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

[Aramis]

What you say is true, but what I find odd (and please correct me if I am wrong on this) is that even though the excommunications were officially lifted, if a Roman Catholic joins the Eastern Orthodox Church he is ipso facto excommunicated?

But still, if need and situation warrant, as an Orthodox, allowed to receive, unlike those who leave for, say, Lutheranism. Still eligible for most sacraments, in fact. He’s no longer part of the Catholic Union. But he’s not anathematized nor under bans, unlike his lutheran counterpart.

The situation with the orthodox is convoluted. We still claim them to be part of the Church, just not a fully unified part.

Analogy: Like a tree with two trunks after being split by a lightning strike: both alive, both the same tree, but still two separate parts, which grow back towards one another (Eastern Catholics and WRO)…

 

[chrisb]

But still, if need and situation warrant, as an Orthodox, allowed to receive, unlike those who leave for, say, Lutheranism. Still eligible for most sacraments, in fact. He’s no longer part of the Catholic Union. But he’s not anathematized nor under bans, unlike his lutheran counterpart.

The situation with the orthodox is convoluted. We still claim them to be part of the Church, just not a fully unified part.

Analogy: Like a tree with two trunks after being split by a lightning strike: both alive, both the same tree, but still two separate parts, which grow back towards one another (Eastern Catholics and WRO)…

As I understand it my leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy merits excommunication. Is this wrong?

 

[bobzills]

As I understand it my leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy merits excommunication. Is this wrong?

That is also my understanding. A Catholic is excommunicated if he joins the E Orthodox Church. This is why it is not easy for some of us to understand the tangible results of the lifting of the 1054 excommunications.
There was a Catholic priest in our area who decided to join the E. Orthodox Church. And it was publicly announced by the Catholic bishop that since the priest had joined the E. Orthodox Church he was thereby excommunicated from the RCC.,
This is not what one might expect if the excommunications of 1054 were completely and fully null and void.

 

[tdgesq]

As I understand it my leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy merits excommunication. Is this wrong?

It depends. The general rule in the RCC is that a schismatic incurs latae sententiae excommunication. There are a whole host of exceptions that could apply to an individual’s personal situation, so I couldn’t say whether you are excommunicated or not.

Of course this rule makes perfect sense. Look at it the other way around. What if I were to convert from Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? I would be looked upon as a schismatic and denied holy communion in the Orthodox Church. In fact, regardless of whether I am a convert to the RCC or not, that I am a member of the RCC makes me guilty (in the eyes of most EO) of schism and heresy. I wouldn’t expect the Orthodox to allow me to participate in their sacraments.

 

[chrisb]

That is also my understanding. A Catholic is excommunicated if he joins the E Orthodox Church. This is why it is not easy for some of us to understand the tangible results of the lifting of the 1054 excommunications.
There was a Catholic priest in our area who decided to join the E. Orthodox Church. And it was publicly announced by the Catholic bishop that since the priest had joined the E. Orthodox Church he was thereby excommunicated from the RCC.,
This is not what one might expect if the excommunications of 1054 were completely and fully null and void.

That is interesting I never thought about it. Why ‘did’ change?

 

[bobzills]

.

Of course this rule makes perfect sense. .

But if the excommunications between the two Churches were truly and firmly declared to be null and void and totally invalid, then how would the rule of excommunications of those who went over to the Eastern Orthodox Church make sense?

 

[bobzills]

Why ‘did’ change?

I guess that the only thing changed by the symbolic lifting of the 1054 excommunications was the atmosphere for further discussion.

 

[tdgesq]

That is also my understanding. A Catholic is excommunicated if he joins the E Orthodox Church. This is why it is not easy for some of us to understand the tangible results of the lifting of the 1054 excommunications.
There was a Catholic priest in our area who decided to join the E. Orthodox Church. And it was publicly announced by the Catholic bishop that since the priest had joined the E. Orthodox Church he was thereby excommunicated from the RCC.,
This is not what one might expect if the excommunications of 1054 were completely and fully null and void.

I’m not sure where you are getting your expectations from. The document specifically states:

“5. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.”

Both sides recognize in the document that there is currently schism.

The ancient excommunications are stated to apply to individual clergymen, not the Churches. Lifting them was an attempt to: “remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.”

Did it have the desired influence on the Catholic Church? I believe it did. The RCC now has canon 844, which reads:

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

 

[tdgesq]

But if the excommunications between the two Churches were truly and firmly declared to be null and void and totally invalid, then how would the rule of excommunications of those who went over to the Eastern Orthodox Church make sense?

Because (1) according to the joint declaration, the excommunications were not as against the Churches corporate but as against individuals, and (2) later (after 1054) claimed schismatic and heretical acts that warrant denial of the sacraments would not be affected in any case.

 

[RobinSebas]

guanophore;4065612:

In what way did Peter transfer his Petrine gift? Through the laying of hands? Every bishop when getting ordained gets ordained in that manner. Did Peter say, “I’m the head of the church of Christ and I’m putting you in charge now?” Why did he do that in Rome and not Antioch? He ordained bishops there?

The seat of Peter is strictly an RCC creation. We believe that Peter had a primacy among the other apostles but there was no supremacy over the other apostles. That’s the basis of what the other 4 ancient Patriarchates view it as in the past and have throughout the years.

No one has yet told me or shown me why is it that the seat of Peter wound up Rome? Is it because he died there? One person said it was because that’s where Peter and Paul built the foundation of the church. Was the church not built anywhere else? Did it not exist anywhere else? Were the works of the other Apostles as they went forward not significant?

Where Peter is that is where the seat of Peter is.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Where Peter is that is where the seat of Peter is.

Interesting, as the February 22 feast of the Chair of St. Peter at the Vatican, was originally the Feast of St. Peter’s Chair at Antioch.

I’ve seen St. Peter’s Chair at Antioch, and met the man who sits upon it, Patriarch Ignatius IV.

 

[Aramis]

Note that a cleric translating to the RO WOULD be excommunicated formally; laity would not be (the latae sententiae excommunication being sufficient). The practical matter of it is that, except where they were already known, the rules of Canon 844 apply. Where they are known as formerly Catholic, it might incur indifferentialism, and thus nullify the provisions of §4.

It’s a difference in degree and publicity.

The whole of Orthodoxy is essentially under latae sententiae excommunication already: Catholic enough to receive the majority of Catholic Sacraments, but still under bans of ordination by Catholic bishops.

A cleric, however, is subject to formal trial and punishment for conversion. What it really is is a warning that “This priest is no longer allowed for anything but emergency sacraments, if he will even deign to grant them to you.”

 

[Peter_J]

But still, if need and situation warrant, as an Orthodox, allowed to receive, unlike those who leave for, say, Lutheranism. Still eligible for most sacraments, in fact. He’s no longer part of the Catholic Union. But he’s not anathematized nor under bans, unlike his lutheran counterpart.

The situation with the orthodox is convoluted. We still claim them to be part of the Church, just not a fully unified part.

Analogy: Like a tree with two trunks after being split by a lightning strike: both alive, both the same tree, but still two separate parts, which grow back towards one another (Eastern Catholics and WRO)…

There’s a question I’d like to ask about that, but I think it’d be better if a start a new thread for it (it isn’t directly related to either Eastern Catholicism in general or this thread in particular):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4160359

 

[Formosus]

Interesting, as the February 22 feast of the Chair of St. Peter at the Vatican, was originally the Feast of St. Peter’s Chair at Antioch.

I’ve seen St. Peter’s Chair at Antioch, and **met the man **who sits upon it, Patriarch Ignatius IV.

I do beleive that seat is contested by 5(well four, i dont beleive there is a replacement for the retired Syriac Catholic patriarch yet) different men at this time : p.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I do beleive that seat is contested by 5(well four, i dont beleive there is a replacement for the retired Syriac Catholic patriarch yet) different men at this time : p.

3 of them the Vatican have in Antioch (unified Church? there used to be a 4th, a Latin).

Besides Ignatius IV, there is Ignatius Zakka Iwas, the Syriac Patriarch, who does NOT, btw, have a throne in Antioch. And yes, I have met him too. It is an open secret that on their repose, that they would like their synods to forego election of a successor and let the surviving patriach remain the only Orthodox patriarch of Antioch. Like SS Ignatius and Photius.

 

[Formosus]

3 of them the Vatican have there? What a way to diminish the importance of historical churches like the Maronites. I don’t think Rome has anything to do with them being in Antioch or claiming that See.

 

[Peter_J]

3 being Melkite, Maronite, and … who’s the third one?

 

[Formosus]

The Syriac Catholic see, which is currently vacant due to the recent retirement of their Patriarch.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

3 of them the Vatican have there? What a way to diminish the importance of historical churches like the Maronites. I don’t think Rome has anything to do with them being in Antioch or claiming that See.

The Vatican set up the Latin patriarchate of Antioch.
The Vatican gave the Maronite patriarch the title “Patriarch of Antioch.”
Since the Melkites submitted in 1724, and the Syriacs, after a couple of false starts, in 1782 (the patriarch Michael Jarweh hiding out in Lebanon, i.e. amongst the Maronites, after submitting) similar, but different, circumstances led to a multiplication of hierarchies over the same area, which no coordination inbetween. Again, a departure from what we see in the Ancient Church. The Eastern and Oriental counterparts have already begun the process of amalgamating the two, when eventual reunion is consumated.