What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[Hesychios]

One question that comes up in my mind is about what happened after the Roman excommunication of Cerularius who was Patriarch of Constantinople…

‘Rome’ did not excommunicate Patriarch Keroularios.

A pair of renegade Cardinals without portfolio (without authority to speak for Rome) did. They did not speak for any Pope.

Patriarch Keroularios did not excommunicate ‘Rome’. The Holy Synod excommunicated Cardinal’s Humbert and Frederic.

That was it.

The insolent monks should have been punished when they returned to Rome, but there was no Pope!

Apologies should have been immediately sent to Constantinople, but there was no Pope!

One had to be elected.

Rome was in the early stages of a Reformation that was to last for decades, and the Cardinals were engineering great preparations for battle with the civil authorities in the west for control of the western church. Changes were afoot, the papacy had to be magnified and strengthened as their best hope to free the church from royal controls, and the right sort of persons had to be placed on the chair each time or the reforms could be undone.

The problem was that many of the Cardinals (and other bishops and abbots) were controlled by kings of western Europe, and getting a majority of reform Cardinals together to elect ‘the right sort’ of man was difficult, but necessary if the reformation was going to succeed. Ditto is there was going to be a Council. It was very political.

It is only a theory of mine, but I think that the large block of Eastern Catholic bishops were seen as a serious obstacle to the reformers plans, and their influence had to be curtailed or they had to be cut out altogether.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It was very political.

Politics in the Holy Church? Is outrage!

It is only a theory of mine, but I think that the large block of Eastern Catholic bishops were seen as a serious obstacle to the reformers plans, and their influence had to be curtailed or they had to be cut out altogether.

Well that’s an interesting theory to drop in here, but knowing you, its a bit more than a guess. Not to derail, but could you share a few thoughts and observations?

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t think Alexandria was in communion nor has been in communion with either Rome or Constantinople since the mid 5th century.

Can some on else verify?

The Coptic Popes of Alexandria and their synod were of the Miaphysite camp and not in communion with the Diophysite camp since 451AD. Instead, they were in communion with the Patriarch of Antioch for the Jacobite Syrians and the Catholicosate of All Armenians (and at that time of the Georgians).

The Melkites of Alexandria, the imperial party, had their own line of Popes of Alexandria. It was this synod which was in communion with the Diophysite orthodox of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome.

 

[LionHeart777]

The Coptic Popes of Alexandria and their synod were of the Miaphysite camp and not in communion with the Diophysite camp since 451AD. Instead, they were in communion with the Patriarch of Antioch for the Jacobite Syrians and the Catholicosate of All Armenians (and at that time of the Georgians).

The Melkites of Alexandria, the imperial party, had their own line of Popes of Alexandria. It was this synod which was in communion with the Diophysite orthodox of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome.

A little more complex than I thought, thanks.

 

[dvdjs]

One question that comes up in my mind is about what happened after the Roman excommunication of Cerularius who was Patriarch of Constantinople. If the Roman See is the One with Supremacy and universal jurisdiction, then how come the other three Patriarchs, or Apostolic Sees of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria decided to remain in communion with the excommunicated See of Constantinople? And then later on, how come the other sees that were established later, including patriarchs of Serbia, Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria and Romania did not go with the Roman see, but established communion with the see of Constantinople, which was excommunicated from Rome.
Does this mean that historically, all these other Apostolic Sees simply refused to recognise that the Roman See was the One with Supremacy and universal jurisdiction?

I think we have all known of one or another person who simply cannot get along for one reason or another. Sometimes people like this have no friends at all.
Should you ask him, he will tell you why in no uncertain terms.
“It’s all their fault.”

The reality is actually more interesting. A critical point is that, aside from Rome, all of the patriarchates in the pentarchy were, at that time, decidedly Byzantine. However, at first, the other patriarchs took no heed the problems being acted out between Rome and Constantinople. With the Crusaders victories in Antioch and Jerusalem over the Muslims, and the formation of Latin States with Latin hierarchs, with absent Greek hierarchs appointed by the EP and living in Constantinople, things clearly changed. Nevertheless a joint statement of the other four against Rome did not occur until after the Ottoman conquest, when the EP effectively ran the other Patriarchates or former partichates under Muslim rule.

BTW some of the other patriarchates that you mention were developed before the schism others after, and some both before and after; But all of the relevant cases are Byzantine. For the most part, what you are talking about involves two types: Roman and Byzantine.

 

[JoeBowen7]

‘Rome’ did not excommunicate Patriarch Keroularios…

Oh. Really? There was never any excommunication at all? Then how come in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras met and rescinded the excommunications? If there were no excommunications, then why would they go to all this trouble to issue the following statement:“They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church** the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications **to oblivion.”

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html
And then again, why on June 29, 1995, did Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople say that:
" Our meeting has followed other important events which have seen our Churches declare their desire to relegate the** excommunications **of the past to oblivion…"
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/BARTHDEC.HTM
If there were no excommunications, then what in the world are they talking about?

 

[dvdjs]

‘Rome’ did not excommunicate Patriarch Keroularios.

A pair of renegade Cardinals without portfolio (without authority to speak for Rome) did. They did not speak for any Pope.

Patriarch Keroularios did not excommunicate ‘Rome’. The Holy Synod excommunicated Cardinal’s Humbert and Frederic.

That was it.

The insolent monks should have been punished when they returned to Rome, but there was no Pope!

Apologies should have been immediately sent to Constantinople, but there was no Pope!

One had to be elected.

The problem was that many of the Cardinals (and other bishops and abbots) were controlled by kings of western Europe, and getting a majority of reform Cardinals together to elect ‘the right sort’ of man was difficult, but necessary if the reformation was going to succeed. Ditto is there was going to be a Council. It was very political.

It is only a theory of mine, but I think that the large block of Eastern Catholic bishops were seen as a serious obstacle to the reformers plans, and their influence had to be curtailed or they had to be cut out altogether.

Just curious this theory have any credible scholarly backing?

Again a reality check:
The legates were there for substantive reasons.

Both Rome and the Emperor of Constantinople had common interest in checking the Normans. Cerularius was not being helpful, to say the least. Perhaps it was his imperial ambitions - which eventually cost him his See, but he closed Latins churches, fomented the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament in Latin churches, and changed the diptychs. Both Rome and the Emperor wanted this fixed and the legates were dispatched. Cerularius, however, acted to widen the breech not close it; things deteriorated, tensions mounted, and ultimately there were counterproductive reactions.

All of this might have blown over, if Manzikert had not happened. That drew the Latins and Byzantine close, but that familiarity sadly only led to contempt and a progressive sealing of the schism.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Bumping this ? Re: LXX version not mentioning “keys” in Isaiah

This seems like a good place to ask this question. I have been studying the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic view of Peter’s declaration in Mathew 16. It also happened that looking for a good study Bible I recently purchased The Orthodox Study Bible and reading Isa 22:22-23 in that Bible it says: “I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him. 23 I will establish him as a ruler in a trustworthy place, and he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house.” Notice how there is no mention of the keys or the authority to open and close. So, my question is, does anyone know anything about the lxx which the Orthodox bible uses? All other versions of the lxx I know of in English include the keys and the authority to open and close. For clarity here is the same passages taken from the Brenton lxx version: " 22:22 And I will give him the glory of David; and he shall rule, and there shall be none to speak against him: and I will give him the key of the house of David [upon] his shoulder; and he shall open, and there shall be none to shut; and he shall shut, and there shall be none to open. 23 And I will make him a ruler in a sure place, and he shall be for a glorious throne of his father’s house."

 

[Trebor135]

Bumping this ? Re: LXX version not mentioning “keys” in Isaiah

Another issue we have to consider–in order to avoid falling into solo scriptura–is the frequency with which Isaiah 22:22 was connected to the bishop and see of Rome in the early Church era. From what I’ve read, the linkage was very rarely made…

 

[ConstantineTG]

If they really want to maintain Tradition, why aren’t they clamouring for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom be brought back rather than the Tridentine Latin Mass?

Good question. Why did the Novus Ordo need to be invented when you could’ve tried the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom?

For sure the Roman Church has the right to carry her own traditions. It doesn’t have to be the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Not every Church uses that Liturgy. It would have seem more organic if they just evolved the Tridentine Mass rather than the change that happened. I wonder though if there was any legislation in the Church that prevented the Tridentine Mass from being done in different languages.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Liturgys are all modified from 400-AD foward, in fact St. John Chrysostom DL is a modifiied version of St Basil. Many argue St James is also. All the Mass/Liturgy are centered around the Eucharist. The Didache chapter 9-10 is where this begins, some scholars argue this also.

At any rate the Mass/DL early on was changed from Greek to Latin by Justin Martyr, the Maronites DL is said to also possibly be one of the oldest from that pre-400 period. They have always been in… “Communion with Rome”.

Change of the Mass/DL is “norhing” new, Focus on the Eucharist has slways been the key point. In many ways the form of worship ois directly related to Judaism, since this is how Christianity started, by those who accepted Christ as Savior from that culrure.

Were back to what someone thinks is “pretty” and old, therefore should be established. the OF is said to be close to Justyn Martyrs established form.

CCC 1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

Course the Tridentine or LRM/EF also developed later. The OF Mass from the Church teachings of the CCC. Pope Paul VI and many other scholars is the closest to Justyn Martyrs writtings.

So then “why” don’t we go back to what was the oldest known recorded Eucharist Celebration if this is the arguement?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Another issue we have to consider–in order to avoid falling into solo scriptura–is the frequency with which Isaiah 22:22 was connected to the bishop and see of Rome in the early Church era. From what I’ve read, the linkage was very rarely made…

Really, I have 1869 bible and the connection is made? Whos your source?

 

[GaryTaylor]

For sure the Roman Church has the right to carry her own traditions. It doesn’t have to be the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Not every Church uses that Liturgy. It would have seem more organic if they just evolved the Tridentine Mass rather than the change that happened. I wonder though if there was any legislation in the Church that prevented the Tridentine Mass from being done in different languages.

Catholics may worship in any of the above forms they desire. From any of the DLs * To Tridentine to the OF.

Heres whats important and where the issue resides. The CC is large, the OF of the Mass varies greatly form area to area. They range from very close to the EF to I don’t even know what it is. This should be slowly changing as of last November. Its important that members play and active role to establish what you desire within the bounds. To walk in make a judgement and do nothing? We appreciate your concern. *

 

[Lucky7]

Back then, as today, there were disobedient bishops. Just from reading a little bit of history, it seemed to me that there were times when the other Sees were obedient and there were times when they weren’t. There were times when the Bishop of Rome sent legates, they complied and there were times they didn’t.

Exactly…which is why we have the Schism. Whether it happened slowly or not, this was the result of disobedience. It happened then and continues to happen now. Sometimes it is other Christians in another denomination; sometimes its some of our own.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Politics in the Holy Church? Is outrage!

Personally I believe its the problem in the nut shell. Its also not difficult to see how individuals meet from different cultures and they all arrive with like thinking with their culture. So much becomes a matter of wills, then fustration, male ego, anger and hurt. Boys will be boys. Its no different than this forum if we think of this scale model of the bigger picture.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Exactly…which is why we have the Schism. Whether it happened slowly or not, this was the result of disobedience. It happened then and continues to happen now. Sometimes it is other Christians in another denomination; sometimes its some of our own.

This issue exists with Priests within every Christian community to some degree. Which is why I said you have to play active role as the body of the church. This in history has always happened and we can safely assume it will continue till its minimal by a closer bond in Communion.

 

[Lucky7]

Bumping this ? Re: LXX version not mentioning “keys” in Isaiah

*Quote:
Originally Posted by 10_26
This seems like a good place to ask this question. I have been studying the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic view of Peter’s declaration in Mathew 16. It also happened that looking for a good study Bible I recently purchased The Orthodox Study Bible and reading Isa 22:22-23 in that Bible it says: “I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him. 23 I will establish him as a ruler in a trustworthy place, and he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house.” Notice how there is no mention of the keys or the authority to open and close. So, my question is, does anyone know anything about the lxx which the Orthodox bible uses? All other versions of the lxx I know of in English include the keys and the authority to open and close. For clarity here is the same passages taken from the Brenton lxx version: " 22:22 And I will give him the glory of David; and he shall rule, and there shall be none to speak against him: and I will give him the key of the house of David [upon] his shoulder; and he shall open, and there shall be none to shut; and he shall shut, and there shall be none to open. 23 And I will make him a ruler in a sure place, and he shall be for a glorious throne of his father’s house." *

Wait, so the Orthodox Bible doesn’t include the part about the keys? Huh. Now that doesn’t sound suspicious at.all. Maybe we need to go back to the OT in a Jewish Bible to see if the Jews of the time referred to keys (which would then provide more…context…to what Jesus said (a Jew):

And it does:

I will place the key of David’s house
on his shoulder;
no one will shut what he opens;
no one will open what he shuts

Edited to include the right quote.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have an interest in this …

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Forthodoxinfo.com%2Fecumenism%2Feast_orth.aspx&ei=mNMPUO26COiM0QHF4oDoCg&usg=AFQjCNEGd1cAMVf9g10hip5NiccBdhju-Q&sig2=5dKT0JKDnO2M74FVJ7dfiQ

Whats the story here and how does this coincide with “Tradition”? I hear its a “misunderstanding” so its a 1600 yo misunderstanding.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I have an interest in this …

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Forthodoxinfo.com%2Fecumenism%2Feast_orth.aspx&ei=mNMPUO26COiM0QHF4oDoCg&usg=AFQjCNEGd1cAMVf9g10hip5NiccBdhju-Q&sig2=5dKT0JKDnO2M74FVJ7dfiQ

Whats the story here and how does this coincide with “Tradition”? I hear its a “misunderstanding” so its a 1600 yo misunderstanding.

Gary - it is perhaps best to try to avoid this site. It does not appear to speak well for Orthodoxy, despite its theme and claim.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary - it is perhaps best to try to avoid this site. It does not appear to speak well for Orthodoxy, despite its theme and claim.

Noted; Despite the sight or its clamour, isn’t this the point of contention? Exactly why are the OO and EO not in communion? Since we are discussing “Orthodoxy” I think we should dive right into this issue also.