Which one: Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

[Contarini]

For clarification the** Western practice still professes the Apostles Creed in liturgical Rites and prayer devotions which was long before the Nicene Creed came into existance.**

Not exactly. The Apostles’ Creed is a version of the ancient baptismal profession of faith, but as a formal document with that title and the precise content we use today it probably postdates the Nicene Creed.

What needs to be mentioned here is that the Nicene Creed came about to refute heretics and heresies. The Filioque was introduced to defeat the Eastern Church’s heretics “Arianism” which was being introduced in the West.

That works against you. Arianism had already been defeated in the East, without any need for the Filioque. So if the West thought it needed it, that is evidence for the West’s theological clumsiness. The Filioque addressed a particular Western variant of Arianism held by the Spanish Visigoths. You would have a stronger case if you argued that the specifics of the Spanish heresy, or perhaps just the specifics of the Western theological context, made the Filioque necessary. But even so, that isn’t a legitimate reason for adding it to the common Creed of the whole Church.

With the correct understanding of the “filioque” both Orthodox and Catholics today see no danger in the filioque just clarification of the Apostolic faith handed down unchanged but defined to those who reject the Apostolic teachings.

There are some Orthodox who accept this argument, but many do not. And even those who do, such as David Hart, are clear that the Filioque has no business in the common Creed of the Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I have never read them, but it appears to be taken out of context from the get go; This language of never being introduced highlighted below has the sounds of an Orthodox writer not a Roman Catholic Cardinal. And if it is a Catholic Cardinal then this is definitely taken out of context because a Cardinal would of applied dates here not the word “Never”, making the content here very questionable from the get go to all the following.

If anything the context raises questions because I “never” read a Catholic Cardinal to write using the arguments of an Orthodox with words of support such as “jealously”,“never”, " Eastern bishops submitting to the judgement of Western bishops"? is never the language from a Catholic Cardinal. If this Cardinal did right this it is taken out of context and or should be reported to his superior. Not for supporting the Orthodox position, but for lying publicly.

Cardinal Congar has long passed beyond the power of any ecclesiastical superior.

It is certainly true that his version of Catholicism (which I find very convincing, as I find Clement’s version of Orthodoxy–indeed, the two are pretty much identical) is not what many conservative Catholics are accustomed do. (Neither is it the same thing as “spirit of Vatican II” American liberalism, though Congar’s work was very influential at Vatican II itself and thereafter.) But he is one of the most eminent Catholic theologians of the twentieth century.

Congar ran into trouble in the pre-Vatican-II years, I believe, but was eventually vindicated. I will certainly take his interpretation of Catholicism over yours any day.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The language in the Yves Congar citations above, especially the one you allude to, is indeed not what one would expect from a Catholic cardinal in the least. CAF searches didn’t turn up threads which address these passages. If the modern papacy is to be defended as the result of development rather than innovation, these quotes have to be explained in one of three ways:

• Yves Congar led the career of a liberal heretic wont to taking a modernistic approach, which would mean that he would also have disputed Eastern Orthodox claims; or
• Yves Congar’s words have been taken out of context, and elsewhere he argues the historical basis for the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the bishop of Rome; or
• Yves Congar found himself compelled by the indisputable facts of history to acknowledge truths unfavourable to the faith he oddly continued to hold anyway.

There’s another possibility:

That Catholicism is a lot more nuanced, and a lot more defensible, than you are willing to admit.

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

**There Were No Eastern Orthodox Churches Completely Separate from the Catholic Communion of Sister Churches Pastorally Guided by the Pope Before 1472 **

This is historical revisionism. It reveals a lack of knowledge of the ecclesiology of the early church by the person making the claims, or perhaps a bit of dishonesty.

The schism between the east and the west definitely preceeded the fall of Constantinople. An illustration of this can be seen by the way the Crusaders deposed local bishops when they overtook eastern lands, the naming of latin patriarchs over each of the patriarchal Sees was a deliberate attempt to take over the local churches by force, this would not have been necessary or desirable (especially seing as how it alienated the local priests and laity) if the local bishops were already under the Pope of Rome. The crusaders could have been hailed as liberators by the bishops if they were already in communion, but instead the crusaders became persecutors.

Try to find some good historical sources instead of reading second-hand interpretations and spin from amateur websites.

 

[shaky]

The Church is one. The dialogue of today is Sister Churches. Human Squabbles in the Body of Christ. We don’t talk to one another however that does not change the deposit of Faith and the commonly held sacraments.

You bring up a point not part of the post but relevant. In the day that this word was used it was a Greek word. I do not know the answer and I am sure someone does. Does the word have the same connotation in the Greek then as it does now in the English. In other words I believe that the word today means something different than it meant when it was written in Greek. It appears that the word heresy in the Greek may just mean a strong opinion…and today that is not the case.

concordances.org/greek/139.htm

hairesis: choice, opinion
Original Word: αἵρεσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: hairesis
Phonetic Spelling: (hah’-ee-res-is)
Short Definition: a self-chosen opinion, a sect
Definition: a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect, discord or contention.

139 haíresis (a feminine noun derived from 138 /hairéomai, “personally select, choose”) – properly, a personal (decisive) choice.

139 /haíresis (“a strong, distinctive opinion”) is used in the NT of individual “parties (sects)” that operated within Judaism. The term stresses the personal aspect of choice – and hence how being a Sadducee (Ac 5:17) was sharply distinguished from being a Pharisee (Ac 15:5; 26:5).

[As a feminine noun, 139 (haíresis) highlights the subjective (individual) nature of a specific (divisive) opinion.]

When you look at the definition of Heresy in the bible dictionary! Heresy means Choice! To Choose a opinion or doctrine that is in Opposition>
To The Authorised, Established, ‘‘Orthodox,’’ Doctrine. of the Church.

Exactly when was this ‘‘Orthodox’’ docrine of the church established?

Does the Roman, Eastern, and Oriental churches all hold this ‘‘Orthodox’’ Doctrine?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

This is historical revisionism. It reveals a lack of knowledge of the ecclesiology of the early church by the person making the claims, or perhaps a bit of dishonesty.

The schism between the east and the west definitely preceeded the fall of Constantinople. An illustration of this can be seen by the way the Crusaders deposed local bishops when they overtook eastern lands, the naming of latin patriarchs over each of the patriarchal Sees was a deliberate attempt to take over the local churches by force, this would not have been necessary or desirable (especially seing as how it alienated the local priests and laity) if the local bishops were already under the Pope of Rome. The crusaders could have been hailed as liberators by the bishops if they were already in communion, but instead the crusaders became persecutors.

.

Anyway he mentions a bit about what you said
i know its probably laughable to the Orthodox but hey ,maybe i could learn something new perhaps

It says there was never a complete seperation from Rome until after Muslim control.

As a Catholic ,he of course mentions the unions of Lyons and Florence after the 4th crusade,

he says-

So there is no need to discredit the 1274 and 1439 reunion Councils by insulting the honesty and integrity and Christian character of all the Eastern Orthodox leaders and lay faithful involved in them – one only need recognize the reunions were established honestly and in accordance with First Millennium Eastern recognition of the Catholic Communion and the papacy, but dashed later by an outside source!

and the Crusade-

Pope Innocent III was appalled when he learned of this misdirection of the 4th Crusade which sacked the very same Christian city the 1st Crusade had been called to protect from Muslim conquest, and he excommunicated some of its leaders. This was a condemned action of some Roman Catholic Christians, not an official act of the Roman Catholic Church – but this event of great but long past Roman prejudice is still cited by Eastern Orthodox Christians as a reason for separation from the Roman Church.

Pope Innocent III, although he deplored what had happened and excommunicated the ringleaders, did still recognize the Roman, Latin hierarchy the 4th Crusade established in Constantinople, in the hopes that a Western hierarchy in the East would help smooth the East-West tensions. This was a grave mistake (popes are not infallible in all their judgements and decisions, after all, but only while dogmatically defining a solemn matter of faith or morals for the entire Church). There was massive Eastern resentment of the immoral and unChristian sacking of Constantinople and of the Western hierarchy temporarily established there afterwards. Even though important Eastern Orthodox historians acknowledge that long after 1054 the East (especially the Slavic churches founded by the very Catholic Saints Cyril and Methodius, which were farther away from Michael Celuarius’ jurisdiction of Constantinople) were generally open to continued communion with the Roman Church and the papacy, and continued to seek formal Christian reunion with Roman Christians and the pope despite past tensions, they still cite the 4th Crusade as the solidification of the separation of the Christian East and West, and most certainly it is the ultimate example of the ignorant prejudice of Roman Rite Catholic Christians against what had once undisputedly been the Catholic East.

 

[Hesychios]

he says-

So there is no need to discredit the 1274 and 1439 reunion Councils by insulting the honesty and integrity and Christian character of all the Eastern Orthodox leaders and lay faithful involved in them – one only need recognize the reunions were established honestly and in accordance with First Millennium Eastern recognition of the Catholic Communion and the papacy, but dashed later by an outside source!

I think I should point out to you that the source has it wrong about most of this.

Wikipedia has something interesting to say about the events of those days. I will not post as much as I would like for lack of space and time …

On 25 July 1261, Michael VIII’s general Alexios Strategopoulos captured Constantinople from its last Latin Emperor, Baldwin II. Michael VIII entered the city on 15 August and had himself crowned together with his infant son Andronikos II Palaiologos. When Michael VIII entered the city, its population was 35,000 people, but he succeeded in increasing it to 70,000 people by the end of his reign. In December John IV, who had been left behind at Nicaea, was blinded and relegated to a monastery. Patriarch Arsenios excommunicated Michael VIII, and the ban was not removed until six years later (1268) on the appointment of new patriarch Joseph I … On his entrance in Constantinople, Michael VIII Palaiologos abolished all Latin customs and reinstated most Byzantine ceremonies and institutions as they had existed before the Fourth Crusade, repopulating the capital and restoring damaged churches, monasteries, and public buildings. He was acutely aware of the danger posed by the possibility that the Latin West, particularly his neighbors in Italy (Charles I of Sicily, Pope Martin IV, and the Venetians) would unite against him and attempt the restoration of Latin rule in Constantinople.

… In 1259 Michael VIII defeated the alliance of William II Villehardouin, Prince of Achaea, and Michael II Komnenos Doukas of Epirus at the Battle of Pelagonia. … With the help of Pope Urban IV Michael VIII concluded peace with his former enemies. By the terms of the treaties, William II was obliged to cede Mystras, Monemvasia and Maina in the Morea to the Byzantines. He also signed a treaty in 1263 with the Egyptian Mamluk sultan Baibars, and the Mongol Khan of Kipchak.[2]

… To drive a wedge between the pope and supporters of the Latin Empire, Michael VIII decided to unify the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. A tenuous union between the Greek and Latin church was signed at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. Michael VIII’s concession was met with determined opposition at home, and prisons filled with many opponents to the union.** At the same time the unionist controversy helped drive Byzantium’s Orthodox neighbors Bulgaria and Serbia into the camp of Michael VIII’s opponents**

As one can see, this episode was entirely political from the outset, the emperor was trying to prevent another crusade to overrun Constantinople once again! Note that the emperor met opposition at home within his own small part of the Orthodox world and also in other Orthodox nations. The emperor was too weak to force the church back in his home country to comply, and his realm was, as today, but a small portion of it. In the church, councils are ratified by the local synods afterward, and it’s findings put into effect locally as soon as they are able. Traditionally afterward, at another gathering, a council is acclaimed for it’s ecumenical character. If the local churches reject a Council, it will not be recognized as ecumenical. As one can see from this article, the Serbs and Bulgarians were not involved at all, and neither were the Romanians, Russians or Ruthenians (none of which were under the sway of Muslims at the time). Only people who do not understand this history will make a claim that the eastern bishops present at those latin western Councils were representatives of all of Orthodoxy. Only people who do not understand this history will make a claim that the these agreements were made in good faith by either the western church leadership or the eastern.

As for Florence, this has been done to death here, but in brief: it was a very small number of bishops taken by the emperor to negotiate an agreement because he was trying to buy support from the west. It was another political deal, trading a church he cannot actually command for military help that would ultimately never arrive. It is interesting to see that the Papacy was still willing to use his political power to try to obtain submission of the eastern churches.

So I have to ask, what is the purpose of a reunion negotiation if there was already a union? What is the point of claiming the east and west were actually in communion up until 1472 when in fact bishops had to be invited west to discuss the possibility of union at least twice? … and failed!

… It says there was never a complete seperation from Rome until after Muslim control.

People who make such claims are spin-doctors.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

.

I think the Catholics kinda believe the short lived unions of those two councils were like the Orthodox coming up from the deep sea for air

like they have been in schism since 1054 but had managed to created unity in these two councils,but the ill will of the greek clergy and people pulled them back down under the sea in schism from Rome

Either that or the Orthodox compromised the true faith twice with heresy,but through their majority of people resisted it and chose rather ‘the turkish yoke and turban rather then the Catholic Mitre’ and their true faith was saved

are any of these correct or is there other conclusions?

 

[funkmasternice]

Recently it’s boiled down to works for me. I’d mostly been interested in EO church. I loved it’s mystical theology and emphasis on Theosis. I’d always had the mentality Greece built metaphysical systems and Rome built roads. I preferred metaphysical systems. For what ever reason I’d been bypassing Catholicism. EO always sounded great on paper but I needed to see how it was practiced. I attended a local EO parish and it was well and dandy but something was missing. I checked out their webpage and saw no outreach. Lots of church education which was great but no community outreach. This was extremely concerning. I thought no big deal, this parish was mostly made of converts so maybe they’re just focusing on teaching to get a good foundation. So I checked out a long established Greek EO parish website and saw no community outreach. There was a lot of Greek cultural activities but no community outreach. I had thought that the Orthodox had a similar view on works as the Catholics but I couldn’t find the same proof of it in my community. The Catholic parishes had tons of outreach and evangelism

I feel called to service and I wanna be apart of a church that serves as well.
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “I have told you, but you do not believe it. The works that I do in my Father’s name testify on my behalf.”

 

[Hesychios]

I think the Catholics kinda believe the short lived unions of those two councils were like the Orthodox coming up from the deep sea for air

They might like to think so, if it makes them feel better …

like they have been in schism since 1054 but had managed to created unity in these two councils,but the ill will of the greek clergy and people pulled them back down under the sea in schism from Rome

Well, you can see that there were very few bishops involved, there was political pressure, and this would not have been a true union, but just another schism-inducing episode of the western church clawing away at bits of the eastern communion. I have noticed that many modern Latin Catholics project an impression of their own church’s ecclesiology of the Orthodox. In doing so, many such people tend to think of Orthodox patriarchs as ‘little Popes’ who can just command a change. They seem to think that if they can get a patriarch to agree the rest of the Orthodox world will just follow. But patriarchs would not normally have that much authority within their synods. It does not work that way.

The synod is a cooperative venture, and moreover one synod has no control over another synod. Both of these points are written into the early canons of the church, canons which have largely been forgotten in the west.

If one synod should make an attempt to take over another synod, that would be thought of as exploitation. This was condemned long ago when the church at Antioch tried to take control of the church on Cyprus. In addition, if one church were to take deliberate advantage of a crises in another church to split the flock, it is reprehensible. This is essentially what was being tried at Lyons and Florence, they were not going to bring ‘all of Orthodoxy’ into submission to the Pope of Rome, they were possibly going to get a few hundred square miles and a few hundred thousand Greeks (whom they had recently just lost control of when the Latin kingdom was pushed out of Constantinople),* if* it could have worked. The Latin Catholics at Lyons probably understood this at the time (they were supporting opponents of the emperor for just that reason, and he knew it). This would have only been fomenting schism within the Orthodox church in the Greek lands, splitting off the small community and alienating them from the rest of the Orthodox world, exactly the opposite of what most RC polemicists are claiming was happening. They seem to claim ‘all the Orthodox’ were involved in this affair …

It should be noted that as a general policy the Papacy has abandoned uniatism as a method toward achieving church ‘unity’. This is a positive sign. I don’t expect such attempts again in the near future.

Either that or the Orthodox compromised the true faith twice with heresy …

It appears that some few Orthodox bishops did compromise, under political pressure. But most of them recanted their errors once they departed Italy and France.

Orthodox know that bishops, even patriarchs, are liable to be removed for moral, ethical or theological failings. If the community learns about it, they will become outraged, and the bishops at fault will be sent back to the monastery to pray for their souls.

 

[Contarini]

They might like to think so, if it makes them feel better …
Well, you can see that there were very few bishops involved, there was political pressure, and this would not have been a true union, but just another schism-inducing episode of the western church clawing away at bits of the eastern communion.

I guess the problem with this view is that it’s hard to imagine what the Orthodox would consider a “true union.” I take the point that Latins tend to think of everything in top-down terms, and I respect the fact that the Orthodox don’t. But one has to wonder if perhaps the Orthodox “sensus fidelium” hasn’t been affected by normal human xenophobia and pride, which can easily take on the appearance of a zeal for the truth, or mix themselves with genuine zeal for the truth (clearly someone like St. Mark of Ephesus, for instance, was a man of sincere piety and conviction).

The bottom line for me is that I’m just not convinced that Western Christianity has to be rejected as something contaminated root and branch. While the more ecumenical Orthodox insist that this isn’t their position, it’s hard to see the Orthodox as a whole accepting as a “true union” anything that didn’t involve such a radical (and radically improbable) rejection of Western Christianity in toto.

I am highly conflicted on this, because in most things I find the Eastern Christian approach highly preferable to the Western. The simple way of putting it is that I think the Catholic Church is really catholic and the Orthodox Church is really orthodox, and I think the former is more important (as well as easier to discern) than the latter. Furthermore, one can be a Catholic and hold to the orthodoxy of the Orthodox. One can’t be Orthodox and hold to the catholicity of the Catholics.

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Edwin,

I guess the problem with this view is that it’s hard to imagine what the Orthodox would consider a “true union.”

Fair enough, yet there has been unity in Christianty in days gone by, if we could just reproduce the theology of those days, I think we would have a fighting chance …

… one has to wonder if perhaps the Orthodox “sensus fidelium” hasn’t been affected by normal human xenophobia and pride, which can easily take on the appearance of a zeal for the truth …

Possible, but recent history has shown us that there are some groups that have been able to merge into the Orthodox communion. I can think of one in north America, and another in Africa. This is something Holy Orthodoxy has been open to.

Pride is a dangerous thing, it is insidious, and often more than one party are infected by it at one and the same time.

The bottom line for me is that I’m just not convinced that Western Christianity has to be rejected as something contaminated root and branch.

Nor do I reject it root and branch. I have always been rather fond of it.

Good comments on your part, well worth reflecting on.

Pax et Bonum

 

[CopticChristian]

Original what, exactly?

It is English Lesson time…

Original Church. He build a Church. Where is it?

youtube.com/watch?v=rn6w255CGkk

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It is English Lesson time…

Original Church. He build a Church. Where is it?

youtube.com/watch?v=rn6w255CGkk

English lesson time…

He built a Church.

For any possible lurkers: If you are struggling between EO and the CC, I’d remember which one has authoritative councils after the first 7 Eastern Councils (i.e continues to teach and continues to learn (end of Matthew 28, John 16:13)) and which one is united with Peter’s successor the bishop of Rome. Or, look at the ECF and see if they support the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Imho it’s the Catholic Church hands down. I’m sure some Orthodox will disagree, but

 

[CopticChristian]

English lesson time…

He built a Church.

For any possible lurkers: If you are struggling between EO and the CC, I’d remember which one has authoritative councils after the first 7 Eastern Councils (i.e continues to teach and continues to learn (end of Matthew 28, John 16:13)) and which one is united with Peter’s successor the bishop of Rome. Or, look at the ECF and see if they support the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Imho it’s the Catholic Church hands down. I’m sure some Orthodox will disagree, but

Aaaaamen…Aaaaamen…Aaaaamen…Amen…Amen

 

[Cavaradossi]

For any possible lurkers: If you are struggling between EO and the CC, I’d remember which one has authoritative councils after the first 7 Eastern Councils (i.e continues to teach and continues to learn (end of Matthew 28, John 16:13)) and which one is united with Peter’s successor the bishop of Rome. Or, look at the ECF and see if they support the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Imho it’s the Catholic Church hands down. I’m sure some Orthodox will disagree, but

The Orthodox Church has had authoritative councils after 1054. The hesychast councils held between 1341 and 1351 are authoritative in Orthodoxy, and they affirmed Gregory Palamas’ theology as authoritative in Orthodoxy. Similarly, the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 is held by some to be authoritative, although not all. It is a weak argument to say that the lack of councils reflects a lack of teaching or learning. The lack of post-schism councils reflects a lack of doctrinal conflict after 1054 (with the conflict over hesychasm being the last), not a lack of teaching or learning. This whole development of doctrine argument where Catholicism is supposedly superior because of its ever-developing doctrinal understanding is just silly. Ecumenical (or pan-Orthodox) Councils are not called on a whim; they are only called when there is a pressing doctrinal dispute.

 

[shaky]

English lesson time…

He built a Church.

For any possible lurkers: If you are struggling between EO and the CC, I’d remember which one has authoritative councils after the first 7 Eastern Councils (i.e continues to teach and continues to learn (end of Matthew 28, John 16:13)) and which one is united with Peter’s successor the bishop of Rome. Or, look at the ECF and see if they support the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Imho it’s the Catholic Church hands down. I’m sure some Orthodox will disagree, but

I hear that there are some Eastern Orthodox churches that is in communion with Rome.
Are those same Orthodox churches also still in communion with Constantinople as-well?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I hear that there are some Eastern Orthodox churches that is in communion with Rome.
Are those same Orthodox churches also still in communion with Constantinople as-well?

Those churches are typically called the Eastern Catholic Churches (the ones in union with Rome). The Eastern Catholic Churches, in communion with Rome are not in communion with any of the individual churches which make up what is known as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Catholics typically do not call themselves Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox typically do not call themselves Eastern Catholics just to prevent confusion.

 

[Contarini]

For any possible lurkers: If you are struggling between EO and the CC, I’d remember which one has authoritative councils after the first 7 Eastern Councils (i.e continues to teach and continues to learn (end of Matthew 28, John 16:13))

What counts as an “authoritative council”? The Orthodox have continued to have councils that settle doctrinal controversies. You can find many of them listed here. Some Catholics make way too much of the fact that the Orthodox don’t call the post-schism councils “Ecumenical.” The Orthodox certainly continue to teach and to learn. This is simply a bogus argument and anyone who uses it reveals a lack of understanding of Orthodoxy.

and which one is united with Peter’s successor the bishop of Rome.

That one I have a lot more agreement with!

Or, look at the ECF and see if they support the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Imho it’s the Catholic Church hands down.

In what sense? Just because of Rome? Because on practically any other point I think it’s the other way round–and of course the patristic witness on Petrine succession is pretty confusing and complicated. The patristic acknowledgment of Roman primacy, however, is much clearer.

But the general theology and ethos of the Orthodox Church seems much more like that of the Fathers than that of the Western Church does–which is why many of your Communion have accused the Orthodox of “stagnation.” That really amounts to an admission that the East looks a lot more like the first-millennium Church than the West does!

A further complication, of course, is that there are Eastern churches in communion with Rome. This is a complex and often tragic story, but it does seem to me that the West does a better job of recognizing the East than vice versa. Of course, some Orthodox would say that this is because the East is right and the West is wrong, and others would deny my claim in the first place!

Edwin

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The Orthodox Church has had authoritative councils after 1054. The hesychast councils held between 1341 and 1351 are authoritative in Orthodoxy, and they affirmed Gregory Palamas’ theology as authoritative in Orthodoxy. Similarly, the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 is held by some to be authoritative, although not all.

Fair enough.

But it is up to the individual in Orthodoxy to decide whether the Synod of Jerusalem is authoritative or not authoritative?