Who's the schismatic?

[Wryetui]

Hello to everyone. In recent arguments with roman-catholics I have realized that in the same way we call them schismatics they call ourselves that too, so I would wonder, who is right after all? Who separated from who? Because, the history I have read tells me that it was Constantinople who excomulgated Rome and not viceversa, because the catholic pope at that time died before the excomulgation could have been procesed.

 

[kit]

Hello to everyone. In recent arguments with roman-catholics I have realized that in the same way we call them schismatics they call ourselves that too, so I would wonder, who is right after all? Who separated from who? Because, the history I have read tells me that it was Constantinople who excomulgated Rome and not viceversa, because the catholic pope at that time died before the excomulgation could have been procesed.

There were mutual excommunications. Both of which were revoked half a century ago. Everyone is schimatic. The two Churches are in schism.

 

[Wryetui]

So? How do we decide which one is the true one? If they are both in schism no Church is the true one.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here, of course I know which one is the true one. Also, I would like an orthodox, a member of my Church to post their opinion, please.

 

[kit]

So? How do we decide which one is the true one? If they are both in schism no Church is the true one.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here, of course I know which one is the true one. Also, I would like an orthodox, a member of my Church to post their opinion, please.

Schism would mean they are equally True or conversely mistaken. Schism is a political separation. Ever since the Great Schism the two sides in this case have gone out of their way to figure out ways to add substance to the politics. Differences in focus have been inflated to appear like substantially philosophical or theological distinctions.

I would be equally comfortable receiving Mysterion and/or Sacraments from a priest in either Church. Good example of a difference that I can see the case on either side is (un)leavened bread. I can even see a good case on each side for the primary political bugaboo. Perhaps oddly I agree with both sides politically (I bet someone wants me to elaborate there).

Obviously I have left Christianity so I won't be receiving Eucharist anywhere. From outside Christianity the Schism looks just as tragic as it did from a more invested perspective.

 

[Wryetui]

I understand your position, but I don't accept your views, in specially that of the Eucharist, so I prefer someone inside of the Church talking about this.

Catholics are welcomed to post here too sharing their view (though I don't want this to become a rough debate)

 

[kit]

Doesn't seem anyone in the church has anything to say.

 

[GregConstantine]

Which one has kept the Apostolic deposit of faith without change? Note, I'm not talking about external changes, I'm talking about internal, doctrinal changes.


The only one who can claim that is the Orthodox Church, and to a great degree, the Oriental Orthodox can make that claim too.

 

[Albion]

So? How do we decide which one is the true one? If they are both in schism no Church is the true one.

Change "Church" to "communion" and you've got something to think about. Seriously.

 

[RC1970]

Hello to everyone. In recent arguments with roman-catholics I have realized that in the same way we call them schismatics they call ourselves that too, so I would wonder, who is right after all? Who separated from who? Because, the history I have read tells me that it was Constantinople who excomulgated Rome and not viceversa, because the catholic pope at that time died before the excomulgation could have been procesed.

Well, from a Protestant point of view, I would say that Rome was the one that deviated. The Eastern church remained much more consistent with the church fathers.

 

[All4Christ]

Doesn't seem anyone in the church has anything to say.

Many of us are waking up when he posted, in order to go to work...typically there is a gap of posting around that time of the morning. That doesn't mean we won't post a response.

 

[Wryetui]

Well, from a Protestant point of view, I would say that Rome was the one that deviated. The Eastern church remained much more consistent with the church fathers.

Yes, I was thinking about that too. If both are the "schismatics" let's say we have to look on which schismatic kept the whole stuff like it was before the schism and didn't change anything.

 

[RC1970]

Yes, I was thinking about that too. If both are the "schismatics" let's say we have to look on which schismatic kept the whole stuff like it was before the schism and didn't change anything.

When Ronald Reagan was asked why he left the Democrat party, his answer was "I didn't leave it, it left me". So the same could be said by the Eastern church in regard to Rome.

 

[kit]

It is not like the Oriental communion which left in reaction to a church teaching (council). The Single Church didn't have any different beliefs the month or year after the two leaders had their snits a millenium ago. The West has been more aggressive in defining things but it hasn't really changed (to say altered). Even if we look at primacy, the grandest bugaboo of all, each side has developed. How much angst has passed about the role of Moskau v Constantinople/Istanbul. If the East hadn't moved with the times there wouldn't be Old Caledarists or Old Believers. Each has progressed in their custom yet the Tradition isn't really different. If one argues otherwise then the word schism isn't the correct descriptive.

 

[Wryetui]

It is not like the Oriental communion which left in reaction to a church teaching (council). The Single Church didn't have any different beliefs the month or year after the two leaders had their snits a millenium ago. The West has been more aggressive in defining things but it hasn't really changed (to say altered). Even if we look at primacy, the grandest bugaboo of all, each side has developed. How much angst has passed about the role of Moskau v Constantinople/Istanbul. If the East hadn't moved with the times there wouldn't be Old Caledarists or Old Believers. Each has progressed in their custom yet the Tradition isn't really different. If one argues otherwise then the word schism isn't the correct descriptive.

The old believers/calendarists cannot be compared to the Great Schism. They are a sect, that cut off from the Church because they (a small group) rejected the calendar, so it wasn't any doctrinal change or dogmatic change, it was just a small sect drifted away by the thoughts of a leader that taught them to. And the Orientals are the same, it was the Church (at that time it was united), who proclaimed a dogma which was completely necessary for the understanding of redemption and salvation and they didn't liked it, so it was the same, a group rejected the teachings of the Church and left, the Church cannot force anyone to stay in.

 

[Albion]

The old believers/calendarists cannot be compared to the Great Schism. They are a sect, that cut off from the Church because they (a small group) rejected the calendar, so it wasn't any doctrinal change or dogmatic change, it was just a small sect drifted away by the thoughts of a leader that taught them to.

But they thought it to be a doctrinal issue, did they not? That's what matters, or else we could dismiss every doctrinal disagreement by saying the two sides were just quibbling over administrative matters or the egos of the leaders.

 

[GregConstantine]

So Albion, according to you, what our thoughts are on reality have the power to actually change reality? Wow!

 

[Albion]

So Albion, according to you, what our thoughts are on reality have the power to actually change reality? Wow!

Since that's not what I said, I guess no elaborate reply is called for.

 

[GregConstantine]

"But they thought it to be a doctrinal issue, did they not? That's what matters,"

 

[ArmyMatt]

There were mutual excommunications. Both of which were revoked half a century ago. Everyone is schimatic. The two Churches are in schism.

no, Rome is still anethema from the Orthodox POV

 

[buzuxi02]

There is only a falling away from the faith. Disputes always arise and suspension of concelebrations and of intra-communion always happen. Grace is not something that will vanish overnight. But as time goes on the enstrangement becomes more permanent and eventually councils will denounce novelties of the other side. The conscience of the Church eventually accepts this falling away and no longer attempts to correct and reconcile as a brother because such exercises have become fruitless. They now become strangers, the church no longer recognizing them as of themselves, but a separate entity altogether.