What divided East and West in the Great Schism?

[SyroMalankara]

Catholic views of territoriality and those of Orthodoxy are quite different, and are a source of serious challenge to union in the future. The Latin Church is spread all over the world. Orthodoxy claims it should be limited to the City of Rome and the countryside surrounding it. We have seen that repeated by Orthodox on here (not Greek, though) many times. That claim is impossible for the Catholic Church to accept.

In a perfect world, every bishop would have the same solution for every problem. Unfortunately, we live in this own, which can’t operate that way. The Catholic solution to territorial problems - dividing by Sui Iuris Church is a new solution - prior to this, in the USA, Latin bishops were the bishops for the Eastern Catholics and ECs were pretty much latinized and pressured to discard their authentic Traditions to be “really Catholic” (meaning imitate the Latins); the Orthodox solution has been to temporarily allow multiple bishops overlapping, not ideal, but to preserve peace. Ideally, the mandated rule by Ecumenical Council of 1 bishop per area would be maintained - unfortunately, it seems unlikely due to cultural and sociological problems among people.

The Catholic solution is not ideal - it should be one bishop for NY (for example), who oversees all Catholics - Latin, Byzantine, Syriac, etc - with each Church following their Tradition to the fullest. Unfortunately, a Syriac church under a Latin bishop tends to become latinized or ignore its authentic practice due to no proper oversight.

On the Orthodox side, clergy and laymen tend to ‘jump ship’ for expedience; or compare the practices of one bishop to another and choose one of their liking.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In a perfect world, every bishop would have the same solution for every problem. Unfortunately, we live in this own, which can’t operate that way. The Catholic solution to territorial problems - dividing by Sui Iuris Church is a new solution - prior to this, in the USA, Latin bishops were the bishops for the Eastern Catholics and ECs were pretty much latinized and pressured to discard their authentic Traditions to be “really Catholic” (meaning imitate the Latins); the Orthodox solution has been to temporarily allow multiple bishops overlapping, not ideal, but to preserve peace. Ideally, the mandated rule by Ecumenical Council of 1 bishop per area would be maintained - unfortunately, it seems unlikely due to cultural and sociological problems among people.

The Catholic solution is not ideal - it should be one bishop for NY (for example), who oversees all Catholics - Latin, Byzantine, Syriac, etc - with each Church following their Tradition to the fullest. Unfortunately, a Syriac church under a Latin bishop tends to become latinized or ignore its authentic practice due to no proper oversight.

On the Orthodox side, clergy and laymen tend to ‘jump ship’ for expedience; or compare the practices of one bishop to another and choose one of their liking.

If, indeed, there was pressure by Latin bishops to “Latinize” people of the Eastern churches, I wasn’t around then. I have seen people say it.

Regardless, that’s no longer the case, probably due to there being more people of the Eastern churches in the U.S. than was the case formerly. I recall reading that, when this country started, virtually all Catholics were English. Then came the Irish, in such numbers that it sort of shocked the English Catholics. Then came Germans, and so on. Every time some new flood came in, adjustments had to be made for those who couldn’t speak English (except for the Irish, most of whom did speak English). Now, we have a lot of Hispanics who don’t speak English, and adjustments are made, sometimes clumsily, for them.

Eastern Catholics didn’t really come in huge numbers or suddenly, to my understanding. Personally, I like the arrangement in which the various Catholic churches have their own governance, heirarchy, etc. I like it that they preserve their own rites, customs, etc, and think it’s worthy of encouragement from the larger (in the U.S.) group of Latins. I am sure there are differences in approach to spirituality as well as outward appearances in decor, liturgies, organization and so on. I am no expert when it comes to Eastern Catholic churches, but it is my impression that they have a more mystical kind of approach whereas Latins are more…well, Roman… plain, practical, literal. I am sure to an Easterner, the average Latin church seems awfully plain. (I’ll except the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis, which is beautifully Byzantine from top to bottom) Look. google.com/images?q=st+louis+basilica&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ADFA_enUS486&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=rnZ-U5eiO9K3yATh1YGQCQ&ved=0CDcQsAQ

I’ll confess, for a Latin it’s sometimes difficlt to find an Eastern church or eparchy office. I did find a Ruthenian chancery (if that’s what they’re called) to get the words to a Ruthenian hymn once.

But asking a Latin bishop to oversee and direct an Eastern church is asking a lot of that bishop. One expect them to be able to learn all the nuances, but I would think most Easterners would feel more comfortable with their own bishop.

I do realize sometimes people “jump ship”. Sometimes Easterners “go Latin” because there is a Latin parish nearby but the nearest Eastern church is a hundred or more miles away. (Like where I live). On the other hand, sometimes people who were raised Latin go “Eastern” because they find the liturgies and spirituality more fitting to their way of thinking.

I, for one, would never want to see all the Eastern Catholic churches in the U.S. go Latin. There’s room for all. But if, say, there is a resource shortage for some of the Eastern Churches, I would definitely want to see the Latin churches accommodate them or, perhaps better, contribute to their support.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

I have very little knowledge of the eastern Orthodox churches. But, since no one else seems to want to answer the original poster, I will do my best and allow those more knowledgeable to correct me.

Here is how I would approach it for RCIA.

Apostolic Churches

The Catholic Church in its literature often represents the early church as being Catholic which is only partly true. When compared the Protestant denominations it is perfectly true. But it is incorrect in that there are many church traditions that all are faithful to that early Church and are derived from it. This early Church is probably best called the Apostolic Church, because its dogma came directly from the Apostles. Catholics are not the only Apostolic Church. There are many other churches that the Catholic Church accepts as Apostolic. The Catholic Churches accept that all of these Apostolic Churches have the fullness of truth and are not heretical. The eastern Orthodox Churches represent the largest group of such Apostolic Churches. The modern Catholic Church accepts that we should not try to convert members of any of the Apostolic Churches.

Patriarchs and Popes

The early Church represented three Sees of Bishops as being primary or being called Patriarchs (the term Pope can be used for any of these Patriarchs and of the later Patriarchs). The original patriarchs held Sees in Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. (Jerusalem had a prominence as well; although it was a spiritual one. From the beginning the Patriarch of Rome asserted ‘primacy’ which the other Patriarchs were (and still are) willing to accept to an extent (but certainly not to the extent that Rome wished or asserted). When Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople, the Bishop of Constantinople asserted it authority to treated as an Patriarch. And there have been many claims of Patriarchy asserted by many Bishops ever since, with many of these in dispute between Churches.

**Churches in Communion with Rome (Rites) ****

For historical reasons with lots of injustices (both secular and religious) on both sides. The Churches gradually split in tradition and unfortunately in whether they accept the communion of the other. (The Catholic church accepts that the Orthodox churches communion is truly the body and blood of Christ but that Catholics should not partake of the Orthodox communion and vice versa).

There are various rites in the Catholic Church that are in communion with the Catholic Church and are therefore just as Catholic as any other rite including the largest rite that is directly under the Pope in Rome. (This can be called the Latin Rite and it is by far the biggest rite in the Church.) These ‘rites’ have their own Patriarch (or Pope) who accepts that they are under the Roman Pontiff. The traditions of these rites are much more close to the traditions of the Church (often a variety of Eastern Orthodox) from which they separated. The details vary from rite to rite and depend to some extent how tolerant the Roman Pontiff was to difference from the ‘Latin rite’ at that time.

The Catholic rites, though are mostly very small compared to their Orthodox compatriots.

Similarities

There are many similarities between the Apostolic Churches. (This is particularly true when compared to the Protestant Churches). We all accept the trinity and the importance of the Sacraments, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We all accept Saints as important agents in the life of the Church. The major feasts of Easter and Christmas are the same. The Catholic Church believes that all the fundamental beliefs of any Christian Church are fully present in all of these Churches. The converse is true as well, presumably, that the fundamental truth of the Christian faith is a subset of all that the Apostolic Churches have in common. Many in the Orthodox Churches (and unfortunately some in the Catholic Church) are not so ‘charitable’.

Differences

The Catholic Church accepts a wide variety of differences in the traditions between the rites which are not ‘fundamental’ ‘dogma’ (from the Catholic perspective) which are nonetheless important for that tradition. (Think of it as in some places you drive on the right and other places you drive on the left. Both are valid within the area where they apply and must be followed rigorously within that ‘tradition’ without mixing the ‘traditions’; nonetheless neither is ‘fundamental’.)

The ‘Latin Rite’ is the only one that demands celibacy of all its priests although celibacy is generally encouraged at various levels in the other apostolic churches. Most Bishops, if I recall correctly, are celibate in all rites. Baptism, confirmation, and first Communion are often received as infants. (This may be important if a child from a different Catholic rite approaches for communion; although the means of accepting communion may be very different as well.) They may celebrate Easter using the Julian Calendar and their lent and other seasons of fasting may be different and they may have four as opposed to Advent and Lent.**

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Catholic vs Orthodoxy

The term Catholic means ‘universal’ and the Catholic Church has as a general rule have made sacrifices to fit that title. It has made many changes to be as Paul say ‘all things to all people’. Many but not all Orthodox feel that the Catholic Church has went too far.

The term ‘Orthodox’ roughly means faithful to the fundamental truths. They too, as a general rule, have made many sacrifices for that Orthodoxy. It is way too easy for Catholics like me to decry Orthodoxy as being too rigid much like the Pharisees were. The Catholic church as a whole is much more charitable than myself fortunately.

I think it is fair to say that the ‘Orthodox’ churches, as a whole, are much more similar to the original Apostolic Churches. ‘Catholic’ traditions like the rosary, Eucharistic devotion, and marriage as a ‘sacrament’ are things that are added by the ‘Latin Rite’ largely in the middle ages. Though, as far as I can tell, the Orthodox are not free from their own ‘inventions’; (I hope I am not being to uncharitable in pointing out their convoluted understanding of ‘icons’ here. The Catholic Church of course has no problem with this ‘invention’.)

The term ‘Latin’ and ‘Greek’ are sometimes used to distinguish the differences in the two traditions. (Catholics include rites of BOTH traditions though). This reflects the fact that in the early Church the eastern part of the Church spoke Greek (the language of the New Testament) and used it in their liturgies while the western part used Latin.

Unification

From a Catholic point of view, a reunification of the two traditions (note that there are multiple Eastern Orthodox Churches under different Patriarchs) would be a great boon to the Church. It would help give a moral boost to all of the Churches involved. It would give a stronger moral authority vs Protestants.

From a personal point of view a reunification of both Churches would help the Catholic Church to become more orthodox AND it would help the Orthodox churches to become more ‘universal’. Both could benefit from the strength of the other while reducing their weaknesses. In my opinion, the Catholic Church has already moved 3/4 of the way toward the Orthodox at least in priciple, and we are awaiting the Orthodox to do the same or to at least acknowledge the possibility of making that move.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Sorry about all of the typos in the above. Worse, are the inevitable historical mistakes and misunderstanding of the eastern traditions. I apologize for them and for all times where my parenthetical statements were too offensive to those in the Greek traditions. My goal was to try to bring this back to the original posters question.

I strongly ask that responders to this post remain true to the intentions of the original post. I will not challenge any rebuke that you may make when I have gotten out of line. I do ask that these rebukes do not swamp helping the original poster out. Two helpful comments for the original poster per rebuke would be nice.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Apostolic Churches

The Catholic Church in its literature often represents the early church as being Catholic. When compared the Protestant denominations it is perfectly true. But it is incorrect in that there are many church traditions that all are faithful to that early Church and are derived from it. The Catholic Churches accept that all of these Apostolic Churches have the fullness of truth and are not heretical. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Church which are out of Communion with Rome, but accept the first 7 Ecumenical Councils, represent the largest group of such Apostolic Churches, followed by the Oriental Orthodox, which accept the first 3 Ecumenical Councils; the smallest Apostolic Church is the Church of the East, which accept the first 2 Ecumenical Councils. The Catholic Church accepts that we should not try to convert members of any of the Apostolic Churches, but will accept individuals who choose to convert out of God’s moving their conviction toward union.

Patriarchs and Popes

The early Church represented three Sees of Bishops as being primary or being called Patriarchs (the term Pope can be used for any of these Patriarchs and of the later Patriarchs). The original patriarchs held Sees in Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. (Jerusalem had a prominence as well; although it was a spiritual one. From the beginning the Patriarch of Rome asserted ‘primacy’ which the other Patriarchs were (and still are) willing to accept to an extent (but certainly not to the extent that Rome wished or asserted). When Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople, the Bishop of Constantinople asserted its authority to treated as Patriarch.

**Churches in Communion with Rome ******

For historical reasons with lots of injustices (both secular and religious) on both sides. The Churches gradually split in tradition and unfortunately in whether they accept the communion of the other. (The Catholic church accepts that the Orthodox Church’s Communion is truly the body and blood of Christ but that Catholics should follow the disciplines of their own Church and the laws of the Orthodox Church).

There are various Eastern Churches in the Catholic Communion that are in communion with each other, and are therefore just as Catholic as any other Church including the largest Church that is directly under the Bishop of Rome. (This can be called the Latin Church and it is by far the biggest Church in the Catholic Communion.) These Church have their own Patriarch, Catholicos, Major Archbishop, Metropolitan, Archbishop, or Bishop who is head and father of their Church, and also accepts the Pope’s role as Universal head of the Catholic Communion. The traditions of these Churches are much more close to the traditions of the Church from which they separated from and reunited to Communion with the Bishop of Rome - either Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East.

Similarities

There are many similarities between the Apostolic Churches. (This is particularly true when compared to the Protestant Churches). We all accept the Trinity and the importance of the Sacraments, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We all accept Saints as important agents in the life of the Church. The Catholic Church believes that all the fundamental beliefs of any Christian Church are fully present in all of these Churches. The converse is true as well, presumably, that the fundamental truth of the Christian faith is a subset of all that the Apostolic Churches have in common. Many in the Orthodox Churches (and unfortunately some in the Catholic Church) are not so ‘charitable’.

Differences

The Catholic Church accepts a wide variety of differences in the traditions between the Churches which are not ‘fundamental dogma’ (from the Catholic perspective) which are nonetheless important for that tradition. (Think of it as in some places you drive on the right and other places you drive on the left. Both are valid within the area where they apply and must be followed rigorously within that ‘tradition’ without mixing the ‘traditions’; nonetheless neither is ‘fundamental’.)

The ‘Latin Church’ is the only one that demands celibacy of all its priests although celibacy is esteemed in the other Apostolic Churches. All Bishops are chosen from the celibate monks in all Apostolic Churches. Baptism, Confirmation, and Communion are often received as at once while infants. (This may be important if a child from a different Catholic Church approaches for communion; although the means of accepting communion may be very different as well.)

Catholic vs Orthodoxy

The term Catholic means ‘universal’ as well as ‘complete’ and ‘of the whole’.

The term ‘Orthodox’ roughly means ‘true worship/faith’.

The term ‘Latin’ and ‘Greek’ are sometimes used to distinguish the differences in two Traditions, but many more exist including Chaldean, Syriac, Malankara, Malabar, Armenian, Ethiopian, Coptic, etc. (Catholics include Churches of All these Traditions). This reflects the fact that in the early Church the Eastern part of the Roman Empire spoke Greek (the language of the New Testament), the Eastern non-Roman parts used Syriac, Armenian, etc and used it in their liturgies while the Western Roman part usually used Latin.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Unification

From a Catholic point of view, a reunification of the Churches (note that there are multiple Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches under different Patriarchs) would be a great boon to the Church. It would help give a moral boost to all of the Churches involved. It would give a stronger moral authority vs Protestants.

From a personal point of view a reunification of All Apostolic Churches would help the Catholic Church to become more orthodox AND it would help the Orthodox churches to become more ‘universal’. Both could benefit from the strength of the other while reducing their weaknesses.

I changed some things for you to make it more accurate.

 

[Tomdstone]

Catholic vs Orthodoxy
In my opinion, the Catholic Church has already moved 3/4 of the way toward the Orthodox at least in priciple, …

I don’t see that. Can you elaborate a little on this? IMHO, the Roman Catholic Church has really not budged one bit from points which separate them from the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I can see, there has been no movement from the Roman Catholic side on the following issues:

1. Papal infallibility and universal papal supremacy.
2. Remove the filioque from the creed of the Roman Catholic Church.
3. Replace all statues with traditional icons.
4. Use leavened bread.
5. Allow all priests to marry before ordination.
6. Allow Church approved divorce and remarriage, as was allowed in the early Church. Restrict the use of annulments to extremely serious situations, such as an undisclosed previous marriage.
7. Impose stricter fasting regulations for Holy Communion and during Lent, in line with those of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
8. Agree to a common date for Easter, as calculated by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
9. Baptise only by triple immersion, except in case of emergency when pouring would be allowed.
10. No instrumental music to be played during Mass (except for bells). Only the human voice singing is allowed. Also, no profane or modernistic rock type music.
11. Make the sign of the cross correctly as was done in ancient times from right to left.
    IMHO, if the Roman Catholic Church were to move on 3/4 of these in a direction favorable to the Eastern Orthodox Church, it would indicate a serious intention on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to establish unity with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

I will concede that in a manner of speaking there are no Greek Orthodox within Ukraine. However, the Kyiv Patriarchate, which Moscow refuses to recognize, was initiated by the Patriarch of Constantinople. If you were to say that means the Kyiv Orthodox are not “Greek”, I would not, at this point, dispute it in the sense that the Kyiv Patriarchate considers itself autocephalous now. kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/moscows-plan-for-ukraines-church-335254.html

Sadly this is what comes of historical ignorance and trying to force perspectives on others without actually understanding a thing.

The “Prince Volodymyr the Great” during whose time the article says the Church was planted by Constantinople (and this is an undisputed fact), reigned over 1,000 years ago. You might know him better by his Russian name “Prince Vladimir”, if you know anything about Slavic Christianity you must be familiar with him.

One of the major sticking points between Ukrainian Catholics and Orthodox is whether the Metropolitan See of Kiev was legitimately moved to Moscow in the 15th century. This is not a point of contention between The UOC-KP and the UOC-MP. They recognize that Moscow is the See that was planted during St. Vladimir’s reign.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Unification

I changed some things for you to make it more accurate.

Thanks for those changes. In particular, thank you for removing my snide remarks without mentioning them. This is much closer to what I wanted to say and you obviously know much more than I do. I hope that it becomes useful to the original poster.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Correct. I listed only a very few of the issues. There was a harsh letter published recently in which two Orthodox bishops gave their outlook on the situation.

lastampa.it/2014/04/15/esteri/vatican-insider/en/translate-to-english-accuse-di-eresia-al-papa-da-due-vescovi-ortodossi-fyvTzgPXICGuU8sVcIRX4O/pagina.html
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf

I choose not to judge Orthodox Christianity by such documents. I don’t think that would be just of me toward Orthodox Christians, since that letter is pretty crazy. Among other bits of insanity, it accuses the Holy See of being chummy with Freemasonry and veers off into anti-Semitism.

Not a good representation of the Holy Orthodoxy that I believe Orthodox Christian churches do truly embody.

If so, why were the issues of celibacy and azymes mentioned in a bull of excommunication that papal legates placed at the Altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054?

Because Cardinal Humbert was angry.

Seriously, Tomdstone, how is that question in any way pertinent? That bull of excommunication also accused the Byzantines of “removing” the filioque from the Creed.

Not exactly a credible document to appeal to - by everyone’s admission. So I’m not sure why you think it’s relevant, especially since it’s been rescinded anyway, and it was never the cause of the schism in the first place, just a step along the way.

We ought to stick to the real issues when it comes to discussing the terms of full communion, not exaggerate the importance of legitimate differences.

Sadly, it’s actually a strongly held belief of a surprising number of Orthodox clerics. So, no, it’s not absurd. I’ve heard that very attitude from several OCA clerics. Including the bits about the antichrist and the whore of babylon. Many of those clerics are former protestants, not cradle Orthodox, but it’s a VERY real stripe within Orthodoxy, especially Russian Orthodoxy.

Wow, that’s quite interesting.

There seems to be some confusion here. In Ukraine, there is only one Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is in union with the rest of Orthodoxy, and that is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is an autonomous Church within the Russian Orthodox Church. The other two major bodies there are the UGCC (which as the name implies, is in union with Rome), and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate, which is considered by the Orthodox to be a schismatic body (in other words, it is not in union with any Orthodox Church, including Moscow and Constantinople). There is no Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine which is under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, though there do exist diaspora communities of Ukrainians outside of Ukraine which for historical reasons are under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Furthermore, I must remark that what you call “territorial” we simply know to be the ancient constitution of the Church. There cannot be two bishops with ordinary jurisdiction occupying a see in any particular geographical area, and hence only one bishop and one autocephalous church superstructure should have jurisdiction over any given geographical area.

This principle is in fact normative within the Latin church itself. Imagine for a second if the Archbishop of Mexico City attempted to establish a parish and ordain priests in Houston without the consent of the Archbishop of Galveston-Houston. Such an action would likely be illicit, as the Archbishop of Mexico City has no ordinary jurisdiction within Houston, save the worldwide ordinary jurisdiction enjoyed by all cardinals. Similarly, within Orthodoxy, such actions would be illicit. The difficulty lies in that the territorial boundaries between dioceses and patriarchates can sometimes be imprecise (especially true of the question of who should have jurisdiction over the diaspora), and that this sometimes can cause conflicts, especially in cases where both parties might have a solid canonical claim to some place.

An elegant and informative response. Thanks, Cavaradossi. I find your comparison quite apt.

There is also a third branch in Ukraine - also schismatic - that is independent from both the Kyiv Patriarchate and Moscow.

Which raises another question: Are Eastern Catholics required to believe the Filioque, even if it’s not in their Creed?

Well, it would be disingenuous and hypocritical to maintain full communion - with all that implies - with the Latin Church if they truly thought that the dogma of the filioque was heretical.

But that doesn’t mean they need to incorporate it into their theology, formed principally by centuries of Greek-speaking fathers and theologians. The filioque has no place within Byzantine Christian theology, but in its proper linguistic and theological context, it is orthodox - and that’s what Eastern Catholics should accept.

As such, they do not use it in their liturgies.

I don’t see that. Can you elaborate a little on this? IMHO, the Roman Catholic Church has really not budged one bit from points which separate them from the Eastern Orthodox Church.

He’s probably referring to episcopal collegiality and the post-Vatican II clarifications and flexibility expressed by the Holy See on matters relating to the papacy, original sin, etc. Basically, the Catholic Church often says, “Okay, we admit you’re right. Here’s how what we’re saying actually does fit into that, though.” The response we most often get to that, however, usually boils down to, “We don’t believe you.” So… oooookay.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

As far as I can see, there has been no movement from the Roman Catholic side on the following issues:

1. Papal infallibility and universal papal supremacy.

Sure there has. The Second Vatican Council and the clarifications of all Roman pontiffs after that period have constantly clarified, qualified, and contextualized these dogmas, situating them firmly within a commitment (at least in theory; we do have a long way to go to live up to our words) to episcopal collegiality.

See, for instance, most of Marduk’s posts on this forum. He says the same kinds of things that the Holy See has been saying for decades about its own authority.

1. Remove the filioque from the creed of the Roman Catholic Church.

We just went over this, remember? That wouldn’t solve anything, because the idea that that dogma - whether recited or not - is orthodox would still remain.

That said, there has been much dialogue on this matter, too. Do a search and you’ll find it. Are all Orthodox convinced that the filioque can be orthodox teaching? No, not by a long shot, but to say that the Catholic Church hasn’t given any ground on this matter is just plain inaccurate.

1. Replace all statues with traditional icons.
2. Use leavened bread.
3. Allow all priests to marry before ordination.
4. Baptise only by triple immersion, except in case of emergency when pouring would be allowed.
5. No instrumental music to be played during Mass (except for bells). Only the human voice singing is allowed.
6. Make the sign of the cross correctly as was done in ancient times from right to left.

Ridiculous. Give me one good reason for such ritual imperialism.

1. Allow Church approved divorce and remarriage, as was allowed in the early Church.

That’s a distortion of the historical record. The state allowed divorce and remarriage in the Byzantine Empire; the Church simply chose at times not to provide ecclesiastical oversight. Marriage is, after all, principally an earthly matter which Christ has raised to the dignity of a Sacrament.

As for the Pauline and Petrine Privileges, the Catholic Church already has those.

The Catholic Church might far more easily and credibly say precisely the opposite: Stop allowing remarriage after divorce in clear violation of our Lord’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

1. Impose stricter fasting regulations for Holy Communion and during Lent, in line with those of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Well, I’m all in favor of that. Latin fasting expectations are pretty lame these days.

1. Agree to a common date for Easter, as calculated by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Why should a scientifically inferior calendar (the Julian one) serve as the basis for Easter calculations?

IMHO, if the Roman Catholic Church were to move on 3/4 of these in a direction favorable to the Eastern Orthodox Church, it would indicate a serious intention on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to establish unity with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

As I tried to make clear before, your list includes too many things on which diversity is perfectly acceptable. Who on the Orthodox side is calling for us to destroy statues or abolish unleavened bread at Mass, or get rid of organs?

If they are, they know nothing of Christianity and are simply in love with their human traditions.

Papal supremacy, universal papal jurisdiction, the filioque, original sin and the Immaculate Conception - those are the issues.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

I don’t see that. Can you elaborate a little on this? IMHO, the Roman Catholic Church has really not budged one bit from points which separate them from the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I can see, there has been no movement from the Roman Catholic side on the following issues:

The Catholic Church has made a lot of movement in these areas, although I can see where someone outside of the Catholic Church may not see it. Most of that progress has been in understanding and respecting your position. The fact that the Catholic Church does not publish (any more) such laundry lists as the one below is proof that it has come a long way.

1. Papal infallibility and universal papal supremacy.

This is where I have seen the most movement in the Catholic Church. Beginning with at least John Paul II the Roman Popes have gone out of there way to show to the other Patriarchs (and Apostolic Churches) that it treats them as equals. John Paul II called the eastern and western churches the 2 lungs of the church, for instance.

As a Catholic, I would love to see the Popes distance themselves further from Papal Infallibility. But again, every indication I have seen shows a Papacy moving in that direction. In any case the Papacy have indicated that it would be more than happy to be in communion with eastern churches who do not believe in papal infallibility.

1. Remove the filioque from the creed of the Roman Catholic Church.

I don’t think I will ever get why this is so important to some people in the eastern Churches. My pastor told us a story, that I don’t think is true but nonetheless reflects my feelings on the filioque.

St. Augustine had a vision where he is walking along the beach and a little boy is taking water from the ocean and putting it into a hole. St. Augustine asks what the boy is doing. The boy replies I am going to pour all of the water of the ocean into this hole. St. Augustine says the ocean is too vast to do that. To which the boy replies, neither can you fit the mystery of the Trinity into the human mind.

To those who say why does the Catholic Church then just remove it if it is so trivial, I reply maybe they should add it. Is Luke’s gospel any better or any worse than Mark’s because he added some things? Should we try to force all the Gospels to agree with each other on whether a roof was made of tile or grass? Or, should we keep them how they are, even where they disagree. For, by examining the differences we can determine what is important and what is not.

1. Replace all statues with traditional icons.

I know that that is not the case because I trust in eastern tradition, but the little I know about icons seems suspiciously close to idolatry, from the Catholic point of view. If you simply transplanted the eastern idea of iconography into the Catholic tradition of sacred objects, you could easily end up with a whole mess of heresies. That works both ways.

1. Use leavened bread.

Why?

1. Allow all priests to marry before ordination.

Again, what is it to you? The west is more than happy to let the east do what it wishes in this area. It even allows certain married Protestant converts to remain as priests. Why should you treat discipline like you treat dogma?

1. Allow Church approved divorce and remarriage, as was allowed in the early Church. Restrict the use of annulments to extremely serious situations, such as an undisclosed previous marriage.

As far as I can tell the Orthodox practice of divorce and remarriage is far from what occurred in the early Church. I think this is an area where we can both learn from each other.

1. Impose stricter fasting regulations for Holy Communion and during Lent, in line with those of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

How is your tradition so much superior than ours? The earliest Church did not even celebrate Easter, much less lent. Are you claiming to be superior to the church of the Apostles.

1. Agree to a common date for Easter, as calculated by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

It certainly would be nice to have one date for Easter, but how is this a prerequisite for talks. The Catholic Church is quite willing to accept any Church into communion no matter what there date for Easter is. Can you even go that far?

1. Baptise only by triple immersion, except in case of emergency when pouring would be allowed.

Why? Like so many things on this list, it is the type of thing that can be discussed at a Synod or council after we first agree to have mutual respect for each others position. Or, for that matter, we can simply agree to disagree.

1. No instrumental music to be played during Mass (except for bells). Only the human voice singing is allowed. Also, no profane or modernistic rock type music.

And while you are at it how about no modern air condition or heating? Or no churches built with modern material? Or maybe we should go back to having church only in houses?

1. Make the sign of the cross correctly as was done in ancient times from right to left.

The sign of cross wasn’t made at all in the earliest Church and yet they somehow managed to be faithful Christians.

IMHO, if the Roman Catholic Church were to move on 3/4 of these in a direction favorable to the Eastern Orthodox Church, it would indicate a serious intention on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to establish unity with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I apologize for being overly terse. There are some legitimate concerns in that list, but overall it seems to be designed to tear apart rather than to build.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Idolatry with icons? I think some reading from the Oros of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod is in order.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Idolatry with icons? I think some reading from the Oros of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod is in order.

Of course, it is not idolatry. I trust in the eastern tradition that it is not. The Catholic tradition of statues is much simpler, though. And, as a Catholic, I have far too simple of a mind to comprehend all of the intricacies of the eastern tradition of icons. I know of Catholics who have and have benefited from it, though.

I am certain that the tradition of icons as practiced in the East can be transplanted to Catholicism, but a lot of things would need to be reworked and retaught in order to make it work for the common people.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t see that. Can you elaborate a little on this? IMHO, the Roman Catholic Church has really not budged one bit from points which separate them from the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I can see, there has been no movement from the Roman Catholic side on the following issues:

1. Papal infallibility and universal papal supremacy.
2. Remove the filioque from the creed of the Roman Catholic Church.
3. Replace all statues with traditional icons.
4. Use leavened bread.
5. Allow all priests to marry before ordination.
6. Allow Church approved divorce and remarriage, as was allowed in the early Church. Restrict the use of annulments to extremely serious situations, such as an undisclosed previous marriage.
7. Impose stricter fasting regulations for Holy Communion and during Lent, in line with those of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
8. Agree to a common date for Easter, as calculated by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
9. Baptise only by triple immersion, except in case of emergency when pouring would be allowed.
10. No instrumental music to be played during Mass (except for bells). Only the human voice singing is allowed. Also, no profane or modernistic rock type music.
11. Make the sign of the cross correctly as was done in ancient times from right to left.
    IMHO, if the Roman Catholic Church were to move on 3/4 of these in a direction favorable to the Eastern Orthodox Church, it would indicate a serious intention on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to establish unity with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Actually, the Catholic Church has already accepted many of these things, and more, within the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Now, perhaps you could catalogue those ways in which E.O., particularly the Russian Patriarchate, has moved toward the Catholic Church. One thing the Orthodox have NOT done is recognize the validity of Catholic sacraments, notwithstanding that the CC recognizes theirs as valid.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is also a third branch in Ukraine - also schismatic - that is independent from both the Kyiv Patriarchate and Moscow.

.

From that source, the following:

“The UAOC, with over 3 million members, is not officially recognized by other Churches due to pressures from the Russian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate. It has, however, been invited and does participate in Orthodox synods and conferences. The Ecumenical Patriarch has maintained direct dialogue with the Church, but remains very sensitive to the Moscow Patriarchate’s opposition to any independent Churches in Ukraine.”

 

[RyanBlack]

Of course, it is not idolatry. I trust in the eastern tradition that it is not. The Catholic tradition of statues is much simpler, though. And, as a Catholic, I have far too simple of a mind to comprehend all of the intricacies of the eastern tradition of icons. I know of Catholics who have and have benefited from it, though.

I am certain that the tradition of icons as practiced in the East can be transplanted to Catholicism, but a lot of things would need to be reworked and retaught in order to make it work for the common people.

The tradition of icons as practiced in the East is already practiced in Catholicism by the Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[wmscott]

I have very little knowledge of the eastern Orthodox churches. But, since no one else seems to want to answer the original poster, I will do my best and allow those more knowledgeable to correct me.

Here is how I would approach it for RCIA.

Apostolic Churches

The Catholic Church in its literature often represents the early church as being Catholic which is only partly true. When compared the Protestant denominations it is perfectly true. But it is incorrect in that there are many church traditions that all are faithful to that early Church and are derived from it. This early Church is probably best called the Apostolic Church, because its dogma came directly from the Apostles. Catholics are not the only Apostolic Church. There are many other churches that the Catholic Church accepts as Apostolic. The Catholic Churches accept that all of these Apostolic Churches have the fullness of truth and are not heretical. The eastern Orthodox Churches represent the largest group of such Apostolic Churches. The modern Catholic Church accepts that we should not try to convert members of any of the Apostolic Churches.

Patriarchs and Popes

The early Church represented three Sees of Bishops as being primary or being called Patriarchs (the term Pope can be used for any of these Patriarchs and of the later Patriarchs). The original patriarchs held Sees in Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. (Jerusalem had a prominence as well; although it was a spiritual one. From the beginning the Patriarch of Rome asserted ‘primacy’ which the other Patriarchs were (and still are) willing to accept to an extent (but certainly not to the extent that Rome wished or asserted). When Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople, the Bishop of Constantinople asserted it authority to treated as an Patriarch. And there have been many claims of Patriarchy asserted by many Bishops ever since, with many of these in dispute between Churches.

**Churches in Communion with Rome (Rites) ******

For historical reasons with lots of injustices (both secular and religious) on both sides. The Churches gradually split in tradition and unfortunately in whether they accept the communion of the other. (The Catholic church accepts that the Orthodox churches communion is truly the body and blood of Christ but that Catholics should not partake of the Orthodox communion and vice versa).

There are various rites in the Catholic Church that are in communion with the Catholic Church and are therefore just as Catholic as any other rite including the largest rite that is directly under the Pope in Rome. (This can be called the Latin Rite and it is by far the biggest rite in the Church.) These ‘rites’ have their own Patriarch (or Pope) who accepts that they are under the Roman Pontiff. The traditions of these rites are much more close to the traditions of the Church (often a variety of Eastern Orthodox) from which they separated. The details vary from rite to rite and depend to some extent how tolerant the Roman Pontiff was to difference from the ‘Latin rite’ at that time.

The Catholic rites, though are mostly very small compared to their Orthodox compatriots.

Similarities

There are many similarities between the Apostolic Churches. (This is particularly true when compared to the Protestant Churches). We all accept the trinity and the importance of the Sacraments, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We all accept Saints as important agents in the life of the Church. The major feasts of Easter and Christmas are the same. The Catholic Church believes that all the fundamental beliefs of any Christian Church are fully present in all of these Churches. The converse is true as well, presumably, that the fundamental truth of the Christian faith is a subset of all that the Apostolic Churches have in common. Many in the Orthodox Churches (and unfortunately some in the Catholic Church) are not so ‘charitable’.

Differences

The Catholic Church accepts a wide variety of differences in the traditions between the rites which are not ‘fundamental’ ‘dogma’ (from the Catholic perspective) which are nonetheless important for that tradition. (Think of it as in some places you drive on the right and other places you drive on the left. Both are valid within the area where they apply and must be followed rigorously within that ‘tradition’ without mixing the ‘traditions’; nonetheless neither is ‘fundamental’.)

The ‘Latin Rite’ is the only one that demands celibacy of all its priests although celibacy is generally encouraged at various levels in the other apostolic churches. Most Bishops, if I recall correctly, are celibate in all rites. Baptism, confirmation, and first Communion are often received as infants. (This may be important if a child from a different Catholic rite approaches for communion; although the means of accepting communion may be very different as well.) They may celebrate Easter using the Julian Calendar and their lent and other seasons of fasting may be different and they may have four as opposed to Advent and Lent.

Thanks Tony, I was sincere when i did not want this to turn into an argument, I was looking for knowledge. Thanks for the info

 

[Catherine_Grant]

The poster clarified to me that he is seeking historical background on the Great Schism from a Catholic point of view. This thread will be moved from Eastern Catholicism to Apologetics to facilitate his needs.

A new thread may be started in the Eastern Catholicism forum to learn about the reunions those Churches later had with Rome leading to the formation of the Eastern Catholic Churches, or to learn about the Eastern and Oriental traditions as they are maintained and practiced in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator