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

  • Thread starter Thread starter elts1956
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
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.

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

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?
Good question Proslavic. I would like to know this too. As a Roman Catholic, I have always thought it was because Peter taught in Rome, establihed the church in Rome and died there. Anyone know anything else? Thanks.🙂
 
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.

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

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?
If the Bishop of Rome was given Primacy, when did Supremacy become the argument and why? Also why was the Rome patriarchy given Primacy?
 
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.

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

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?
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.
Were decisions regarding matters of Faith done as a consensus among the Patriarchs? Was an argument about a belief also one of the reasons for the split?
 
In Re the Orthodox “Following their bishops.”

Funny, but they just recently retired an OCA bishop, apparently for demanding orthopraxis of instructors at the seminary, and curtailing a priest’s permission to public dissent from his instructions.
 
Please note my first post is in regards to the split between the two branches from way back when. That is the info. I would like to have. Thanks.
 
I would like to know the differences in beliefs between these two branches of the Church Christ initiated.
You are going to find that depending on who you talk to, you will get a slightly different answer to your question. Here’s one view:
One of the main differences which caused the split was that the Roman Church added the filioque to the creed. The original Nicene Creed said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This was agreed to by both the Eastern Churches and the Roman Church. Then, later on, without consulting with the Eastern Churches, the Roman Church decided it would unilaterally change the creed on its own and add the filioque to the creed. So the Roman Church says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. It then demanded that the Eastern Church accept this addition, which the Eastern Church said it would not, because it had agreed to the creed without the filioque and the Roman Church had also agreed to the creed without the filioque and the Eastern Church said that it was not a correct teaching to add the filioque. Then in 1054, the papal legate Cardinal Humbertus placed a bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia citing the filioque as a reason for the excommunications and anathemas. There were other issues also mentioned, such as the question on the use of unleavened or leavened bread, etc.
In addition to this, there occurred later on a Crusade, known as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the incredible violence, looting, plunder of the Eastern Churches by the Catholic crusaders. For a description, please take a look at the article at Catholic Fordham University, Dana C. Munro, "The Fourth Crusade ", fordham.edu/halsall/source/4cde.html#sack

" Then it was announced to all the host that all the Venetian and every one else should go and hear the sermons on Sunday morning; [Apr 11, 1204] and they did so. Then the bishops preached to the army, the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist [Halberstadt] master Jean Faicette [De Noyon, chancellor of Baldwin of Flanders], and the abbot of Loos, and they showed to the pilgrims that the war was a righteous one; for the Greeks were traitors and murderers, and also disloyal, since they had murdered their rightful lord, and were worse than Jews. Moreover, the bishops said that, by the authority of God and in the name of the pope, they would absolve all who attacked the Greeks."…
" How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.

Nor can the violation of the Great Church [Hagia Sophia] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so, great and infinite splendor.

When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with go , which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of t temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.
  1. Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch’s seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently. Nor, indeed, were these crimes committed and others left undone, on the ground that these were of lesser guilt, the others of greater. But with one consent all the most heinous sins and crimes were committed by all with equal zeal. Could those, who showed so great madness against God Himself have spared the honorable matrons and maidens or the virgins consecrated to God?
Nothing was more difficult and laborious than to soften by prayers, to render benevolent, these wrathful barbarians, vomiting forth bile at every unpleasing word, so that nothing failed to inflame their fury. Whoever attempted it was derided as insane and a man of intemperate language. Often they drew their daggers against any one who opposed them at all or hindered their demands.

No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, t groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, t separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. . Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, how great the distress!"
" How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground. "
 
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?
In the EO no one bishop is above another bishop. One bishop doesn’t install another bishop in the EO. Only a synod of bishops install other bishops. Likewise a synod of bishops can depose a bishop.

Its hard but you can not apply western church structure on the Eastern Orthodox. Of the 5 original Patriarchs, 4 follow the same methodology but only the church of Rome has modified the aspect of authority.
 
Were decisions regarding matters of Faith done as a consensus among the Patriarchs? Was an argument about a belief also one of the reasons for the split?
Matters of faith or controversy that were rising up contradictory to the faith were dealt with by Ecumenical Councils. The EO accepts the first 7 Ecumenical Councils as does Rome. However when the schism occured, Rome went on and had what the EO view as local councils and that they were not Ecumenical as they did not involve the other 4 Patriarchates.
 
If the Bishop of Rome was given Primacy, when did Supremacy become the argument and why? Also why was the Rome patriarchy given Primacy?
From Wiki:

"Challenges to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

The doctrine and interpretation of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has been challenged ever since it was first introduced.

When the doctrine originated, the extent of the authority that the bishops of Rome were claiming was unclear. Historically, the primacy of the Pope was largely accepted by all bishops of the Church, and he was at least considered to be the first in honor of all bishops. However, the supremacy of the Pope over all bishops, first declared by Pope Leo I was rejected by the bishops serving outside of Rome’s jurisdiction."

The EO does not believe any one apostle was above another. The Pope, is the bishop of Rome. He is not “above” the other bishops, but is just a bishop like all the others. However, while Peter was just one of the Apostles, he was also the Apostle who held the primacy which was the Christ-given leadership among them. (Mt 16:18). According to the original hierarchy we kind of look at the Pope like the chaiman of the board whereby anything he does has to be approved by the board.

Hope this helps.
 
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 don’t think this is right. The ECF’s clearly indicate that Rome had primacy because both Peter and Paul labored there, and build the foundation of the Church. It was this primacy of doctrinal anchoring that gave the primacy. The Church did not take over the temporal authority of Rome until the 6th century.
If you say Peter founded the Patriarchate of Rome, he founded the Patriarchate of Antioch first.
Yes. 👍
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.
The Petrine gift was given to Peter, and would have gone wherever Peter went. It so happens he ended up in Rome, along with Paul, where together they built up the foundation of the Church.
 
No one bishop was ever able to depose another bishop. The early church used synods (councils) to depose a bishop.\quote]

This is true. However, a bishop can, through heresy, excommunicate himself, as Arius did.
Pravoslavac;4059500:
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?
I think this is a good question. When Peter was in Antioch, he ordained Bishops, and a valid line exists to this day. However, he did not transfer his Petrine gift until he could no longer carry out his mission to the Church. It is possible that he ordained Linus while he was still prison, since he was unable to feed and care for the flock.
 
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?
One history I found particularly edifying was the book, “The History of the Christian Church Until the Great Schism of 1054” by Mikhail Emmanuelovich Posnov, particularly because if its (IMO) fair and unbiased presentation of the history involved. You should be aware, however, that it deals with the issues leading up to the split, not the actual schism itself.

Disclaimer: Posnov was a Russian Orthodox historian who apparently (I cannot find definitive information on this) became Catholic. If it is any indication, his daughter is Russian Catholic.

Also, the link is to Amazon.com’s listing - I couldn’t get the link from the publisher (Authorhouse) to work. If one would be interesting in buying the book, it’s about $8 less expensive from Authorhouse.
 
BTW elts1956, thank you for making the title of this thread “Why did the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church Split from one another?”, rather than slipping your own opinion into the question (i.e. “Why did Y split from Z?”) which I for one find rather tiresome.

(There was a thread not long ago, titled something like “Why do Protestants think they understand Catholicism, but they really don’t know anything about it?”)
 
First Among Equals: Doesn’t this teach that basically, whatever Jesus told Peter first, He also told the rest of his Disciples? So, basically, Rome, has no jurisdiction over the other’s because what was revealed to Peter was eventually also told/revealed to the rest.
 
You are going to find that depending on who you talk to, you will get a slightly different answer to your question. Here’s one view:
One of the main differences which caused the split was … "
Boy bobzills I know your Catholic, but don’t you think you should read the Catholic sided of your account, in all my reading I have never read any thing so one side and Anti-Catholic as what you had posted. I think you owe it to yourself and do some more research, this time a Catholic aspect of that account, I know it was along time ago and some where between the Catholic account and Orthodox account the truth lies.
 
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 are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 (“Peter”). It is translated as Petros (“Peter”) in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus’ statement would have been, in English, “You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church.” The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple’s new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male.
 
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???🙂
Christ gave the Keys to the kingdom only to Peter. If I give you the Keys to my home, with your family by your side. By me giving you those keys I’m giving you the authority to permit or deny any one admission in to my home, but not that same authority to your family. Like wise Christ gave that authority to Peter.
 
In the EO no one bishop is above another bishop. One bishop doesn’t install another bishop in the EO. Only a synod of bishops install other bishops. Likewise a synod of bishops can depose a bishop.

Its hard but you can not apply western church structure on the Eastern Orthodox. Of the 5 original Patriarchs, 4 follow the same methodology but only the church of Rome has modified the aspect of authority.
So the Patriarch, metropolitans and Archbishops are not above other bishops. Then why the titles?

It’s not too different in the Catholic Church a little more involved and the Popes has the final word on the selection.
 
You are going to find that depending on who you talk to, you will get a slightly different answer to your question. Here’s one view:
One of the main differences which caused the split was that the Roman Church added the filioque to the creed. The original Nicene Creed said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This was agreed to by both the Eastern Churches and the Roman Church. Then, later on, without consulting with the Eastern Churches, the Roman Church decided it would unilaterally change the creed on its own and add the filioque to the creed. So the Roman Church says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. It then demanded that the Eastern Church accept this addition, which the Eastern Church said it would not, because it had agreed to the creed without the filioque and the Roman Church had also agreed to the creed without the filioque and the Eastern Church said that it was not a correct teaching to add the filioque. Then in 1054, the papal legate Cardinal Humbertus placed a bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia citing the filioque as a reason for the excommunications and anathemas. There were other issues also mentioned, such as the question on the use of unleavened or leavened bread, etc.
In addition to this, there occurred later on a Crusade, known as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the incredible violence, looting, plunder of the Eastern Churches by the Catholic crusaders. For a description, please take a look at the article at Catholic Fordham University, Dana C. Munro, "The Fourth Crusade ", fordham.edu/halsall/source/4cde.html#sack

" Then it was announced to all the host that all the Venetian and every one else should go and hear the sermons on Sunday morning; [Apr 11, 1204] and they did so. Then the bishops preached to the army, the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist [Halberstadt] master Jean Faicette [De Noyon, chancellor of Baldwin of Flanders], and the abbot of Loos, and they showed to the pilgrims that the war was a righteous one; for the Greeks were traitors and murderers, and also disloyal, since they had murdered their rightful lord, and were worse than Jews. Moreover, the bishops said that, by the authority of God and in the name of the pope, they would absolve all who attacked the Greeks."…
" How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.

Nor can the violation of the Great Church [Hagia Sophia] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so, great and infinite splendor.

When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with go , which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of t temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.
  1. Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch’s seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently. Nor, indeed, were these crimes committed and others left undone, on the ground that these were of lesser guilt, the others of greater. But with one consent all the most heinous sins and crimes were committed by all with equal zeal. Could those, who showed so great madness against God Himself have spared the honorable matrons and maidens or the virgins consecrated to God?
Nothing was more difficult and laborious than to soften by prayers, to render benevolent, these wrathful barbarians, vomiting forth bile at every unpleasing word, so that nothing failed to inflame their fury. Whoever attempted it was derided as insane and a man of intemperate language. Often they drew their daggers against any one who opposed them at all or hindered their demands.

No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, t groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, t separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. . Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, how great the distress!"
" How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground. "
Do I understand correctly that the Bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church are descendents of Peter and the other Apostles. ie. they can prove their lineage back to the beginnings of the Church?

As far as what you have written I would only ask, What makes humans such beasts"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top