The Great Schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter holdencaulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

holdencaulfield

Guest
Recently I have been chatting with some Orthodox folks and they do have some convincing arguments for Orthodoxy. Could someone give me some arguments to use against them. Take each piece of info one at a time and help me. I have already thought up some arguments.

Orthodox Arguments
  • The Nicene Creed should not have been changed regardless of whether the Filioque Clause is correct or not.
  • The Papacy was un-traditional and was not right.
  • St. Peter was only a spiritual head of the Church
  • The Catholic Church has made massive doctrinal changes since 1054 which are un-traditional.
Catholic Arguments
  • The Church was meant to revolve around St. Peter. Matthew 16:18 proves this.
  • Just as the Parable of the Mustard Seed shows the Church was meant to grow.
  • Even when the Church is wrong it is right because it this One Church
  • Even if the Orthodox Church is more traditional, it doesn’t matter because they fail to follow the Papacy instituted by Christ
  • The Filioque Clause was necessary to keep people away from heresy. There is nothing wrong with it.
Basically the major division had nothing to do with the Filioque Clause, that was just the breaking point. The main issue was over leadership. Was St. Peter meant to be the permanent leader of the Church or was he just the leader until the Pentarch was set up.

Thanks.
 
Eastern Catholicism might also be a better place for the discussion, as those folks have to walk a sort of line between the two sides and would both know better what the Orthodox actually think and why, being Eastern Catholics, they disagree with the Orthodox.

As far as I know, though, the Filioque had nothing to do with the original schism. The schism itself was mostly about political bickering, and theological justifications were trotted forth after the fact.
 
holdencaulfield said:
Recently I have been chatting with some Orthodox folks and they do have some convincing arguments for Orthodoxy. Could someone give me some arguments to use against them. Take each piece of info one at a time and help me. I have already thought up some arguments.

Orthodox Arguments
  • The Nicene Creed should not have been changed regardless of whether the Filioque Clause is correct or not.
  • The Papacy was un-traditional and was not right.
  • St. Peter was only a spiritual head of the Church
  • The Catholic Church has made massive doctrinal changes since 1054 which are un-traditional.
Catholic Arguments
  • The Church was meant to revolve around St. Peter. Matthew 16:18 proves this.
  • Just as the Parable of the Mustard Seed shows the Church was meant to grow.
  • Even when the Church is wrong it is right because it this One Church
  • Even if the Orthodox Church is more traditional, it doesn’t matter because they fail to follow the Papacy instituted by Christ
  • The Filioque Clause was necessary to keep people away from heresy. There is nothing wrong with it.
Basically the major division had nothing to do with the Filioque Clause, that was just the breaking point. The main issue was over leadership. Was St. Peter meant to be the permanent leader of the Church or was he just the leader until the Pentarch was set up.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp
 
Here is an article that looks at it from another perspective–and shows that the Orthodox claim is internally contradictory–and therefore false (you should read all the propositions and answers to them and the background info at the beginning is helpful to):

rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison
 
holdencaulfield said:
Recently I have been chatting with some Orthodox folks and they do have some convincing arguments for Orthodoxy. Could someone give me some arguments to use against them. Take each piece of info one at a time and help me. I have already thought up some arguments.

Orthodox Arguments
  • The Nicene Creed should not have been changed regardless of whether the Filioque Clause is correct or not.
Click to expand...
maybe/maybe not see:ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xi.html
Excursus on the Words πίστιν ἑπέραν. under the Third Council
  • The Papacy was un-traditional and was not right.
  • St. Peter was only a spiritual head of the Church
  • The Catholic Church has made massive doctrinal changes since 1054 which are un-traditional.
Click to expand...
Well that’s the nub of it isn’t it. I suppose the best answer is that the pre-schism Church had no problems holding councils and defining dogma. The Catholic Church has continued in that living, growing and authoritative tradition - and Orthodoxy has not. Orthodoxy has become moribund, unable or unwilling to hold a council or define new dogma, though for 800 years that was not an issue for the Church. The Orthodox may not like that Catholicism continues to act like the Church while Orthodoxy has ossified, but that is the very issue.

Oddly, Orthodoxy has never had a council to anathematize the filioque. Indeed, the Orthodox accepted the filioque at Florence - and then the major part rejected Florence - much like the orientals rejected Ephesus. If the Orientals are in schism with the Church over Ephesus, I submit the Orthodox are in schism over Florence.

Perhaps this site would be of interest: onefineart.com/en/artists/lin…me/index.shtml
 
The only thing I really think that they have over us Catholics is that they are more traditional. It does seem like we have changed a bit too much. :o
 
holdencaulfield said:
The only thing I really think that they have over us Catholics is that they are more traditional. It does seem like we have changed a bit too much. :o
Click to expand...
Truth is Truth. It never changes. The Catholic Church has kept to the teachings of Christ.
 
holdencaulfield said:
I know, I mean in the NO.
Click to expand...
The Russians also have had a similar problem in that the Patriarchal Church introduced some changes to realign itself with the practices of Constantinople. There were a number of people “The Old Believers” who fractioned themselves from Russian Orthodoxy. They are the Orthodox SSPX if you will.

So, Orthodoxy does have the same problems.
 
Volodymyr_988 said:
The Russians also have had a similar problem in that the Patriarchal Church introduced some changes to realign itself with the practices of Constantinople. There were a number of people “The Old Believers” who fractioned themselves from Russian Orthodoxy. They are the Orthodox SSPX if you will.

So, Orthodoxy does have the same problems.
Click to expand...
Oh yes you are right. I forgot about that. I’m really having trouble with Orthodoxy because their Mass seems so right and pious and traditional, however they don’t have the Pope. They don’t follow the Bishop of Rome instituted by Christ.
 
holdencaulfield said:
Oh yes you are right. I forgot about that. I’m really having trouble with Orthodoxy because their Mass seems so right and pious and traditional, however they don’t have the Pope. They don’t follow the Bishop of Rome instituted by Christ.
Click to expand...
Maybe for some perspective, the High Anglicans have a service that is pretty much the same as a Tridentine rite Mass. Nesotorians have beauty too. Even in the first few centuries, schismatic or heretical churches often seemed more pristine than the true one. You can find beauty in many false religions in fact. That doesn’t make them true. The smells and bells are helps to lift our mind to God, but they are not absolutely necessary to do so. The very substance of the Eucharistic sacrifice was as present in the upper room, at people’s homes, and in the catacombs as it is in the most beautiful temple, with priests in the finest vestments, and with the most beautiful ceremonies. Of course, Catholic rites have just as much potential to be beautiful, and many are more so.

I think the beauty plus the almost-totally-true nature of Eastern Orthodoxy makes it tempting. When I began to take truth seriously, I had to evaluate other claims and the Orthodox one, at first glance, seems equally plausible to the Catholic one.

However, I tried to read apologetics from both sides and then go deeper into the primary texts, historical accounts from multiple perspectives, etc. and in totality–especially when taken to their logical conclusions (many of the doctrinal objections made by the Orthodox are simply a failure to do this)–led me to the Catholic ecclesiology.

The final nail in the coffin was actually the exact same as the one for the priest in the article I linked to. It’s a good philosophical point.
 
holdencaulfield said:
Oh yes you are right. I forgot about that. I’m really having trouble with Orthodoxy because their Mass seems so right and pious and traditional, however they don’t have the Pope. They don’t follow the Bishop of Rome instituted by Christ.
Click to expand...
If you find the Divine Liturgy speaks to you spiritually, I suggest you investigate the Catholic Churches which practice the Eastern rite–such as Byzantine Catholics, or Armenian. Such churches are in full communion with Rome but practice the faith in the Eastern traditions, which I find particularly meaningful. 🙂

byzantines.net
 
holdencaulfield said:
Oh yes you are right. I forgot about that. I’m really having trouble with Orthodoxy because their Mass seems so right and pious and traditional, however they don’t have the Pope. They don’t follow the Bishop of Rome instituted by Christ.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Divine Liturgies of Sts. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great are very beautiful, but Orthodoxy has a very different way of life than Western Catholicism.

I would second that you should try the Eastern Catholic Churches, but don’t go in thinking you can force rosaries, scapulars, and statues on them. That’s not their way (unless they have already been Latinized, but that’s a whole other can of worms!:eek: )
 
Genesis315 said:
Maybe for some perspective, the High Anglicans have a service that is pretty much the same as a Tridentine rite Mass. Nesotorians have beauty too. Even in the first few centuries, schismatic or heretical churches often seemed more pristine than the true one. You can find beauty in many false religions in fact. That doesn’t make them true. The smells and bells are helps to lift our mind to God, but they are not absolutely necessary to do so. The very substance of the Eucharistic sacrifice was as present in the upper room, at people’s homes, and in the catacombs as it is in the most beautiful temple, with priests in the finest vestments, and with the most beautiful ceremonies. Of course, Catholic rites have just as much potential to be beautiful, and many are more so.

I think the beauty plus the almost-totally-true nature of Eastern Orthodoxy makes it tempting. When I began to take truth seriously, I had to evaluate other claims and the Orthodox one, at first glance, seems equally plausible to the Catholic one.

However, I tried to read apologetics from both sides and then go deeper into the primary texts, historical accounts from multiple perspectives, etc. and in totality–especially when taken to their logical conclusions (many of the doctrinal objections made by the Orthodox are simply a failure to do this)–led me to the Catholic ecclesiology.

The final nail in the coffin was actually the exact same as the one for the priest in the article I linked to. It’s a good philosophical point.
Click to expand...
Thank You, that helps you are right I never thought of that. And I guess doctrine hasn’t really changed since Vatican II. Maybe Pope Benedict XVI will change things back.
 
catherineajt said:
If you find the Divine Liturgy speaks to you spiritually, I suggest you investigate the Catholic Churches which practice the Eastern rite–such as Byzantine Catholics, or Armenian. Such churches are in full communion with Rome but practice the faith in the Eastern traditions, which I find particularly meaningful. 🙂

byzantines.net
Click to expand...
I didn’t look like they had a link to fine Parishes. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top