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

[infowarrior1]

Jesus founded THE church. If an unbelieving man were wandering alone in the desert and by chance came across a Bible, would he not be saved and part of the church if he confessed Jesus is Lord and believed in his heart, as Romans 10:9 says?

Calling Jesus "Lord" and doing works in his name, as Matthew 7 suggests, is not the same as believing he rose from the dead to pay your debt nor that you have accepted his generosity for doing so.

Either way whether you consider Arians and Mormons as Christians or not doesn't affect Romans 10:9. It is the most fundamental part of the bond that unites us as brothers in Christ and as the church.

The Deity of Jesus Christ is essential as much as his Life Death and Resurrection.

Not only is his Deity most evident in the Book of John but also in the letter to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelations.

 

[infowarrior1]

Yeah this is a good answer. Day 1 at Pentecost there were bishops and they went on to perform sacraments and ordain new bishops. Low Church Protestants have to explain how that Church disappeared or how they are somehow the valid continuation of it.

Yeah. That explanation would have to involve the Real Church ending up underground or fading from view as a result of Institutional subversion by malavolent entities seeking to co-opt the Body of Christ.

Personally I don't that much either. Maybe there will be a more satisfactory answer.



On to another topic according to a Book I read the "Triumph of Christianity" by Robert Stark.

He found that there wasn't much interest in Christianity among the commoners in Western Europe for a long time and the Clergy in many areas weren't well trained or zealous either until the Counter-Reformation and they also had children to women which they unofficially treated as their wives and that they are not married to and they raised those children as a Father would:

The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World's Largest Religion eBook: Stark, Rodney: Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store

The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World's Largest Religion eBook: Stark, Rodney: Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store

www.amazon.com.au

Folk Magic was still very prevalent. So Superstitution was still rife. Perhaps there is evidence to the contrary but that seems to be what happened on the ground.

 

[Cicero12]

There is no Neoplatonic element in Orthodox teachings, in fact Platonic thought on God is deemed "Hellenism" is a heresy. If anything you Catholics incorporated neoplatonic and kabbalistic ideology in your church in the renaissance period (read Michael Hoffman's occult renaissance church of rome).

The last attempt at so-called unification was the council of Florence which was a disaster. Vatican I and II only made your hole even deeper. The only "reunification" can be individual Catholics renouncing the filioque as heresy and joining the true church.

 

[TheMoralLaw]

Lol no. These are inconsequential elements.

The prime way this is soluble is for the Catholics to drop Papal Supremacy, and agree that the Pope merely has autocephaly over a limited geographic territory (Western Europe), and has no power over any Orthodox bishop.

That’s not gonna happen however.

What would be so bad about a spiritual father being in a position of some authority over a spiritual realm any more than a father being in a position of some authority over the realm of his family? Or are you just saying that that one person should be the Patriarch of Constantinople??

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

What would be so bad about a spiritual father being in a position of some authority over a spiritual realm any more than a father being in a position of some authority over the realm of his family? Or are you just saying that that one person should be the Patriarch of Constantinople??

That’s a trite comparison. It’s also wrong.

The Phanar has only a positional title, not de jure or de facto authority.

The Orthodox Church already has a head: Jesus Christ. We don’t need a Pope.

 

[TheMoralLaw]

That’s a trite comparison. It’s also wrong.

The Phanar has only a positional title, not de jure or de facto authority.

The Orthodox Church already has a head: Jesus Christ. We don’t need a Pope.

You could answer the question.

Btw a comparison is not "wrong". At most it is inapposite.

Is that your idea of "I will not leave you orphans"? Is that your idea of "power to bind and loose"? A war of all against all, each claiming they have Jesus Christ as the "head" of their movement. The devil loves that I'm sure. It's pretty close to Protestantism. What do you need Bishops for except ordinations? Even Protestants have synods and approved seminaries for ordination.

 

[TheMoralLaw]

There is no Neoplatonic element in Orthodox teachings, in fact Platonic thought on God is deemed "Hellenism" is a heresy.

You never heard the word "emanations" pop up in Orthodox circles?

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

You could answer the question.

Btw a comparison is not "wrong". At most it is inapposite.

Is that your idea of "I will not leave you orphans"? Is that your idea of "power to bind and loose"? A war of all against all, each claiming they have Jesus Christ as the "head" of their movement. The devil loves that I'm sure. It's pretty close to Protestantism. What do you need Bishops for except ordinations? Even Protestants have synods and approved seminaries for ordination.

Your response demonstrates exactly why we cannot have unity at the present time. Too much bitterness and hatred

It’s not productive to argue, since you seem set in your ways.

As another poster said, it’s better for us to go our separate ways, while remaining cordial.

Blessings to you.

 

[infowarrior1]

There is no Neoplatonic element in Orthodox teachings, in fact Platonic thought on God is deemed "Hellenism" is a heresy. If anything you Catholics incorporated neoplatonic and kabbalistic ideology in your church in the renaissance period (read Michael Hoffman's occult renaissance church of rome).

The last attempt at so-called unification was the council of Florence which was a disaster. Vatican I and II only made your hole even deeper. The only "reunification" can be individual Catholics renouncing the filioque as heresy and joining the true church.

I believe that the key Orthodox tenet. The energy/essence distinction makes a lot of sense. The Filioque does end up causing a lot of absurd consequences down the line.

Jay Dyer explains it very well IMO.

 

[Cicero12]

I believe that the key Orthodox tenet. The energy/essence distinction makes a lot of sense. The Filioque does end up causing a lot of absurd consequences down the line.

Jay Dyer explains it very well IMO.

I'm not going to rail more on Catholics because a lot of them are good people, just misguided.

Here's the kicker tho, the Catholics literally have Monothelites (Maronites) in communion with their church. People who don't even have the filioque and that worldview. Hell, they consider St Gregory Palamas, the arch-critic of Catholic absolute divine simplicity as a saint!!

 

[bucky]

Yes, I realize. But what I'm saying is, if you can find out what allowed that millennia of unity to exist, that might be the key for future unity.

I'm no expert, but I don't believe there ever was a lot of unity between east and west in Christianity, at least not in the sense of eastern Christians accepting the Bishop of Rome as the head of the church in the same way that modern Roman Catholics do. During antiquity you had the bishops of five major Sees (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, IIRC) who were seen as coequal. Then shortly after the fall of the western empire, you had the Byzantine papacy, where the eastern emperor directly chose and controlled the bishop of Rome for centuries, then shortly after that, the Frankish papacy where the bishopric of Rome is starting to evolve into something similar to what we think of the papacy now and papal power was in the hands of the king of the Franks or the pope, depending on the situation. The popes begin to insist on their authority over all of Christianity, claims that mostly went ignored in the East. Then after that comes the age of the crusades and the formal schism, and then soon after the sack of Constantinople by the fourth crusade. Outright hostility between eastern and western Christians ensues.

There are some overtures that never went anywhere by the easterners to reunify in the 1400s as the eastern empire is swept away under the Turkish onslaught, but just out of desperation and terror of the Ottomans. Since then, like most everyone else is saying, the theological and cultural gap is too wide. The main thing is that the Roman Catholics would have to give up on the pope being the vicar of Christ and the supreme leader on earth of all of Christianity, which would essentially mean no longer being Catholics, which isn't going to happen.

 

[TheMoralLaw]

Your response demonstrates exactly why we cannot have unity at the present time. Too much bitterness and hatred

There was no bitterness or hatred in that response, if you reread it. None.

I think the key, as in the time of Athanasius, is to find those things that have to be anathema. And the burden is on the party saying they should be anathema.

But I really would like to know from Orthodox why, as a management principle, having one guy as a head is a horrible thing. It's done in virtually every organization to make it function. As this thread indicates, it's usually the main argument out of the gate for Orthodox, but it's seldom explained. It would be like if my father had been absent for 18 years of my life and I was raised by my mother. My mother and father get back together again, but I'm use to being man of the house and dont want to submit to the father's authority. So I come up with arguments that the whole concept of fathers per se, is shit.

Blessings to you as well. I would be totally happy living in Russia, and would join religious processions (if I was allowed), look fondly upon the Patriarch, pray for him, consider my neighbors to be good Christians, ... but I understand the widespread hatred of Catholics would make living there impossible for a Catholic.

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

There was no bitterness or hatred in that response, if you reread it. None.

I think the key, as in the time of Athanasius, is to find those things that have to be anathema. And the burden is on the party saying they should be anathema.

But I really would like to know from Orthodox why, as a management principle, having one guy as a head is a horrible thing. It's done in virtually every organization to make it function. As this thread indicates, it's usually the main argument out of the gate for Orthodox, but it's seldom explained. It would be like if my father had been absent for 18 years of my life and I was raised by my mother. My mother and father get back together again, but I'm use to being man of the house and dont want to submit to the father's authority. So I come up with arguments that the whole concept of fathers per se, is shit.

Blessings to you as well. I would be totally happy living in Russia, and would join religious processions (if I was allowed), look fondly upon the Patriarch, pray for him, consider my neighbors to be good Christians, ... but I understand the widespread hatred of Catholics would make living there impossible for a Catholic.

There’s nothing wrong with having one guy as the head of everything — the Orthodox agree. The Orthodox have Jesus Christ as head of the Church, as I already mentioned.

You have no interest in understanding the Orthodox position on these subjects, judging from the tenor of your questions.

 

[Augustus_Principe]

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.

Fair enough. I appreciate the correction on the quote. Still seems strange to me people would agree with that sentiment, seeing how Hagia Sophia was/is a Museum/Mosque(depending on who is ruling) now for over 500 years, Greek Genocides, Turkey never returning to Greek hands unless another world war is started etc etc. Personally, I know what my choice would be were this to happen to Rome...but to each his own. I believe the "losing your faith" part is a bit of fearmongering among Orthodox. We have Byzantine Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, etc that keep their Liturgy. But this fear nothing new I suppose, as Orthodox Killed St Josephat for fear of "Latinization" for example.

Josaphat Kuntsevych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And now we have the Modernist Heresy to deal with... so it is complicated in today's age.

Thanks again for the article. I'll give it a read as I have been meaning to read on Byzantine history for quite a while now. My primary interest has always been History, so reading from a Historical aspect will help until I grow more spiritually as the years go by.

Have you, or any else read the volumes written by Alexander A. Vasiliev? Curious on what people think about them and if its recommended.

History of the Byzantine Empire, 324–1453

 

[DanielH]

Fair enough. I appreciate the correction on the quote. Still seems strange to me people would agree with that sentiment, seeing how Hagia Sophia was/is a Museum/Mosque(depending on who is ruling) now for over 500 years, Greek Genocides, Turkey never returning to Greek hands unless another world war is started etc etc. Personally, I know what my choice would be were this to happen to Rome...but to each his own. I believe the "losing your faith" part is a bit of fearmongering among Orthodox. We have Byzantine Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, etc that keep their Liturgy. But this fear nothing new I suppose, as Orthodox Killed St Josephat for fear of "Latinization" for example.

Josaphat Kuntsevych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And now we have the Modernist Heresy to deal with... so it is complicated in today's age.

Thanks again for the article. I'll give it a read as I have been meaning to read on Byzantine history for quite a while now. My primary interest has always been History, so reading from a Historical aspect will help until I grow more spiritually as the years go by.

Have you, or any else read the volumes written by Alexander A. Vasiliev? Curious on what people think about them and if its recommended.

History of the Byzantine Empire, 324–1453

Josaphat Kuntsevych ordered the arrest of an Orthodox priest who was holding secret services and he also stole our churches, forcing the faithful to worship outside in tents at best. Peasants understandably got very upset at this. He was killed for persecuting the Orthodox, who the Vatican now says not to proselytize (let alone persecute) and have valid sacraments/Grace and for that he is canonized.

That's not just “Latinization” as you frame it.

 

[iop890]

@Augustus_Principe You say the Orthodox should have converted to Catholicism to avoid political persecution, and that you would have done the reverse if it were Rome facing muslim persecution. Does that mean you don't think Roman Catholicism is the one true church? Or if you do why would you leave it to avoid persecution? And why would you expect Orthodox who believe they're in the one true church to leave it to avoid persecution by muslims?

I'm not trying to be an ass. As someone that's not an expert but that is trying to decide between the two I'm very confused by people who take this position. Just like I'm confused by people who decide based on which liturgy they prefer or which country their ancestors are from or something. A lot of Catholic/Orthodox on the internet seem to push this idea that they're equally valid choices, or if not equally valid at least both acceptable, but that doesn't seem to be the actual position of either church.

 

[davidjones]

The thing about Catholicism is that it is so Western. A-lot of men will be reluctant to leave it for that very reason and I understand where they are coming from. The only Orthodox Church around for some people may be a Greek Orthodox Church or Russian Orthodox Church where they only say the Liturgy in that language and all the parishioners are of that ethnicity.

There is a universal component to Orthodoxy however that isn't present in Catholicism though. Orthodoxy can be adopted into any culture, any ethnic group and become very much apart of ones ethnic identity and tribe. That just hasn't happen in the West yet because the West has been dominated by the Catholic Church.

Hopefully at some point the Catholic and Orthodox tensions can calm down and we can find neutral ground and work together in sorting out our issues with one another. The main issues being as others have highlighted:

1. Papal Infallibility
2. The Filioque
3. The Rest Of The Repercussions of both Vatican Councils

 

[Augustus_Principe]

@Augustus_Principe You say the Orthodox should have converted to Catholicism to avoid political persecution, and that you would have done the reverse if it were Rome facing muslim persecution. Does that mean you don't think Roman Catholicism is the one true church? Or if you do why would you leave it to avoid persecution? And why would you expect Orthodox who believe they're in the one true church to leave it to avoid persecution by muslims?

I'm not trying to be an ass. As someone that's not an expert but that is trying to decide between the two I'm very confused by people who take this position. Just like I'm confused by people who decide based on which liturgy they prefer or which country their ancestors are from or something. A lot of Catholic/Orthodox on the internet seem to push this idea that they're equally valid choices, or if not equally valid at least both acceptable, but that doesn't seem to be the actual position of either church.

Justinian conquered Rome. Byzantium installed their own Roman Bishops for over 200 years. Rome did not stop being Catholic. Did Rome stop being the One True Church then? At "worst", a melding of both cultures/liturgies occurred, which is why there is some Greek in the TLM today. No one will know for certain, but I am sure that the Orthodox would have been allowed to stay Orthodox/Practice their own liturgy if they accepted Papal supremacy in the 1400s. But from the looks of it, it seems accepting the Pope equals you're no longer Orthodox.

 

[Blade Runner]

The Orthodox have unity in faith and in practice. That's true unity. Look what happens when Jorge comes around? More excuses. It's like the protestant problem (cult of personality) recently and sadly exposed again by Mr. Zacharias - looking up to any single person that is not Jesus Christ is a very dangerous position to put oneself in, let another thousands, or millions, of others.

As I said before though, these problems are too old, the differences in worldview and theology to stark, and the desire for it is akin to ecumenism/kumbaya- which means it's not going anywhere. Again, if it makes you feel better nearly all of the christian church will apostasize, and probably in our lifetime. We'll be happy to find one another again, may the good Lord grant it, in our sufferings and love for him during that time of tribulation - not in some other name we gave to Christianity at a point in time, however important it was to all of us and our identities/formation.

 

[TheMoralLaw]

Christians in the west are entering an era of persecution. It's a pity that Orthodox have such vitriol for Catholics that they don't see them as brothers. Because Russia and Ukraine could serve as safe-havens for Catholics persecuted for their faith. How you can say that two groups that believe in Jesus Christ, logos, the seven sacraments have "differences in worldview too stark" to get along is beyond me.