Which one: Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

[Cavaradossi]

You are mixing two histories here. The complaint from the Patriarch of Constantinople about the Filioque, unleavened bread, fast days, celibate priests never bothered most of the Other Church Fathers, and still don’t today to those who remained in communion with the Popes since the early councils.

These complaints from the Patriarch of Constantinople were excuses and began to gain support from both religious and political powers from the East to ursurp powers from the Popes in Rome as the Patriarch of Constantinople did to Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexander along with the Patriarchs Emperor at his side with the money bag and military influence.

That runs with the assumption that there was any power to be usurped. Also, how can a political power usurp power from a ‘religious authority,’ who should possess no ‘secular power’ for the emperor to usurp? Is that an admission that the popes did in fact wield secular power (the same secular power that you insist corrupted the Byzantine Emperors and Patriarchs of Constantinople)? To be honest, Constantinople simply wanted to be left alone from the meddling of your so-called supreme pontiffs ever since 869.

In short the Popes only recourse before succumbing to any political powers especially pagan, appointed his own Catholic Emperor to rule the lands, while the Pope tended the flock of Jesus Christ without the influence of pagan Emperors. Thus begins the road to schism and excuses being introduced to create conflict between the East and Western Empires.

What pagan emperors? To my knowledge, all Eastern Emperors since the two-year reign of Julian the Apostate in 361-363 were Christian (although some were heretics). You are just making things up at this point.

There were many apostates and heretics from Orthodoxy that had secular powers supporting them, later Islam conquers then Communism, to begin with. Constantine and all his successors both Christian and Pagan Emperors ruled over the Eastern Church this became abundantly clear when The Emperor Constantine moved his captial to Constantinople and placed his own Patriarch there to rule over, thus the Patriarch began to usurp Apostolic Sees to himself. While the Patriarch’s of Constantinople is never an apostolic see. A Patriarch of Constantinople is an ecclessial office it is never apostolic.

Again, you’re making history up. Constantine did not establish the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the council of Chalcedon did. There was one, and only one apostate and pagan Emperor, Julian the Apostate, who reigned shortly after Constantine. All of the others were Christian. There were several Heretic emperors, and yet the purity of the faith never succumbed to their heresy. Your constant insistence on there being ‘many’ heretic and apostate Emperors is nothing but a red herring.

I never said the Orthodox were wrong, I revealed that the Orthodox ruled over by secular powers influenced the schism between East and West at the discretion of the Patriarch of Constantinople for monetary gain and political power to weaken the Popes and the Western Emperors. When the Eastern Emperors realized they could not defeat the Western Emperors, your Eastern Emperors made sure to keep you “Orthodox” separated from the Popes, because had unity continue with in the magisterium and Popes from both East and West the Eastern Political powers were surely to fall. This simple arithematic stll holds true today.

Yes, in other words, you say that you don’t think that the Orthodox are wrong, and then you explain why you think the Orthodox are wrong. By the way, there is no power in this world besides secular power. Your very admission earlier that you believe that the Emperors (whose power is only secular) were trying to usurp power from the popes (who supposedly possess no secular power, yet have power for the Emperors to usurp) reflects this. Did not the religious authority of the Popes in the West practically translate into secular power then? What do you call the coronation of Charlemagne but an act of secular power (which backfired on Rome, once it became clear that the Franks were not interested in being submitted to the popes, nor were the Eastern Christians interested in recognizing a barbarian ruler as a legitimate Roman Emperor). And was it not Pope Adrian IV (the only English pope in history), for example, who used the forged Donation of Constantine to justify a bull urging the King of England to invade Ireland? What do you call that sort of meddling in the political affairs of the world but secular power?

If the Eastern, Orthodox Church’s come into full communion with the Popes, your Eastern anti-Christ political powers that supress your evangelization in the East are sure to crumble.

What Antichrist political powers? Nobody is suppressing the ‘evangelization’ of the Orthodox (by which I assume you mean evangelization of the Orthodox to Catholicism) in the East. Religious freedom is the de facto mode of operation in all of these countries now (in case you didn’t realize, the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe happened twenty years ago). The fact that you think the Orthodox should be ‘evangelized’ into the Catholic Church is quite distasteful, to be honest. Sheep stealing is dirty business.

 

[Marybeloved]

What Antichrist political powers? Nobody is suppressing the ‘evangelization’ of the Orthodox (by which I assume you mean evangelization of the Orthodox to Catholicism) in the East. Religious freedom is the de facto mode of operation in all of these countries now (in case you didn’t realize, the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe happened twenty years ago). The fact that you think the Orthodox should be ‘evangelized’ into the Catholic Church is quite distasteful, to be honest. Sheep stealing is dirty business.

It’s quite plain that he meant the suppression of Orthodox evangelization (spreading the faith further East by Orthodox) by the secular powers.

 

[Trebor135]

It’s quite plain that he meant the suppression of Orthodox evangelization (spreading the faith further East by Orthodox) by the secular powers.

Are you thinking of communist China, which does, after all, share a long border with an (unfortunately mostly nominal) Eastern Orthodox Russia?

 

[Hesychios]

If the Eastern, Orthodox Church’s come into full communion with the Popes, your Eastern anti-Christ political powers that supress your evangelization in the East are sure to crumble.

What an odd statement.

Are you thinking of communist China, which does, after all, share a long border with an (unfortunately mostly nominal) Eastern Orthodox Russia?

Probably not.

 

[RyanBlack]

What an odd statement.

And naive as well.

 

[Contarini]

I’m not too informed on the matter but as far as I know both church’s do have apostolic succession and are able to trace their roots all the way back to the apostles. I also know that the main difference between the two is that we Catholics believe in the papacy while the Orthodox believe in equality among all bishops or something. Still, one church had to break off from the other in 1054. My question is, how do we know which Church is the original?

I think that’s the wrong question. They both have apostolic succession, so in that sense both are the “original.” The Roman Communion has, well, Rome. How important one thinks that is, and how important it was in the early Church, is a matter of debate. The Eastern Churches certainly have modes of worship and theology and spirituality that on the whole (with many caveats and nuances) probably resemble those of the early Church more than do those common in the West. Again, how important this is may be debated. The “Filioque” (the phrase “and from the Son” in the section of the Nicene Creed speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit) is a concrete example of this: the Eastern Churches certainly say the Creed in the “original” (381) form. The Western practice is certainly an innovation. But it is it a legitimate development, or not? History, by itself, can’t solve this.

A further complication is that there are Eastern churches in communion with Rome, practicing Eastern theology, worship, spirituality. The circumstances under which they united with Rome were often shaped by politics, and there has been some degree of “Latinization.” It’s a very complex and tricky subject, but it does make it impossible to speak simply of the Roman Communion over against Eastern Christianity–there is some of the latter in the former. (There are some “Western Orthodox” too, but much fewer and with much less continuous tradition behind them.)

I would strongly recommend Olivier Clement’s You Are Peter for a historical and theological study of the papacy by an ecumenical Orthodox theologian. I find Clement’s position a convincing refutation of the standard Orthodox view which simply makes the papacy a superfluous bit of ecclesiastical tradition. Clearly it’s more than that.

Edwin

 

[pablope]

I
I would strongly recommend Olivier Clement’s You Are Peter for a historical and theological study of the papacy by an ecumenical Orthodox theologian. I find Clement’s position a convincing refutation of the standard Orthodox view which simply makes the papacy a superfluous bit of ecclesiastical tradition. Clearly it’s more than that.

Edwin

hi, Edwin…would you then recommend this book for JonNC?

 

[Contarini]

hi, Edwin…would you then recommend this book for JonNC?

I’d recommend it for everyone. It was certainly helpful to me. Though oddly I wasn’t as struck with it when I first read it–actually I skimmed it very quickly and found it a bit vague. That was maybe six years ago. Then about a year ago, after thinking about Orthodoxy somewhat seriously, I reread it and found it wonderful.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8558452]Ridiculous and blasphemous.** Contrary to your opinion, theological development in the East did not stop after 1054 **(the incorrect date that you keep attributing to the schism, even though you have admitted that Cardinal Humbert essentially acted outside of his authority).

I am sorry that you find that the faith of our Fathers is milk

. I guess all of this stuff about the Eastern and Western lungs of the Church being equal in dignity is a sham then. What a shame.

What are you talking about? The Ecumenical Councils were called in order to defeat heresy when a doctrinal dispute broke out. **What Ecumenical Council was called in order to make peace with heretics? **The only one you might be able to argue for coming close would be Constantinople II, but even then, the conclusions of Constantinople II (the condemnation of the writings of Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the Letter of Ibas) were true.

You make it out as if it were so simple. Unless we are one in faith, there will be no communion. The Orthodox believe Vatican I to be a severe departure from the faith of our Fathers, and until this issue can be resolved, there will be no communion.

Cavaradossi; It is nice to dialogue with you here. You have entered much subject matter that I fear would stear us off course so I will comment here to summarize what I think is causing you to misunderstand my position.

First of all, you are placing Orthodoxy in a sole position in history from historical actions and historical councils. What I am trying to introduce here is that from these derive many political influences after the persecution of the Catholic Church from the Roman Empire was lifted. It would appear that if we neglect these historical factors it is easy to pit the patriarch Constantinople against the Popes authority, when the Patriarch of Constantinople never existed in the Early Church while the Popes and the Early Church were suffereing martyrdom and persecution.

When the Roman Emperor Constantine placed a Patriarch in Constantinople. From here the power struggle begins within the Church’s. Our Early Church councils attest to this. So much so that even our shared Saints and Early Church Fathers rejected this influence from secular powers gaining ground within the Church that they left their sees and began the holy life of celibacy and monasticism in the deserts, only to be recalled back by the populace and defend the apostolic faith against heretical bishops and heretical patriarchs.

And when the Eastern Saints failed to depose of the heretics sitting in high places, they sought out the Popes authority for support and to decide on matters, knowing full well that this would put the Popes lives in danger with the pagan Emperors.

It was the Emperors who over saw the councils decision because Christianity was gaining ground in the Roman Empire, the Emperor wanted to be informed how the church was going to relate her teachings to the people within his empire. It was from this political forum that the Emperor sought peace between powerful heretics and the Church through council decisions.

That said, a thousand years later after the patriarch of Constantinople usurped other apostolic sees gains much power and influence with the Emperors ear. It is from here begins the power struggles between East and West from both political and religious.
As Christianity began to populate the Roman empire.

The milk example deals with the Orthodox refusing to accept developed doctrine as the worlds intelligence matures in science, language and the like, but you indicate that Orthodoxy accepts this? Orthodoxy begins to fall apart on this notion from her arguments oppossing doctirnal development.

In conclusion “No man can put asunder what God has joined together”. Thus to make a claim of refusing communion with the Popes is never heard of in the Early Church councils nor the Early Church Fathers. This new development of non communion is never Orthodoxy of the True faith since antiquity.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Contarini;8559914]The “Filioque” (the phrase “and from the Son” in the section of the Nicene Creed speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit) is a concrete example of this: the Eastern Churches certainly say the Creed in the “original” (381) form. The Western practice is certainly an innovation. But it is it a legitimate development, or not? History, by itself, can’t solve this.

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.** 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.

It stands to reason that both Nicene Creed and the filioque defeated the Eastern heresies and heretics trying to infect the Apostolic faith.

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.

Thanks for the book recommendation

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What an odd statement.

You forgot to include this statement prior to the one appearing odd to you;

I never said the Orthodox were wrong, I revealed that the Orthodox ruled over by secular powers influenced the schism between East and West at the discretion of the Patriarch of Constantinople for monetary gain and political power to weaken the Popes and the Western Emperors. When the Eastern Emperors realized they could not defeat the Western Emperors, **your Eastern Emperors made sure to keep you “Orthodox” separated from the Popes, because had unity continue with in the magisterium and Popes from both East and West the Eastern Political powers were surely to fall. This simple arithematic stll holds true today. **

Try and picture this Church history without an Emperor only the Church existing what do you have? No Patriarch in Constantinople and no secular influence over the Eastern Church, I know very “odd” to imagine an Eastern Church without its Emperor.

Without an emperor on both sides we have no schism.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8558454]

Again, you’re making history up. Constantine did not establish the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the council of Chalcedon did. There was one, and only one apostate and pagan Emperor, Julian the Apostate, who reigned shortly after Constantine. All of the others were Christian. There were several Heretic emperors, and yet the purity of the faith never succumbed to their heresy. Your constant insistence on there being ‘many’ heretic and apostate Emperors is nothing but a red herring.

I am amazed how you try and shoot wholes in my history and then introduce examples that support my history:shrug: I leave your rebuttle with the readers.

I leave you with post #69 for clarification

What Antichrist political powers? Nobody is suppressing the ‘evangelization’ of the Orthodox (by which I assume you mean evangelization of the Orthodox to Catholicism) in the East. Religious freedom is the de facto mode of operation in all of these countries now (in case you didn’t realize, the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe happened twenty years ago). The fact that you think the Orthodox should be ‘evangelized’ into the Catholic Church is quite distasteful, to be honest. Sheep stealing is dirty business.

The fall of communism trying to reach the west was defeated by Pope John Paul II.

It would be a sin for me to believe that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to evangelize the Orthodox Church. Does your fear of the Pope reach that far? That is an insane thought you introduced here and difficult for me to process mentally.

You have a gross misunderstanding of how the West views the Orthodox, it is never on a par of negativity that comes from Orthodox arguments. Somehow we have to get over this hurdle before coming to reason.

I believe the People of God should never be hindered from practicing their apostolic faith, nor should there be anyone authority restricting the freedom of a Christian to decide which branch to rest his/her salvation in. Because both distribute the saving grace of God via the Sacramental economy in the Church revealed by Jesus Christ himself.

The Pope cannot rebaptize Christians although some Orthodox still practice re-baptism of Christians. When the Pope already declared in the Early Church for the Eastern Church’s not to rebaptize their penitent apostates.

Now that communism no longer stands in the way of evangelization may the peace and love of Christ be lived out and practiced as examples of the faith to welcome all others into the body of Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[Cavaradossi]

I do not mean to be offensive with my candor, but Gabriel, you seem to have a poor grasp of Church and Roman history (but you insist you are correct), you make many red herring arguments, and you seem to refuse to address any of the points which I make with anything but deflections (some of which verge on being commentary of my personal character, like alleging that I somehow fear the popes), you do not wish to admit when you are mistaken (like when I pointed out there there was only one, in all of Roman history since Constantine, pagan Eastern Roman Emperor), and in general, you have a tendency to make fallacious and broad generalizations instead of providing anything of specific substance. There is no further point in debating with you, until you are actually willing to engage in a real dialogue.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8560726]I do not mean to be offensive with my candor, but Gabriel, you seem to have a poor grasp of Church and Roman history (but you insist you are correct), you make many red herring arguments, and you seem to refuse to address any of the points which I make with anything but deflections

I find it hard to when you introduce history that supports the history mentioned. I see no need to digress when you make my historical point perfectly clear supported by a historical fact. Asking for more examples when you already proven my point, made me feel why pursue the argument when the opposition quaranteed it as factual. What you question is not the facts but how many times? which is off topic.

(some of which verge on being commentary of my personal character, like alleging that I somehow fear the popes),

This is exactly my point about Orthodox misunderstanding Cathoilcs. I pose that in a question to you, you took it as addressing your personal character, when I referenced Orthodoxy in general. Normally I fray away from such statements, but felt a need to clarify your false assumptions.

you do not wish to admit when you are mistaken (like when I pointed out there there was only one, in all of Roman history since Constantine, pagan Eastern Roman Emperor),

This takes us off topic but let me entertain you;

1.Constantine was a Pagan holding to the title "Pontifex Maximus (pagan high priest) and excercised the rights and duties connected with this office, until his death bed Constantine was baptized by a known heretic Arian bishop Eusebius. This alone reveals the history that I have introduced here.

1. Licinius ruled over the eastern half of the Empire who held hostility towards Christians, later declared war on Constantine
2. Son of Constantine Constantius permitted the pagan rhetoricians, sophists, and Neo- Platonic philosphers to teach in all the higher institutions of learning these became vigorous enemies of the Church.
3. Julian the Apostate the only one you mentioned
4. Now enters the history of Heretics and heresies of which were from the Eastern Church’s beginning with Arius who after the council of Nicea gained support from the Emperors power supporting his heretical views along with his friend Eusibius.

6.350 a.d Arianism triumphs under the Emperor Constantius

1. The Emperor at Milan condemned St.Athanasius who agreed to recieve Arius the heretic back into the Church. The Pope Liberius refused to comply with this imperial command

I see no need to pursue this history because it continues to when Islam become rulers over the Church. Not in matters on faith, but on evangelization. When the secular rulers oppress and dicate who is an acceptable Patriarch or not over the Church.

and in general, you have a tendency to make fallacious and broad generalizations instead of providing anything of specific substance. There is no further point in debating with you, until you are actually willing to engage in a real dialogue.

Just so you are aware, I see at times not going into historical details especially when they go off topic. Had your requests been atuned to the topic, I have no problem giving detailed historical facts. But please don’t use off topic arguments as a reason to bless my character with false accusations.

God bless you

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is always bias in a point of view. If this question were posted on an Orthodox site the bias would be the opposite. The Orthodox consider the OHCAC to be in schism. The OHCAC considers the Orthodox to be in schism.

The posting is divisive. The answers should look to the reality that the OHCAC and the Orthodox are hopefully uniting.

It would be like two parents that have lived apart and plan on uniting for the family…Do we like dad more or mom more…poor analogy however the sentiment is the same…

The unity of the family is far more important than what either any of us think or believe as to what is the “original formula”…the formula is Christ.

The Orthodox do not believe the OHCAC to be in schism because they believe that they are the OHCAC.

I think the truth is what came out of recent Ecumenical efforts between Rome and Constantinople, that the Orthodox are not in schism nor is the Catholics are in schism. We are in schism from one another. We recognized that both parts make up the OHCAC and that we should work in healing the wounds of schism from one another to bring the Church back into one Church again.

 

[ConstantineTG]

1.Constantine was a Pagan holding to the title "Pontifex Maximus (pagan high priest) and excercised the rights and duties connected with this office, until his death bed Constantine was baptized by a known heretic Arian bishop Eusebius. This alone reveals the history that I have introduced here.

It shouldn’t matter really because of two things:
First, we teach that anyone may validly baptize, including a heretic and even an atheist.
Second, Arianism at that time was so widespread, Many bishops and priests were Arians. Even after the First Ecumenical Council, Arius was exonerated afterwards before being declared a heretic for the second and final time at the Second Ecumenical Council.

 

[Hesychios]

I never said the Orthodox were wrong, I revealed that the Orthodox ruled over by secular powers influenced the schism between East and West.

I am sure you must realize that the western churches were also under the influence of monarchs for most of their history (let’s not pretend that was never the case now …), and a strong argument can be made for Charlemagne and his ilk and progeny being a major source of the problem between east and west up into the present generation.

… And lest we forget, Cardinal Humbertus was a Latin Catholic. The present schism is traceable directly to him, and his illegal actions. His co-conspirator, Cardinal Frederic was smart enough that he must have known this, but even after he was elected Pope of Rome he did nothing to repair the damage he himself helped to create.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It shouldn’t matter really because of two things:
First, we teach that anyone may validly baptize, including a heretic and even an atheist.
Second, Arianism at that time was so widespread, Many bishops and priests were Arians. Even after the First Ecumenical Council, Arius was exonerated afterwards before being declared a heretic for the second and final time at the Second Ecumenical Council.

I don’t know what you point is here; But Arius was exonerated by the Emperors who had his religious heretical leanings. The Pope and other Eastern Saints refused the imperial rule against Arius coming back into the Church. Again the Emperors ruled over the Church councils.

The Pope had already declared no rebaptism of Christians, even though the Eastern Church wanted to rebaptized penitent apostates. No one constests Constantines was never invalid. By him being baptized by a heretic reveals that the Emperors at times were influenced by these.

 

[CopticChristian]

The Orthodox do not believe the OHCAC to be in schism because they believe that they are the OHCAC.

I think the truth is what came out of recent Ecumenical efforts between Rome and Constantinople, that the Orthodox are not in schism nor is the Catholics are in schism. We are in schism from one another. We recognized that both parts make up the OHCAC and that we should work in healing the wounds of schism from one another to bring the Church back into one Church again.

The love of one forgives the sins of the many and forgiveness brings unity.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hesychios;8561118]I am sure you must realize that the western churches were also under the influence of monarchs for most of their history (let’s not pretend that was never the case now …), and a strong argument can be made for Charlemagne and his ilk and progeny being a major source of the problem between east and west up into the present generation.

I agree these secular powers definitely influenced the schism. I would argue although that the Popes learned their lesson to give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar and give to God what belongs to God, this was always the Popes and magisterium fight in keeping the Ceasars out of Church evangelical and ecclessial affairs.

… And lest we forget, Cardinal Humbertus was a Latin Catholic. The present schism is traceable directly to him, and his illegal actions. His co-conspirator, Cardinal Frederic was smart enough that he must have known this, but even after he was elected Pope of Rome he did nothing to repair the damage he himself helped to create.

Thats right Cardinal Humbertus was Latin and did not know a lick of Greek, what he was doing delivering a letter of excommunication deals with personal convictions, and recall that the Patriarch issued his own excommunication. One would think a Patriarch’s wisdom should of won the day, thus pride of men prevailed that day.

This schism was revealed to be personal and not universal and is forgiven and forgotten. But what brought it about remains complex deriving from the power struggles both secular and religious which continues today in matters of jurisdiction and authority. Thus history repeats itself.