A
Anastasia13
Guest
Are the Catholic and Orthodox wounded branches of the same church or are the just two totally separate churches?
- Status
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
Historically both of them trace to the common communion of Chalcedonian Churches, until the Great Schism of 1054. They are now entirely separate bodies and communions of churches, but at some point in history they were once one. Whether one or both or neither are considered the true Church that Jesus Christ founded depends on who you ask.
A
Anastasia13
Guest
Well, I’m going for an opinion where the ones asks biases the population to be either the Catholic church or the Catholic church and the Orthodox churches. I can tell you tat much.Historically both of them trace to the common communion of Chalcedonian Churches, until the Great Schism of 1054. They are now entirely separate bodies and communions of churches, but at some point in history they were once one. Whether one or both or neither are considered the true Church that Jesus Christ founded depends on who you ask.
Also, as far as I know, if the Eastern Orthodox are includes, it would also include the Oriental Orthodox.
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
It kind of depends on what you mean by ‘Orthodox’. Many people consider ‘Orthodox’ to refer to the Eastern Orthodox, but as you are Oriental Orthodox I understand it could just as equally refer to you.
Therefore I shall attempt the most holistic answer possible. The modern-day Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches trace to their origins to a communion of churches that agreed on a common set of Ecumenical Councils up to the Council of Ephesus of 431 AD. After the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, the Oriental Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) separated from the Chalcedonians (comprising the modern-day Eastern Orthodox and Catholics). Subsequently, during the Great Schism of 1054, the Chalcedonians split into what is now known as the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
Each of the three (Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic) are now entirely separate bodies and communions of churches, but at some point in history they were once one. Whether you can consider them ‘branches’ depends on what you define as a ‘branch’ and whether being a ‘branch’ constitutes being a ‘true church’. For example, the Eastern Orthodox may argue that the Oriental Orthodox and Catholics branched off from them, the true church, and the same may be said from the Oriental Orthodox or Catholic perspectives. They may argue that the other ‘branches’ are not part of the true church at all or may be imperfect in their theology. Alternatively, some of the more ecumenically-minded individuals may regard all three as being part of the true church and equally valid branches. There is a quite bit of a struggle between both perspectives within each church.
A
Aramis
Guest
Canon Law notes that the Eastern Orthodox are lacking only in full communion; Rome’s pretty much explicitly stated that it’s one church, wounded into branches… but it extends this status also to the Oriental Orthodox, the Jacobites, and the Assyrian Church of the East.
C
CharlesdeFoucld
Guest
You’re correct that Dominus Iesus refers to the Orthodox churches as ‘true particular Churches…in which the Church of Christ is present and operative…even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.’
But does it follow that we’re one church, wounded into branches? Dominus Iesus also clarifies that ‘the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church.’ While ‘many elements can be found of sanctification and truth…in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church,’ these elements derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.’
If I’ve read the documents correctly, I think we can say that the Orthodox churches lack little, but I don’t see how we can say that we’re one church that has been divided into branches.
A
Aramis
Guest
The canon law doesn’t refer to them as simply wounded branches, but HH JP II frequently did, and HH B XVI did… referring to them as the other lung of the church.
So rome has explicitly said they are part of the Catholic Church. Even if they don’t admit it.
C
CharlesdeFoucld
Guest
While the ‘two lungs’ reference is well known, I hadn’t heard the popes use the ‘wounded branches’ metaphor. Could you provide some context? My problem is, that without some careful distinctions, this can sound like ‘branch theory’. Branch theory would contradict the doctrine that the Church is one, visible, and indivisible. If we say that we’re all just wounded branches of the one Church, without adding that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in union with the bishop of Rome, I think we fall into indifferentism. I think indifferentism is harmful to ecumenism, especially with the Orthodox, who often feel the Catholic Church lacks conviction.
Please do correct me if you think I’ve misunderstood. And of course, I’m not trying to argue with Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI, but I do wonder if they framed their comments in such a way as to avoid branch theory.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Different churches…or more precisely (yet confusingly, in non-Orthodox environments such as CAF), the same church, in accordance with our belief that the Orthodox Church is the catholic church spoken of in the creed. So the church that is catholic is also orthodox. (I’m purposely not capitalizing them here because I know some yokel is going to reply “Sure, you’re catholic, but we’re Catholic…just like you’re Orthodox, but we’re orthodox.” The vast majority of our traditional, now liturgical, languages do not or did not originally have a capital/lower case distinction, and the scripts of many modern languages spoken by Orthodox and RC people alike – Arabic, Amharic, Malayalam, Georgian, etc. – do not have that distinction; Coptic originally didn’t, but added it later…and check the Coptic text below, where “catholic” is not capitalized. We’re still talking about the church that we believe is catholic, so such a silly orthographic distinction doesn’t really matter.)
As we pray during the Litany of Peace:
Priest:
We ask and entreat Your goodness, O Lover of mankind.
Remember, O Lord, the peace of Your one, only, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
Deacon:
Pray for the peace of the one, only, holy, catholic, and apostolic Orthodox Church, for God’s salvation among the people, for stability in all places, that He may forgive us our sins.
Pi`precbuteroc@
Ten]ho ouoh tentwbh
ntekmetaga;oc piMairwmi.Arivmeui P=o=c n]hiryny nte tekoui mmauatc =e=;=u **nka;oliky** napoctoliky nEkklycia.Pidiakwn@
Twbh
ejen ]hiryny nte ]oui mmauatc =e=;=u **nka;oliky **napoctoliky nEkklycia@ nem poujai mV] qen nilaoc nem oucemni qen mai niben@ ntef,a nennobi nan ebol
H
hazcompat
Guest
Second Reading
From the treatise On the Trinity by Saint Hilary, bishop
The unity of the faithful in God through the incarnation of the Word and the sacrament of the eucharist
We believe that the Word became flesh and that we receive his flesh in the Lord’s Supper. How then can we fail to believe that he really dwells within us? When he became man, he actually clothed himself in our flesh, uniting it to himself for ever. In the sacrament of his body he actually gives us his own flesh, which he has united to his divinity. This is why we are all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us. He is in us through his flesh and we are in him. With him we form a unity which is in God.
…
www.divineoffice.org
Together we form one body, and we cannot be separated!
Peace
From the treatise On the Trinity by Saint Hilary, bishop
The unity of the faithful in God through the incarnation of the Word and the sacrament of the eucharist
We believe that the Word became flesh and that we receive his flesh in the Lord’s Supper. How then can we fail to believe that he really dwells within us? When he became man, he actually clothed himself in our flesh, uniting it to himself for ever. In the sacrament of his body he actually gives us his own flesh, which he has united to his divinity. This is why we are all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us. He is in us through his flesh and we are in him. With him we form a unity which is in God.
…
www.divineoffice.org
Together we form one body, and we cannot be separated!
Peace
D
dzheremi
Guest
Not to be a wet blanket (after all, I agree with what is said in that quote, I just don’t think it applies to this situation), but in the Agepya (book of the hours) we pray in the introduction to Prime:
*One is God the Father of everyone.
One is His Son, Jesus Christ the Word, Who took flesh and died; and rose from the dead on the third day, and raised us with Him.
One is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, one in His Hypostasis, proceeding from the Father, purifying the whole creation, and teaching us to worship the Holy Trinity, one in divinity and one in essence. We praise Him and bless Him forever. Amen.*
In my Agpeya, this prayer is under the heading of “The Faith of the Church”. This is not the faith as taught in your church, on account of the filioque. So because of things like that, we are not one body. St. Hilary is right in so far as concerned the Church of his day, before the innovations which would cause such division, but it’s kind of hard to maintain that we’re all somehow one despite the fact that we’re…um…not. We don’t teach or believe the same things, so we’re not in communion, though of course we still believe that things like what St. Hilary wrote apply to us as a communion (keeping in mind that there isn’t really any kind of official line regarding what goes on in churches outside of the communion, hence this thread’s original question is not answerable). You’re just not a part of that communion for all the reasons you probably already know and have pre-fab responses to (the filioque is the big one as relates to the portion of the Agpeya that I quoted, but also your beliefs about the Papacy, various devotions that are against the Orthodox faith, etc).
So I’m afraid we don’t form one body with you. We have already been separated on the basis of doctrinal innovations made by Rome that we do not accept, and you have been separated from us likewise (since you do accept them). That’s reality, far away from the question of Christ being anywhere. To say that we’re somehow still one is really only possible from a pietistic viewpoint that ignores or downplays doctrinal differences, which is traditionally not the viewpoint of Roman Catholics, but of Lutherans and Anglicans and other people that Romans traditionally considered heretics.
*One is God the Father of everyone.
One is His Son, Jesus Christ the Word, Who took flesh and died; and rose from the dead on the third day, and raised us with Him.
One is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, one in His Hypostasis, proceeding from the Father, purifying the whole creation, and teaching us to worship the Holy Trinity, one in divinity and one in essence. We praise Him and bless Him forever. Amen.*
In my Agpeya, this prayer is under the heading of “The Faith of the Church”. This is not the faith as taught in your church, on account of the filioque. So because of things like that, we are not one body. St. Hilary is right in so far as concerned the Church of his day, before the innovations which would cause such division, but it’s kind of hard to maintain that we’re all somehow one despite the fact that we’re…um…not. We don’t teach or believe the same things, so we’re not in communion, though of course we still believe that things like what St. Hilary wrote apply to us as a communion (keeping in mind that there isn’t really any kind of official line regarding what goes on in churches outside of the communion, hence this thread’s original question is not answerable). You’re just not a part of that communion for all the reasons you probably already know and have pre-fab responses to (the filioque is the big one as relates to the portion of the Agpeya that I quoted, but also your beliefs about the Papacy, various devotions that are against the Orthodox faith, etc).
So I’m afraid we don’t form one body with you. We have already been separated on the basis of doctrinal innovations made by Rome that we do not accept, and you have been separated from us likewise (since you do accept them). That’s reality, far away from the question of Christ being anywhere. To say that we’re somehow still one is really only possible from a pietistic viewpoint that ignores or downplays doctrinal differences, which is traditionally not the viewpoint of Roman Catholics, but of Lutherans and Anglicans and other people that Romans traditionally considered heretics.
H
hazcompat
Guest
Archbishop Fulton Sheen
“There are only two positions to take concerning truth, and both of them had their hearing centuries ago in the court-room of Solomon where two women claimed a babe. A babe is like truth; it is one; it is whole; it is organic and it cannot be divided. The real mother of ‘the babe would accept no compromise. She was intolerant about her claim. She must have the whole babe, or nothing-the intolerance of Motherhood. But the false mother was tolerant. She was willing to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe-and the babe would have met its death through broadmindedness.”
Taken from the book “Moods and Truths” (Published in 1932)
I am not broadminded. Saint Hilary speaks of Spiritual reality.
Peace
“There are only two positions to take concerning truth, and both of them had their hearing centuries ago in the court-room of Solomon where two women claimed a babe. A babe is like truth; it is one; it is whole; it is organic and it cannot be divided. The real mother of ‘the babe would accept no compromise. She was intolerant about her claim. She must have the whole babe, or nothing-the intolerance of Motherhood. But the false mother was tolerant. She was willing to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe-and the babe would have met its death through broadmindedness.”
Taken from the book “Moods and Truths” (Published in 1932)
I am not broadminded. Saint Hilary speaks of Spiritual reality.
Peace
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
I think then you pretty much understand the situation. Truth is like the babe - it must be taken as a whole. We cannot believe that the babe can survive in two parts, and similarly the true faith cannot be right in two, conflicting ways. Such an existence is contradictory to the concept of a true faith.
In this way, we cannot seek or even imagine a true union with the Orthodox (Eastern or Oriental) until these doctrinal differences are truly settled. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can simply reunite “as is” right now. We could argue as to who is to blame for the differences that exist now, but that argument would never end, and is not relevant to the topic.
I’m afraid I have to agree with dzheremi that we are truly different churches as of now. However, I disagree with dzheremi in that I believe our doctrinal differences extend far beyond just the filioque and other devotions. We may recognise their sacraments (according to the Catholic Augustinean view of Holy Orders), and we may believe that the sacraments do impart true grace, but even so, it does not follow that our faith is the same, and faith is intrinsically intertwined with the sacraments as the defining characteristics of the Church.
Could we one day overcome these differences? Maybe, but not in the immediate future. Furthermore, it will depend on what the hierarchy decides is necessary in order to return to communion with each other.
D
dzheremi
Guest
It’s not particularly an argument I want to have (as that’s what it would very quickly turn in to – an argument; none of us were born yesterday), but I disagree with the idea that who is to ‘blame’ (though I wouldn’t exactly put it that way; Catholicism is wrong, but your average, everyday Joe Catholic doesn’t bare any responsibility for that) for the division is not relevant to the OP. This is relevant because the idea that our differences even can be settled is predicated on the view that there is some underlying commonality such that Rome can have her way of explaining or believing things, and the Byzantines can have theirs, and the Copts theirs, and the West Syriacs theirs, and the Nestorians theirs, etc. I was just watching a video yesterday on YT with an interview with an abbot of an Eastern Catholic monastery where he advanced the view that, while the Eastern Catholics cannot say that Rome is “wrong” in its definitions, they can say that Rome’s way of defining things is alien to their tradition as Byzantines. So it’s really fine, since both sides get to keep their way without anyone having to say the other is wrong.
That may be fine as far as your communion goes, but this is, as you can guess, not the way that things work in Orthodoxy. So in order for there to be any kind of true union (not conditional pastoral responses to abnormal canonical situations as we find in the USA or oppression as there is in the Middle East, nor “agreed statements” that are of such a basic, bland nature that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on), Rome must repudiate things that we have recognized as separating them from the Orthodox faith. In fact, even more basically, Rome needs to recognize that these things have separated them from the Orthodox faith. Similarly, Rome tells us (though in different words than it used to) that we must accept their errors as truth, at least in so far as those who have already united with Rome do (e.g., we can’t teach against them, even if they’re absolutely wrong). Where, realistically, is there room for “working out” differences here in a way that satisfies both communions’ conceptions of what the faith and the Church are? There is no compromise on the truth. It’s just not going to happen.
In a way, the creation of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches ensures that it’s never going to happen, because Rome has made a sort of “safe space” for those who would already agree to such an arrangement in the form of those churches, while those who will not agree with it can stay Orthodox. So you already have within your communion all of the people who agree to your presuppositions. The rest of us stay away because we will not agree with your errors in the first place, and the apologetics offered to try to make the case for Rome’s claims are utterly unconvincing to most people.
(As you can guess, Filii Dei, my position is that our differences extend far beyond the two general examples I gave; I just put things that way so that I wouldn’t have to make a long post that will make people sad or upset…like this one.
Sorry. I hope you can take all of this in a spirit of charity, in so far as honesty is not to be equated with viciousness or hatred.)
That may be fine as far as your communion goes, but this is, as you can guess, not the way that things work in Orthodoxy. So in order for there to be any kind of true union (not conditional pastoral responses to abnormal canonical situations as we find in the USA or oppression as there is in the Middle East, nor “agreed statements” that are of such a basic, bland nature that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on), Rome must repudiate things that we have recognized as separating them from the Orthodox faith. In fact, even more basically, Rome needs to recognize that these things have separated them from the Orthodox faith. Similarly, Rome tells us (though in different words than it used to) that we must accept their errors as truth, at least in so far as those who have already united with Rome do (e.g., we can’t teach against them, even if they’re absolutely wrong). Where, realistically, is there room for “working out” differences here in a way that satisfies both communions’ conceptions of what the faith and the Church are? There is no compromise on the truth. It’s just not going to happen.
In a way, the creation of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches ensures that it’s never going to happen, because Rome has made a sort of “safe space” for those who would already agree to such an arrangement in the form of those churches, while those who will not agree with it can stay Orthodox. So you already have within your communion all of the people who agree to your presuppositions. The rest of us stay away because we will not agree with your errors in the first place, and the apologetics offered to try to make the case for Rome’s claims are utterly unconvincing to most people.
(As you can guess, Filii Dei, my position is that our differences extend far beyond the two general examples I gave; I just put things that way so that I wouldn’t have to make a long post that will make people sad or upset…like this one.
Sorry. I hope you can take all of this in a spirit of charity, in so far as honesty is not to be equated with viciousness or hatred.)
C
CharlesdeFoucld
Guest
This is a beautiful quotation, and I’m a big admirer of this great doctor of the Church. I do think this style of eucharistic ecclesiology represents a way forward. It reminds me of the Orthodox theologian Nicolas Afanassieff, although I disagree with many of Afanassieff’s conclusions.
But there’s clearly a doctrinal (and structural) element to unity as well. From Bl. John Paul II’s Ut unum sint, 18: ‘. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. A “being together” which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.’
C
CharlesdeFoucld
Guest
I don’t think the doctrinal issues with the Orthodox are per se insurmountable, but Orthodox ecclesiology makes it extraordinarily difficult. Who speaks for Orthodoxy? Until the Orthodox can provide a clear, consistent response to that question, there’s no prospect whatsoever for concrete steps. We have to be satisfied with mutual understanding, common witness to the Gospel of Life and other local projects, coming to a common understanding of our shared history. But the lack of authority at the universal level in the Orthodox churches makes it difficult to imagine how unity would come about…Could we one day overcome these differences? Maybe, but not in the immediate future. Furthermore, it will depend on what the hierarchy decides is necessary in order to return to communion with each other.
L
Lester_S
Guest
By means of the Holy Spirit. How else could have Orthodoxy stood the test of time? Physically, it’s a communion of churches. Also, they’re monitored by the local synods.
M
malphono
Guest
But one could equally say the same thing in reverse.
C
CharlesdeFoucld
Guest
Through what ecclesial organs does the Holy Spirit work on the universal level (as opposed to the local, national, or regional levels)? In other words, who or what in Orthodoxy could definitively say if the filioque as the Latin church understands it is heretical or not? (I’m not asking whether this or that individual Orthodox believer thinks it’s heretical or not; I’m asking how I can know the standard Orthodox belief).
Communions of churches and local synods are fine, but how do decisions happen on the universal level? For example, if I want to answer the original poster’s question (‘Are we different churches or the same church’), I can read the 2nd Vatican Council’s Unitatis Redintegratio, Bl. John Paul II’s encyclical Ut unum sint, Pope Benedict XVI Dominus Iesus, or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Note on the Expression ‘Sister Churches’. These all carry different doctrinal weights, but if I pay attention, I can follow the mind of the Church. If I want to know the Orthodox response to the same question (‘same church or different churches’), who do I ask?
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
I also hold the view that Rome must stand by its view of orthodoxy (small o) in its approach to the faith. I do not believe that true orthodoxy can be reached by meaningless agreements on paper, The only exception is that the paper admits to a deviation from the faith, but even so any words must be backed up by firm action and firm belief. Indifferentism - to ignore the differences that do exist and pretend that there is no theological or spiritual gulf - is false ecumenicism. It allows the faithful to feel good about it, but it ultimately does no justice in delivering the true faith to Christians.
Does it mean that ecumenicism is pointless? I do not think so. There are many good fruits of ecumenical dialogue, namely the good relations that we have between the churches, and the renewed focus on examining our theological underpinnings. It’s a ‘back to basics’ exercise, if you will, although I do not believe that there is anything basic in Holy Tradition. The real objective of ecumenicism, however, is to bring all churches to the true faith (the standards of which are also determined as we see it), but that remains an elusive goal, and whether our current dialogues lead to a meaningful communion founded upon a real and substantial agreement of a true faith in the future remains to be seen.
The only problem I see now is that what the Catholic Church considers to be the true faith appears to be mutually exclusive with that of the Orthodox. As a Catholic, I believe that this is as yet insurmountable without compromising our orthodoxy, but as an uneducated layperson, I cannot bind my hierarchs and religious. Perhaps it is truly otherwise and I do not know it? I do not know. My mission has simply been to practice the faith as given by the Fathers and preached by the clergy. I do not trouble myself with questions of theology and ecclesiology.
It’s strange that you mention it…(As you can guess, Filii Dei, my position is that our differences extend far beyond the two general examples I gave; I just put things that way so that I wouldn’t have to make a long post that will make people sad or upset…like this one.
In a strange sort of way, I guess we are in agreement then. However, I certainly do understand your position, for I would hold the same view were I to be Orthodox. As it were, I am Catholic. I pray for you and your Church nonetheless, and I pray that with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, something meaningful will be achieved one day.
- Status