Why did the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church Split from one another?

[elts1956]

I would like to know the differences in beliefs between these two branches of the Church Christ initiated.

Also it has always been a puzzle to me as to why the Western Catholic Church claimed authority over the Eastern Catholic Churches including what became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.

After several centuries of equality among the Patriarchs and the Eastern and Western Churches, Peter being “first among equals”, why the claim of superiority of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Chellow]

Most Catholic believe that the split of the Churches was more due to Politics then doctrine.

As a Catholic you are called to be loyal to your Bishop especially the Bishop of Rome, because as the bible states in Matthew 16:19 “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I have found this to not be as true for the Orthodox and Protestants with their preference to follow their self then their Bishops.

The bible does not give equality to all the Bishops, only to Peter did Christ give the Keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16:18-19 “I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[wynd]

I have found this to not be as true for the Orthodox and Protestants with their preference to follow their self then their Bishops.

Can you explain this please?

 

[Pravoslavac]

As a Catholic you are called to be loyal to your Bishop especially the Bishop of Rome, because as the bible states in Matthew 16:19 “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I have found this to not be as true for the Orthodox and Protestants with their preference to follow their self then their Bishops.”

What are you talking about? We follow our Bishops. And moreso we follow our synods whereby all the Bishops would gather to discuss issues facing the church.

The bible does not give equality to all the Bishops, only to Peter did Christ give the Keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16:18-19 “I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

This is an age old argument. If Peter is the rock, why wasn’t the church of Rome considered the “head” of the early church for the first 1000 yrs? The only reason they were given primacy and not authority in the eyes of the Orthodox Church was because Rome was the head of the Empire.

If you say Peter founded the Patriarchate of Rome, he founded the Patriarchate of Antioch first. If it’s because he died in Rome, then shouldn’t the Patriarchate of Jerusalem be the head of the Church? After all Jesus died there.

Hopefully this sheds some light from an EO perspective.

 

[Chellow]

What are you talking about? We follow our Bishops. And moreso we follow our synods whereby all the Bishops would gather to discuss issues facing the church.

This is an age old argument. If Peter is the rock, why wasn’t the church of Rome considered the “head” of the early church for the first 1000 yrs? The only reason they were given primacy and not authority in the eyes of the Orthodox Church was because Rome was the head of the Empire.

If you say Peter founded the Patriarchate of Rome, he founded the Patriarchate of Antioch first. If it’s because he died in Rome, then shouldn’t the Patriarchate of Jerusalem be the head of the Church? After all Jesus died there.

Hopefully this sheds some light from an EO perspective.

Your third paragraph answers your first, if the Orthodox follows their Bishops, why don’t they follow the Seat of Peter, their founding Bishop, the founder of Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome.

I’m no historian but some have said that in the in early church the seat of Peter did exercised authority over all the Bishops.

Usually when one is granted authority it’s not exercised immediately.

I have read the interpretation of the Orthodox and Protestants for Matthew 16 and to me no one comes better then the Catholic interpretation.

 

[mark_a]

After several centuries of equality among the Patriarchs and the Eastern and Western Churches, Peter being “first among equals”, why the claim of superiority of the Roman Catholic Church?

I’ve never really exactly heard what “first among equals” means.

Can you tell us about a situation or relationship (within or without Christianity) where there is a “first among equals”.

 

[Pravoslavac]

Your third paragraph answers your first, if the Orthodox follows their Bishops, why don’t they follow the Seat of Peter, their founding Bishop, the founder of Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome.

We follow our Bishops not the bishop of Rome. The bishop of Rome was given primacy and not supremacy. The supremacy that you refer to you came about from Rome not from the other 4 Patriarchates.

I’m no historian but some have said that in the in early church the seat of Peter did exercised authority over all the Bishops.

No one bishop was ever able to depose another bishop. The early church used synods (councils) to depose a bishop.

I have read the interpretation of the Orthodox and Protestants for Matthew 16 and to me no one comes better then the Catholic interpretation.

A little subjective don’t you think? Have you really read the Orthodox understanding of that? It is truly upon Peter’s faith that Christ builds HIS church. “Upon this rock I will build MY church…” Christ uses the word kepha (in the Greek text means rock).

You didn’t answer why Rome is Peter Seat? Is it because he died there? Was it because he established it? I’d like to hear someone tell me why is Rome Peter’s chair and not Antioch?

 

[Pravoslavac]

I’ve never really exactly heard what “first among equals” means.

Can you tell us about a situation or relationship (within or without Christianity) where there is a “first among equals”.

First among equals…in the hierarchy of the original taxis of Patriarchates, Rome was given the first position (not as a means of authority) followed by Constantinople, etc. The early church did not believe any one bishop was above another bishop. They were all equals.

 

[mark_a]

First among equals…in the hierarchy of the original taxis of Patriarchates, Rome was given the first position (not as a means of authority) followed by Constantinople, etc. The early church did not believe any one bishop was above another bishop. They were all equals.

What would be the reponsibilities and duties of a bishop of the “first position” that would differ from the responsibilities and duties of the subsequent positions?

 

[Pravoslavac]

What would be the reponsibilities and duties of a bishop of the “first position” that would differ from the responsibilities and duties of the subsequent positions?

Every bishop’s duties and responsibilities center only on tending to his flock. The hierarchy of the original Pentarchy was never established to show differing duties and responsibilities.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Books from both and other points of view have been written on this issue.

It’s not a fruitful topic for computer boards.

 

[mark_a]

Every bishop’s duties and responsibilities center only on tending to his flock. The hierarchy of the original Pentarchy was never established to show differing duties and responsibilities.

Why would Rome’s bishop be called “first among equals” if it means absolutely nothing?

I feel like I am getting the runaround.

 

[Chellow]

This is an age old argument. If Peter is the rock, why wasn’t the church of Rome considered the “head” of the early church for the first 1000 yrs? The only reason they were given primacy and not authority in the eyes of the Orthodox Church was because Rome was the head of the Empire.

I disagree with your statement, in most of Christian history the power of the Roman empire was in Constantinople, it was in Rome only from 313 to 331.

 

[Peter_J]

As a Catholic you are called to be loyal to your Bishop especially the Bishop of Rome, because as the bible states in Matthew 16:19 “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I have found this to not be as true for the Orthodox and Protestants with their preference to follow their self then their Bishops.

I think it’s an over-generalization to make that statements about “Protestants”, let alone to make it about the Orthodox as well.

From the 7th Plenary of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission, 5-10 July 1993, Sandbjerg/ Denmark:

1. The nature of the Church’s authority differs from worldly authority. Our Lord Jesus Christ said to his disciples: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? But I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:25?27). All authority in and of the Church is rooted in the saving work of Christ who gave his life for us. Authority and soteriology are indivisible. Christ’s authority, present in the Church’s mission (Mt 28:18?20), is undergirded by the Paraclete who leads the faithful into all truth (John 14:26; 16:7?14) and through the apostles and their successors it is given to the whole Church. Both Orthodox and Lutherans affirm that apostolic authority was exercised in the ecumenical councils of the Church in which the bishops, through illumination and glorification brought about by the Holy Spirit, exercised responsibility. Ecumenical councils are a special gift of God to the Church and are an authoritative inheritance through the ages. Through ecumenical councils the Holy Spirit has led the Church to preserve and transmit the faith once delivered to the saints. They handed on the prophetic and apostolic truth, formulated it against heresies of their time and safeguarded the unity of the churches.

1. The seven ecumenical councils of the early Church were assemblies of the bishops of the Church from all parts of the Roman Empire to clarify and express the apostolic faith.

…

 

[Chellow]

We follow our Bishops not the bishop of Rome. The bishop of Rome was given primacy and not supremacy. The supremacy that you refer to you came about from Rome not from the other 4 Patriarchates.

I know and understand you don’t follow the bishop of Rome. Maybe this can clarify it for me. Lets say I’m the bishop of Constantinople and I formed a new Church lets say Moscow, don’t have supremacy over that bishop that I installed?

 

[Chellow]

Both Orthodox and Lutherans affirm that apostolic authority was exercised in the ecumenical councils of the Church in which the bishops, through illumination and glorification brought about by the Holy Spirit, exercised responsibility.

The seven ecumenical councils of the early Church were assemblies of the bishops of the Church from all parts of the Roman Empire to clarify and express the apostolic faith.

That’s the point the Protestants and Orthodox don’t know what authority is, by the statement above apostolic authority was exercised in the ecumenical council. So what makes an ecumenical council, their has been more then seven but they only count seven. They haven’t had one since they removed them self in 1054 (The Great Schism).

 

[Peter_J]

So what makes an ecumenical council,

That’s a good question. But rather than start a separate discussion on it here, may I point you to the discussion already in progress?

 

[elts1956]

I’ve never really exactly heard what “first among equals” means.

Can you tell us about a situation or relationship (within or without Christianity) where there is a “first among equals”.

Hi Mark. Can’t really quote the document. Will have to look, but I have heard that statement “first among equals” used. It may be from the Eastern Orthodox perspective rather than the Roman. Even so, it is a difficult statement to clarify. The way I read it, Peter and the other patriarchs are equal in ? , but the other Bishops give deference to Peter. Can’t explain it any better than that. Maybe you can?

 

[elts1956]

I’ve never really exactly heard what “first among equals” means.

Can you tell us about a situation or relationship (within or without Christianity) where there is a “first among equals”.

Most Catholic believe that the split of the Churches was more due to Politics then doctrine.

As a Catholic you are called to be loyal to your Bishop especially the Bishop of Rome, because as the bible states in Matthew 16:19 “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I have found this to not be as true for the Orthodox and Protestants with their preference to follow their self then their Bishops.

The bible does not give equality to all the Bishops, only to Peter did Christ give the Keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16:18-19 “I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

Perhaps then, in the way of humans, the other Bishops who came after Peter, but lived during Peter’s time felt they had equal weight in carrying out Christ’s teachings, but Peter was the final judge of what was taught???

 

[elts1956]

What are you talking about? We follow our Bishops. And moreso we follow our synods whereby all the Bishops would gather to discuss issues facing the church.

This is an age old argument. If Peter is the rock, why wasn’t the church of Rome considered the “head” of the early church for the first 1000 yrs? The only reason they were given primacy and not authority in the eyes of the Orthodox Church was because Rome was the head of the Empire.

If you say Peter founded the Patriarchate of Rome, he founded the Patriarchate of Antioch first. If it’s because he died in Rome, then shouldn’t the Patriarchate of Jerusalem be the head of the Church? After all Jesus died there.

Hopefully this sheds some light from an EO perspective.

Hello Pravoslavic. Thanks for the post. However, I am hoping to find historical documentation of the split. Can you shed some light on this? Thanks.