Orthodoxy and Catholicism-comparisons

[Fr_Ambrose]

Correct me if I am wrong, but these “schisms” (actually,
heresies condemned by ecumenical councils) arose in the
EASTERN Christian provinces

These heresies arose in the Catholic Church.

Arianism proved to be a greater danger for the West than the East. It continued in the West long after it had been stamped out in the East. Three great Arian Councils were held in Milan attracting Arian bishops from Italy and Spain, France and Germany.

Finally, it took the involvement of the Byzantine Emperor to deliver an effective blow to Arianiam in the West.

Spain was one of its worst strongholds, and it is thanks to Arian Spain that we have the divide today between Catholics and Orthodox, at least in part. It was Spain which first introduced the change in the Creed, the filioque. This was done to combat Arianism. Who would think that something done to fight Arianism in Spain would eventually bring about a major point of theological conflcit sufficient to divide the Church?!

 

[ForeverAdam]

These heresies arose in the Catholic Church.

Arianism proved to be a greater danger for the West than the East. It continued in the West long after it had been stamped out in the East. Three great Arian Councils were held in Milan attracting Arian bishops from Italy and Spain, Frnace and Germany.

Finally, it took the involvement of the Byzantine Emperor to deliver an efective blow to Arianiam in the West.

Spain was one of its worst strongholds, and it is thanks to Arian Spain that we have the divide today between Catholics and Orthodox, at least in part. It was Spain which first introduced the change in the Creed, the filioque. This was done to combat Arianism. Who would think that something done to fight Arianism in Spain would eventually bring about a major point of theological conflcit suffcient to divide the Church?!

Imagine . . . all that debate and fussing when the “Vicar of Christ”, the supreme teacher of the Faith, and the one bishop with the authority to crush all dissent, was residing in the West.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Unless, that is, you DO want to admit that there was no Orthodox Church until the Great Schism of 1054? Do you?

You are a Catholic and I repect the fact that you say you are an historian. So it is really me who should be seeking your advice.

When was the Orthodox Church founded?

 

[Mannyfit75]

In 321, Arius was denounced by a synod at Alexandria for teaching a heterodox view of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father. Because Arius and his followers had great influence in the schools of Alexandria — counterparts to modern universities or seminaries — their theological views spread, especially in the eastern Mediterranean. By 325, the controversy had become significant enough that Emperor Constantine called an assembly of bishops, the First Council of Nicea, which condemned Arius’ doctrine and formulated the Original Nicene Creed [3], forms of which are still recited in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and some Protestant services. The Nicene Creed’s central term, used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, is Homoousios, or Consubstantiality, meaning “of the same substance” or “of one being”. (The Athanasian Creed is less often used but is a more overtly anti-Arian statement on the Trinity.)

Constantine exiled those who refused to accept the Nicean creed — Arius himself, the deacon Euzoios, and the Libyan bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais — and also the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in Arius’ condemnation, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicea. The Emperor also ordered all copies of the Thalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings, to be burned. This ended the open theological debate for a few years, though under the surface, opposition to the Nicean creed remained.

Though he was committed to maintaining what the church had defined at Nicea, Constantine was also bent on pacifying the situation and eventually became more lenient toward those condemned and exiled at the council. First he allowed Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a protégé of his sister, and Theognis to return once they had signed an ambiguous statement of faith. The two, and other friends of Arius, worked for Arius’ rehabilitation. At the First Synod of Tyre in 335 CE, they brought accusations against Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the primary opponent of Arius; after this, Constantine had Athanasius banished, since he considered him an impediment to reconciliation. In the same year, the Synod of Jerusalem readmitted Arius to communion, and in 336 CE, Constantine allowed Arius to return to his hometown. Arius, however, died on the day he was scheduled to depart from Constantinople. Eusebius and Theognis remained in the Emperor’s favour, and when Constantine, who had been a catechumen much of his adult life, accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was from Eusebius of Nicomedia.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You are a Catholic and I repect the fact that you say you are an historian. So it is really me who should be seeking your advice.

When was the Orthodox Church founded?

29-33 A.D the same birthday as the Catholic Church. It was one Church back then.

St. Ignatius in 107-110 A.D called the Church Catholic. Of your course you know this.

You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Eastern Orthodoxy can try to “wash its hands”

Did Eastern Orthodoxy even exist at that time?

of monophytism and Nestorianism; but ask any monophysite or Nestorian about who persecuted their churches and they will reply “Byzantines”.

The Byzantines would not have dared to persecute anybody without the approval of the Supreme Pontiff. After all, it was the Pontiff who convened and ratified the Ecumenical Councils which put the smackdown on monophysitism and nestorianism.

 

[thomon16]

These heresies arose in the Catholic Church.

Arianism proved to be a greater danger for the West than the East. It continued in the West long after it had been stamped out in the East. Three great Arian Councils were held in Milan attracting Arian bishops from Italy and Spain, France and Germany.

Finally, it took the involvement of the Byzantine Emperor to deliver an effective blow to Arianiam in the West.

Spain was one of its worst strongholds, and it is thanks to Arian Spain that we have the divide today between Catholics and Orthodox, at least in part. It was Spain which first introduced the change in the Creed, the filioque. This was done to combat Arianism. Who would think that something done to fight Arianism in Spain would eventually bring about a major point of theological conflcit sufficient to divide the Church?!

I agree - these heresies arose in the united Catholic/
Orthodox Church, but originally in the EASTERN part of
the Roman Empire. See Wikipedia:

Arianism refers to the theological positions made famous by the theologian Arius (c. 250-336 CE), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century.

It was condemned in an ecumenical council called in the
EASTERN part of the Roman Empire and accepted and
approved by the Pope - as were the Councils of Ephesus
and Chalcedon.

That still doesn’t answer my statements regarding
monophysitism and Nestorianism, both of which came out
of Syrian (EASTERN) schools of theology. These heresies
never affected the West and still appear in EASTERN
Christianity.

Sorry to continue this “off track” discussion, but I want to
set the “historical” record straight.

 

[DeFide]

This is patently untrue. Your statement itself is an oxymoron. How can you say there is “no Eastern Orthodox Church” and then in the very next sentence assign an identity to the “EO churches”?

Plural versus singular. Their professed instrument of official teaching, an ecumenical council, is not possible for them. I can get a different answer to the question “who is Orthodox” depending on which church I ask. That’s not unity.

Not true. Though I certainly disagree with and criticize the EO for demeaning the prerogatives of its bishops, they indeed have a “magisterium” or an authoritative voice to which they can look to. Its juridical voice is not exercised that often, but it is there. As proof, just last year a local council of the EO deposed one of its bishops (I think it was in Athens).

That’s not definitive. The EO, in their schimatic form have NEVER called and ratified an ecumenical counil that was accepted by the “whole church” which is, of course unworkable. Such a non-official action could just be the act of a heretical bishop or group of bishops being vindictive toward an orthodox bishop, theoretically.

Not true. Just as an example, there was an Eastern Council of Jerusalem to respond to certain inroads being made into the East by the Reformers. That local Council was more effective for the East in halting Protestantism than the Council of Trent was for the West!

Was that accepted by the “whole EO”? Nope. Not authoritative by their own criteria.

it is pretty obvious who is and who is not Eastern Orthodox.

Really? Tell me how you know. There are situations in which church A is in communion with church B, and church B is in communion with church C, but A is not in communion with C. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is in communion with some Orthodox churches but not others (notably the Russian Orthodox church).

They don’t claim “universal jurisdiction,” so your point is lost.

Actually, that is exactly my point. Excommunicating another apostolic church is an exercise of universal jurisdiction, and therefore hypocritical.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

That still doesn’t answer my statements regarding monophysitism and Nestorianism, both of which came outof Syrian (EASTERN) schools of theology. These heresiesnever affected the West and still appear in EASTERN Christianity…I want to set the “historical” record straight.

I wish you would too. I did not deal with your statement that monophysitism and nestorianism remained part of the Byzantine Empire because I cannot think of any countries which were in the Byzantine Empire and remained such. What countries do you have in mind?

You wrote:

Even later, monophysitism and Nestorianism remained in the EASTERN Roman (Byzantine) Empire

P.S. You did not reply to my question: when did the Eastern Orthodox Church come into existence?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I wish you would too. I did not deal with your statement that monophysitism and nestorianism remained part of the Byzantine Empire because I cannot think of any countries which were in the Byzantine Empire and remained such. What countries do you have in mind?

You wrote: P.S. You did not reply to my question: when did the Eastern Orthodox Church come into existence?

I would believe it came about into existence in 1054 A.D during the East West Schism.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Plural versus singular. Their professed instrument of official teaching, an ecumenical council, is not possible for them…

The Orthodox Church has been preparing for the Eighth Ecumenical Council since the 1970s. It is being coordinated through the Ecumenical Patriarchate at Chambesy.

However, it is the Tradition which is the primary “instrument” of our teaching and not an Ecumenical Council. A Council is convened when the Tradition is under serious attack from a heresy and the Church must clarify matters.

We have never defined such things as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or the bodily assumption of the Mother of God. We do not even have an official definition of the Church. But because our Tradition is sufficient and because these things have not been challenged we have never convened Councils to define them.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

That’s not definitive. The EO, in their schimatic form have NEVER called and ratified an ecumenical counil that was accepted by the “whole church” which is, of course unworkable.

There really hasn’t been any need.

We dealt with the major heresies in 7 Councils from the 4th to the 8th centuries. The things at issue were major teachings about Christ and the Trinity. Since then, heresies have not been so virulent. The ones that have stuck their heads up have been local ones and dealt with locally.

 

[thomon16]

I wish you would too. I did not deal with your statement that monophysitism and nestorianism remained part of the Byzantine Empire because I cannot think of any countries which were in the Byzantine Empire and remained such. What countries do you have in mind?

You wrote: P.S. You did not reply to my question: when did the Eastern Orthodox Church come into existence?

I did NOT say “monophysitism and Nestorianism remained
part of the Byzantine Empire.” Read carefully what I wrote
and please quote it accurately. Don’t try to put words in
my mouth,

As for when the Eastern Orthodox Church came into
existence, other writers have answered your question.
As for me, I agree with Catholic as well as objective,
unbiased historians who state that there is no one date
for the separation but a series of events over a number
of centuries which led to a split in the Catholic-Orthodox
communion. Even then, there were (and are) parts of the
Middle East where communion was (and is) shared in spite
of formal schism between the two Churches. Deciding or
agreeing on a date prevents us from working toward
reconciliation. Remember Christ’s words (John 17:20-21):

I pray also for those who will believe
in me through their word,
that all may be one
as you, Father, are one in me, and I in
you;
I pray that they may be [one] in us,
that the world may believe that you
sent me.

These words are what we should be writing about
and discussing. Why aren’t we working toward
making them a reality? I am willing. Are you?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I did NOT say “monophysitism and Nestorianism remained part of the Byzantine Empire.” Read carefully what I wrote and please quote it accurately. Don’t try to put words inmy mouth

I am NOT putting words in your mouth. You may have forgotten what you wrote
thomon:

Even later, monophysitism and Nestorianism remained in the EASTERN Roman (Byzantine) Empire

As for when the Eastern Orthodox Church came into
existence, other writers have answered your question.

Yes, but with quite contradictory answers. There have been two answers. It was given as “29-33 A.D” and also as 1054 A.D.

What’s your date?

I pray also for those who will believe
in me through their word,
that all may be one
as you, Father, are one in me, and I in
you;
I pray that they may be [one] in us,
that the world may believe that you
sent me.

These words are what we should be writing about
and discussing. Why aren’t we working toward
making them a reality? I am willing. Are you?

The reality is that the Church is already ONE. It is one of the distinguishing marks given to her in the Creed. But we disagree about which Church is the one Church. In God’s own time the separated sheep may (or may not) come home to the sheepfold. We pray that they will.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am NOT putting words in your mouth. You may have forgotten what you wrote

Yes, but with quite contradictory answers. There have been two answers. It was given “29-33 A.D” and also as 1054 A.D.

What’s your date?

The reality is that the Church is already ONE. It is one of the distinguishing marks given to her in the Creed. But we disagree about which Church is the one Church. In God’s own time the separated sheep may (or may not) come home to the sheepfold. We pray that they will.

In my personal opinion I believe that the Orthodox and Catholic are not divided, though they are current in Schism, I find them to me the same because both Churches held Apostolic Succession. Where else, Protestants lack any succession at all.

I think these two are One because I believe one day the Two will be One.

 

[mchale]

Sorry, but when we study Catholic history we see that these schisms have nothing to do with my Church. They are schisms in the early centuries from the Pope and from the Catholic Church. Any Catholic historian will tell you that the Orthodox Church did not exist in those centuries but was formed at the Great Schism of 1054 AD.

Just a thought, but your position undermines the position of the Orthodox Church. The essential claims of both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church rest in their claims of being the true descendents of the original Church that Jesus founded at the Last Supper. The Orthodox, naturally, tends to emphasize the history of the Church, prior to the Great Schism, as being essentially Orthodox in Character. Not suprisingly, the Catholic Church emphasizes the Catholic character of the early Church. To claim that the heresies of the Early Church were heresies against Catholicism not Orthodoxy is to in fact support the claim that it was the Orthodox who split from the True Church as opposed to the Orthodox normal position of it being the Catholics who split from the True Church.

Therefore, properly speaking, the heresies of the Early Church must be claimed by both the Orthodox and the Catholic if they are to maintain their legitimate claims of being the True Church.

–
Bill

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Therefore, properly speaking, the heresies of the Early Church must be claimed by both the Orthodox and the Catholic if they are to maintain their legitimate claims of being the True Church.

No, only ONE of these Churches is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ and the Apostles and the other one came into existence at the time of the Schism (although there is great flexibility about the dating of this.) The Orthodox do not subscribe to a branch theory of the Church.

 

[mchale]

No, only ONE of these Churches is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ and the Apostles and the other one came into existence at the time of the Schism (although there is great flexibility about the dating of this.) The Orthodox do not subscribe to a branch theory of the Church.

The Catholic church also does not subscribe to the branch theory. In any case, please read what I wrote, not what you want to believe I wrote, I never attempted to assess the validity of either the Orthodox or the Catholic Claims to being the true Church (well not in this post) rather, I was simply pointing out that the pre-schismatic heresies were in fact heresies against the True Church. You claimed they were not heresies against your Church, and where in fact heresies against Catholicism, therefore you have undermined the claim of the Orthodox Church.

In a similar way, claims by Catholics that those early heresies were against the Orthodox Church would undermine the Catholic position to being the True Church.

In any case, the whole point here is that if both Churches are to maintain the claim of being the True Church then both Churches must accept that the heresies were heresies against their Church. To deny the heresies is to deny your claim on beng the True Church.

–
Bill

 

[thomon16]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by thomon16
I did NOT say “monophysitism and Nestorianism remained part of the Byzantine Empire.” Read carefully what I wrote and please quote it accurately. Don’t try to put words inmy mouth

I am NOT putting words in your mouth. You may have forgotten what you wrote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomon
Even later, monophysitism and Nestorianism remained in the EASTERN Roman (Byzantine) Empire"

I apologize - I was looking at another of my replies and did
not see this one. But, if I remember correctly, when the
Syriac Orthodox (Jacobites) were part of the Byzantine
Empire, they welcomed the Muslim invaders who pushed
out the Byzantine “oppressors”. Likewise, the Copts were
not sorry to see the Byzantines soldiers leave. But, since
I have donated almost all of my Eastern Christian library
to an (Asian) Indian Catholic seminary and the rest to my
local Catholic diocesan seminary library, I cannot recheck
my sources and I may be wrong. But, to restate my point,
monophysitism and Nestorianism still remains in the
FORMER boundaries of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine)
Empire and some of the territories which made up the
Byzantine Empire, i.e., Syria and Egypt, but it is not
present in Western Europe or the Americas except among
immigrants.

I suggest that you contact local Armenian and Coptic
Orthodox clergy and laity and ask them to tell you what
they know about the history of the Byzantine clergy and
administrators in Armenia and Egypt. Also, you may write
some Syriac Orthodox websites and ask them to send
you their historical accounts of Byzantium. I think that
they may have useful information and stories.

“The reality is that the Church is already ONE. It is one of the distinguishing marks given to her in the Creed. But we disagree about which Church is the one Church. In God’s own time the separated sheep may (or may not) come home to the sheepfold. We pray that they will.”

I agree that the Church is one - “one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic”. But, Christ is talking about “all believers
(disciples)” not just His one Church. As long as all of his
followers are not united, He “prays that they may be [one] in
us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”

Father Ambrose, to be honest, I do not think that our
exchanges are helping either of us or others who read our
inflammatory remarks. I for one will bow out and cease
antagonizing you. I prefer to be Christian and defer to others
who may be more successful in enlightening you. Once
more, I apologize for any unkind remarks on my part.
May God be with you.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

All for One?
The idea of unity divides Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

BY FREDERICA MATHEWES-GREEN

“The need is felt to join forces and spare no energies” to renew dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, said Pope Benedict XVI. In comments to delegates of the Patriarch of Constantinople on June 30, the pope explained that “the unity we seek is neither absorption nor fusion, but respect for the multiform fullness of the Church.”

Outsiders may wonder: Why don’t those two venerable churches just kiss and make up? From the outside, they look a lot alike. Each church claims roots in earliest Christian history. The dispute that split them is a thousand years old. Isn’t it time to move on?

It is my own Orthodox brethren who appear to be the cranky partners. Catholics have been making friendly overtures for more than a decade now. Pope John Paul II even said that the extent of papal power–over which the two churches split in the 11th century–could be “open to a new situation.” Both churches hold as ideal a united body with Rome as “first among equals.” Yet the Orthodox drag their feet, sometimes seeming downright rude. A Catholic friend tells me that the attitude seems to be: “Take this olive branch and shove it.”

Rest of article:
opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006972