More Schism in the East (2018)

[MonsterOfThomas]

This seems to warrant a separate topic unto itself. I presume we are all at least moderately familiar with the circumstances, and that there is no longer Eucharistic communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodox Church of Constantinople. Given the breadth of this schism, there seems no true use for the name “Eastern Orthodox Church.”

Here are some questions I have:
(1) Will either admit a check to autonomy and autocephaly on the universal level to safeguard against such an East-dividing schism?
(2) Can the underlying political elements be corrected theologically (canon law and ecclesiology)?
(3) To what degree would either recognize a canonical appeal to the Pope to settle the controversy? (pace Sardica/Hormisdas/Agatho)
(4) What are the ramifications for Eastern Catholics in Ukraine?

John 17:21

 

[steve-b]

MonsterOFThomas:

This seems to warrant a separate topic unto itself. I presume we are all at least moderately familiar with the circumstances, and that there is no longer Eucharistic communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodox Church of Constantinople. Given the breadth of this schism, there seems no true use for the name “Eastern Orthodox Church.”
Here are some questions I have: (1) Will either admit a check to autonomy and autocephaly on the universal level to safeguard against such an East-dividing schism?

This is, and always was, about primacy of authority.
They in the East who broke from Peter, replay the same old question Jesus already answered in the upper room when the apostles were in an argument over who among THEM (the apostles) was the greatest. Those who keep this argument going as if it wasn’t answered already, have succumbed to Satan’s sifting.
HERE

MonsterOFThomas:

(2) Can the underlying political elements be corrected theologically (canon law and ecclesiology)?

Jesus already set up His Church on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter and his successors. Without obedience to that union and understanding, union won’t happen

MonsterOFThomas:

(3) To what degree would either recognize a canonical appeal to the Pope to settle the controversy? (pace Sardica/Hormisdas/Agatho)

Yet They (the Orthodox) have already operated outside canon law for 1000 years… Now the largest Church among the Orthodox is now in schism from the rest of Orthodoxy

MonsterOFThomas:

(4) What are the ramifications for Eastern Catholics in Ukraine?
John 17:21

Re: Eastern Catholics in Ukraine,

check out

• http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...ders-duel-over-ukraine-meet-with-pope-francis
• http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...dent-ukrainian-orthodox-church-cause-tensions

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

How similar are the arguments that Moscow is making now against Constantinople to the arguments Constantinople made against Rome originally?

 

[steve-b]

How similar are the arguments that Moscow is making now against Constantinople to the arguments Constantinople made against Rome originally?

Looking back 16 yrs,

Cardinal Walter Kasper, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity said

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from Zenit, Kasper, 2002

To carry on the thought,

One could ask, what really makes / defines one as orthodox? If one is NOT in union with Peter, and Peter’s successors, and those in union with Peter’s successors, as Jesus commanded, how then can one be considered orthodox?

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Meh. They’ll get over it. Give it a few months. Same thing happened about 20 years ago, except over Estonia. Moscow and Constantinople broke communion but 3 months later they came back into communion. Really nothing to see here. Also, both Churches are still in full communion with every other Orthodox Church. There are no double Orthodox Churches here. Orthodox Christians have a different understanding of what it means to be in communion with each other than the Catholic Church does.

 

[steve-b]

Orthodox Christians
Meh. They’ll get over it. Give it a few months.

It’s been over 10 centuries since the Orthodox divisions took place.

YHWH_Christ:

Same thing happened about 20 years ago, except over Estonia. Moscow and Constantinople broke communion but 3 months later they came back into communion. Really nothing to see here. Also, both Churches are still in full communion with every other Orthodox Church. There are no double Orthodox Churches here. Orthodox Christians have a different understanding of what it means to be in communion with each other than the Catholic Church does.

By the Russians break from Constantinople / Istanbul. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople who then are the Russians in union with? ( as I understand, they are in excess of 60% of the total of Orthodoxy)

 

[YHWH_Christ]

It’s been over 10 centuries since the Orthodox divisions took place.

YHWH_Christ:

Well, from the Orthodox perspective, Roman Catholics are heretics which means technically this isn’t schism in the Orthodox point of view, it’s excommunicating a heretical sect as one would excommunicate any heretical sect like the Arians. Orthodox Christians believe unity can be achieved once Roman Catholics renounce their heresies. (I’m not saying Catholics are heretics this is just the Orthodox perspective.)

By the Russians break from Constantinople / Istanbul. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople who then are the Russians in union with? ( as I understand, they are in excess of 60% of the total of Orthodoxy)

The Russian Orthodox Church is in communion with every other Church in the Eastern Orthodox Church except for Constantinople. The Russian Orthodox Church is in communion with Jerusalem and Antioch and Bulgaria, etc., likewise Constantinople is in communion with all these Churches too just not Russia. Again, Orthodox have a very different understanding of what it means to be in communion with each other than what Catholics mean by it. Just because one Church breaks communion with another Church does not mean it breaks communion with the rest of the Orthodox Churches.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It’s been over 10 centuries since the Orthodox divisions took place.

YHWH_Christ:

Well, from the Orthodox perspective, Roman Catholics are heretics which means technically this isn’t schism in the Orthodox point of view, it’s excommunicating a heretical sect as one would excommunicate any heretical sect like the Arians. Orthodox Christians believe unity can be achieved once Roman Catholics renounce their heresies. (I’m not saying Catholics are heretics this is just the Orthodox perspective.)

As I said before, The “Orthodox” didn’t exist in the beginning. SO what makes the “Orthodox” orthodox? They aren’t united to Peter by their choice.

steve-b:

By the Russians break from Constantinople / Istanbul. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople who then are the Russians in union with? ( as I understand, they are in excess of 60% of the total of Orthodoxy)

YHWH_Christ:

The Russian Orthodox Church is in communion with every other Church in the Eastern Orthodox Church except for Constantinople.

Yet All the others are in union with Istanbul and the EP. Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore.

YHWH_Christ:

The Russian Orthodox Church is in communion with Jerusalem and Antioch and Bulgaria, etc., likewise Constantinople is in communion with all these Churches too just not Russia. Again, Orthodox have a very different understanding of what it means to be in communion with each other than what Catholics mean by it. Just because one Church breaks communion with another Church does not mean it breaks communion with the rest of the Orthodox Churches.

Yet,

The “PAN” meeting that was supposed to take place but didn’t , because the Russians and 3 other churches out of the 15 churches, boycotted the meeting, gives a different impression than the one you present. Historic Orthodox Council ends with upbeat but cautious message | National Catholic Reporter

If the Russians alone have ~50% - 75% of the total of Orthodoxy, then what does that say about the 11 churches who met? They have to be really small.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

As I said before, The “Orthodox” didn’t exist in the beginning. SO what makes the “Orthodox” orthodox? They aren’t united to Peter by their choice.

steve-b:

But the Orthodox Church claims to be the original Church. It is the Roman Catholic Church which is understood to be the Church that separated from the Orthodox Church as heretics. Also, Orthodox do believe they are united to Peter because every Bishop is thought to be a successor to St. Peter.

Yet All the others are in union with Istanbul and the EP.

Yes. For example, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is in communion with Constantinople and Moscow even though Moscow and Constantinople are not in communion with each other. You don’t seem to be getting Orthodox ecclesiology. It is not the same as Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Once again, just because one Church is not in communion with another Church in the Eastern Orthodox Church does not mean it is not in communion with other Churches in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore.

Constantinople does exist today as Istanbul and still acts as the New Rome in the EP.

The “PAN” meeting that was supposed to take place but didn’t , because the Russians and 3 other churches out of the 15 churches, boycotted the meeting, gives a different impression than the one you present. Historic Orthodox Council ends with upbeat but cautious message | National Catholic Reporter

Ok? That doesn’t prove anything. I don’t know what you see in that. Each Church has it’s own degree of Independence and can chose to or not to participate in something. Once again, for the 1 millionth time, Orthodox ecclesiology does not operate in the same way as Catholic ecclesiology.

If the Russians alone have ~50% - 75% of the total of Orthodoxy, then what does that say about the 11 churches who met? They have to be really small.

Well, I’m sure the Churches that met were small. But I don’t see what this has to do with anything.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But the Orthodox Church claims to be the original Church. It is the Roman Catholic Church which is understood to be the Church that separated from the Orthodox Church as heretics.

Well, no, only according to Eastern Orthodox.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

And according to Roman Catholics the Eastern Orthodox are schismatics. Your Church and the Orthodox Church both claim to be the original Church founded by Jesus Christ despite having different teachings. This is why this is mutually exclusive and we are having a conversation over it.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

The claims to the true church are mutually exclusive, but as to the teachings, maybe only the teaching regarding the Pope (from the Catholic perspective), since there are Eastern Catholic counterparts — theology, spirituality, liturgy — to all of the other non-Catholic Eastern communions. We have a lot in common.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Well then there is also the Filioque, Original Sin, etc.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Not really problems for Catholicism, though. Eastern Catholics hold to their theological traditions when describing these realities. And some Orthodox understand the complementary nature of the West-East theological perspectives as well.

Also, even though off topic, it’s worth pointing out that these subjects are often misunderstood. Original Sin is often mis-characterized, even by some Catholics, when in reality the substance of the teaching is the same as the East.

Having said that, even IF these were substantial differences, there’s still like 95% in common, and especially considering the major things — like who Christ is, what the sacraments are, apostolic succession, the Real Presence, the liturgy, saints, and morality.

Far more similarities in substance (even if not in appearance) between Catholics and Orthodox than Catholics and any other Christian group.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Well this is just wrong. For example, here is an Orthodox article explaining why the Filioque is heresy, rejecting the Florence definition that Roman Catholics like to say is the same the Eastern Orthodox definition when it’s simply not:

http://orthodoxyinfo.org/CouncilOfFlorence.htm

Here is another on original sin explaining why Orthodox regard the Catholic teaching on original sin to be heretical:

https://oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin

So these aren’t just theologoumenon, these are considered true doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

This just perpetuates the misunderstanding.

But again, you are referencing an Orthodox website!

I’ve looked into the issue myself, having a deep interest in Eastern Christianity.

For one, Catholicism does not equate to St Augustine, or the other way around. The Catholic Church does not take everything from Augustine as doctrine, and this includes Original Sin.

Some people, probably this article too, think that Catholic Church teaches Original Sin to be personal guilt. But it doesn’t teach this officially. In official Catholic teaching, Original Sin amounts to a privation of grace. The Orthodox surely admit this much.

At the end of the day, these things can find a model in Eastern Catholicism, which expresses the diversity and beautify of a universal church. There is a core to Catholicism that is manifested in a variety of cultures and theological traditions.

But anyway, the point remains. Orthodox and Catholics have much more in common than any other group.

 

[AlNg]

there is no longer Eucharistic communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodox Church of Constantinople.

I thought it was a one way schism.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

@YHWH_Christ

Yeah so I just read the Q&A from the article, and it indeed continues the old misunderstanding. Its first error is to summarize everything as Orthodox vs “the West.” There is a HUGE difference between Catholics and Calvinists, for example!

And when it says that the West believes in personal GUILT – and not just the consequences – of Adam’s sin, the article is just dead wrong when it comes to the Catholic faith.

Again, see, misunderstandings. Let’s not perpetuate them.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

No, it simply does not. Do you need a quote for one of these articles? Here:

Latin theology teaches a Trinity of persons subsisting in the one undivided nature or essence, thus reducing the persons to relations of paternity, sonship and active and passive spiration. Orthodox theology on the other hand hangs on the patristic terms the only source of the super-essential Godhead is the Father (Saint Dionysius)55 and The only source of Godhead is the Father (Saint Athanasius)56 The Latins, following Augustine, who defined the essence of God to be simplicity (unity),57 defined God as Actus Purus. 58 Aquinas in his fivefold proof for the existence of God followed pagan Greek Philosophy and declared that there must be a first mover, unmoved, a first cause in the chain of causes. For Roman Catholic Scholastic Theology, God is this unmoved cause. Their theology became a theology of Being, and God was then subjected to a theology which was governed by categories and laws of being. Everything from the first principle down to the last detail was thought of as likewise determined by these laws and categories, and thus deducible in a logically consistent manner which in effect was Aristotelian.

Roman Catholic doctrine of the Filioque had so developed that it violated the basic teachings of the Church on the Holy Trinity. The property of causation was attributed to the one common essence of the Holy Trinity, and trinitarian doctrine accordingly developed around this basic premise. The theology of the Filioque is in direct contrast to the Orthodox teaching that the Essence of God is totally inconprehensible to man and that nothing can be postulated about it. The standard argument of the Orthodox against the Latins concerning the Filioque was that it implied that the Holy Spirit had two sources, the Father and the Son. Although the Latins at Florence, through their spokesman, never refused to admit that the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit, they would never admit that they of the Spirit, and that the Son derives power from the Father to educe the Spirit not from Himself but from the Father."26 This doctrine concerning the one Essence of (.In’ Trinity as the cause or principle of the Holy Spirit, was, for the Orthodox, nothing less than Sabellianism. The Latins, a few years after the Council of Florence, officially condemned both Sabellianism and the teaching that there are two principles in the Trinity, yet Scholarius warned:

 

[YHWH_Christ]

To all the arguments of the Latins that when they teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, they do not teach two causes of the Holy Spirit but one, Saint Mark answered, and is it possible for one cause to come from two persons? Is this not a commingling of the hypostases? This is the dogma of Sabellios.73 Saint Mark understood what the basis for the Filioque was and according to him it taught a confusion of the hypostatic modes of existence. in continuation he stated:

if then, the unique source of the super-essential Godhead is the Father, and in this He is distinguished from the Son and the Spirit, what was the objective of this radical distinction? The Son cannot partake of the source of the Father, nor can the Holy Spirit do so, for thus, there is a confusion concerning the divine persons, and the distinctions are abolished. For as he says, neither is it lawful that those things which are united be abolished, nor can those things which are distinguished (from one another) be confused. And for this reason, (the matter) of the source of the Godhead can in no way be attributed to the Son.

For Orthodox, the doctrine of the Filioque is in direct contrast to how God is understood. Your arguments either make the Holy Spirit have two causes, or if you say the Father is the only cause but he goes through the Son, then your arguments imply Modalism for Orthodox.

So again, there are true doctrinal differences here.