www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Peter the Rock

And we are off-topic.

Iconophile,

Perhaps this will help get us back on track. I posted this on an Orthodox board. They all seem to be young bucks overthere unwilling to think, at least about this subject. All I get is canned answers that seem to come from former Reformed Protestant minds.

"We know that Patriarch Bartholomew is at least willing to have talks with the Pope. Whether they lead anywhere or not I have no idea. Since it was the patriarchs of these two sees who started this mess it seems to me that it is incumbant that these two patriarchs take the lead in straightening out the mess.

I've read all of the "reasons" why what must be done can't possibly be done because of all of the supposed evils of both sides. I've read ad nauseum why Orthodoxy is not a worthy partner because they are soft on divorce and are schismatics. I've read ad nauseum why Catholocism is not a worthy partner because the Pope is too bossy and the filioque is an illigitimate addition to the Creed. I've read ad nauseum all of the reasons why the Eastern Catholics are evil and treacherous.

I say bunk on the whole business. I think those who perpetuate excuses for not at least sitting down together are unworthy of the title "followers of Christ". For all those who continue to whine about this I say, "curses on both your houses." You are all childish and churlish.

I know that someone is bound to say of my position, "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." My answer, "I'n not looking for flies. I'm looking for Christians."

Now that I've expressed my frustration and for those who are still reading let me ask a question: Outside of the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople, the only two that really matter anyway, is there any serious heart for recommunion among the Orthodox? Besides trying to influence the Protestants through the WCC are there groups and efforts afoot to work toward union based upon truth among Orthodox groups?

Remember, I really don't care to discuss the real and supposed differences that have arisen outside of the central issues of the "filioque" and the nature of the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The more I read them the more they seem like excuses for petty bickering to me. I suspect most of the pettiness comes from Protestant converts who are not fully Orthodox, but I could be wrong.

Dan Lauffer"

How in the world did you come up with this????

All the Orthodox Patriarchs matter and Orthodoxy is Conciliar in ethos. As you know, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not an "Eastern" Pope that can command all Orthodox.
I pray like you for unity but it must come in Orthodoxy with consensus, not just an order from the Ecumenical Patriarch.
It is going to be a slow, bottom up process of individual Catholic and Orthodox Christians getting to know one another again and not by conferences between HIerarchs and theologians however noble. I believe +Luboymr of the UGCC has made this observation before.

Brian,

Was it not the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople who excommunicated each other? If I am correct then why hasn't it been enough that the two have lifted that excommunication? Was there a council held among the Orthodox that officially separated the two Churches?

Dan L

Well, the feeling in the Orthodox world was that the Patriarch unilaterally lifted those anathemas without consultation with his brother Patriarchs. Again, consensus is looked for. But realistically, maybe that lifting would have made all the difference in 1100 or even a little bit after, it would have made some difference but the Churches had grown apart from each other and also there was the added great problem of the Infallibility innovation from Vatican I- that is the major obstacle along with the Papal assertion of universal jurisdiction.
The division had grown far beyond the issue of the anathemas although personally, I am glad the gesture was made.

Brian and other Orthodox poster,

Now I think I'm beginning to understand what is before us. Let me post what I've learned from you and other Orthodox posters thus far and you correct me if I'm mistaken in any way.

1. Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism recognize that Peter is the Rock. Technically there is no point of opposition over this matter.

2. The original anathemas of 1054 were made without consultation with other Patriarchs or autocephalic Churches. No other Orthodox Church agreed to them in the first place so technically none of the Church were separated from Rome ever.

3. Because the original anathemas were made by the two Patriarch's their successor were free to lift them and no further schism would exist between East and West.

4. The issue of the "filioque" is now a non-issue since Pope John Paul II agrees with the Orthodox that it is never necessary to be used.

5. Since there is no schism existing today there is no need for a consensus of Patriarchs to heal a schism that does not exist. Those who will not recognize communion between the East and the West have really separated themselves from both Orthodoxy and from Catholicism. Those who remain in that state of self imposed exhile are technically "separated bretheren".

Three years ago I did not have a real grasp of this issue. The Orthodox (though I'm not sure that is the proper term any more) have really cleared this up for me.

One ramification of this is that those who keep cursing the "uniates" are to be pitied. Their hatred must be covering their own guilt. I would suggest that those who refuse to work toward communion are really anathema, not so much because anyone external to them has declared them to be so, but because they have voluntarily chosen to excommunicate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ. Their ranting cannot be taken seriously. I intend to post this on the Orthodox (so called) board ASAP. This should be interesting.

One more ramification of this mess is that I now know exactly how I am going to handle this issue in my University Church history class.

Again, for all the "Orthodox" posters here I encourage you to correct me at any point...if you can.

Dan Lauffer

Iconophile,

Have we got back on track?

Dan L

Dan
Ineresting post. But unfortunately I think there are a lot of people who will not agree.

I refuse to recognize a seperation, and I treat the Orthodox with brotherly affection. I do not feel that I am out of communion with them, but know that the feeling is not mutual.
Stephanos I

Well, I don't see much "brotherly affection" frankly in Dan's use of "So-called Orthodox board" "answer these points, if you can etc"

I think the post is just an example of how still both Orthodox and Catholics talk past each other. Certainly a professor with knowledge of Church history should know that a schism which took time to develop is not so simply solved.

Again, it will take contact at the parish level between individual Catholics and Orthodox and not the battle of the Internet forums (thanks be to God!)

Dear Dan,


I'm not so smart as to be able to understand all the details and the hearts of others regarding all that has happened within the Church. Your denial of a schism is rather unique insofar as many theologians, historians that read and write and understand multiple languages and have multiple degrees from the best university's on earth and have been given or developed brilliant intellectual capabilities to teach seem to collectively disagree with your conclusions as indicated in the enormous amounts of text that have been written on the subject you have interpreted. I think that even the Pope of Rome believes there to be a schism between east and west, at least from what I've heard and read. I would add that many Popes, Patriarchs and Holy Saints understood that a schism exists and have had and may have a real grasp on the issue, since their positions necessitated a real grasp. After all there have been quite a few discussions and papers written on the matter for around 1000 years by many astute brains and the matter is still deeply addressed and studied and taught to this day.

I found this information regarding THE GREAT SCHISM (1054) By: Fr George Attiah and assume that it is accurate.

Many unfortunate circumstances coincided to cause the schism in the one Holy and Apostolic Church of the Roman Empire, which was established from the beginning by the Holy Apostles, and was formed of five patriarchates: four in the east and one in the west. Those circumstances were various, religious and secular. The growing differences in language, culture, ecclesiastical views, and political interests gradually increased over the years, especially after the invasion of the western Empire by barbaric Germanic tribes, and the invasion of three Eastern patriarchates by the Muslims.

The struggle between Rome and Constantinople over the five dioceses in Southern Italy, the disagreements over the missions in Slavonic countries and Bulgaria, the different views over the Papal authority, and other canonical and liturgical disagreements widened the rift between the once sister churches. The climatic difference came with the dogmatic disagreement on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, and the insertion of "and the Son (Filioque)" into the Creed. The statement: "and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son" became the direct cause for the schism.

It appears that this addition was brought to Europe in the sixth century from Spain, whose church had fought for a long time to defend the divinity of Christ against heretics who followed the teachings of Arius. In the year 809, in the days of Emperor Charlemagne, the Franks declared the Filioque as a doctrine, but they couldn't enforce the addition on Rome because the Roman Popes rejected it. The first Pope to fight the addition was Saint Leo III who ordered that the original creed, without the Filioque, be carved on two silver plates and hung in the Church of Saint Peter in Rome, with his own signature, saying: "This I, Leo III, have installed to preserve the Orthodox Faith."

In 1009, after two centuries, the Germans took over Rome and assigned Pope Serguis IV, who supported their policies by announcing the Filioque, and sent the new creed to Constantinople. When the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was named Serguis as well, read the Pope's message he tried to bring the Pope to reverse his decision but failed. He then called for a council, which resulted in removing the Pope's name from the Church's diptycs (the list of legitimate Bishops in the Church). This event meant that Rome was cut from communion with the Church until it rejected the new teachings it had invented. But Rome went further in the year 1014, when Pope Benedict VIII, under the pressure of Emperor Henry II, declared this addition officially and enforced its insertion into the Divine Liturgy. All the patriarchates in the East supported the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople Serguis by avoiding communion with Rome under such circumstances. This is affirmed in the letter of the Patriarch of Antioch Peter III to the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius, directly after the declaration of the excommunication in 1054, which shows that Rome had been cut from communion with the Church of Antioch as well for the last forty-five years (i.e. since 1009). The last Pope recorded in the Church's diptycs was John IX, who retired from his position in 1009, and left to a monastery. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Simon II, also took the position of the Church of Antioch and rejected the addition in a letter he wrote on this issue.

Even though communion was lost with Rome, and hostility increased between the East and the West, negotiations and cooperation continued for political reasons. Attempts to restore the unity of the Church continued between the Emperor of the Eastern Romans and the Patriarch of Constantinople on one hand, and Pope Leo IX on the other; this resulted in sending the Papal legates to Constantinople, headed by Cardinal Humbertus, who unfortunately acted in opposition to the spirit of reconciliation by placing a letter of Anathema on the Holy altar of Hagia Sophia in 1054. The Patriarch of Constantinople reacted by calling for a council, which decided to anathematize the letter, its authors, and all who approve of it. This was not the first time relations grew tense in the Church. In the past, the Church cut off people and churches with heretical positions from communion in the hope of bringing them to realize the damage they are inflicting, and to keep the faith pure; the will of love and peace won at numerous times. A great example involving Rome would be the overcoming of tensions that occurred at the time of Pope John VIII and the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius; the two succeeded in solving the problems between their churches by calling for a council that represented the East and the West (869-870), and one of the decisions made then was condemning every addition to the Creed.

The year 1054 was not the year in which communion was suspended between Rome and the East, as many might think; it actually occurred in 1009. Thus the excommunication of 1054 was not the first cause for the schism, but has indeed deepened the dogmatic disagreement, which started with the Filioque, and grew with the West's insistence on the supreme authority of the Pope, and the addition of controversial dogmas and canons. This was accompanied by continuous accusations, amplified misunderstandings, and offensive writings from both sides.

By: Fr George Attiah

Glory to Jesus Christ!

As I have said in other posts, but I will say it again, Orthodox and Catholics have to BE the same (or in the same way). It is not sufficent to have the same words (liturgy, Church, bishop, Eucharist) if the way we live and understand them is different in a fundamental way. For many Catholics, for example, the Church continues to be an almost totally political institution, ready to serve a liberal/conservative agenda with the sprinkling of religious piety. (I have seen it on both sides.) Whether it be the right wing Lefebvrist activist in France, or the left wing activist priest in Nicaragua, many in the Catholic Church see the Church too much in a "what can it do for us" light. Not that Orthodoxy is perfect, (in many ways, it is even more chavinistic), but the Church in the Orthodox consciousness is supposed to have a less worldly constitution. I am most impressed, in this regard, with a thinker like Zizoulas, who conceives of the Church in almost an exclusively liturgical light. The Divine Liturgy constitutes the Church presided by the bishop, his presbyters, and the people. The Church, as one Russian bishop once said, is an institution that executes the Divine Liturgy. If this is the case, if the bishop is the head of the Eucharistic synaxis of a certain city, and this synaxis is truly the Catholic Church, according to Zizoulas, how can the Pope be ontologically superior to any other bishop if all bishops are icons of Christus caput (Christ the Head) in the Eucharistic assembly that is His Body? Where do Vatican Congregations, decrees, bureaucracies and other extra-jurisdictional entities come in in this ecclesiology?
And of course, in matters of liturgy, I dare say that many Catholics seem to consider liturgy as a tool of catechesis and self-expression and not the praise of God rivaling the angelic choirs. Why is Orthodoxy so immobile in any "liturgical reform", even with the so-called "badly-needed" ones, while the Catholic Church seems to be able to tweek the liturgy around almost constantly like a child fiddling with an ill-fitting bonnet? Again, we can idolize the Orthodox too much in this case, but the Orthodox reverence for even the most seemingly decadent spiritual and liturgical practices (infrequent communion seems to stand out for me here) seems to be much more healthier for the life of the Church. In the end, in the best case scenario, it can be seen as a sign of humility. The practices of my Fathers might seem odd and out-dated to me, but they are my Fathers, and for the most part, THEY KNEW BETTER, maybe not in all things, but in what was most important. And this is an attitude I rarely find among Catholics these days.

So we have to BE the same, or else words are useless. This means Catholics standing through a whole lot of All-Night Vigils, and Orthodox spending some time in front of the Tabernacle. Until this happens, all discussions, over the Papacy or other matters, will be fruitless.

Arturo

An interesting post Dan. One I agree with pretty much.

I am not sure I agree with you on some other posts around the Byzcath board - but on this post you seem to have nailed it.

I was just reading a rely to you further down, which said about all the scholars who wrote about the schism for so many years being proof that a schism did exist. And I am reminded of all the scholars who wrote such learned papers about the world being flat.

As some know - I am not one who blindly takes the majority opinion as fact and truth. Besides - which majority? the majority this year? last year? over 10 years? How about over 200 years? It matters not to me if the majority is everyone and all years if my research and conscience tell me different.

One thing I believe (but I can not back it by research) is that during the time in which we believed a schism existed - both sides were very careful not to do something which would 'cross the line'. What I mean for example is that the Orthodox never called any Council they held as 'Ecumenical' while the Pope was not invited. And any decrees by the Pope held force within the Roman Catholic Church but in universal or Ecumenical status they were recommendations of a voluntary nature. I did not world that well but I think you know what I mean.

As a curious thing - I have been having a discussion with someone else and the fact of the Papal Bull called Unam Sanctam came up. I am guessing (from what I read) that this is the Papal Bull which it is claimed initially defines Papal infallibility and in a way that the Orthodox do not agree with. Now I have not done full research on it (and perhaps never will) but I do note one thing - and that is that the Bull (which simply means a letter of any kind which originated from the office of the Pope of Rome) appears to me to be a �Brief� and not an Infallible Declaration (infallibly defining something of revealed faith). It appears to me to be a Brief (an opinion of a legal matter). I am not sure if everyone knows what a brief is - but it is an opinion of a legal matter and not a judgment. For example - if the Supreme Court is going to consider a case then the court will accept Briefs from all parties involved and may also accept briefs from law professors and such who want to gibe the court their opinion on matters. A Brief is a legal argument and opinion - and not a judgment nor a final declaration. From the little I did read of Unam Sanctam - I am not aware that the Pope who wrote it began it with a statement that what followed was an Infallible Declaration (and according to Cannon any Infallible declaration must be clearly stated to be such) and from reading portions of it (the letter) it reads to me to be exactly - a Brief (debate of discussion of a legal opinion) sent to some other bishop. It seemed to me to be part of an ongoing discussion, debate, the arguing of different opinions done through the mail. As such it contained a bit of dogma and portions of it are infallible truth (correct statements of revealed faith) but some other portions seemed to be a confusion between the church triumphant and the church militant. Mistaking the church militant (organization on earth) for the church triumphant (the reality of heaven).

As with all Briefs - the Pope who wrote it - was arguing his case which was (get ready for the rocks ray) that there is no salvation outside of the church (true in the church triumphant) and so it followed that anyone who did not accept the leadership of Peter over the church (militant) would not receive salvation. The confusion of one aspect of the church for the other contradicts other articles of the church which tell us that being a member of the church militant is not an automatic guarantee of heaven - and that people who are not members of the church militant may also be saved by grace. It would also contradict that someone who is not a member of the church militant can receive a �baptism by desire� and the possibility of full repentance upon the deathbed.

In summary it is my little opinion that Unam Sactam is not an infallible definition of revealed faith but is rather a Brief (an opinion on legal matters) sent within Papal mail. As a Brief and opinion - there is nothing infallible about the opinion. It may be right and it may be wrong (I say he errored in his logic by not considering the church triumphant from the church militant).

I certainly believe that the Pope has a chrism of infallibility - but not in the same was as argued in this Brief.

(just yaking, no need to reply)

-ray

I live in New England where Catholic churches were built by early emigrants and they are beautiful with marble, stained glass, and old world craftsmanship. Masses here are not as you describe. They are reverent.

I took me a long time to figure out how and why some people at this board (not talking of you) described horrible Catholic environments. Apparently as you move West across the US - the Catholic experience is not as good as here in New England.

Just for others information in here - our New England Catholic experience and churches are wonderful. If anyone wishes - I can post a link to photos I have taken of the interior of a few. Ten minutes in any direction is another Catholic church.

My next photos will be of St. Anne�s in Waterbury CT which church is 150 years old - and looks like a miniature of the great cathedrals of Europe.

-ray

Dear Dan,

While there are many on both side who might agree that St. Peter and his confession are a Rock that Christ built his Church on, this does not mean for all that the Pope of Rome is St. Peter. This is very important to consider. Many Roman Catholics make this assumption and then list text after patristic text about St. Peter which have no direct referrence to the Pope of Rome. St. Peter being a Rock does mean to us that the Pope stands alone as the one true infallible vicar of Christ on earth. Nor does it mean that the primacy inherited by his great See takes precedence and thereby superseeds all others, even the authority of an Ecumenical Council. These obvious differences between Catholics and Orthodox point to the clear fact that work still needs to be done.

I sense much frustration in your post. Remember the "Seredipidity Prayer" (as it is called on my Dad's plaque) "Lord help me to change the things I can, to accept the things I can't and the wisdom to know the difference (also known as the prayer of St. Francis). My paraphrase probably falls short but I know you get the jist. You and I, as much as we would like to see the Catholic Church united, can not physically make this happen. Wisdom is accepting this fact but not letting this discourage us in our commitmant to re-discover this lost unity.

I deeply agree with what Brian wrote so perfectly:

"It is going to be a slow, bottom up process of individual Catholic and Orthodox Christians getting to know one another again and not by conferences between HIerarchs and theologians however noble."

You expressed deep dissatisfaction over those making excuses not to be open to engaging each other. A lot of these people neophyte zealots as you suspect. And they sometimes do their Church a dis-service. But there are many others who are reaching out to Catholics and vice versa. The bottom up process has already begun, yet it is still a fledgling. We just need to nurture it into full muturity (which might take a few centuries). In the meantime lets celebrate and rejoice in the deep communion we arlready share.

your brother in Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Brian,

How many Catholic congregations have you invited to your parish for Divine Liturgy? How many Catholic congregations has your parish visited during Mass? This is not a battle. The matter is too serious for that. It has nothing to do with internet debates. Our Church has invited many Orthodox congregations to visit during Divine Liturgy and Vespers and the like and they have come. Several Roman Catholic groups have come as well. We don't just talk about recommunion we are doing something about it.

As to your avoidance in discussing the issues I've laid out, I am very sad. I wish you would reconsider.

Dan L