RC Split from Orthodox

[AlNg]

As St. Augustine said, “Rome has spoken, case is closed”

Where did St. Augustine ever say this?

 

[Hodos]

I agree, maybe more than most.
I believe that the main point of division between Rome and Lutheranism is ecclesiology, not soteriology.
If Rome and Orthodoxy reconciled, I would see it as an undeniable call to unity for the entire Church.

I would differ on the soteriology part, I think there are important differences that cause significant issues in doctrine and liturgical practice that are core gospel issues. But I would agree that if disagreement along the issue of ecclesiology were rectified, that would go a long way toward removing one of the major barriers to unity. The way I see it, I don’t have an issue with the episcopal polity of the RCC. It is the claims to papal infallibility that create a hard dividing line in the sand.

 

[GKMotley]

If Rome and Orthodoxy reconciled, I would see it as an undeniable call to unity for the entire Church.

My late rector (11 years late, now) often said the same. I’ve heard other Anglican clergy do so.

 

[dochawk]

I think you’re assuming your premise; i.e. that the RCC split from the Orthodox.

well, fair’s fair–RC say this about the EO on a regular basis!

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Where did St. Augustine ever say this?

What Is the Origin of the Statement "Rome Has Spoken, the Matter Is Finished?" | Catholic Answers Q&A

But above it has been stated that:

Augustine never said that, actually. Trent Horn covers that here –it’s kinda midway through the document though, it starts with the paragraph that begins with “But I cover one of these because sometimes we will quote the fathers.”

Thanks for correction

Though point kind of still stands. There is nice article about this.

 

[mcq72]

“thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. … whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

To which the apostles responded by bickering who would be the greatest several times after this.

Your text would not be used till third century to bolster the bishop of Rome.

 

[mcq72]

Rome and Italy remain standing as majority Christian. Constantinople fell and Turkey is majority Muslim. Is that by chance?

I that like saying East Berlin should be questioned as to legitimacy or rightness because it fell into the wrong hands after the war…pure geography isn’t it ?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Both Italy and Spain were invaded by muslims, though. Rome was closer to Islam for a significant period of time than Constantinople, meaning the point of “Orthodox territory was lost to Islam” isn’t just something that happened and would have no matter what.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Both Italy and Spain were invaded by muslims, though.

Yes but they didn’t stay that way. Christianity was not defeated. On the contrary, with the industrial revolution, the European powers practically took over the world. I believe western civilization will never be taken over by Islam.

 

[mcq72]

Yes but they didn’t stay that way.

Spain only for 700 years.

I would also add geography helped France the most, then Spain and Italy, from which to thwart, expel Muslim invasion/ influence with a nice barrier( water), whereas the East (Constantinople), not so much,and being closer to the heart of Islamic origin and territory.

 

[BlueKumul]

The territorial principle of Orthodoxy looks too much like tribalism.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think it’s intended that way. The Russian branch of the EO claims jurisdiction over the Philippines. Ethnically and linguistically, it’s hard to imagine “tribes” more diverse than Russians and Filipinos. The claim is based on the belief that some Russian Orthodox did missionary work in China centuries ago and thus added the entire Far East to the Moscow Patriarchate.

But nevertheless, it does work out that way in practical terms, since almost nobody embraces the Moscow Patriarchate other than Russians. Interestingly, back in the early Middle Ages, the Catholic Church had marriage rules so strict forbidding marriage within even remotely near relations that it was nearly impossible to marry within one’s own tribe. At the time, Europe was intensely tribal even within broad ethnic groups. The Church has relaxed the rules since, but the idea was to break up tribalism, forcing tribes to intermarry with other tribes.

That is a very big difference still between the churches. The Catholic Church claims the ability to be anywhere in the world, excluding no others. Orthodoxy claims exclusivity on a territorial basis.

 

[johnnykins]

An interesting side note on the Schism is that the Council of Florence was accepted by the Orthodox Bishop Council Fathers resolving the dispute - admittedly not unanimous as Mark of Ephesus rejected it, but all the others including Scholarius did. It was then later rejected by the Orthodox claiming the “people” rejected it (never before a requirement)…of course Scholarius also later accepted appointment to the Chair of Andrew by the Turks for after-the-fact rejecting Florence.

The Orthodox argue that their bishops were forced into accepting Florence, but if so, why resort to the argument that the people rejected it? It would have worked as well to simply say the bishops were forced into acceptance and have them reject it after they left. The Scholarius scandal, they never quite seem to even acknowledge…

All of which is to say, it was politics and power, not theology, at the heart of the split. Theology was the pretext. Since then, politics and power have moved along and other issues introduced into the melange. It took 1000 years for east and west to split…it’s not unreasonable to assume it’ll require that long to mend the split.

BTW I’m surprised no one has mentioned the Council of Ephesus…the argument there is the prohibition on changes to the Symbol. The response is that the council Fathers accepted other Symbols after the prohibition was adopted - meaning the prohibition was not on other Symbols (which if pushed would mean only Greek language), but on contrary Symbols. Catholics have long interpreted “and the Son” as meaning the same as “through the Son” which had even then a long accepted history, east and west…The interpolation thus not being prohibited…The dispute can go on and on and on…

 

[nicholasG]

nobody embraces the Moscow Patriarchate other than Russians.

Interesting. Do know if the Russian Orthodox Churches in the USA feel the same way?

 

[johnnykins]

Russian Patriarchal churches “embraces” the Moscow Patriarch. OCA does not.

 

[nicholasG]

Thank you.

 

[johnnykins]

There is probably a more reliable source, but see what Wiki lists

Russian Orthodox Patriarchal Parishes in the USA - Wikipedia

 

[johnnykins]

ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) re-united with Patriarch 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - Wikipedia

 

[ziapueblo]

The territorial principle of Orthodoxy looks too much like tribalism.

I attend a Greek Orthodox Church in which about a third of the parishioners are actually Greek.

ZP

 

[twf]

Ethnic tribalism can be a big problem in Orthodoxy, I think. The Catholic Church has had plenty of tribalism too at various in its history as well.

I have relatives who are Protestant converts to Orthodoxy (I’m a Protestant convert to Catholicism). Their OCA parish is all English, pastored by a Pentecostal convert, and i get the feeling it must have at least as many converts as ethnic Orthodox. They also use the Gregorian calendar to align major feasts such as Christmas (or the Dormition this Saturday!) with us Western Christians. Apparently some of the old school ethnic Orthodox in the city put up a big stink when the parish opened. God responded by making myrrh pour from the principal icon of the Theotokos after the temple was consecrated.