Why do Orthodox hate Catholics so much?

[Hesychios]

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.

Apparently so, at the same council they approved married bishops and established an independent Catholicate making it completely autocephalous from the Catholic church within the Roman empire.

The idea did not spread from them to the rest of the Christian East.

I think that for them, the filioque faded away, as eventually so did the married episcopacy. That change may have been the result of the large number of Greek and Syrian sympathizers of Nestorius who found their way to Parthia for safety, and “incardinated” themselves into that church. Hard to tell at this late stage.

 

[ralphinal]

Apparently so, at the same council they approved married bishops and established an independent Catholicate making it completely autocephalous from the Catholic church within the Roman empire.

The idea did not spread from them to the rest of the Christian East.

I think that for them, the filioque faded away, as eventually so did the married episcopacy. That change may have been the result of the large number of Greek and Syrian sympathizers of Nestorius who found their way to Parthia for safety, and “incardinated” themselves into that church. Hard to tell at this late stage.

Possible. There is not even proof that I have seen that they arrived at it by the same way the west did.

I was not posting that to endorse it, mearly to point out that it is not a truly “Western Innovation”

 

[Milliardo]

Milliardo,

Why does this quotation have any weight?

It has great weight because, in principle, Rome has agreed to a definition and scope of the authority of the bishop of Rome–the problem is that it totally changes the long-held belief of the Catholic Church regarding the Papacy.

 

[Peter_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.

I’ve heard of some Byzantine Catholic parishes doing that, and I completely support it; but I wouldn’t assume from that that they don’t believe the filioque.

-Peter.

P.S. Of course, many other EC parishes have no need to cross out the filioque, since they never inserted it in the first place.

 

[johnnykins]

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.

Heresy is the rejection of dogma. Mere non-acceptance - i.e, treating it as a theologouma, is not heresy. For purposes of reunion, the question would be must orthodoxy affirmatively accept the filioque as dogma, or simply not reject it? I suspect the answer is that any church wishing to rejoin Catholicism must accept all dogma, though the members would not, provided they did not reject the dogmas.

I point out that all Eastern Catholic Churches accept the filioque as theologically right as understood in the West, though they do not include it in the Creed.

 

[johnnykins]

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.

It’s pretty easy to find the actual statement on the web:
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925815/posts
In part it says:
41. Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.(emphasis added)

As you can see, Rome has rejected nothing of Vi or VII. The Statement notes disagreement. Often it’s really helpful to read the actual documents.

 

[LutheranDK]

If you do indeed go with questions about the Orthodox the Orthodox answers sometimes differ than the Catholic answers.
This is not because anyone has any malice towards Catholics.
It is simply because the Orthodox answers are indeed not the same answers as the Catholic answers.
For some reason this tends to upset some people in a very big way. They expect the answer to fit them or please them. When they receive answers that don’t agree with their position then they automatically slander the person that gave them that answer.

I know your plight, brother…I know your plight…

 

[Milliardo]

It’s pretty easy to find the actual statement on the web:
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925815/posts
In part it says:
41. Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.(emphasis added)

As you can see, Rome has rejected nothing of Vi or VII. The Statement notes disagreement. Often it’s really helpful to read the actual documents.

Yes, that is helpful. I think the questions that need to be resolved are stated thus,

It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of *koinônia *and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.

Although it seems Rome is open to the idea of revising itself, based on the question thus asked, How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium?–an important question, and somewhat of an implicit admission that it was exercised differently back then. A reading of the whole document (I scanned portions of it) indicate though that the commission seems more amenable towards Counciliarity, a view expressed by the Orthodox Church. It would seem this is where the quote I stated got the idea from, in that it seems in principle that the commission does agree that on the matter of authority, it is not universal as believed.

Just an addition/revision to what I stated–studying paragraph 41 again, it seems in principle the commission does agree to the bishop of Rome as primus inter pares, but not to its exercise of universal authority. The wording is quite vague, but notable : They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium. I emphasized that since it is notable in itself, and in light of what it was said regarding Counciliarity as I’ve stated above, it seems again in principle that the commission does agree to a more limited scope of the authority of the bishop of Rome.

 

[johnnykins]

I know your plight, brother…I know your plight…

Certainly the things you cite above do happen. Far more often, especially as seen in so many postings in Orthodox fora, are consistent assignations of duplicity, insincerity and scheming in all action from Rome or, sometimes, local Catholic Churches. While such comments perhaps do not constitute “hate” toward Catholics, it is fair to say that the oft expressed anti-Catholicism is undeniable in a large number of Orthodox postings and fora. In short, the protestation of those here that there is no hatred for Catholics is apt, though in the same manner that Chick publications is not anti-Catholic but anti-Catholicism.

 

[johnnykins]

Yes, that is helpful. I think the questions that need to be resolved are stated thus,

It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of *koinônia *and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.

Although it seems Rome is open to the idea of revising itself, based on the question thus asked, How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium?–an important question, and somewhat of an implicit admission that it was exercised differently back then. A reading of the whole document (I scanned portions of it) indicate though that the commission seems more amenable towards Counciliarity, a view expressed by the Orthodox Church. It would seem this is where the quote I stated got the idea from, in that it seems in principle that the commission does agree that on the matter of authority, it is not universal as believed.

Just an addition/revision to what I stated–studying paragraph 41 again, it seems in principle the commission does agree to the bishop of Rome as primus inter pares, but not to its exercise of universal authority. The wording is quite vague, but notable : They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium. I emphasized that since it is notable in itself, and in light of what it was said regarding Counciliarity as I’ve stated above, it seems again in principle that the commission does agree to a more limited scope of the authority of the bishop of Rome.

I hardly see this as a diversion from, or rejection of, either VI or VII. It’s a statement on theological/historical import to resolve a theological/polity impasse. I note that promotion of subsidiarity by Catholicism argues against too ultramontanist a reading or VI. I also note the Relatio of Bishop Gasser does as well. (Meaning maybe that VI was NOT as ultramontanist as usually presented) In short - there is still room both historically and theologically to consider the full meaning of Vi and VII on the issue within the context of reunion.

 

[Milliardo]

I hardly see this as a diversion from, or rejection of, either VI or VII.

No, it is not a rejection, at least not explicitly, though it does question or rather seeks clarification of the stance of both Councils in light of what the commission has talked about so far. It shows though implicitly that the idea of Counciliarity is favoured more by the commission, something which would be more favourable to the Orthodox Church, as this is already understood by Orthodoxy very well.

 

[johnnykins]

No, it is not a rejection, at least not explicitly, though it does question or rather seeks clarification of the stance of both Councils in light of what the commission has talked about so far. It shows though implicitly that the idea of Counciliarity is favoured more by the commission, something which would be more favourable to the Orthodox Church, as this is already understood by Orthodoxy very well.

OK. Walking through this mine field will require some care so as not to hack off one side or the other while reconciling the praxis and theological differences.
Gasser was a well known ultramontanist, yet his Relatio was almost (that’s exaggerated I know) Gallican. Presumably to solidify the vote and limit schism. Patriarch Gregory’s famous addendum to his signature at VI also intrudes in ultramontanist interpretations.
While VII reasserts VI on primacy, it, too, talks at length about the Bishop’s role - somewhat a plug for conciliarity
If subsidiarity is to apply on the Church, clearly the intrusion of the Papacy into local matters should be limited to only those situations where the local Church cannot adequately handle things. Another push against ultramontantism.

In short, what is often bandied about concerning the Pope’s authority is often too extreme - or at least too extreme in its actual exercise. If that’s a movement toward the Orthodox praxis - Good.

 

[Milliardo]

OK. Walking through this mine field will require some care so as not to hack off one side or the other while reconciling the praxis and theological differences.
Gasser was a well known ultramontanist, yet his Relatio was almost (that’s exaggerated I know) Gallican. Presumably to solidify the vote and limit schism. Patriarch Gregory’s famous addendum to his signature at VI also intrudes in ultramontanist interpretations.
While VII reasserts VI on primacy, it, too, talks at length about the Bishop’s role - somewhat a plug for conciliarity
If subsidiarity is to apply on the Church, clearly the intrusion of the Papacy into local matters should be limited to only those situations where the local Church cannot adequately handle things. Another push against ultramontantism.

In short, what is often bandied about concerning the Pope’s authority is often too extreme - or at least too extreme in its actual exercise. If that’s a movement toward the Orthodox praxis - Good.

Yes, at least we agree on something then. It is good that the direction of the Catholic Church seems to be towards Orthodox praxis, which would totally balance out the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Heresy is the rejection of dogma. Mere non-acceptance - i.e, treating it as a theologouma, is not heresy. For purposes of reunion, the question would be must orthodoxy affirmatively accept the filioque as dogma, or simply not reject it? I suspect the answer is that any church wishing to rejoin Catholicism must accept all dogma, though the members would not, provided they did not reject the dogmas.

Perhaps, although even if the “don’t have to accept these dogmas as long as you don’t reject them” approach is taken, the fact remains that the Orthodox not only don’t accept UOJ and the filioque, they reject them as false. (Sorry that sentence is so convoluted )

In any case, I think the more typical understanding of dogma is that it must be accepted.

 

[Peter_J]

BTW, the title of this thread is “Why do Orthodox hate Catholics so much?” but you could also ask the reverse “Why do Catholics hate Orthodox so little?”

 

[Frank_J]

Hi ,

Peter stated his views and I’m going to change his remarks to state mine.

“Why do Orthodox hate Catholics so much?” but you could also ask the reverse "Why do Catholics hate and can’t stand Orthodox Christians.

I’ve RC from my old parish that no long talk to me because of my converting. So let’s talk about who hates who?? If you ask me it’s the RC’s who hate Orthodox Christians…

I would also like to add that the RC see themselves’ like the master race of so called Christians.

It’s the RC that say we are all going to hell in a hand basket and they are the only ones going to heaven.

Frank J

 

[ralphinal]

Hi ,

Peter stated his views and I’m going to change his remarks to state mine.

“Why do Orthodox hate Catholics so much?” but you could also ask the reverse "Why do Catholics hate and can’t stand Orthodox Christians.

I’ve RC from my old parish that no long talk to me because of my converting. So let’s talk about who hates who?? If you ask me it’s the RC’s who hate Orthodox Christians…

I would also like to add that the RC see themselves’ like the master race of so called Christians.

It’s the RC that say we are all going to hell in a hand basket and they are the only ones going to heaven.

Frank J

I am sorry if any Roman Catholics have told you that only they are going to heven. IT was both incorrect and without charity.

For what it is worth, I have enver met a RC in Alabama who hates any Orthodox. Then again, there are not mnay of either one here.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Frank,

I think first I should say that I wasn’t 100% serious when I said “Why do Catholics hate Orthodox so little?”

Hi ,

Peter stated his views and I’m going to change his remarks to state mine.

“Why do Orthodox hate Catholics so much?” but you could also ask the reverse "Why do Catholics hate and can’t stand Orthodox Christians.

I’ve RC from my old parish that no long talk to me because of my converting. So let’s talk about who hates who?? If you ask me it’s the RC’s who hate Orthodox Christians…

I would also like to add that the RC see themselves’ like the master race of so called Christians.

It’s the RC that say we are all going to hell in a hand basket and they are the only ones going to heaven.

Frank J

I somewhat agree with you. I think many Christians, including some Catholics, are guilty of a sort of “ecumenical triumphalism” – I mean the We’re-so-ecumenical-and-accommodating-towards-other-Christians, and-they’re-so-mean-and-stubborn-towards-us kind of attitude. (I know I’ve experienced this from Anglicans and mainline Protestants.)

Regarding the title of this thread “Why do Orthodox hate Catholics so much?”, I think that it is a pretty presumptious title at least on the surface, but I don’t know mschrank well enough to say what she meant by it.

God bless,
Peter.

 

[Frank_J]

Hi ralphinal and Peter J,

I just wanted to say that GOD loves both of us and not just one or the other. I not blaming you for what others say. I’m saying as a hole we must show to the non-Christians we are brethren.

Anger you will sometimes see on both sides from the very few. I not say that all are like that at all.

Have a great day.

Frank J

 

[Nicholas82]

“Why do Orthodox hate Catholics so much?”

My whole family is Roman Catholic and I love them all quite a lot!