What is the difference between Catholics and greek orthodox?

[phil19034]

Interesting. What are the political issues that prevents Rome from returning to communion with the Orthodox Churches?

The political reasons mentioned had to do with the politics of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, plus which society is the heir to the Roman Empire.

The Catholic Church doesn’t care who the “heir to the Roman Empire” is, but Byzantine Empire did. So did the Russian Empire, which is whey they called the Czar a “C-Zar” = “Caesar.”

The Catholic Church doesn’t view that the Authority of the Bishop of Rome comes from secular importance of the Diocese. It believes the Authority comes from the fact that Peter hand picked his successor and that both Peter and Paul are buried there. But if the Pope needed to relocate to another city… no big deal because the Chair of Peter could be moved if needed. It’s only a “t” tradition that it is in Rome; not “T” tradition.

God Bless.

 

[Seraphim73]

The political reasons mentioned had to do with the politics of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, plus which society is the heir to the Roman Empire.

The Catholic Church doesn’t care who the “heir to the Roman Empire” is, but Byzantine Empire did. So did the Russian Empire, which is whey they called the Czar a “C-Zar” = “Caesar.”

The Catholic Church doesn’t view that the Authority of the Bishop of Rome comes from secular importance of the Diocese. It believes the Authority comes from the fact that Peter hand picked his successor and that both Peter and Paul are buried there. But if the Pope needed to relocate to another city… no big deal because the Chair of Peter could be moved if needed. It’s only a “t” tradition that it is in Rome; not “T” tradition.

God Bless.

Right. But the poster said that the separation was mostly political. I was simply asking what political considerations are preventing Rome from returning. Or did the poster mean that there is really little difference and it’s just politics that prevents the Orthodox from entering communion? If so that’s a staggeringly arrogant and patronizing thing to say.

 

[Tomdstone]

But the poster said that the separation was mostly political. I was simply asking what political considerations are preventing Rome from returning.

Right. What we read here is that the differences are political, comparatively minor or as far as the Apostolic faith deposited in its fullness is concerned there is no difference.

The religious differences are comparatively minor…

As far as the Apostolic faith deposited in it’s fullness is concerned there is no difference.

Since there are no differences in the Apostolic faith, why then doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church return to full communion with the Orthodox Church? The Roman Catholic legates were the ones who deposited the letter of excommunication of Patriarch Michael Cerularius on the altar of the Hagia Sophia during the Divine Liturgy?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The political reasons mentioned had to do with the politics of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, plus which society is the heir to the Roman Empire.

The Catholic Church doesn’t care who the “heir to the Roman Empire” is, but Byzantine Empire did.

Well, the papacy sure did at one point in time. Otherwise, there would not have been the two centuries or so when papal candidates would have needed to receive the approval of the emperor in Constantinople or of the Exarch of Ravenna before they could be ordained.

 

[Tomdstone]

That excommunication came by a papal legate after the Pope had died.

But since the religious differences were so minor, and the Apostolic faith is the same, why would the Roman Catholic papal legate interrupt a Mass being said at the Hagia Sophia and place a letter of excommunication on the altar of the Church in the middle of the Mass? It seems like the Catholic legate took a pretty drastic step which would not be called for if the religious differences were extremely minor? Why didn’t the next Pope simply revoke the letter of excommunication and apologize for the mistake?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Right. What we read here is that the differences are political, comparatively minor or as far as the Apostolic faith deposited in its fullness is concerned there is no difference.

Since there are no differences in the Apostolic faith, why then doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church return to full communion with the Orthodox Church? The Roman Catholic legates were the ones who deposited the letter of excommunication of Patriarch Michael Cerularius on the altar of the Hagia Sophia during the Divine Liturgy?

I don’t think your assessment is being truthful to history here; For the fact’s and events which led up to both sides excommunicating each other, between the Popes in Rome and the Patriarch’s of Constantinople in the New Rome. Rome where Peter resides and the New Rome where the secular Emperor’s placed a Patriarch already lends to the power of politics of the Patriarch’s of Constantinople usurping Apostolic sees, but failed to usurp power of the weak Popes in the West, the best the Patriarch of the New Rome could do was claim himself on an equal par with the Bishop’s of Rome.

The main event among others begin the path towards a schism when the Patriarch of Constantinople and the secular Emperor deposed a Saint in the East, and the Pope came to his defense.

There is much more that lead up to the schism than what you comment upon. On the surface the Patriarch of the New Rome makes false claims at the Bishop of Rome on religious matters trying to label the bishop of Rome as heretical, while under the surface politically moving to usurp the powers from the Bishop of Rome.

The powerful Patriarch of the New Rome failed, and the Bishop of Rome ordained a new Emperor in the West which added to the political schism.

The fact that a delegate of a dead Pope issued a document of excommunication is only a result of what transpired long before the actions of both sides excommunicating each other.

Since then, the Popes throughout the centuries to today have continued to work on reconciling the schism. As far as the Apostolic faith is concerned, She is built upon Rock which does not change. Those who attempt to change her, will always find themselves independently self schismatic or self excommunicated from Peter’s Chair the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well, the papacy sure did at one point in time. Otherwise, there would not have been the two centuries or so when papal candidates would have needed to receive the approval of the emperor in Constantinople or of the Exarch of Ravenna before they could be ordained.

Politics is why the bishop’s of Rome continued to be in conflict with the Emperor’s who gave much secular powers to his Patriarchates in Constantinople, when the Bishop’s of Rome resisted secular powers from trying to infect the Church. The Patriarch’s of Constantinople would celebrate their powers the secular Emperor’s would give them.

This would be the main powers and principalities that lead up and influence the schism’s between the Patriarch of Constantinople (East) and Peter’s Chair the Bishop’s of Rome (West).

The religious disciplines and the filioque could of easily been resolved between the Bishop’s of Rome and the Patriarch’s of Constantinople and the whole Church as she defeated all other religious disputes and disciplines that infected the Eastern Church, IF? the secular powers (Emperor’s) were not in the picture.

The secular powers influence plays a big part which led up to the schism. The theological misunderstandings and disciplines became an excuse and means of contention of authority and power struggles between the Patriarch of Constantinople which the Emperor’s give to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Bishop’s of Rome who was given his authority from Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The difference is secular powers.

The Bishop of Rome today is free from secular powers over her.
The Orthodox today remain under secular powers.

Both have to contend with secular powers.

Strip both sides of secular powers and influence of economics and secular jurisdiction, and maybe light of full communion will shine a path in the darkness from the schism.

Those who are dictated by historical events which prevents the healing of the schism. View your history by removing the secular powers and principalities and all you have standing is the apostolic faith resisting secular influence by Saints and Martyrs of the Catholic faith.

To these Saints and Martyrs we owe an honor to move towards communion in our apostolic faith.

To remove the difference/schism by respecting one another’s diverse Apostolic faith expression’s which do not change the apostolic faith from cultural, language and theological expressions and understandings.

 

[Tomdstone]

For the fact’s and events which led up to both sides excommunicating each other, between the Popes in Rome and the Patriarch’s of Constantinople in the New Rome. Rome where Peter resides and the New Rome where the secular Emperor’s placed a Patriarch already lends to the power of politics of the Patriarch’s of Constantinople usurping Apostolic sees, but failed to usurp power of the weak Popes in the West, the best the Patriarch of the New Rome could do was claim himself on an equal par with the Bishop’s of Rome.

The excommunications were not simultaneous. The Roman Catholic papal legate was the first to excommunicate Patriarch Michael Cerularius. And it was done by placing the letter of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia during a Mass. Only later did the Greek Patriarch issue his own excommunication.
Was it right for the Catholic legate to excommunicate someone purely because of political disagreements?

 

[Duane1966]

The excommunications were not simultaneous. The Roman Catholic papal legate was the first to excommunicate Patriarch Michael Cerularius. And it was done by placing the letter of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia during a Mass. Only later did the Greek Patriarch issue his own excommunication.
Was it right for the Catholic legate to excommunicate someone purely because of political disagreements?

Agreed, Rome was wrong. But was the Greek Patriarch right? Do two wrongs make a right?

 

[prodromos]

I don’t think your assessment is being truthful to history here.

Ah, the irony of Gabriel of 12 making such a statement.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The excommunications were not simultaneous. The Roman Catholic papal legate was the first to excommunicate Patriarch Michael Cerularius. And it was done by placing the letter of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia during a Mass. Only later did the Greek Patriarch issue his own excommunication.
Was it right for the Catholic legate to excommunicate someone purely because of political disagreements?

There are many missing details to that excommunication and what led up to it. It begins with the delegate who was NOT fluent in Greek, his personality and vendetta against all who attack the Chair of Peter and the Catholic faith. Plus the pope had already been dead before the excommunication was placed.

In summary, the facts proved neither excommunication were enforced by the whole Church.

Although, what remained from this action by the pope’s delegate; the Orthodox disposition of making the false claims that the West fell into heresy and or reject the filioque mainly on their own misunderstanding’s of the filioque, not to mention the authority of Peter’s Chair, in addition the reasons some of the Orthodox Church’s rejecting communion with the Bishop’s of Rome, when the Bishop’s of Rome do not reject communion with the Orthodox who remain in schism with chair of Peter.

The question today is not the excommunication taken place in1054. The problem and the question is worse than any excommunication when it is a lack of communion. This lack of communion should be the subject of discussion, and needs to be addressed by each autocephalous Church independently with the bishop of Rome, or a council. **The past unofficial excommunication no longer serves a purpose that infects the schism today. **

Was it right for the delegate to place an excommunication? Was it right for the Patriarch of Constantinople to call the Pope a heretic without first communicating his personal objections and dealing peacefully about such church disciplines and theological expressions with the Pope? Was it right for the Eastern Patriarch to compete for the Chair of Peter when it is never his to rule from? The excommunication did not stand and nor did the Patriarch’s false heretical opinions of the Pope stand.
Reasons for the schism is not the excommunication, the unofficial schism began long before, when the Emperor placed a Patriarch in his new Rome Constantinople.

Pre-Constantinople, all Patriarch’s and Apostolic see’s remained in full communion with the bishop’s of Rome Peter’s Chair.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ah, the irony of Gabriel of 12 making such a statement.

Contex prodromos contex

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, the papacy sure did at one point in time. Otherwise, there would not have been the two centuries or so when papal candidates would have needed to receive the approval of the emperor in Constantinople or of the Exarch of Ravenna before they could be ordained.

Hey, Cav! I haven’t seen you online for a few days…were you traveling back from Hong Kong? Our respective basketball teams have been taking a pounding for the past few weeks!

I think you are correct above, but it seems that the Popes began to assert their independence from the secular influences…perhaps this was one reason for the issuance of Unam Sanctam which got Phillip angry and led to the Western Schism? Needless to say, the western Church did eventually break free from political pressures.

How would you assess the current situation in the East particularly in Russia and the Ukraine?

 

[Seraphim73]

Hey, Cav! I haven’t seen you online for a few days…were you traveling back from Hong Kong? Our respective basketball teams have been taking a pounding for the past few weeks!

I think you are correct above, but it seems that the Popes began to assert their independence from the secular influences…perhaps this was one reason for the issuance of Unam Sanctam which got Phillip angry and led to the Western Schism? Needless to say, the western Church did eventually break free from political pressures.

How would you assess the current situation in the East particularly in Russia and the Ukraine?

I’ve always found it interesting when people assert that the Roman Catholic Church is free from political influence when the pope himself is the head of a state. And there was a time when the Papal States were very large and powerful with their sovereign the pope levying taxes, signing treaties, raising armies and waging war with at least one pope personally leading an army into battle.

 

[Tomdstone]

Pre-Constantinople, all Patriarch’s and Apostolic see’s remained in full communion with the bishop’s of Rome Peter’s Chair.

And after 1054, even though the excommunication of the papal legate was addressed only to Patriarch Micahel Cerularius, still the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem remained in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Why did Rome break communion with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem?

 

[Duane1966]

I’ve always found it interesting when people assert that the Roman Catholic Church is free from political influence when the pope himself is the head of a state. And there was a time when the Papal States were very large and powerful with their sovereign the pope levying taxes, signing treaties, raising armies and waging war with at least one pope personally leading an army into battle.

You do see the oxymoron in this correct? As a head of state, you are creating the political influence.

 

[Tomdstone]

I don’t see how you can avoid politics if you are a head of state.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’ve always found it interesting when people assert that the Roman Catholic Church is free from political influence when the pope himself is the head of a state. And there was a time when the Papal States were very large and powerful with their sovereign the pope levying taxes, signing treaties, raising armies and waging war with at least one pope personally leading an army into battle.

I don’t see how you can avoid politics if you are a head of state.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

And after 1054, even though the excommunication of the papal legate was addressed only to Patriarch Micahel Cerularius, still the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem remained in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Why did Rome break communion with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem?

Hello! Are you aware that the great Patriarch of Constantinople successfully usurped the authority from the Eastern apostolic see’s of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem??? Do we need to say any more?

Then he tried to usurp authority from the bishop of Rome, but found opposition coming from his own Eastern Church’s and in favor of the Chair of Peter resided with the bishop of Rome, that the Patriarch of Constantinople had to make the false claim that he was on a par and equal to the bishop of Rome.

Oddly that you have the Bishop of Rome breaking communion with the original apostolic see’s Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. When the Patriarch of Constantinople was never an original Apostolic see. This subject becomes a matter of a new thread.