EO and RCC.

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

So it turns out you don't have a monopoly on catholicism, orthodoxy, or Eastern territories. So sorry to break the news to you.

That is what happens when Rome decided to go its own way and break Church Council Canons that she herself agreed to and signed...she was Catholic and Orthodox when it was part of the whole...sorry to break the news to you...

We can debate this for days but what will it accomplish...I just noticed I am replying on the RCC forum so I will leave it to you all...

 

[Gnarwhal]

Alright I think some folks need to check the sign on the door cause this isn't a forum where you can lob smack from the cheap seats at Rome.

 

[zippy2006]

That is what happens when Rome decided to go its own way and break Church Council Canons that she herself agreed to and signed...she was Catholic and Orthodox when it was part of the whole...sorry to break the news to you...

Why don't you make some sort of attempt to actually quote or reference these vague canons you keep referring to?

 

[chevyontheriver]

That is what happens when Rome decided to go its own way and break Church Council Canons that she herself agreed to and signed...she was Catholic and Orthodox when it was part of the whole...sorry to break the news to you...

We can debate this for days but what will it accomplish...I just noticed I am replying on the RCC forum so I will leave it to you all...

Please delete your disrespectful posts in this thread on the way out. I would never post the mirror image of what you posted, much less post it in the Orthodox forum.

 

[mark46]

That is what happens when Rome decided to go its own way and break Church Council Canons that she herself agreed to and signed...she was Catholic and Orthodox when it was part of the whole...sorry to break the news to you...

We can debate this for days but what will it accomplish...I just noticed I am replying on the RCC forum so I will leave it to you all...

Anglicans have been fine with using the original form of the Creed. I don't think that this is a major stumbling block.

 

[mark46]

Patriarch Bartholomew said "The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different
", in his address to Georgetown University.

I believe that our patriarchs are much closer than many of those in the pews, and local church leaders.
Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Francis (the pope) are personally close and have been trying to bring us closer.

The elephant in the room is the Patriarch of Russia. Russia did not sign the Revenna Declaration, and seems to have little interest in the dialogue that has been occurring between Constantinople and Rome for a century.

 

[mark46]

Please delete your disrespectful posts in this thread on the way out. I would never post the mirror image of what you posted, much less post it in the Orthodox forum.

Yes, his posts were disrespectful, especially on our forum. However, we might consider that he states real issues between us.

We might review what happened so long ago. Did we change the language of the Creed without agreement of the other patriarchs and without a universal council? Did the Patriarch Of Rome by council assert pastoral control over Christians beyond those previously under the Patriarch of Rome?

I am not taking positions on these issue, only suggesting that these issues have separated us, and probably for good reason.

 

[mark46]

.

The second difference concerns the status of the Pope, the bishop of Rome. Eastern Orthodox believe that the Pope is the first among equals, but that the title is honorific and does not mean that the Pope has power over the other patriarchs. Catholics believe that the Pope has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." That is, for Catholics the Pope is the head-honcho. For Orthodox he is not. This became a bigger issue when Catholics dogmatized Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870.

This more about the nature of leadership of the Church. The first among equals is much more than an honorific. I believe that was always the case. The other patriarchs never believed the one patriarch should rule over the others and over the entire Church. If an issue is so important that one patriarch needs to go beyond the collegial nature of the patriarchs, a mechanism has always been there, universal councils.

I believe that it was in the 800's that understandings seem to have changed in the West. .

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I will say that upon coming back after I had slept I believe, I was very disappointed to find out this thread had been close. What's more is that I was saddened in the course of manner in which each faction set out to be very disagreeable with one another. That was absolutely NOT my aim at all. I pray all will act in good charity. I wish to learn about these differences as both factions have a rich history indeed and I wish to get close to the Church fathers from which these factions come.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I will say that upon coming back after I had slept I believe, I was very disappointed to find out this thread had been close. What's more is that I was saddened in the course of manner in which each faction set out to be very disagreeable with one another. That was absolutely NOT my aim at all. I pray all will act in good charity. I wish to learn about these differences as both factions have a rich history indeed and I wish to get close to the Church fathers from which these factions come.

I thought this thread was off to a very bad start, aside from the good question you asked. Maybe it can be redeemed. Maybe not.

By all means explore the Church Fathers. This is a great time to be reading the Fathers. Never before has so much been available, and without having to go bankrupt to read it. Pay attention to translations as some older translations are rather stultifying. Some newer ones are fresh and easy to read, but also accurate. Look for a book on Patristics to assist in finding best translations. For starters maybe look at Mike Aquilina's 'The Fathers of the Church'. See what he recommends for texts. More can be found HERE: Mike Aquilina – The Fathers of the Church

Look at something like that to get an idea of the better translations. You can get the Ante-Nicene Fathers as well as the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, that huge conglomerate of work edited by Phillip Schaff, for almost nothing. But some of that is stultifying as I mentioned, written for Oxford Dons of the late 1800's. Catholic University Press had some much newer things in their 'The Fathers of the Church' series. But then there are other efforts that may be even better. A book like Mike Aquilina's might be good to find what are considered to be the best translations. But then maybe you read Latin and Greek fluently. If so you only have to worry about all of the other minor languages some of the Fathers used.

In addition there is IVP's 'Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture' in multiple volumes which is well worth the read. All the texts were newly translated. And the project is nearing completion. It pulls together multiple Fathers addressing the Bible verse by verse. You miss the thrust of a particular Father but you see how they all focus in on the meaning of one text.

 

[zippy2006]

I thought this thread was off to a very bad start, aside from the good question you asked. Maybe it can be redeemed. Maybe not.

By all means explore the Church Fathers. This is a great time to be reading the Fathers. Never before has so much been available, and without having to go bankrupt to read it. Pay attention to translations as some older translations are rather stultifying. Some newer ones are fresh and easy to read, but also accurate. Look for a book on Patristics to assist in finding best translations. For starters maybe look at Mike Aquilina's 'The Fathers of the Church'. See what he recommends for texts. More can be found HERE: Mike Aquilina – The Fathers of the Church

Look at something like that to get an idea of the better translations. You can get the Ante-Nicene Fathers as well as the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, that huge conglomerate of work edited by Phillip Schaff, for almost nothing. But some of that is stultifying as I mentioned, written for Oxford Dons of the late 1800's. Catholic University Press had some much newer things in their 'The Fathers of the Church' series. But then there are other efforts that may be even better. A book like Mike Aquilina's might be good to find what are considered to be the best translations. But then maybe you read Latin and Greek fluently. If so you only have to worry about all of the other minor languages some of the Fathers used.

In addition there is IVP's 'Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture' in multiple volumes which is well worth the read. All the texts were newly translated. And the project is nearing completion. It pulls together multiple Fathers addressing the Bible verse by verse. You miss the thrust of a particular Father but you see how they all focus in on the meaning of one text.

To make my point in a dramatic fashion: What hath the Fathers to do with Orthodoxy?

That is to say, the early Church was not divided. There were no Orthodox and Catholics at that time. There was but one Church. The Fathers are accepted as saints and authorities by modern-day Catholics and Orthodox. The question of doctrinal differences between the Catholics and the Orthodox really can't be addressed on the basis of the prominent theologians of the first centuries of Christianity.

It is true that some of the East-West differences can be traced to the early centuries, but at the same time, many of them cannot be so traced. Catholics celebrated the feast day of St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen on Saturday. When I read those theologians I don't take myself to be reading Orthodox Christians. Neither am I reading specifically Catholics Christians. They are Fathers. They are common to both Catholics and Orthodox (not to mention Protestants and other non-Chalcedonian Christians). They have no power to illustrate doctrinal differences between modern-day groups.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I thought this thread was off to a very bad start, aside from the good question you asked. Maybe it can be redeemed. Maybe not.

By all means explore the Church Fathers. This is a great time to be reading the Fathers. Never before has so much been available, and without having to go bankrupt to read it. Pay attention to translations as some older translations are rather stultifying. Some newer ones are fresh and easy to read, but also accurate. Look for a book on Patristics to assist in finding best translations. For starters maybe look at Mike Aquilina's 'The Fathers of the Church'. See what he recommends for texts. More can be found HERE: Mike Aquilina – The Fathers of the Church

Look at something like that to get an idea of the better translations. You can get the Ante-Nicene Fathers as well as the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, that huge conglomerate of work edited by Phillip Schaff, for almost nothing. But some of that is stultifying as I mentioned, written for Oxford Dons of the late 1800's. Catholic University Press had some much newer things in their 'The Fathers of the Church' series. But then there are other efforts that may be even better. A book like Mike Aquilina's might be good to find what are considered to be the best translations. But then maybe you read Latin and Greek fluently. If so you only have to worry about all of the other minor languages some of the Fathers used.

In addition there is IVP's 'Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture' in multiple volumes which is well worth the read. All the texts were newly translated. And the project is nearing completion. It pulls together multiple Fathers addressing the Bible verse by verse. You miss the thrust of a particular Father but you see how they all focus in on the meaning of one text.

I have Schaff's works, all three, as someone purchased it for me through my Bible application of choice, AccordanceBible software. It's great! I can search for a title, or English content, or even Bible passage. I've had it for less than a month, but already gotten a lot of value from it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have Schaff's works, all three, as someone purchased it for me through my Bible application of choice, AccordanceBible software. It's great! I can search for a title, or English content, or even Bible passage. I've had it for less than a month, but already gotten a lot of value from it.

Cool. I had to go to the library, to the BR60 section, and read in the library. Those volumes didn't circulate so I couldn't take them out. Not too many feet away was the massive 'Luther's Work' edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. To have a searchable text is another illustration of how this is a great time to study the Fathers.

 

[mark46]

.

The Fathers are accepted as saints and authorities by modern-day Catholics and Orthodox. The question of doctrinal differences between the Catholics and the Orthodox really can't be addressed on the basis of the prominent theologians of the first centuries of Christianity.

Yes, we all appeal to the same Fathers of the Church. The issue is the interpretations made by present day EO and Catholic.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Two of the biggest differences are the filioque and the understanding of the Papacy.

"Filioque" is Latin for "and from the Son." The Catholic Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. The Eastern Orthodox Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Eastern Orthodox creed is older than the Catholic creed.

The second difference concerns the status of the Pope, the bishop of Rome.

The original break included many cultural and political issues, but I think these two points are the biggest differences between the two groups today.

Agreed, these were the two major initial breaking points in the Great Schism of 1054. Afterwards, other issues completed the split. Some were theological, such as Gregory of Palamas debate with Barlaam on the EO practice of Hesychasm, a mystical prayer tradition.

(Quoted from Wikipedia: Hesychasm attracted the attention of Barlaam, a man who either converted to Orthodoxy or was baptized Orthodox[7][8] who encountered Hesychasts and heard descriptions of their practices during a visit to Mount Athos; he had also read the writings of Palamas, himself an Athonite monk. Trained in Western Scholastic theology, Barlaam was scandalized by hesychasm and began to combat it both orally and in his writings. As a private teacher of theology in the Western Scholastic mode, Barlaam propounded a more intellectual and propositional approach to the knowledge of God than the hesychasts taught.)
​

Other non-theological events also affected the church's relations, including the Norman invasion of Sicily and the pope ordering the Byzantine churches there to follow Roman practices prompting the Schism, arguments over the ecclesiastical rule of the Baltic states, and finally capped by the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The final attempt at reconciliation was during the 15th century with the Council of Ferrara just before the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. Although various Eastern bishops agreed to a reunion, it was opposed by St. Marcus of Ephesus at the council and by the Eastern populace overall. Basically, the general population viewed the bishops that signed onto Ferrara as sell-outs. By the fall of the Byzantine Empire a few decades later, things were pretty much set in stone as the Patriarch of Constantinople was not only the spiritual authority but also was made the secular authority over Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

 

[zippy2006]

Agreed, these were the two major initial breaking points in the Great Schism of 1054. Afterwards, other issues completed the split. Some were theological, such as Gregory of Palamas debate with Barlaam on the EO practice of Hesychasm, a mystical prayer tradition.

(Quoted from Wikipedia: Hesychasm attracted the attention of Barlaam, a man who either converted to Orthodoxy or was baptized Orthodox[7][8] who encountered Hesychasts and heard descriptions of their practices during a visit to Mount Athos; he had also read the writings of Palamas, himself an Athonite monk. Trained in Western Scholastic theology, Barlaam was scandalized by hesychasm and began to combat it both orally and in his writings. As a private teacher of theology in the Western Scholastic mode, Barlaam propounded a more intellectual and propositional approach to the knowledge of God than the hesychasts taught.)​

​

This is an interesting issue, but strictly speaking it was an intra-Orthodox split, as Barlaam was Orthodox. Nevertheless, the debate does raise important questions, particularly if it is believed that Barlaam authentically represented Western theology (a possibility which is highly contested). The West generally repudiates Barlaam rather than claiming him as one of their own. It is a complicated issue on which I remain undecided.

​

Other non-theological events also affected the church's relations, including the Norman invasion of Sicily and the pope ordering the Byzantine churches there to follow Roman practices prompting the Schism, arguments over the ecclesiastical rule of the Baltic states, and finally capped by the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The final attempt at reconciliation was during the 15th century with the Council of Ferrara just before the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. Although various Eastern bishops agreed to a reunion, it was opposed by St. Marcus of Ephesus at the council and by the Eastern populace overall. Basically, the general population viewed the bishops that signed onto Ferrara as sell-outs. By the fall of the Byzantine Empire a few decades later, things were pretty much set in stone as the Patriarch of Constantinople was not only the spiritual authority but also was made the secular authority over Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Albion]

Further, the Catholic Church is not limited to Rome. There are 23 Eastern Catholic Churches which are part of the Catholic Church, do not use the Roman Rite, and accept things like Papal Primacy.

If they all accept the bishop of Rome as the head of their church, it's not mere "polemics" to refer casually to this communion as the Roman Church or Church of Rome.

That's usually done in order to distinguish it from the other Catholic churches, such as the Old Catholics, Orthodox, Armenians, and a number of other ancient Middle Eastern church bodies.

 

[zippy2006]

If they all accept the bishop of Rome as the head of their church, it's not mere "polemics" to refer casually to this communion as the Roman Church or Church of Rome.

The Church of Rome is a particular Church of the Roman rite which belongs to the Catholic Church. Catholic Churches, such as the Byzantine Catholic Church, are not "The Roman Church."

That's usually done in order to distinguish it from the other Catholic churches, such as the Old Catholics, Orthodox, Armenians, and a number of other ancient Middle Eastern church bodies.

That is obviously not the reasoning that post #2 was using, nor is it a common reason in general.

This thread is about Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which are the names which the churches give themselves. Please stop derailing the thread with tangential points, and please stop telling Catholics what the name of their Church is. I do not tell Anglicans what the name of their church is. That would be extremely rude and arrogant.