Who was really to blame for the east-west schism and can it be reversed?

[Wandile]

You do realize that the Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Churches possess the full means of salvation, right?

No it doesn’t

The Catholic Church still teaches and will always teach extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

*catechism of the Catholic Church:

“846*” How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body"

 

[benjamindt]

Why are you harassing the poster about how he deals with division in his own life? Do you have any insight into the details of his situation? How do you deal with it in your own?

he responded to a question that wasn’t about him with his own situation as an example. i asked him questions. I didn’t know we weren’t allowed to ask questions and i didn’t know asking questions to try to understand the thoughts behind opinions was considered harassment. By your own assertion, you seem to be harassing me.

I don’t understand his reasoning and i am just offering my own reasons and thoughts in the form of questions to see what to make of all this.

 

[benjamindt]

i didn’t say one couldn’t gain insights from the orthodox. so i guess we’re both there’s a straw man on both sides. lol

I read your response and it seemed like you were almost saying that the orthodox were more christian than us and that’s why you were turning to an orthodox member to guide you rather than a catholic one. That was my understanding of your post and that’s why i asked the question/made my comment.

finally, i’m confused because it seems like the judgements about the catholic/orthodox situation are that there is nothing wrong. If there was something that caused division then how are the orthodox practices licit? I get that they are valid and I know we’re not talking about protestantism.

Perhaps my way of attempting to understand the situation/issue is poorly communicated. I intend no ill will or malice or any kind of sarcasm/rudeness.

 

[benjamindt]

it seems we share this in common. it’s gotten me into trouble sometimes too because i take it too far. lol

 

[dochawk]

then why would the Catholic Church bother with reunification. If there’s still the full means of salvation then why does anyone care if they’re in communion with each other? Communion with the Church must mean absolutely nothing if it’s not required.

Actually, “reunification” isn’t in the cards or on the table for any of the parties.

The Catholic and Orthodox church was composed of many churches from the beginning: a very large one in the west, and a bunch of them in the east. There was never a “union” to restore as “reunion.”

What is desirable, and a scandal to all the parties by it’s absence, is communion between these churches.

 

[Peter_J]

Does anybody remember “Brother Blooper” cartoons? There was one I recall but can’t find online … the text was something like “Pastors and theologians have been debating this bible verse for centuries, but today I’m going give you the real story.”

I’d like to get everybody on this thread to read that one.

 

[Peter_J]

Does anybody remember “Brother Blooper” cartoons?

(e.g. https://paulwilkinson.files.wordpre...aniel-at-baptist-press-may-17.jpg?w=400&h=366
which isn’t the one I can’t find, obviously. )

 

[Vico]

Actually, “reunification” isn’t in the cards or on the table for any of the parties.

The Catholic and Orthodox church was composed of many churches from the beginning: a very large one in the west, and a bunch of them in the east. There was never a “union” to restore as “reunion.”

What is desirable, and a scandal to all the parties by it’s absence, is communion between these churches.

Apostolic Churches are:

• Ancient (Assyrian) Church of the East
• Oriental Orthodox (Armenian, Coptic, Eritrean, Ethiopian, Syrian, Malankara Syrian)
• Eastern Orthodox,
• Polish National Catholic Church,
• Polish-Catholic Church,
• Old Catholic Churches,
• Catholic churches (Latin and 23 eastern).

 

[chimo]

When Jesus asked St. Faustina to pray for schismatics (changed to separated brothers now?), was He talking about the Orthodox, Protestants, or both?

Granted no private revelation is binding on all Catholics, but there’s a Divine Mercy Sunday, so that particular revelation is up there with Our Lady of Fatima and such.

Would the Orthodox be willing to be called “separated brothers”? I won’t even ask about the term schismatic.

(From what I can remember, some Orthodox are against some private revelations. Some even protest against Sts. Bernadette or Therese de Lisieux. How would this come into play for unification?)

The Lord Jesus would never call the Orthodox separated brethren. He is referring to Protestants here. Why would Jesus call Orthodox separated when they have all the qualifications of Apostolic succession? Look at how the Lord praises the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Diary of St. Maria Faustina by choosing to end the prayer of the Chaplet of Divine Mercy with the very words contained in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. The Lord is pointing to us a unity that needs to be discovered. He will not disclose it to us nor His mother for they want us to discover it for ourselves. Jesus and Mary are pointing us to what we need to do but we seem to be bogged down in things that are not important to what this unity must involve into. Let me put to you in a way that might help you to understand. Why did God have His Church developed in two different yet complimentary manners. In His development of His Church God has given the Catholic Church to be more of a spokesman towards one of His attributes. The Catholic Church leans more to the understanding of God’s Justice (Discipline). However God has given to the Eastern Churches better understanding to His attribute of mercy. The two Churches grew up differently because this is the way God wanted to be. He has given the Church of Rome to know His Justice (Discipline) more than the Eastern Churches and He has given the Eastern Churches to know His Mercy more than the Catholic Church. Mercy you can say is directed more to the nurturing/mentoring style of the Eastern Churches. This can be the basis for our unity. We will be able to lean on the strengths of each Church. When the Lord Jesus was teaching about His Mercy to a Catholic saint what He was directing us to is the teaching of mercy contained in the nurturing/mentoring style of the Eastern Churches. We were created to be different because it will be those differences that will help unite us. We therefore need to lean on each other that is to lean on each other’s strength.

 

[prodromos]

The Lord Jesus would never call the Orthodox separated brethren. He is referring to Protestants here. Why would Jesus call Orthodox separated when they have all the qualifications of Apostolic succession? Look at how the Lord praises the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Diary of St. Maria Faustina by choosing to end the prayer of the Chaplet of Divine Mercy with the very words contained in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. The Lord is pointing to us a unity that needs to be discovered. He will not disclose it to us nor His mother for they want us to discover it for ourselves. Jesus and Mary are pointing us to what we need to do but we seem to be bogged down in things that are not important to what this unity must involve into. Let me put to you in a way that might help you to understand. Why did God have His Church developed in two different yet complimentary manners. In His development of His Church God has given the Catholic Church to be more of a spokesman towards one of His attributes. The Catholic Church leans more to the understanding of God’s Justice (Discipline). However God has given to the Eastern Churches better understanding to His attribute of mercy. The two Churches grew up differently because this is the way God wanted to be. He has given the Church of Rome to know His Justice (Discipline) more than the Eastern Churches and He has given the Eastern Churches to know His Mercy more than the Catholic Church. Mercy you can say is directed more to the nurturing/mentoring style of the Eastern Churches. This can be the basis for our unity. We will be able to lean on the strengths of each Church. When the Lord Jesus was teaching about His Mercy to a Catholic saint what He was directing us to is the teaching of mercy contained in the nurturing/mentoring style of the Eastern Churches. We were created to be different because it will be those differences that will help unite us. We therefore need to lean on each other that is to lean on each other’s strength.

This is not Orthodox teaching. You should preface your post with a note that what follows is your personal opinion.

 

[commenter]

Apostolic Churches are:

• Ancient (Assyrian) Church of the East
• Oriental Orthodox (Armenian, Coptic, Eritrean, Ethiopian, Syrian, Malankara Syrian)
• Eastern Orthodox,
• Polish National Catholic Church,
• Polish-Catholic Church,
• Old Catholic Churches,
• Catholic churches (Latin and 23 eastern).

I would not list Polish National Catholic Church, or Old Catholic Church, as “Apostolic Churches”.
Yes, the ****individual ****bishops appear to be in the line of apostolic succession.
That is important in itself, especially in terms of sacraments.

But no, their colleges of bishops, are not traced back, as a distinct community, to apostolic times. No apostle, or disciple of an apostle, came to Utrecht or Scranton to form a community. No apostolic see established them as an extension, or mission.

 

[Vico]

I would not list Polish National Catholic Church, or Old Catholic Church, as “Apostolic Churches”.
Yes, the ****individual ****bishops appear to be in the line of apostolic succession.
That is important in itself, especially in terms of sacraments.

But no, their colleges of bishops, are not traced back, as a distinct community, to apostolic times. No apostle, or disciple of an apostle, came to Utrecht or Scranton to form a community. No apostolic see established them as an extension, or mission.

Unitatis redintegratio (1964) uses the term Separated Churches for them:

I. The Special Consideration of the Eastern Churches

1. For many centuries the Church of the East and that of the West each followed their separate ways though linked in a brotherly union of faith and sacramental life; the Roman See by common consent acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline.
   …

II. Separated Churches and Ecclesial Communities in the West

1. In the great upheaval which began in the West toward the end of the Middle Ages, and in later times too, Churches and ecclesial Communities came to be separated from the Apostolic See of Rome. Yet they have retained a particularly close affinity with the Catholic Church as a result of the long centuries in which all Christendom lived together in ecclesiastical communion.

However, since these Churches and ecclesial Communities, on account of their different origins, and different teachings in matters of doctrine on the spiritual life, vary considerably not only with us, but also among themselves, the task of describing them at all adequately is extremely difficult; and we have no intention of making such an attempt here.

Although the ecumenical movement and the desire for peace with the Catholic Church have not yet taken hold everywhere, it is our hope that ecumenical feeling and mutual esteem may gradually increase among all men.

It must however be admitted that in these Churches and ecclesial Communities there exist important differences from the Catholic Church, not only of a historical, sociological, psychological and cultural character, but especially in the interpretation of revealed truth. To make easier the ecumenical dialogue in spite of these differences, we wish to set down some considerations which can, and indeed should, serve as a basis and encouragement for such dialogue.

 

[Peter_J]

This is not Orthodox teaching. You should preface your post with a note that what follows is your personal opinion.

Thank you for saying that prodromos. I’ve never been Orthodox, but I still don’t want to see Orthodoxy misrepresented.

 

[Vico]

I would not list Polish National Catholic Church, or Old Catholic Church, as “Apostolic Churches”.
Yes, the ****individual ****bishops appear to be in the line of apostolic succession.
That is important in itself, especially in terms of sacraments.

But no, their colleges of bishops, are not traced back, as a distinct community, to apostolic times. No apostle, or disciple of an apostle, came to Utrecht or Scranton to form a community. No apostolic see established them as an extension, or mission.

I looked this up and found that Roman Catholic Bishop of Babylon (Dominique Marie Varlet) consecrated four successive men as Archbishop of Utrecht.

• 1703—Archbishop Codde resigns and the clergy refuse to accept a bishop appointed by the Pope.
• 1723—The clergy elected Cornelius van Steenoven as bishop and he is consecrated by Bishop Dominique Marie Varlet as Archbishop of Utrecht.
• 1725—Archbishop Steenoven dies and Archbishop Johannes Wuytiers is consecrated by Bishop Varlet.
• 1734—Archbishop Wutyiers dies and Archbishop Croon is consecrated by Bishop Varlet.
• 1739—Archbishop Croon dies and Archbishop Petrus Meindaerts is the last bishop consecrated by Bishop Varlet.

 

[commenter]

A religious community can have individual bishops who are in the line of apostolic succession. They may have valid (in Rome’s eyes) sacraments. This is important.

This does not necessarily equate to the community, itself being apostolic, tracing back to establishment in apostolic times, or establishment of a see as a mission of an apostolic see. In other words, the PNCC is not in the same category as EO.

 

[Vico]

A religious community can have individual bishops who are in the line of apostolic succession. They may have valid (in Rome’s eyes) sacraments. This is important.

This does not necessarily equate to the community, itself being apostolic, tracing back to establishment in apostolic times, or establishment of a see as a mission of an apostolic see. In other words, the PNCC is not in the same category as EO.

The triple petrine See – Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch – is one. The separated churches are part of that See.

For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep (John 21:17). Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great to Bishop Eulogius, Epistola 40, PL 77: 0898C - 0900C

English translation from Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[chimo]

This is not Orthodox teaching. You should preface your post with a note that what follows is your personal opinion.

What was so wrong about what I had said? The Catholic Church is a disciplinarian Church. What is wrong with this statement? She disciplines more because this is the approach she uses. The Catholic normally is given theory first before practicing the faith. The approach of Catholicism tends to be theory towards experiences. That is the discipline she tends to follow. What is wrong with that? The Orthodox however do not follow this formula. The Orthodox tend to go through experiences first. That is why the Orthodox Church is more of a nurturing/mentoring type of Church. Her discipline is different from Rome because she uses experiences first before getting into the theory. That is why the two Churches differ in their ways of teaching of the faith. The differences can be seen in the amount of literature that both Churches possess. The Catholic Church because she is more involve in disciplining uses literature more in the teaching of the faith. The Orthodox however are in not in the same category of literature. The Orthodox use a different means in teaching of the faith. All you have to do is look at Amazon to see the differences in the amount of literature there is between the two Churches. My earlier post refers to the different approaches of how each Church passes on the faith. The Orthodox Church do not have the same approach as do the Catholic Church. My main concern was the approach of each Church. That is why we are different. The Catholic normally is given the disciplinarian approach while the Orthodox is given the experiential approach. One learns more through discipline while the other learns more through mentoring. Why is this so hard to understand? We are talking about approaches here and this is even confirmed by Bishop Kallitos Ware. The Orthodox Church do not carry the same discipline style as do the Catholic Church. These differences in our approaches can help us to understand the strengths of each Church.

 

[dochawk]

I would not list Polish National Catholic Church, or Old Catholic Church, as “Apostolic Churches”.
Yes, the ****individual ****bishops appear to be in the line of apostolic succession.
That is important in itself, especially in terms of sacraments.

But no, their colleges of bishops, are not traced back, as a distinct community, to apostolic times. No apostle, or disciple of an apostle, came to Utrecht or Scranton to form a community. No apostolic see established them as an extension, or mission.

The PNC is an Apostolic Church as we usually use the term in that it has the succession. We’d end up quaffling about the EO churches that split from an unwilling mother and were later accepted by this definition.

The Old Catholic Church, however, does not belong on this list.

Theu used to be, but no longer have actual/valid bishops, having rejected the apostolic understanding when they purported to ordain women. This why the PNC broke communion with them . . .

hawk

 

[Vico]

The PNC is an Apostolic Church as we usually use the term in that it has the succession. We’d end up quaffling about the EO churches that split from an unwilling mother and were later accepted by this definition.

The Old Catholic Church, however, does not belong on this list.

Theu used to be, but no longer have actual/valid bishops, having rejected the apostolic understanding when they purported to ordain women. This why the PNC broke communion with them . . .

hawk

Reception of the sacraments from female priests is not acceptable for a Catholic, however that it not the case for male priests in the Old Catholic Church.

ZENIT (14 Feb 2012):

… although in a grave emergency a Catholic could receive the sacraments from a validly ordained Old Catholic [male] priest, the doctrinal differences are such that it would normally be inadvisable to receive Communion or other sacraments in one of their celebrations in the cases foreseen in Canon 844 below.

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur395.htm

THE CHURCH AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNION Report of the International Roman Catholic-Old Catholic Dialogue Commission (2009)

(82) For this reason, in any agreement on “communicatio in sacris” the administration of those sacraments to Roman Catholic faithful by female priests of the Old Catholic Church would have to be excluded, because their administration is reserved for men according to Roman Catholic understanding.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/vetero-cattolici/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20090512_report-church-ecclesial-communion_en.html

PNCC broke with the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht in 2003.

 

[dochawk]

Reception of the sacraments from female priests is not acceptable for a Catholic, however that it not the case for male priests in the Old Catholic Church.

ZENIT (14 Feb 2012):

… although in a grave emergency a Catholic could receive the sacraments from a validly ordained Old Catholic [male] priest, the doctrinal differences are such that it would normally be inadvisable to receive Communion or other sacraments in one of their celebrations in the cases foreseen in Canon 844 below.

Yes, but . . .

A male priest in the OCC ordained before 2003 is probably a priest.

A bishop who thinks that he can ordain a female as a priest does not have the understanding of he sacrament of Holy Orders required to confer valid orders, whether the recipient is male or female. Nor does he have the capacity to consecrate a bishop.

There used to be the handful of actual priests among the CofE and Episcopal churches, coming from the “Dutch Touch” of the OCC when their bishops participated in ordination. Now the same is true within the OCC, where I assume that there are still some bishops capable of ordaining (or maybe not; I haven’t looked into it).

It is no longer the case that we can assume that a male priest in the OCC is validly ordained, as called for in the canon you cite.

hawk