Magnus Maximus
Warrior
Upvote
0
I am not antiorthodox, because I am in the orthodox Catholic Church, perhaps you wanted to say that I am antiEOs, And no I am not antiEOs, I love the Idea of Latins and all greeks being united again, just as they were since the confirmation of filioque in Spain until Photios.
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.
Politics in Orthodox ChristianityThis experiment was the first Orthodox adventure in Christian politics. According to a renowned Orthodox historian and theologian, George Florovsky, “it was an unsuccessful and probably an unfortunate experiment. Yet it should be judged on its own terms.”[13] It was wrongly labelled as a “Ceasaropapism” (alluding to the combination of the two roles of Ceasar and pope) on the assumption that in Byzantium the Church ceased to exist as an independent “political” institution, since the emperor became with the agreement of the Church her actual ruler. The emperors were indeed rulers in the Christian society, also in religious matters, but never rulers over the Church.[14] In fact, this solution to the perennial problem of the relationship between Church and State, initiated by the overall policy of Constantine the Great,[15] had its origin in Pauline theology and his understanding of the role of all secular ruling authorities. The ruling secular authorities are understood as being instituted by God, and therefore are of divine origin:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them – taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.” (Romans 13:1-7)
Papal Supremacy and Pentarchy
Compounding the dogmatic issue was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an Ecumenical Council and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.
For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was considered by the Eastern bishops to be offensive to other bishops, as it undermined the collegiality and right of the episcopacy.
This led to the primary causes of the Schism - the disputes over conflicting claims of jurisdiction, in particular over papal authority. Pope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs (see also Pentarchy).
Pope Leo IX allowed the insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed in the West in 1014 [27]. Eastern Orthodox today state that the 28th Canon of the [Council of Chalcedon explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople.
The seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus declared:
It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέρανFaith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicea. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized[28]Eastern Orthodox today state that this Canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed drawn up by the First Ecumenical Council in 325, the wording of which but, it is claimed, not the substance, had been modified by the First Council of Constantinople, making additions such as "who proceeds from the Father".
In the Orthodox view, the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) would have universal primacy in a reunited Christendom, as primus inter pares without power of jurisdiction.[29]
Politics in Orthodox Christianity
Regarding Ceasaropapism ^ If that was evident then ...we would not have Emperors who did not 'get their way' but ....indeed we did.. As much as church politics interfered orthdooxy prevailed that shows the "influence' was never tot he point of "chocking" the ChurchAgain the consiliar nature of its organization versus the West enabled for overcoming that problem. The Church was a seperate body (as depicted by the double eagle) from the State the diarchy was preserved while orthodoxy came from the consience of the laity and its clergy. Thus we see the 'fake' counsil of Florence sinking into its own abyss. That is talking too by both ends of someone's mouth if we had ceasaropapism how this helps papism? I have no clue to why this gets brought up again and again...the double headed eagle sign of Byzantine empire should be enough vis-a-vis the "one state" of the Pope
Great Schism - OrthodoxWiki
Now who left ...orthodox dogma? All up to then there was unison in faith... I do not see how we left "orthodoxy" to be specific
Magnus Maximus the point made about the pentarchy is that:
There are 5 and one is gone. I think that makes it clearn who 'disagreed" with the rest that is all I am saying. Numbers, places and so forth are non relevant. The same would apply when the OO left the rest.... The split was one to the group
Surely you will at least admit that you forgot Jerusalem.No, originally there were 3, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, Of those three, one is not calcenonian, Alexandria, other has fallen in all heresies, Antioch, and One keeps beeing the First of all times, Rome.
Surely you will at least admit that you forgot Jerusalem.
No, originally there were 3, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, Of those three, one is not calcenonian, Alexandria, other has fallen in all heresies, Antioch, and One keeps beeing the First of all times, Rome.
I can't see maronites in this map. They never broke with Rome.
I could be wrong, Alonso, but I believe that they did break with Rome in 1054 A.D., with the rest of the East, until they accepted one of the two brief EO-RCC reunions and stayed with said acceptance. I refer to either the Council of Florence or the prior reunion, whose name I do not know.
Look close there is a little red spot by Damuscus
If you count the OO the East is larger, if you just count the EO the west is larger. I would hazard a guess that there wasn't a large Christian population in Russia yet. I know they started converting due to Basil 2 marraying somebody, the name escapes me.
What I don't get on this map it seems there was a large Latin community still in Turkey--That I did not know (hence the puprle and red lines in North East Turkey)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?