Why do Orthodox hate Catholics so much?

[Peter_J]

So the Latin Catholic claims for the Supreme Pontiff since 1870AD most certainly follow most of the other issues, not precede them. But they do exacerbate the entire situation between us to such an extent that it may be nearly impossible to repair the damage. That’s why so much discussion revolves around them, even though they are a rather late problem.

Michael

From our point of view, certain beliefs which in the first millennium were merely valid theologemenon are now defined dogma. For example, Pope Leo I had very strong views on the authority of the papacy; but he didn’t deem it wise (at that time) to require the Eastern churches to agree with those views – but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have.

 

[mark_a]

It looks for all the world like the Latin Catholic church made a series of theological blunders over the course of time

All the world?

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Peter,

From our point of view, certain beliefs which in the first millennium were merely valid theologemenon are now defined dogma. For example, Pope Leo I had very strong views on the authority of the papacy; but he didn’t deem it wise (at that time) to require the Eastern churches to agree with those views

How do we know this? Are there any extant writings from him or his contemporaries explaining that he thought he could pronounce something dogma upon his own authority, and yet chose not to do so because it was unwise?

– but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have.

That is, of course, where you and I differ.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[Alethiaphile]

From our point of view, certain beliefs which in the first millennium were merely valid theologemenon are now defined dogma. For example, Pope Leo I had very strong views on the authority of the papacy; but he didn’t deem it wise (at that time) to require the Eastern churches to agree with those views – but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have.

There you have a major distinction between Orthodox and Catholic. To the Orthodox, the idea of something being central to the Faith now, that wasn’t so in the first millenium is very problematic. Joe

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter, How do we know this? Are there any extant writings from him or his contemporaries explaining that he thought he could pronounce something dogma upon his own authority, and yet chose not to do so because it was unwise?

That’s a good question. I shall try to brush up a little on Leo I, and hopefully find an answer.

I would like to point out, however, that the same question can be turned around: As I see it, the eastern patriarchs of Leo’s time didn’t agree with his views on the papacy, just like the eastern (Orthodox) patriarchs of today. But unlike the Orthodox of today, the eastern patriarchs of Leo’s day didn’t condemn his ideas. So the question is, did those patriarchs believe that they could condemn Leo’s ideas?

 

[Hesychios]

That’s a good question. I shall try to brush up a little on Leo I, and hopefully find an answer.

I would like to point out, however, that the same question can be turned around: As I see it, the eastern patriarchs of Leo’s time didn’t agree with his views on the papacy, just like the eastern (Orthodox) patriarchs of today. But unlike the Orthodox of today, the eastern patriarchs of Leo’s day didn’t condemn his ideas. So the question is, did those patriarchs believe that they could condemn Leo’s ideas?

Good question.

Perhaps they weren’t reading him, or taking him seriously.

It wasn’t the internet age, or even the telegraph age. Leo could have been perceived as just making noises in his own backyard, like the Chinese bellowing about Taiwan. Sometimes it’s just not politick to start a firestorm over claims he can’t enforce anyway.

So honestly I can’t answer your question, only speculate. That’s all anyone can do. It’s like trying to prove a negative.

We know what was claimed, and we know the historical reality, they do not match. I don’t know why.

Michael

 

[Peter_J]

The way I see it, the [Roman] Catholic Church and the [Eastern] Orthodox Church are like mirror images of each other.

In particular, when Catholics speak of “universal papal jurisdiction”, that’s really not a new idea because it was believed in the West in the first millennium (Leo I, for example). The difference is that now we call it a dogma.

Similarly, the Orthodox aren’t innovating when they say they reject “universal papal jurisdiction”, because it was rejected in the East in the first millennium. The difference is that now they call it a heresy.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. The same can be said of the “filioque” issue:

When Catholics speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from the Father and the Son, that’s really not a new idea because it was believed in the West in the first millennium. And when the Orthodox speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from the Father alone, that’s really not a new idea because it was believed in the East in the first millennium

The difference is that now each side insists on their position as a condition of full communion.

 

[Hesychios]

The way I see it, the [Roman] Catholic Church and the [Eastern] Orthodox Church are like mirror images of each other.

In particular, when Catholics speak of “universal papal jurisdiction”, that’s really not a new idea because it was believed in the West in the first millennium (Leo I, for example). The difference is that now we call it a dogma.

Similarly, the Orthodox aren’t innovating when they say they reject “universal papal jurisdiction”, because it was rejected in the East in the first millennium. The difference is that now they call it a heresy.

I don’t have a problem with the substance of your post, it is essentially correct as far as you go with it. Except that the Papal Universal Jurisdiction was not believed by everyone for all time, just some people for some time, and it was not addressed by any Council in the first millennium so we have no formal recognition of the claim even as a proposal to the church at large.

I am pretty sure that any claims individuals may have made for universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome were viewed as opinion, and thus easily disputed or ignored or agreed with as the case may be by anyone in prior ages.

Theological opinion does not a heresy make.

The east did not identify the opinion as a heresy until it was mandated as a binding dogma. Dogmatizing it was the problem.

Let us remember that this is not a dogma that saves. Not knowing it does not impede one and believing it does not help one.

Putting on Christ saves. Living the Christian life saves. Sacraments save.

A dogma like this can only damn people, one either believes it now, or one is anathema, cut off. It culls the herd, so to speak, and it makes some people hypocrites for assenting to ideas they cannot believe. That is a really abusive thing when one thinks of it.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

P.S. The same can be said of the “filioque” issue:

When Catholics speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from the Father and the Son, that’s really not a new idea because it was believed in the West in the first millennium. And when the Orthodox speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from the Father alone, that’s really not a new idea because it was believed in the East in the first millennium

The difference is that now each side insists on their position as a condition of full communion.

That some people believe something in the first millennium does not automatically make it OK. One thousand years is a long time.

Michael

 

[Peter_J]

That some people believe something in the first millennium does not automatically make it OK. One thousand years is a long time.

Michael

I know some Catholics would say the same, only applying it to the other side – i.e. that the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone is completely heretical, notwithstanding the people who believed so in the first millennium.

But the thing is that, in the first millennium, those who believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and those who believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son remained in full communion with each other.

 

[Hesychios]

I know some Catholics would say the same, only applying it to the other side – i.e. that the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone is completely heretical, notwithstanding the people who believed so in the first millennium.

But the thing is that, in the first millennium, those who believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and those who believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son remained in full communion with each other.

I was going to make that same point. I wrote a much more extensive post and then deleted most of it.

However, it is not necessarily a positive thing that these different opinions were floating around the church. If this is life giving knowledge, well then, it should be correct. If it is uncertain, then everyone should back away respectfully from idle speculation.

Interestingly enough, I do not see most of these first millennium differences as being life giving, in the eternal Christian sense. When one side insists on one position to the utter damnation of the other position, and it really does not ultimately matter, well what are we to make of that?

That is why I have been so attracted to the apophatic way of looking at theology. If it can be said to err, that would be on the side of caution.

For the record I believe that the filioque is incorrect, but I don’t care if some people believe it. It is meaningless to the worms on this world called humans. We can’t understand it or it’s meaning for us no matter how well it is phrased. What I do care about is that some people are demanding it be recognized as true.

This is something that most people cannot get their own heads around “to save their own souls” and yet it somehow must be affirmed as true. Totally ridiculous. The system has taken over and it has a life of it’s own.

Michael

 

[Peter_J]

For the record I believe that the filioque is incorrect, but I don’t care if some people believe it.

As a Catholic, I would like to say the same in reverse (i.e. that it’s okay for Orthodox to not believe the filioque) but unfortunately that’s not at all clear. Some Catholics would say that since the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son has been dogmatically defined (regardless of whether defining it was a good idea or not), the Orthodox just have to “bite the bullet” and accept it.

 

[abucs]

I think there is a lot of sense in Hesychios’ words.
For the sake of unity, something that Christ wished to see in his church, i personally think the Pope/Western church would wish ‘a middle way’ to be found on such an issue.

i suspect the bigger issue, of the extent / existance of Papal Authority is the one keeping East and West apart (at the moment).

As a Catholic (of the west), i of course am bound by what the church decides.

 

[Milliardo]

I am not sure what middle way is being talked about here, but according to a (Catholic) poster in another board, what was agreed in Ravenna was this:

“In October of 2007, a joint commission of Orthodox and Catholic theologians agreed that the Pope has primacy among all bishops of the Church, something which has been universally acknowledged by both churches since the First Council of Constantinople in 381, though disagreements about the extent of his authority still continue. The Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue reached the agreement in a meeting in Ravenna, Italy, where the Pope was said to have a primus inter pares role not complete authority as had been stated before.”

I am not sure if what he quoted was accurate, but if it is, then Catholic understanding about the bishop of Rome completely collapses practically overnight on this one, as both parties agree the Pope is first among equals (primus inter pares) but does not have complete authority. I would assume complete authority to mean over the whole Church, as Catholic teaching holds. This agreed statement, if accurate, completely demolishes Catholic teaching about the Pope’s role over the Church, and gives credence to Orthodox understanding on the role of the bishop of Rome. If that is so, then Rome has the moral obligation to change its stance regarding the Papacy–something that would mean, in effect, reversing dogma proclaimed at Vatican I.

 

[angelusm]

Everything that comes from the West seems to be dangerous for Orthodox, at least in Russia. In the past it was Poland, Napoleon, Germany, NATO. They don’t seem to think wether theological defferences are big or not, they want to keep their identity, that’s why they react so aggressively sometimes.

 

[Peter_J]

“In October of 2007, a joint commission of Orthodox and Catholic theologians agreed that the Pope has primacy among all bishops of the Church, something which has been universally acknowledged by both churches since the First Council of Constantinople in 381, though disagreements about the extent of his authority still continue. The Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue reached the agreement in a meeting in Ravenna, Italy, where the Pope was said to have a primus inter pares role not complete authority as had been stated before.”

Milliardo,

Why does this quotation have any weight? Or if it doesn’t, why even bother quoting it?

 

[Frank_J]

Hi ,

I would like to add that Eastern Catholic’s don’t believe in the filioque either. I attended an Eastern Catholic Church and the filioque had that part crossed out of the Creed. The Eastern Catholic were angry at the Latinization of there Church.

It is only the Western church that believe in a made up filioque.

Just want to drop you this note.

Have a good day.

Frank J

 

[ralphinal]

Hi ,

I would like to add that Eastern Catholic’s don’t believe in the filioque either. I attended and Eastern Catholic Church and the Creed had that part crossed out.

It is only the Western church that believe in a made up filioque.

Just want to drop you this note.

Have a good day.

Frank J

The first recorded use of the filioque was in a Persan Catholic Church, not Latin, over a thousand years ago. Just thought I would point that out.

 

[Frank_J]

Hi,

I think RC is not the rock Catholic say it is.

It changed the Latin Tridentine Mass for no reason and put a Novus Ordo to make Protestant happy.

Didn’t draw then did it???

It hurt a lot of RC that left the Church so I’m right it isn’t the rock of peter.

have a good day.

Frank J