Glory to Jesus Christ!
I am not Canonically Orthodox, but I thought that the question deserved a response.
mark a:
Being a American southern Catholic, I have kind of boned up on the Protestant vs. Catholic debate, but am finding myself lately more interested in the Orthodox-Catholic debate.
Reading Catholic materials has left me with the (perhaps mistaken) impression that there is great love between us. Is there more love flowing from the Catholic side or are these articles a gloss of the real situation?
The situation is more complex, but not hopeless. At least we are all talking. There is a lot of angst among some Roman Catholics because they are inspired to show the Orthodox the error of their ways, it must be frustrating!
Could one of you kind people post an Orthodox link with the “basics” of your point of view?
Here is a link, non- polemical that is geared toward education.
Orthodox Study Center
I am reluctant to stir up the already muddy waters, but one could say that the facts look different depending upon which side of the hill one stands.
Just an example, some Orthodox regard the Roman Catholic church as the first Protestant church. If that shocks you I wouldn’t be surprised! It shocked me too when I first heard it.
If I might presume to speak a little on this (knowing full well I am not qualified), you get the short and quick version. The Orthodox will state that the Roman Catholic church departed from Orthodoxy in stages: one could say it was a several hundred year event, beginning with Augustine, including a difference about the procession of the Holy Spirit and Papal authority.
Other matters that popped up early on were the Western use of azymes for the Eucharist, the actual “form” of baptism (triple immersion vs pouring and possibly sprinkling). The notion of purgatory as taught in the West was hardly known in the East. Communion in both kinds was also an issue eventually, with Rome restricting communion to the Body of Christ only at that time.
The dogmas about Papal Infallibilty and Universal jurisdiction were defined in very recent times and did not actually figure in the distancing of the churches originally. These are now center-stage issues and must be resolved in some fashion to effect a reunion of the churches.
For it’s part the Roman Catholic church would argue that the eastern church was dominated by the civil government, and abandoned obedience to the Supreme Pontiff. Additionally they used leavened bread in the Eucharist which at that point was considered unacceptable by westerners.
The Orthodox in effect don’t have a list of new things the West must accept, the West has that list. For the East it is primarily a list of things that they themselves cannot accept as additions to the Faith. One good way to understand this is to study
the terms of the Union of Brest in 1596. These were Orthodox bishops that were persueded to join into communion with Rome, their concerns still speak to us today and are very relevant to the discussion 400 years later. Of interest, many of these clauses were violated later.
So who schism’d whom? I have been trying to write this from the Orthodox point of view because that is how you structured your question, I apologize if it was not presented well.
