Rome let Orthodox

[Hesychios]

…the Theological issues could have been discussed.

After all, how much of the issue with the Filioque is because Rome did not consider how it translated into Greek and did not care to discuss the issue at the time?

They had been going at it for 200 years over that one thng, and some Roman Catholics still vilify Saint Photios for it.

The Patriarchs dropped the Pope from the diptychs just after the 1005 decision to use the filioque in Rome. The actual break occurred nearly fifty years later, when a Cardinal dropped the Bull on the altar of Hagia Sophia.

Evidently, many people over many generations had the time and opportunity to discuss this issue and all of it’s ramifications. It is not like accidently stepping on someone’s toes.

I think the theological issues were amply discussed, and every well educated clergyman in the curia at Rome understood the translation issue. The problem is the opposing opinions hardened over time.

I cannot prove, but I suspect, that the actual position of many (or even most) Latin Catholic theologians/bishops at the time was of Double-Procession. Otherwise I myself cannot justify why they were overall so insensitive to the Greek concerns.

My post above was more directed toward how the different parts of the church could arrive at those different theories initially. This post relates to what happened centuries later, after everyone’s noses were already bent out of joint.

 

[Joseph651]

I thank all my Brothers and Sisters who have brought a new insight to me on this subject. I will indeed be doing a deeper study on the early church and what it means to the modern world. I have a belief, that this is all in God’s plan and has spread his words to the world, to believe in the one true God, praise be to God for all his Glory.

Thanks to All
Joseph 651

 

[Ignatius]

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

No, the barque of Peter is the center of the Faith. The Eastern Churches separated from Rome.

 

[Nine_Two]

No, the barque of Peter is the center of the Faith. The Eastern Churches separated from Rome.

Funny, I thought it was Christ who was the center of the faith. Guess that’s why I’m a schismic.

 

[Harpazo]

Funny, I thought it was Christ who was the center of the faith. Guess that’s why I’m a schismic.

Same here!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[trophybearer]

Funny, I thought it was Christ who was the center of the faith. Guess that’s why I’m a schismic.

Didn’t you know the Pope of Rome is Christ’s “vicar”? He’s in and of himself infallible in matters of faith and morals- just like Christ! Glad to be with you in your schismatic, Christ-centered, Apostolic faith!

 

[agiosotheos]

Its written from the perspective that Peter had no primacy,

Nope. EO&OO believe in Petrine primacy, just not your kind.

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.

How do you attribute the splitting to the Emperor when it was the Bishop of Rome who delivered the first excommunication?

 

[agiosotheos]

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

It wasn’t really originally mutual. Originally it was a unilateral excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Patriarch of Rome. One of the deacons of the Great Church even tried to rush out and return the bull of excommunication to Cardinal Humbert after he so rudely placed it on the holy altar. It was only reciprocated after y’all absolutely INSISTED that it be so.

 

[agiosotheos]

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.

No, originally it was caesaro-papist, which was more like the Imperial Russian Church than the Roman Church.

 

[agiosotheos]

except the Oriental Churches which separated themselves when they began believing that Christ has only 1 Nature, not 2 Natures

One nature and not two has been our standard of belief since Cyril of Alexandria.

 

[agiosotheos]

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

There was no one liturgy used since day 1. The anaphora was improvised individually by each serving priest until the early 3rd century.

 

[agiosotheos]

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.

What does that have to do with his question? The Liturgy of John Chrysostom was not the liturgy originally used in the Apostolic age (even if such a fantastical liturgy existed).

 

[agiosotheos]

*]The Divine Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem (1st century A.D.

Please. There is no evidence the Liturgy of James existed that early.

 

[agiosotheos]

Its views were that the three traditional Petrine sees, with Rome at the top, came first, followed by Jerusalem.

Nope. Followed by Alexandria, then Antioch, then Jerusalem (Jerusalem having no great jurisdiction [and even being subject to Caesarea Palestine], just primacy of honor after Antioch).

 

[agiosotheos]

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).

You realize that very reality is used as a case against papal supremacy? If direct succession from Peter is the basis of Petrine primacy, and Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are all Petrine sees, then Rome cannot possibly have jurisdictional/doctrinal authority over Alexandria or Antioch.

 

[agiosotheos]

Basically, the only thing in either set of Churches that can be traced back is contained within the Creed and the actual Apostolic line. The Liturgies and the prayers (by and large) all date later.

Actually, the entirety of the ACE’s Qurbana of Addai and Mari predates the Creed.

 

[agiosotheos]

I believe Rome separated Herself from the other four Patriarchates.

There were more than 4 EO Patriarchates by 1054.

 

[agiosotheos]

As I understand it, a group of Orthodox separated in the 5th Century,

There were two continuous groups to separate in the 5th century (though I don’t consider both of them orthodox), the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

 

[agiosotheos]

After all, how much of the issue with the Filioque is because Rome did not consider how it translated into Greek and did not care to discuss the issue at the time?

And how much of it was the fact that Rome made clear that they believe that the origination of the Holy Spirit is one spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle and that this in and of itself is contrary the EO belief?

 

[Hesychios]

crazzeto;5873614:

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.

How do you attribute the splitting to the Emperor when it was the Bishop of Rome who delivered the first excommunication?

Our friend is confusing his polemical arguments, perhaps too much time arguing with Anglicans? Anyway, this sort of simplification and telescoping of history is very common around here.

I believe the emperor was not involved in this episode. In fact, the results of the visit of Cardinals Frederic and Humbert to the emperor were very positive. (The ostensible reason for the two Cardinal’s visit was a proposal to join forces in an alliance against the Normans, who had occupied Byzantine provinces in Italy and made the Pope’s strategic situation difficult.)

It is conceivable that the Pope of the time had conceived of the excommunication as a way to drive a wedge between the emperor and the church, there is no way to tell. The Gregorian Reformation had just begun and was bound to run a few more years at least, as big a challenge as there was before them. Anyway, the Pope had died before the Bull of excommunication was released by the Cardinals, they had possibly been instructed to hold it for use in the event that talks failed.

It is still worth exploring whether the two Cardinals had any authority at all to negotiate or [gasp!] start a schism when they had no boss. The office was Sede Vacante.

Oh yes, I know technically the Bishop of Constantinople was the Patriach of the East, but he served at the pleasure of the Emperor.

If you are going to use this sort of logic to denigrate the office of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, you had better do your studies. Are you aware that the bishops of Rome were (for many years) appointed by the emperors? That is something you will not learn in CCD.

First the emperors in Constantinople appointed the Popes, later the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire in the west appointed them. It’s a travesty, I know.

If you maintain that this sort of thing means they served at the pleasure of the emperors, then you have some very serious reassessments to make about the charism of the Papacy.