Schism Of 1054

[Paddington]

PhatMassers,

I'm pretty sure that y'all think that the EOC broke from the Catholic Church.

What is your reasoning on that?

Thanks,
Paddington

EDIT:
Sorry this should've been in 'debate.'

Edited January 19, 2007 by Paddington

[VeniteAdoremus]

I believe, because even before the break there were the Pope in the west and the Patriarchs in the East. When the schism took place, the Pope "remained" with the Catholic Church, and so the Apostolic succession continued in this church.

The Patriachs rejected the Pope, is what I conclude from my sources - it seems it was mostly about worldly power, which is very sad.

Edited January 19, 2007 by VeniteAdoremus

[thessalonian]

Of course we Catholics say they did. . In fact if you look historically at the early church fathers from the east, they recognized the primacy of rome as well as the need for the bishop of rome to ratify councils and so it is historical as well. As evidence many Orthodox will use the same obvuscations of Matt 16:18 that Protestants use to deny the clear meaning of the txt. It says what it says and Peter clearly was the leader from scripture. They believe in Apostolic succession yet deny the succession of Peter which is biblical and historical.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I think the best proof of what happened is provided by the Maronite Catholic Rite. They went into the mountains to live lives of solitude and stayed there for hundreds of years. When the crusaders came through, they mistook them for Orthodox and demanded that they pledge allegiance to the Roman Pontiff. The Maronites said, "why, we never did anything different...we've always been faithful to the pope." Now, let's think about it...these people were removed from the political situation surrounding the schism and therefore more connected with earlier Eastern thought and they still were loyal to the pope.

Also, consider that the Orthodox can't stand without the pope. The Eastern Orthodox have stuck pretty close to the Gospel, but have allowed divorce and contraception, both forbidden in the Bible. The Catholic Church, however, has never strayed from the Scripture (although many Catholics have).

[N/A Gone]

raphel,

awesome story

I am doing my internship on a research project on the filioque and the ecumenical situation between the GO and the RC. I might use this story. Can you cite it?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1170130' date='Jan 19 2007, 12:35 PM']
raphel,

awesome story

I am doing my internship on a research project on the filioque and the ecumenical situation between the GO and the RC. I might use this story. Can you cite it?
[/quote]
Send a PM to Oik. He's Eastern Rite and he's the one who told it to me, so he'll be able to help you more than I can.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1169989' date='Jan 19 2007, 07:34 AM']
When the schism took place, the Pope "remained" with the Catholic Church, and so the Apostolic succession continued in this church.
[/quote]

Apostolic succession also continues with the Eastern Orthodox; without it, they couldn't have any of the sacraments (well, anyone can baptize, but besides that one ). Their succession and sacraments are illicit, but not invalid.

Edited January 19, 2007 by LouisvilleFan

[dairygirl4u2c]

---I think the best proof of what happened is provided by the Maronite Catholic Rite. They went into the mountains to live lives of solitude and stayed there for hundreds of years. When the crusaders came through, they mistook them for Orthodox and demanded that they pledge allegiance to the Roman Pontiff. The Maronites said, "why, we never did anything different...we've always been faithful to the pope." Now, let's think about it...these people were removed from the political situation surrounding the schism and therefore more connected with earlier Eastern thought and they still were loyal to the pope.-----

how far did their loyalty go? were they loyal as in respecting him as a unifying entity, or as the final infallible word (even if they wouldn't use that word)?

does the catholic church teach that people even realized the pope's significance in terms of infallibility type qualities in the early early pre 1000 espcially pre 500 times?

[N/A Gone]

Interesting points dairygirl...


OT
Once again, I wish the nature of the "hello I do not rep the church" was explained. WHen reading Dairygirl I have no idea if she is athesit, anti-catholic, rad-trad, evangelical, budist. This is important in reading her comments. It almost needs to come down to knowing what their scarlett letter is, or not letting them post. It is confusing.

Is oik his/her full name? thanks raphel

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1170176' date='Jan 19 2007, 01:36 PM']
does the catholic church teach that people even realized the pope's significance in terms of infallibility type qualities in the early early pre 1000 espcially pre 500 times?
[/quote]

About the year AD97 trouble broke out among the Corinthian christians. Pope St Clement wrote to them as the Bishop of Rome to restore peace and unity and asks for obedience to their bishops and deacons, who were appointed by the Apostles.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1170130' date='Jan 19 2007, 11:35 AM']
raphel,

awesome story

I am doing my internship on a research project on the filioque and the ecumenical situation between the GO and the RC. I might use this story. Can you cite it?
[/quote]


Hey Rev, There is some good stuff in a book I am reading by Stravinskas, Peter M J, Fr., Ph.D., S.T.D. " Salvation Outside the Church?". He says that Paul VI in the 60's kissed the feet of one of the patriarchs. The story is significant because it was a (t) that when an excommunicated sect was to be reinstated in to the church the pope would kiss their feet. Well when the Orthodox were separating there was evidently a point where they were willing to come back if the pope would kiss the feet of the partriarch. Which he refused to do. Therein lies the significance of Paul VI's action. Other stuff in the book for your project as well it sounds.

[url="http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=7510523&wauth=Stravinskas%2C%20Peter%20M%20J%2C%20Fr%2E%2C%20Ph%2ED%2E%2C%20S%2ET%2ED%2E&matches=1&qsort=r&cm_re=works*listing*title"]http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?q...s*listing*title[/url]

The existence of the Orthodox actually does alot to prove Catholicism. They are like a snapshot of the Church before Aquinas and the way they state doctrines such as purgatory and doctrines on mary are similar to that time frame.

Edited January 19, 2007 by thessalonian

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1170188' date='Jan 19 2007, 02:00 PM']
WHen reading Dairygirl I have no idea if she is athesit, anti-catholic, rad-trad, evangelical, budist. This is important in reading her comments. It almost needs to come down to knowing what their scarlett letter is, or not letting them post. It is confusing.
[/quote]

Maybe she doesn't want to be pigeon-holed into any category

[N/A Gone]

By having a "do not rep the church" you are still piegeon holed to a degree. Im just curious what her view is. She quotes luther. but im still curious

thes, how big is ur section. Any way I could have you scan it? I might buy the book. Ever been to st. patricks book store?

[jswranch]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1170210' date='Jan 19 2007, 12:10 PM']
About the year AD97 trouble broke out among the Corinthian christians. Pope St Clement wrote to them as the Bishop of Rome to restore peace and unity and asks for obedience to their bishops and deacons, who were appointed by the Apostles.
[/quote]

Actually, the Clement of Rome and the Corinthian discourse gets better. It appears the people in Corinth wrote the Bishop of Rome for instruction after the Corinthians rejected their bishops. My point is that Pope Clement responded to them, not that he reacted to their rebellion, which shows the early church (prior to 100AD) went to the Pope for help in deciding issues over faith and morals.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1170431' date='Jan 19 2007, 03:08 PM']
By having a "do not rep the church" you are still piegeon holed to a degree. Im just curious what her view is. She quotes luther. but im still curious

thes, how big is ur section. Any way I could have you scan it? I might buy the book. Ever been to st. patricks book store?
[/quote]

Probably not all that big. I will check it. The book basicallys gives a summary and some added info on all the documents, post vatican II regarding the Catholic Church. I could photo copy them and mail them to ya.

There is also an apparently larger book by a Fr. Sulivan called "Salvation outside the Church" as well. Looks like they have it at St. Thomas. Don't know if you have a library card for them.

Ya, i've been to St. Pat's. There is another, St. Max up in Elk river and then the one out in Minnetonka, just north of 7 and 101. Also of course Leaflet Missal. I think there is one on 65 as well but am not sure.

Edited January 19, 2007 by thessalonian