Who split from whom - Catholic versus Orthodox?

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

I think any ruler was not being unreasonable in wanting his bureaucrats to have some loyalty to the state.

Yes, but appointing them would not be necessary to secure loyalty. I find the fact bishops were more concerned about worldly matters concerning. In my opinion they could have advised state, solved disputes within boundaries of spirituality but I do not like the fact they held such authority inside the state- precisely for this reason. You can not serve two masters.

Oh I agree there was a fundamental conflict, and while everyone was able to sweep it under the rug to some extent for the 500 or 600 years of the Western Church, it’s probably inevitable that the conflict of interest was going to rear it’s head. In the defense of the Church, as I said before, it was the only institution after the fall of the Western Empire that had the capacity to maintain some level of continuity and order. Without the Western Church being able to import Roman law in to the German kingdoms, without it providing the clerks, bookkeepers, secretaries and all other manner of civil servant, Western Europe would have been crippled. I don’t see as the Church had much of a choice, the Papacy was literally the inheritors of the Roman state in the West. The issue really came to a head as the Papacy began to assert a more overtly political stance at the end of the Carolingian Period, thus upsetting the balance that it and the German kings had managed to achieve.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I think that last distinction - “Not from the Catholic viewpoint” - is rather key here. But enough on that.

well, I agree. It’s impossible to check every single viewpoint as much as it is impossible for every single one to be true. Orthodox viewpoint is similar up to 8th century Papacy or so.

Well, after Charlemagne it seems the meddling went both ways between the Church and state. It’s largely why German princes didn’t crush papal dissidents in the early Reformation.

Well, not just that. They supported them and used “royal supremacy” as new weapon.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Perhaps as much as Emperors should have been just sponsors and protectors of Church, not trying to be it’s heads, Church should have been same for State. Part of the problem is that Church is not simply clergy nor simply Pope, it is community of all faithful. I still stand by the idea of Scottish monks during reformation- if Nobles did not try to control Church, it would not have been corrupted. I don’t generalize, there were surely Nobles that did save Church from corruption. Ideal of balance of power in my mind is what Pope said during Iconoclasm, something along lines of “though I am loyal servant of Empire, I will not be it’s captive in matters of religion”.

 

[niceatheist]

Perhaps as much as Emperors should have been just sponsors and protectors of Church, not trying to be it’s heads, Church should have been same for State. Part of the problem is that Church is not simply clergy nor simply Pope, it is community of all faithful. I still stand by the idea of Scottish monks during reformation- if Nobles did not try to control Church, it would not have been corrupted. I don’t generalize, there were surely Nobles that did save Church from corruption. Ideal of balance of power in my mind is what Pope said during Iconoclasm, something along lines of “though I am loyal servant of Empire, I will not be it’s captive in matters of religion”.

A lot of this isn’t going to be all that popular, but whatever the sincerity of Constantine’s conversion, there was a fairly pragmatic and very political aspect to the Edict of Milan. In part it was because Christianity had successfully penetrated in to the upper classes of the Empire, and in part it was because the Empire, going through a series of crises, needed some kind of unifying force. Constantine and his immediate heirs welded together the Diocletian Reforms and Christianity for very political ends (and ironic ones, considering Diocletian had persecuted Christianity so vigorously).

Perhaps Christianity would have become the dominant religion in the Empire without Constantine, but would it have had the same level of influence and protection? And would it have been poised in the West to create continuity between the failed roman government and the Germanic kingdoms that were rapidly coalescing in the sixth and seventh centuries? On the face of it, and whatever the political and religious struggles that consumed Christendom from the High Middle Ages through the early modern period, I would say that union, no matter how unholy on the face of it it might have been, transmitted Roman civilization to the barbarian peoples of Northern Europe, and bequeathed upon European civilization vigorous political theories that still influence us to do this day.

 

[Al1234]

Good question. I guess it depends on which side of the argument you are on. I assume that if you are Orthodox, it is because you believe in it and will view it from their perspective and vice versa if you are Roman Catholic. The truth of this answer lies with God. As a Roman Catholic - I therefore firmly believe that that Orthodox split from us and will argue it thus. I admire the beauty of the Orthodox Church - but remain certain that they should mend things by coming back into the fold. God desires us to be one! Sometimes I wish things were more simple. I wonder if we would believe Him if the Lord himself came to us and told us the answer to this and how to mend it.

 

[ziapueblo]

I admire the beauty of the Orthodox Church - but remain certain that they should mend things by coming back into the fold.

The question is what coming back into the fold looks like?

ZP

 

[Al1234]

Indeed. That question is too big for my pip of a mind.

 

[ziapueblo]

As Benedict XVI of Rome (then Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote, “Rome must not require more from the East than had been formulated and what was lived in the first millennium.” That’s a start.

ZP

 

[qmitchell30]

How is the relationship between the Pope and Eastern Catholics? Do they not have considerable autonomy amongst themselves? Does this relationship look that much different than from the firs millennium? I am truly asking, because I do not fully understand it.

 

[ziapueblo]

How is the relationship between the Pope and Eastern Catholics? Do they not have considerable autonomy amongst themselves?

That’s a tough questions to answer because there are varying views. First off, we, Eastern Catholics, are a group of Christian faithful with our own hierarchy and recognized by the Church as a Church sui juris. Therefore, we are an autonomous particular Church. We also have our own liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony. According to the Codes of Canons of the Oriental Churches (CCOC), and I’m not sure the exact wording, it states that we are under the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome. However, most Eastern Catholic Patriarchs feel the need for the revision of these canons.

Does this relationship look that much different than from the firs millennium?

As a Byzantine Catholic, I see myself as Orthodox in communion with Rome as it was in the first millennium. This is stance of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and many, not all, Byzantine Catholics adopt this as their own personal relationship with the Pope of Rome as well. Here is what the current Bishop of the Melkite Church here in the U.S. has to say about Orientalium Ecclesiarum:

It’s worth the watch. Here is a summary, EASTERN CATHOLICISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

ZP

 

[qmitchell30]

Thanks for the video, I’ll check it out. From my limited understanding your answer is close to what I thought.

It just makes me think if the Orthodox came back into union with Rome, this is similar to how there status would be, and if they were generally left to there own how would that be different than the first millennium. (with some simplification for the sake of the thread.)

 

[ziapueblo]

No prob! It’s a little more than an hour.

The last three Popes have basically said that nothing needs to change for the Orthodox to come into full communion. After the Chieti Document, talks between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox will focus on the second millennium.

ZP

 

[Margaret_Ann]

I’m Ukrainian Greek Catholic and wish that my RO relatives would come home to the Catholic Church while maintaining the Byzantine Tradition.

 

[steve-b]

My best friend is Ukrainian Orthodox, he maintains that the RC church split from the Orthodox Tradition because of the filioque and supremacy of the papacy. This might be moot to many here, but he argues that the Orthodox are the true recipients of the faith from Christ and that the RC Church is guilty of heresy in the same way Protestants are viewed as heretics from the RC Church. Whose right?

Where is the successor to Peter, for the last 2000 years, the apostle Jesus renamed Rock, and gave the keys to His kingdom to? The pope of Rome. And Jesus prayer? Not just a squishy unity but perfect unity to what He established. Unity with Peter and those in complete union with him. THAT is the Church one is to belong to. Division from, is schism…

 

[Isearch]

Not just a squishy unity but perfect unity to what He established. Unity with Peter and those in complete union with him.

I should contest that Eucharistic unity through the dyptichs and concelebrations is in anyway “squishy”. The Eucharist as far as I know is the literal Body and Blood of Christ in the beliefs of both churches. And we both know Christ’s Body cannot be divided unless we hold unto some Christological heresy.

Admitted, the ecclessiastical administration of the Eastern Orthodox is a mess. But is it any worse than the situation in the Roman Catholic Church; where the bishops can declare themselves united with the Pope in Rome but be in contention with one another on Divorce and Remarriage, Death Penalty, and many more? I don’t want to leave out from this discussion the divide between the Traditionalists, Conservatives, and Liberals (sometimes, even the contention about papal powers between the Roman rite Catholics and those in the Eastern Church in communion with Rome).

Let me grant that there are Church Fathers for the Filioque and that Saints Jerome and Bede believe in the universal supremacy of the pope in Rome. But there are also those who do not hold to these.

These have led me in the state of limbo concerning which Church is the true continuation of what Jesus had started.

 

[ziapueblo]

Maybe one day Rome, Moscow and Constantinople will all learn to play well with each other

ZP

 

[niceatheist]

If these arguments weren’t compelling to Orthodox Christians a thousand years ago, how do you imagine they will gain traction now?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Perhaps Christianity would have become the dominant religion in the Empire without Constantine

Perhaps it would find different way but I wouldn’t deny Constantine’s contribution ofc. I think Catholicism contributed heavily to the way we know world now- and in many good ways too.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The question is what coming back into the fold looks like?

Eastern Catholicism.

Maybe one day Rome, Moscow and Constantinople will all learn to play well with each other

Yeah I wish there was nice meme about it. I think it was called “what if Jesus was parent to East-West sibling rivalry” (which is a nice allegory). “East, share your communion with West”, “West stop forcing Filioque on East”, “East, stop picking on West”, “West, respect East’s personal space”. It was just hilarious.

 

[Justin_Mary]

If you read the Patristic writings of the Eastern Fathers, it is clear that they all clung to the Church of Rome and regarded the Petrine office as the source of unity.

I don’t believe Orthodox are saying Peter was not set apart, or even denying the Chair of Peter. They’re saying, to my understanding, that current Popes are overstepping their post.

Like the guys who killed Julius Ceasar. They weren’t saying he wasn’t the emperor, but that he abused his power & authority to the degree he no longer served the empire.

As a Catholic I have to ask, what if they are right?

To me, even if they are right, doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic Church is the Church instituted by Christ & separation from that Church is not a good thing. On the final day He’s going to say, “I never knew you.”

Like Elias they’ll say, “But Lord we have zealously defended the faith.”

& He’ll say, “What I asked for was obedience.”

No doubt the conversation could go a hundred different ways. But bottom line, if the Pope is out of line, it’s God who will correct him. After 2000 years, Peter has not been “corrected” I think we’re looking at something wrong.

I don’t think the Pope should change their liturgy. Unless it’s a matter of Dogma. Filoque is a matter of dogma. It’s about who Jesus is. If the Church teaches the Spirit proceeds from the Father & the Son, yet we deny it, how can we recognize Our Lord if we don’t recognize that truth?

& vice versa. If the Orthodox is right & the Spirit does not proceed from the Father & the Son & we deny that, then it will be difficult for Catholics to recognize Him on His return.