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.
mark_a said:
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”.
Click to expand...
Look at it this way, Jesus left the Church to Peter, He changed his name to Peter, if you go through history Peter means rock, rock is Papa, Papa goes to Pope, It all works out to show Peter was in charge. The only other person Jesus named the rock was Abraham. He was in the OT. Peter is the rock in the NT. Jesus also had Peter build the Church in Rome. At that time Rome was considered the center of the world. It was also the first Church. Thats why it was the RCC. At least that the easiest way I can explain it, and the way I was taught.
 
Rinnie,
rinnie said:
Look at it this way, Jesus left the Church to Peter, He changed his name to Peter, if you go through history Peter means rock, rock is Papa, Papa goes to Pope, It all works out to show Peter was in charge. The only other person Jesus named the rock was Abraham. He was in the OT. Peter is the rock in the NT. Jesus also had Peter build the Church in Rome. At that time Rome was considered the center of the world. It was also the first Church. Thats why it was the RCC. At least that the easiest way I can explain it, and the way I was taught.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to violate forum rules again, but quite frankly I’m not convinced that your statement is correct. Can you provide evidence and/or explanation? (Also, I don’t know what you mean by “it was the RCC.”)
 
Aramis said:
Yes, they did. The Fiioque was inserted to combat heresies which denied dual transmission.
Click to expand...
I believe this is an over-simplification of a historical claim that Catholics make: namely that the filioque was a big help in combatting Arianism (if one accepts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father, and also accepts that the Spirit is God, it becomes pretty obvious that the Son is God as well).
 
rinnie said:
It was also the first Church.
Click to expand...
It’s commonly thought that Peter founded the See of Antioch, and then founded the See of Rome. But if Rome was the first Church, that means that either it was founded by someone other than Peter, or else that Peter founded it but without having first founded the See of Antioch.
 
Peter_J said:
Rinnie,

I don’t want to violate forum rules again, but quite frankly I’m not convinced that your statement is correct. Can you provide evidence and/or explanation? (Also, I don’t know what you mean by “it was the RCC.”)
Click to expand...
I will try, Okay if you read in the bible Jesus says On this rock I will build my church I have given YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven… Matt 16.18-19. Now It is known that that by giving the keys its giving authority. Now go to Isaias, ch.22 and he shall be called Father (pope) to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (rome) and to the house of Juda (church) And I will lay the KEY to the house of David upon his shoulder and he shall open and no one shall shut…

Now the Key belong to our Lord Yet you must acknowedge these words Our lord passed these KEYS onto Peter.

Now the name Rock which belongs to God was attributed to Abraham as one who prefigured God the Father, That is why Abraham is referred to as Rock (tsur) in the OT.

Now go to the NT you will find God (Jesus) is again called by the same name and the ROCK that followed them was Christ.

So in the OT and the NT God is called Rock.

Now in the New T God gives it to another man Simon bar Jona. In the OT Abraham who was the Father fo the Jewish Nation was only referred to as ROCK in passing, yet Jesus didnt just refer to Simon to Rock he went as far as changing his name.

thou are Simon the son of Jona thou shalt be called Cephas which is interpreted Peter (rock) John 1:42.

Jesus changed Abram to Abraham Father of the Jewish People.

That is where it all ties in together, Hope I helped.

St Basil: PETER IS MADE THE FOUNDATION BECAUSE HE SAY THOU ARE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD AND HEARS IN REPLY THAT HE IS A ROCK BUT ALTHOUGH A ROCK HIS IS NOT SUCH A ROCK AS CHRIST FOR CHRIST IS TRULY AN IMMOVABLE ROCK, BUT PETER ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THAT ROCK (I.E. CHRIST). FOR JESUS BESTOWS HIS DIGNITIES IN OTHERS, HE IS A PRIEST AND HE MAKES PRIESTS AND HE MAKES A ROCK AND HE MAKES A ROCK WHAT BELONGS TO HIMSELF HE BESTOWS ON HIS SERVANTS (ST BASIL. CIRCA 345ad)
 
rinnie said:
I will try, Okay if you read in the bible Jesus says On this rock I will build my church I have given YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven… Matt 16.18-19. Now It is known that that by giving the keys its giving authority. Now go to Isaias, ch.22 and he shall be called Father (pope) to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (rome) and to the house of Juda (church) And I will lay the KEY to the house of David upon his shoulder and he shall open and no one shall shut…

Now the Key belong to our Lord Yet you must acknowedge these words Our lord passed these KEYS onto Peter.

Now the name Rock which belongs to God was attributed to Abraham as one who prefigured God the Father, That is why Abraham is referred to as Rock (tsur) in the OT.

Now go to the NT you will find God (Jesus) is again called by the same name and the ROCK that followed them was Christ.

So in the OT and the NT God is called Rock.

Now in the New T God gives it to another man Simon bar Jona. In the OT Abraham who was the Father fo the Jewish Nation was only referred to as ROCK in passing, yet Jesus didnt just refer to Simon to Rock he went as far as changing his name.

thou are Simon the son of Jona thou shalt be called Cephas which is interpreted Peter (rock) John 1:42.

Jesus changed Abram to Abraham Father of the Jewish People.

That is where it all ties in together, Hope I helped.

St Basil: PETER IS MADE THE FOUNDATION BECAUSE HE SAY THOU ARE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD AND HEARS IN REPLY THAT HE IS A ROCK BUT ALTHOUGH A ROCK HIS IS NOT SUCH A ROCK AS CHRIST FOR CHRIST IS TRULY AN IMMOVABLE ROCK, BUT PETER ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THAT ROCK (I.E. CHRIST). FOR JESUS BESTOWS HIS DIGNITIES IN OTHERS, HE IS A PRIEST AND HE MAKES PRIESTS AND HE MAKES A ROCK AND HE MAKES A ROCK WHAT BELONGS TO HIMSELF HE BESTOWS ON HIS SERVANTS (ST BASIL. CIRCA 345ad)
Click to expand...
Whoa, hold on a sec … did you mean Rome was first in rank? If so, I agree with you already.

My bad. I thought you meant first literally.
 
Peter_J said:
Whoa, hold on a sec … did you mean Rome was first in rank? If so, I agree with you already.

My bad. I thought you meant first literally.
Click to expand...
Yes first in rank, That is why in the creed we refer to it as the RCC. Thats why the bishop of the church of rome, successor to St Peter is head of the college of bishops the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal church on earth. (CIC, can.331) At least thats how i understand it.
 
Though I am not a Church historian, what I decipher from the Bible is that the apostle Peter had a position of prominance amonst the apostles. Even our lord was particular in having very clear answers from him as regards questions of faith. Hence the successor of Peter should also have the position of prominance so that the unity of the church can be maintained through unwavering answers as regards questions of faith. Those who did not want to be obedient to the will of our lord followed their own whims and fancies and misinterpreted the Bible and went their own way without paying heed to the God given authority of the successor of Peter. Am I correct ?

JOSE THOMAS
 
josethomas said:
Though I am not a Church historian, what I decipher from the Bible is that the apostle Peter had a position of prominance amonst the apostles. Even our lord was particular in having very clear answers from him as regards questions of faith. Hence the successor of Peter should also have the position of prominance so that the unity of the church can be maintained through unwavering answers as regards questions of faith. Those who did not want to be obedient to the will of our lord followed their own whims and fancies and misinterpreted the Bible and went their own way without paying heed to the God given authority of the successor of Peter. Am I correct ?

JOSE THOMAS
Click to expand...
I think that the Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that the Pope of Rome is the first among equals but not the Supreme Commander of the Church.
 
To the question about “why is the Bishop of Rome supposed to be supreme?”

I really don’t know whether he was given true supremacy or not. It seems like the early popes (like St. Clement I) were very well-respected, and the other bishops looked to them for advice, but I’m not sure if they had the same sort of power they gained as time went on.

So basically I just accept small-t tradition on the matter; I really pray that the East and West can be united.
 
Jack_245814 said:
To the question about “why is the Bishop of Rome supposed to be supreme?”

I really don’t know whether he was given true supremacy or not. It seems like the early popes (like St. Clement I) were very well-respected, and the other bishops looked to them for advice, but I’m not sure if they had the same sort of power they gained as time went on.

So basically I just accept small-t tradition on the matter; I really pray that the East and West can be united.
Click to expand...
I was taught because he hold the keys to the kingdom.
 
Just as an interesting aside, St. Gregory Palamas (who was not in Communion with Rome) refers to St. Peter as the “leader of the Apostles and foundation-stone of the Church” in his Triads. This indicates that, aside from any authority it might imply, the identification of Peter having this unique role is not foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy, not even when it was out of Communion with Rome.

Peace and God bless!
 
816 ccc THE SOLE CHURCH OF CHRIST WHICH OUR SAVIOR AFTER HIS RESURRECTION ENTRUSTED TO PETERS PASTORAL CARE, COMMISSIONING HIM AND THE OTHER APOSTLES TO EXTEND AND RULE IT…

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH IS GOVERNED BY THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER AND BY BISHOPS IN COMMUNION WITH IT. UNQUOTE

IF THATS YOU, AND THATS YOUR CHURCH… ALLS GOOD. YOU ARE IN THE RIGHT CHURCH.
 
rinnie,

The point here is your insistence upon using the terms “Catholic Church” and “Roman Catholic Church” (or, to use your abbreviation, the “RCC”) as synonymous terms - they are not.

When referring to all those who are in full communion with the See of Peter (i.e. “Catholics,” as we understand the use of this term within this forum), we can safely say the following:

All Roman Catholics are Catholics, but NOT all Catholics are Roman Catholics.
 
I was an Eastern Orthodox Catholic and now I’m a Roman Orthodox Catholic - an ORTHO-HOLIC:D

IMHO - the split between East and West was caused by a number of events - some political - some theological, based on interpretation of clauses of the Creed - i.e. The filioque - where the Western Catholics added “and the Son” to the clause about the procession of the Holy Spirit in the Creed, which the Eastern Orthodox claim created a hierarchy between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - which, again IMHO is a matter of interpretation rather than reality. I’ve heard it said that in Latin the expression is more accurately translated “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son” - whereas in Greek this dimension is lost.

When I recite the Nicene Creed at Mass - I simply mentally insert parenthesis around (and the Son) and this settles it for me - other Easter Orthodox believers may not find that acceptable.

There are many other things - The Supremacy of the Pope, probably being the biggest. However, in every organization there’s always SOMEONE who leads - I think that many of the problems that the Eastern Orthodox Church is having, in terms of growth and in divisions of ethnicity; are due to the lack of REAL conciliar leadership across each of the jurisdictions. I experienced a lot of “infighting” and subtle prejudice between those who favor Russian Orthodoxy and those who favor Greek Orthodoxy. For me it’s a non-issue when you have such able leaders as the current and former Holy Fathers - I have no problem accepting their supremacy as leaders.

What really decided it for me - and it may sound trite - was that in the RCC Mass the emphasis is more on celebration, while in the Eastern Church is seems to be more like a representation (re-presenting) of the Mystical Supper as a somber event. I once remarked to an Orthodox friend that I often felt guilty for smiling after partaking in the Divine Liturgy!!

In the RCC - the Cross is seen as being transformed into Christ’s throne. In Eastern Orthodoxy it remains a cross.

I miss a lot of things from Eastern Orthodoxy - the liberal use of Incense and bells - the bowing, kissing and prostrating before Icons which inspires reverence. The Paschal night celebrations are marvelous! But IMHO - there is so much in common that I have a lot of hope that one day we will be re-united. The Lord knows that we need to be united now more than ever.

Please note these are my opinions - and I don’t mean to minimize the deep felt feelings of my Orthodox brothers and sisters - but I am glad to be Catholic in every sense of the word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top