Who split from whom - Catholic versus Orthodox?

Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
steve-b:
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.
He established. as you can see is a link. Please open the link and give me your understanding of the link. Thanks
40.png
Isearch:
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).
Much of what you describe is handled in canon law. One might disagree with a law, but they lawfully can’t go against the laws of the Church. If something is not a doctrine / dogma, one can have their personal views
40.png
Isearch:
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.
Go back to the beginning in Church history. What name in writing, was the Church called?

Acts 9:31, from the Greek study bible, Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς

Translation

ἐκκλησία = church ,
καθ’ = according to ,
ὅλης = whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

ECF’s writings using Catholic Church(excerpted for space)

Ignatius of Antioch, ordained Bishop by the apostles, ~69 a.d. That is before the book of Acts is written. Ignatius a direct disciple of St John the apostle. Ignatius wrote 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations. In his writings, He uses Christian in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8) in his Epistle to the Smyrnæans
Note: He writes, schismatics won’t be going to heaven, Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3)
 
Last edited:
If these arguments weren’t compelling to Orthodox Christians a thousand years ago, how do you imagine they will gain traction now?
When this episode took place in front of Jesus, and His own disciples left Him over what He said, which He knew, in advance, EVERYTHING that would take place, before He uttered one word, did it prevent Him from giving them this discourse? Nope! HERE

He said much more than this, and people later in history left Him for the same reason. THEY DIDN’T BELIEVE.

Did that stop Jesus from giving the message? Nope! So it can’t stop with us continuously giving the message… no matter how often the message is given. Because that’s what He established.
 
Last edited:
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?
Was he thinking of The Photian Schism (863–867) which was between the Rome and Constantinople, over the right of the Byzantine Emperor to depose and appoint a patriarch without Papal approval? Or perhaps over the use of unleavened bread and the removal of an explicit epiclesis (Pope Leo IX, 1049-1054), the issues of 1054?
 
Was he thinking of The Photian Schism (863–867) which was between the Rome and Constantinople, over the right of the Byzantine Emperor to depose and appoint a patriarch without Papal approval?
It was mostly question of “can we depose Patriarch for denying Eucharist to public sinner, therefore doing his job?” kind of thing… and the fact Photius did get consecrated bishop too soon after being consecrated clergyman, which was against Church canons.
Or perhaps over the use of unleavened bread and the removal of an explicit epiclesis (Pope Leo IX, 1049-1054), the issues of 1054?
I’m no expert on epiclesis matter, but unleavened bread thing was actually a problem during Photian Schism too. During 1054, issue was that Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, apparently stepped on Latin Eucharist with his feet. Legates came to investigate if that was true but Patriarch did not receive them. Few heated men and one Pope’s death later, boom schism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top