Which one: Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

[Cavaradossi]

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.

That makes him a heretic, not a pagan.

1. Licinius ruled over the eastern half of the Empire who held hostility towards Christians, later declared war on Constantine

That is irrelevant, as he reigned during Constantine’s reign.

1. 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.

Firstly, that’s Constantius II. Secondly, he tolerated these things, but he himself was Christian. How can you call Constantine who tolerated Christianity a pagan when by the same faulty logic you’re using here, he would have been a Christian is a mystery.

1. Julian the Apostate the only one you mentioned

Yes.

1. 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.

Hey, wait a minute you claimed that there were multiple pagan emperors, which was what I was correcting. Why are you deflecting by talking about heretic emperors.

6.350 a.d Arianism triumphs under the Emperor Constantius

So which one was it? Was he a pagan or an Arian heretic? Make up your mind (hint, he was an Arian).

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

More off topic stuff that has nothing to do with the multiple pagan Emperors you mentioned.

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.

Be careful what you stir up because this is not unique the East, it happened with your papacy as well. If that ius your criterion for determining which church is true, then none of them are true. Basically, you can’t even admit that you were mistaken when you talked about pagan emperors (when there was only one), so what is the point in trying to hold dialogue?

 

[shaky]

And just who would these ‘boisterous’ Eastern Orthodox polemicists be? There are maybe three EO posters who post even somewhat regularly here in the non-Catholic section, and quite frankly, we don’t usually get too polemical until people start firing the polemics at us. I have plenty of ‘dirt’ that I could fire off, but I choose to refrain from using as taking pot shots is not a very charitable way to have a discussion.

What Marduk says about nobody leaving the true Church is not without merit, but I think all Christians have historically taken a rather hard-line stance that those who fall into error remove themselves from the true Church. How we are to deal with the fact that such opinions have been held historically by all three groups involved if we are to adopt this more union-friendly paradigm is unclear.

While they might have come to a mutual understanding of Christology, the OO tend to be rather suspicious of the Roman Catholics, whom they see as being crypto-Nestorian. I don’t mean to discredit or offend Marduk here with my disagreement, but I think he might be a bit more optimistic in his assessment than most of the Oriental Christians whom I have interacted with. The events of the Council of Chalcedon and the approval Tome of Leo in particular (which many Orientals believe to be heretical) are most definitely the biggest impediment to any sort of union. The papal claims and papal infallibility would probably be number two.

In Galatians 5:19-21> There is a list of Sins that if you practise any of them you will not Inherit the Kingdom of God! Heresies is one of these Sins!

Does Ones salvation depend on getting it Right on which church you follow between Roman Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox church, and Oriental Orthodox church?

Is One of these churches right and the other two are in Heresy?

 

[CopticChristian]

In Galatians 5:19-21> There is a list of Sins that if you practise any of them you will not Inherit the Kingdom of God! Heresies is one of these Sins!

Does Ones salvation depend on getting it Right on which church you follow between Roman Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox church, and Oriental Orthodox church?

Is One of these churches right and the other two are in Heresy?

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.]

 

[Paul_theApostle]

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?

Heres something to read on the early church,the councils and Papal primacy from an Eastern Catholic,its very long

christian-unity-in-diversity.ourchur.ch/catalog/recapturing-the-early-churchs-unity/so-that-the-world-may-believe/volume-iii-the-papacy-and-christian-unity-in-diversity/v-iii-ch-5/

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8561392]That makes him a heretic, not a pagan.
That is irrelevant, as he reigned during Constantine’s reign.
Firstly, that’s Constantius II. Secondly, he tolerated these things, but he himself was Christian. How can you call Constantine who tolerated Christianity a pagan when by the same faulty logic you’re using here, he would have been a Christian is a mystery.
Hey, wait a minute you claimed that there were multiple pagan emperors, which was what I was correcting. Why are you deflecting by talking about heretic emperors.
So which one was it? Was he a pagan or an Arian heretic? Make up your mind (hint, he was an Arian).
More off topic stuff that has nothing to do with the multiple pagan Emperors you mentioned.

Your comments only reinforce what I have been relating here. For one you have confirmed that the Emperors ruled over the Eastern Church one was pagan in your eyes only.

As far as Pagan’s, heretics, Muslim, Communists these Emperors ruled over the Eastern Church and continue today in some parts, why you are sticking to just pagan Emperors has no credence to the subject matter being put forth.

My comments earlier was and is relating to the Eastern Church’s rulers both patriarchs and Emperors fall into the category of pagan, heretics, apostates etc… You don’t see the reality in this?

I have been relating the whole of Eastern Church’s history that has been under secular rule by its Emperors since the lifting of the persecution. These Emperors be it Christian, pagan, or heretic they ruled over the Eastern Church’s.

I have given you a list to begin with, you debate a mute point already answered. I will grant you this; it appears your definition of pagan may differ from when I apply this to non-Christian rulers.

Be careful what you stir up because this is not unique the East, it happened with your papacy as well. If that ius your criterion for determining which church is true, then none of them are true. Basically, you can’t even admit that you were mistaken when you talked about pagan emperors (when there was only one), so what is the point in trying to hold dialogue?

It is no secret that secular powers sought out the chair of Peter but never prevailed. Let’s be clear here. The Eastern church was ruled over by her Emperors.

The Popes were never ruled over by her Emperors that is one reason for the result of the schism and why there is much turmoil in the dark and middle ages until the reformation as the Popes vied to keep the house clean of secular powers ever ruling over the Church even though these Emperors were Catholic.

When the Eastern Church could not move without it’s Emperor’s approval. It is true some secular powers even went as far as selecting its own bishops, but ultimately this came to a halt, whereby in the Eastern Church the Emperor’s continued to approve bishops and patriarchs as common practice including exile and returning professed heretics back into the Eastern Church.

You have me all wrong here, I am not debating which Church is the right one. I am simply revealing one of the main reasons for what caused the schism between East and West.

You can argue all you want too about which Church is right or wrong. Ultimately history and facts, sacred scripture, and sacred Tradition tell a different story than what you are trying to present here. To which I am holding you too, but you agreed with what was presented to which I do not rebutt, only your view that there was only one pagan Emperor who ruled over the Eastern Church.

One can argue also on the Eastern Church behalf, that those Eastern Fathers went to the Popes when your pagan Emperor ruled unjustly over the Eastern Church, keepping the Eastern Church true to its roots. But then Orthodox argues that Orthodox never needed the Pope. This is a common misunderstanding that relates to my whole entire posts, the schism is a direct relation to this Eastern/Emperor relationship.

Peace be with you

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Heres something i read about Cardinal Humbert and the excommunication of Michael Celuarius-

Michael Celularius stands out as particularly guilty of crimes against the Undivided Early Church’s unity in diversity. **He accused the Roman Rite of the Undivided Church of being wrong for not using the same kind of bread for Holy Communion that Byzantine Rite Christians did (even though this difference between the united Sister Churches had been held peaceably for much of the First Millennium), and impiously had the consecrated Eucharistic / Holy Communion bread from Roman Rite churches within Constantinople thrown out into the street and trampled. This kind of blatant anti-Roman bigotry naturally provoked a response, and in 1054 the pope and Roman Patriarch (Leo IX) sent a delegate (Cardinal Humbert de Silva Candida) to Constantinople to discuss the issue. Patriarch Michael Celularius refused to see the papal delegate, making any reconciliation impossible. After waiting for over three months to see Celularius towards possible resolution of the matter, the delegate gave up, and laid a bull of excommunication from the pope on the altar of Michael’s Church, the Hagia Sophia (he had come prepared for this eventuality – although it can be said he had no authority to issue this excommunication, since Pope Leo IX back in Rome had died while Humbert was away). **Byzantine Patriarch Michael Celularius of Constantinople responded by excommunicating the pope, but cited only trivialities of mere Roman Rite customs as his reasons for doing so. Even moreso than with Photius, it is difficult to see Celularius’ actions, wherein he provoked a conflict with the Christian West and refused to participate in its resolution, as anything other than a deliberate attempt to split the Church so as to have noone over him in authority. Certainly he had no regard for the unity of the entire Church of Christ and he showed no interest in “correcting” Roman “errors” in custom, only in breaking communication with the West using such “errors” as his excuse. There had come to be enough Eastern unfamiliarity with and discomfort with Roman differences anyway for him to get away with it. It is clear that Patriarch Michael Celularius enjoyed power and influence, and he was even involved in deposing Byzantine Emperors. Celuarius himself would be deposed by Byzantine Emperor Isaac Comnenus four years later, in 1058. Of course, Celularius had no recourse to the Pope in Rome as per the 7th Ecumenical Council, to appeal his forceful deposition by the Emperor, as Byzantine Patriarch Saint Ignatius of Constantinople had done in the 9th Century when Emperor Michael III had forcefully deposed him and replaced him with Photius – since Celularius had already excommunicated the pope and refused to acknowledge the pope’s jurisdiction in the East!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Heres something i read about Cardinal Humbert and the excommunication of Michael Celuarius-

Michael Celularius stands out as particularly guilty of crimes against the Undivided Early Church’s unity in diversity. **He accused the Roman Rite of the Undivided Church of being wrong for not using the same kind of bread for Holy Communion that Byzantine Rite Christians did (even though this difference between the united Sister Churches had been held peaceably for much of the First Millennium), and impiously had the consecrated Eucharistic / Holy Communion bread from Roman Rite churches within Constantinople thrown out into the street and trampled. This kind of blatant anti-Roman bigotry naturally provoked a response, and in 1054 the pope and Roman Patriarch (Leo IX) sent a delegate (Cardinal Humbert de Silva Candida) to Constantinople to discuss the issue. Patriarch Michael Celularius refused to see the papal delegate, making any reconciliation impossible. After waiting for over three months to see Celularius towards possible resolution of the matter, the delegate gave up, and laid a bull of excommunication from the pope on the altar of Michael’s Church, the Hagia Sophia (he had come prepared for this eventuality – although it can be said he had no authority to issue this excommunication, since Pope Leo IX back in Rome had died while Humbert was away). **Byzantine Patriarch Michael Celularius of Constantinople responded by excommunicating the pope, but cited only trivialities of mere Roman Rite customs as his reasons for doing so. Even moreso than with Photius, it is difficult to see Celularius’ actions, wherein he provoked a conflict with the Christian West and refused to participate in its resolution, as anything other than a deliberate attempt to split the Church so as to have noone over him in authority. Certainly he had no regard for the unity of the entire Church of Christ and he showed no interest in “correcting” Roman “errors” in custom, only in breaking communication with the West using such “errors” as his excuse. There had come to be enough Eastern unfamiliarity with and discomfort with Roman differences anyway for him to get away with it. It is clear that Patriarch Michael Celularius enjoyed power and influence, and he was even involved in deposing Byzantine Emperors. Celuarius himself would be deposed by Byzantine Emperor Isaac Comnenus four years later, in 1058. Of course, Celularius had no recourse to the Pope in Rome as per the 7th Ecumenical Council, to appeal his forceful deposition by the Emperor, as Byzantine Patriarch Saint Ignatius of Constantinople had done in the 9th Century when Emperor Michael III had forcefully deposed him and replaced him with Photius – since Celularius had already excommunicated the pope and refused to acknowledge the pope’s jurisdiction in the East!

Amazing; This sums up most of what I have been trying to convey to Cavaradossi;

Great post Paul the Apostle;

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Amazing; This sums up most of what I have been trying to convey to Cavaradossi;

Great post Paul the Apostle;

God Bless Gabriel

thats just a section from some interesting reading on the Papacy from an Eastern Catholic

the full version is on the link i posted in a few posts back

 

[ufamtobie]

QUOTE=Poof;8536617]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?

Poof,

It is elementary my dear Watson, You must follow the one with the Pope:thumbsup: Why? Because Before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church they all were following the Pope.

Poof, if you were riding passenger would you jump out of a moving car, what would happen if you jumped out of a moving car, away from the driver?

if one looks at history one will find that in the old Testament, God always had a leader to keep His people “in line” such as Moses. Jesus Christ, is no different from His Father, He to has a Leader Peter and his Successors the Popes to Guide/Lead us through His one and only Catholic Church. As for the Orthodox Church since they believe “in equality among all bishops” as you say, then who has the Last word, for there is no true leader?

Ufam Tobie

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is no secret that secular powers sought out the chair of Peter but never prevailed. Let’s be clear here. The Eastern church was ruled over by her Emperors.

The Popes were never ruled over by her Emperors that is one reason for the result of the schism and why there is much turmoil in the dark and middle ages until the reformation as the Popes vied to keep the house clean of secular powers ever ruling over the Church even though these Emperors were Catholic.

Fine, you asked for it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

How’s that for your papacy which was supposedly immune from political influence? If that’s not enough, I have plenty more.

You have me all wrong here, I am not debating which Church is the right one. I am simply revealing one of the main reasons for what caused the schism between East and West.

So you say that you aren’t trying to say that the East is wrong, but then you talk about how the East was under the foot of ‘Pagan’ Emperors (the last one reigning from 361-363), and how those evil ‘Pagan’ Emperors and their Eastern Christian cronies led directly to the schism. You say one thing, and your words say another, so it seems.

You can argue all you want too about which Church is right or wrong. Ultimately history and facts, sacred scripture, and sacred Tradition tell a different story than what you are trying to present here. To which I am holding you too, but you agreed with what was presented to which I do not rebutt, only your view that there was only one pagan Emperor who ruled over the Eastern Church.

It is not only my view that there was one pagan Emperor. Since Constantine legalized Christianity, and defeated Licinius in the East for disobeying the Edict of Milan, there has only been one pagan Emperor. Ever since Christianity was made the official state religion by Theodosius I in 380 there have been absolutely no pagan Emperors. If you think there have been any other pagan Emperors since Julian the Apostate, I want you to name them. Heretics do not count, as heretics are mistaken Christians, not pagans (your own Church says so).

One can argue also on the Eastern Church behalf, that those Eastern Fathers went to the Popes when your pagan Emperor ruled unjustly over the Eastern Church, keepping the Eastern Church true to its roots. But then Orthodox argues that Orthodox never needed the Pope. This is a common misunderstanding that relates to my whole entire posts, the schism is a direct relation to this Eastern/Emperor relationship.

We didn’t need the pope. To make it out as if the pope was rescuing the East from constant heresy is a huge distortion. Not all of the emperors were heretics, and if you will remember, it was an Emperor (all of whom you have unjustly slandered by painting them as if they were all power hungry pagans and heretics), not a pope, who called each one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

The schism was largely an accident of history, just not the history which you are trying to portray.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8562174]Fine, you asked for it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

wikipedia? sorry I don’t go there for my historical facts.

How’s that for your papacy which was supposedly immune from political influence? If that’s not enough, I have plenty more.

Lol… I never said the Popes were not immune from political influences. I stated these political influences is what the Popes fought to keep out of Church affairs even though the Emperors were Catholic. This was not the same for the East being ruled by an Emperor since Constantine moved his capital to Constantinople. I have no clue as why or how you misunderstand. Maybe slow down and take off the gloves for a minute and see me as not one attacking you, but reasoning with you.

So you say that you aren’t trying to say that the East is wrong, but then you talk about how the East was under the foot of ‘Pagan’ Emperors (the last one reigning from 361-363), and how those evil ‘Pagan’ Emperors and their Eastern Christian cronies led directly to the schism. You say one thing, and your words say another, so it seems.

Again; I’m gonna say this as simply as I can for you; The Eastern Church has been ruled by Emperors pagan, heretics, Christian, Muslim, Communists etc etc… and have not come out from under secular powers who rule over them. Through history this secular relationship with the Eastern Church has proven to stagnate the Eastern Church and prevent her from uniting with the Western Church from which she removed herself out of communion with Peter’s chair in the Popes.

The schism was largely an accident of history, just not the history which you are trying to portray.

Really the schism was an accident of history?? Wow, that’s the first time I ever heard that;

Please enlighten me, how was the schism an accident of history? Don’t worry I will not debate this subject, just interested in how you see the schism an accident.

Grant it that reading history on the surface can be difficult to see the Truth behind the scenes from the political influences taking place that influenced the schism. This is not to take away the personalities that were affected by political power struggles and dare I say greed.

Peace be with you

 

[Cavaradossi]

wikipedia? sorry I don’t go there for my historical facts.

Since Wikipedia sources the information, I’m not sure what the problem is.

Lol… I never said the Popes were not immune from political influences. I stated these political influences is what the Popes fought to keep out of Church affairs even though the Emperors were Catholic. This was not the same for the East being ruled by an Emperor since Constantine moved his capital to Constantinople. I have no clue as why or how you misunderstand. Maybe slow down and take off the gloves for a minute and see me as not one attacking you, but reasoning with you.

I disagree. The existence of local strongmen had pretty much similar effects on the papacy as the Emperors had on Christianity in the East. The Saeculum Obscurum (which protestants like to call by the less flattering name, the pornocracy, although I think we ought to avoid this name and stick to the name that Catholic historians use) is a great testament to that.

The East fought just as hard, and it succeeded, as history shows. The East never lost the true faith, even though it under went nearly half a century of rule under Arian Emperors (Arianism was subsequently put to rest in the East in 381, which is actually far earlier than the final days of Arianism in the West, as we can gather from the Synod of Toledo, from which we get the filioque in the sixth century, where the clause was added to the creed in order to deal with Arianism), and multiple periods of time ruled over by iconoclast Emperors.

Again; I’m gonna say this as simply as I can for you; The Eastern Church has been ruled by Emperors pagan, heretics, Christian, Muslim, Communists etc etc… and have not come out from under secular powers who rule over them. Through history this secular relationship with the Eastern Church has proven to stagnate the Eastern Church and prevent her from uniting with the Western Church from which she removed herself out of communion with Peter’s chair in the Popes.

The same Eastern Church and Eastern Fathers whom you claim were stagnated by heretic Emperors and Muslims were the same ones who created the philosophical framework which allows us to describe the Holy Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, the dual will of Christ (that is to say the philosophical framework which provides meanings for terms like hypostasis, ousia, prosopon, physis, and thelima, all of which in a Christian context have a slightly different meaning than how the pagan Greek philosophers understood them), the justification for icons (remember, St. John of Damascus lived in a Muslim controlled Caliphate), and later, the essence-energies distinction (a post schism theological development). Your argument fails in light of the actual history. I don’t understand how you can read the history of the Church and still hold to that opinion. I actually find it somewhat saddening that you would slander their memory by calling them theologically and philosophically stagnant.

Really the schism was an accident of history?? Wow, that’s the first time I ever heard that;

Please enlighten me, how was the schism an accident of history? Don’t worry I will not debate this subject, just interested in how you see the schism an accident.

Grant it that reading history on the surface can be difficult to see the Truth behind the scenes from the political influences taking place that influenced the schism. This is not to take away the personalities that were affected by political power struggles and dare I say greed.

I’m surprised that you’ve never heard that. That is pretty much the view of almost all of the more ecumenism-friendly (and I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense) churchmen in both Roman Catholic and Orthodox circles. Metropolitan Kallistos (EO), and Francis Dvornik (RC), for example, both explain the schism as being more of a tragedy of mutual misunderstanding than as a conflict with a definitive winner and loser and a definitive right and wrong side. It is what happened (theologically and ecclesiologically) after the schism which largely divides the two Churches, not the original conflict, which was over jurisdiction (we see this as early as the so-called Photian councils of 869 and 879).

It’s strange, I think, that so much weight is put on 1054. What happened in that year was not regarded as anything significant by chroniclers from that era. Most people at that time were not even aware that a significant event had occurred, much less that East and West were no longer united. It wasn’t until rising tensions resulting in the eventual sack of Constantinople in 1204 that the schism became apparent. This is what I mean by an accident of history. It’s not as if anybody was intending to cause a schism, it just happened due to the East and West drifting apart culturally, and politically.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

It’s strange, I think, that so much weight is put on 1054. What happened in that year was not regarded as anything significant by chroniclers from that era. Most people at that time were not even aware that a significant event had occurred, much less that East and West were no longer united. It wasn’t until rising tensions resulting in the eventual sack of Constantinople in 1204 that the schism became apparent. This is what I mean by an accident of history. It’s not as if anybody was intending to cause a schism, it just happened due to the East and West drifting apart culturally, and politically.

From-

christian-unity-in-diversity.ourchur.ch/catalog/recapturing-the-early-churchs-unity/so-that-the-world-may-believe/volume-iii-the-papacy-and-christian-unity-in-diversity/v-iii-ch-5/

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

There is a common misconception that the year 1054 AD marks the first Great Schism of Christianity, between the Eastern and Western Churches. But the event of this date described above (the personal mutual excommunication of the pope [Patriarch of Rome] and the Patriarch of Constantinople, not of the entire ancient Christian Sister Churches under their authority) only marks an extreme example of the strained East-West relations which had resulted from both sides gradually losing sight of their First Millenium unity in diversity and starting to judge each other’s faith as different because they expressed it differently (even though these same differences in faith expression had been held in peaceful Christian brotherhood for so many centuries). The One Christian Church of this period was still One Church seeking healing of its wounded unity, the source of which (in cultural prejudice) it was failing to identify in order to heal completely. Long after 1054 the Russian Orthodox Church still sought the pope’s approval for canonizing saints, and there were many such indications of unity despite the culturally-based tensions and indications of disunity. Most importantly the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, overseers/ bishops/ eparchs and theologians had participated directly in most of the first 17 Ecumenical Councils of the Universal (Catholic) Church, to the 1439 17th Ecumenical Council of Florence – not just the first 7 Ecumenical Councils those Eastern Orthodox Churches no longer in Catholic Communion currently accept as binding (the only reason they have to repudiate all the Councils after the 7th particularly, when there was Eastern participation in most of the first 17,7 is because the 8th dogmatically defined the papacy they are no longer in communion with).

 

[Paul_theApostle]

also this opinion from same site

**The Catholic (Universal) Communion of Christian East and West under the Pastoral Guidance of the Pope Finally Destroyed Completely by the Muslim Conquerors of the East in 1472 **

So the Eastern Orthodox Churches as a Church body completely independent of the Catholic (Universal) Church, the Roman Catholic Sister Church, and the universal bishop the pope did not exist until after the Muslims (who conquered Constantinople/Byzantium in 1453) forced the separation in 1472. The Muslims did not want the Christians in their conquered territories having anything to do with the Pope in Rome who had encouraged Crusaders to go into Muslim-controlled territories like the Holy Land (the First Crusade had even specifically prevented Constantinople from falling to Muslim conquest centuries earlier). So it was Eastern Catholics in communion with the pope (who had powerfully reaffirmed their Catholicity in 1439) who fell to the Muslims in 1453, and so the true date of the Great Schism which produced two completely independent Christian Churches out of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” of the ancient Nicene Creed is not 1054 but 1472.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This also brings up the question of what it means to be stagnant vs. having doctrinal development. If Orthodoxy is milk, and Catholicism ius bread, the Unitarian Universalism must be a ten course banquet served with the finest wines and a three hundred year old cognac from France.

If the deposit of faith is never to be added to or taken away from, how can a Church be doctrinally stagnant? How is doctrinal innovation preferable to what you call stagnation? Up until this point, you’ve made a charge against the Orthodox Church which is impossible to address because of the inherent vagueness of the charge. Define doctrinal stagnation as opposed to development for me and I will gladly answer your charge.

 

[Cavaradossi]

From-

christian-unity-in-diversity.ourchur.ch/catalog/recapturing-the-early-churchs-unity/so-that-the-world-may-believe/volume-iii-the-papacy-and-christian-unity-in-diversity/v-iii-ch-5/

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

There is a common misconception that the year 1054 AD marks the first Great Schism of Christianity, between the Eastern and Western Churches. But the event of this date described above (the personal mutual excommunication of the pope [Patriarch of Rome] and the Patriarch of Constantinople, not of the entire ancient Christian Sister Churches under their authority) only marks an extreme example of the strained East-West relations which had resulted from both sides gradually losing sight of their First Millenium unity in diversity and starting to judge each other’s faith as different because they expressed it differently (even though these same differences in faith expression had been held in peaceful Christian brotherhood for so many centuries). The One Christian Church of this period was still One Church seeking healing of its wounded unity, the source of which (in cultural prejudice) it was failing to identify in order to heal completely. Long after 1054 the Russian Orthodox Church still sought the pope’s approval for canonizing saints, and there were many such indications of unity despite the culturally-based tensions and indications of disunity. Most importantly the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, overseers/ bishops/ eparchs and theologians had participated directly in most of the first 17 Ecumenical Councils of the Universal (Catholic) Church, to the 1439 17th Ecumenical Council of Florence – not just the first 7 Ecumenical Councils those Eastern Orthodox Churches no longer in Catholic Communion currently accept as binding (the only reason they have to repudiate all the Councils after the 7th particularly, when there was Eastern participation in most of the first 17,7 is because the 8th dogmatically defined the papacy they are no longer in communion with).

There are a couple of problems with this website’s view. There was most definitely a break in communion after 1204 with the sack of Constantinople. They also refer to an eighth Ecumenical council, by which they probably mean the council held in constantinople in the year 869. Unfortunately, this council was never ecumenical. In the year 879, a subsequent council was held in Constantinople which reconciled Photios to the Church and abrogated the council of 869, which it declared to be invalid. This council was ratified by the pope, and Photios died in communion with the Church of Rome. It wasn’t until the investiture controversy that the Vatican, in need of some canon which could support its case revived the abrogated council of 869 and called it Ecumenical.

 

[Marybeloved]

This also brings up the question of what it means to be stagnant vs. having doctrinal development. If Orthodoxy is milk, and Catholicism ius bread, the Unitarian Universalism must be a ten course banquet served with the finest wines and a three hundred year old cognac from France.

This is a false comparison. Understanding principles in their furthest implications or taking them to their furthest logical conclusion over time is not the same thing as a change (or denial) of the principles themselves.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is a false comparison. Principles that are understood to their furthest logical conclusion and a total denial or change of the principles themselves are not the same thing.

Ok then, define doctrinal definition and stagnation, and show me what is stagnant about Orthodoxy. Is it because Orthodoxy has not made any major doctrinal definitions in the past few centuries that Catholics make this charge against Orthodoxy?

 

[Marybeloved]

Oh then, define doctrinal definition and stagnation, and show me what is stagnant about Orthodoxy. Is it because Orthodoxy has not made any major doctrinal definitions in the past few centuries that Catholics make this charge against Orthodoxy?

I don’t believe that Orthodoxy is stagnant- that beef is not with me. I believe that the western church, like the early church had to deal with certain heresies and errors in the West to which she responded, unlike the East that did not face them or dealt with different sets of problems. So the development (since the churches were divided) took on different shapes (different methods) that did not mutually influence each other.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Also…Which are these “anti-Christ political powers” today that “supress [Eastern Orthodox] evangelization in the East”? Communism went out with a whimper in most countries subject to this lousy ideology twenty years ago, thanks be to God.

I wouldn’t be so sure about this. Blessed JP-II had an impact. But communism is still very much alive. And much stronger than 20-years ago. However their are no indications of suppression in Russia today, as 20-years ago the church was oppressed by communism and infiltrated.

Basically the same idealism which China use’s today with the Catholic Church. You can even relate this right to this moment with the USA and the secular/socialist agenda Obama has placed in motion, and will continue with should he be re-elected.

Just the icing on the cakes since the 60’s. Also why you hear a pro-life, religious freedom, and Christian dialogue from republicans. Also why the Bishops have been coming out more than ever before. Which will continue with their Fall-Session this month. THis election is crucial in a move toward Christianity and the foundation the country was founded on, or a Socialist agenda which Obama promotes. He even want FDRs speech which includes “GOD” removed from the proposed WW-II memeorial. Cut funding to the CC who is the leading SS provider in the not only in the states, but worldwide. Becaue the CC had the nerve to speak uo about his murderous Abortion agenda.

So to we can now say, we have become a country not of "We the People, with the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness. But a country whos concern is Washington DCs politics. They can’t even tell you “why” they are extending the Afghanistan conflict.

After 4-years Obama “finally” figured out just maybe he should cut spending on DC swack. Like cups, pins. ashtrays. or the Christmas Bulbs he gave out up and down the east coast because it was “his” prefered color…Gold + Red btw.

Anyway not to get off=topic, however I to feel this should be very carefully viewed today just as much as your religion. Because today…your religious freedom hangs of the balance.

Peace Gary

Peace,