The Catholic/Orthodox Schism Much Older Than Believed?

[Cavaradossi]

So you are saying that the Roman claims to primacy and infallibility were born with the false decretals? That is laughable.

And we can prove that the author is mistaken about Aquinas, because Aquinas also formulated his theories on other sources. cathapol.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/an-answer-to-the-false-decretals-argument/

Is that a genuine quotation from St. Cyril or is it Pseudo-Cyril? Quotations falsely attributed to St. Cyril appear in many places in the work of Aquinas, and if it is indeed Pseudo-Cyril being quoted in that passage, it doesn’t really help the author’s rebuttal, does it? The argument, “Aquinas didn’t base all of his arguments on forgeries from the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, look at this forgery he also uses from Psuedo-Cyril,” would not be very compelling, after all.

 

[josie_L]

That article answered here: cathapol.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/an-answer-to-the-false-decretals-argument/

By the way, William Webster has written many anti-Catholic papers. Every one of them I have seen easily refuted. I wonder why you did not bother to do some more research on that article. When I read it I was surprised also, that anyone could be so easily fooled.

The Catholic Church is much more legitimate in my opinion.

Bad research leads to bad history.

 

[ffg]

From an orthodox perspective, is this website true to the intent of the Orthodox Church?

orthodoxinfo.com/general/gen_histdoc.aspx

I don’t want to go down a path of reading and learning, only to find it was a bad link and not generally accepted history or doctrine by Orthodox members.

Thank you,

Mike

 

[pablope]

Nobody knows who, but they sure did influence Thomas Acquinas and modern Roman Catholic theology a great deal.

christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

When I first read this article, I was surprised. How can the the true church of God have such a deceitful history? The Orthodox Church seems much more legitimate, in my opinion.

Really?? An article from 'William Webster is all you can go by? The introduction says there are to defend the Reformation…

Anyway…did you read this article from the same website?

christiantruth.com/articles/orthodoxycominghome.html

ISSUE ONE: The Demonizing of the West

Whether one is reading the classic works of Orthodox theologians such as Vladimir Lossky, Sergei Bulgakov, Georgii Florovsky, or prominent Orthodox thinkers writing in the West such as John Meyendorff, Alexander Schmemann, or Timothy Ware, the vilification of anything Western (or Latin) permeates the assertions and assumptions found on every page. Converts to Orthodoxy such as Frank Schaeffer repeat this refrain in warning against a “western captivity” of the Church. The deleterious effects of the Enlightenment upon the now “depraved” Western culture and the harmful fallout of the Reformation on religion, viewed as nothing more than the bastard child of “Age of Reason,” is the Orthodox’s historical “I told you so” for unsuspecting westerners. This gross caricature of western culture is as offensive as it is lopsided. One cannot seriously call it naive or misinformed, specifically on the part of “cradle Orthodox,” for that would be too kind in light of the facts they demonstrate a sufficient awareness of.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

brittrossiter;13331515]If my memory is correct, as far as the order of events is concerned, the pope’s name was first stricken from the diptychs in Constantinople not in 1054, but shortly after the installation of Pope Benedict VIII in 1014,

According to the OP, the Eastern Church’s did not believe the bishop of Rome never had a primacy? To which historical records, by the councils and Early Church Fathers, debunks the “here for donuts” opinion of history…

Yet we find these same Eastern Church’s following St. Pauls teaching to pray for those who have authority over you. When they included the Pope’s names for prayer within their liturgies.

The Popes names recorded in the diptychs only proves the popes were held in the highest esteem. Until Constantinople appears on the historical scene vie-ing for power over the ancient apostolic see’s.

Your post only proves a primacy of the Popes were recognized long before Constantinople comes on the scene.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

According to the OP, the Eastern Church’s did not believe the bishop of Rome never had a primacy? To which historical records, by the councils and Early Church Fathers, debunks the “here for donuts” opinion of history…

Yet we find these same Eastern Church’s following St. Pauls teaching to pray for those who have authority over you. When they included the Pope’s names for prayer within their liturgies.

The Popes names recorded in the diptychs only proves the popes were held in the highest esteem. Until Constantinople appears on the historical scene vie-ing for power over the ancient apostolic see’s.

Your post only proves a primacy of the Popes were recognized long before Constantinople comes on the scene.

This is so dishonest! The eastern church believed in Rome’s primacy, NOT its supremacy. There’s a huge difference.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This is so dishonest! The eastern church believed in Rome’s primacy, NOT its supremacy. There’s a huge difference.

Judging from the titles that each Patriarchate has allowed itself, one could claim that the SELF-titled internal view of each Church and the external view weren’t always in sync. However, this does not mean they separated because of the disagreement. For example, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch is called the “Prince Patriarch” internally, the Coptic Orthodox Pope is “the Judge of the Universe”, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch is “His Most Divine All-Holiness and Ecumenical Patriarch” and the Roman Pope is “Supreme Pontiff, having immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over the world” - all grand titles accepted wholly within each jurisdiction but not necessary as completely by the others.

 

[SyroMalankara]

There was no “John of Persia” at Nicea lol. That’s a complete myth.

Here’s a link to an Assyrian Chrisian forum discussing the issue. Go to the final two posts in the thread here:

peshitta.org/for/printthread.php?tid=3121

And no, the Assyriam church wasn’t “asked” to accept Nicea. They were a fiercely independent church that CHOSE to accept Nicea only after having held a council of their own, which occurred ninety years later.

You’re also quoting someone else and making it appear as if it’s me.

Whether Bishop John existed or not is in dispute even within the East. The Church in India believes he did exist and that he did in fact come to India. He may have been Western Syriac and not in communion with the Church of the East however, or from another line of succession not recognized by the ACoE. Unfortunately details are fuzzy.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is so dishonest! The eastern church believed in Rome’s primacy, NOT its supremacy. There’s a huge difference.

Can you define what exactly “supremacy” compared to “primacy” means to your view and opinion? It would sure help to clarify what your supposed infallible post’s are talking about.

p.s Can you define Infalliblity as it pertains to the chair of Peter?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Can you define what exactly “supremacy” compared to “primacy” means to your view and opinion? It would sure help to clarify what your supposes infallible post’s are talking about.

I’d say non-Catholic Easterners have an issue with Rome claiming “immediate and ordinary” authority over a local bishop, in their view making the Roman bishop in fact a super-bishop (a title that doesn’t exist in Scripture or Tradition) and making the local bishop a Papal delegate.

On the flip side, despite all the talk of Synodality and local bishop’s monarchy - in practice Eastern Patriarchs have sometimes acted as immediate and ordinary over the local bishops, and have behaved in a more authoritarian manner than Rome claims to itself.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

SyroMalankara;13341315]I’d say non-Catholic Easterners

What in the world is a “non-Catholic Easterners”? Muslims?

have an issue with Rome claiming “immediate and ordinary” authority over a local bishop, in their view making the Roman bishop in fact a super-bishop (a title that doesn’t exist in Scripture or Tradition) and making the local bishop a Papal delegate.

Ok, we both agree that a “super-bishop” does not exist. What does primacy mean both from the ancient Church faith and today’s Orthodox view or opinion?

The bishop of Rome does not have “immediate and ordinary” authority over the local bishop. All bishop’s are equal in the immediate and ordinary sense.

When it comes to issues regarding the whole of Christendom the Bishop of Rome is first among equals that begins the process of defending the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

On the flip side, despite all the talk of Synodality and local bishop’s monarchy - in practice Eastern Patriarchs have sometimes acted as immediate and ordinary over the local bishops, and have behaved in a more authoritarian manner than Rome claims to itself

I am glad you bring this up. For one when ever the local bishop’s are being infected by heretics or heresy. It is up to the immediate bishops involved to address such local infections of their faith. The Pope need not entertain such disputes. Unless as history has proven, the heresy begin to infect the whole Church world wide. or the Popes fellow brethren are being correctly accused or falsely accused, as an early council proclaims about the Bishop of Rome, “Peter has spoken”.

I am sure, if I ever get a defined answer between supreme and primacy of the Bishop of Rome from our OP or any Orthodox.

We can begin to see the true colors of our thread post’s.

 

[Genesis315]

I’d say non-Catholic Easterners have an issue with Rome claiming “immediate and ordinary” authority over a local bishop, in their view making the Roman bishop in fact a super-bishop (a title that doesn’t exist in Scripture or Tradition) and making the local bishop a Papal delegate.

According to Catholic doctrine, bishops are not to be treated as vicars/delegates of the Roman Pontiff (see below ****)–they exercise a power really their own. At the First Vatican Council, there was a lot of debate over the term “ordinary.” The Deputatio de fide clarified that the word “ordinary” in this context means non-delegated–the Pope’s authority is not delegated to him by the other bishops–it doesn’t mean he should be routinely engaged in exercising that jurisdiction. Some bishops worried it would mean the Roman Pontiff could essentially just do away with bishops and just run everything himself. The response from the Deputatio de Fide was that since the episcopate was of divine right in the Church, such action would not be a legitimate use of papal power. His power should be used to strengthen the episcopate, not destroy it. However, since the ministry of the papacy is for the unity of the Church, he needs to be able to use that authority freely and ultimately it must come down to his own discretion and conscience if it is necessary for such unity. As St. John Paul II notes in Ut Unum Sint 94, the primacy would be illusory without real power and authority to serve unity.

Here’s a good scholarly article on the topic, with good references to the debates at the First Vatican Council:
d1ckv7js84buaj.cloudfront.net/40/40.1/40.1.1.pdf

---

Leo XIII:

1. But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose, twelve, whom He called apostles” (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.

Vatican II:

The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern.(59*) Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it,(60*) since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church.

 

[SyroMalankara]

What in the world is a “non-Catholic Easterners”? Muslims?

No, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East members - valid Churches with true succession, bishops, Traditions and faith but not Catholic.
Many of the Eastern Catholic Churches were originally of these Churches before reunion with Rome.

Ok, we both agree that a “super-bishop” does not exist. What does primacy mean both from the ancient Church faith and today’s Orthodox view or opinion?

The bishop of Rome does not have “immediate and ordinary” authority over the local bishop. All bishop’s are equal in the immediate and ordinary sense.

Not according to Latin and Eastern Catholic Canon Law. Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care. The Orthodox vary in how they define the role of Primacy, there is no clear answer.

When it comes to issues regarding the whole of Christendom the Bishop of Rome is first among equals that begins the process of defending the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

From the Orthodox perspective the Roman Bishop claims more than “first among equals”.

I am glad you bring this up. For one when ever the local bishop’s are being infected by heretics or heresy. It is up to the immediate bishops involved to address such local infections of their faith. The Pope need not entertain such disputes. Unless as history has proven, the heresy begin to infect the whole Church world wide. or the Popes fellow brethren are being correctly accused or falsely accused, as an early council proclaims about the Bishop of Rome, “Peter has spoken”.

Except we see in history that the Roman Pope has involved in local disputes when it could have been resolved locally. Most Easterners today are content to let him do so within the Latin Church, as long as he allows Eastern Churches to resolve their own issues (unless they specifically ask him to be involved).

 

[SyroMalankara]

According to Catholic doctrine, bishops are not to be treated as vicars/delegates of the Roman Pontiff (see below ****)–they exercise a power really their own. At the First Vatican Council, there was a lot of debate over the term “ordinary.” The Deputatio de fide clarified that the word “ordinary” in this context means non-delegated–the Pope’s authority is not delegated to him by the other bishops–it doesn’t mean he should be routinely engaged in exercising that jurisdiction. Some bishops worried it would mean the Roman Pontiff could essentially just do away with bishops and just run everything himself. The response from the Deputatio de Fide was that since the episcopate was of divine right in the Church, such action would not be a legitimate use of papal power. His power should be used to strengthen the episcopate, not destroy it. However, since the ministry of the papacy is for the unity of the Church, he needs to be able to use that authority freely and ultimately it must come down to his own discretion and conscience if it is necessary for such unity. As St. John Paul II notes in Ut Unum Sint 94, the primacy would be illusory without real power and authority to serve unity.

Here’s a good scholarly article on the topic, with good references to the debates at the First Vatican Council:
d1ckv7js84buaj.cloudfront.net/40/40.1/40.1.1.pdf

---

Absolutely you are correct in theory, however, in practice and in the non-technical lingo that most non-Canonical lawyers see it, it doesn’t mean that.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

SyroMalankara;13341474]No, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East members - valid Churches with true succession, bishops, Traditions and faith but not Catholic.

If they profess the Nicene Creed they are all Catholic, maybe at one time out of communion with the bishop of Rome, never the less you can’t take their One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith from them, at least Rome never does.

Not according to Latin and Eastern Catholic Canon Law. Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

The language here does not promote the bishop of Rome as having any power over the universal Church nor the particular Churches in full communion with the bishop of Rome. This document references the “Roman Pontiff” that directly references the chair of Peter which “strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess”.

This language directly ties into the teaching’s of Jesus directly to the primacy of Peter and his apostolic successors in unity as one. This document clearly states that the particular Churches possess “immediate power”. It does not say the Roman Pontiff takes it away, that is a fallacy reading of the document.

Vatican II has cleared up a lot of the old misinterpreted language distinctly, which reveals the mind of Christ and the heart of the Church. For example; Vatican II ecumenical documents emphatically declare that Latin Catholics are not to convert Orthodox Catholics to Latin and vice versa. When ecumenical dialogue between the two is to be encouraged.

The Orthodox vary in how they define the role of Primacy, there is no clear answer.

Why is that? Yet their diverse views of the Primacy the Pope possesses since antiquity, gets blurred from the Orthodox multiple views causing havoc to the minds and misunderstandings of the primacy as presented within these threads and the like.

From the Orthodox perspective the Roman Bishop claims more than “first among equals”.

A wrong interpretation of the Roman Bishop and the Chair of Peter being exercised misplaces the Orthodox many false objections.

The Roman Bishop is no different from my local Bishop or any other apostolic successor, Vatican II documents and Genesis 315 post introduced some key documents for view. The Pope can only be a Pope so long as he is the bishop of Rome. The Pope who presides in Peter’s Chair is our universal shepherd. The ancient church attest to this fact, not by men or councils, but by divine right given to Peter from Jesus himself. All church documents correctly interpreted reflect the gospel teachings of Jesus Christ that references Peter and his pontificate, to which the bishop of Rome presides…

The primacy of Peter is recorded by many ECF’s long before Constantinople. In fact, our poor OP poster neglects the fact that the Roman Catholic Church predates the Eastern Patriarch of Constantinople, in fact most apostolic see’s owe their apostolicity to Peter and John Mark to wit; that the Roman Catholic Church is proven by both religious (Jews, Muslims, pagans) and secular historical accounts, that the Popes and the Roman Catholic Church has existed in Rome since apostolic times.

In fact our Latin Apostolic Creed long predates the Nicene Creed, which we still use our Apostles Creed for baptism unchanged from antiquity. A church cannot be any more Orthodox than from a profession of ancient biblical, apostolic faith.

Except we see in history that the Roman Pope has involved in local disputes when it could have been resolved locally. Most Easterners today are content to let him do so within the Latin Church, as long as he allows Eastern Churches to resolve their own issues (unless they specifically ask him to be involved).

This subject takes on a case by case study. It is not fair to broad paint the actions of the Pope’s who are present in the last 2000 years since the resurrection.

All apostolic successors are never under the thumb of the Roman Pope. When it comes to the apostolic faith and the flock being led by a false shepherd like the one Communist China appointed and unseated a True apostolic successor, Peter will do all he can to assist and protect the flock of his brethren.

The Pope does not meddle with the local apostolic successor’s jurisdiction and authority. The Pope has ancient discipline laws that required updating because of the changed languages, understanding and cultural times. Vatican II has helped us move into the new millennium with clarification and understanding that does not move from the apostolic faith.

Anti-pope theories today, remain in a history that is not our own, falsely interpreting a time in comparison with our own changing times. Our OP did not get that memo.

Jesus built His Church upon Rock which does not change, the Roman Catholic church has not changed from her apostolic faith our baptismal creed is living proof of this.

The primacy and supremacy of the Pope in Rome as revealed in sacred scripture and sacred Tradition has not changed.

These exchanges have been a false view of a history that has taken place in a different time with different political and religious circumstances that are not our own.

After the dust of history has settled. History from antiquity to the present can only reveal one thing for sure! Peter is still here when time and politics did not favor Kings, Nations, Emperors that have ceased to exist. Peter’s Chair existing in every age attests to the fact and reveals Jesus promise, will never leave her orphaned.

 

[Rohzek]

Please, tell me how deposing Eastern bishops from their sees and imposing foreign liturgical standards and creed additions is an act of an equal? Often people brush off the deposition of Photius, but that’s only because they believe his elevation was uncanonical. Technically it was, but the canons of Constantinople cited had already been violated for centuries, yet no one deposed the previous patriarchs on those grounds. It was the equivalent of enforcing one of Florida’s strange laws that forbids girls in bikinis singing on the beach. No one enforces that law until a police officer finds themselves incredibly bored. Then we have the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch who were deposed after the First Crusade.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Please, tell me how deposing Eastern bishops from their sees and imposing foreign liturgical standards and creed additions is an act of an equal? Often people brush off the deposition of Photius, but that’s only because they believe his elevation was uncanonical. Technically it was, but the canons of Constantinople cited had already been violated for centuries, yet no one deposed the previous patriarchs on those grounds. It was the equivalent of enforcing one of Florida’s strange laws that forbids girls in bikinis singing on the beach. No one enforces that law until a police officer finds themselves incredibly bored. Then we have the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch who were deposed after the First Crusade.

Rohzek, all true, however the same standard applies to Orthodoxy. Why can the Greek Patriarch in Constantinople appoint replacement bishops for the Sees of Antioch and Alexandria when his co-equal counterparts reject Chalcedon? And again when the majority of the Synod in Antioch reunited with Rome in the 1700s, set up a parallel episcopate again that?

 

[Rohzek]

I’m not familiar with early modern history, so please explain in detail as to what steps the Patriarch of Constantinople took in replacing or setting up Eastern Orthodox bishops to replace those that joined Rome.

I just would like to know for comparisons sake between what the Latins did after the early crusading period and what the Orthodox did during the early modern period in the Levant.

 

[Peter_J]

What in the world is a “non-Catholic Easterners”?

It must be a spin-off from “non-Orthodox Westerners”.

 

[Peter_J]

From an orthodox perspective, is this website true to the intent of the Orthodox Church?

orthodoxinfo.com/general/gen_histdoc.aspx

I don’t want to go down a path of reading and learning, only to find it was a bad link and not generally accepted history or doctrine by Orthodox members.

Thank you,

Mike

Hi ffg. A two part answer: I wouldn’t say they aren’t Orthodox, but … Let’s just say that website doesn’t have the diversity of opinions that CAF does.