Terms of union with Roman Catholics

[Magnus Maximus]

Our perspective (and the truth of how we roll) is that the See's were all equal and remain so today (with changes that have occured with regard to Russians etc. This isn't about the locales, it's about the equality). You see, my bishop, Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, is the equal of the EP in the minds of EO's. Bartholomew would chair any meeting they had, but their votes and their level of "authority" (which is really kind of a foreign concept in our church, since we practice conciliarly rather than obediently) is equal.

I don't think we can put modern models of thought into this.

If we follow the logic that all Bishops were equal, well then if so The the Roman church had more Bishops at the time so therfore they were the larger church. So the smaller # of Bishops split. therefore the west was right, the East split.

However I don't think this was the case. From my understanding at the time only the 5 Patriarchs were equal, and the greatest was the Pope. Now were they really all equal in terms of authority, ALexandria was Coptic and Muslim, not really EO, Antioch and Jerusalem had fallen to the Muslims. So in terms of real authority in 1054 there was Rome and Cons. So in reality you had just 2 Patriarchs that could excercise any kind of authority.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

By the way, we will keep St Francias, you can keep Czar Nicholas II.

I have also heard in Russia there is a move to make Ivan the Terrible a saint as well as Rasputian???? If thats the case we will take ST MT

I posted earlier a question, it seems to all Patriarchies recognize each other saints. If that is the case what would the problem be if we had our and you ha dyours (if we were to come to union)

 

[Antony in Tx]

I don't think we can put modern models of thought into this.

If we follow the logic that all Bishops were equal, well then if so The the Roman church had more Bishops at the time so therfore they were the larger church. So the smaller # of Bishops split. therefore the west was right, the East split.

However I don't think this was the case. From my understanding at the time only the 5 Patriarchs were equal, and the greatest was the Pope. Now were they really all equal in terms of authority, ALexandria was Coptic and Muslim, not really EO, Antioch and Jerusalem had fallen to the Muslims. So in terms of real authority in 1054 there was Rome and Cons. So in reality you had just 2 Patriarchs that could excercise any kind of authority.

You are completely missing the point that we view Patriarchs as first amongst equals, i.e. a bishop who leads the meeting when all the bishops get together. We do not put them on any higher of a pedestal in terms of power or authority or wisdom than any other bishop as a matter of course. This is not my opinion, it is the teaching of the Church. Even +Bartholomew himself would tell you this. This is becuase they wield their title and role as a bishop/patriarch with humility and conciliarity.

I am reminded of a 60minutes story where one of their staff interviewed +Bartholomew, and asked him at the beginning, "What should I call you? Father? Your All Holiness?..." +Bartholomew chuckled and smilingly said, "Call me Bartholomew, a sinner!" That is just how we roll in the East. It is indeed a foreign concept to almost all westerners.

 

[Coralie]

The West sees at as:

Following the rules of Logic- The Larger cannot split from the smaller, when we say something split it is the smaller that splits, nor can the head split from the body, or a Chief split from his group. Therefore the East split from the west. Nor can the Stronger split from the weaker. The weaker splits from the stronger.

Just pointing out that this logic is flawed... of course the "larger" can split from the "smaller". To say they can't is completely baseless.

The "direction" of a split has nothing to do with the size of the parties involved. And the size of a particular faction has no bearing on its "rightness" in the situation... not sure how you could think it has a bearing, actually.

Beyond the logical fallacy: If you're saying the EO isn't the Church because it's smaller than the RCC... that's very strange, because in terms of Christian narrative in general, it's the smaller, weaker, and "lesser" who are the righteous ones. Not the big, strong, majority, sure-of-themselves... Also your comments about EO being subjugated by Islamic regimes are strange... surely the more persecuted a Church is, the more likely it is to be "pure"...?

As I said, I'm not talking facts in my last paragraph, I'm just puzzled by your assumptions.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

The Eastern Church was not & is not under the boot of Constantinople, just as it was not , is not & WILL NEVER BE under the boot of Rome.


Note,, ConSTANTINOPLE...Do we diss Rome by calling it "Ro"?

?????????


My... I really can't believe how far can your anticatholicism reach.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

The Eastern Church was not & is not under the boot of Constantinople, just as it was not , is not & WILL NEVER BE under the boot of Rome.


Note,, ConSTANTINOPLE...Do we diss Rome by calling it "Ro"?

Brother no disrespect just bad typing

There is though a large body of work that says the Eastern Chruch was under controll of the Emperor at the time of the GS. It was called Ceasropapism dispit the name it was based in the east.

But to be fair there is also a body of work that says it was not as contolling as it might imply

From one perspective (east leaning):


Encyclopædia Britannica, 1985, vol. 2, pp. 718-719, "Caesaropapism":

• Political system in which the head of the state is also the head of the church and supreme judge in religious matters. The term is most frequently associated with the late Roman, or Byzantine, Empire. Modern historians recognize that the legal Byzantine texts speak of interdependence between the imperial and ecclesiastical structures rather than of a unilateral dependence of the latter; historians believe also that there was nothing in the Byzantine understanding of the Christian faith that would recognize the emperor as either doctrinally infallible or invested with priestly powers.
  
  It was normal practice, however, for the Eastern Roman emperor to act as the protector of the uiniversal church and as the manager of its administrative affairs . . . Emperors presided over councils, and their will was decisive in the appointment of patriarchs and in determining the territorial limits of their jurisdiction . . .
  Caesaropapism was more a reality in Russia, where the abuses of Ivan IV the Terrible went practically unopposed and where Peter the Great finally transformed the church into a department of the state (1721), although neither claimed to possess special doctrinal authority . . .

From one perspective (West leaning):

Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, "Caesaropapism," p. 218:

• The system whereby an absolute monarch has supreme control over the Church within his dominions and exercises it even in matters (e.g. doctrine) normally reserved to ecclesiastical authority. The term is most generally used of the authority exercised by the Byzantine emperors over the Eastern patriarchates, especially in the centuries immediately preceding the Schism of 1054.

 

[Coralie]

?????????


My... I really can't believe how far can your anticatholicis reach.

Dude there's nothing anti-Catholic in what he said. Could you explain what you think is anti-Catholic? I am really puzzled.

All he's saying is that Constantinople isn't under Rome's authority and doesn't wish to be. Nothing anti-Catholic about that.

I don't mean this in a nasty way: is English your first language? You seem to struggle with it a bit, is that why you misunderstand?

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Caesaropapism - OrthodoxWiki

 

[Philothei]

I don't think we can put modern models of thought into this.

If we follow the logic that all Bishops were equal, well then if so The the Roman church had more Bishops at the time so therfore they were the larger church. So the smaller # of Bishops split. therefore the west was right, the East split.

How were they more? By looking at the map ... or by looking at the populations? Population wise the Byz Empire def. had more people... in my estimation. Definately more patriarchates and more Bishops

However I don't think this was the case. From my understanding at the time only the 5 Patriarchs were equal, and the greatest was the Pope.

It depends how one qualifies 'greatest" do we have canons that says "the Bishop of Rome is residing all councils?"
Nope we do not have such evidence that is worked in to the counsils though or it is proven in the workings of the Church.... All councils were mostly called by he Emperor NOT the Pope...

Now were they really all equal in terms of authority, ALexandria was Coptic and Muslim, not really EO, Antioch and Jerusalem had fallen to the Muslims. So in terms of real authority in 1054 there was Rome and Cons. So in reality you had just 2 Patriarchs that could excercise any kind of authority.

Ah...That is a false claim that Alexandria was not EO...All upto chalchedon and even after Alexandria (even if there were and still are ) two Bishops it was a very important See... I mentioned also that their patriarch was called Pope out of respect. If I was not in a hurry I would post the letters adressing him the Pope of Alexandria as a 'special' title ... The "two" patriarchates were 'free" from the mulsim occupation that did not make them though "leaders" as in authority. Greece under the Turkish rule did not remain under the Patriarch for protection....Greece is an autocephlus Chruch... That proves that the ties are there with the 'mother' Chruch but not to the point to stiffle autonomy
And thus we have today MORE Patriarchates in the East cause autonomy is more important than 'centralized power" in the EO ecclesiology

 

[laconicstudent]

?????????


My... I really can't believe how far can your anticatholicism reach.

This is becoming rather tedious. Lashing out with character attacks when someone refuses to agree with you is rather rigid.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Just pointing out that this logic is flawed... of course the "larger" can split from the "smaller". To say they can't is completely baseless.

The "direction" of a split has nothing to do with the size of the parties involved. And the size of a particular faction has no bearing on its "rightness" in the situation... not sure how you could think it has a bearing, actually.

Beyond the logical fallacy: If you're saying the EO isn't the Church because it's smaller than the RCC... that's very strange, because in terms of Christian narrative in general, it's the smaller, weaker, and "lesser" who are the righteous ones. Not the big, strong, majority, sure-of-themselves... Also your comments about EO being subjugated by Islamic regimes are strange... surely the more persecuted a Church is, the more likely it is to be "pure"...?

As I said, I'm not talking facts in my last paragraph, I'm just puzzled by your assumptions.

If all Bishops are equal, the Majority of Bishops were in the west. When the eastern Bishops left they split. A Majority does split from a minority (why should they they are the Majority), the minority splits from Majority. Becuase following the logic that all Bishops are equal, then the smaller number would technically be the ones leaving.

I don't know this, but was the See of Alexandria even really still in the Church I thought they were Coptic.

As for Muslim domination, it was a not meant to slight anyone it was simply true. The other Sees were very weak at the time

 

[Magnus Maximus]

How were they more? By looking at the map ... or by looking at the populations? Population wise the Byz Empire def. had more people... in my estimation. Definately more patriarchates and more Bishops


It depends how one qualifies 'greatest" do we have canons that says "the Bishop of Rome is residing all councils?"
Nope we do not have such evidence that is worked in to the counsils though or it is proven in the workings of the Church.... All councils were mostly called by he Emperor NOT the Pope...



Ah...That is a false claim that Alexandria was not EO...All upto chalchedon and even after Alexandria (even if there were and still are ) two Bishops it was a very important See... I mentioned also that their patriarch was called Pope out of respect. If I was not in a hurry I would post the letters adressing him the Pope of Alexandria as a 'special' title ... The "two" patriarchates were 'free" from the mulsim occupation that did not make them though "leaders" as in authority. Greece under the Turkish rule did not remain under the Patriarch for protection....Greece is an autocephlus Chruch... That proves that the ties are there with the 'mother' Chruch but not to the point to stiffle autonomy
And thus we have today MORE Patriarchates in the East cause autonomy is more important than 'centralized power" in the EO ecclesiology

I would agree on Christian Population up until the rise of Islam. By 1000 the West was a larger Christian area.

I don't know about Alexandria thats why I asked.

how much was OO if you put the OO I would say the East was larger

Russia wasn't Orthodox yet

 

[Coralie]

If all Bishops are equal, the Majority of Bishops were in the west. When the eastern Bishops left they split. A Majority does split from a minority (why should they they are the Majority), the minority splits from Majority. Becuase following the logic that all Bishops are equal, then the smaller number would technically be the ones leaving.

Sorry dude. The size of the two groups (e.g. the number of bishops in each group) involved in a split is no indication of either faction being "right" or "wrong". A minority can still be in the right. A majority can still be in the wrong. And vice versa.

I'm not commenting on the history, I'm not qualified to do so... I'm just saying if you're going to argue for the RCC, this is a weak argument and I would suggest abandoning it for the sake of your own credibility

 

[RobNJ]

I've said this before, not sure if I did in this thread yet:
It was a position of respect, not power or authority.
"First Among Equals" NEVER meant "Boss Ovef All".

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Dude there's nothing anti-Catholic in what he said. Could you explain what you think is anti-Catholic? I am really puzzled.

All he's saying is that Constantinople isn't under Rome's authority and doesn't wish to be. Nothing anti-Catholic about that.

I don't mean this in a nasty way: is English your first language? You seem to struggle with it a bit, is that why you misunderstand?

Of what Boot is he talking?, is a boot a proper symbol for a charitable authority?

And no, my native language is not english but spanish.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Sorry dude. The size of the two groups (e.g. the number of bishops in each group) involved in a split is no indication of either faction being "right" or "wrong". A minority can still be in the right. A majority can still be in the wrong. And vice versa.

I'm not commenting on the history, I'm not qualified to do so... I'm just saying if you're going to argue for the RCC, this is a weak argument and I would suggest abandoning it for the sake of your own credibility

I am not saying right or wrong. Just defining who split from who. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Becuase your right a minority who is right can split from a wrong majority.

 

[Coralie]

Of what Boot is he talking?, is a boot a proper symbol for a charitable authority?

And no, my native language is not english but spanish.

"Boot" is used as a symbol of any kind of authority. It connotes an authority that is illegitimate or unearned. So the poster is saying, "we are not under Rome's jurisdiction [which is a fact]. If we were, it would be an injustice [which is an opinion, based on our understanding of history and the Church]."

There is nothing anti-Catholic about that; no-one is saying Catholics or Pope Benedict is evil or bad (I respect Pope Benedict and have many Catholic friends who are dear to me, and I respect their faith too).

We're simply saying we believe we should govern ourselves. Is that anti-Catholic? No; it's simply that we don't agree. That is all.

If you truly believe that is anti-Catholic, then we could also say that your belief that the Rome should rule the Orthodox is anti-Orthodox. And I think that is untrue.

 

[Basil the Great]

I have met antiCatholic Orthodox, but I don't think that I (or most Orthodox converts I know) are antiCatholic any more than you would consider yourself antiOrthodox.

AntiCatholic is a very loaded word. You need to use it with more and purpose.

AntiCatholic is a very loaded word and those of us who are not members of the RCC must always do our honest best to be fair to Catholicism in every possible way. Now the RCC prides itself in the line, "The Catholic Church - the same yesterday, today and forever". There is no doubt that there is much truth in that line. The RCC still contains the essence of Apostolic Christianity. However, what about the EO Church? Who deserves that tagline more, the RCC or the EO?

It would seem that the EO Church has changed even less in recent decades and centuries than the RCC. Here is just a small sample of the RCC changes: (1) Regarding fasting, the RCC has given up most of it's former fasting requirements, especially regarding the meatless Friday rule, with the exception of Fridays in Lent. Now while it is true that fasting requirements were never core issues of the faith and simply Church rules, this still begs the question, how could eating meat on Friday for about 1,000 years prior to Vatican II be a mortal sin and then suddenly after Vatican II it is no longer a mortal sin? (2) The understanding of the sanctity of Catholic cemeteries has really changed. Formerly, unbaptized babies and suicide victims could not be buried in hallowed ground. This is no longer the case. (3) The use of Latin in the Mass was given up in favor of the use of the common tongue, though it has now been reinstated, but certainly on a small level. (4) I am sure that most non-Catholic observers who research the subject, are of the view that the RCC has fundamentally changed it's teachings re: religious liberty and the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, just like Ultra Traditonal Catholics believe, especially concerning EO schismatics and Protestant heretics. Most of this change happened at the Vatican II Council. Don't get me wrong, I am most pleased that the RCC has changed it's teachings on said subjects. (5) There would appear to be at least four core RCC dogmas that have been infallibly defined in recent centuries, that were not included by the Council of Nicea. The 1st Vatican Council defined the Infalliblity of the Pope. The Council of Trent definfed Purgatory. Infallible Papal Decrees issued in 1854 and 1950 respectively defined the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Now there is no doubt that there is at least some foundation for all four of these teachings in Early Church history, depending upon one's point of view. However, it is certainly true that the Bishops assembled at Nicea did not consider any of these four teachings to be essential to the Christian faith. It is especially noteworthy that St. Thomas Aquinas, the most famous RCC theologian of all, did not personally believe in the Immaculate Conception dogma. Hence, we can see that it was still not a universally held view in the RCC in the 1200's, the century when Aquinas lived. (Yes, I am somewhat familiar with the "development of doctrine" thesis, but I will leave it to others to try and explain.)

To be fair, I have less knowledge of EO changes than that of the RCC, but that is not my fault as much as it is that the RCC changes are more readily recognizable by it's Papal decrees and recent Vatican Councils. Maybe some of our EO or RCC posters can highlight some of the EO changes? I do believe that the EO "commonly understood" view of salvation is not as strict as it was, but I do not believe that there has been any official change in the EO salvation teaching. Anyway, it appears to me that the famous RCC line "the same yesterday, today and forever" should perhaps be handed over to the EO Church, because it really does appear like the EO Church has changed less than the RCC, especially in key areas of faith and dogma? Maybe the Christian Forums line, "The Ancient Way", is rather appropriate to the EO faith?

 

[Coralie]

I am not saying right or wrong. Just defining who split from who. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Becuase your right a minority who is right can split from a wrong majority.

Your fallacy is in two parts, that's why you're not seeing it.

(a) You imply that whoever split "from" the Church is a false church. (this was a couple pages back now I think).

(b) You say that only a majority can be split "from". The minority is always the one who "leaves" the majority.

So, (a) + (b) = the minority (EO) is a false church.

(a) is correct. (b) is entirely arbitrary -- a split is, for all intents and purposes, a neutral action; what's important is the reasons behind the split. Put them together and it's a fallacy.

If that's not what you're saying, fine, but that's how it comes across.

 

[88Devin07]

I would agree on Christian Population up until the rise of Islam. By 1000 the West was a larger Christian area.

I don't know about Alexandria thats why I asked.

how much was OO if you put the OO I would say the East was larger

Russia wasn't Orthodox yet

Well, "Russia" and in that sense, I actually mean the Kievan Rus adopted Christianity in 988 AD. The actual conversion of the Slavs had begun with Ss. Cyril and Methodius in the late 800s. By 988, many Slavs had already adopted Orthodox Christianity, and Emperor Vladimir adopted Orthodox Christianity and had all his people baptised, including his royal family, and then had all Pagan remnants destroyed.

So it is probably true that the West was a larger Christian area, but of course, we don't really have much of a way of confirming this...

But from what I've found (from a Google search) it appears in 1000 AD, the West had about 24 million people, while the East had only 18 million. But of course, this doesn't (I think) include those areas conquered by the Muslims, as just centuries before, the Empire was about 40/60 when it came to a population difference between West and East.

After 1000 AD, the West began growing significantly mainly due to some advanced in technology and especially large efforts of deforestation and expansion of urban areas. Also by 1000, the German Empire had grown significantly, and of course, you later had various Crusades, and the increasing of the Pope's authority and power as well as the further growth of the "Holy Roman Empire".
But then again, in the East, while the Roman Empire continued it's decline with further onslaughts from the Muslims, the Empire of Russia grew significantly.