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

[Aramis]

Good point. Nevertheless, I don’t think a patriarch should be voting in the election of another patriarch.

Functionally, however, the pope is not just a patriarch, but an arch-patriarch. As the Assyrians noted in their theology and as was pointed out by Mar Soros, Peter is to the Patriarchs as the Patriarchs are to the bishops. (Mar Soros, last year.)

Funtionally, the pope is to Patriarchs as an Archbishop is to his suffragan bishops under Roman ecclesiology: having immediate jurisdiction, but being expected not to use it in all but the most sever circumstances.

So given this relationship, why should they not help determine his successor? Are they not a part of the Synod of the Church?

 

[yinekka]

I don’t know if this link has been posted since I haven’t reall all the replies to this question.

17 July 2006 - Catholic Answers Radio Archives - Marcellino D’Ambrosio - the East and West divide -

catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=0&event=4169&date=2006-07-17

 

[mnealon1]

HI again. I am sorry my cathoilicsm is not up to scratch in your eyes! I would like to restate my reply to the question at hand. In 1014( originally started in Nicea 325) irreconcilable differences arose over the word filoque which means " and from the Son"… The standard “I believe …in the Holy Spirit… who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” which leaders of the East regarded as heretical. The reason why the difference was irreconcilable was the different ways both sides approached the issue.In the West the Popes considered themselves the ultimate judges in matters of Faith and Doctrine, but in the East leaders followed the authority of councils where the local Churches spoke as equals The principle split between Orthodox Christians and those who were under the authority of Rome occured in 1054 when Patriach Michael Cervlarius and Papal legates exchanged anathemas Many other views being put foreward are from the political situaton of the time. My (name removed by moderator)ut was from the Faith point of view. As to my thread on Apostolic Succession, you can surely not have a problem with that as (from a Catholic ) point of view it means tranmission of Spiritual authority from the Apostles through successive Popes and Bishops.At the end of the Apostles Creed which we say every day - we say " I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ) I learned the meaning of this when I was about 5 yrs old. In reply to TLara Why suggest I should be discouraged from future Post? Everyone else is just giving their (name removed by moderator)ut and I do not object to anyones point of view so please be patient with me I make no claim to be either more less right or wrong than anyone else. Perhaps a good topic of the next question could be Faith, Hope, and Charity Cheers.

 

[mnealon1]

Hi I am sorry you are disappointed with my knowledge of Cathoilism I would like to restate my “Knowledge” to the question at hand. In 1014 irreconcilable differences arose ( started at Nicea 325 ) over the word filoque which means " and from the son " The standard " I believe … in the Holy Spirit…who PROCEEDS from the Father and the Son…which Church leaders of the East regarded as heretical. The reason why the difference was irreconcilable was the different ways they each approached the issue. In the West the Popes considered themselves the ultimate judges in matters of Faith and Doctrine, but in the East leaders followed the authority of councils where the local Churches spoke as equals. The principle split between Eastern Orthodox Christians and those under the aurhority of Rome occured in 1054 when Patriach Michael Cerularius and papal legates exchanged anathemas.Many of the threads are discussing the Political situation of the time, but I was approaching from the question of Faith. In my thread on Apostolic Succession was based on what it means i.e. the tranmission of Spiritual Authority from the Apostles through successive Popes and Bishops.This is what the Catholic Church believes. Each time we say the Creed which contains our articles of Faith we say at the end " I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" This was taught to me at a very early age. In reply to TLara - why suggest I should be discouraged from future Post? I like everyone else I am just giving my imput. I may or may not agree with everything I read , but everyone is entilted to their opinion. - me too: Perhaps the next question to be for discussion should be Faith Hope and Charity?

 

[Peter_J]

As to my thread on Apostolic Succession, you can surely not have a problem with that as (from a Catholic ) point of view it means tranmission of Spiritual authority from the Apostles through successive Popes and Bishops.

Personally, I haven’t read that thread yet, but I shall take a look at it today. (I mostly participate on the “Non-Catholic Religions” forum, and I sometimes forget that there are lots of other forums around here, e.g. “Eastern Catholicism”.)

 

[Peter_J]

So given this relationship, why should they not help determine his successor? Are they not a part of the Synod of the Church?

Do you know of any instances in the first millennium where Eastern patriarchs voted in a papal election? I’m thinking such cases were few and far between.

Note: Eastern bishops did, of course, vote on the question of what the order/ranking would be (specifically: at Nicea they voted for Rome-Alexandria-Antioch, then at subsequent councils they voted to add in Constantinople right after Rome, then to add in Jerusalem as number 5). But what I’m talking about is Eastern patriarchs voting on who would be the bishop of Rome.

 

[TLara]

In reply to TLara - why suggest I should be discouraged from future Post? I like everyone else I am just giving my imput. I may or may not agree with everything I read , but everyone is entilted to their opinion. - me too: [Perhaps the next question to be for discussion should be Faith Hope and Charity?

In my previos post I was defending you. what I meant to say (if my prevous post was not clear) is that the person who responded to your post uncharitably should refrain from those type of post because it could cause people who are new to the forums to stop posting.
[/quote]

 

[TLara]

Why do you feel you are an expert at Catholicism. you in previous post have erred also. We all have erred in what we perceive is the truth about our faith and this includes the EO. Thanks be to God that we are not the ones to officially speak for the Church.

With what Mnealon1 has said there is a lot of truth and some small mistakes instead of putting him/her to shame why not let Mnealon1 know what parts you think are false and give a correction. This will encourage future dialogue and discourage future post by Mnealon1.

Mnealon1, the last line should have read (This will encourage future dialogue and not discourage future post by Mnealon1)

 

[mnealon1]

HI TLara Thank you very much for your kind message. I enjoy taking part. God Bless Margaret

 

[Peter_J]

mnealon1,

Sorry for what I said in post #75. In all sincerity I didn’t realize I was being uncharitable.

Consider the suggestion retracted, and rest assured that I will hold my tongue in the future.

I hope we can still be friends?

 

[mnealon1]

Hi PeterJ Thank you for taking time to reply, with your sincere words. Of course we are still friends and I look foreward to perhaps having furter discussion with you in the future

 

[Peter_J]

Hi PeterJ Thank you for taking time to reply, with your sincere words. Of course we are still friends and I look foreward to perhaps having furter discussion with you in the future

Thanks. Generally speaking I try to find what you might call “a good balance” – not being a doormat, but also not causing myself to get disciplined by the moderators. (That’s kind of an oversimplification, but I think you get what I mean.) Needless to say, this doesn’t always work out. But I keep trying – see, for example, this reply.

 

[elts1956]

It is my understanding that the split started at the Council of Nicea in the 400s.The Divinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit was not explained properly. The main issue being the the Holy Spirit was left out. Not in a deliberate way, but in the understanding that it would be understood. This caused great annoyance for the Orthodox, and even greater annoyance in the 10th century when at another Council the Roman Catholic Church reafirmed the Holy Spirit. The Eastern Orthodox took this to be an admission of a mistake in the first place and not an over site on behalf of the Roman Church and they rejected the supreme authority of the Pope and the was the final break. They created their own Patriach and although they have the exact same beliefs and Sacrements as the Roman Church the rift was never healed. Pope John Paul11 made a supreme jestue to try and begin the reunion and he and the Orthodox Patriach really got on very well with great respect for one another. With our Prayers in time we can all be one again God Bless Margaret.

Can you, or anyone else on the forum, clarify the theology between the two? What is the difference between saying the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son? Any deep explanations? I can’t figure it out.

 

[Aramis]

Can you, or anyone else on the forum, clarify the theology between the two? What is the difference between saying the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son? Any deep explanations? I can’t figure it out.

Fundamentally, the question of the filoque issue is this:

Original creed, in greek, can be most accurately stated in English as “And in the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father”

The Creed, in Latin, is most accurately rendered in English more like “And in the Holy Spirit, who flows from the Father”

and the Creed with the Filioque, they become:
Lat: “And in the Holy Spirit, who flows from the Father and from the Son”

Gr: “And in the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father and in the Son”

The Latin version of the creed doesn’t talk of origination, but of transmission.

The Greek is explicitly origination. Dual origination of the Spirit is heresy.

Dual transmission of the Spirit is not heresy; The Credo Latinae is a poor rendering of the Greek creed, simply because the language used in fact is less specific about the Holy Spirit.

The problem is that those complaining were probably not seeing it in the Latin, or at least, not realizing that the Latin talks of transmission not origination.

The Latins, for their part, probably didn’t clearly realize that the Creed in its original Greek speaks of origination.

Neither is heresy. But misinterpreting the other’s linguistic issue and the poor translation of the Creed into latin leads the Latins to think the East is claiming Christ to have no ability to send forth the Holy Spirit, and leads the East to think the West is claiming that the spirit has Dual Origination… Both of which were heresy!

 

[bobzills]

.

Neither is heresy. But misinterpreting the other’s linguistic issue and the poor translation of the Creed into latin leads the Latins to think the East is claiming Christ to have no ability to send forth the Holy Spirit, and leads the East to think the West is claiming that the spirit has Dual Origination… Both of which were heresy!

Do you claim that it was heretical for Cardinal Humbertus to lay the papal bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054, citing the omission of the filioque?

 

[Aramis]

Do you claim that it was heretical for Cardinal Humbertus to lay the papal bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054, citing the omission of the filioque?

You are misreading what I said.

The interpretation of dual origins is heresy.
The interpretation of Christ having no authority over the HS is heresy.

Humbert was just ignorant and intolerant, not a heretic.

His bulla was based in ignorance, and the probable misbelief that the lack of filioque was thus denial of Christ having authority over the Holy Spirit. Wrong, but understandable.

 

[elts1956]

Fundamentally, the question of the filoque issue is this:

Original creed, in greek, can be most accurately stated in English as “And in the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father”

The Creed, in Latin, is most accurately rendered in English more like “And in the Holy Spirit, who flows from the Father”

and the Creed with the Filioque, they become:
Lat: “And in the Holy Spirit, who flows from the Father and from the Son”

Gr: “And in the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father and in the Son”

The Latin version of the creed doesn’t talk of origination, but of transmission.

The Greek is explicitly origination. Dual origination of the Spirit is heresy.

Dual transmission of the Spirit is not heresy; The Credo Latinae is a poor rendering of the Greek creed, simply because the language used in fact is less specific about the Holy Spirit.

The problem is that those complaining were probably not seeing it in the Latin, or at least, not realizing that the Latin talks of transmission not origination.

The Latins, for their part, probably didn’t clearly realize that the Creed in its original Greek speaks of origination.

Neither is heresy. But misinterpreting the other’s linguistic issue and the poor translation of the Creed into latin leads the Latins to think the East is claiming Christ to have no ability to send forth the Holy Spirit, and leads the East to think the West is claiming that the spirit has Dual Origination… Both of which were heresy!

Then why do you suppose that neither the Roman Catholic, nor the Eastern Ortodox now see this but the split remains? Thanks.

 

[angelheart]

If the filioque referred to dual transmission why was it necessary to be inserted later into the Creed? Didn’t the Church understood and agreed on dual transmission before the filioque even existed?

God bless!
Stefania

 

[Aramis]

If the filioque referred to dual transmission why was it necessary to be inserted later into the Creed? Didn’t the Church understood and agreed on dual transmission before the filioque even existed?

God bless!
Stefania

Yes, they did. The Fiioque was inserted to combat heresies which denied dual transmission.

 

[angelheart]

Thanks.

However, I am still confused about one thing: until recently, Catholics were defending the filioque clause by actually saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds (originates) not only from the Father but from the Son as well. Now, I understand that they actually deny this…if so, what’s the point of the filioque today?

God bless!
Stefania