Rome's authority over Orthodox; Validity of Orthodox sacraments

[Thomas_Redd]

Yeah, let’s close this thread.

But right before allow me to rant a little bit:

I cannot stand how traditionalists are consistently put down and made out to be far right, nostalgic weirdos.

As if it is wrong to want to have the same (or close to) the same mass that produced the countless of Saints, you all (including those who respond on the Trad, L&S & other forums) quote in every thread.

Rant over.

True Light. You seem like a reasonable person and I respect your right to go to mass in the Tridentine mass if that brings you closer to God. The problem is that many people look at the Novus ordo as some great break with the past. Which isn’t the case at all. In fact the first canon is basically the Tridentine mass with some of the important thing that got dropped put back in, like the prayers of the faithful, the sign of peace and I believe an enhanced epiclesis (calling down the Spirit ). It also entailed dropping things like the last Gospel and Leonine prayers at the end of mass which really did not fit and made little sense at that point in the liturgy.

This erroneous view is evidenced in the first poster who was considering going to an Orthodox mass rather than a Novus Ordo mass. True the Orthodox mass is valid and communion is valid, but really isn’t this an actual break with the Catholic Church. How different is this than the patricarch of Constantinople breaking with the Pope? Many people I know fall into this trap. I was on another website. It was bizarre. I was giving my normal speil about how the Church lost many Slavic nations in the 9th century when the “Latinists” put the great missionary and archbishop, St. Methodius, in jail (2 years) for saying the Roman Rite in Slavonic in spite of approvals from two Pope and how having the Lord’s Supper in the vernacular helped build credibility for the Protestants revolt. These people went ballastic. They had no clue that mass did not have to be in Latin. I was literally told on a number of ocassions that I should just go sing Kumbya because the Novus ordo was not valid and also was disrepectful and the priests were all irreverant. Something I have never seen. Clearly my soul was in danger. Also, these websites seemed to to somehow connect the Latin mass to every Marian apparation there is - approved and unapproved, especially the scary “end of times” ones. I am not sure why this is so. I can only assume that as one of the previous posters said there is a large group which looks at the Tridentine mass as some kind of “magic pill.” Actually, I think that hit it. Magic after all is the effort to control the divinity and the universe by the incantation of some specific formula. Magic provides control and certainity. Something the religion of Jesus does not do - “Your Will be done.”. Christianity requires our faith and love, our emotions and our brains. If you don’t understand what is being said at a religious rite it might seems somehow more “Other” and transcendental. If you understand what is being said, it seems so much more mundane, in spite of the fact that the religious truths are clearer to us and demand more of our intellect and attention. As an aside, I often think of the stage magicians’ magic words “Hocus Pocus.” I don’t like using them, because these words are actually a corruption of “Hoc est enim, Corpus meum.” You couldn’t get away with this if the words were in the vernacular.

Again, I am not saying this description fits you, only that there are enough people out there who think like this to cause real problems.

 

[Dan_Daly]

True Light. You seem like a reasonable person and I respect your right to go to mass in the Tridentine mass if that brings you closer to God. The problem is that many people look at the Novus ordo as some great break with the past. Which isn’t the case at all. In fact the first canon is basically the Tridentine mass with some of the important thing that got dropped put back in, like the prayers of the faithful, the sign of peace and I believe an enhanced epiclesis (calling down the Spirit ). It also entailed dropping things like the last Gospel and Leonine prayers at the end of mass which really did not fit and made little sense at that point in the liturgy.

In many ways the OF is a great break from the past. That doesn’t mean it has no connection with history, but it certainly is different. This is most evident not by listening to its critics, but by turning to some of it’s most ardent advocates- those who disregard any Church teaching they believe contradicts “the spirit of Vatican II” and essentially act as if the period of Church history between Pentecost and Vatican II was one big dark age that is best forgotten.

Certainly, not all advocates of the OF take that view, but many do.

You yourself make the case that criticism of a form of Liturgy, if done in charity, has a place. You describe the last Gospel and Leonine prayers at the end of mass as not fitting and making little sense. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Some folks think elements of the OF “don’t fit” and “make little sense”. Because you made some criticism of the EF, I don’t think you hate the Church. That would be absurd. However, that assumption is often made of anyone on the forums who makes some criticism of the OF.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[louis91766]

The problem is that many people look at the Novus ordo as some great break with the past. Which isn’t the case at all. .

I would say that it is a radical break from the Latin Mass which was said from the time of the Council of Trent right up to Vatican II. The NO really is not all that much different from the Protestant liturgy as said in the Anglican Protestant Church. Go to a Protestant liturgy at an Anglican or Episcopal Church and you will see what I mean.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Can you elaborate? So which belief does Pope Benedict adhere to? The historic, traditinal one? Or the modern doctrinal development? Who is the “current west”- The Catholic Church? The Latin Rite? Certain individual Catholics?

If you can explain more that would be great. I’ll also have to check out the Pope’s book. Thanks.

Pax and God Bless.

Pope Benedict most certainly subscribes to the modern understanding of the papacy, When he mentions the Orthodox, however, he acknowledges them as adhering to the early Church’s understanding of Roman primacy. :

“… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”

 

[louis91766]

Pope Benedict most certainly subscribes to the modern understanding of the papacy, When he mentions the Orthodox, however, he acknowledges them as adhering to the early Church’s understanding of Roman primacy. :

“… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”

I thought that the Orthodox position was that every bishop is a successor of St. Peter?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I thought that the Orthodox position was that every bishop is a successor of St. Peter?

Yes, that is one aspect of our teaching. All bishops are successors of St. Peter in the sense that they are holders of the keys and (should be) rocks of the faith. St. Cyprian :

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers”

I don’t agree with Pat. Athenagoras, but the Roman see was founded by both Sts. Peter and Paul, so the holder of that see can claim succession. In the same way, Antioch can also claim St. Peter, and Jerusalem St. James, etc.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

I would say that it is a radical break from the Latin Mass which was said from the time of the Council of Trent right up to Vatican II. The NO really is not all that much different from the Protestant liturgy as said in the Anglican Protestant Church. Go to a Protestant liturgy at an Anglican or Episcopal Church and you will see what I mean.

I really don’t know what the break was that the Novius Ordo mass introduced. It pretty much is like the Tridentine mass but simpler and more direct… Could you be more specific? The fact that the Novus ordo mass is like the Anglican liturgy, which I have attended, is pretty meaningless since it is actually their liturgy which is like ours. True they believe in consubstantation and we believe in transubstantation. But I have never seen anything in the Novus Ordo which remotely denies transubstantation. It instead reinforces it. After all, the Anglican English mass was developed from the Sarum (latin for Salisbury) rite which was an accepted Catholic rite. Also, Canon one in the Novus ordo is essentially the Tridentine mass.

I would like to make one final comment. I remember some years back going to a Syrian rite mass with my Latin rite pastor. I remarked how it sounded so much like one of the Canons of the Novus ordo. It been some years, but I think it was the fourth. I asked him if there had been some cross over influence. His answer really stuck with me. He said it sounded similar, because the latin rite had actually gone back to study the most ancient rites in order to reform the mass and to institute additional canons. It was really the Tridentine mass which had brought in some innovations.

 

[Vico]

… Also, Canon one in the Novus ordo is essentially the Tridentine mass.

I would like to make one final comment. I remember some years back going to a Syrian rite mass with my Latin rite pastor. I remarked how it sounded so much like one of the Canons of the Novus ordo. It been some years, but I think it was the fourth. I asked him if there had been some cross over influence. His answer really stuck with me. He said it sounded similar, because the latin rite had actually gone back to study the most ancient rites in order to reform the mass and to institute additional canons. It was really the Tridentine mass which had brought in some innovations.

I read that Eucharistic Prayer IV is an inspired rewrite of the Anaphora of Saint Basil. The second is the ancient Roman anaphora. Three is a new creation. See here under Formation For Eucharist…:

paulturner.org/Roman%20Missal.htm

 

[inkaneer]

I will try my best to answer your concerns Dan.

The Orthodox beleive in the primacy of Rome. They do not beleive in the Supremacy of Rome. So their definition of primacy is one of honor and respect, not one of judicial submission.

The “proper role” of the Patriarch of Rome is actually a very vague statement. Is it the ultramontanism of Vatican I, the more conciliar attitude of VII, was Peter’s confession the rock of the Church or is it Peter himself? Even great Latin Church Fathers disagreed on these issues (Augustine himself said that Peter could either be the Rock or his Confession, he was not sure which was correct). The fact here is that there is little evidence that Orthodoxy has changed its positions towards the papacy radically. Its fair to say that the Orthodox Church has always viewed Rome’s role as a primacy of love and honor, not one of laws or legislation.

I do not know what Rome’s view is on this matter, but considering that Rome never had jurisdiction over the Eastern bishoprics or Patriarchates, I think that the question is anachronistic. The East never needed nor asked for Rome’s permission to ordain their own bishops or for “licitey” of their sacraments. Rome at best had jurisdiction over the western empire (or at the very least the sub rubicon dioceses of Italy), not over Constantinople, Antioch, Moscow, Kyiv, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc etc. Unlike the SSPX, who are Latin clergy. They are members of the Roman church and therefore subject to the Roman Patriarchate.

I would be glad to provide what I know on those issues, but it would help if you were more specific as to what knowledge you would like.

Well I have to disagree here. Early on we see that what was to become the so called “Eastern Churches” did recognize a higher ecclesiastical authority existing on earth in the form of Peter and thereafter his successor as bishop of Rome. In Acts there is the story of the Council of Jerusalem settling the crisis in Antioch. Scripture tells us there was “much debate” up until the time Peter stood up and spoke. Then everyone shut up. WHY? Because the boss was speaking and they all knew it. After Peter spoke there was no more debate the matter was settled. They saw Peter as having a primacy of authority not just honor. Following Peter’s death another crisis occurred in Corinth. Like Antioch the Corinthians were divided and could not resolve the crisis. What do they do? All the apostles except John were dead. Do they go to John who was in Ephesus? No, they go to Clement. Who is Clement? He is bishop of Rome, third bishop in line of succession from Peter. They went to a higher authority than their own and it was not to another apostle even if it was the “Apostle that Jesus loved.”

This idea that the pope only had a primacy of honor is bunk. Honor has to be based on something. We honor people in authority. To say someone has honor but no authority is oxymoronic. We call judges, “your honor” because of their judicial authority. The problem with the Eastern Church is the vanity of the Eastern Church. The term Caesaropapism aptly applies. Constantine’s transfer of the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium which he renamed after himself was the cause of the term “The New Rome” being applied to Constantinople. With that came the idea that now the empire has returned to Greece so should the capital of the Church. That is what is behind the refusal of the eastern churches to acknowledge the Universal bishopric of the Pope. I have long thought that the loss of Constantinople to the forces of Islam and the making into a mosque the Haggia Sophia [Church of the Holy Spirit], the cathedral church of the Patriarch of Constantinople and what was largest christian church in the world is a direct result of the schism orchestrated by the Emperor and his crony, the Greek Patriach. God was not above using pagans to chastise the Jews in the Old Testament and He is the same in the New Testament as He was then.

 

[jam070406]

I have long thought that the loss of Constantinople to the forces of Islam and the making into a mosque the Haggia Sophia [Church of the Holy Spirit], the cathedral church of the Patriarch of Constantinople and what was largest christian church in the world is a direct result of the schism orchestrated by the Emperor and his crony, the Greek Patriach. God was not above using pagans to chastise the Jews in the Old Testament and He is the same in the New Testament as He was then.

St. Alphonsus Liguori says as much in his History Of Heresies

The chastisement of God soon overtook that fickle people; in 1453,
Mahomet II. took Constantinople by assault, and gave it up to sack and slaughter; the infuriated soldiery
slew all who came in their way, cast down the altars, profaned the monasteries, and despoiled the
wretched inhabitants of all their property. Thus fell the empire of the East, after eleven centuries of a
glorious existence. The Greeks continue, to the present day, obstinately attached to their errors; they are
the slaves of the Turks in their ancient capital. That noble Church that gave to the world, Athanasius,
Gregory, Basil, and so many other learned and holy Doctors, now lies trampled under foot, vice usurping
the place of virtue, and ignorance seated in the chair of learning. The Greek Church, in a word, the
Mother of many Saints and Doctors of the Church, has, on account of its separation from the Roman See,
fallen into a state of deplorable barbarity and wretched slavery (37).

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/hrefute.pdf

 

[Jack_Bauer]

I see many people, claiming to be church leaders, as I watch The Tudors with the ever controversial subject, King Henry VIII. The early Church history seems a bit vague in reading. Yet in reading one does find a fascination with taking disputed matters up the the bishop of Rome, that is until the great schism occurred. Licit, illicit, valid, invalid, faculties, no faculties, all mere garbage to Protestants that do not understand, accept or care to listen. It truly makes the head spin on these subjects. Both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics (east and west) contradict each other position wise. However, most Catholics within the ranks of the Catholic Church reject much of the teachings required of the Catholic Church, Rome. How is it that we’ve gotten to this point in history? How could man be so sinful as to tear up the precious body and blood he left us. Why are there so many heresies, false teachers, blind fools if you will. Why are we such idiots…I being the first of many. Obviously, the subject must continue, but I must in good conscience rant of the hostility of power hungry. I feel betrayed…either by Rome, or by the East or by both. It’s truly a tragedy. My prayers are that one day the truth will be made known to us in a way that it become transparent to all. I grieve over the separation, but I do not grieve for the methods used by many in authority throughout history to force their position upon others… such cruelty will be rewarded appropriately in the here after.

 

[inkaneer]

I see many people, claiming to be church leaders, as I watch The Tudors with the ever controversial subject, King Henry VIII. The early Church history seems a bit vague in reading. Yet in reading one does find a fascination with taking disputed matters up the the bishop of Rome, that is until the great schism occurred. Licit, illicit, valid, invalid, faculties, no faculties, all mere garbage to Protestants that do not understand, accept or care to listen. It truly makes the head spin on these subjects. Both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics (east and west) contradict each other position wise. However, most Catholics within the ranks of the Catholic Church reject much of the teachings required of the Catholic Church, Rome. How is it that we’ve gotten to this point in history? How could man be so sinful as to tear up the precious body and blood he left us. Why are there so many heresies, false teachers, blind fools if you will. Why are we such idiots…I being the first of many. Obviously, the subject must continue, but I must in good conscience rant of the hostility of power hungry. I feel betrayed…either by Rome, or by the East or by both. It’s truly a tragedy. My prayers are that one day the truth will be made known to us in a way that it become transparent to all. I grieve over the separation, but I do not grieve for the methods used by many in authority throughout history to force their position upon others… such cruelty will be rewarded appropriately in the here after.

Do you think it was better at any time before? The Church has been constantly attacked by Satan both within and without. So today is no different than before. Martyrs are still being killed for their faith. Heresies are still being propagated. Satan is still attacking and the Church will prevail over the forces of hell. Remember, if they kill us, we win.

 

[inkaneer]

St. Alphonsus Liguori says as much in his History Of Heresies

The chastisement of God soon overtook that fickle people; in 1453,
Mahomet II. took Constantinople by assault, and gave it up to sack and slaughter; the infuriated soldiery
slew all who came in their way, cast down the altars, profaned the monasteries, and despoiled the
wretched inhabitants of all their property. Thus fell the empire of the East, after eleven centuries of a
glorious existence. The Greeks continue, to the present day, obstinately attached to their errors; they are
the slaves of the Turks in their ancient capital. That noble Church that gave to the world, Athanasius,
Gregory, Basil, and so many other learned and holy Doctors, now lies trampled under foot, vice usurping
the place of virtue, and ignorance seated in the chair of learning. The Greek Church, in a word, the
Mother of many Saints and Doctors of the Church, has, on account of its separation from the Roman See,
fallen into a state of deplorable barbarity and wretched slavery (37).

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/hrefute.pdf

I was not aware of his writing. It was just something that seemed so obvious to me. The Orthodox are the christian equivalent of the wandering Jew, thrown out of his land by pagan forces. The Haggia Sophia being the christian equivalent of the Temple.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I was not aware of his writing. It was just something that seemed so obvious to me. The Orthodox are the christian equivalent of the wandering Jew, thrown out of his land by pagan forces. The Haggia Sophia being the christian equivalent of the Temple.

Yes, and I suppose the Visigoths sacking Rome in the fifth century was God punishing the Church of Rome? That’s just silly. God’s kingdom is not of this world. The Bible itself in Proverbs 24:17 says: “do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice.” Of course, as fellow Christians, I’m not so sure why you would regard us as being the enemy, nor why you would look upon our past misfortunes with such self-satisfying pleasure, but I suppose whatever makes you feel good about your faith in the Roman Catholic Church. . .

And really, to claim that the schism was perpetuated by the Emperor is just ridiculously historically inaccurate. Perhaps you should remember that it was a Roman legate who placed a bull of excommunication in the Hagia Sophia during a Sunday liturgy—an act which he had no authority to do, since the Pope who sent him to Constantinople (not with the goal of excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople, by the way) had died—which actually began the process of the schism.

 

[inkaneer]

Yes, and I suppose the Visigoths sacking Rome in the fifth century was God punishing the Church of Rome? That’s just silly. God’s kingdom is not of this world. The Bible itself in Proverbs 24:17 says: “do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice.” Of course, as fellow Christians, I’m not so sure why you would regard us as being the enemy, nor why you would look upon our past misfortunes with such self-satisfying pleasure, but I suppose whatever makes you feel good about your faith in the Roman Catholic Church. . .

And really, to claim that the schism was perpetuated by the Emperor is just ridiculously historically inaccurate. Perhaps you should remember that it was a Roman legate who placed a bull of excommunication in the Hagia Sophia during a Sunday liturgy—an act which he had no authority to do, since the Pope who sent him to Constantinople (not with the goal of excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople, by the way) had died—which actually began the process of the schism.

There is a difference though. The Visigoths and all the other barbarian invaders did not enslave the Western Church as the Islamic forces did. The Patriarch of Constantinople had his cathedral church taken form him and converted into a mosque which it remains so to this very day. In addition the Eastern church lost many of its members, as well as their descendants, to Islam. Whether it was at the point of a sword or spear really makes no difference. The point is, though that a vast majority of the Orthodox population chose to worship Allah rather than being martyrs for the faith. That points out the weakness of the faith in the Eastern Church.

And yes the Emperor did have alot to do with the schism. He appointed his own puppet Michael Caerularius as Patriarch. Michael Caerularius was not only a member of an anti-Latin party [descended from the time of Photius] he was, from the beginning, a member of the extreme wing of that party. One of his first acts as the caesaropapism patriarch Caerularius accused the Western church of the “infirmity” of celibacy and using unleavened bread [azyme] in the Eucharist… Celibacy is, of course, an infirmity that Orthodox monks and bishops also suffer. Cærularius made this accusation [among others] via a treatise written a by monk named Nicetas Pectoratus which Caerularius then sent to other patriarchs. In this treatise Nicetas describes Latins as “dogs, bad workmen, schismatics, hypocrites, and liars”. Aren’t those endearing terms coming from a supposed christian? Caerularius ordered all of the Latin churches at Constantinople, including that of the papal legate to be closed. His chancellor, Nicephorus, went so far as to burst open the Latin tabernacles, and trampled on the Holy Eucharist because it was consecrated in azyme [unleavened] bread. Apparently he was unaware that at the Last Supper Jesus used unleavened bread also. Or should we think he was that stupid?
This was you great Patriarch. I wonder what the Orthodox would have done if that happened to their churches? As far as the bull of excommunication goes you are correct that it was null and void due to the death of the pope just a few days prior. With the popes death the legates had no authority. Maybe they should have checked their E mail, huh? But I guess in 1054 people were not used to checking their E mail that often preferring instead to depend on snail mail which came by messengers on sailing ships or horseback which took a little longer. So the emperor appoints his friend and confidant as Patriarch and thus starts the ball rolling. Maybe you want to pretend the emperor had nothing to do with it but I am not that naive. The emperor was in it up to his eyeballs and knew exactly what was going on and what’s more, he could have stopped it. But he didn’t. Now if you would like we can talk of the Crusades and the sacking of Constantinople by the crusaders which, by the way, was against the specific orders of the pope. But then we would have to discuss the wholesale slaughter of the 400 or so Venetian merchants by the Orthodox that was the basis for the retribution enacted by the crusade leader who just happened to be a relative of several of those merchants. What do you say? Wanna do it?

Continued next post

 

[inkaneer]

Continued from prior post…

All in all there is an overriding message to be drawn here. The Orthodox never lifted a finger to help the West and did everything they could to bring down the West and the Western Church. They sapped the military might of the West leaving it exposed to the barbarian hordes. They did nothing to come to the West’s aid when the West was under attack. They did nothing during the Dark Ages to resurrect the West. The West had to pull itself up by its ownself. But when the East was under attack by the most vicious of all heresies they came pleading to the West for help even to the point of during the Council of Chalcedron in 451 AD the following was recorded in the Acts of the Council:

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).’

Apparently the Orthodox had no problems with papal authority back then. Then we come to the Islamic invasion of the Orthodox lands. Again the pleas of “come help us, Save us from these murdering hordes”, came from the Orthodox only to later on turn traitor on their christian brothers and aid the Moslems. Is that not enough for God to chastised them? Am I gloating? No, I consider the Orthodox to have been extremely foolish. God provided them a chance to change and come back. That was at the Council of Florence in 1439. Agreement was reached but was later repudiated by the East. Shortly thereafter, in 1453, Constnatinople fell to the Moslem forces of the Ottoman empire and the Haggia Sophia the greatest Orthodox church in the world and cathedral church of Photius and Michael Cerularius and the other Greek patriarchs became an Islamic mosque. This is not gloating. It is just a recitation of facts. I do not need to, as you say, “feel good about my faith in the ‘Roman Catholic Church’.” Your use of that term, a term coined by protestants as a derogatory term to differentiate the Catholic Church from that of the Church of England under Henry VIII, tells me that you somehow feel a need to raise yourself by trying to step on other people’s neck. I for my part just don’t trust any Orthodox. And I got a lot of historical evidence to back that up.

 

[RyanBlack]

Lots of double standards, historical selectivenes, bigotry, and just outright garbage in this thread. I think it has outlived any usefulness it might have ever had.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Inkaneer, there is so much that is wrong with your conveniently anti-eastern version of history that I’m not even sure what to write to you. If you are interested in learning some real history instead of the polemic version that you’ve posted, I suggest picking up a few books by Francis Dvornik; I suspect, however, that your disdain for Eastern Christianity will prevent you from ever trying to learn anything about what actually happened beyond some silly polemical distortion of the truth (certainly, the blame for the schism cannot be placed entirely at the feet of one side or the other as you are attempting to present it).

 

[louis91766]

One of his first acts as the caesaropapism patriarch Caerularius accused the Western church of the “infirmity” of celibacy and using unleavened bread [azyme] in the Eucharist… Celibacy is, of course, an infirmity that Orthodox monks and bishops also suffer. Cærularius made this accusation [among others] via a treatise written a by monk named Nicetas Pectoratus which Caerularius then sent to other patriarchs. In this treatise Nicetas describes Latins as “dogs, bad workmen, schismatics, hypocrites, and liars”. Aren’t those endearing terms coming from a supposed christian? Caerularius ordered all of the Latin churches at Constantinople, including that of the papal legate to be closed. His chancellor, Nicephorus, went so far as to burst open the Latin tabernacles, and trampled on the Holy Eucharist because it was consecrated in azyme [unleavened] bread. Apparently he was unaware that at the Last Supper Jesus used unleavened bread also. Or should we think he was that stupid?
This was you great Patriarch. I wonder what the Orthodox would have done if that happened to their churches?

But it was done (by RC crusaders) to their Orthodox Churches and even worse: According to Nicetas Choniates (ca. 1155-1215/16):
. . . How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups, --precursors of Anti-Christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.

Nor can the violation of the Great Church [note: Hagia Sophia in Constantinople] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so great and infinite splendor.

When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with gold, which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship, and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away as booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of the temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing on the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, so that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.

Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister of the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch’s seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently. Nor, indeed, were these crimes committed and others left undone, on the ground that these were of lesser guilt, the others of greater. But with one consent all the most heinous sins and crimes were committed by all with equal zeal. Could those, who showed so great madness against God Himself, have spared the honorable matrons and maidens or the virgins consecrated to God?

Nothing was more difficult and laborious than to soften by prayers, to render benevolent, these wrathful barbarians, vomiting forth bile at every unpleasing word, so that nothing failed to inflame their fury. Whoever attempted it was derided as insane and a man of intemperate language. Often they drew their daggers against any one who opposed them at all or hindered their demands.

No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, the groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, the separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, bow great the distress!

 

[inkaneer]

Inkaneer, there is so much that is wrong with your conveniently anti-eastern version of history that I’m not even sure what to write to you. If you are interested in learning some real history instead of the polemic version that you’ve posted, I suggest picking up a few books by Francis Dvornik; I suspect, however, that your disdain for Eastern Christianity will prevent you from ever trying to learn anything about what actually happened beyond some silly polemical distortion of the truth (certainly, the blame for the schism cannot be placed entirely at the feet of one side or the other as you are attempting to present it).

Let me sum it up for you. Everytime the Eastern Church got its butt in a a bind they called upon the West to rescue them and the West did. You can start with the church at Corinth in the first century. The East acknowledged the universal bishopric of the Pope only when it benefitted the East to do so. But when the West needed the East to come to its aid, the East refused. The East has never gotten over the fact that although the capital of the empire moved to Greece the Church did not. I touched on that in my first post. I will also point out to you that it was in the East that the greatest heresies arose and one of them was propagated by none other than the bishop of Constantinople, a guy by the name of Nestorius. You may know about him.

The schism between East and West has nothing to do with theology. It has everything to do with geopolitics. The East and West agreed on the theological issues at the Council of Florence. That was later repudiated by the East. Why? Your bishops were united with the pope and their counterpart western bishops. It was bound. There is no provision in scripture or anywhere in the Tradition of the Church for a vote by anyone to confirm the bishops decision. Who runs your church, the bishops or some unscriptural third party? Where does the authority lie? There was no such requirement at the Council of Jerusalem. None of the early councils which the Orthodox accept had any provision for anyone to confirm the results that the bishops arrived at. Why does the Council of Florence have such a requirement?

You say I have a Western bias. Maybe there is bias but its an Eastern bias on your part.