Protestant vs Orthodox - who's closer?

[Montrose]

They still claim to be “Roman” Catholic. If it is your view that they who claim to be “Roman” Catholic but don’t abide by the Catholic Catechism are not really Catholic, it seems charitable to recognize that there are some who claim to be Lutheran but don’t abide by the Lutheran confessions.

Its irrelevant what they claim. They are NOT in the catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

Its irrelevant what they claim. They are NOT in the catholic Church.

It’s relevant to them. They claim to be in the Catholic Church.

 

[Montrose]

It’s relevant to them. They claim to be in the Catholic Church.

I could claim to be 7 feet tall but it doesn’t mean I am.

 

[AlNg]

Why then did the papal legate excommunicate Michael Cerularius and his Orthodox followers in 1054, thereby splitting off from the Orthodox Church?

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Why then did the papal legate excommunicate Michael Cerularius and his Orthodox followers in 1054, thereby splitting off from the Orthodox Church?

One word: POLITICS.

Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to issue a Bull of Excommunication because the pope had passed away by the time he reached Constantinople, but he was not aware of that fact due to the slowness of communication. Patriarch Michael Cerularius retaliated with his own anathema, because it was an affront to Byzantine imperial-ecclesiastical aspirations that the Pope would exert his rightful authority in such a way as to curb Constantinople’s claims to authority.

Why people get upset about this still, when the mutual anathemas were lifted in the last century seems like a great waste of time and is contrary to Christian charity.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

One word: POLITICS.

It was honestly politically motivated mess but it wasn’t really secular politics- you see, Byzantine Emperor actually wanted to stand with Pope until local population rallied to Patriarch’s side.

Ecclesiastical politics played a huge part… which brings us to …

Why then did the papal legate excommunicate Michael Cerularius and his Orthodox followers in 1054, thereby splitting off from the Orthodox Church?

Bull of excommunication states several reasons (and yeah, as PilgrimMichelangelo said, this Bull was invalid but actually Cardinal Humbert DID know that Pope died- he was furious that he is now recalled and Patriarch seemingly got what he wanted, so Bull was presented out of rage) :

1. Simony - major problem in the West too at the time which might be why Cardinal was angry about it
2. Promoting castrated to the clergy- something forbidden by Nicea I.
3. Rebaptizing Latins (explained below) - condemned by Nicea I.
4. For claiming that Latin Church lost Sacraments (apparently since Latin Eucharist was invalid because it was from unleavened bread, everything else also ceased to be valid in eyes of Patriarch Michael ) - doing so without any official decree or ruling which is against canons.
5. For “allowing carnal marriage of clergy”- this one is tricky. Most people claim that it was against married Priests but that isn’t really the wording. Wording suggests that either Greek Church did allow “Ministers of the Altar” to get married or did not respect continence before serving Liturgy. This is of course not valid matter for excommunication as East has right to change it’s discipline and has done so at Council of Trullo.
6. For saying Judaistic Law is accursed - common practice of Post-Photian era because if unleavened bread is Judaistic practice and unholy, then so is entire Judaistic Law. However, we know that Judaistic Law was ordered by God.
7. For denying Spirit comes from the Father through the Son - this is most commonly misinterpreted one. Cardinal did not ever say Filioque is needed in the Creed. What he was very likely aiming against is Photian notion that Holy Spirit comes through Father alone and that Son does not play any role in such procession (something foreign to Greek theology before Photius). This was used by Greek extremists to charge Latin Church of heresy.
8. For Manichean notion of ensoulment… I am lost at this one not sure what it means really.
9. For some obscure laws - not baptizing babies until certain time after birth and not allowing women who menstruate or are pregnant to be baptized.
10. For not allowing those who shave into their Churches (as Priests I guess, that’s what context implies) - so Latins were denied entry to their Churches.
11. For forbidding Churches to celebrate Mass, for denying Papal Ambassadors entry to investigate and for not dealing with someone who stepped on Latin Eucharist

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Not all of those are quite valid reasons, but in the end there are plenty that are. Does that mean Cardinal had authority to excommunicate someone after Pope died? Of course not. But it wasn’t unjust attack on the Patriarch either.

After that, Patriarch excommunicated Latin legates. There was never formal excommunication against Church of Rome or West- a very important point.

Nikodemos of Athos talks about this in his commentary on the canons- no canonical penalty has any force unless a living council enacts it. Because there wasn’t council condemning Latins, we are de-jure not in real state of Schism from Orthodox viewpoint. Papacy itself was first anathemized by name in 1583 so that’s another thing to take into consideration.

Just as an example, Greek Old Calendarists said that hierarchy is deposed by adopting new Calendar. New Calendarists said that since they condemned hierarchy without council they excommunicated themselves. New Calendarists used that lack of canonical trial as a proof that Old Calendarists broke off the Church. However, wasn’t same done by Orthodox Church? Notice the parallel in following paragraph.

Orthodox Church declared Pope heretic without canonical trial, hence they excommunicated themselves. Orthodox Church hence must acknowledge that according to canons they broke off the Church. Quite an interesting spin on things, isn’t it? And this is all according to Orthodox ecclesiology…

 

[AlNg]

we are de-jure not in real state of Schism from Orthodox viewpoint.

Since Catholics are not in a de jure state of schism from the Orthodox, and since the excommunications were invalid, is it OK for a Catholic to join the Serbian Orthodox Church ?

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

But now on another board some guy keeps telling me Protestants are closer to Catholics because their views on civilization are more similar.

He is almost certainly referring to a theory proposed by Samuel P. Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996). You have to understand that Huntington was concerned with the field of international relations, not with theology. Huntington proposes that Europe is divided between two civilisations, western civilisation and Orthodox civilisation. He argues that western civilisation is coterminous with what was once western Christendom, which from the 16th century became the region of Europe in which Catholicism and Protestantism were the main denominations of Christianity. Despite the Reformation, countries such as Britain and Poland continue to belong to the same western civilisation because they share a common intellectual history.

You have to remember that Huntington was writing only five or six years after the end of the Cold War. Part of the purpose of his book was therefore to establish the case that countries such as Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Croatia (and, perhaps more contentiously, Estonia and Latvia) belong firmly within the domain of western civilisation rather than within the domain of Orthodox civilisation dominated by Russia.

Closely related to Huntington’s conception of western civilisation is the idea of central Europe. For about 45 years between the end of the Second World War and the end of the Cold War, Europe was divided into western and eastern Europe. Western Europe included those free, democratic countries with capitalist economies, while eastern Europe included those countries existing under communist regimes. This division of Europe into a western half and an eastern half was, however, only a brief aberration in the longer history of the continent. Before 1945, countries such as those enumerated above were considered to be part of central Europe, a region of Europe that also included Germany and Austria (and arguably also Switzerland and Liechtenstein). Since the end of the Cold War, countries in east-central Europe have made conscious efforts to resist the term “eastern Europe” and argue for their central European identity.

Since this is a Catholic forum, it is worth noting that Huntington identified Ukraine as a country that is divided between two civilisations, the western half of Ukraine, which is predominantly Catholic, belonging to the western civilisation, and the eastern half, which is predominantly Orthodox, belonging to the Orthodox civilisation.

It is also worth mentioning a related theory proposed by Patrick Leigh Fermor, which argues that the modern Greek state has always struggled to reconcile the Hellenic and Byzantine aspects of Greek history. The Hellenic aspects (those deriving from ancient Greek culture) place Greece within the domain of the West, while the Byzantine aspects (those deriving from the later, Christian Roman Empire) place Greece within the domain of the East.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Since Catholics are not in a de jure state of schism from the Orthodox, and since the excommunications were invalid, is it OK for a Catholic to join the Serbian Orthodox Church ?

Orthodox are in de-jure state of Schism from Catholic Church though.

Problem is that according to Orthodox ecclesiology, Orthodox Church (parts of it that deny Papacy remained in the Church at least) is excommunicated. Catholic Church is not.

According to Catholic ecclesiology, Orthodox Church (parts that deny Papacy and Latin Church) is excommunicated. Catholic Church is not.

It therefore isn’t “ok” to pretend there isn’t Schism for either side. It is only wrong to pretend Catholics are in Schism from either side.

But this isn’t topic of this thread. I apologize for derailing it so much.

 

[AlNg]

According to Catholic ecclesiology, Orthodox Church (parts that deny Papacy and Latin Church) is excommunicated.

I don’t see where in the papal bull of 1054, the papal legate mentioned denial of papacy as grounds for excommunication.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I don’t see where in the papal bull of 1054, the papal legate mentioned denial of papacy as grounds for excommunication.

Indirectly but here goes:
Indeed, so much [did he persecute them] that among his own children, he had anathematized the Apostolic See and against it he still writes that he is the “Eumenical Patriarch”.

Therefore, because we did not tolerate this unheard of outrage and injury of the first, holy, and Apostolic See and were concerned that the Catholic faith would be undermined in many ways
(end of quotation)

Even so denial of Papacy is what according to my example with Old and New Calendarists excommunicates Orthodox themselves. They can’t hold Papacy to be out of Church without living council enforcing decision but they did. They did what Old Calendarists. Orthodox Church claims Old Calendarists excommunicated themselves by the act so it follows Orthodox Church excommunicated itself.

 

[AlNg]

But now on another board some guy keeps telling me Protestants are closer to Catholics because their views on civilization are more similar.

Well, look at it this way: The Vatican has issued a stamp honoring Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. But have you seen a Vatican stamp honoring Michael Cerularius and the Schism of 1054?

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Well, look at it this way: The Vatican has issued a stamp honoring Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. But have you seen a Vatican stamp honoring Michael Cerularius and the Schism of 1054?

The Vatican Post Office is not infallible.

To the first, the Vatican should never have honored Martin Luther nor the Protestant Revolt.

To the second, the Vatican should never honor a Patriarch who trampled on the Latin Eucharist and broke the bonds of charity, pulling the East into a thousand year schism.

Are there any other questions?

 

[AlNg]

To the second, the Vatican should never honor a Patriarch who trampled on the Latin Eucharist

What is true is that the Latin churches were closed in 1052 in response to the closure of Byzantine churches in Roman ecclesiastical territory. There were Latin churches under the Ecumenical Patriarch, Michael Cerularius, but the Latin Rite was suspended in response to the Roman Pope closing Byzantine churches that were more or less under him in his territory. Michael Cerularius did not desecrate the Eucharist according to the Orthodox sources I have read. These sources say that the blood libel about trampling on the Eucharist was made up to justify the Roman Catholic persecution of the Orthodox Christians at various times in history, such as the Fourth Crusade. The history of the Fourth Crusade tells us about the rapes , the murders, the looting and destruction of Byzantine Churches, the smashing of holy altars. Thousands of innocent faithful Orthodox Christians were murdered in cold blood and nuns who had dedicated their lives and their virginity to Jesus were brutally beaten and raped by the Roman Catholic Crusaders.

Are there any other questions?

Yes. Why did much of the loot of the Fourth Crusade remain in Roman Catholic Churches instead of being returned to the Orthodox Church?

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

These sources say that the blood libel about trampling on the Eucharist was made up to justify the Roman Catholic persecution of the Orthodox Christians at various times in history, such as the Fourth Crusade. The history of the Fourth Crusade tells us about the rapes , the murders, the looting and destruction of Byzantine Churches, the smashing of holy altars. Thousands of innocent faithful Orthodox Christians were murdered in cold blood and nuns who had dedicated their lives and their virginity to Jesus were brutally beaten and raped by the Roman Catholic Crusaders.

Those Crusaders were excommunicated by the pope, who expressly forbade them to sack Christian cities. There is a lot more nuance than popular Orthodox polemics admits. Plus the Massacre of the Latins had happened previous to this in Constantinople.

Why did much of the loot of the Fourth Crusade remain in Roman Catholic Churches instead of being returned to the Orthodox Church?

Because God used the Crusaders to protect holy relics that otherwise would have been desecrated and destroyed by the Muslims. It’s called Divine Providence, He can turn bad things into good things.

One thing the Orthodox are never good at is blaming themselves when it comes to the Schism, it’s all blame the other side.

 

[AlNg]

One thing the Orthodox are never good at is blaming themselves when it comes to the Schism, it’s all blame the other side.

Of course, it was not just the Schism, the Roman Catholic oppression of the Orthodox people continued into the second world war when concentration camps were set up by the Catholic Croatians in Jasenovac to torture, beat, and murder thousands of Serbian Orthodox who would not convert to Roman Catholicism. And please read about the Orthodox Church building at Glina, where Serbian Orthodox were axed to death by the Ustase. It did not happen to Protestants, AFAIK, only Serbian Orthodox.

Well, then it is strange that during WWII, Catholics Croatians went out of their way to set up concentration camps for the Orthodox at Jasenovac but not so for the Protestants. It was mostly Serbian Orthodox, and Jews, who were targeted, not Protestants.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Michael Cerularius did not desecrate the Eucharist according to the Orthodox sources I have read.

No, Leo of Ohrid did. Patriarch Michael allegedly threw Latin Eucharist in the streets though.

The history of the Fourth Crusade tells us about …

And Massacre of Latins was somewhat better? Without that Crusaders wouldn’t dare do that. Fourth “Crusade” was done by excommunicated Crusaders and even then circumstances were kind of wild. They helped someone take over the city, that guy got off the throne and then they were supposed to be exiled so they attacked Byzantines. It wasn’t that they just came and pillaged.

It is true that Pope was shocked at this, but he also saw this as wrath of God being poured upon East which would return them to One True Church… which explains reaction from the Pope a lot.

One thing the Orthodox are never good at is blaming themselves when it comes to the Schism, it’s all blame the other side.

Well, we Catholics aren’t either. You see, we do acknowledge that Cardinal Humbert did cross the line of his authority and we acknowledge that Crusaders did horrible things… but Syllabus of Errors also contains an error that says “Popes were in their pride responsible for Schism between East and West”. Then again, no particular Popes can be blamed directly so perhaps that still stands even when we acknowledge West did not act perfectly either.

Because God used the Crusaders to protect holy relics that otherwise would have been desecrated and destroyed by the Muslims. It’s called Divine Providence, He can turn bad things into good things.

That’s something I never realized… woah.

Of course, it was not just the Schism, the Roman Catholic oppression of the Orthodox people continued into the second world war

Yeah. Orthodoxy in my country consists of what was stolen by communist government from Eastern Catholics. They were harshly persecuted and so were Roman Catholics. Are you really sure it’s so one sided? Even then, how does this blame game really help?

It was mostly Serbian Orthodox, and Jews, who were targeted, not Protestants.

You do understand that has more to do with Croatian-Serbian cultural relations than with religion, right?

 

[AlNg]

And Massacre of Latins was somewhat better?

Of course it was a lesser event.

Orthodoxy in my country consists of what was stolen by communist government from Eastern Catholics. They were harshly persecuted and so were Roman Catholics.

This is why Protestantism is much closer to Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics in Croatia did not target Protestants in setting up their concentration camps, but they did target Serbian Orthodox if they did not convert.
BTW, have you seen a Vatican stamp honoring St. Photius?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Of course it was a lesser event.

Fourth Crusade was done by excommunicated Crusaders who were promised gold but were never given any hence they turned on their new masters in Constantinople.

Massacre of Latins was done by Orthodox people who were never excommunicated IIRC and there was largely no reason for it other than fact Latins were hated. Interesting comparison.

This is why Protestantism is much closer to Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics in Croatia did not target Protestants in setting up their concentration camps, but they did target Serbian Orthodox if they did not convert.

So relations between two given cultures mean more than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ being fully present in Eucharist or more than Sacraments? Strange. Well let’s say Anglicans persecuted Catholics in England but not Orthodox people. Does that make Orthodoxy closer to Protestantism than Catholicism? You are completely missing the point.

You are confusing relations with being similar. Perhaps Catholic-Protestant relations are better (which I doubt btw), but that does not make them more similar. That doesn’t make one “closer” in sense this thread puts it. And then again what happened during WW2 is kind of far enough already. Take a look at current situation. I bet you will try to use the “Eastern Catholics in Ukraine” card now but that’s again more about Russian-Ukrainian Relations than Catholic-Orthodox ones. Don’t mix culture with religion. It is borderline phyletism and that heresy has been condemned by Orthodox Church.

BTW, have you seen a Vatican stamp honoring St. Photius?

Photius was historically honored by Roman Church as a Saint (at least until Schism). It was because Photius repented from his anti-Latin rhetorics and reconciled with Patriarch Ignatius. This is why Pope never had a problem with Photius becoming Patriarch again.