Can anyone think of a magic key that would solve the Orthodox-Catholic split?

[NickK]

I was hoping this wouldn't lead to squabbles but rather some creative thinking. How did two rites live together as one church for a thousand years and then suddenly wake up and decide they were two churches? What's the key to getting "back there"?

The Franks conquered the Western part of the empire in the 10th century and they took over the Papacy.
Charles the Great (or The Great Charlatan as he should be called) wanted legitimacy as a "Roman" emperor, so the true Roman Empire in the East had to be de-legitimized.

 

[Slide-Rule]

You want a "magic key" for the Great Schism of 1054? We are approaching 1,000 years now since then. Generations of men smarter than any of us have worked on this problem and haven't found an answer.

The best thing you can do is to pray for unity.

If it took 1,000 years for the Church to "split" it might take another 1,000 years to get back together. I figure maybe around the year 3,000 or so the Church will once again be reunited at some future "Council of Alpha Centauri."

One question for the Orthodox here. Do 100% of Orthodox theologians believe that what a Christian believes was sealed off after the last ecumenical council or are there some orthodox theologians who say, "Well thats an over-simplification of orthodox theology. Of course new concepts can develop and can become part of the deposit of faith"?

I'm not an Orthodox, but from a Catholic point-of-view, "New concepts" aren't "developed" in the way I believe you're thinking of, I could be wrong though. The "concepts" are already there, we just make them "more clear" over time. Nothing "new" is created.

The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation, the things Catholics are bound to believe in, ended with the death of the last Apostle, St. John.

My own little addition to this thread as a Catholic:

The Filioque and Papal Supremacy are not going away. Not trying to be rude, but just being realistic. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

The Orthodox stand in a "different position" to the Catholic Church than the Protestant Denominations. With regards to "ethnicities with different churches" in the past in America that existed, it shouldn't have, and I wish Bishops of the last century had worked against that. That isn't supposed to exist, it's supposed to be all one Church.

 

[kel]

Learn to live together or accept that you will die together, it's that simple. The differences in your dogma might be important to you, but those who want to destroy you don't know or care about any of that.

Some deboooonker is going to call this a logical fallacy, but frankly right now anyone who's getting into an argument about whether crossing yourself left to right or right to left is the One True Way while children are being mutilated and experiemented upon should be cast out from any serious discussion about anything. They're not just useless, they're actively harmful. Go holiness spiral somewhere else, the men are talking.

But, hey, that's me, a non-member of either church, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

The Orthodox stand in a "different position" to the Catholic Church than the Protestant Denominations. With regards to "ethnicities with different churches" in the past in America that existed, it shouldn't have, and I wish Bishops of the last century had worked against that. That isn't supposed to exist, it's supposed to be all one Church.

We Orthodox do not have churches of 'different ethnicities.' We have churches bound by geographic boundaries, just like the Catholics do.

Each of our individual churches has autocephalous organization, and we don't have a Pope-like figure, but to claim that the Orthodox have ethnic churches is mistaken.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has ethnic churches; just look at the Eastern Catholic churches, which are fiercely ethnic compared to comparable Orthodox ones in the same jurisdiction.

I do not mean to attack the Catholic Church on this front -- I love my Catholic brothers and sisters -- but this is a fact; the Eastern Catholics generally view themselves as co-ethnics. This is somewhat understandable, given their history, but is not consistent with church catholicity.

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

One question for the Orthodox here. Do 100% of Orthodox theologians believe that what a Christian believes was sealed off after the last ecumenical council or are there some orthodox theologians who say, "Well thats an over-simplification of orthodox theology. Of course new concepts can develop and can become part of the deposit of faith"?

The Orthodox Church believes that the fullness of Christian revelation happened at Pentecost.

Everything after that is just a clarification. The councils were convened to respond to heresies, and to clarify doctrine -- not to develop doctrine themselves.

 

[stugatz]

I was hoping this wouldn't lead to squabbles but rather some creative thinking. How did two rites live together as one church for a thousand years and then suddenly wake up and decide they were two churches? What's the key to getting "back there"?

It wasn't one unbroken church until the Middle Ages - you did have some significant breakaways, although not nearly as huge. (The Assyrians initially, who aren't that huge of a group, and later the Orientals - today they're called Oriental Orthodoxy, and are mainly the Coptics and the Armenians.)

I need to read far more on the history - what I can say, though, is that the Crusades would have gone a lot smoother for the West if the Catholics and Orthodox weren't infighting at that point. It was probably due to the issues we already discussed (Papal supremacy, Filioque, etc.), plus long-standing cultural differences that came to a head.

It had been a long time split that simmered since the Roman Empire split into East and West (300s AD) and were separated by language. This was soon after Constantine brought Christianity to Rome, and it hadn't had a whole lot of time to develop as a mainstream religion in the meantime. (If I'm not mistaken, Theodosius I was the last emperor to rule over a united Rome, and was the one that finally made it the official state religon - not good timing if you want a cohesive culture. It was probably an impossible task, anyway, there was so much Roman territory it wouldn't have stayed cohesive.)

 

[EndlessGravity]

This is the wrong question. The Bible as we know it didn't exist when the Church was founded at Pentecost.

Given your answer, your cutting Christians into divisions is merely human pride in my opinion. Want to unite divisions? Stop playing these games and look to Christ.

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

Given your answer, your cutting Christians into divisions is merely human pride in my opinion. Want to unite divisions? Stop playing these games and look to Christ.

The Bible, as we have it today, did not exist at Pentecost. This is just historical fact.

The Church that Christ founded was not Protestant. If we want to heal divisions, we need to come home to the original church. No pride in that.

 

[Steiner]

I think it is more realistic to hope and pray for cooperation and respect between our two churches. Now is not the time to squabble over our dogmatic differences, as Christianity is under siege. As a Catholic I respect my Orthodox brothers and sisters, and I would gladly fight along side them to make a better world for all of our fellow Christians.

 

[Elipe]

I think it is more realistic to hope and pray for cooperation and respect between our two churches. Now is not the time to squabble over our dogmatic differences, as Christianity is under siege. As a Catholic I respect my Orthodox brothers and sisters, and I would gladly fight along side them to make a better world for all of our fellow Christians.

"Never thought I'd fight side-by-side with an elf."
"How about side-by-side with a friend?"
"Aye, I could do that."

 

[DanielH]

Relevant to include in this thread that the Vatican already believes that the Orthodox have valid Grace and sacraments and that it is morally wrong to try to proselytize us to Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox do not reciprocate either of these beliefs.

 

[iop890]

Relevant to include in this thread that the Vatican already believes that the Orthodox have valid Grace and sacraments and that it is morally wrong to try to proselytize us to Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox do not reciprocate either of these beliefs.

Is that really the case though? Isn't anyone that denies the Vatican 1 declarations about Papal supremacy/infallibility still anathema?

One of the reasons I'm leaning orthodox though is how contradictory a lot of Catholic positions seem to be regarding them. Ex ecclesiam nulla salus but Eastern Catholic churches are free to venerate post-schism Orthodox saints. Isn't that contradicting the Catholic church's own dogmatic statements? Also, Gregory of Narek is a Doctor of the Church and St. Stephen of Perm and St. Sergius of Radonezh seem to be canonized in the Caholic Church as well. But I could be wrong, I'm no expert, I'm still trying to figure things out myself.

 

[2 Right Hands]

Anathema means being excluded from the Church because of heresy. Catholics don't consider the Orthodox heretics but rather schismatics (and vice versa?), meaning not in communion.

 

[iop890]

What about this though?

So, then,

• if anyone says that
  • the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
    • not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
    • not only in matters of
      • faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
      • discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
  • he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
  • this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
  • let him be anathema.

• we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
  • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    • that is, when,
    • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
    • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
    • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  • he possesses,
    • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

  ---

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

It was my understanding that the Orthodox Church was considered to be in a state of schism and heresy, under Papal anathema.

 

[DanielH]

What about this though?




It was my understanding that the Orthodox Church was considered to be in a state of schism and heresy, under Papal anathema.

We need another Pope to interpret papal decrees

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

What about this though?




It was my understanding that the Orthodox Church was considered to be in a state of schism and heresy, under Papal anathema.

This is a Vatican I understanding, not Vatican II

 

[DeFide]

I hope some high-level theologians are working on it. It's going to take unity to save Christianity. Belloc said, "Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe." Without a functioning, thriving, Christian Europe, neither Europe nor Christianity will survive.

*Cringe Why are Novus Ordos so obsessed with “healing the schism” and blathering on about this? Your aims are entirely naturalistic and so is your false ecumenism.

1)Read Mortalium Animos. http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-...ts/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html

2)Stop worrying about “saving the West” and worry about saving souls, starting with your own.

3)Reject the false New Religion of Vatican II, its false popes and counterfeit hierarchy; adhere to the one true unchanging Roman Catholic faith of Pius XII and his predecessors.

Furthermore, the schism was healed at the Council of Lyons (1274) and again at the Council of Florence (1431–1449); both times the Eastern Schismatics abjured their errors and returned to the Roman Catholic Church for a short time before going back going back into schism. So I think they finally missed the boat and won’t have another opportunity. The Great Apostasy (2 Thess. 2:3-11) began after the death of the last true Pope Pius XII in 1958 and culminated in the modernist Second Vatican Council, and a counterfeit Novus Ordo Religion was established and the True Church went into Eclipse, which is where we are now. If the Eastern Schismatics “unite” with anything, it will not be with the true Roman Catholic Church but will simply he absorbed with all other false religions into the diabolical, Freemasonic, dogma-less, one-world Novus Ordo Sect currently led by “pope” Francis shortly before the reign of Antichrist. That’s where we are currently. If the EO sect had one ounce of holiness in it, you would not see the Novus Ordo antipopes so keen to pursue ecumenism with them in the manner in which they go about it:

 

[DanielH]

*Cringe Why are Novus Ordos so obsessed with “healing the schism” and blathering on about this? Your aims are entirely naturalistic and so is your false ecumenism.

1)Read Mortalium Animos. http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-...ts/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html

2)Stop worrying about “saving the West” and worry about saving souls, starting with your own.

3)Reject the false New Religion of Vatican II, its false popes and counterfeit hierarchy; adhere to the one true unchanging Roman Catholic faith of Pius XII and his predecessors.

Furthermore, the schism was healed at the Council of Lyons (1274) and again at the Council of Florence (1431–1449); both times the Eastern Schismatics abjured their errors and returned to the Roman Catholic Church for a short time before going back going back into schism. So I think they finally missed the boat and won’t have another opportunity. The Great Apostasy (2 Thess. 2:3-11) began after the death of the last true Pope Pius XII in 1958 and culminated in the modernist Second Vatican Council, and a counterfeit Novus Ordo Religion was established and the True Church went into Eclipse, which is where we are now. If the Eastern Schismatics “unite” with anything, it will not be with the true Roman Catholic Church but will simply he absorbed with all other false religions into the diabolical, Freemasonic, dogma-less, one-world Novus Ordo Sect currently led by “pope” Francis shortly before the reign of Antichrist. That’s where we are currently. If the EO sect had one ounce of holiness in it, you would not see the Novus Ordo antipopes so keen to pursue ecumenism with them in the manner in which they go about it: View attachment 29479

Both of those councils you mentioned where us "Eastern schismatics" "rejoined" the West were led on the Orthodox side by just a handful of Greek delegates. This isn't how Orthodoxy works, you can't say all of Orthodoxy did something when only a minority of bishops within one of the Patriarchates ever agreed to the results of those councils. We don't have a person or even one patriarchate with universal jurisdiction over all of us.

 

[Augustus_Principe]

Our Sedevecantist friend here makes decent points. From my understanding, the west did try to heal the schism... However, even when the barbarians were at the gates of Constantinople, the Greek people REFUSED to join with the west, stating they would "rather be muslims than papist" (wish I could find the source for that quote, but I remember reading that while looking this up a while back). Well, as the old adage goes, be careful what you wish for. I also recall Monks in Athos not happy with this decision, they rejected their superiors and became martyrs. Pride is a dangerous sin, and I see that as the reason for the Greeks rejecting the decisions at the councils.

Now however would be the absolute worst time for the Orthodox to join Rome. We have to get our own house in order first, and from that looks of it, it's going to take a few generations. My estimation is at the very minimum another 100 years or so. The Orthodox are better off on their own for now, and they serve to humble us Catholics.

 

[DanielH]

Our Sedevecantist friend here makes decent points. From my understanding, the west did try to heal the schism... However, even when the barbarians were at the gates of Constantinople, the Greek people REFUSED to join with the west, stating they would "rather be muslims than papist" (wish I could find the source for that quote, but I remember reading that while looking this up a while back). Well, as the old adage goes, be careful what you wish for. I also recall Monks in Athos not happy with this decision, they rejected their superiors and became martyrs. Pride is a dangerous sin, and I see that as the reason for the Greeks rejecting the decisions at the councils.

Now however would be the absolute worst time for the Orthodox to join Rome. We have to get our own house in order first, and from that looks of it, it's going to take a few generations. My estimation is at the very minimum another 100 years or so.

I just read about it in Byzantine Theology by Father John Meyendorff, the Greek people said they would rather live under Muslim rule - not that they would rather be Muslim. That is something to look up to, to be willing to lose your material status and comfort to preserve your faith. Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos, the last Byzantine emperor was also a uniate ecumenist who left Orthodoxy, reaffirming the Council of Florence and holding a blended divine liturgy and Latin mass. So the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire was Catholic, not Orthodox when he died.