrine church, having inherited apostolic authority themselves and knowing the truth?

Perhaps the apostles’ successors can disagree with each other, but to outright break out of union with each other and to reject each other’s teachings? How is that possible?

Hasire already answered this well, but I’mma chip in my :twocents:

Pretty much, it boils down to historical/political awkwardness, language/culture barriers, theological disputes, misunderstandings, miscommunication, pride on all sides involved (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and ACoE all included), and disagreements about how the Church should run.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

Who told you they broke off union with Rome?

The Catholic Church is one and universal, and we have legitimate successors of the apostles both in the West and in the East.

Some have entered in schism with the Apostolic See of Rome, which means they are in partial communion. Some do have the apostolicity, but the Church in its fulness subsists in the Catholic Church, in which we find oneness, apostolicity, universality, and holiness.

As you learn more about how ever since the very beginning the primacy of the Apostolic See of Rome was acknowledged by the universal Church - consider, for instance, the writings of the Church Fathers - you will understand why separation from the Apostolic See is problematic.

But it is not quite correct to say that there was a Church in Rome, another in Antioch, etc. There is one bread, one body, one Church, of which we are all members. The term ekklesia was understood to mean community. And a community can make mistakes, even if lead by a valid successor of the apostles. Judas, after all, was one of the original 12 apostles chosen by Christ, he knew everything, and yet did what he did. I am not trying to compare his betrayal of Christ to sins against the unity of the Church, only to show that a bishop, valid successor of the apostles, can err. And definitely separation from the Apostolic See of Rome is one such error.

So, bishops can err, but I’m guessing the bishop of Rome, cannot? I understand the Pope can sin and do wrong, but is infallible when defining doctrine ex cathedra. What makes the pope infallible and the other bishops not? Which writings of the church fathers ever states the bishop of Rome is free from error, while the others are not, and that the papacy is superior? I understand from the writings of the church fathers that the bishop of Rome does have a special privilege as a sort of senior or referee figure, but I don’t think it says anywhere that the Pope has some special papal infallibility.

So, how then am I supposed to determine which side is the heretic? The four churches on one side, or the church of Rome on the other? I know they are all one Church, but one side has to be wrong.

Logic would tell me the four churches outweigh the one and are correct, if it were not for the fact the writings of the early church fathers suggests Rome has some sort of primacy, which complicates matters a lot and sends me into a spiral of confusion.

 

[devoutchristian]

Yep, we are so proud.

I was referring to the original schismatics.

 

[Hasire]

I was referring to the original schismatics.

Well, in my book they aren’t.

 

[devoutchristian]

Well, in my book they aren’t.

The OP is (presumably) Catholic. So my response was made from a Catholic perspective.

 

[Trebor135]

I was referring to the original schismatics.

Denying doctrine that is genuinely believed to go against the deposit of faith is not an instance of pride. I humbly ask that you demonstrate where this sin was clearly committed by the East rather than seemingly jumping to an uncharitable conclusion about its motives.

 

[Trebor135]

The church in Rome succeeds from St Peter, Constantinople from St Andrew, Jerusalem from St James etc.

How did the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople etc. who all have apostolic authority from various apostles, break off union with Rome? How is it possible for apostolic churches to disagree with each other and break away from each other? How can they deny the supremacy of the Petrine church, having inherited apostolic authority themselves and knowing the truth?

Perhaps the apostles’ successors can disagree with each other, but to outright break out of union with each other and to reject each other’s teachings? How is that possible?

The sees of the East acknowledge the primacy of the see of Rome, but not its supremacy.

Before throwing around accusations of willful blindness (“having inherited apostolic authority themselves and knowing the truth”), it behooves you to demonstrate that (1) the bishops of Rome have definitely been correct in claiming charisms of universal ordinary jurisdiction and–more recently–doctrinal infallibility, and (2) their Eastern counterparts have been woefully mistaken to differ.

 

[R_C]

So, bishops can err, but I’m guessing the bishop of Rome, cannot? I understand the Pope can sin and do wrong, but is infallible when defining doctrine ex cathedra. What makes the pope infallible and the other bishops not? Which writings of the church fathers ever states the bishop of Rome is free from error, while the others are not, and that the papacy is superior? I understand from the writings of the church fathers that the bishop of Rome does have a special privilege as a sort of senior or referee figure, but I don’t think it says anywhere that the Pope has some special papal infallibility.

So, how then am I supposed to determine which side is the heretic? The four churches on one side, or the church of Rome on the other? I know they are all one Church, but one side has to be wrong.

Logic would tell me the four churches outweigh the one and are correct, if it were not for the fact the writings of the early church fathers suggests Rome has some sort of primacy, which complicates matters a lot and sends me into a spiral of confusion.

Well, you certainly don’t expect anyone to be able to wrap up centuries of theology on just how the Lord keeps the bishop of Rome free from doctrinal and moral error in the context of this thread, and certainly you don’t expect me to be able to do so…! There’s quite a lot that says that the Apostolic See has in fact - as you well put it - some special papal infallibility. And the fruits, that is, the growth of the Catholic Church despite the schisms and the major attacks based on seemingly valid arguments, should be a hint of who stands on the side of what is theologically orthodox.

Nobody is negating, for instance, that the Orthodox Church has a valid apostolic succession. We do not consider them to be in heresy. We are working, from both sides, to find reconciliation and to promote a better understanding (for them and for us, too!) of what exactly is the Petrine primacy, for it is a very profound topic.

Ultimately, like I said, when there was controversy in the past, our forefathers would go to Rome. This was, for instance, the way adopted by Church Father St. Jerome, translator of the Biblia Sacra Vulgata:

I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [the Bishop of Rome], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. …] The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, you certainly don’t expect anyone to be able to wrap up centuries of theology on just how the Lord keeps the bishop of Rome free from doctrinal and moral error in the context of this thread, and certainly you don’t expect me to be able to do so…! There’s quite a lot that says that the Apostolic See has in fact - as you well put it - some special papal infallibility. And the fruits, that is, the growth of the Catholic Church despite the schisms and the major attacks based on seemingly valid arguments, should be a hint of who stands on the side of what is theologically orthodox.

Nobody is negating, for instance, that the Orthodox Church has a valid apostolic succession. We do not consider them to be in heresy. We are working, from both sides, to find reconciliation and to promote a better understanding (for them and for us, too!) of what exactly is the Petrine primacy, for it is a very profound topic.

Ultimately, like I said, when there was controversy in the past, our forefathers would go to Rome. This was, for instance, the way adopted by Church Father St. Jerome, translator of the Biblia Sacra Vulgata:

That quote from St. Jerome only gives part of the story. What he is referencing (at least if I am remembering the context) is the Meletian Schism, which split the see of Antioch into several factions. St. Jerome was expressing his frustration with the situation, not knowing which bishop was the bishop he should enter into communion with. Establishing which bishop was in communion with Rome would be, for him, a useful indicator as to whom he should consider to be the legitimate bishop of the city.

For those living in the East already, whether the bishop of Rome thought that a certain bishop was legitimate was something of much less importance and significance than it was to St. Jerome (which is not to say that it was of no significance, just less).

 

[R_C]

That quote from St. Jerome only gives part of the story. What he is referencing (at least if I am remembering the context) is the Meletian Schism, which split the see of Antioch into several factions. St. Jerome was expressing his frustration with the situation, not knowing which bishop was the bishop he should enter into communion with. Establishing which bishop was in communion with Rome would be, for him, a useful indicator as to whom he should consider to be the legitimate bishop of the city.

For those living in the East already, whether the bishop of Rome thought that a certain bishop was legitimate was something of much less importance and significance than it was to St. Jerome (which is not to say that it was of no significance, just less).

Thank you for clarifying the context. This is important to know. Like I said, the primacy of Peter and its implications regarding the Apostolic See are a very complex topic, and my feeling is that some further understanding is needed even on our side in order to finally return to full communion with the Orthodox Church.

The point I was trying to make - and there are many other writings I’ve read at least in quotes that underscore that - is that the Apostolic See has always been that episcopal see which somehow guarantees the unity of the universal Church - regardless of the specifics of the infallibility etc. that were not clearly and formally defined for a very long time (and to me are still in need of more clear and formal definition).

The fact is that just as the apostles split and took different paths and Peter was tasked by the Lord to bring them together and confirm them in the faith, so does the Apostolic See seem to be tasked with keeping the other espiscopal sees united into one visible body. I can understand the argument of our Orthodox brethren - which is not a rejection of the bishop of Rome - but not arguments of others who entirely reject the Catholic Church. They must necessarily be in error. In these cases, their rejection - for us as for s. Jerome - can be a valid indicator of legitimacy, regardless of whether or not the apostolic succession is valid.

Thankfully, temporal affairs now are less mixed with spiritual affairs than they were in the past millennium, therefore there is hope that more solid understanding on the side of all who truly seek the unity of the visible body of Christ will be achieved. I do believe strongly in the future the unification of the Catholic and Orthodox Church under the premises of both sides making some sort of significant sacrifice for the glory of Christ. And I know many others believe in this as well.

 

[brb3]

So, bishops can err, but I’m guessing the bishop of Rome, cannot? I understand the Pope can sin and do wrong, but is infallible when defining doctrine ex cathedra. What makes the pope infallible and the other bishops not? Which writings of the church fathers ever states the bishop of Rome is free from error, while the others are not, and that the papacy is superior? I understand from the writings of the church fathers that the bishop of Rome does have a special privilege as a sort of senior or referee figure, but I don’t think it says anywhere that the Pope has some special papal infallibility.

So, how then am I supposed to determine which side is the heretic? The four churches on one side, or the church of Rome on the other? I know they are all one Church, but one side has to be wrong.

Logic would tell me the four churches outweigh the one and are correct, if it were not for the fact the writings of the early church fathers suggests Rome has some sort of primacy, which complicates matters a lot and sends me into a spiral of confusion.

Well, if Bishop of Rome, is gonna be a fair referee to settle disputes …wouldn’t that necessitate he have primacy & wisdom of HS ( ie. Infallibility ?)

Too many chiefs, and not enuf indians …guarantees chaos.

 

[brb3]

So, bishops can err, but I’m guessing the bishop of Rome, cannot? I understand the Pope can sin and do wrong, but is infallible when defining doctrine ex cathedra. What makes the pope infallible and the other bishops not? Which writings of the church fathers ever states the bishop of Rome is free from error, while the others are not, and that the papacy is superior? I understand from the writings of the church fathers that the bishop of Rome does have a special privilege as a sort of senior or referee figure, but I don’t think it says anywhere that the Pope has some special papal infallibility.

So, how then am I supposed to determine which side is the heretic? The four churches on one side, or the church of Rome on the other? I know they are all one Church, but one side has to be wrong.

Logic would tell me the four churches outweigh the one and are correct, if it were not for the fact the writings of the early church fathers suggests Rome has some sort of primacy, which complicates matters a lot and sends me into a spiral of confusion.

Who is the world looking to right now …to elect a new Pope ? …Would that be Rome ?
How many could name the Eastern Church’s Patriarch(s) ?

Isn’t it about time we gave up our pride & re-united in our 1st century brotherhood unity ?

 

[Trebor135]

Who is the world looking to right now …to elect a new Pope ? …Would that be Rome ?
How many could name the Eastern Church’s Patriarch(s) ?

The Catholic Church is numerically stronger both in the world and in the West, while the Eastern Churches are not. Just because one is more visible and better known than the others does not mean Catholicism is true and, say, Eastern Orthodoxy is false.

Isn’t it about time we gave up our pride & re-united in our 1st century brotherhood unity ?

Sure. But that first-millennium “brotherly unity” did not include a bishop of Rome with a charism of doctrinal infallibility. So, could you not acknowledge that perhaps the see of Rome has been engaging in “pride”, rather than those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Moscow? Or, even better, could we not set aside as thoroughly unhelpful such unproven–and thus uncharitable–conclusions about any party involved in these intra-Christian schisms?

 

[brb3]

The Catholic Church is numerically stronger both in the world and in the West, while the Eastern Churches are not. Just because one is more visible and better known than the others does not mean Catholicism is true and, say, Eastern Orthodoxy is false.

Sure. But that first-millennium “brotherly unity” did not include a bishop of Rome with a charism of doctrinal infallibility. So, could you not acknowledge that perhaps the see of Rome has been engaging in “pride”, rather than those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Moscow? Or, even better, could we not set aside as thoroughly unhelpful such unproven–and thus uncharitable–conclusions about any party involved in these intra-Christian schisms?

Would you be concerned if Pope and Patriarchs came to terms on leadership, and agreed to reunite under a single leader ?

It happened in past, but the laity rejected their efforts to unify. Are we up to it now ?