Question about the Eastern Orthodox Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joey1976
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joey1976

Guest
I read somewhere that they claim that the Roman Catholic Church broke from them in 1054. How and why do they make this claim when we make the claim that they broke from the Catholic Church? Thanks
 
Joey1976 said:
I read somewhere that they claim that the Roman Catholic Church broke from them in 1054. How and why do they make this claim when we make the claim that they broke from the Catholic Church? Thanks
Click to expand...
The Bishop of Rome broke away from the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Also the Latin Church added many things to the deposit of faith unknown to the early Church among these.
  1. Sprinkling instead of baptism
  2. The use of unleavened wafers instead of bread
  3. The unlawful addition of “and the Son” to the Nicene Creed
  4. Denial of the Cup to the laity
  5. The supremacy of the Bishop of Rome
And that’s not to mention the later additions of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility…

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
This thread should prove interesting. I’ll sit this one out and watch the fireworks, as this has been covered many times before. And for what it’s worth, josephdaniel is completely wrong. But that will be proven shortly by the others who post after me.
 
flyersfan1088 said:
…for what it’s worth, josephdaniel is completely wrong. But that will be proven shortly by the others who post after me.
Click to expand...
I guess you had better explain why. You are the one making the assertion.

Do you deny that Cardinals Humbert and Frederic went to Constantinople with a Papal Bull already prepared with the intention of excommunicating the Patriarch? What did they intend to do with that document prepared in Rome and sealed with the Papal Bulla? Do you suppose they were just playing around?

For the record, I think Joseph Daniel is quite correct. He answered the question “…they claim that the Roman Catholic Church broke from them in 1054. How and why do they [Orthodox] make this claim when we [Roman Catholics] make the claim that they broke from the Catholic Church?” from the Orthodox Catholic perspective, which is what the OP asked for.

The Roman Catholic church was once Orthodox. It left the communion and struck out on it’s own, creating new dogma, new discipline and new devotions after the split.

*Michael

*http://i24.ebayimg.com/05/s/08/b0/66/f0_2.JPG
 
Are there any apologetics books out there for the Eastern Orthodox claims? I have read apologetic books that explain Catholicism, I wondered if the Orthodox have any like that. Thanks
 
Joey1976 said:
Are there any apologetics books out there for the Eastern Orthodox claims? I have read apologetic books that explain Catholicism, I wondered if the Orthodox have any like that. Thanks
Click to expand...
The most popular english language book on Orthodoxy is The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware. It is not really what I would consider an apologetic work but rather a good introduction to Orthodoxy.
 
Joey1976 said:
Are there any apologetics books out there for the Eastern Orthodox claims? I have read apologetic books that explain Catholicism, I wondered if the Orthodox have any like that. Thanks
Click to expand...
I don’t think you need apologetics works from an Orthodox perspective.

You can learn everything you need to know about it by studying unbiased scholarship of your own choosing. There is so much religious history from reputable authors you should have no trouble with it.
*
Michael*
 
You might try Henry or Owen Chadwick, J.N.D. Kelley or Jaroslav Pelikan. That should do it.

I feel it is best to try and read the history of Christianity through from the beginning with all of the controversies and crises the church had to deal with from the earliest days. The centuries leading up to the great schism are interesting, but it’s important to keep them in context with the events and thoughts of before then and afterward.

Michael
 
Perhaps the Orthodox posters could provide some online references that speak to this specific historical issue? I’d be interested in reading more about this.

God bless,

Don
+T+
 
Donald45 said:
Perhaps the Orthodox posters could provide some online references that speak to this specific historical issue? I’d be interested in reading more about this.
+
Click to expand...
This is not an absolutely resolvable issue because this is simple physics problem - it depends on frame of reference. If two planets (or churches) move apart, people on planet 1 (church 1) will believe they are the “basic frame of reference” and believe planet 2 (or church2 ) is moving away from it. The opposite will be idea of people on planet 2 (church 2).

Therefore, from frame of reference of Orthodox, Catolic church moved away from us. From point of view of Catolic, opposite happened. This is entirely logical from point of view of each group. There cannot be a “right” answer - movement is relative.

The movement of Orthodoxy and Catolicism from each other was more subtle. The issue of 1054 was only beginning. Crusaders, Latin kingdom, looting of Orthodox holy places. These were what more fundamentally separated Orthodox people from Catolic people - who previously were all Christians of same faith.
 
Volodymyr,
That is a great analogy for what the status is. Very good.

I have a new question. I have been studying the split lately, and I am confused about something. Well, something ELSE now. What makes Constantinople equal to Rome, Jerusalem, Antioc, and Alexandria when it was not founded by an Apostle? Any info will be appriciated.
 
ralphinal said:
Volodymyr,
That is a great analogy for what the status is. Very good.

I have a new question. I have been studying the split lately, and I am confused about something. Well, something ELSE now. What makes Constantinople equal to Rome, Jerusalem, Antioc, and Alexandria when it was not founded by an Apostle? Any info will be appriciated.
Click to expand...
I hope Volodymyr won’t mind me taking a shot at this question. 🙂

The reason Constantinople was elevated to the level of a Patriarchate was part of the same reason Rome was, they both were very large important cities that either were or had been the capital of the empire.

The fact that Constantinople was elevated speaks to two very important facts. First, Constantinople was elevated by a council and that is very strong evidence of the major role councils played in the governing of the early Church. In fact the conciliar nature of the Church was so important that Constantinople was elevated to second in the hierarchy without the consent of Rome, demonstrating that the rulings of a council couldn’t be overturned by one bishop, even the Pope. Second, the size and importance of a city had a least a much to do with whether or not a See was elevated as that See’s supposed Apostolic foundation. Not to totally discount the importance of Apostolic foundations but the size and importance of the city had at least as much to do with the ranking of the See as anything else.

To put it quite simply Constantinople was elevated for the same reason the Bishop of Rome was granted the rights and privileges he enjoyed, a council of bishops decided it would be profitable for the Church to do so.

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
josephdaniel29 said:
I hope Volodymyr won’t mind me taking a shot at this question. 🙂

The reason Constantinople was elevated to the level of a Patriarchate was part of the same reason Rome was, they both were very large important cities that either were or had been the capital of the empire.

The fact that Constantinople was elevated speaks to two very important facts. First, Constantinople was elevated by a council and that is very strong evidence of the major role councils played in the governing of the early Church. In fact the conciliar nature of the Church was so important that Constantinople was elevated to second in the hierarchy without the consent of Rome, demonstrating that the rulings of a council couldn’t be overturned by one bishop, even the Pope. Second, the size and importance of a city had a least a much to do with whether or not a See was elevated as that See’s supposed Apostolic foundation. Not to totally discount the importance of Apostolic foundations but the size and importance of the city had at least as much to do with the ranking of the See as anything else.

To put it quite simply Constantinople was elevated for the same reason the Bishop of Rome was granted the rights and privileges he enjoyed, a council of bishops decided it would be profitable for the Church to do so.

Yours in Christ
Joe
Click to expand...
That makes sense to me. It just seemed funny that four of the five were founded by Apostles and one wasn’t.

How about using the titles “Old Rome” and “New Rome.” Is that an example of secular termenology entering the theological? Or is it a reflection of a mentality that even if faith, Constantinople replaced Rome?
 
ralphinal said:
Volodymyr,
That is a great analogy for what the status is. Very good.

I have a new question. I have been studying the split lately, and I am confused about something. Well, something ELSE now. What makes Constantinople equal to Rome, Jerusalem, Antioc, and Alexandria when it was not founded by an Apostle? Any info will be appriciated.
Click to expand...
I’m not qualified to answer your question, raphinal, but I just finished a self-study course on CD called “From Jesus to Christianity: A History of the Early Church” by Thomas Madden, a professor of medieval history and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University.

I borrowed the course from my local library, but ended up buying the study guide because it had so much in the way of external links and books.

You might be interested in his work, just to take a look at his study materials. His web address is www.thomasmadden.org.

ddc
 
The Roman/Byzantine Emperor wanted a Patriarch in his capital city, hence there was one. The eastern Patriarchs all ran after pretty much every heresy and had to be drawn back over and over again by the Bishop of Rome (usually whenever there was a Catholic Emperor). The notable exception to this is Athanasius who was Patriarch of Alexandria, and along with the Pope and a few others was one of the only Bishops to not become Arian, when that was what the Ecumenical Councils were voting for without the authority of the Pope. The reason why the Pope didn’t always have authority over the Patriarch of Constantinople is that almost half the time the Patriarch was excommunicated for heresy. After each schism the Patriarch would need to sign up to Papal Supremacy to rejoin the Catholic Church. In fact some Patriarchs were removed by the Pope and replaced with others.

As for baptism form, sprinkling was always possible though never the primary form. Noone uses the original form now which was naked baptism. Also many other practices have changes like Confession, which used to be in front of the whole congregation, only allowed once in your life, only for the most serious sins and followed by years of penance
 
JMBNH said:
Arianism was what the Ecumenical Councils were voting for without the authority of the Pope.

After each schism the Patriarch would need to sign up to Papal Supremacy to rejoin the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
This is somewhat very strange information. What ecumenical councils is “voting for” Arianism?? Nikea is condemning this without help of bishop of Rome. Perhaps you mean councils of Arian bishops - several of which occured after Nikean Ecumenical Sobor.

Where is such document of “sign up” to supreme Pope? Are these preserved in Vatican? How to see such a document??
 
The signing up for Papal Supremacy was after the Acacian Schism in the 5th century. Admittedly the words Papal Supremacy were probably not used, but they signed to be under the Pope nevertheless.

Several Councils intended to be Ecumenical (mostly at Sirmium) voted for semiarianism, with the support of the eastern bishops (except Athanasius and maybe a couple of others) but without the support of the Pope. This clearly meets the Ecumenical council criteria by Eastern standards, but weren’t due to the Pope not ratifying, though they were overturned later by the First Council of Constantinople, which took a while to be ratified, but the Creed at it was ratified at the Council of Ephesus, with Papal approval, the rest got ratified at Chalcedon which also had Papal approval.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top