Question about the Great Schism

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you’re right, Meghan. The Orthodox are extremely, extremely closed to innovation and change. To make a change of anything in Orthodoxy is tough. The Catholics are open to “development doctrine” and in that openness there is room for fascinating discussion and honing down ideas. For example, I think transubstantiation and mortal vs. venial sins, etc. are actually fine and somewhat helpful to me. But as they became “open” to innovation and development doctrine, enter the Novus Ordo Mass. And it’s this openness that allowed for things like the filioque to enter into the scene in Spain. The pope tolerated it amongst certain groups in the West and for a while felt it was bad doctrine. Then after a while the popes were ok with it and later imposed it even on Easterners worshipping in the West. This openness has led to guitar-strumming in the church, tabernacles stationed at odd places in the building, priests oriented away from the altar and instead toward the people, a loss of things like incense that are pious, holding hands during the Our Father, liturgical dancers (gag), eucharistic ministers pawing over the Host and trying to “bless” people, bad Protestant-style music and Amazing Grace, a laid back style that really resembled a Baptist experience more than Catholic.

While I found the Divine Liturgy frustrating to follow, a bit lacking in the homily portion, tough to stand so long, and a little rushed, I know 100% that none of the forementioned things that bug me would be a concern. They’d never happen, period.

Like I said, I went to a funeral for a dear co-teacher of mine who died of cancer. The funeral was at a Baptist church. No joke, after I left there I had to rush home to help my dad who fell and ruptured ligaments in his leg, took him to the emergency room. Then hours later, went to Mass. The Mass wasn’t exactly that far off from the Baptist church in music and tone/tenor. It was so laid back. After the DL Orthodox experience, it really opens ones eyes to the need for liturgical reform in Cathoicism.

I know they’re updating the liturgical language, cleaning it up. But the Mass needs more than a language repair, it needs the priest to turn the other way, get that Holy Smoke back, it needs the gestures to return on the part of the laity, it needs more Latin used at least in some parts like the Agnus Dei and Confiteor, Gloria, etc. perhaps, it also needs to drop the hand-holding kumbaya stuff.

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.

 

[PodunkMommy]

To be blunt, this attitude in Roman Catholicism is a huge barrier as well.

But most importantly and consistently disregarded is the philosophy or attitude present in Orthodoxy which is absent in Catholicism. It’s difficult to put this into words, which is probably why it is so rarely discussed, but it’s apparent in the Orthodox faith.

There’s also the issues present of the rampant liberalism in Roman Catholicism and most Orthodox feel the current Liturgy would have to be re-worked or the Tridentine returned to. Orthodoxy isn’t interested in what Catholicism teaches, but what she believes. The current faith believed by the Roman Catholics is not Orthodox, and thus we do not seek reunion. This is not a lack of humility on our part, but a refusal to abandon the Orthodox Faith, the faith of the apostles.

There may be liberalism in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church but surely not all Roman Catholics want that either. There are many Roman Catholics who would consider themselves orthodox Catholics or conservative Catholics and would love the Liturgy to be re-worked. We would love a return to the Tridentine.

The Orthodox Churches surely can’t stop trying just because part of the Church has it’s sickness. Just because a part of the body is ill, it does not make the entire body sick?

There are so many faithful Catholics who long for the Church to be an orthodox Catholic Church.

Blessings.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No doubt, podunk, I’m with ya!

There may be liberalism in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church but surely not all Roman Catholics want that either. There are many Roman Catholics who would consider themselves orthodox Catholics or conservative Catholics and would love the Liturgy to be re-worked. We would love a return to the Tridentine.

The Orthodox Churches surely can’t stop trying just because part of the Church has it’s sickness. Just because a part of the body is ill, it does not make the entire body sick?

There are so many faithful Catholics who long for the Church to be an orthodox Catholic Church.

Blessings.

 

[PodunkMommy]

While I found the Divine Liturgy frustrating to follow, a bit lacking in the homily portion, tough to stand so long, and a little rushed, I know 100% that none of the forementioned things that bug me would be a concern. They’d never happen, period.

I know they’re updating the liturgical language, cleaning it up. But the Mass needs more than a language repair, it needs the priest to turn the other way, get that Holy Smoke back, it needs the gestures to return on the part of the laity, it needs more Latin used at least in some parts like the Agnus Dei and Confiteor, Gloria, etc. perhaps, it also needs to drop the hand-holding kumbaya stuff.

I personally love the Divine Liturgy. I feel as if I am in Heaven with God, the Angels, and Saints, when attending the Divine Liturgy; but I know it is not for everyone.

But you are right. We need more Latin, incense, etc. I feel as if we spend to much time holding hands with eachother than we do focusing on worshipping Our Lord!!

I would much rather a return to the Tridentine if that were the only option to get the Mass more reverent and more God-centered.

Blessings.

 

[PodunkMommy]

This may sound rather naive, but why can’t the Orthodox come in Communion with the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church and have the Pope be the “First Among Equals”?

It just seems that if we were all united, our prayers would be so much stronger, we could make such a difference in this fallen world.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If the pope were willing to be a first among equals, the Orthodox would probably jump toward reconiliation…but the Catholic Church would NEVER agree to such a thing.

This may sound rather naive, but why can’t the Orthodox come in Communion with the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church and have the Pope be the “First Among Equals”?

It just seems that if we were all united, our prayers would be so much stronger, we could make such a difference in this fallen world.

 

[Wesley7]

I’m skimming through these posts wondering whether I should be Orthodox or Catholic. Umm . . .Cathodoxy?

Quite a dilemma. Any thoughts or (name removed by moderator)ut? . .Thanks Wesley

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

So no protests from the Orthodox philisophical pagan thinking disciplines viewing the Catholic faith does not get contested? Remains a double standard from Orthodoxy. If they view their Philosphical reasoning to supersede all other schools of thought is far cry from reality, especially stemming from the mechanical age to the computer age, and new discoveries of science about creation, which points to the reality of God remaining always a mystery, man goes from glory to glory to praise God in this exchange of growth.

Orthodoxy has suffered a lack of God in their societies from the mechanical age which devasted their communities growth and understanding of the Catholic faith, when their secular powers removed God from the map during this era. I can see why they may have reservations about growth in understanding of the faith, and remain “shell shocked” in Orthodoxy. How they view and “quess” at the result, speaks volumes from the Orthodox opinions and protests, because I have yet to find one Orthodox protest correctly protest a defined doctrine. Their protesting views are contradictory to one another, because they guess at the result, that is not there. Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us…

Although, the Western Catholic Church remained steadfast with mans progress in knowledge and battled these new winds of doctrines, while placing water upon the fires of men’s progress which challenged God intervention with man. Thus “Immaculate Conception” defeats communism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure what you mean in this paragraph, Gabe?

Orthodoxy has suffered a lack of God in their societies from the mechanical age which devasted their communities growth and understanding of the Catholic faith, when their secular powers removed God from the map during this era. I can see why they may have reservations about growth in understanding of the faith, and remain “shell shocked” in Orthodoxy. How they view and “quess” at the result, speaks volumes from the Orthodox opinions and protests, because I have yet to find one Orthodox protest correctly protest a defined doctrine. Their protesting views are contradictory to one another, because they guess at the result, that is not there. Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us…

.

 

[Hail_Linus]

To be blunt, this attitude in Roman Catholicism is a huge barrier as well.

I’ve said it before, and I shall probably have to say it again. There are issues which divide us. Legitimate issues. Yes, it cannot be denied that pride (on both sides of the fence) has played its role in the division. When the Orthodox say, however, that Rome teaches doctrines and practices things which we do not agree with we actually mean that Rome teaches doctrines and practices things we do not agree with. The first step in any plan of reconciliation has got to be that Roman Catholics listen on this point. They include:

Papal Infallibility
Papal Universal Jurisdiction
Immaculate Conception
Original Sin
Scholasticism
Substitutionary Atonement
Distinguishing between Mortal and Venial Sin
The Filioque

These are not “side” issues, this is The Faith. The separation is not small it is large. Until the Orthodox are certain that we agree on these and other issues (and despite the best efforts of those in the Eastern Catholic forum, the Orthodox do not see that this is so) there will be no reunion.

But most importantly and consistently disregarded is the philosophy or attitude present in Orthodoxy which is absent in Catholicism. It’s difficult to put this into words, which is probably why it is so rarely discussed, but it’s apparent in the Orthodox faith.

There’s also the issues present of the rampant liberalism in Roman Catholicism and most Orthodox feel the current Liturgy would have to be re-worked or the Tridentine returned to. Orthodoxy isn’t interested in what Catholicism teaches, but what she believes. The current faith believed by the Roman Catholics is not Orthodox, and thus we do not seek reunion. This is not a lack of humility on our part, but a refusal to abandon the Orthodox Faith, the faith of the apostles.

Most of these should not really be a problem. I believe there are two main problems:

1. Patriarchs interfering with other Patriarchs.

I believe the real problem stems from the attitude of interfering with another with other Patriarchs. While I believe in Papal Infallibility in faith and morals, it appears as though past Popes have misused Papal authority to force their Patriarchal authority on other Patriarch. The Pope has three offices, Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the Latin Rite, and Pope of the entire Catholic Church. His Patriarchy should not interfere with the authority of other Patriarchs in matters of discipline. Recent Popes seem to have realized this error and have changed there attitude. For example, they encourage all Eastern Churches to not recite the Filioque Clause.

However, judging from this list, it appears the Eastern Orthodox are now wanting to cross this line in wanting to interfere with the Pope’s Patriarchy.

1. Semantics

The other problem is really semantics. For some reason, the East has always insisted on only using terminology from the Bible and Early Christian Fathers. For example, it was really difficult to get the Eastern Bishops to agree to make the Nicene Creed. The Creed was a modification of the creed Alexander of Alexandria’s brought to the Council which had been passed down to him. (Alexander of Alexandria was the Bishop who excommunicated Arius. Even Alexander was annoyed at making any changes. However, the Arians said Alexander’s creed did not contradict Arianism. They finally agreed to make the changes and use new language to avoid this type of heresy in the future.

Another example are things doctrines like Transubstantiation and Immaculate Conception. The Eastern Orthodox do not like the use of words that are not found in early Christianity even though they believe it too. In fact, the Immaculate Conception doctrine is something that originated in the East. Furthermore, I have never heard an Eastern Orthodox person reject the word Trinity which was a new word at the time.

The way I understand the Original Sin controversy is that in the west we say Adam sinned and as a result sin entered the world and through this sin came death. The East say Adams sin brought death in to the world and as a result of this death we sin. Is this really something to argue about. Anyway, the newest Catechism seems to be very influenced by the East.

In my opinion, Eastern Catholics seem to be in the best position to help heal the wounds and restore unity. They are in the unique position of being able to understand both sides. A website that I find very informative is east2west.org/ This is the website of Dr. Anthony Dragani, an Eastern Catholic, who’s goal it is to explain both sides’ views.

 

[PodunkMommy]

If the pope were willing to be a first among equals, the Orthodox would probably jump toward reconiliation…but the Catholic Church would NEVER agree to such a thing.

So, how do the Eastern Catholics handle their relationship with the Pope? I guess I’m confused because the Eastern Catholics are under the Pope but they have their own Eparchs? (I’m not really sure what they are called)

 

[Hail_Linus]

So, how do the Eastern Catholics handle their relationship with the Pope? I guess I’m confused because the Eastern Catholics are under the Pope but they have their own Eparchs? (I’m not really sure what they are called)

1. The role of Pope is not that of a dictator. Most of the theological differences continue to exist between Western and Eastern Catholicism and that is no problem and they are in fact encouraged to continue their unique traditions and forms of spirituality. A few examples…The Pope does not have authority to require the East to use the term purgatory, they cannot be required to distinguish between mortal and venial sins in the Latin matter, the Pope does not have authority to force their priests to be celibate. The Pope cannot make them celebrate the liturgy in the Novus Ordum, they don’t have to refer to the Liturgy as the Mass, etc. I believe they even have their own Canon Law.
2. The Eastern Catholics also don’t seem to mind the use of new terms like Transubstantiation or Immaculate Conception because they do not conflict with sacred Tradition.
3. The Pope does have equal authority as Patriarch compared to other Patriarchs. In many ways he is totally equal with all Bishops. The difference is that he is the only one that is Pope and the only one with the authority of the Keys. If one reads Isaiah 22:22 I think it is pretty clear that the Key Holder was the Vicar of the King (House of David) as well as Father to all of the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

 

[PodunkMommy]

1. The role of Pope is not that of a dictator. Most of the theological differences continue to exist between Western and Eastern Catholicism and that is no problem and they are in fact encouraged to continue their unique traditions and forms of spirituality. A few examples…The Pope does not have authority to require the East to use the term purgatory, they cannot be required to distinguish between mortal and venial sins in the Latin matter, the Pope does not have authority to force their priests to be celibate. The Pope cannot make them celebrate the liturgy in the Novus Ordum, they don’t have to refer to the Liturgy as the Mass, etc. I believe they even have their own Canon Law.
2. The Eastern Catholics also don’t seem to mind the use of new terms like Transubstantiation or Immaculate Conception because they do not conflict with sacred Tradition.
3. The Pope does have equal authority as Patriarch compared to other Patriarchs. In many ways he is totally equal with all Bishops. The difference is that he is the only one that is Pope and the only one with the authority of the Keys. If one reads Isaiah 22:22 I think it is pretty clear that the Key Holder was the Vicar of the King (House of David) as well as Father to all of the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

If those are the differences then I don’t understand why the Orthodox don’t unite like the Eastern did.

 

[Hail_Linus]

If those are the differences then I don’t understand why the Orthodox don’t unite like the Eastern did.

Frankly, I don’t understand it either. I have great admiration for the east, both those in Union and the Orthodox. It really breaks my heart that this schism has not ended.

 

[Bluegoat]

If those are the differences then I don’t understand why the Orthodox don’t unite like the Eastern did.

They would tell you those were not the differences.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You can attend a TLM any weekend you so desire. If you chose to hear guitar strumming and kumbaya, than whats “you” chose to do.

Are you saying Jesus Christ isn’t present in the Novus Ordo Mass?

Are you saying the Novus Ordo Mass is no different than a Protestant Baptist Mass?

What are you saying? Jesus Christ exists in the EO but not the CC. The Pope isn’t the “proto” as per the Council of Nicaea?

Why didn’t you attend a TLM?

Why do think there’s a moritorium in Russia and not on extra Catholic has entered that country since 1917? Because the communist are worried about the corrupt guitar Baptist Protestant Mass?

God Bless, Gary

 

[PJM]

=Wesley7;7884942]If the ancient primitive Church calls herself Catholic why did the other Orthodox Church change it to be named the “Orthodox Church” ? . . .

So as to be identified as SEPERATE FROM ROMAN CATHOLICS.

The real issue IMO} was not Theological; but political.

God Bless,

Pat

 

[djeter]

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/europe/Alaric.jpg

One of the roots of the great schism lies in The Fall Of Rome And The Rise Of A New Western Christendom. David Bentley Hart contributes this essay from his book The History of Christianity.

The intro is a grabber:

Well before Constantine’s decision to relocate the imperial capital to Byzantium, the Western Roman empire had suffered a long and steady decline. In every sphere: social, political, economic, cultural and demographic the Eastern empire had long enjoyed an enormous advantage over the West. Rome, in fact, had already long ceased to be the emperor’s natural home. Diocletian (245-316) had kept court in Nicomedia, and seven-emperors before him had chosen to reside in Milan or in the southern Danube valley. In the last years of the Western empire, the imperial seat was often Ravenna.

The empire as a whole had endured incursions by ‘barbarian’ tribes (Germanic, Balkan and others) from the mid-third century on; but, with the general decline of the Latinate population of the West, the “barbarians” slowly began to displace the older peoples of the Roman West, often simply through migration, settlement and partial assimilation. “Barbarians” began to occupy agricultural regions left fallow by rural demographic attrition, and swelled the ranks of the imperial military assuming positions even of command arid, ultimately, of aristocratic privilege.

This is not to say that the rise of the new Germanic powers of the West did not entail great bloodshed and destruction. The Goths, Vandals, Alemanni, Burgundians, Gepidae, Franks and so forth were all warrior peoples, with strongly defined codes of honor, and no great aversion to the perils of battle. Moreover, from the middle of the fourth century onwards, the economic weakness of many Western cities and the decay of Western agriculture went hand in hand with a general decline of military defenses, which left the old Western empire ripe for spoliation.

At the beginning of the fifth century it was the semi-Vandal imperial regent Flavius Stilicho (365-408) who was responsible for protecting the Western empire and the city of Rome itself from the depredations of Visigoths and Ostrogoths. In 393, leadership of the Visigoths had been assumed by the dynamic Alaric (c.370-410), formerly an officer in the Roman army: in the East. On becoming chief of the Visigoths, he set out to redress the failure of the imperial treasury to pay his people certain subventions [vocab: Provision of help, aid, or support. An endowment or a subsidy, as that given by a government to an institution for research; a grant of financial aid.] they had been promised; he marched towards Constantinople before being diverted to Greece, where his men plundered many cities. In 397, the Eastern Emperor Arcadius placated Alaric by making him a Roman “master of soldiers”. However, still unsatisfied, Alaric led his army into Italy in 401.

In 402 and again the next year, Stilicho defeated the Goths, and Alaric briefly withdrew. There was in inexhaustible supply of barbarians however. Stilicho repelled the Ostrogoths in 406 and the Gauls in 407; also in 407, he was even obliged to call upon Alaric’s aid. Yet in 408, under suspicion of plotting to seize the imperial throne for his sons, Stilicho was executed, and Roman purists in the government and military massacred the families of Gothic soldiers in the Roman army. Naturally these Goths defected to Alaric and when the emperor Flavius Honorius refused to grant Alaric’s people land and compensation, Alaric led his forces against Rome itself.

He besieged the city in 408 but relented when the Senate offered him tribute. Honorius, however, remained intransigent and the siege was resumed the next year. Again Alaric was paid off and withdrew. In 410 however, weary of the emperor’s continued failure to honor his promises, Alaric again besieged Rome. Allies in the city opened the gates to him and — for the first time in 800 years — Rome was occupied by a foreign invader.

The Visigoths kept control of the city for three days, plundering it of many of its riches but causing little damage and leaving its citizens unmolested. Above all they took care not to touch the city’s churches. For these barbarians were Christians.

dj

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m not sure what you mean in this paragraph, Gabe?

Orthodoxy has suffered a lack of God in their societies from the mechanical age which devasted their communities growth and understanding of the Catholic faith, when their secular powers removed God from the map during this era. I can see why they may have reservations about growth in understanding of the faith, and remain “shell shocked” in Orthodoxy. How they view and “quess” at the result, speaks volumes from the Orthodox opinions and protests, because I have yet to find one Orthodox protest correctly protest a defined doctrine. Their protesting views are contradictory to one another, because they guess at the result, that is not there. Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us…

The mechanical age ushered in Communism, which removed God from their public societies and tried to breach the Catholic Church especially in Orthodoxy’s private devotion to God, which went underground. These societies such as these lacked the growth of faith in God during this period of the mechanical age which removed God.

All the while the Catholic Church’s apostolic doctrines were being challenged because of mans own self enlightenment challenged God’s existence among the human race.

While Orthodoxy entered martyrdom and persecution during the mechanical age and rise of communism, from their beloved martyrs who soiled the ground from communism planted the seed of Christians. During this time the Catholic Church with the assistance of angels followed by signs and wonders from heaven, refuted man’s new doctrine, that God does not intervene among humans. To which the Peter exclaimed the “Immaculate Conception” heaven confirmed with signs and wonders proving God dwells with the human race.

Now that the Marian Pope proclaimed to the face of communism, “do not be afraid, It is OK to believe in God”, followed by signs which tumbled the walls of communism, freed Orthodoxy and when she breathed the fresh air of freedom, finds herself faced with what she misunderstands to be defined and defended apostolic doctrine in understanding, in the free world, for a “changed doctrine”.

That is why Orthodoxy grabs at an end result, leading to confusion of interpretations of what has been defined against heresy, while she suffered persecution underground, the Catholic Church also suffered martyrs and persecution in the battle field. One recent example is the Marian Pope was shot by this beastly mindset.

Thus the Orthodox, from my interactions with them, have yet to correctly understand or protest the correct definitions of Infallibility, Immaculate conception, purgatory, sin, abortion, marriage defended by the Popes and magisterium, and are quick to deny them or protest them with contradictory reasons and false assumptions from which “they” the Orthodox falsely claim what has been defined and clarified from the Popes and magisterium to an unbelieving and denying world, whilst they remained underground.

History repeats itself here, from the early centuries as the West grew in secular powers as the East declined in secular powers, the Eastern secular powers resisted the Orthodox church to be in communion with the Popes who appointing their enemies as Kings and princesses. A defense of the apostolic faith is made against these growing powers from the Popes, while the Orthodox remained in check from their secular powers. Leaving the Popes and magisterium to battle for the Apostolic Catholic faith. So much so at times, that the Eastern emperors refused visas for their patriarchs to leave their dioceses to council with the Western Catholic church.

In summary the schism of interpretation of revealed doctrine is not the only reason upholding this schism. Secular powers and politics plays an important role from its inception and to today. The political world is fearful of a One United world wide Catholic Church from both the East and Western societies. Some consensus think that this would bring Christians together, on the contrary, it will bring brother against brother, son against father. If the world is not understanding the peace between the two, and jump to false conclusions that their non catholic societies will become an endangered species.

Dialogue is important so as to grasp each understanding, view point without the negative assumptions of the result to be clarified and understood correctly. If peace is truly sought without holding to political worldly structures governing them and influencing communities in Orthodoxy politically. Orthodoxy would have no problem recognizing Jesus building his church upon Peter, so long as their political influences understand that the Pope is not a threat to their economies or political structures, and that their subjects and peoples do not have to be subject to the Popes and magisterium only in faith and morals.

Try explaining this to the Orthodox, and they defend their local “autocephalous” church authority as being separated and independent from Peter’s chair, when it is "faith and morals that is at stake here in doctrine and authority, not their economy, culture, church authority over their flock. Again false assumtions aimed at a result.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So as to be identified as SEPERATE FROM ROMAN CATHOLICS.

The real issue [IMO} was not Theological; but political.

God Bless,

Pat

When you say Political do you mean secular politics, or religious? Or both?
I agree with you that political reasons keep the schism active. The schism is serving secular powers. And secular powers continue to have an influence over Orthodoxy.

Some of the arguments in support of the schism appear to be politically motivated, such as “infallibility” and Jurisdiction of the bishops and popes.

The secular powers do not want the Church posing any authority over its people, especially on faith and morals which threaten the western secular powers in their falsely professed freedoms, to kill the unborn laws, same sex marriage for example.

While the Eastern secular powers fear the East and Western Church ever uniting, under one head united world wide in her bishops. The thought of this is too over bearing for their “dictators” who would stand alone and isolated to seek unity with other “dictators” which can lead to false impressions. I won’t express opinions with what will happen to Islam influence.

Just imagine if both East and Western worlds proclaimed to the world "we are united to one head Jesus Christ in his body the Catholic Church in accordance with the scriptures united as one to Peter’s chair in the Popes in communion with the bishops East and West.

Until the world grows out of its “adolescent” stage, and matures enough to handle societies united as one faith, one baptism, in One Lord and does not bear arms against the peace of the Church. Is not a reality that can be seen in the near future, till man grows up.
[/quote]