W
Wesley7
Guest
If the ancient primitive Church calls herself Catholic why did the other Orthodox Church change it to be named the “Orthodox Church” ? . . .
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Catholic refers to the Church
Orthodox refers to the faith
That is why Catholics are orthodox, and the Orthodox are catholic.
L
Little_One0307
Guest
Hi,
The word “orthodox” was originally used to distinguish those Churches that accepted the Council of Chalcedon and its rulings from the heretics who rejected it. After the schism of 1054, which resulted from the age-old differences between the Greek Church and the Holy See, the term was used to distinguish those same Eastern Churches from Rome. The Orthodox Eastern Church was formed of a group of these Churches, united more or less under the patriarchate of Constantinople. [The Byzantine Greeks in Italy and the Maronites of Syria retained communion with Rome.]
The word “orthodox” was originally used to distinguish those Churches that accepted the Council of Chalcedon and its rulings from the heretics who rejected it. After the schism of 1054, which resulted from the age-old differences between the Greek Church and the Holy See, the term was used to distinguish those same Eastern Churches from Rome. The Orthodox Eastern Church was formed of a group of these Churches, united more or less under the patriarchate of Constantinople. [The Byzantine Greeks in Italy and the Maronites of Syria retained communion with Rome.]
- Taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia
E
Elizium23
Guest
The Orthodox Church frequently refers to itself as the Orthodox Catholic Church. “Catholic” means ‘universal’ and it is in the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, which are shared verbatim by Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants.
E
Esdra
Guest
Although most Protestants use “Christian Church” in the Apostle’s Creed instead of “Catholic Church”.
In fact here in Austria I’ve only heard “Christian Church” in the Lutheran Church, the (Swiss)-Reformed Church and the Austrian Baptist Church.
W
WetCatechumen
Guest
It was a buzzword that became popular. We used to use it a lot in the West but for some reason we used “Catholic” more often. The Armenians used Apostolic as their buzzword.
But yes, it’s amusing that we call ourselves the Catholic Church and they don’t.
But yes, it’s amusing that we call ourselves the Catholic Church and they don’t.
W
Wesley7
Guest
I understand now, I was a bit confused because of the complexity of the Great Schism.
There are certain Orthodox who say they are different from the Catholics.
What exactly could they mean? . .
B
Bluegoat
Guest
That is not generally true. Most Lutherans worldwide I believe use catholic, as do Anglicans, Methodists, I think Presbyterians, and probably others as well.Although most Protestants use “Christian Church” in the Apostle’s Creed instead of “Catholic Church”.
In fact here in Austria I’ve only heard “Christian Church” in the Lutheran Church, the (Swiss)-Reformed Church and the Austrian Baptist Church.
R
Rawb
Guest
We use this quote a lot:
“The Orthodox Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is orthodox, but not Jewish. It is catholic, but not Roman. It isn’t non-denominational - it is pre-denominational. It has believed, taught, preserved, defended, and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost 2000 years ago.”
We believe differently than the Roman Catholics on a lot of things. They’ve been better listed in other threads.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
When you break each difference down, which I can only count one, it all comes down to “authority”, not a different Jesus or different sacrament or a different Church. Pride of men maintains this small tear, the Popes and the rest of the Catholic World bishops in communion with the popes are striving with humility and patience for the few Orthodox who refuse communion with the popes and bishops till cooler heads prevail.
If you ask the authority question to each of their so called differences, the answer will always come out the same, pride protesting authority.
Peace be with you
R
Rawb
Guest
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.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Papal Infallibility** THIS IS A PROBLEM**
Papal Universal JurisdictionTHIS IS A PROBLEM
Immaculate Conception** this isn’t a biggie at all**
Original Sin not a big woop
Scholasticism not a big deal
Substitutionary Atonement not a big deal
Distinguishing between Mortal and Venial Sin not a big woop either
The Filioque not ideal for Orthodox but they put up with it
Of all these, the Orthodox East put up with the West believing in these things. As long as the filioque wasn’t forced on the East, they pinched their noses from all I’ve read. While everyone claims Anselm invented substitutionary atonement, Augustine taught a form of it pretty overtly. Augustine also had a differing view on Original Sin and it didn’t cause a major stink in the East. The Immaculate Conception isn’t a big deal, never was. Bottom line: papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction is the problem that would be a deal-breaking friendship-buster IMO.
My problem with what you say below is that I don’t see the Orthodox making ANY attempt at reconciliation. They seem content to see their Western brothers stay separated and I think that is sad and unfortunate. If Orthodoxy does possess the entirety of truth, a notion I still find a touch dubious and it still raises an eyebrow for me, they have a duty as bearers of the truth to “enlighten” the West and work towards reconciliation. It seems the East has a “you guys come to us” approach with a shoulder-shrug. I also think, when you mention “attitude,” that it seems I detect a triumphalist tone in some Orthodox posts in which there can be a smugness or a looking down on Catholics. When I look back at the early days of the Church, I think if the East was truly catholic “small c” and had the big tent and comprehensive totality they claim to have, I always wonder why men of the West like Augustine or Ambrose or some of the great Popes were somewhat marginalized? I say this and usually hear “well we Orthodox value Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, etc. We don’t hate Augustine, just never took him in much because he was in the West” and I think that shows there was a disfunction on both sides if the East overlooked such a brilliant and holy, lucid mind as Augustine. I think the fact that Augustine is so absent from Eastern thinking is a turnoff for me. I find Augustine brilliant. Ambrose as well, Cyprian, Jerome, etc. I think there is an attitude on both sides and it can be quite distasteful. To enjoy a type of ‘exclusivity’ and feeling of “I have the truth, you don’t” with a grin bothers me. and I’ve seen it on both sides.
Papal Universal JurisdictionTHIS IS A PROBLEM
Immaculate Conception** this isn’t a biggie at all**
Original Sin not a big woop
Scholasticism not a big deal
Substitutionary Atonement not a big deal
Distinguishing between Mortal and Venial Sin not a big woop either
The Filioque not ideal for Orthodox but they put up with it
Of all these, the Orthodox East put up with the West believing in these things. As long as the filioque wasn’t forced on the East, they pinched their noses from all I’ve read. While everyone claims Anselm invented substitutionary atonement, Augustine taught a form of it pretty overtly. Augustine also had a differing view on Original Sin and it didn’t cause a major stink in the East. The Immaculate Conception isn’t a big deal, never was. Bottom line: papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction is the problem that would be a deal-breaking friendship-buster IMO.
My problem with what you say below is that I don’t see the Orthodox making ANY attempt at reconciliation. They seem content to see their Western brothers stay separated and I think that is sad and unfortunate. If Orthodoxy does possess the entirety of truth, a notion I still find a touch dubious and it still raises an eyebrow for me, they have a duty as bearers of the truth to “enlighten” the West and work towards reconciliation. It seems the East has a “you guys come to us” approach with a shoulder-shrug. I also think, when you mention “attitude,” that it seems I detect a triumphalist tone in some Orthodox posts in which there can be a smugness or a looking down on Catholics. When I look back at the early days of the Church, I think if the East was truly catholic “small c” and had the big tent and comprehensive totality they claim to have, I always wonder why men of the West like Augustine or Ambrose or some of the great Popes were somewhat marginalized? I say this and usually hear “well we Orthodox value Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, etc. We don’t hate Augustine, just never took him in much because he was in the West” and I think that shows there was a disfunction on both sides if the East overlooked such a brilliant and holy, lucid mind as Augustine. I think the fact that Augustine is so absent from Eastern thinking is a turnoff for me. I find Augustine brilliant. Ambrose as well, Cyprian, Jerome, etc. I think there is an attitude on both sides and it can be quite distasteful. To enjoy a type of ‘exclusivity’ and feeling of “I have the truth, you don’t” with a grin bothers me. and I’ve seen it on both sides.
R
Rawb
Guest
Scott, at one time there may have been more acceptance between the churches on some of those issues. At this point in history, however, it is no longer the case. These things were in their infancy in the West. Honestly, had the Schism never happened, some of them may have been accepted in all areas.
Unfortunately that’s no longer the case. Take Mortal/Venial sin for example. That is a huge core of Catholic teaching and practice now. One cannot receive Communion in Catholicism if they’ve committed a Mortal sin, but can if they’ve committed a venial sin. In Orthodoxy this isn’t the case. One would work out, with their Spiritual Father, whether one should abstain from receiving. We think it’s a mistake to enforce a “one size fits all” leveling to all sins. The entire concept doesn’t work within an Orthodox framework, and we’re not willing to say “it’s two ways of looking at the same thing”. If that’s the case why not just explain in one way? Added to the fact that we don’t see it as being “two ways” but “two different things”. Our churches are rife with these sort of incongruities, and while they may not be a big issue for you, they are when we take in that this is the faith of the entire church. Original Sin can be seen in this same way. Scholasticism is HUGE in this way - we don’t just see it as a different means of approaching theology but as harmful. It’s actually bad. Some have called it heretical, and it pervades all of Catholicism. That’s fine if Catholics want to believe that way, but we’ll have nothing to do with it, and when Catholics say “it’s not a big issue” all we can do is roll our eyes in exasperation.
You’re right. Right now the Orthodox aren’t really concerned with reconciliation. We would say that your church needs to work out it’s own issues before we come together and tackle all the issues that would arise from reunion. Maybe not theological issues, but certainly the issues of practice, of prime example being those Masses that one can see on youtube. You are right in saying they’re rare, but they aught to be so rare that they’re non-existent, and for all the claims that they’re rare, they seem to be anything but. Regulations about sacred architecture must be re-established, and some churches completely re-done.
*These are not side issues. These are of core importance. These are The Faith. *
The Attitude comments are never supposed to be triumphalistic, and I assure you were we speaking face to face my tone would help convey that. I’m sorry if it comes across that way, truly, I don’t mean it to.
Unfortunately that’s no longer the case. Take Mortal/Venial sin for example. That is a huge core of Catholic teaching and practice now. One cannot receive Communion in Catholicism if they’ve committed a Mortal sin, but can if they’ve committed a venial sin. In Orthodoxy this isn’t the case. One would work out, with their Spiritual Father, whether one should abstain from receiving. We think it’s a mistake to enforce a “one size fits all” leveling to all sins. The entire concept doesn’t work within an Orthodox framework, and we’re not willing to say “it’s two ways of looking at the same thing”. If that’s the case why not just explain in one way? Added to the fact that we don’t see it as being “two ways” but “two different things”. Our churches are rife with these sort of incongruities, and while they may not be a big issue for you, they are when we take in that this is the faith of the entire church. Original Sin can be seen in this same way. Scholasticism is HUGE in this way - we don’t just see it as a different means of approaching theology but as harmful. It’s actually bad. Some have called it heretical, and it pervades all of Catholicism. That’s fine if Catholics want to believe that way, but we’ll have nothing to do with it, and when Catholics say “it’s not a big issue” all we can do is roll our eyes in exasperation.
You’re right. Right now the Orthodox aren’t really concerned with reconciliation. We would say that your church needs to work out it’s own issues before we come together and tackle all the issues that would arise from reunion. Maybe not theological issues, but certainly the issues of practice, of prime example being those Masses that one can see on youtube. You are right in saying they’re rare, but they aught to be so rare that they’re non-existent, and for all the claims that they’re rare, they seem to be anything but. Regulations about sacred architecture must be re-established, and some churches completely re-done.
*These are not side issues. These are of core importance. These are The Faith. *
The Attitude comments are never supposed to be triumphalistic, and I assure you were we speaking face to face my tone would help convey that. I’m sorry if it comes across that way, truly, I don’t mean it to.
H
Hesychios
Guest
In fact, the Orthodox churches are Catholic, and think of themselves as Catholic (always have), and it usually can be seen in the official name of the churches.
In the mostly Protestant north America the only Catholics most Americans were familiar with were the ones they broke with, the Roman Catholics. So perhaps for that reason that moniker stuck in the public’s consciousness.
Then too, many Roman Catholics are fond of claiming that anyone not under the Pope cannot be a real Catholic, so Catholics and Protestants alike will usually not refer to Orthodox as Catholics, but this is not a decision Orthodox have made. Orthodox Catholics don’t really care what those outside the church think on this point, it is basically irrelevant.
The use of ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Catholic’ for our respective churches has become something of a convention, we all go along whether we like it or not. It’s a necessity here at CAF, because otherwise there could be confusion.
Orthodox (meaning ‘correct understanding’, or ‘right belief’) are the pre-schism eastern catholic churches, complete with patriarchs and metropolitans and synods in succession from the beginning days of the church. Orthodox remain eastern Catholics today, although they are not generally thought of this way by Roman Catholics. Orthodox believe the same things, worship the same basic way and (for better or worse) govern themselves according to the same ancient canons.
For reference the governing canons of the ‘Orthodox’ eastern Catholic churches can be found here …
Likewise the governing Canons of the Roman Catholic church can be found here … and here …
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
The Orthodox Churches from 1054 on became more nationalistic than anything else.
The divisions between Catholic and Orthodox fundamentally lie in the differences between the emphasis on the legalistic/rationalistic/philosophic(Romanized) theology and Faith of the West and the Eastern Orthodox’s emphasis on the Mysteries of the Faith.
The West sought to explain the Faith through philosophy and reason. The East kept saying essentially “who cares, its a mystery, just leave it alone.” The split began way before any of the objections cited by Rawb. In fact it began over the Easter controversy, followed by the West’s vernacular change in the Liturgy from Greek to Latin.
So the Orthodox insists that the Catholic Church’s developments are heterodox. Not that they actually are, but they just don’t trust any attempt to logically explore that which they deem unexplorable.
But the Orthodox Churches have legitimate Apostolic Succession. Their sacraments and their orders are entirely valid. I continue to pray for reconciliation.
But I’ve seen in history, over and over again, how the East not only welcomed but fostered heresy. From Pelagianism and Arianism, Motanism and Donatism.
Even as corrupt as the handful of Reinassance Popes were; they never taught, nor allowed others to teach, error in Faith or Morals.
I have great respect for the Orthodox Churches. But I believe that in their schism they got it wrong.
The divisions between Catholic and Orthodox fundamentally lie in the differences between the emphasis on the legalistic/rationalistic/philosophic(Romanized) theology and Faith of the West and the Eastern Orthodox’s emphasis on the Mysteries of the Faith.
The West sought to explain the Faith through philosophy and reason. The East kept saying essentially “who cares, its a mystery, just leave it alone.” The split began way before any of the objections cited by Rawb. In fact it began over the Easter controversy, followed by the West’s vernacular change in the Liturgy from Greek to Latin.
So the Orthodox insists that the Catholic Church’s developments are heterodox. Not that they actually are, but they just don’t trust any attempt to logically explore that which they deem unexplorable.
But the Orthodox Churches have legitimate Apostolic Succession. Their sacraments and their orders are entirely valid. I continue to pray for reconciliation.
But I’ve seen in history, over and over again, how the East not only welcomed but fostered heresy. From Pelagianism and Arianism, Motanism and Donatism.
Even as corrupt as the handful of Reinassance Popes were; they never taught, nor allowed others to teach, error in Faith or Morals.
I have great respect for the Orthodox Churches. But I believe that in their schism they got it wrong.
H
Hesychios
Guest
What you seem to not understand is that the Orthodox were the people who fought all those heresies, not the ones who originated them. :doh2:
In the early church most Christians were in the east, and the intellectual ferment was there.
There was a tendency for innovative and imaginative thinkers to arise in the east, and the Orthodox had to deal with them and oppose them. This is the crucible in which the Orthodox churches were tested. The heresies are footnotes in history, and the Orthodox churches are still here.
Orthodoxy survived.
BTW, Pelagianism and Donatism are actually WESTERN heresies, and Arianism was a scourge in the west for far longer than it was in the east.
So, by your examples it would seem that you didn’t make the point you were trying to make … 
That’s ok, we know what you meant.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I didn’t mean YOU are triumphalist, Rob, but I hear a lot of it on both sides. I tried to stress both sides! But I will say that I give Catholics more credit for stressing what we have in common while Orthodox stress more what we don’t share. And that to them may be honesty and some way of evangelizing but in my experience, and I’m only 36 years old, but in teaching I find when dealing with tough kids, teachers, or parents, it’s always more productive to start with common ground and trying to reach out. It’s best to try to see where we can agree to chart a course. I give Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA a lot of credit for coming to the Anglicans and, despite his “tough love” approach, he came to them and didn’t do the typical Orthodox maneuver of “you come to us, we don’t come to you” kind of thing Sadly they didn’t listen to him. I wish they had!
I laughed when you said “your church” to me…
I don’t see scholasticism as a big deal and don’t really feel it’s harmful or destructive really. I think it’s just a different approach. Like I said, the Orthodox fear anything that didn’t crop up in the East and I don’t like that aspect. It’s too nationalistic and tribally sticking with one region. The early Fathers like Augustine and Ambrose, Jerome, Clement, and the gang, Leo I, there were so many great saints that contributed different ideas. Seems narrow-minded to only listen to one region of the Church based on geography.
When it comes to mortal vs. venial sins, I see some semantics but vast similarities. For example, a Catholic male looks at pornography. Sunday is fast approaching and he hungers for the Eucharist and feels sorrow for his sin. He knows it is sinful and harms the relationship with God. Paul tells us not to approach the Sacrament in a state such as this. He is not able to go to confession so he decides to remain in the pew until he can be reconciled. In Orthodoxy, would a man who looked at pornography for a while, committing a serious sin like this, brush it off and say, “bahhh, no biggie, I’m going up for the Eucharist!” Nope. Orthodox know better, too. Call it a mortal sin, call it a barrier to the Eucharist, call it anything, but a real Christian Orthodox or Catholic knows that some sins keep us from a state of worthiness to obtain the Sacrament. Would an Orthodox who stole something, or cheated on a spouse, or scandalized someone or had an abortion or who did something serious just go to Communion? Of course not. He/she’d abstain to get reconciled. I think some Catholic apologists point out that the Orthodox use semantics to try to be different sometimes. In some issues I disagree. In this one, I don’t know that I can disagree? Surely Orthodox know that there are small sins that one doesn’t really think through that aren’t serious enough to keep one from the Sacrament? The NT, John’s epistle I believe, tells us that not all sins are deadly and some are. So the Catholic views on the two types of sin make plenty of sense in “my Church.” I think the Spiritual Guide/Father aspect of a priest is a good one but we can’t be assured that all priests are on the same page about morality and surely some contradict. I appreciate the Catholic desire to look at sin and try to objectively decide if it’s intrinsically evil or not. They have a sincere desire to make Satan squirm. I like that.
Sadly they didn’t listen to him. I wish they had!I laughed when you said “your church” to me
…I don’t see scholasticism as a big deal and don’t really feel it’s harmful or destructive really. I think it’s just a different approach. Like I said, the Orthodox fear anything that didn’t crop up in the East and I don’t like that aspect. It’s too nationalistic and tribally sticking with one region. The early Fathers like Augustine and Ambrose, Jerome, Clement, and the gang, Leo I, there were so many great saints that contributed different ideas. Seems narrow-minded to only listen to one region of the Church based on geography.
When it comes to mortal vs. venial sins, I see some semantics but vast similarities. For example, a Catholic male looks at pornography. Sunday is fast approaching and he hungers for the Eucharist and feels sorrow for his sin. He knows it is sinful and harms the relationship with God. Paul tells us not to approach the Sacrament in a state such as this. He is not able to go to confession so he decides to remain in the pew until he can be reconciled. In Orthodoxy, would a man who looked at pornography for a while, committing a serious sin like this, brush it off and say, “bahhh, no biggie, I’m going up for the Eucharist!” Nope. Orthodox know better, too. Call it a mortal sin, call it a barrier to the Eucharist, call it anything, but a real Christian Orthodox or Catholic knows that some sins keep us from a state of worthiness to obtain the Sacrament. Would an Orthodox who stole something, or cheated on a spouse, or scandalized someone or had an abortion or who did something serious just go to Communion? Of course not. He/she’d abstain to get reconciled. I think some Catholic apologists point out that the Orthodox use semantics to try to be different sometimes. In some issues I disagree. In this one, I don’t know that I can disagree? Surely Orthodox know that there are small sins that one doesn’t really think through that aren’t serious enough to keep one from the Sacrament? The NT, John’s epistle I believe, tells us that not all sins are deadly and some are. So the Catholic views on the two types of sin make plenty of sense in “my Church.”
I think the Spiritual Guide/Father aspect of a priest is a good one but we can’t be assured that all priests are on the same page about morality and surely some contradict. I appreciate the Catholic desire to look at sin and try to objectively decide if it’s intrinsically evil or not. They have a sincere desire to make Satan squirm. I like that.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
“One size fits all” is what protestantism does in rejecting the sacrament of Confession. It’s obviously not “one size fits all” because we, like John in his first epsitle(1 John 5:17) make the distinction between sins that are and are not mortal(or venial). Mprtal sins require the sacrament of Confession before the Eucharist can be received. For venial sins(those everyday faults that show a lack of agape and that wound charity in the person) the penitential rite and the power of Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist are enough to remove them.
I don’t know what you think the Church’s teaching on Original Sin is and why it is such a huge obstacle. I know enough about it to know that it has nothing at odds with the ancient Church’s teaching nor of Paul’s writings in the Bible(namely Romans 6). If you have any questions I’d like to discuss them with you.
Your suspicion of Scholasticism is not shocking. It seems that you and Martin Luther have that in common. That might tell you something.
God created order and reason. So it is logical that we can use reason to come to a certain level of understanding of God and His mysteries.
This is an interesting comment. It seems to ignore that the first Churches in the East were modest homes where the communities gathered to celebrate the agape meal and to Eucharistize before the Sunday morning Liturgy. What’s more important, the architectural structure, or the Faith and Unity of the members of the Body of Christ?
What do you think is more important to God: obedience, or a building?
The theological issues are not important, but the shape and form of a building is an article of the faith and of core importance? I have my issues with some of the designs of some Parish Churches that I’ve seen, but that hardly meets the necessity of schism.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
But in all fairness, you omit the mammoth role of the papacy in fighting heresies. Even Kallistos Ware and Meyendorff, the two main Orthodox guys I’ve read, say as much. Take Arianism, it was the pope who gave poor Athanasius shelter and refuge while he was a hunted man in the East. And with iconoclasm, ironically it was the pope who was the strongest opponent of it to support the East. We can all count where heresies came from. Nestorianism is pretty dang Eastern seeing as how look at which See Nestorius was Patriarch of! Eutyches was a Constantinople don as well with monophosytism. Monothelitism, if memory serves, was more Eastern, from Armenia or thereabouts, but Honorius I was complicit in the scandalous heresy. Docetism was somewhat Eastern in that it was a gnostic problem but it was also in the West. Donatism, Montanism and a host of other heresies are the baggage of the West. Both sides of the spectrum had their own problems but the nice thing was that back in those days there wasn’t the petty nonsense of “us and them” thinking. All bishops, with the pope at the helm, fought this diaoblical tripe together…
Eutyches was a Constantinople don as well with monophosytism. Monothelitism, if memory serves, was more Eastern, from Armenia or thereabouts, but Honorius I was complicit in the scandalous heresy. Docetism was somewhat Eastern in that it was a gnostic problem but it was also in the West. Donatism, Montanism and a host of other heresies are the baggage of the West. Both sides of the spectrum had their own problems but the nice thing was that back in those days there wasn’t the petty nonsense of “us and them” thinking. All bishops, with the pope at the helm, fought this diaoblical tripe together…What you seem to not understand is that the Orthodox were the people who fought all those heresies, not the ones who originated them. :doh2:
In the early church most Christians were in the east, and the intellectual ferment was there.
There was a tendency for innovative and imaginative thinkers to arise in the east, and the Orthodox had to deal with them and oppose them. This is the crucible in which the Orthodox churches were tested. The heresies are footnotes in history, and the Orthodox churches are still here.
Orthodoxy survived.
BTW, Pelagianism and Donatism are actually WESTERN heresies, and Arianism was a scourge in the west for far longer than it was in the east.
That’s ok, we know what you meant.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I do find it curious that the Orthodox and Protestants have such a loathing for scholasticism. The irony, of course, is that many of these ideas of Aristotle, Plato, and company came from GREECE! 
- Status