M
mtr01
Guest
Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem.
Why did the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church Split from one another?
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
Yes, unfortunately, latinization is still alive and kicking.
A
Aramis
Guest
Hey, at least it gives them (name removed by moderator)ut on the next pope!Yes, unfortunately, latinization is still alive and kicking.
And that priority is over all other bishops of the Catholic Church…
and gives them, should they ever want it, reason to say the Roman Mass…
P
Peter_J
Guest
I was being a little facetious in my last post, BTW.
I know a lot of Eastern Catholics are dead-set against any Eastern Patriarchs or Major Archbishops being Cardinals. Personally, I don’t think Eastern Patriarchs should be cardinals, but I’m on the fence with respect to the Major Archbishops.
C
Chellow
Guest
It would be interesting to see an Eastern Patriarch become Pope.
I was being a little facetious in my last post, BTW.
I know a lot of Eastern Catholics are dead-set against any Eastern Patriarchs or Major Archbishops being Cardinals. Personally, I don’t think Eastern Patriarchs should be cardinals, but I’m on the fence with respect to the Major Archbishops.
A
Aramis
Guest
I’ve never met any who were. Whether they should use the title or not… whole 'nother matter.
I was being a little facetious in my last post, BTW.
I know a lot of Eastern Catholics are dead-set against any Eastern Patriarchs or Major Archbishops being Cardinals. Personally, I don’t think Eastern Patriarchs should be cardinals, but I’m on the fence with respect to the Major Archbishops.
Cardinal is not (generally) an honorific. It’s a vote in conclave to determine the next pope; that’s it.
And given the extra-diocesan authority, it is all the more imperative that the selection be informed by all churches.
M
mnealon1
Guest
M
mnealon1
Guest
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.
P
Peter_J
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
Good point. Nevertheless, I don’t think a patriarch should be voting in the election of another patriarch.
T
TLara
Guest
first lets look at what history shows as true, the Bishop of Rome always had supreme jurisdiction of the whole Church. Now some EO might try to claim that this is not true, the east never though that the Bishop of Rome had any authority over the rest of the Church. They will say such things as first among equals, primacy of honour but never supremacy.
I will give you just one example that will show this not to be true. in the late 6th to early 7th century the Bishop of Constantinople tried to give himself the title of universal Bishop. so what were his reasons for that? I believe it started from the moment that the Emperor Constantine moved the head of the Empire to Constantinople from Rome. The Bishops of Constantinople started from that point on to make claim that since the head of the Empire was in Constantinople that so also should be the Head of the church. Pope Gregory the Great let John the Faster (Bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople at the time) know the err of his ways and even the Emperor sided with Pope Gregory that the Bishop of Rome will always be the supreme pontiff.
The EO may say this is nonsense, but why is the Patriarch of Constantinople given special privileges that no other Eastern Patriarch has. So basically they just made a new Pope of the east. And one more thing when John the Faster tried to extend his authority to Asia and parts of Antioch why did the Bishops there Appeal to the Bishop of Rome.
I will give you just one example that will show this not to be true. in the late 6th to early 7th century the Bishop of Constantinople tried to give himself the title of universal Bishop. so what were his reasons for that? I believe it started from the moment that the Emperor Constantine moved the head of the Empire to Constantinople from Rome. The Bishops of Constantinople started from that point on to make claim that since the head of the Empire was in Constantinople that so also should be the Head of the church. Pope Gregory the Great let John the Faster (Bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople at the time) know the err of his ways and even the Emperor sided with Pope Gregory that the Bishop of Rome will always be the supreme pontiff.
The EO may say this is nonsense, but why is the Patriarch of Constantinople given special privileges that no other Eastern Patriarch has. So basically they just made a new Pope of the east. And one more thing when John the Faster tried to extend his authority to Asia and parts of Antioch why did the Bishops there Appeal to the Bishop of Rome.
M
mnealon1
Guest
M
mnealon1
Guest
I have done my best to explain in a previous thread the reason for the split between the Roman and Orthodox Churches which started at the Council of Nicea and broke completely in 1054.The Roman Catholic Church belives in Apostolic Succession founded by Jesus and passed to Peter." Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" The Catholic Church has defined its Doctrines through various Ecumenical Councils following the example of the 1st. Council held by St Peter at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus in founding His one True Church chose Peter to be first Pope and so it has continued for 2000 years (Apostolic Succession i.e. from the Apostle Peter), The Catholic Church believes that all Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit all the way from the Council of Jerusalem right down to Vatican11. In like manner the Church believes that the Pope when speaking on articles of Faith and Morals cannot be wrong as he is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church broke from Rome - not the other way round.God Bless Margaret.
N
Nicholas82
Guest
Can I ask where on earth you learned that stuff regarding the reason for the schism… ?
P
Peter_J
Guest
mnealon1,
You might want to learn a little about Catholicism before talking about it.
You might want to learn a little about Catholicism before talking about it.
T
TLara
Guest
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.
E
elts1956
Guest
Perhaps someone can explain these partial quotes and statements taken from an Eastern Orthodox site??
.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/church_history/michael_theschism.htm
The third canon of the Second Ecumenical Council (381) designates the position of honor of the Bishop of Constantinople as second only to that of the Bishop of Rome. This decision of the Council is based on the premise that Constantinople is new Rome, and, incidentally, it has been retained among the titles of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Who was at this council, all Patriarchs and if so, did they agree with this decision?
They say:
This indicates, as was brought out at the Council, that the political importance of the city defined the honorary status of its hierarchy. The same fact was repeated with emphasis by the now renown 28th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon in 451. At that time, the Bishop of Constantinople was acclaimed as equal in honor to the Bishop of Rome.
They say:
In the meantime, erroneous beliefs began to circulate in the Church of the West. Of these, the most serious was an addition to the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople concerning the Holy Spirit. The Church of Rome wanted to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds and from the Son. In Latin, this addition was accomplished by the word, “filioque.”
ie. The Eastern Orthodox church and also the Church in Rome had "argeed? that the Creed would read that the Holy Spirit descended from the Father alone. Had they? Rome changed it to read The Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son. Filioque.
Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for the flesh and blood hath not revealed it into thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:13-18) Didn’t Christ call Peter Cephas meaning rock?
Another area of disgurntlement:
)) Concerning the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony that it was not accomplished by St. Peter. It was established by Christians who settled in Rome. Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church.? He mentioned this in his epistle to the Romans, “. . . from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation … for which, cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey.” (Rom. 15:19-20, 22-23) This to me doesn’t make sense. Am I reading it wrong that St. Paul did not want to trespass in an area that had already been established???
Say they.
From this passage, therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that Peter was in Rome or that St. Peter had founded the Church there. On the contrary, he says that he feels obliged to preach the gospel where no other Apostle taught so that he would not build upon the foundation laid by another. Surely this is an explicit testimony that St. Peter was in no way connected with the foundation of the Church of Rome. Actually St. Peter served the Church for many years in Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul. So who came first Peter, or Paul This seems to be the difficulty.
M
mnealon1
Guest
HI Please enlighten me. Thats what we are all here for.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t.
P
Peter_J
Guest
But conversely, Catholics can say that “erroneous beliefs began to circulate in the East, saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from only the Father.”
Neither is really an effective argument, in my opinion.
But to be fair, I do have to give the Orthodox credit for not changing the Creed. The original text said “from the Father”. The West (eventually – kind of a long story) changed that to “from the Father and the Son”. The East didn’t change it to “from the Father alone”.
- Status