What are the arguments against Catholicism from the Eastern Orthodox that you often encounter?

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I doubt that the Orthodox will accept the universal jurisdiction and supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.

Then your quarrel is not with Peter the bishop of Rome. Your objection is to He who gives the authority, the Risen Jesus Christ. Who pretends to remove a Rock foundation which God builds upon?

 

[AlNg]

Then your quarrel is not with Peter the bishop of Rome. Your objection is to He who gives the authority, the Risen Jesus Christ. Who pretends to remove a Rock foundation which God builds upon?

I am observing the situation, not quarreling.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I am observing the situation, not quarreling.

Forgive my misprint, I was not blaming you for the schism personally. I thank you for your correctioin

 

[Wandile]

Oh the age old myth of 4 out of the 5 patriarchates sides with Constantinople instead of Rome.

In reality it was :

Alexandria : Oriental Orthodox. They sided neither with Rome or Constantinople but split a lot earlier. The Greek Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria is no more a valid claimant than the now defunct Latin patriarch of Alexandria.

Antioch: depending on whether you are miaphysite or chalcedonian depends on which line truly kept the succession of amtiochan bishops. But for arguments sake let’s say chalcedians (known as Melkite) did. The antiochans sided with Constantinople not because of any particular correctness but because they were financially and ecclesitiacally dependent on Constantinople after the east fell to the Muslims. They were literally a puppet patriarchate which reached its height when Constantinople was even appointing the patriarch of Antioch post-schism.
Lastly Antioch came back into communion with Rome in the 17th century when the patriarch and the synod declared union with Rome which gave birth to the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. The remnant who refused communion started a rival like now know as the Antiochan Orthodox Church and had it’s first bishop Given to them by Constantinople.

Jerusalem: this was an honorary patriarchate with little to no influence at all. It was only made a patriarchate because of the history of Christianity there. The patriarch of Jerusalem was also dependent on Constantinople like Antioch and even to this day it’s reached a point where Greeks still hold the see and don’t let the native Arabs or Hebrews ascend to the bishopric.

So the final count was :

At the time of the split : Constantinople, Jerusalem and Antioch for the Eastern Orthodox

Catholics were Rome and the whole west.

Oriental Orthodox was Alexandria and the other miaphysites.

Today it is :

Jerusalem and Constantinople for EO

Catholics are Rome and Antioch

OO are Alexandria still.

 

[Wandile]

They will. But it will take time. If anyone sees how much authority was ceded to Rome at the council of Florence by the Orthodox you will be amazed. They never disputed his universal jurisdiction. The openly granted it on the basis that Rome drop the filioque

 

[ANewBeginning]

The Ottomans were at the gates of Constantinople and the Emperor was desperate, so he forced this union on the Church. The conduct of the Pope and the Western Kingdoms during this time is not something to be proud of. Using the Muslim threat as a pressure to coerce “reunion” is no union at all.

Reunion will happen when the Apostolic Faith is once again shared.

 

[Wandile]

Actually Rome and the east had been in talks for decades before. The date of the council was decided by various political factors in the west as well as the east like the cociliarist crisis.

But it doesn’t take away from what I said about what they ceded to Rome. They didn’t even debate the authority of the pope. Th Eastern prelates understood Rome’s privileges and granted it to Rome without any expectation than orthodox (from the EO point of view).

Even after Florence, look at what the ruthenians granted Rome when considering going into Union with Rome. They granted Rome full authority and this wasn’t even debated.

It’s modern Eastern Orthodoxy that has invented this idea of first among equals. Something that was not even believed by the same Eastern Orthodox just a few centuries ago

 

[LoyalViews]

This.

I also refuse to refer to the Orthodox as an “other”, and many Orthodox I know refuse to refer to Catholics as if we are the “other” as well. The state we exist in is one of schism, yet we are still united in our shared beliefs and Apostolic tradition.

This ought to be our starting point, as it oft has been throughout the years of debate. Dissension ought to give way to understanding.

 

[ANewBeginning]

Yes there had been talks for CENTURIES. Our union was already broken once before during the St. Photios’ time, but communion was re-established eventually. Unfortunately respect for the old order was gone.

What could we debate? The Emperor pressured the bishops attending to not “jeopardize” the Empire’s chances for military aid (The Empire of course reduced to a chunk of Greece, Constantinople itself and Trebizond, a mere dying ember of it’s former glory). The conditions that our bishops labored under were appalling. You ignore the circumstances of the time and focus on the documents produced, never mind the conditions under which they were signed and what happened immediately after that.

You use Florence as some kind of “proof” that we didn’t believe in First Among Equals, ignoring all context and our history.

 

[Wandile]

Yes there had been talks for CENTURIES. Our union was already broken once before during the St. Photios’ time, but communion was re-established eventually. Unfortunately respect for the old order was gone.

No you’re missing the point. After the solidification of schism after Second Lyons, there were consistent and serious reunion talks initiated for a number of decades preceding Florence. Florence did not happen spontaneously on the occasion of the Muslim invasion. The latins and Greeks were working seriously together to have reunion which culminated in Florence.

What could we debate? The Emperor pressured the bishops attending to not “jeopardize” the Empire’s chances for military aid (The Empire of course reduced to a chunk of Greece, Constantinople itself and Trebizond, a mere dying ember of it’s former glory). The conditions that our bishops labored under were appalling. You ignore the circumstances of the time and focus on the documents produced, never mind the conditions under which they were signed and what happened immediately after that.

Have you actually read the acts of Florence? There was a lot of freedom for debate and the debates at times were too elongated. They debated for months about particular topics openly.

The terms of reunion were not completely forced as evidenced by Mark of Ephesus.

If you read the discourse on how they settled the filioque question in the Greek quarters, you see how they debated amongst themselves. After these discussions the Greeks came to the conclusion that the latins had validly and partristicaly defended their teaching. I can provide excerpts if you want of the accounts from the Greeks themselves.

You use Florence as some kind of “proof” that we didn’t believe in First Among Equals, ignoring all context and our history.

Actually my claim isn’t hinged on Florence but on many instances showing the innovation of the modern Eastern Orthodox position even in contrast to their predecessors.

Mark of Ephesus (a man who did not compromise at all on EO faith as EO praise him) openly confessed the authority of Rome. He said Rome would be granted back it’s privileges if she just recanted of the filioque from the creed. That was his only condition and real objection with Rome which hindered reunion

Again centuries after Florence’s the Ruthenians, openly admitted Rome’s authority when considering reunion. They were just worried that the rights of the individual bishops might be infringed upon which was their complaint of the conciliarist system of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Again even later Russian and Slavic authors taught of Rome’s true primacy of authority like Mikhail Emilievitch Posnov, Peter Mohila etc

Again the east signing the formula of St Hormisdas which blatantly taught universal jurisdiction pre schism is again proof of change.

Or when the 7th council (Nicaea II) openly affirmed Pope Hadrian’s letter which blatantly confessed Rome as mother of all churches and taught papal supremacy.

At Chalcedon the acts themselves show the fathers opinion of Rome saying that even its own acts had to be confirmed by St Leo to have any force.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I wonder how the Church Father’s from both East and Western Church viewed their communion when they were all ONE in Unity, defending our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

When the bishop of Rome was united with the Orthodox, this unity was not without turmoil among their brethren, who were teaching heterodoxy. Some were excommunicated as heretics, some repented, some denied a council’s teaching. Thus the Church Jesus founded since her infancy has not been without turmoils within and persecution from secular powers.

I try to reflect and imagine when the Orthodox and the Bishop of Rome were united as ONE.
Yet, I cannot deny that we both maintain our sacramental life and spiritual life as ONE in Spirit. Theological interpretation and understanding that came up in history, when secular powers kept us apart caused a schism and helps maintain a schism.

I am hopeful that we can learn from our historical past of what causes a schism today and begin a new respectful look into each one’s linguistic interpretation of our Apostolic Faith and cultural understanding without any type of prejudices from both sides.