Question about the Great Schism

[Gabriel_of_12]

But the basis of the issue in the Schism is Arianism which started in the East.

God Bless, Gary

Greetings GaryTaylor Does your view of this history reveal the Orthodox Church and the patriarchs of Constantinople being influenced by their secular Emperors from Constantinople? History records the secular Emperor’s of Constantinople appointing the Orthodox Patriarch’s.

Being that the secular powers from the East are beginning to dwindle in this time of history, and the Western Catholic Church isolated later to gain another emperor in the West; do you see history display contempt from Eastern secular powers influencing the Orthodox to maintain a division from the Western Church? to keep the Western secular powers gaining ground, should the Orthodox and Western Catholic church remain as one?

What is your view of the secular powers having any influence over the Orthodox Church, to cause division? Or anyone else who here who may have view?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Schism really seems to have grown gradually as East and West grew apart culturally. The Greeks in the East, many of them, quit speaking or using Latin, many in the West, even the great St. Augustine, didn’t even know Greek. Politics having an Eastern and Western Empire and then barbarian invasions and a pope having to Christianize a barbarian culture with the Empire in ashes, etc. The filioque was not an overnight sensation but an irritation for the East that also steadily grew. When 1054 actually came along, it was only the Bishop of Constantinople that Humbert and company excommunicated, not all of Orthodoxy, the other four patriarchs? When did the actual schism ever take place? It seems more like a couple that never officially got a divorce but just wandered away from one another and quit talking? There was never an official separation. There were attempts at getting back together but I find it fascinating that they never had an official date of the schism or a moment where the West excommunicated all the Orthodox patriarchs or the Eastern patriarchs all excommunicating the Pope and the Western bishops, etc.? I sometimes wonder why we even call is a Schism? It’s more like a long period of silence and ignoring one another?

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Scott,

… When 1054 actually came along, it was only the Bishop of Constantinople that Humbert and company excommunicated, not all of Orthodoxy, the other four patriarchs? When did the actual schism ever take place?..

Not until the churches began to see each other as different (or separate) churches, which was not in 1054AD, but I think much later.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

gurneyhalleck1;7890243]The Schism really seems to have grown gradually as East and West grew apart culturally.

As the Eastern secular powers decreased and the Western secular powers increased in Christianity, Did the Eastern political powers isolate or influence the Orthodox Church from unity within the Western Catholic Church, so as to keep the political powers in the West from gaining ground in the East?

If one peels back the political influences from both sides what would be the end result? a whole Catholic Church under persecution once again?

I see a repeat of history taken place here. The world has shrunk; the East is being influenced by Western culture, with these may follow politics as we see happening today in Egypt, Lybia etc…then comes religion influences. At the same time the Eastern religions (Islam) are making headway in the West by outpopulating Western countries, because they don’t abbort their infants. Including some of the Orthodox, now being set free from communism, by the Immaculate Conception are able to move from stagnation back to shepherding their flocks publicly, but that’s another topic.

Diversity of cultures is a strength in the Catholic unity of the faithful, I don’t think it should be a cause for division, whereby one culture practice should never be inferior to another’s cultural practice, so long as the revelations and teachings of Jesus do not get hindered in any way. I believe Orthodox have a lot of catching up to do, when they became stagnant, as the world grew in new peoples, tongues, nations and the “new world” was discovered by Europeans. The gospel message never became stagnant in the Western Church, because She taught the same unchanged gospel message to new tongues and peoples.

For this the Orthodox comes out of supression and protests, the abuse or cultural forms contrary to the Greek style practice? The Pope’s and Bishops are aware of the abuses, and forms of differenct cultures, that is why Jesus placed them in His kingdom, so that the Pope can bind and loose the morality of secular international powers which can influence evil on the whole body of Christ, and local Bishops can bind and loose secular powers which influence societies contrary to the moral teaches of the Gospel in the local Church.

I believe the schism is insignificant from the grand scale at this time, and when cooler heads see the big picture, instead of an isolated view, these will prevail in time.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Gabe,
Are you saying that the Orthodox have not evangelized much of the world? Also, what do you mean when you say ***Including some of the Orthodox, now being set free from communism, by the Immaculate Conception ***?

The East, as you point out, were surrounded and stifled by Islam and Communism and poverty. It was tough for Orthodoxy to mission to other nations, especially after Communism/USSR took over the Slavic lands all the way to East Germany. The fact that they kept their episcopal unity AND have an unspoiled liturgy free of innovation is actually a strength for them. The problem with Catholicism is too much innovation and change. Innovation and stagnation can be a good and bad thing.

But remember it’s not that the East have no moral teachings, it’s that they handle them differently. In Orthodoxy morality is not proclaimed on every topic in a catechism or internationally mandated by a central authority. The Orthodox tend to deal with issues like contraception, divorce, marital issues, choices and good vs. evil at a local level between the parishoner and his spiritual father, the Priest. Contraception is not declared 100% always morally intrinsically evil. A Catholic who follows the pope feels it is and then looks at the Orthodox who has the permission of his priest to use it under certain conditions and sees him as doing something intrinsically evil. The Orthodox doesn’t see it that way as he consults with his spiritual father. Potentially I see the problem could be that the spiritual father could be incongruous with the faith and give bad advice as there is no central authority from whom to learn/be taught. But at the same time, if I had a dime for every time I heard a priest locally say birth control is ok or that divorce is ok, wow, I’m Trump! Catholic teachings coming from the Vatican/pope are often ignored or morphed by local priests and I see little evidence from a lack of familiarity with the Orthoodox that they are any better or worse…

As the Eastern secular powers decreased and the Western secular powers increased in Christianity, Did the Eastern political powers isolate or influence the Orthodox Church from unity within the Western Catholic Church, so as to keep the political powers in the West from gaining ground in the East?

If one peels back the political influences from both sides what would be the end result? a whole Catholic Church under persecution once again?

I see a repeat of history taken place here. The world has shrunk; the East is being influenced by Western culture, with these may follow politics as we see happening today in Egypt, Lybia etc…then comes religion influences. At the same time the Eastern religions (Islam) are making headway in the West by outpopulating Western countries, because they don’t abbort their infants. Including some of the Orthodox, now being set free from communism, by the Immaculate Conception are able to move from stagnation back to shepherding their flocks publicly, but that’s another topic.

Diversity of cultures is a strength in the Catholic unity of the faithful, I don’t think it should be a cause for division, whereby one culture practice should never be inferior to another’s cultural practice, so long as the revelations and teachings of Jesus do not get hindered in any way. I believe Orthodox have a lot of catching up to do, when they became stagnant, as the world grew in new peoples, tongues, nations and the “new world” was discovered by Europeans. The gospel message never became stagnant in the Western Church, because She taught the same unchanged gospel message to new tongues and peoples.

For this the Orthodox comes out of supression and protests, the abuse or cultural forms contrary to the Greek style practice? The Pope’s and Bishops are aware of the abuses, and forms of differenct cultures, that is why Jesus placed them in His kingdom, so that the Pope can bind and loose the morality of secular international powers which can influence evil on the whole body of Christ, and local Bishops can bind and loose secular powers which influence societies contrary to the moral teaches of the Gospel in the local Church.

I believe the schism is insignificant from the grand scale at this time, and when cooler heads see the big picture, instead of an isolated view, these will prevail in time.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

gurneyhalleck1;7890489]Hi Gabe,
Are you saying that the Orthodox have not evangelized much of the world? Also, what do you mean when you say ***Including some of the Orthodox, now being set free from communism, by the Immaculate Conception ***?

Hello gurney,
“Some of the Orthodox” = referencing those under communism rule not Islamic rule. The promise heavenly vision of the Immaculate conception was followed by signs and wonders, the collapse of communism was one of the signs foretold from the Immaculate conception, before communism made its full impact. In fact, after the pope declared the “Immaculate conception” heaven confirmed it with signs and wonders from the apparition revealed in the Immaculated conception.

The doctrine would of given the Orthodox under communism hope during their suppression until ultimately freeing them from the beast as promised.

We would not have St. Pauls epistles if the Church was never without secular influences, abuse of liturgy, not discerning the body and blood of Christ, immoral behaviors, including priestly abuses both married and unmarried.

The point is the church has comfronted these problems since apostolic times and continue to do so. That is why we maintain an Apostolic authoritative office in every age of the church so that Peter, stirs the rudder, while all bishops work in unity with him to keep the boat of Peter afloat. This boat continues to sail through rough and calm seas.

I see no problem with the autocephalus church’s shepherding their local flocks. A problem arises when independent justifications for immoral behavior to abort children, divorce within the body of Christ as an acceptable teaching. Iam not blind to the fact that this does not happen in the Western Church faithful. It becomes issue only when it is accepted as a Catholic Teaching. There is where the popes and magisterium need to jump in on all levels to reveal the wolf always.

That is why Iam of the opinion that it is great that Orthodox remain Orthodox, so as not to create any more immoral waves or new teachings in their societies, which can complicate immoral issues further than what the Church is already solving. IF anything, seek communion with the Pope so as to assist their brethren, do not isolate from their brethren. Put the Gospel first for all, leave the bickering at home, so as to discuss them in communion.

Be apart serves no purpose, especially when the Orthodox nor the Catholic Church does not have any authority to refuse communion to one of her brethren. This to me is a great sin. No one can put asunder what God has joined together especially in his blessed sacrament.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t see that as being scholasticism at all. It’s modernism? Scholasticism seeks to explain and develop reasoning to explain the metaphysical and theological phenomenon, the mysterious, the morality and makes things systematically comprehensible. It can go too far to be sure. But the example you give here with the liturgy hardly sounds like scholasticism. It’s more like modernism or liberalism gone awry. Vatican II’s excessive house-cleaning of the liturgy was not based on scholasticism. St. Thomas Aquinas would be rolling in his grave to see hand-holding during the Our Father, Eucharistic Ministers “blessing” people, songs like Amazing Grace, liturgical dancers in some frontiers, and the informality for sure. And nobody was more the scholastic than T. Aquinas!

It might be from scholasticism ultimatly. I think one could make a good argument that way - whether it could be shown to be connected at a scholarly level I don’t know.

Think of the kind of precision the scholastic method uses - so it addressed questions like at what moment is the bread and wine transformed into the Body and Blood? Or how precisly do the do the parts of the Eucharist interact? But applied in other ways you might say - do we really need to have this part of the liturgy for it to be valid? What precisly is needed for confession to be valid, or for one to take the Eucharist validly?

And once you are thinking that way - what are the absolutly necessary elements - you can start to think - do we really need those elements?

So if you ask a Catholic, a Lutheran, and an Orthodox - if you commit sin X, do you have to go to confession before receiving the Eucharist? the Catholic might say, “yes, of course you have to, that is a mortal sin” and the Lutheran would say “no, we can confess directly to God so that isn’t necessary”. In a way they are two sides of the same idea based on what is required.

On the other hand the Orthodox tend to reply “well, why wouldn’t you go confess it if it were possible for you to do so?” which is really a somewhat different way to approach it. And by the same token, why reduce the liturgy only to what is necessary if you don’t have to? Why worry about that? Why not do what is beneficial to us and worthy of the glory of God?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Bluegoat;7891140]It might be from scholasticism ultimatly. I think one could make a good argument that way - whether it could be shown to be connected at a scholarly level I don’t know.

What is the big deal about the teaching discipline of scholasticism? It is never a doctrine binding on all believers, “Lord Have Mercy”. If this is a cause for any schism, then we are big trouble, because infants cannot help themselves.

It does not exhaust any mysteries in the Church. It only disciplines our minds to arrive at the logic, reasonableness of our faith when applied to get at the matters of Truth by asking the hard questions. This discipline has nothing to do with Church doctrine.

Scholasticism is practiced today by trial lawyers in order to reveal the truth of their court cases from secular laws. This is not a doctrine.

The Greeks are head over tails for there secular philosophical thinking, this is never binding on all believers to accept as a matter of revelation from God.

Teaching disciplines are used to help the faithful grow in better understanding of what is already revealed by God to humanity. Not every age thinks the same, speaks the same, writes the same, the dicitionary is continuously adding new words to its content. Are we to stop this progress? Can man or the Church cease to communicate the gospel message to new ages to come and future generations (such as the computer space age) because one culture does not accept a teaching discipline for another?

It makes no difference how the gospel is communicated, so long as it remains the same Gospel of Jesus Christ unchanged.

I think its time to get off the milk and start eating solid food;

Hebrews 5:12
**Although you should be teachers by this time, **you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food.
13
**Everyone who lives on milk lacks experience of the word of righteousness, for he is a child. **
14
**But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties are trained by practice to discern good and evil. **

peace be with you

 

[Bluegoat]

What is the big deal about the teaching discipline of scholasticism? It is never a doctrine binding on all believers, “Lord Have Mercy”. If this is a cause for any schism, then we are big trouble, because infants cannot help themselves.

It does not exhaust any mysteries in the Church. It only disciplines our minds to arrive at the logic, reasonableness of our faith when applied to get at the matters of Truth by asking the hard questions. This discipline has nothing to do with Church doctrine.

Scholasticism is practiced today by trial lawyers in order to reveal the truth of their court cases from secular laws. This is not a doctrine.

The Greeks are head over tails for there secular philosophical thinking, this is never binding on all believers to accept as a matter of revelation from God.

Teaching disciplines are used to help the faithful grow in better understanding of what is already revealed by God to humanity. Not every age thinks the same, speaks the same, writes the same, the dicitionary is continuously adding new words to its content. Are we to stop this progress? Can man or the Church cease to communicate the gospel message to new ages to come and future generations (such as the computer space age) because one culture does not accept a teaching discipline for another?

It makes no difference how the gospel is communicated, so long as it remains the same Gospel of Jesus Christ unchanged.

I think its time to get off the milk and start eating solid food;

Hebrews 5:12
**Although you should be teachers by this time, **you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food.
13
**Everyone who lives on milk lacks experience of the word of righteousness, for he is a child. **
14
**But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties are trained by practice to discern good and evil. **

peace be with you

What Rawb was suggesting was that the intellectual approach that underlies scholastic thought has affected the way Catholicism in general as approached questions and even praxis.

Even though there are other types of Catholic thought - the Augustinian approach for example, the underlying method that came out of scholasticism seems to have had a major effect on modern Catholicism.

The Orthodox have concerns about this approach and its effects beyond the specific formulations it proposes. It is probably fine to many Orthodox if some believe transubstantiation is one way of speaking but not required. But when that way of thinking begins to affect the liturgy, that is affecting something that is fundamental. In Orthodoxy the liturgy is fundamental to our individual and corporate experience of God, and it is the primary vehicle for teaching theology to the laity. But if it is affected by scholastic thinking, then scholasticism sn’t really “optional” as you suggest.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But has scholasticism affected the Catholic liturgy? I think modernism and a desire to be more hip, cool, and reaching out to the new age we live in, that is the problem with what has happened to the Catholic liturgy?

What Rawb was suggesting was that the intellectual approach that underlies scholastic thought has affected the way Catholicism in general as approached questions and even praxis.

Even though there are other types of Catholic thought - the Augustinian approach for example, the underlying method that came out of scholasticism seems to have had a major effect on modern Catholicism.

The Orthodox have concerns about this approach and its effects beyond the specific formulations it proposes. It is probably fine to many Orthodox if some believe transubstantiation is one way of speaking but not required. But when that way of thinking begins to affect the liturgy, that is affecting something that is fundamental. In Orthodoxy the liturgy is fundamental to our individual and corporate experience of God, and it is the primary vehicle for teaching theology to the laity. But if it is affected by scholastic thinking, then scholasticism sn’t really “optional” as you suggest.

 

[Bluegoat]

But has scholasticism affected the Catholic liturgy? I think modernism and a desire to be more hip, cool, and reaching out to the new age we live in, that is the problem with what has happened to the Catholic liturgy?

I think those things have had a big effect, though not necessarily the one that was intended. Praise bands were not something that came down from the Vatican II framers.

But the idea that there is a minimum, or certain essential elements? Or that it was possible to reconstruct an “authentic” early church style Mass from studying ancient documents? That attitude might be something we see in scholasticism.

That being said, scholastic thought is not the only kind we see in Catholicism. Augustinian thought takes a rather different approach even in St Thomas’ contemporary Bonaventure, and there was a definite rebellion from scholasticism within the Catholic Church right after the scholastic period. But that had a tendency toward anti-intellectualism in a bad way IMO (not really like what you see in the EO so much as what you see in some Protestant groups.)

But Thomas had a real resurgence in the modern period which is maybe related to the changes in the liturgy? To prove this a person would have to do some real research but I don’t think it’s impossible.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What Rawb was suggesting was that the intellectual approach that underlies scholastic thought has affected the way Catholicism in general as approached questions and even praxis.

Even though there are other types of Catholic thought - the Augustinian approach for example, the underlying method that came out of scholasticism seems to have had a major effect on modern Catholicism.

The Orthodox have concerns about this approach and its effects beyond the specific formulations it proposes. It is probably fine to many Orthodox if some believe transubstantiation is one way of speaking but not required. But when that way of thinking begins to affect the liturgy, that is affecting something that is fundamental. In Orthodoxy the liturgy is fundamental to our individual and corporate experience of God, and it is the primary vehicle for teaching theology to the laity. But if it is affected by scholastic thinking, then scholasticism sn’t really “optional” as you suggest.

I don’t see Transubstantiation affecting the liturgy. Transubstantiation is defined to refute heretical teachings which deny the True presence of our dear Lord’s body, blood soul and divinity. This definition never tries to exhaust the mystery.

The wisdom of the Church is to defend the revelations of God (binding and loosing) in “every age” against any new winds of doctrine that attack them or deny them before the faithful. Transubstantiation graduates the faithful faith against man’s growing knowledge of nature and science which contradicts the true presence in the Eucharist.

The blessed Trinity, as all revealed and defined doctrine, comes to the surface when man denies the revealed Apostolic Catholic faith. The Church’s revelation of the blessed Trinity becomes doctrine binding on all believers 400 years after the resurrection. This defined doctrine of the Trinity never exhausts the mystery, but defends and protects (binds and looses) those man made doctrines (Arianism etc.) which deny the natures of Christ.

The weeds grow together with the wheat as Jesus proclaimed. As man’s intellect matures in knowledge, so grows the faith in understanding, logic and reason.

The Church does not place her light under the bushel basket, the Catholic Church has never ceased to proclaim Christ crucified, even at the cost of martyrdom.

The Catholic church possesses the keys to the kingdom of heaven in order to lock up or unlock the progression of the gospel in every age. The gospel message does not change. The gospel message is defended by clarification and defined to better understand and grow in faith, as man grows in knowledge of the world and heavens.

Transubstantiation, Filioque, Purgatory, Infallibility are all defined Apostolic doctrine revealed by God supported by scripture and sacred Tradition to defeat any man made heresies that deny these revelations from God.

Without these definitions, man’s gained knowledge and intellect would discredit and leave our Catholic faith in the dust, lowering the revelations of God to superstitions and ancient traditions that are left in the stone age and could never apply to their new intellectual findings that contradict the Catholic faith.

The Catholic Church, grows with the weeds and defends against them from infecting the flock of Christ and her One holy Catholic and apostolic faith.

I am trying to understand the Orthodox view, but I see their protests trying to stunt the gospel progress in ages when man’s new progressive thinking looks for ways to defeat the gospel message.

After all, the Church defines and defends apostolic doctrine when they come under attack and have come under attack in every age. The Church will continue to define and defend the same gospel message to our next computer language and space age to come, with new words to describe the faith, but never changing the faith, this is why Jesus built his Church upon “Rock”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I concur, Gabe. I don’t see Transubstantiation in any way, shape, or form affecting the liturgy? It is a pious explanation using scholastic (Aristotlean) terminology to help people understand that what they SEE appears typical food, what they EAT is spiritual food cloaked in the visual cues of the ordinary. It was an attempt, as you said, to help refocus some folks on the majesty of the Sacrament, the completeness of it, and to dispell bad explanations (many of which later appear in the Reformation!). I see nothing but good in it…

I don’t see Transubstantiation affecting the liturgy. Transubstantiation is defined to refute heretical teachings which deny the True presence of our dear Lord’s body, blood soul and divinity. This definition never tries to exhaust the mystery.

The wisdom of the Church is to defend the revelations of God (binding and loosing) in “every age” against any new winds of doctrine that attack them or deny them before the faithful. Transubstantiation graduates the faithful faith against man’s growing knowledge of nature and science which contradicts the true presence in the Eucharist.

The blessed Trinity, as all revealed and defined doctrine, comes to the surface when man denies the revealed Apostolic Catholic faith. The Church’s revelation of the blessed Trinity becomes doctrine binding on all believers 400 years after the resurrection. This defined doctrine of the Trinity never exhausts the mystery, but defends and protects (binds and looses) those man made doctrines (Arianism etc.) which deny the natures of Christ.

The weeds grow together with the wheat as Jesus proclaimed. As man’s intellect matures in knowledge, so grows the faith in understanding, logic and reason.

The Church does not place her light under the bushel basket, the Catholic Church has never ceased to proclaim Christ crucified, even at the cost of martyrdom.

The Catholic church possesses the keys to the kingdom of heaven in order to lock up or unlock the progression of the gospel in every age. The gospel message does not change. The gospel message is defended by clarification and defined to better understand and grow in faith, as man grows in knowledge of the world and heavens.

Transubstantiation, Filioque, Purgatory, Infallibility are all defined Apostolic doctrine revealed by God supported by scripture and sacred Tradition to defeat any man made heresies that deny these revelations from God.

Without these definitions, man’s gained knowledge and intellect would discredit and leave our Catholic faith in the dust, lowering the revelations of God to superstitions and ancient traditions that are left in the stone age and could never apply to their new intellectual findings that contradict the Catholic faith.

The Catholic Church, grows with the weeds and defends against them from infecting the flock of Christ and her One holy Catholic and apostolic faith.

I am trying to understand the Orthodox view, but I see their protests trying to stunt the gospel progress in ages when man’s new progressive thinking looks for ways to defeat the gospel message.

After all, the Church defines and defends apostolic doctrine when they come under attack and have come under attack in every age. The Church will continue to define and defend the same gospel message to our next computer language and space age to come, with new words to describe the faith, but never changing the faith, this is why Jesus built his Church upon “Rock”.

 

[Bluegoat]

No, I wasn’t saying that transubstantiation directly affectsts the liturgy. Rather, the way of thinking that comes up with transubstantiation as an explanation might well be the same way of thinkinng that approaches liturgy, and other questions, a particular way.

Consider the way the Western Church is very concerned with validity of Sacraments, and the East isn’t. In the West a lot of thought has gobe into what precisly is necessary for the Sacrament to be real. For Baptism you need water that flows, a the prober Trinitarrian formula, for example. For an ordination a man, with the right words, meaning, and intent.

Because they have so carefully defined the minimum necessary, it is possible to say “the liturgy needs only these elements, so it is ok or at least valid if we get rid of the others.”

The East tends not to think about the minimum required, but rather holistically say "this is what we do for baptism, or ordination. " They just don’t really think about how much you could remove and still have validity. And in part this may be because they haven’t really used the scholastic way of even defining what is precisely required for validity. If you haven’t done that, you can’t start parsing out the liturgy into necessary and unnecessary parts.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No, I wasn’t saying that transubstantiation directly affectsts the liturgy. Rather, the way of thinking that comes up with transubstantiation as an explanation might well be the same way of thinkinng that approaches liturgy, and other questions, a particular way.

Consider the way the Western Church is very concerned with validity of Sacraments, and the East isn’t. In the West a lot of thought has gobe into what precisly is necessary for the Sacrament to be real. For Baptism you need water that flows, a the prober Trinitarrian formula, for example. For an ordination a man, with the right words, meaning, and intent.

Because they have so carefully defined the minimum necessary, it is possible to say “the liturgy needs only these elements, so it is ok or at least valid if we get rid of the others.”

The East tends not to think about the minimum required, but rather holistically say "this is what we do for baptism, or ordination. " They just don’t really think about how much you could remove and still have validity. And in part this may be because they haven’t really used the scholastic way of even defining what is precisely required for validity. If you haven’t done that, you can’t start parsing out the liturgy into necessary and unnecessary parts.

What you appear to be saying is, we have two abstracts mindsets viewing the same subject matter. If this is the case, then there should never be a schism, so long as the end result from each view is the same. Considering the Eucharist in Transubstantiation and Orthodox view of the Eucharist, two different viewpoints arriving at the same conclusion “The True Presence”.

If this is your take, It is reasonable then, to assume the protests from the Orthodox possess no valid reason for refusing communion with her brethren Peter, and those apostolic successors in full communion with the Popes. Pride becomes the obstacle.

For the Orthodox to use a non doctrinal teaching discipline such as scholasticism which is never binding on all the faithful, an excuse to justify their refusal to be in communion with the Popes, again deals with pride of men.

I would argue that so long as both views viewing the same subject matter via sacrament or holy orders, morals and faith, so long as the end result is the same, a doctrine does not change, nor cannot it change in Catholicism, because the faith remains as one. There is never a change to the Apostolic doctrines to which Orthodox protests, only maturity of faith in understanding and growth to proclaim Christ Crucified to an ever changing world.

If the Orthodox is taking a false pretense to these defended doctrines from their view, without realizing that the same conclusion is ultimately arrived from the faith at the same time defeating heresy, be it a “mystery” or “sacrament” = the **end **result is the same from two different view points. The “mystery” concept leaves the mind suspended, where as the “sacrament” terminology simplifies the mind to understand from a foundation to enter the mystery. Two abstract view points arriving at the same result, only “sacrament” defeats all heresies, whereby “mystery” welcomes all heresies.

I think we might be on to something here? Cooler minds can prevail here, if one looks to the end result never changes. How one gets there is no excuse or reason to protests, but to ask for clarification so long as the end result does not hinder the faith, but helps the faith to mature along with the weeds.

I respect your (name removed by moderator)ut here, it is very enlightening, please continue any thoughts.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I concur, Gabe. I don’t see Transubstantiation in any way, shape, or form affecting the liturgy? It is a pious explanation using scholastic (Aristotlean) terminology to help people understand that what they SEE appears typical food, what they EAT is spiritual food cloaked in the visual cues of the ordinary. It was an attempt, as you said, to help refocus some folks on the majesty of the Sacrament, the completeness of it, and to dispell bad explanations (many of which later appear in the Reformation!). I see nothing but good in it…

You amaze me gurney; how you can sum up a thought in few words with much clarity than I ever could. Thanks for the help

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Outstanding point. And I think the Catholic Church got caught in that trap in dealing with the Anglicans actually. In calling the Edwardine “deficiencies” to the carpet, the Church didn’t realize that their own ordinal of a century or two before Matthew Parker’s ordination actually was worded almost identically, a point the Anglicans in Saepius Officio that they didn’t miss!

The Catholic view, which is scholastic, about orders doesn’t make as much sense as Cyprian’s view. Once a person leaves the Church, what does it matter if they have orders? It makes it appear that the Sacraments are somewhat magical and can be invoked but not meaningful as they’re “illicit,” a term you wouldn’t hear in the East.

You make a VERY good point. Thanks, Meghan.

No, I wasn’t saying that transubstantiation directly affectsts the liturgy. Rather, the way of thinking that comes up with transubstantiation as an explanation might well be the same way of thinkinng that approaches liturgy, and other questions, a particular way.

Consider the way the Western Church is very concerned with validity of Sacraments, and the East isn’t. In the West a lot of thought has gobe into what precisly is necessary for the Sacrament to be real. For Baptism you need water that flows, a the prober Trinitarrian formula, for example. For an ordination a man, with the right words, meaning, and intent.

Because they have so carefully defined the minimum necessary, it is possible to say “the liturgy needs only these elements, so it is ok or at least valid if we get rid of the others.”

The East tends not to think about the minimum required, but rather holistically say "this is what we do for baptism, or ordination. " They just don’t really think about how much you could remove and still have validity. And in part this may be because they haven’t really used the scholastic way of even defining what is precisely required for validity. If you haven’t done that, you can’t start parsing out the liturgy into necessary and unnecessary parts.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Gabe. As I was saying to an Orthodox friend of mine, I think the East uses semantics sometimes. For example, “we don’t have mortal vs. venial sins. That’s a Catholic Western thing.” In reality, any good Orthdox Christian examines himself/herself before approaching Divine Liturgy and if, let’s pretend, he looked at pornography, would he proceed to go to communion or go to confession? Now he might not call it “mortal sin” but it’s obviously serious enough to avoid communion and so it must salvifically be threatening or an impediment to something?

Or take the statement, “we don’t have holy days of obligation.” Well, the Orthodox surely would confess it if he could’ve gone to DL but decided not to just out of sloth? That’s sinful to anyone with common sense. And the EO’s I have heard, will excommunicate after missing a few so confession is a must. So what does that end up being? Somewhat an obligation!

Or, “we believe that the Eucharist is 100% the body blood and totality of Jesus but we don’t believe in the term transubstantiation.” Basically they’re the same thing.

I’m not saying Orthodox and Catholics are the same. In many ways they’re light years apart, but in many ways they hate to admit I think they’re more like Catholics than they want to say!

Semantics…

You amaze me gurney; how you can sum up a thought in few words with much clarity than I ever could. Thanks for the help

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m not saying Orthodox and Catholics are the same. In many ways they’re light years apart, but in many ways they hate to admit I think they’re more like Catholics than they want to say!

Semantics…

Semantics is a word that gets abused in these type of discussions.
It would appear from this thread, that the Orthodox are not protesting the defined apostolic doctrine when they came under attack, Instead the “Semantics” reveal protesting the philosophical mindset from a discipline used to define and clarify an Apostolic doctrine.

This is something new apart from the so called “great schism”. I respect their protest demanding clarification of defended doctrine. But to protest a teaching discipline which laid to rest the heretical attacks, because “Scholasticism” is foreign to their pagan philosophical root of thinking, calling this Orthodoxy?

I can’t grasp this “higher argument” which makes the false claim to philosophical thought and teaching discipline over faith? Come on… Jesus said “take my yoke, it is light”. When did philosophical (disciplines) thinking of men out weigh Faith of man in Jesus?

True Orthodoxy is revealed in communion with the Popes since the beginning. This new Orthodoxy which refuses communion with the Pope, reveals a hidden fear and rejection of charity and love lost from true Orthodoxy.

Although True Orthodoxy is never lost with all the bishops from both east and west maintain communion with Peter’s chair in the Popes, this Orthodox unity since the apostolic times has never removed itself from true Orthodoxy.

 

[Bluegoat]

What you appear to be saying is, we have two abstracts mindsets viewing the same subject matter. If this is the case, then there should never be a schism, so long as the end result from each view is the same. Considering the Eucharist in Transubstantiation and Orthodox view of the Eucharist, two different viewpoints arriving at the same conclusion “The True Presence”.

If this is your take, It is reasonable then, to assume the protests from the Orthodox possess no valid reason for refusing communion with her brethren Peter, and those apostolic successors in full communion with the Popes. Pride becomes the obstacle.

For the Orthodox to use a non doctrinal teaching discipline such as scholasticism which is never binding on all the faithful, an excuse to justify their refusal to be in communion with the Popes, again deals with pride of men.

I would argue that so long as both views viewing the same subject matter via sacrament or holy orders, morals and faith, so long as the end result is the same, a doctrine does not change, nor cannot it change in Catholicism, because the faith remains as one. There is never a change to the Apostolic doctrines to which Orthodox protests, only maturity of faith in understanding and growth to proclaim Christ Crucified to an ever changing world.

If the Orthodox is taking a false pretense to these defended doctrines from their view, without realizing that the same conclusion is ultimately arrived from the faith at the same time defeating heresy, be it a “mystery” or “sacrament” = the **end **result is the same from two different view points. The “mystery” concept leaves the mind suspended, where as the “sacrament” terminology simplifies the mind to understand from a foundation to enter the mystery. Two abstract view points arriving at the same result, only “sacrament” defeats all heresies, whereby “mystery” welcomes all heresies.

I think we might be on to something here? Cooler minds can prevail here, if one looks to the end result never changes. How one gets there is no excuse or reason to protests, but to ask for clarification so long as the end result does not hinder the faith, but helps the faith to mature along with the weeds.

I respect your (name removed by moderator)ut here, it is very enlightening, please continue any thoughts.

I think that your logic is correct, it is two mindsets and they could potentially, both be ok. The problem is the “so long as the end result from each view is the same”.

Because the Orthodox don’t see that to have been the case. Apart from the original cultural and political aspects, they see the result of the schism has led the West to things like the Protestant Reformation, humanism, or the kinds of problems we see in modern Catholic liturgy, the way they approach things like confession, or all the hullabaloo over private visions, or even methods of prayer the East thinks are actually dangerous.

So they look at this stuff and say “I’m not sure the abstract mindset here is really a good thing, and maybe we should just stay away from it”.

A fair number of Orthodox I talk to find their biggest worry is not so much the particular theological language and method, it is the things that seem to have resulted from it.