Will Orthodox and Catholics Reconcile?

[JDZwiers19]

So you’re saying you just made up a strawman then. Why?

Who’s making a strawman?

During the crusades the pope was your side. The crusaders repeatedly deviated from the popes objectives. I have never heard this from an Orthodox. Why?

It was brought up on this thread that the crusaders were overthrowing orthodox bishops. I merely used it as an opportunity to point out how you guys never point to the fact that these were against the popes orders who wished to see the complete restoration of the eastern empire. I’m sorry if anyone here took it as an accusation against themselves.

 

[josie_L]

And this has what effect on Canon 8 of Nicea?

It means that not all Orthodox share the same position on the issue of remarriage, and that clearly canon 8 is being misinterpreted.

 

[Hesychios]

Two reasons: First the eastern church was the toy of the emperor who had a strangle hold of the eastern half of the empire. The rise of the Patriarch Constantinople was purely political and was a slap in the face to apostolic tradition. Second reason is that it was later oppressed by Muslim rulers who were notorious for meddling in the politics of the eastern church. The last thing they wanted was the Eastern bishops to have strong ties with the west.

It is very interesting to read this.

When someone points out that the Popes were once appointed by the emperors, or that they were under the influence of the Lombard kings, or that they were controlled by the Franks suddenly the cry of “foul” rises up.

It’s particularly funny that BOTH the Christian emperors and the Muslims are cited as the reasons for schism. It betrays a real lack of understanding in how the Orthodox church actually operates. Some of the church’s greatest saints come from that environment, like Saint John of Damascus, a champion of Orthodoxy and a Doctor of your church.

One should notice that this is not just a modern misunderstanding, western Catholics tried to “play the game” more than once by getting at the church through the emperors. Well, why not? All’s fair in love and war as they say.

If the current emperor can’t “deliver the goods” put one in to your liking! But if the Orthodox will not follow a bishop into heresy you can be sure they won’t follow an emperor into heresy.

If you want to understand the reasons for our separation you had best approach the subject with a bit more respect for the Orthodox ability to stand up for what they believe. Anything less is just condescension and you will get no mileage with us.

 

[JDZwiers19]

I’m still confused as to why you need to bring this up if it is so wrong. No one said it.

I’m tempted to make an argument off this, but that would be off topic.

I agree I sounded awfully accusational and again I apologize. Truly from the bottom of my heart.

 

[JDZwiers19]

If you want to understand the reasons for our separation you had best approach the subject with a bit more respect for the Orthodox ability to stand up for what they believe. Anything less is just condescension and you will get no mileage with us.

I know popes were appointed by emperors. However there was a very obvious resistance to this and a power struggle that was not present in the eastern church at that time. I would argue that the power struggle between pope and emperor was one of the leading causes of the schism. The patriarch of Constantinople only had pre-eminence because of the emperor. Why would he resist him?

 

[JDZwiers19]

If the current emperor can’t “deliver the goods” put one in to your liking! But if the Orthodox will not follow a bishop into heresy you can be sure they won’t follow an emperor into heresy.

Most of the eastern church followed the emperor into heresy several times. The western church too for that matter. Some bishops in the east always remained true but the only seat in the church that had any level consistency was Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

It is a lie when Orthodox accuse the papacy of orchestrating the crimes committed by the crusaders against the Byzantines.

I never even implied that.

My point was that the schism was not even noticeable in the east. The Pope did nothing and he wasn’t missed.

It was not until the crusades that people actually realized we had become two different churches. That is because they were faced for the first time with foreigners taking over their cities and driving out their bishops, commandeering their altars. It was a momentous shock.

But western Christians were actually used to the process, because it was common for bishops to be ousted when borders shifted in the west. It was the origin of the phenomenon of “wandering bishops” whom we call vagantes today. they were court hangers-on, always looking for a new posting. The difference in the east was that the Greek bishops were ousted and replaced by Latins, with a completely different liturgy and set of rites. The Greek bishops went into the bush and continued serving as best they could in danger of arrest.

I think the Popes were not personally responsible, at least at first. They were more often than not embarrassed by their inability to control the crusades they had launched or encouraged. In this they tended to be naive.

But later, when the damage was done, they consoled themselves by recognizing the new Sees they had gained and hoped to keep them.

 

[JDZwiers19]

I never even implied that.

My point was that the schism was not even noticeable in the east. The Pope did nothing and he wasn’t missed.

It was not until the crusades that people actually realized we had become two different churches. That is because they were faced for the first time with foreigners taking over their cities and driving out their bishops, commandeering their altars. It was a momentous shock.

But western Christians were actually used to the process, because it was common for bishops to be ousted when borders shifted in the west. It was the origin of the phenomenon of “wandering bishops” whom we call vagantes today. they were court hangers-on, always looking for a new posting. The difference in the east was that the Greek bishops were ousted and replaced by Latins, with a completely different liturgy and set of rites. The Greek bishops went into the bush and continued serving as best they could in danger of arrest.

I think the Popes were not personally responsible, at least at first. They were more often than not embarrassed by their inability to control the crusades they had launched or encouraged. In this they tended to be naive.

But later, when the damage was done, they consoled themselves by recognizing the new Sees they had gained and hoped to keep them.

And when the Byzantines managed to pull off a military victory (a rare thing, but it did happen) they did the same thing. I’m not saying there wasn’t friction or that the pope didn’t have a agenda of eventually winning the hearts of the Greeks. However if the first crusades had gone according to plan all the major Sees of the eastern church would have returned to byzantine control and retained their liturgical and theological traditions.

I agree the popes were a little naive when they thought he could control the crusades. I still they deserve an A for effort.

 

[JDZwiers19]

I never even implied that.

It was not until the crusades that people actually realized we had become two different churches. That is because they were faced for the first time with foreigners taking over their cities and driving out their bishops, commandeering their altars. It was a momentous shock.
QUOTE]

Actually in 1204, without hardly a fight, the people of Constantinople overthrew the ruler of city and welcomed the crusaders with open arms with the full intention of adopting the Latin traditions. They even went out into the streets to greet their new king. The shock came when the crusaders ravaged, sacked and looted the whole city instead of accepting their gracious surrender. Needless to say they were a little suspicious of Latins after that.

 

[JDZwiers19]

I never even implied that.

I am sorry. I was very rude(unintentionally).

 

[josie_L]

It is very interesting to read this.

When someone points out that the Popes were once appointed by the emperors, or that they were under the influence of the Lombard kings, or that they were controlled by the Franks suddenly the cry of “foul” rises up.

It’s particularly funny that BOTH the Christian emperors and the Muslims are cited as the reasons for schism. It betrays a real lack of understanding in how the Orthodox church actually operates. Some of the church’s greatest saints come from that environment, like Saint John of Damascus, a champion of Orthodoxy and a Doctor of your church.

One should notice that this is not just a modern misunderstanding, western Catholics tried to “play the game” more than once by getting at the church through the emperors. Well, why not? All’s fair in love and war as they say.

If the current emperor can’t “deliver the goods” put one in to your liking! But if the Orthodox will not follow a bishop into heresy you can be sure they won’t follow an emperor into heresy.

If you want to understand the reasons for our separation you had best approach the subject with a bit more respect for the Orthodox ability to stand up for what they believe. Anything less is just condescension and you will get no mileage with us.

But the East (for the most part) did follow emperors into heresy, this is attested to by history, moreover, the reasons for this were due to a collusion of State and Church:

The Making of Europe, Christopher Dawson, NY: Meridian Books, 1956 (orig. 1932), pp. 109-110, 161, 163:

The true founder of the state church of the Eastern Empire was Constantius II, who was typically Byzantine alike in his passionate interest in theological controversy and in his belief in his imperial prerogative as the defender of the faith and the supreme arbitrator in ecclesiastical disputes . . . . This system met with vehement opposition from two quarters: from Athanasius, the great bishop of Alexandria, and from the West, where the doctrine of the independence of the Church was uncompromisingly maintained, above all by St. Hilary and Hosius, the famous bishop of Cordova.

Hence there arose the long schism between the West and the state church of the Eastern Empire, which was not terminated until the faith of Nicaea was re-established by an Emperor from the West . . . .

The primacy of the new Patriarchate [Constantinople] was explicitly based on its connection with the imperial government, as against the principle of apostolic tradition, on which the three great Sees of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria founded their authority. And its subsequent evolution was conditioned by the same principles. It developed as the centre of the state church and the instrument of imperial ecclesiastical policy. While Rome and Alexandria each possessed a distinct and continuous theological tradition, the teaching of Constantinople fluctuated with the vicissitudes of imperial politics. Its tradition was in fact diplomatic rather than theological, since in every dogmatic crisis the primary interest of the government was to preserve the religious unity of the Empire, and the Patriarchate became the instrument of its compromises . . . And as the state church had been semi-Arian in the days of Constantus and Eusebius, so it was semi-Monophysite with Zeno and Acacius, and Monothelite with Heraclius and Sergius . . .

These schisms themselves contributed to preserve the prestige of Rome in the East, since the defenders of orthodoxy from the days of Athanasius to those of Theodore of Studium regarded the papacy as the bulwark of their cause against the attempts of the imperial government to enforce its theological ideals on the Church . . .

The monastic party in the Eastern Church . . . had in the eighth century looked to Rome as their chief support in their struggle for the freedom of the Church against the Caesaropapism of the Iconoclast emperors.

Dr. Dawson was educated at Oxford and was a Professor in the Religion Department at Harvard.

web.archive.org/web/20030401143734/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ42.HTM

 

[Mannyfit75]

This thread is rather interesting. The Catholics here seem to want unity between Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox. While the Eastern Orthodox are reluctant to have the unity.

In terms of human resolution alone. Unity will be impossible. For God however, all things are possible.

The unity of Eastern Orthodox Church (all of the Eastern Patriarchates) and the Catholic Church will become united eventually by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. I trust in God to unit the Church before the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ.

An ecumenical council that include Patriarchs, Cardinals and the Pope will have to make multiple sessions until a resolution has been made. It is not our business to promote disunity. Jesus prayed that “they all will be one.” Do you want to deny Jesus’ prayer for unity? Perhaps, you are against Jesus’ intention.

As far as unity goes. The Eastern Orthodox leaders seems to be leaning in that direction.

cogwriter.com/news/religious-news/bartholomew-i-patriarch-of-constantinople-opposes-those-who-warn-against-catholic-unity/

The unity will be settled by Church Synod. At this point, the only issue that is a major problem is papal primacy. Once this issue is resolve through a Council, the two Churches will be united like it was before the Schism.

Of course like any Council, there will be dissenters who will not like unity with the Catholic Church (probably more opposition from Orthodox side).

Once unity happens, the Eastern Orthodox will maintain their Liturgical Rites and Canon Laws in accordance with their Patriarchs.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Manny,

This thread is rather interesting. The Catholics here seem to want unity between Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox. While the Eastern Orthodox are reluctant to have the unity.

Respectfully, I don’t agree with that assessment at all.

Orthodox want unity in truth, leading to communion.

Catholics seem to want unity of control without having to correct their errors. Two entirely different things.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Catholics seem to want unity of control without having to correct their errors. Two entirely different things.

And that is exactly why the church is in the shape it s today…Fleshly control then and now…The kingdom of God is not of this world…We don’t fight flesh and blood as it’s a spiritual battle…Look what happened after the original apostles died off…They would have been horrified at things like the crusades. schisms ect…They sure got on their cases when they were in the I’m of Peter, I’m of Paul and I’m of Appolos stage.Like I said in the midst of it all the gates of hell never will prevail…The gospel is still going forth and daily the church is being added to till He returns…One day even in the midst of all that going on a spotless bride will arise to meet Him in the clouds…

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6961960:

Orthodox Christians are fallible.

Are calling the Pope Unorthodox? Them’s fighting words.

I didn’t make mention of any pope. I didn’t even mention any anti–pope. And I definitely didn’t mention any of the fighting that went on.

I have been wondering something, do Orthodox see Peter as the Rock in Mathew 16 or do they see his recognition of Christ as the Rock? I have been told the latter but even many prominent protestant scholars recognise Peter as the Rock?

The understanding of that particular verse in Matthew 16 that I developed as an Evangelical was that the “rock” in this context was to be understood as Peter’s confession of faith and, as far as I know, I can retain that understanding as an Orthodox Christian. All Christians can perhaps agree that the true Rock is Christ Himself (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:4)

Of course protestants can reject Tradition and even refuse to believe that Peter was in Rome so it makes sense that protestants would be more likely to admit Peter is the rock. Any thoughts from my Orthodox friends?

Catholics can reject tradition, too, though, right? For example, they don’t fast on Wednesdays, do they?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[josephdaniel29]

Two reasons: First the eastern church was the toy of the emperor who had a strangle hold of the eastern half of the empire. The rise of the Patriarch Constantinople was purely political and was a slap in the face to apostolic tradition. Second reason is that it was later oppressed by Muslim rulers who were notorious for meddling in the politics of the eastern church. The last thing they wanted was the Eastern bishops to have strong ties with the west.

How does that explain the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Churches?

 

[Carlan]

I can sympathize with you.

My entire family is Catholic (at least, those who are still religious) and I love them. I am not interested in perpetuating schism. This becomes very personal.

Not only that, but most of the members of my parish (OCA) have Catholic relatives and in-laws too. There is no personal hostility, but they are Orthodox for very specific reasons, they just don’t speak in terms of “Roman Catholics are heretics”. We all decry the schism, but we are standing on one side of it for a reason. I expect to wait out reconciliation as an Orthodox, and if need be go to my maker as an Orthodox.

Personally, I have grave doubts about Roman rite Catholicism on many levels (not unresolvable perhaps, but they are there), and reading posts at CAF by Catholics about their own church doesn’t make one feel any more confident about it.

Then there is the mythologizing, which is in a class by itself. It’s enough to break one’s heart.

Hesy, may I say, if it doen’t happen to you before the end, in my opinion, it will happen in the in the final state of purifiction before you, for sure, move on.Peace, Carlan

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Catholics seem to want unity of control without having to correct their errors. Two entirely different things.

Well, the problem is, the Catholic Church believes it never made any errors in matters of teaching the correct faith and morals, thus it has nothing to correct in this area, while the Orthodox Church disagrees, and we are stuck in this situation of disagreement.

The Catholic Church acknowledges failures in other matters, see for example Pope John Paul II’s apology to the Greeks, during his visit to Athens in 2002, for the Catholic Church’s role in the sacking of Constantinople in 1204. Of course it has been discussed in this forum, the Pope never instructed the Crusaders to sack Constantinople, in fact he had expressly forbidden them from deviating from their path to Jerusalem, and from waging war on other Christians. Yet, an apology was in order, because the Crusades were Papal enterprises.

Also, regarding the effort to unify the dates for various Christian feasts, the representatives of the Pope have said that the Catholic Church is open to any solutions. Apparently, Christmas is celebrated on three separate days in certain parts of the world, i.e. on separate days by the Armenians (Oriental Orthodox), the Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholics.

If I could ask for something, I would ask to unify the date of Easter (Pascha) immediately. As a Catholic, I would have no problem obeying my Church if it decided that we move our Feast, worldwide, to the day on which most EO celebrate. In Syria, Catholics did just that. They celebrate Easter/Pascha according to the EO calendar, together with the local EO population.

www.soufanieh.com

 

[Contarini]

Actually in 1204, without hardly a fight, the people of Constantinople overthrew the ruler of city and welcomed the crusaders with open arms with the full intention of adopting the Latin traditions.

What’s your documentation for the “full intention of adopting the Latin traditions” part?

The Crusaders installed Alexios IV on the throne (together with his blinded father Isaac) without too much trouble. Nor did they sack the city at that point. Alexios wasn’t able to pay the Crusaders, and popular opinion in Constantinople turned against him. The Crusaders only sacked the city after the Byzantines had defaulted on their payment and started attacking the Crusaders. So the Crusaders weren’t actually as bad as you have made them out to be!

Alexios had promised to submit Constantinople to Rome, but I am unaware of any evidence that the people of Constantinople knew this when they accepted him.

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

Well, the problem is, the Catholic Church believes it never made any errors …

I agree that this is what most Catholics think.