www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West On Rome and her 3 Major Errors

Yes, he was a Franciscan. Switch sides during the sweeping reform of Vatican II.

Thanks Andrew - this is my experience. But why? Why do Catholics downplay them and Orthodox exaggerate? Why not the other way around? What does this tell us? I'd love to know...

Dear Fr. Deacon Nikolai,

I would like to apologise for my angry tone toward you in my post above.

It was not my intention and I ask for your forgiveness.

See, not all of us Uniates are so bad!

And if it's true that our union with Rome obtained for us some money, would you have an article that indicates where I might go to collect some of it?

Alex

I'm sure there are many reasons you could point to. These are probably some generalities in no real order in my estimation:

On the Orthodox side I would say something of a defensive mentality might be prevalent given what it has taken to assure the survival of the church. I would say Orthodoxy, down to the laity, tends to be much more conscious of its own history. Perhaps this has kept the memory of past wrongs (real and perceived) more in the forefront of Orthodox thinking.

On the Catholic side I would say there is something of a widespread ignorance of Orthodox theology, piety and the political history. I think this has a tendency to create an enigmatic view of the Eastern Church and to view Orthodox claims and concerns as shallow and/or unwarranted. That combined with the factors I listed about the Orthodox I think in large part fuels and amplifies the cycle of frustration between the two sides. I also believe there is an effort to view differences as minimal on the Catholic side because it has introduced more dogmatic roadblocks to reconciliation in the post schism period.

Aside from these I think there are some other key differences that shape the views of the churches. Orthodoxy never had a Reformation, it hasn�t dealt with the effects of the European Enlightenment in the way the West has, and it hasn�t had a major Modernist movement to deal with. It has not had a watershed event like the Second Vatican Council.

The development of doctrine is another key difference, because Catholics and Orthodox are usually not tapping the same reference points when discussing their differences.

I hope I�ve been an equal opportunity offender here.

Andrew

The answer is in history.

First, the Roman Catholic Church decided to change the creed of all Christians by itself, and it claimed to have the power to do so. This is regarding the filioque, which is abundantly discussed elsewhere at this forum. Both of these ideas (changing the creed by itself and claiming the power to do so) were offensive errors to the Orthodox. However, this did not seem to poison the Orthodox view of Catholicism. After all, back then, Catholic Western Europe was a backwater of barbarians and semi-barbarians, but the Orthodox world of the Byzantine Empire was the center and bastion of Christian civilization. The filioque was considered heresy, but it was a matter of (backwater) bishops. It didn't seem to go to the very essence of Catholic-Orthodox relations till . . .

The Fourth Crusade. **That** event, in 1204, poisoned the heart of Orthodoxy against the Catholic Church. Western Crusaders, with the support of the Roman Catholic Church, conducted the Fourth Crusade against the (Orthodox) Byzantine Empire. The result was that a semi-barbarian horde conquered and sundered and soiled what had been the center and bastion of Christian. The result was also that the Catholic Church imposing its bishops and clergy and domination over the Orthodox peoples of the (conquered) Byzantine Empire. Hence, the Fourth Crusade was an EGREGIOUS, DEEP, AND POISONOUS WOUND TO THE HEART OF ORTHODOXY. What pagans and Muslims had failed to do, was done by their so-called brother Christians: the conquest, sundering and soiling of the heart of Christendom. Now, what had been strained relations between Western and Eastern bishops became BITTER hatred. The Fourth Crusade showed to all that East and West were radically different; and the West was radically barbaric, if the West could conquer and sunder and soil the heart of Christian civilization.

Third, there came uniatism. In an attempt to expand its influence into Eastern Europe (and elsewhere), the Catholic Church sought to bring Orthodox individuals and Orthodox bishops into communion with Rome. The problem (as the Orthodox saw it) was that Uniatism wasn't restoration of reunion between equal sister churches; rather, it was Rome picking off little pieces of the Orthodox world in an attempt to divide and conquer the Orthodox world. Of course, the Catholics saw that as a good thing because Catholics believe that all Christians should be united under the pope. And, of course, the Orthodox did NOT naked papal expansionism to be a good thing because they reject papal supremacy.

The filioque, the Fourth Crusade, uniatism and the underlying Catholic claim to papal supremacy-- are the big four historical issues which have divided Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

From the Catholic point of view, these issue are either a matter of right (filioque), a regrettable incident (the Fourth Crusade), or a failed ecumenical policy to bring the Christian world under the leadership of the pope. For, when all is said and done, Catholics (Uniate or Latin) believe in the pope. (The Eucharist is not the main distinguishing point of the Catholic Church. Other Christians, including the Orthodox, also have the Eucharist. It is the papacy --specifically, the supremacy of the pope-- that it is the main distinguishing point of the Catholicism.) Catholics honestly believe (even if they disagree with him at times) that the pope is the supreme leader of all Christians in place of Jesus Christ Himself. Hence, Catholics honestly believe that the pope can and should bind and loose and otherwise lead however he must: including by changing the creed by his own authority (as with the filioque). Also, Catholics honestly believe that it is the God-given duty of the Catholic Church to bring all Christians into unity under the pope: whether by crusade, uniatism or (now) ecumenism. For, in sum, the Catholic point of view is papal supremacy.

From the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic point of view is total nonsense.

First, from the Orthodox perspective, it was the Orthodox who suffered violence, bloodshed and catastrophe at the hands of the Catholics. Old memories die hard: especially when the consequences of past decisions continue to shape the world today. The filioque still makes the Catholic Church heretical, in Orthodox eyes. The Fourth Crusade still has consequences in the world, as can be seen by the retarding effects on development in southeastern Europe, because of centuries of Muslim domination under the Turkish empire, because it conquered the region from the Byzantine Empire, because the Byzantine Empire was terribly weak, because the Byzantine Empire had been shattered by the Catholics in the Fourth Crusade. Those people in the Balkans SUFFERED, badly, as a direct consequence of the Catholic Fourth Crusade. Uniatism, in turn, tore nations apart along religious lines; and, it's still happening in the Ukraine and elsewhere. From the Catholic point of view, these are yesterday's issues. From the Orthodox perspective, these are TODAY's issues because they are still having direct consequences in people's lives today. Hence, to be quite plain, the Orthodox do not trust the Catholics: because they suffered at the hands of the Catholics in the past and down to the present day.

Second, from the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic view of the papacy is still heretical. The Catholics still believe that the pope is the supreme head of the Church as the vicar of Christ. Catholics still insist that the pope has the right to add the filioque if he deems it necessary. The Orthodox categorically reject those beliefs.

Third, from the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic Church has not really repented. Saying �sorry� is not enough. For real repentance, the Catholic Church would need to stop being Catholic and to start being Orthodox -- again. From the Orthodox perspective, Catholics used to be Orthodox; and, to repent, they would need to become Orthodox again. Specifically, the Catholic Church would need to give up the filioque and its claims to papal supremacy; and the Catholic Church would need to somehow publicly *ask* to be readmitted into Orthodox Communion. Instead, the Catholic Church is quite Catholic (even in its Uniates): it retains the filioque in the Creed in its Latin Rite; it insists on papal supremacy among all its rites; and it is trying to entice the Orthodox Church to become Catholic too: through uniatism part 2, ecumenism. This is not repentance according to an Orthodox view; this is the same old song as before.

Etc.

While this summary has been less than diplomatic, it is fairly accurate of my observations of what Catholics and Orthodox actually think of this problem when they are in private and speak freely.

So, in regards to your question -- Why do Catholics seem to de-emphasize the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy and why do Orthodox seem to emphasize those differences ? -- here is my answer:

Catholics want the Orthodox to become Catholic: because Catholics honestly believe that pope is the supreme ruler of all Christians, as Christ�s vicar. Therefore, it is the duty of the Catholic Church to �reunite� all Christians under the pope. But, the Catholics want to make it easy on the Orthodox to become Catholic. They want to allow the Orthodox to keep the trappings of Orthodoxy while becoming Catholic in all essential ways: accepting papal supremacy and some kind of acknowledgement of the filioque. Hence, Catholics don't emphasize the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, Orthodox want Catholics to become Orthodox: because Orthodox honestly believe that their faith and Church is true. Therefore, Catholicism is heresy. Thus, the Orthodox want the Catholics to be public about becoming Orthodox: for the vindication of Orthodoxy and as penance for 800 years of sins and consequences committed against the Orthodox by the Catholics. Hence, Orthodox emphasize the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Again, that is my answer. It isn�t pretty, but I do think it is accurate of how Catholics and Orthodox actually believe, feel and think about this issue.

-- John

I would say it is both brutally honest and pretty well reflective of the majority views on both sides.

Where are his sources? He claims a lot as truth, but without facts and sources and citations, it is only opinion.

The Catholic claim to papal supremacy, the filioque, the Fourth Crusade and the policy of Uniatism are basic issues in the history of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Any basic historical text on the subject will discuss them. A good one is Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church."

The conclusions which I drew from those historical facts are my own and, of course, I might be wrong in my conclusions.

Neverthless, much of what shaped my analysis are the sentiments of Catholics and Orthodox themselves. I have heard (in person and online) many of when they candidly discussed the topic of the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Their thoughts --and, equally as importantly, their feelings-- shaped my view very much.

Dear Harmon3310,
Does Timothy Ware actually present the "facts" of the incorporation of the filioque, fourth crusade, and uniatism, is the grotesquely distorted way the you advance in your earlier post? If so I would suggest looking over the varied posts here on the subject over the years for views beter informed by facts.

I must agree with Harmon/John's opinion, though it is inline with the most conservative members of the Orthodox Church I have met, but then on the otherside, the Antiochian's have been very understanding and kind to me.

So...

james

It's not his opinion that was noteworthy, but his misrepresentation of facts.

Dear Harmon,

As an Orthodox I am fully aware of the perception of the Orthodox. Yet their perception is intentionally faulty. We have only to take the Fourth Crusade as an example.

True the Franks did ransack Constantinople and the crimes they committed were horrific, yet the Third Crusade and the massacre of Westerners as well as the 'villany' of the Emporor and Patriarch is totally ignored by the Greeks and the Orthodox.

Yet if one was to mention it, they would say that it was only the actions of a few, disregarding the fact that it was the actions of a few members of the RCC that persecuted them. As far as the are concerned, it is the whole Catholic Church that is to blame. Why? Because that is what they want to see.

Many Orthodox keep insisting that it was the Pope that gave the orders for the taking of the city. What had actually happened was that he was given a false version of the events and did not know until a year later of the massacre's by the crusaders and the desecration of the Holy places. When he did find out, he said: "Is it any wonder that they refer to us as dogs."

Now when I say intentionally faulty I mean that some Orthodox are merely looking for excuses not to unite. Let's say they have 'tunnel' vision and cannot see what's going on in the world around them and why the unity of all Christians is so important in this world. They are living in a dream world of Orthodox 'triumphalism'.

Zenovia

Dear Harmon,

Now to have an understanding of each sides perception one must imagine themselves as living either in the Orthodox East or the Protestant and Catholic West. To the Orthodox their Church is the universal Church, (they knew of no other Church), and the West was merely a branch of that Church.

They see this branch as overstepping itself by defining the Pope as infallible in Church doctrine or defining the Immaculate Conception and/or adding such things as the 'filioque'. ..And all without an ecumenical council.

To them the RCC in taking this stance could easily fall into heresy, for as some past Patriarch's have said, "it is not the dogma's but rather the 'arrogance' of making something a dogma that is worrysome".

Now the Catholics were undoubtably fighting some Protestant heresies that were creeping into the Church. The only way they could fight was by making the Pope infallible, etc. In the RCC point of view it's; "what's the big deal, don't you see what I'm up against."

Zenovia

P.S. Don't pay too much attention to the Orthodox forums. The one's writing on them are usually Orthodox 'triumphalists'. Actually, if one was to have a favorable view towards the RCC, their posts would be taken off for fear they would influence others. Basically they are proslytizing.

Dear DJS you said:

"Does Timothy Ware actually present the "facts" of the incorporation of the filioque, fourth crusade, and uniatism, is the grotesquely distorted way the you advance in your earlier post? If so I would suggest looking over the varied posts here on the subject over the years for views beter informed by facts."

I say:

Bishop Tomothy Ware did state one thing in a foot note that was of interest. He said that the Orthodox always believed in the Assumption of Mary until the RCC made it dogma. Then they started to dispute it. Which only goes to show that many Orthodox are always looking for that which can emphasize the difference between the two Churches.

Unfortunately when one has an 'oppositional' theology, then they could easily fall into heresy...as we have seen with the Protestant denominations. At the time of Luther, the Protestant churches had the Eucharist and believed in the ever virginity of Mary, etc. Because of their 'oppositional' theology towards the RCC, they gradually began to change their beliefs.

Now it was not to long ago that I recall certain jurisdictions within the Orthodox Churches that began to eliminate the importance of our Theotokos etc. Fortunately some writings by Orthodox saints were translated into English helping to stop the Protestanization of our faith.

Zenovia

Dear djs,

I sincerely apologize to you and to anyone else who was offended by my post.

Dear Zenovia,

Thank you, sincerely, for your enlightening and wise posts. You taught me something, and not just history. Thank you for your good Christian example of "blessed are the peacemakers."

To Everyone,

I'm sorry if I came across as "triumphalist." I was trying to answer the question, but I went overboard, and that was wrong. Again, I apologize.

It just frustrates me that Catholics often do not understand why the Orthodox often do not desire reunion for real reasons of history as well as theology. What people do matters as much as what people say. Hence, it will take real reconciliation between people --and not just theological statements of agreement-- for East and West to reunite.

On the other hand, I do not want to portray the Orthodox Church as being completely pure either. From what I have read, the Orthodox Byzantine rulers persecuted the Copts and other non-Chalcedonian Christians . . . which might explain in part (in addition to the weakness resulting from the long war between Byzantium and the Persia) why Egypt and Syria so quickly fell to the Arab conquest.

Personally, I have come to the painful conclusions that no Church --Catholic, Orthodox, pre-Chalcedonian, Protestant, other-- is pure; that all have sins to atone for as well accomplishments to be proud of; that all think they are right and the others are wrong, etc.; and, the situation in Christianity is a mess. However, I also take solace in Christ; in Him and through the Holy Spirit, real reconciliation betides.

God Bless you all, and thank you for putting up with me, and thank you for your prayers.

--John