Greek orthodox view on schism

[N/A Gone]

[url="http://www.kosovo.com/orthodoxy.html"]http://www.kosovo.com/orthodoxy.html[/url]

Whats your thoughts with that? Part of me is kind of...um, i dunno. Uneasy on it.

[N/A Gone]

weird, i swear this is the 4th thread I have started about an interesting concept with an article that gets views but no comments. Am I out of favor?

[Era Might]

Of course you're not "out of favor". How many responses you get usually depends on the topic. Some are more likely to get responses than others (particularly in the debate table). Usually people respond more to actual challenges rather than open ended threads, asking for an opinion.

On to the website.

[quote]The growth of Roman primacy, based on the concept of the apostolic origin of the Church of Rome which claimed not only titular but also jurisdictional authority above other churches, was incompatible with the traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. The Eastern Christians considered all churches as sister churches and understood the primacy of the Roman bishop only as primus inter pares among his brother bishops. For the East, the highest authority in settling doctrinal disputes could by no means be the authority of a single Church or a single bishop but an Ecumenical Council of all sister churches.[/quote]

I would disagree strongly with this perspective on the traditional role of the Roman Pontiff. Although the early Church was very much a conciliar Church, the Pope was always understood as the supreme arbiter, even apart from an Ecumenical Council. This was true in the East as well as the West.

The Eastern Emperor Justinian wrote to the Pope in the sixth century:

[quote]Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. [/quote]

St. Maximus the Confessor, a Catholic and Orthodox Saint, wrote in the seventh century:

[quote]For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.[/quote]

St. Nicephorus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote in the late ninth century:

[quote]Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles.[/quote]

And going all the way back to the Apostolic Fathers, we see the supreme authority in the "Against Heresies" of St. Irenaues in the second century:

[quote]For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful who exist everywhere.[/quote]

[rkwright]

Rev I don't have time right now to read your article, but I had my interest in the Eastern Churches a while back and heres what I came up with...

(sorry for not reading the article, no time, but wanna make sure I'm not one of those view but no comment types )

The Eastern Churches, while raising different (in my opinion more valid concerns than say protestant objections) objections, they are still somewhat flawed. The interesting thing in talking with an Orthodox is its not about the Bible, or intrepretation, but almost about more dogmatic issues. They like to say that we (the Catholic Church) don't see many issues dividing, but that the issues are many and very deep. In truth, most of the issues are merely misunderstanding (go figure right) but on a deeper level, OR tied to the Papal supremecy claim.

The Eastern churches like to bring up the filioque and all its implications, but honestly, as long as people are not too rigid, and do some research into the topic, it turns out to be a misunderstanding. The filioque problem is easily resolved (and has been resolved; there is a joint declaration of reconcilation on the issue from USCCB out there somewhere.... ) when we learn to see things from the other point of view and realize that we're all talking about the same thing and mean the same thing.

The other issues (Immaculate Conception, Papal infalliablity) really stem from Papal supremecy. If the Pope is really the head of the Church as we claim, then those other issues fall into place. So thats the real divide, and as much as the Eastern Churches like to sometimes claim theres a lot that seperates, its really only that issue.

All in all, the whole thing was made worse by politics, history, and general misunderstanding, and it continues to our time not just the middle ages. Think about when JPII consecrated Russia to the Heart of Mary. Some Russian Orthodox found this offensive, as if the Catholic Church was saying we need to consecrate Russia in order for conversions to take place, ect. The Russian Orthodox believers sat there and asked themselves, why are we being called a godless nation? Are we also supposed to convert? You can see how something like this can be misunderstood taken the wrong way.

In the end we have so much in common with them, that it is saddening that we are seperated from them. They have a rich history and liturgy which could have a wonderful home in the Church. I'm thankful B16 will be working hard at trying to bring things back together.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Mar 22 2006, 03:04 PM']weird, i swear this is the 4th thread I have started about an interesting concept with an article  that gets views but no comments. Am I out of favor?
[right][snapback]918130[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


If I were to guess, I would say that people haven't responded to this topic because most of the Catholics in the US have had little contact with the Orthodox. We're a lot more accustomed to the arguments against Protestanism than Eastern Orthodoxy. Since fewer people know much about the topic, they probably feel less comfortable commenting....Basically, we are all waiting for someone who's smarter than us to comment so we can learn something...



The reasons behind the schism are complex and involved, often having little to do with theology and ecclesiology. (For example, in many ways, the sack of Constantinople in 1204 did as much to split the two sides as the decrees of 1054.) I didn't read the site closely, but it seems to present a fair EO view of the schism. Of course, we would maintain that they are the ones with the theological and ecclesiological errors...

I think the Schism is all the more tragic because it would not have been so difficult to resolve the theological issues if not for the bitterness that existed between the Latins and the Greeks.

[homeschoolmom]

I'm just too lazy to clink on the link....