Why is there an Eastern Orthodox Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theCardinalbird

Guest
Why is there an Eastern Orthodox Church? Why do they Hate the Roman Catholic Church? Which one is older?

Edit: Do they have a valid Apostolic Succession?
 
Last edited:
Apparently it’s very complicated historically…

Which one is older? Catholics would say the Catholic Church. Orthodox would say the Orthodox Church.

I don’t think they hate the Catholic Church…just uneasy about certain doctrines and elements of the faith.
 
Because of the great schism of 1054.

They don’t hate the Catholic Church, although officially they do teach we are schismatic heretics with invalid sacraments.
 
Spyridon said:
They don’t hate the Catholic Church, although officially they do teach we are schismatic heretics with invalid sacraments.
Click to expand...
And why do they think we are heretics and schismatics with invalid sacraments?
 
Last edited:
It’s not a matter of age. It’s more like if your diocese and the diocese next door both suddenly declared the other to not be in the same communion as them. Maybe each declares the other to be excommunicated (though that’s lifted now). Both have valid Bishops. Both trace their authority, traditions, and successions back to the apostles. Now multiply this on a much larger scale and across different cultures. It’s just a lack of union between bishops.
 
Last edited:
I see…they don’t even recognize our Sacraments…is that ALL the Orthodox Churches or most/few of them?
 
There is a wide spectrum of attitudes in the Orthodox Churches regarding the Catholic Church… I don’t think they all think that way.
 
Last edited:
So if they have a valid succession then are they (I mean no disrespect and dare to say) equal to the Roman Catholic Church 😓?
 
Last edited:
They are not in communion with the Apostolic See. This schism is a break in unity in the Church. There is a lack in the fullness and catholicity that the Catholic Church provides, though it is very slight.
 
Last edited:
What you have to understand about the Eastern Orthodox (EO) is they have no Magisterium, they have no central authority.

There is no equivalent to Rome in the EO to which individual Patriarchates can look to for guidance. If there are theological or jurisdictional disputes, they often go unresolved.

I was a Russian Orthodox Catechumen for almost a year and reverted back to the Roman Catholic Church a week before being received via Baptism and Chrismation. The Russians can’t even agree on how to receive a Catholic into the church - some insist on both re baptizing Chrismating. Some say a simple Chrismation and confession of faith is good. Yet others say a simple confession of faith is all that’s needed.

Some EO teach that Roman Catholics are both schismatic and heretical.

Some teach the RCC is schismatic but not heretical.

Some teach that the RCC has valid Sacraments.

Some teach the RCC has invalid Sacraments.

Yet others teach that they don’t know whether RCC Sacraments are valid or not.

Problems like this are numerous in EO, and as I said, there is no central authority to appeal to so these issues cannot be clarified.

They have the same Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition as us, they have the Deposit of Faith.

But they have no Infallible Magisterium to disseminate that Deposit of Faith for them - they have no Vatican, no Pope. They have no Holy See, no Roman Curia, no College of Cardinals.

This was a major reason why I reverted to RCC - within Orthodoxy, confusion and ambiguity reign supreme. You think Pope Francis and AL is ambiguous and bad? You have no idea. The EO are literally all over the place on multitudes of issues regarding faith and morals - there is constant in-fighting and internal schism.

They can’t even agree on purgatory - some believe in a bizarre neo-Gnostic system of “aerial tollhouses”, some believe in a sort of Purgatory, some prefer not to specify at all.

Problems like this could be listed ad infinitum.
 
Last edited:
Ah, that’s a shame…

From what I recall, the EO seem to have problems with “Latinization”. Is papal supremacy/infallibility still the major issue?
 
Yes.

Papal infallibility is THE issue. Every other issue hinges on the Papacy.

The filioque, purgatory, Immaculate Conception, unleavened hosts, statues, ad infinitum - all these issues are rooted in Papal authority. They all either melt away and become non issues if you accept the Papacy, or remain indomitable if you reject the Papacy.

And yes, many EO have a seeming “allergy” to anything Roman/Latin. Not only that, but they also have a sort of Byzantine idolatry - within the EO, the only Rite which is accepted and widespread is the Byzantine Rite. Roman, Alexandrian, West and East Syrian and Armenian Rites are all viewed with intense suspicion. It’s as if anything that can’t be traced back to the Byzantine Empire is evil to some EO - it’s a severe problem.

And that’s to say nothing of the extreme Phyletism which plagues the EO churches.

The EO will never resolve these problems so long as they are in schism from the Holy See and the Catholic Church.

Pray hard for the 325,000,000 Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christians in this world. And pray for long life and blessing upon His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople - he’s a wonderful holy man and a great friend of the Catholic Church - he yearns for full communion with all his heart.
 
Last edited:
NuclearReceptor said:
Apparently it’s very complicated historically…

Which one is older? Catholics would say the Catholic Church. Orthodox would say the Orthodox Church.
Click to expand...
Huh? No we wouldn’t!

Both have their beginning in Christ’s institution of His Church. One is not older than the other.
 
I have been looking at the eastern orthodox church after I inserted myself into a discussion on a forum. I didn’t know much about them, and so it really confused me. I’ve been in circles examining historical arguments from both sides. None of it is working. I am having a hard time knowing what to believe. The history isn’t giving me a satisfactory view. I’m not sure. For every argument we come up with they seem to have a counter argument. I keep flip flopping on what I am inclined to think, but there seems to be two possibilities:
  1. The catholic church made a big mistake, but it is popular and widespread because it sounds convenient
  2. The catholic chuch is right, but we have done a very poor job of educating ourselves on history in order to refute the claims of the eastern orthodox, and we seriously need to step it up instead of being careless and overconfident in our apologetics.
They currently argue that the bishop of rome had primacy, but that catholics are making more of it and exagerating what that primacy was.
Is there anything else that convinced you to come back to the catholic church, or do you have any advice on what I can do to discern? Having to leave my church and move somewhere else would be extremely incovenient and stressfull too, and knowing that complicates things as well. Because I don’t know if I can trust my own judgement from that bias. It’s incredibly stressfull being stuck in the middle. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
Some teach that the RCC has valid Sacraments.
Click to expand...
Could you please let me know what Orthodox Bishop teaches this. A link would be much appreciated.

I also disagree with much of what you say about the Church being all over the place on multitudes of issues regarding faith and morals, and there being constant in-fighting and internal schism.

Also if anyone said they believe in some sort of purgatory, they were just using the term to show that similarly to purgatory, we believe that before the Great Judgment, prayers offered and alms given in behalf of the dead do benefit them. There are similarities, but there are also great differences.
 
Here is a CliffNotes version of the history of the split that I posted on another thread:

Great Schism - 1054
The Normans have taken over Sicily. While there, they suppress the Greek Rite Churches and tell them they must follow the Latin Rite. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, counters by suppressing all of the Latin Rite Churches within Constantinople. He writes a letter to Pope Leo III telling him what he’s done and also telling him that the Latin Rite use of unleavened bread is wrong. Leo is not a great Greek scholar so he gives the message to Cardinal Humbert for a reply. Humbert does and tells Cerularius that a patriarch does not tell the pope what to do. He gets no response to the letter, so Leo sends him to Constantinople. The patriarch and the emperor lets Humbert cool his heels for a while and don’t see him. In the meantime, Humbert is in a letter writing contest with some Greek monks about the use of the leaven versus unleavened bread. (Leo can do nothing during this period because he is tied up, literally, with the Normans, who have defeated him in battle.) Finally, his patience worn out, in July 1054, Humbert, without authority because Leo has died the previous April, places a bull of excommunication on the main altar of the Hagia Sophia. The patriarch responds with a bull excommunicating Leo, Humbert and those who had gone to Constantinople with him. This split lasts to the present day even though the excommunications were mutually lifted by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965.
This split is a great embarrassment on the Church and is in direct contradiction of Jesus’ prayer to His Father “to make them all one.” However, this split had a long background. Diocletian had split the Empire in two, East and West, so there was a view of “us versus them”. There were the difficulties in understanding the Greek and Latin languages that had caused problems in the past, there were haughty attitudes on both sides (including the Patriarchs of Constantinople trying to usurp the power from Rome), the adding of the “Filioque” to the Creed, the Donation of Pepin to the pope of lands that had formerly belonged to the Byzantines, and the Crowning of Charlemagne as emperor also provided tension between the two sides. Even though negotiations have occurred several times over the centuries, there is still no reconciliation.

I hope that this helps somewhat!

Blessings
 
If Pope Leo had died by then, did the excommunication have any power behind it?
 
Dear Nuclear

The excommunication did not any authority because as you pointed out Leo had died. However, the deed had been done and everyone had dug in their heels. This was kind of like the straw that broke the camel’s back. The animosity had been going on for a while.

Blessings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top