www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Have We Received the Schism?

As far as the addition to the creed is concerned, the sun has set on this debate, and the East won! Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is now agreement on an ecumenical level, all that is left is for the Roman Church to drop it from the creed, which hasn't been done yet due to pastoral concerns.

The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity [web.archive.org]


Bob

I believe the conflicting elements of the conciliar tradition of the two churches in regards to the Filioque still needs to be resolved. I am not trying to over or under emphasize the point, just point out that it is there.

X. B!
C. I. X!

Without the Filioque in the Creed is is a dogmatic disagreement not dogma. So how many souls have been saved?

I don't really know what you're asking.

X. B!
C. I. X!
What I have been saying all along is are we keeping the sheep from the cup of the blood of the Lord because the shepherds can read the fine print on the well? Do you think the fine print should restrict thirsty sheep during a drought? Do you think the sheep understand or care about the fine print?

Originally Posted By: Serge Keleher
I've been told by presumably serious people that the difference between the Orthodox and the Greek-Catholics is that "we kneel down for the Cherubic Hymn and they don't kneel down for the Cherubic Hymn".


They might be serious, but I would still say they're wrong.


Well obviously they're wrong - I know of no theologian who say that this is the difference between the Orthodox and the Greek-Catholics. I gave that as an example of how trivial perceptions can be.

Fr. Serge

My wife was at an Episcopal church on Thursday. They offer communion to everyone, no questions asked.

Yes...don't ask, do tell is something of a policy with the Episcopalians, unfortunately.

Dear Bob...

Below .. I mean nothing personal when I use the word 'you'. I do so in a philosophical way (each of us) and not in a personal way.

I am RC and what I have often done is attend liturgy at the local Orthodox church (but not receiving sacraments) and also attended RC mass (with sacraments). Nothing stops any Catholic from attending any Orthodox function or from observing any Orthodox means of spirituality. A Catholic can even have an Orthodox priest as your spiritual director (but he can not absolve you with the sacrament of confession - go to your own church for that).

When attending Orthodox vespers or liturgy or feats - a Catholic must abide by the Orthodox rules in such matters which essentially bar the Catholic from - just the sacraments .. but the Catholic still has access to all the sacraments in the RC - they are the same scarements. And so the Catholic is missing nothing - even has more - in the sense of now breathing with both lungs!

The theology of the East is heritage. A Catholic has a right to it - to understand it - and to practice it - in their own life.

As for the schism - there exist not one Christian reason why it should exists. There is no justification for it at all and never was. Christ did not create it nor desire it nor does he condone it. And so any reason as to why it exists ... is entirely man made and outside of the desire of Christ and the mind of Christ. It is that simple. What Christ unites no man can divide ... kind of like divorce in the Catholic church - what Christ unites (marriage) can not be divided (they issue annulment instead to say a marriage never existed). So one must say that either Christ failed to keep his church united - or one must say that the schism exists only in the mind of bishops and theologians who really don't know the mind of Christ. But no matter - it is not our (laity) responsibility. You don't have to figure it all out. Do as the bishops say and let them face God ... not you. It is like at work if you know a better way to do the job but management has you do it a silly way - do it their way. It is not up to you to correct the world. Just your own heart.

Will it ever end? Not as long as Rome claims judicial superiority and claims that the church flows from the Roman Pontiff (put that in whatever gymnastics of wording you wish). That foolishness was born from the political situation during the Middle Ages when Christendom failed (the union of church and state). The Holy Roman Emperor does not exist any more. The rest of the churches knows that is not true anyways .. Rome is the only one who has convinced herself of it. Imperial Christendom is gone - reality can not be boxed up as neatly as De Cartes and Newton thought - you can burn them at the stake - but the sun does not orbit the earth, the world is not flat, angels do not dance on the head of a pin, and the church can not legislate all 'truth' ... that was never its purpose. The perceptions of the senses can be false. But you do follow your own conscience in the Papal matter. So we should all keep in mind to separate the message (the simple gospel) from the messenger. Certainly the pedophile situation in the US and the compliance of bishops in the cover up should have opened our eyes to the difference. There is not automatic holiness to the offices of the church. The church can not 'give' us holiness. It has none to give. We wish it did have that ability - but it doesn't. It is only a messenger.

As to the rest of the schism .. man made causes. Membership, revenues, real estate holdings, pride and power, etc... all these very human factors come into play. For example: according to Orthodox cannons - any other Patriarch wishing to establish a presence within the territory of another Patriarchate must ask permission of the church (Patriarch ) of who's territory he is entering. As you can see (look around) this cannon is almost universally ignored in the West and only partially observed in the East. On this corner if a Roman Catholic church, on that corner a Russian Orthodox church, a Greek Orthodox here, National Polish Catholic, Coptic, etc.. etc... whose in charge? Everyone. No one. If you can not rise above it you will be part of it.

Moscow (ROC) gained vast membership and real estate - at the point of Communist guns - in the old Eastern Block .. and it has been fighting tooth and nail to retain this real estate and revenues in World Court. And according to cannon the Patriarate of Constantinople is in charge of the territory of the new world (Americas) ... and is entitled to all revenues of the Americas - but you see the Roman Catholic church and any other churches are established in the same cities. Now which church is going to back off and abide by cannon?? I assure you none. If cannons where followed the church of Constantinople would be the wealthiest Christian church in the world. But that aint gonna happen. So if you are waiting for hierarchy to end the 'schism' .. don't hold your breath.

In the mean time - is there schism in your own heart? If not - you are abiding by the desire of Christ. This does not mean you can make up your own rules. When participating with your Orthodox brothers - you should abide by both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox guidelines for such a thing. These guidelines are mostly concerned with the sacraments.

Let your conscience be your guide.

My own thoughts.

Peace to all churches.
-ray

Hi, Ray. Did I miss a dogmatic proclamation somewhere? The Church "flowing from the Roman Pontiff"? In these areas, precision is vital and a lack of precision can damage both truth and charity. No such claim has been made by Rome.

The only thing I have seen that even comes close is the patristic claim that Rome is the "matrix" or womb of Christian unity. To express it as you do reads more like a Jack Chick tract.

But your broader point about the East being part of the Catholic heritage with which every Latin Catholic should be familiar is spot on.

And I would say that the East, both Catholic and Orthodox, would be better served to more fully understand and appreciate its Latin patristic roots as well, the full flowering of which is the Latin Catholic Church. Byzantium itself was constructed largely through the confluence of Eastern and Western social, cultural, ecclesiastical sources.

God bless,

Gordo

While curious as to the "weapons" to be used (epistles at twelve paces? Stoles while lurking? Crazed parking lot maniacs?), I'll stick to the point at hand.

I strongly suspect that the ultimate end to the schism (which Rome and Constantinople now seem to be hinting/stating isn't really there) will come from the feet of the faithful somehow denying the hierarchy the authority to break the Church's union over their spats . . . especially when they keep them for hundreds of years with no true differences . . .

hawk

I don't know who Jack Click is.

You don't believe it either Gordo - you want to (of course) but you really don't. The Roman Pontiff does not have universal judicial authority over the entire Church that Jesus founded through his apostles. We can say he does - but reality is as solid as a rock and does not care for our opinions. The Orthodox churches and some of the other churches do not recognize his claim and so it does not exist for them. They do not follow it - and so it is not universal. If it is winter it is cold and there is snow ... you can't have summer and winter at the same time. It is either one or the other. The reality exists or it doesn't exist. And the Roman Pontiff does no have universal judicial authority over all catholic churches. A king without a country is not a king.

If I am told that a man has four arms - and I meet the man and all my senses and testing proves to me that he only has two arms ... how many arms does he have? I must answer "Only two".

If I am told that the Roman Pope has universal judicial authority over the entire Catholic church (composed of all the particular churches that Jesus founded via his apostles) .. and through all my research and testing I find that his authority only extends through some of the churches and not all the churches ... does he have universal judicial authority over the entire Catholic Church? I must answer "No - he does not."

Now if the entire Church wants to grant him that authority - it can. But so far the entire church has not granted him that authority and he never had. If you want to open a thread and debate the history - I will. I would begin with several early church councils telling Rome to mind its own business ... as well as others inviting it to mediate because it was an important church. The point being it had no universal primacy. Then I perhaps would follow with the facts that the Anti_pope situation in the Middle Ages was only solved by a Council who remover all Popes and installed their another Pope. That Council exercised supremacy over all the Popes (there were something like 4 at the same time). Of course the Pope the Council installed immediately proclaimed his own supremacy over all Councils. The ppint being that here was a time in history when a Council took primacy and judicial authority over Popes - to get us out of the jam. The College of Cardinals was then instituted so that would not happen again.

Now that is not the answer that Rome wants to hear from me. And Rome has issued threats for those who do not give the indoctrinated answer - but I see no good to come from separating God from reality.

Hense this doctrine is a problem for any Catholic who believes it - yet sense that reality tells them otherwise. Other churches and Christians just look at us Catholics and scratch their heads in disbelief - and are forced to file it all under Roman Catholic arrogance ... what else but arrogance can account for such a misreading of reality??

The claimed Primacy of Peter - has divided Christianity more than any other item in its history. Shall we know what something is by its fruits? or not? Does a good tree produce bad fruits or does a bad tree produce good fruits?

I know how emotional an issue the Primacy is to Catholics (I am a Catholic) I use to have it myself. I know exactly all the arguments. I have lived with (and overcome) the innate feelings of being a 'traitor to Christ' and 'anti-Catholic' etc.. etc.. etc... and the foolish idea that just because I no longer believe in Infallibility and Primacy I therefore must think of the Pope as the anti-Christ and so on and so on .. I don't. Its a mistake .. that is all. A human mistake.

-ray

The last time I looked (it has been a few years) there was an invitation to the Orthodox to receive communion on the back of the Roman Missal (of course it contained the caveat that they should follow their bishop). Can anyone verify that this is still the case, or not?

AMM,

Speaking for my jurisdiction, the Ruthenians, the Filioque is no longer optional, as it is no longer recited. I believe that to be the case for the Ukrainians, and I would be surprised if the Melkites recited it. That being said, what would the 'dogmatic,' reason be for excluding Eastern Catholics from communion?
As of yet I have not approached an Orthodox priest about my receiving communion (though I have heard case where the priest allows it) in his church. I believe that the canon law for the east allows this? Again correct me if I am wrong. So if we are "allowed," to receive communion by our hierarchy in an EO church, and the EO's are allowed in the RC Church, then double communion seems to already exist to some extent. Is it then up to us to act upon it?

Amen!

Ray,

I remember being told years ago that Lumen Gentium put an end to the notion that "the church flows from the Roman Pontiff." However, upon re-reading it just now, it seems to give with one hand and take away with the other So I don't know. However, I think that by promulgating the decree, Unitatis Redintegratio, Vatican II did open a way for re-interpreting these and other statements based on future talks and agreements.


Here, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but surely you're not suggesting that the union of Church and state was a phenomenon unique to the West? (I have long contended that the union of Church and state, while appearing to be an ideal situation, has more often than not resulted in the Church's capitulating to the state in order to maintain the illusion of unity, rather than the other way around. Of course, this is a subject for another thread ...)


Amen! This is where all schisms start, and the only place they can truly end.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

On this individual point, because they're in communion with a church that accepts an altered form of the creed (whether they as churches or as individuals recite the Filioque) and in the Orthodox conciliar tradition this is explicitly condemned.


Communion is restricted to Orthodox Christians. One of the principle reasons is that communion is not an isolated sacrament, but linked to all the others.

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=107&SID=3