What about Popes Liberius and Honorius?During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor.
Nitpick: shouldn't that read ‘Patriarch Michael’?Patriarch Cerularius
Foul! Probably a semantic game — what we would call the Orthodox communion pre-1054 (and in that period it was called Orthodox) and from Ferrara-Florence until the, yes, Turkish-sanctioned break in communion in 1473, this writer probably would call Byzantine Catholic churches. The Turks restarted the schism because, like the Communists in Eastern Europe 430 years later, they didn't want their Christian subjects in a church under a foreign head that they couldn't control. They could and did, however, control the patriarch of Constantinople.The current Eastern Orthodox communion dates from the 1450s, making it a mere six decades older than the Protestant Reformation.
Catholics and Orthodox use the word ‘ecumenical’ differently. To the latter, AFAIK, the word refers to the emperor and his government in Constantinople (the oikoumenh being the whole empire), much like ‘federal’ in American usage means the national goverment in Washington, DC. As there has been no emperor since 1453, ‘ecumenical’ councils are impossible. However, 1) Archimandrite Serge (Keleher), a Byzantine Catholic, says the Orthodox actually accept nine councils but I forget which ones the other two are, and 2) there have been all-Orthodox councils that have roughly equivalent standing to the big seven convened by the emperor: Jassy and Jerusalem, which condemned the errors of the then-new Protestant heresies.While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority.
OK, for argument’s sake, if the papacy is of the esse of the Church, why isn’t the elevation of a new Pope a sacrament?In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28-32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31-32).
Wrong. They took the first part of a Mass at St Peter’s, Rome, together — the Mass of the Catechumens, or ‘Liturgy of the Word’ in Novus Ordo talk. They did not concelebrate the Eucharist.in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together
This is misleading, though the authors probably don't even realise it. The citizens of the east didn't go by the title "Byzantine Empire," but thought of themselves as ROMANS. They may have been a bit confused about which language and culture they were to use in which contexts, but they certainly thought themselves as Roman as... well... the people of the "Western Roman Empire". The above is often a tactic--sometimes subconsciously carried out--to help create a gap between the east and west: after all, if you're gonna make a "big deal" about and try to add significance to "Rome," (as a concept) you can't have the "Roman Empire" in the West falling and that in the East standing.After the western Roman Empire collapsed in A.D. 476, the eastern half continued under the title of the Byzantine Empire
Since when? There are multiple examples in Church history of someone from one of these other patriarchates coming to Constantinople and displacing the Patriarch there. Then sounds more like an Eastern Pope concept, which of course never happened. I can see how some Latin Catholics might get that impression with some of the things said and done by Patriarchs of Constantinople (e.g., the taking of the title "Ecumenical" in spite of the strong objections from Old Rome), but there was never anything in the Eastern Church like their was in the Western Church regarding the top of the hierarchy.The patriarch of that city had jurisdiction over the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and served under the emperor, who ruled those lands with military might.
Lol! And he didn't in the west? He called the Ecumenical Councils, gave theological discourse, summoned whatever bishops he wanted which were forced to appear before him as quickly as possible (including the Pope), etc. This power wasn't always good, and the Emperor probably had much more power than was good to have, but to say (or imply) that the west was free of this would be totally inaccurate. Just in the past week I've read once about a Pope being summoned to Rome and put under house arrest (under Justinian), and once about a Pope of Rome being deposed by the Emperor of the Empire (I think it was during the Arian controversy, and instead of objecting to this, the west simply elected a new Pope).In the East, the emperor wielded tremendous influence in church affairs.
The Orthodox Church itself claims that some were equal to the apostles, though it doesn't just make this claim of Roman Emperors. Regarding appointments, it is true that Constantinople had too much power in some respects, and one of them was probably the ability to depose, exile, etc. bishops.Some emperors even claimed to be equal in authority to the twelve apostles, and as such claimed to have the power to appoint the patriarch of Constantinople.
Uh huh. Tell that to Chrysostom. This above makes it sound like the Patriarch simply did what the Emperor instructed. The Emperor no doubt had a good deal of influence, but unless the Patriarch was totally spineless he wasn't "serving the Emperor's (or Empress's) pleasure."Although the two offices were legally autonomous, in practice the patriarch served at the emperor’s pleasure.
Popes of Rome know this from personal experience as well.... but it is difficult to withstand the designs of power-hungry or meddlesome emperors with armed soldiers at their disposal.
I suppose that depends on how one looks at things. I've seen incredible claims along these same lines, like: "Rome never fell into corruption or heresy, while the East was always falling". It's all a matter of perspective; I can think of numerous instances of Rome falling: and of Bishops giving them "what for" because of it!During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor.
The excommunication having about as much weight as was assigned to it. In other words, if the Church accepted the excommunication as proper, it was valid, if they didn't, then it wasn't valid. Rome did not have the power, in itself, to excommunicate whoever it wanted from the entire Church. The most it could do was cease communion through excommunication and hope that the other Local Churches affirmed and followed along.The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343,
And they aren't in Catholics practice very much... strange. I'm not sure exactly what the word "mainly" means here, if they mean in actual numbers then I agree. However, there were always defenders of the Icons in the East, even if they were sometimes hard to hear.Ironically, in the Church’s eighth-century struggle against the Iconoclastic heresy (which sought to eliminate all sacred images), it was the pope and the Western bishops mainly who fought for the Catholic practice of venerating icons, which is still very much a part of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality.
So it's only a "custom"? But this demonstrates the typical Roman Catholic position. "We want to be friends, and we'll condescend and allow your customs...." (unless it rubs them the wrong way, like with the marriage of Priests in Eastern Catholic America). I wonder if this article will mention the Latin Crusaders forcing people who are actually living in the East to change their traditions--sometimes under penalty of death by the sword--as well. I suppose not.The Norman conquest of southern Italy helped touch off the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Christendom. When the Catholic Normans took over the Byzantine-Rite Greek colonies in southern Italy, they compelled the Greek communities there to adopt the Latin-Rite custom of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. This caused great aggravation among the Greek Catholics because it went against their ancient custom of using leavened bread.
Wow! The author actually got something right! A few things right actually, and all at the same time.This was not, however, the actual break between the two communions. It’s a popular myth that the schism dates to the year 1054 and that the pope and the patriarch excommunicated each other at that time, but they did not.
Well, if you're going to date the split to the 1450's then the problems lasted longer than "several centuries". More like a millenium.There was no single event that marked the schism, but rather a sliding into and out of schism during a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations. The East’s final break with Rome did not come until the 1450s.
Uh huh, and those DOZENS of reunion attempts between 1054 and the Council of Florence, what were those, family get togethers? You were right, this IS good for a laughUnder pressure from Muslims, most of the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome, and this is the split that persists to this day.
The laughs just keep coming! I guess since some Orthodox say that Catholicism didn't start until the 11th century or later, some Catholics have decided to make similar polemical claims.The current Eastern Orthodox communion dates from the 1450s, making it a mere six decades older than the Protestant Reformation.
Unfortunately, the corrupt politics of 19th and 20th century Patriarchs in Constantinople have revived it's power. That man Bartholomew is no exception to this power/prestige seeking. (now I didn't make claims about him being a free mason or any such thing! I only admit what I think is true, he has wordly ambitions that interfere with his ecclesiastical duties).Two subsequent events, one external, the other internal, reduced the patriarch of Constantinople’s status to nearly that of a figurehead.
And thank God for Russia!Another blow that weakened the patriarch’s authority came from Russia. Ivan the Great assumed the title of "Czar" (Russian for "Caesar"). Moscow was then called the "third Rome," and the Czar tried to assume the role of protector for Eastern Christianity.
Which is misleading. There had ALWAYS been local Churches (the Church at Rome, the Church at Constantinople, the Church at Caesarea, etc.). Nothing about the SUBSTANCE of the Church changed, the only thing that changed was the outward manifestation of the hierarchy, which effected Church administration, and did not (if it was done properly) interfere with the Faith.With the collapse of the patriarchal system, the Eastern church lost its center and fragmented along national lines.
I'm not sure where he gets either number, both 11 and 7/8ths seem wrong to me.Russia claimed independence from the patriarch of Constantinople in 1589, the first nation to do this. Other ethnic and regional splintering quickly followed, and today there are eleven independent Orthodox churches. The Russian Orthodox church dominates contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy, representing seven-eighths of the total number of Orthodox Christians.
Sure there is every hope. Their were similar hopes throughout the last 1,200 years. Yet, somehow I doubt the leaders of Today (on both sides) are the ones to resolve the problem.Many today, both Orthodox and Catholics, believe this controversy [filioque] was a tempest in a teapot... Today there is every hope that the equivalence of the two formulas can be formally recognized by all parties and that the filioque controversy can be resolved.
Huh? The Orthodox teach what the apostles taught (while actual members of the Church might, the Church herself--which is the theanthropic body of Christ--don't "base our teachings" on something) Scripture, the Councils, and traditions are manifestations and wonderful springs of knowledge that emenate from this source of apostolic truth, but they are not infallible in themselves. Put another way, Ecumenical Councils, for instance, are only infallible if and when they express (not determine!) the apostolic witness. Traditions, to, are only correct insofar as they express the apostolic witness: tradition is not a seperate source of authority in Orthodoxy, but is rather a viewable manifestation of the original and only source of authority in Orthodoxy, the teachings of Jesus Christ which were taught by the Apostles and the Apostolic Church. What's more, the Orthodox accept as doctrinally binding numerous decisions after 787. The author of this article quotes from Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Church" serveral times, so he must be aware of this fact, for Bishop Kallistos goes over some of the more important documents since 787 in Orthodoxy which have doctrinal signficance.The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"
Lol! This is EXACTLY what Rome did with a number of the councils, sometimes not accepting them for CENTURIES!One of the reasons the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical. In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is "accepted by the church" as such. But that test is unworkable: Any disputants who are unhappy with a council’s result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority.
Um, that was an early ecumenical council that first said that (at least textually), it wasn't started at the time of the "schism".Since the Eastern schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honor among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority.
That's right. Our authority is Jesus Christ, who is the head of His church, the divine-human body of Christ.But the concept of a primacy of honor without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible.
Again, a matter of perspective. I look at Peter in the NT and see a zealous man, sometimes without knowledge. A man that Jesus knew could lead the Church, even in the face of terrible suffering. I see nothing akin to a papal-like power, however.At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.
The church has the keys, not Peter. (Peter's FAITH is the rock, and the Church which holds to that faith has the power to bind and loose, has the keys, etc.). Jesus is seen in revelation as holding the keys: this is exactly what Orthodoxy teaches, that Jesus is the head of the Church, and so both he and the Church can simultaneously be holding the keys, simultaneously binding and loosing, etc. This is a far cry from the Latin Catholic representative on earth, vicar of Christ, theology. Ignatius is surely lamenting the way some of his words are being misused.In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not.
I don't have time to deal with every Catholics proof text. Suffice to say, the Orthodox disagree with the Catholic position, and there's enough literature out there on the Orthodox position to keep you reading for years.In John 21:15-17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"—in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples?
Can darkness be yoked with light? Can humanism be combined with christocentrism? We have EXTERNAL similarities, nothing more. Someone asked on another thread whether it would be better to marry a Catholic (than, say, a Baptist). The answer is that it doesn't matter a whole lot. Truth be told, if you aren't going to marry Orthodox, you'd be better off marrying someone who is "spiritual" but hasn't fixed her soul on one spiritual path. The Fathers speak of the soul as being something that can be "imprinted" or "written on," and that once it is written on, it is hard to change the writing if it is wrong. It is much easier, the Fathers teach, to write correct belief and correct practice onto a soul that does not have that much wrong already inscribed.While Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are separate for the moment, what unites us is still far greater than what divides us,
I wish we could reunite, and I am willing to repent for Orthodoxy's errors (and we've had many). I'm just waiting for the Catholics to repent and cast off their theological innovations.and there are abundant reasons for optimism regarding reconciliation in the future.
The truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant. The fact that Orthodox altars are used for the heterodox "eucharist" (both Anglican and Catholic) is itself offensive.and in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together.
Capt. Picard said:Ok, so it's Monday morning, and you need a laugh.
Read the following and tell me how many wrong 'facts' you find.
Winner gets a prize.
Capt. Picard said:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How many would be interested in writing articles for it?
Right from the outset he is stating that the Catholic church is "one" as per the prayer of our Lord Jesus, while the Orthodox church is fractured into many parts.One of the most tragic divisions within Christianity is the one between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches
Just a comment. Forcing the Greeks to use unleavened bread caused them "great aggravation", but when the shoe is on the other foot, "You can imagine the uproar that ensued". Does anybody else note a hint of hypocracy in this statement?When the Catholic Normans took over the Byzantine-Rite Greek colonies in southern Italy, they compelled the Greek communities there to adopt the Latin-Rite custom of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. This caused great aggravation among the Greek Catholics because it went against their ancient custom of using leavened bread.
In response, Patriarch Cerularius ordered all of the Latin-Rite communities in Constantinople to conform to the Eastern practice of using leavened bread. You can imagine the uproar that ensued. The Latins refused, so the patriarch closed their churches and sent a hostile letter to Pope Leo IX.
Of course there is no mention of the crusades and the sack of Constantinople by Rome's mercenaries is there. You don't think that might have affected relations a bit do you?Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued... This changed when the Byzantine Empire collapsed suddenly in 1453.
It might be interesting to note that the average life expectancy of a Pope once he takes office, is less than seven and a half years. Eighty two of the Popes lasted no more than two years once they took up their position, and of them, twenty eight didn't last a year. If it wasn't for a few long lived Popes, the life expectancy would be quite a bit less.From 1453 to 1923, the Turkish sultans deposed 105 out of the 159 patriarchs. Six were murdered, and only 21 died of natural causes while in office.
etc.In John 21:15-17, with only the other disciples present, Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"...
JohnThe Fathers of the Church and the most learned commentators have only seen the expiation of his threefold denial in this threefold attestation of love that Christ drew from Peter. Nor did Peter see any thing else, since he "was grieved." Had he conceived that Christ therein conceded to him any superior powers, he would rather have rejoiced than have been saddened by the words that were addressed to him; but he was convinced that the Saviour demanded a triple public declaration of his fidelity, before re+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â»nstalling him among the shepherds of his flock, because he had given reason for legitimate suspicions by denying his Master again and again. Christ could only address himself to Peter, because he alone had been guilty of this crime.
Mgr. R+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬n+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬-Fran+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âºois Guett+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬e, History of the Church of France
Robert said:Ok, so it's Monday morning, and you need a laugh.
Read the following and tell me how many wrong 'facts' you find.
Winner gets a prize.
Robert said:Ok, so it's Monday morning, and you need a laugh.
Read the following and tell me how many wrong 'facts' you find.
Winner gets a prize.
Oh, please, not that again.this website has us located in the "Non-Catholic Groups" category
I cannot agree or disagree with whether these folks are charitable or not, since I have no experience with them. However, I did subscribe to "This Rock" magazine for a year, and found that misinformation was sometimes given in that magazine. My eyes just about fell out of my sockets one time when I read in that magazine that they were claiming that St. Andrei Rublyev was a Catholic saint (as in Roman Catholic) with absolutely no mention of his Orthodoxy. I thought this bit of information so strange that I showed it to my pastor--from whom it evoked an expression of "huh?".People I know say that both men are "professional" in their defense of the Catholic faith. That is, they engage in apolegetics the charitable way, without condescension.
LOL! Well...yes, that's about as strange as the idea that St. Andrei Rublyev was a Roman Catholic saint. I guess whatever butters one's toast :Thats nothing. St Job of Pochaev, was one of the fierce defenders of Orthodoxy against the Unia. he even organized the Orthodox brotherhoods to fight it, is venerated in both the Eastern and western rites of the Papal Catholic Church. There are even Icons of him in western vestments!
After the Unia took over Pochaev, the Basilians tried to get the pope to canonize St. Job! "A pious benefactor from Kanev donated that sum designated by Rome for such cases" This was referred to curia in 1767. In the meantime the basilians composed hymns to St. Job. By bull in 1773 Pope Clement XIV permitted the coronation of the miraculous Pochaev Icon of the Theotokos [which toured the country last year]; but presumably tabled St. Job's canonization upon hearing about his anti-unia activities.Orthodoc said:[Thats nothing. St Job of Pochaev, was one of the fierce defenders of Orthodoxy against the Unia. He even organized the Orthodox brotherhoods to fight it. Yet he is venerated in both the Eastern and western rites of the Papal Catholic Church. There are even Icons of him in western vestments!
Then there are the icons of British and Irish and Welsh saints in Eastern vestments, which seems unlikely to me.Orthodoc said:St Job of Pochaev,... snip
There are even Icons of him in western vestments!
You've got a point there, Ebor. St. Martin the Merciful, Bishop of Tours, is sometimes portrayed in Western, sometimes in Eastern, episcopal vestments though. He must have been one of the precursors of the bi-ritualists! ;DEbor said:
Apparently "truth" and "Catholic truth" are two different things judging by their article on Eastern Orthodoxy.Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith. We explain Catholic truth, equip the faithful to live fully the sacramental life, and assist them in spreading the Good News
That's a new one for my eyes. Knowing Eastern Catholics better than any other religious group I'd have to express my shock. From reading many of the posts here it seems that they are the biggest threat Orthodox Christianity! Such vitriol, such un-Christian attitudes expressed towards them.Orthodoc said:Eastern Rite Papal Catholics.