Rome let Orthodox

[Joseph651]

Did Rome leave the Orthodox around 1054, competely out by 1400?

Is this statement true?

About the 10th Century, the Catholic church officially decided to take illegal authority over all dioceses in the West (by forcing them to adopt an illegally altered Nicene Creed as the key decision in that)–many of them were politically dependent on Rome, so they accepted without too much fuss, as it wasn’t upsetting the Status Quo. When the Anglican church ‘split’ from the Catholic church, what was happening was in reality, a return back to an older model of leadership in the church–a more Biblical and a model more in line with the whole tradition of the church. The Catholic church was wielding political authority as theology, and bad theology at that. When they refused to recognise Anglican orders it was a POLITICAL decision, not a theological one.

Thanks
Joseph

 

[crazzeto]

Nope, it’s not true… Its written from the perspective that Peter had no primacy, but this isn’t true if you study scripture. The split happend because the Roman Empire split, the East abandoned everything in the West, and the Emperor of the East wasn’t about to be held to theological account by “some bishop” in Rome. So he split Christdom, and essentially made him self patriarch of the East.

Oh yes, I know technically the Bishop of Constantinople was the Patriach of the East, but he served at the pleasure of the Emperor. For anyone interested in learning more about this, I would study history, study the ancient Christian writings (found at www.earlychristianwritings.com), and of course, study the bible it’s self. When you fully and accuratly consider all sources, the Roman Catholic Church.

I’ll close with St. Ignatius of Antioch 1st c AD:
Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church

 

[Harpazo]

Nope, it’s not true… Its written from the perspective that Peter had no primacy, but this isn’t true if you study scripture. The split happend because the Roman Empire split, the East abandoned everything in the West, and the Emperor of the East wasn’t about to be held to theological account by “some bishop” in Rome. So he split Christdom, and essentially made him self patriarch of the East.

Oh yes, I know technically the Bishop of Constantinople was the Patriach of the East, but he served at the pleasure of the Emperor. For anyone interested in learning more about this, I would study history, study the ancient Christian writings (found at www.earlychristianwritings.com), and of course, study the bible it’s self. When you fully and accuratly consider all sources, the Roman Catholic Church.

I’ll close with St. Ignatius of Antioch 1st c AD:
Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church

:banghead:

 

[MusicMan]

The history of the Church universal has so much muddle and confusion and perspectives that it’s hard to ascertain what was correct, what was believed, and what was done.

It would be much easier if Pope Benedict, the Coptic/Oriental Orthodox Pope, and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs sat down and agreed that there was a massive mess to clean up and brainstorm strategies to do that. Until then, everyone’s dug their heels in that they’re way is right, they point to historical evidence (which they all have), and refuse to work together.

This is before we even get to the issue of the Reformation and Protestant breakaways.

Suffice it to say, East and West made a mutual break away from each other.

 

[Mickey]

:banghead:

Yeah, I hear ya. I didn’t even have words to respond to that one.

 

[Nine_Two]

We Orthodox believe Rome broke from us, Catholics believe we broke from them.

As for the Anglicans having a more Orthodox organizational structure, it is true, however it was not designed to be like that, rather it came about after the American Revolution with the Anglican (Episcopal) Church in what is now the United States wanting to be able to manage its own affairs. Originally it had a very Roman Catholic organizational structure.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

It would be much easier if Pope Benedict, the Coptic/Oriental Orthodox Pope, and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs sat down and agreed that there was a massive mess to clean up and brainstorm strategies to do that.

In reading your Post, it makes me wonder why you only named Pope Benedict, the Pope of Rome, but not the others you referenced. It makes me think that you don’t know who they are and that perhaps you’ve not read any of their writings or have learned what they teach. Have you looked into any of the issues that separate Rome from them? And what separates the Oriental Churches from them? Do you realize that each of the Oriental Churches are independant of each other and are not “under” the the Coptic Pope?

Pope Shenouda III is the Pope of the Coptic Church. copticpope.org/index.php

Patriarch of Constantinople is His All Holiness, Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch ec-patr.org/athp/index.php?lang=en

Pope Theodoros II is the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all of Africa patriarchateofalexandria.com/

Patriarch of Antioch is His All Holiness, Ignatius IV (Hazim) antiochpat.org/

Patriarch of Jerusalem is His All Holiness, Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III jerusalem-patriarchate.info/

Patriarch of Moscow is His Holiness Kirill mospat.ru/en/the_patriarch/

Patriarch of Serbia is His Holiness Pavle (Stojcevic)

Patriarch of Romania is His Beatitude Daniel patriarhia.ro/en/patriarch/

Patriarch of Bulgaria is His Holiness Maxim bg-patriarshia.bg/photos.php

Patriarch of Georgia is His Holiness Ilia II

But, shouldn’t the leaders of the other Oriental Churches be a part of this meeting you propose also? What about the leaders of the rest of the Orthodox Churches which are independent, but not large enough to be have a Patriarch - like the Churches of Greece, Albania, Poland, Czech-Slovakia, Finland and Estonia?

I think that you have an idea that all the Churches are not independent of each other, but they are and always have been - since the beginning - each are united in the Faith and Liturgy, except the Oriental Churches which separated themselves when they began believing that Christ has only 1 Nature, not 2 Natures and except the Catholic Church since they began believing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (& the Father). All the other Churches, although independent of each other have continued to teach the same Faith and continued to celebrate the same Liturgy since the beginning.

 

[ralphinal]

Question for everyone: is it fair to say that all of the Eastern Churches use the same liturgy that was used since day 1? I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that there have been changes in the liturgy long ago

 

[Nine_Two]

Question for everyone: is it fair to say that all of the Eastern Churches use the same liturgy that was used since day 1? I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that there have been changes in the liturgy long ago

Not at all. One of the more common Liturgies used in the East is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, a liturgy which dates to its namesake.

However as far as I am aware all the liturgies are adaptations of earlier liturgies.

edit: The not at all is in response to your first statement, your second statement that there have been changes is something I would agree with.

 

[Mickey]

Question for everyone: is it fair to say that all of the Eastern Churches use the same liturgy that was used since day 1? I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that there have been changes in the liturgy long ago

• The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (5th century A.D.), used on most days of the year, and occasionally as a vesperal liturgy on the Annunciation.
• The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great (4th century A.D.), used on the 5 Sundays of Great Lent, and on Saint Basil’s feast day (January 1). On the eves of the Nativity and Theophany, and on Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday, it is celebrated as a vesperal liturgy in most cases. In some traditions, Saint Basil’s Liturgy is also celebrated on the Exaltation of the Life-giving Cross on September 14. All together, St. Basil’s liturgy is celebrated 10 or 11 days out of the liturgical year.
• The Divine Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem (1st century A.D.), celebrated once a year in Jerusalem (and a few other churches) on the feast day of St. James, brother of the Lord. This Liturgy is traditionally attributed to St. James, the Brother of the Lord, and first bishop of Jerusalem. The Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great are related to this early Christian Liturgy.

From Wikipedia

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

• The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (5th century A.D.), used on most days of the year, and occasionally as a vesperal liturgy on the Annunciation.
• The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great (4th century A.D.), used on the 5 Sundays of Great Lent, and on Saint Basil’s feast day (January 1). On the eves of the Nativity and Theophany, and on Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday, it is celebrated as a vesperal liturgy in most cases. In some traditions, Saint Basil’s Liturgy is also celebrated on the Exaltation of the Life-giving Cross on September 14. All together, St. Basil’s liturgy is celebrated 10 or 11 days out of the liturgical year.
• The Divine Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem (1st century A.D.), celebrated once a year in Jerusalem (and a few other churches) on the feast day of St. James, brother of the Lord. This Liturgy is traditionally attributed to St. James, the Brother of the Lord, and first bishop of Jerusalem. The Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great are related to this early Christian Liturgy.

From Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a good source to use for anything let alone Church issues.

 

[Mickey]

Wikipedia is not a good source to use for anything let alone Church issues.

I believe they are fairly accurate here.

Do you see any glaring mistakes?

 

[Joseph651]

Thanks, all for you answers;

Though I am a little mystified as to an answer. How many Eastern Churches have aligned them self with the CC? If we believe in the apostolic secession starting from the See of Peter, how does so many churches make the same statement, and is there an answer of who is following Jesus meaning of build MY church?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Question for everyone: is it fair to say that all of the Eastern Churches use the same liturgy that was used since day 1? I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that there have been changes in the liturgy long ago

The Orthodox Churches continue to use 3 Divine Liturgies:

the Liturgy of St. James - originated by St. James the Apostle at the beginning of the Church - this is used on his feast day - which was just last Friday - it’s long. It’s been too long since I’ve attend the Feast Day of St. James since I’m always working when it’s celebrated so I don’t recall exactly how long it is.

the Liturgy of St. Basil - originated by St. Basil in the 300’s - this is used during the Lenten times of the Church year - St. James’ DL, but shortened a bit. It’s about 2 + hours long.

the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom - originated by St. John Chrysostom in the early 400’s - this is used the majority of the time - St. James’ DL/St. Basil’s DL, but shortened a bit more. It’s about 1 1/2 to 2 hours long depending on the length of the Sermon.

The only thing that has changed in them since they were first created is that now people travel not only by land and sea, but also by air - so when we pray for those who travel, we include those who travel by air (space).

 

[SingleMomMonica]

If we believe in the apostolic secession starting from the See of Peter

This is a faulty assumption.

 

[John_Larocque]

You have forgotten that Rome threw a huge fit when Constantinople was named the second See after Rome. Its views were that the three traditional Petrine sees, with Rome at the top, came first, followed by Jerusalem. Peter must come first. There was also an extraordinary exchange of words when the Patriarch of Byzantium was named Ecumenical Patriarch, with Pope Gregory defending both the concept of the primacy (of importance) of the three Petrine sees, and attacking the concept of a universal bishop (his misunderstanding that the position was one of universal jurisdiction).

Of course, in the Cyprianic view, all the bishops of the church possess apostolic succession and can claim to hold the Chair of Peter. HOWEVER, I have seen misuse of the Cyprianic view by the Anglicans, who seem to think that the episcopal unity of the church is strictly temporal or Church-in-time. Cardinal Kaspar reminded them several times, in blunt language, that they were breaking with the unity of their apostolic/episcopal predecessors by embracing female priests. Episcopal unity also encompasses unity with the Universal church - past, present (and future). Doctrinal questions aren’t just something that you toss onto a local synodal vote.

 

[Hesychios]

Wikipedia is not a good source to use for anything let alone Church issues.

As a final word on anything, no, Wiki cannot be authoritative. But at least knowledgeable people do have (name removed by moderator)ut and it is a handy source of quick info. If an article is properly footnoted one can check the sources oneself.

There is a 'peer review" type of method built in, and if someone disagrees with a statement it can be noted.

I find it particularly good for info on technology, science in general and economic/commercial information. It is problematic in areas like religion where the “facts” are actually difficult to prove and every issue is emotionally charged.

I find it much more reliable than the typical post on CAF, and the articles are more balanced and accurate overall than CAF articles.

 

[Hesychios]

Question for everyone: is it fair to say that all of the Eastern Churches use the same liturgy that was used since day 1? I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that there have been changes in the liturgy long ago

It is fair to say the no one anywhere uses the same liturgy that was used since day 1.

 

[Hesychios]

Did Rome leave the Orthodox around 1054, competely out by 1400?

Is this statement true?

About the 10th Century, the Catholic church officially decided to take illegal authority over all dioceses in the West (by forcing them to adopt an illegally altered Nicene Creed as the key decision in that)–many of them were politically dependent on Rome, so they accepted without too much fuss, as it wasn’t upsetting the Status Quo. When the Anglican church ‘split’ from the Catholic church, what was happening was in reality, a return back to an older model of leadership in the church–a more Biblical and a model more in line with the whole tradition of the church. The Catholic church was wielding political authority as theology, and bad theology at that. When they refused to recognise Anglican orders it was a POLITICAL decision, not a theological one.

The statement is couched in polemical terms and requires unpacking.

Nothing about the history of the church in the West can be condensed into one paragraph and be accurate. Nor can a response be so condensed.

But I do see some things worth discussing here.

#1 Rome left Holy Orthodoxy. How and when is a subject for discussion.

If one accepts the date of 1054AD one has to recognize the fact that it was not a Pope, but a Cardinal who started the schism. The See of Rome was vacant. Some have argued that the Bull of excommunication was not valid because of this.

Nevertheless, the Popes had not been commemorated in the dyptichs of the eastern Patriarchs for several decades by then, because the Papacy had been tricked, or coerced into using the Nicene Creed in the Mass at Rome (a practice which actually originated in the east) with the filioque interpolation included. Had they used the standard text the churches of the east would have had no problem with the change.

In any case, the churches were still in communion at this point, the removal of the Pope from the dyptichs was an admonition to make the correction.

To be fair, by 1054AD the western church was going through a needed major reform in reaction to the corrupt influence of princes and kings over the local churches (western churchmen were challenging royal power everywhere at this time). To accomplish this they were arguing for a much stronger Papacy.

This type of change in the Papacy would be difficult if not impossible to achieve without the consent and cooperation of the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Patriarchs. The Eastern churches were very traditional and conservative, disliking any sort of change, however minor. There was bound to be conflict. Had a Council met at this time to discuss the proposed changes, the east would have represented a huge voting bloc in opposition, and the measure would have surely failed.

One could put enormous amounts of energy into convincing the eastern churches, or one could break off and move on without them.

#2 The authority of the Metropolitan See at Rome changed over time, and was not uniform in it’s power over the entire west untill nearly modern times. Historically (before Henry VIII, but after St Gregory Dialogos sent the missions of Saint Augustine to Britain), Rome had more real authority over the English church than over the churches of France and Spain.

It did not have anything like the authority over those churches that it exercises today.

It is true that the western church originated as several synods, it even had several different liturgical rites. The governance of the church was regional, and bishops were elected locally by the synod or the diocese.

That mode of governing the church has been buried in the west for a long time, there are only hints of it now.

I do not think that arguing for Anglican independence on this basis is a strong one, because the monarchy of England separated the church for it’s own reasons, not as a reform or return to something more correct.

By separating itself in the way it did, it had no sister churches with which it sought to maintain communion through common faith, as is traditional. It was out there on it’s own, free to reformulate it’s theology, subjecting itself to outside and novel influences.

In other words, this became too much an exercise of the English people doing their own thing, their own way, for their own reasons… not the English people striving to maintain communion with the wider world under God through common faith.

The Anglican communion which derived from that was a string of clones of the first church. They did not fear teaching differently than their brethren, they each did not fear being expelled or cut off over their faith, as churches in the first millenium did. For them, sharing communion was no longer based upon a common inherited Apostolic faith, it was based upon something very superficial.

" When they refused to recognise Anglican orders it was a POLITICAL decision, not a theological one." I don’t know about this.

I may agree or disagree with the theology behind Apostolicae Curae, but I will not speculate upon the motives behind it.

 

[Hesychios]

Did Rome leave the Orthodox around 1054, competely out by 1400?

Is this statement true?

About the 10th Century, the Catholic church officially decided to take illegal authority over all dioceses in the West (by forcing them to adopt an illegally altered Nicene Creed as the key decision in that)–many of them were politically dependent on Rome, so they accepted without too much fuss, as it wasn’t upsetting the Status Quo. When the Anglican church ‘split’ from the Catholic church, what was happening was in reality, a return back to an older model of leadership in the church–a more Biblical and a model more in line with the whole tradition of the church. The Catholic church was wielding political authority as theology, and bad theology at that. When they refused to recognise Anglican orders it was a POLITICAL decision, not a theological one.

The statement is couched in polemical terms and requires unpacking.

Nothing about the history of the church in the West can be condensed into one paragraph and be accurate. Nor can a response be so condensed.

But I do see some things worth discussing here.

#1 Rome left Holy Orthodoxy. How and when is a subject for discussion.

If one accepts the date of 1054AD one has to recognize the fact that it was not a Pope, but a Cardinal who started the schism. The See of Rome was vacant. Some have argued that the Bull of excommunication was not valid because of this.

Nevertheless, the Popes had not been commemorated in the dyptichs of the eastern Patriarchs for several decades by then, because the Papacy had been convinced, or coerced into using the Nicene Creed in the Mass at Rome (a practice which actually originated in the east) with the filioque interpolation included. Prior to this the Creed was not recited in Mass at Rome. Had they used the standard text the churches of the east would have had no problem with the change.

In any case, the churches were still in communion at this point, the removal of the Pope from the dyptichs was an admonition to make the correction.

To be fair, by 1054AD the western church was going through a needed major reform in reaction to the corrupt influence of princes and kings over the local churches (western churchmen were challenging royal power everywhere at this time). To accomplish this they were arguing for a much stronger Papacy.

This type of change in the Papacy would be difficult if not impossible to achieve without the consent and cooperation of the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Patriarchs. The Eastern churches were very traditional and conservative, disliking any sort of change, however minor. There was bound to be conflict. Had a Council met at this time to discuss the proposed changes to the Papacy, the east would have represented a huge voting bloc probably in opposition, and the measure would have surely failed.

One could put enormous amounts of energy into convincing the eastern churches, failing that one could break off and move on without them.

#2 The authority of the Metropolitan See at Rome changed over time, and was not uniform in it’s power over the entire west untill nearly modern times. Historically (after St Gregory Dialogos sent the missions of Saint Augustine to Britain), Rome had more real authority over the English church than over the churches of France and Spain.

The See at Rome did not have anything like the authority over those churches then that it exercises today.

It is true that the western church originated as several synods, it even had several different liturgical rites. The governance of the church was regional, and bishops were elected locally by the synod or the diocese.

That mode of governing the church has been buried in the west for a long time, there are only hints of it now.

I do not think that arguing for Anglican independence on this basis is a strong one, because the monarchy of England separated the church for it’s own reasons, not as a reform or return to something more correct.

By separating itself in the way it did, it had no sister churches with which it sought to maintain communion through common faith, as is traditional. It was out there on it’s own, free to reformulate it’s theology, subjecting itself to outside and novel influences.

In other words, this became too much an exercise of the English people doing their own thing, their own way, for their own reasons… not the English people striving to maintain communion with the wider world under God through common faith.

The Anglican communion which derived from that was a string of clones of the first church. They did not fear teaching differently than their brethren, they each did not fear being expelled or cut off over their faith, as churches in the first millenium did. For them, sharing communion was no longer based upon a common inherited Apostolic faith, it was based upon something very superficial.

" When they refused to recognise Anglican orders it was a POLITICAL decision, not a theological one." I don’t know about this.

I may agree or disagree with the theology behind Apostolicae Curae, but I will not speculate upon the motives behind it.