Which church is more open to reuniting??

[stanley123]

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.

So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?

They need not be Eastern, just Orthodox in practice and belief.

If we embraced Oriental Orthodoxy, we would still be separated from the Eastern Orthodox, non?

Not really: Alexandria and Antioch have intercommunion agreements between OO and EO.

I guess this is an example of a non-transitive relationship. The EO and OO have intercommunion agreements, and the last time I checked the OO and the RC have some intercommunion agreements (for example in the Coptic Church for an interfaith married couple). In many logical systems if a~b and b~c, then it is concluded that a~c, which is not the case here.

[stanley123]

Unless you can point to and/or name the elephant, no, you can't.

Really?  I have.  Others have.  It is hardly a secret.  Simply because it annoys you does not make it any less a reality of our Churches in this schismatic status which we attribute to one another.

The excommunications between the EO and RCC were repealed in 1965. What schism?

It's politics.

To be fair there are more issues at hand. How we are to reconcile the Orthodox repudiation of Florence with the Catholic belief that Florence is an Ecumenical Council is one of them, and definite proof that the schism is real.

That and the fact that what was referenced in 1965 was a lifting of anathemas that never happened. What did happen in 1054 was in invalid pile of papal bull (from a pope everyone knew was dead) being served against only Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his clergy (which included only Constantinople's local church--not the rest of the Orthodox world or the population of Constantinople), and the retaliatory anathema against Humbert and cronies--not the whole Roman church. Besides that, everyone forgot about the 1054 event by 1098's reunion council. There is no mention of it at all in the East.

But the fact is that there was a schism or separation between the two Churches. This can be seen from the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church did not, in the end, accept the Council of Florence. Although it may be difficult to pin down the exact date of the schism, many people take the events of 1054 to be a critical turning point.

I was referring to citing the bizarre event of 1965 as lifting anathemas of 1054. Neither 1054 nor 1965 meant what some people think they meant--whether people today or the principal actors in 1965.

So what did you think that 1054 meant? Possibly just one more event which helped to nail  the lid on the coffin of schism?

[stanley123]

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.

So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?

No:
http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite
http://www.facebook.com/RocorWesternRiteVicariate

The problem I see here is that some Eastern Orthodox view the western rite as a concession and do not fully accept it.

[Shanghaiski]

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.

So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?

They need not be Eastern, just Orthodox in practice and belief.

If we embraced Oriental Orthodoxy, we would still be separated from the Eastern Orthodox, non?

Not really: Alexandria and Antioch have intercommunion agreements between OO and EO.

I guess this is an example of a non-transitive relationship. The EO and OO have intercommunion agreements, and the last time I checked the OO and the RC have some intercommunion agreements (for example in the Coptic Church for an interfaith married couple). In many logical systems if a~b and b~c, then it is concluded that a~c, which is not the case here.

What EO-OO intercommunion agreements exist, which are highly specific and limited, are still fundamentally wrong from an EO viewpoint given the relationship of communion to shared faith. There is no partial communion, in truth. So, what exists is not communion in truth, but something else.

[Shanghaiski]

Unless you can point to and/or name the elephant, no, you can't.

Really?  I have.  Others have.  It is hardly a secret.  Simply because it annoys you does not make it any less a reality of our Churches in this schismatic status which we attribute to one another.

The excommunications between the EO and RCC were repealed in 1965. What schism?

It's politics.

To be fair there are more issues at hand. How we are to reconcile the Orthodox repudiation of Florence with the Catholic belief that Florence is an Ecumenical Council is one of them, and definite proof that the schism is real.

That and the fact that what was referenced in 1965 was a lifting of anathemas that never happened. What did happen in 1054 was in invalid pile of papal bull (from a pope everyone knew was dead) being served against only Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his clergy (which included only Constantinople's local church--not the rest of the Orthodox world or the population of Constantinople), and the retaliatory anathema against Humbert and cronies--not the whole Roman church. Besides that, everyone forgot about the 1054 event by 1098's reunion council. There is no mention of it at all in the East.

But the fact is that there was a schism or separation between the two Churches. This can be seen from the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church did not, in the end, accept the Council of Florence. Although it may be difficult to pin down the exact date of the schism, many people take the events of 1054 to be a critical turning point.

I was referring to citing the bizarre event of 1965 as lifting anathemas of 1054. Neither 1054 nor 1965 meant what some people think they meant--whether people today or the principal actors in 1965.

So what did you think that 1054 meant? Possibly just one more event which helped to nail  the lid on the coffin of schism?

It meant nothing other than a bad diplomatic incident. There was already mutual suspicion between east and west--along with accusations of heresy, one for the other. It doesn't seem to have done anything at all to help the already deteriorating situation--but the situation was one only between Constantinople and Rome at the time. Antioch, for example, replied to Patriarch Michael Cerularius rather negatively when informed of the incident and did not enter into formal schism with Rome until the Crusaders took over and ejected the lawful Greek Patriarch to install their Latin puppet.

[podkarpatska]

I heard an OCA priest speak about unity some time ago. He said that we had to not think in terms of 'them' accepting 'Eastern Orthodoxy' or 'us' becoming 'Roman Catholic' but rather that the Church, should it be God's will that her original organic unity be restored, would be one which was Holy, Catholic and Apostolic and that all of Her believers - hierarchs, clergy and laity alike - would be fully Orthodox as the ancient Patriarchates all were prior to the finality of the current schism - each with their own rites and dignities intact.

[Shanghaiski]

I heard an OCA priest speak about unity some time ago. He said that we had to not think in terms of 'them' accepting 'Eastern Orthodoxy' or 'us' becoming 'Roman Catholic' but rather that the Church, should it be God's will that her original organic unity be restored, would be one which was Holy, Catholic and Apostolic and that all of Her believers - hierarchs, clergy and laity alike - would be fully Orthodox as the ancient Patriarchates all were prior to the finality of the current schism - each with their own rites and dignities intact.

But if there is not one, shared faith, there is a false union, not a true union, for the only singular thing the Orthodox have ever had is the faith.

[ialmisry]

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.

So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?

No:
http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite
http://www.facebook.com/RocorWesternRiteVicariate

The problem I see here is that some Eastern Orthodox view the western rite as a concession and do not fully accept it.

They are wrong, which is a problem.  They are fully in communion, neither in secret nor on the sly, with the rest of Orthodoxy.

[ialmisry]

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.

So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?

They need not be Eastern, just Orthodox in practice and belief.

If we embraced Oriental Orthodoxy, we would still be separated from the Eastern Orthodox, non?

Not really: Alexandria and Antioch have intercommunion agreements between OO and EO.

I guess this is an example of a non-transitive relationship. The EO and OO have intercommunion agreements, and the last time I checked the OO and the RC have some intercommunion agreements (for example in the Coptic Church for an interfaith married couple). In many logical systems if a~b and b~c, then it is concluded that a~c, which is not the case here.

I have often heard of such Coptic-Vatican agreements, but never seen one, and since the Coptic Church doesn't accept the Vatican's baptism (something I've seen reiterated lately) I find it hard to believe such agreements exist.  The agreements between the OO and us, for instance, recognize OO marriages, something we do for no one else.

[Papist]

Protestants not infrequently sneak communion in Roman Catholic churches, and Catholic priests have been known to knowingly serve communion to Protestants in open violation of Roman Catholic teaching; how do you feel about this?

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.

Wow. not good.

There's a significant amount of disregard of the Catholic rules concerning intercommunion -- in terms of both giving and receiving, although the latter hasn't been discussed here.

True. But out of reverance for the precious gifts, this should not be the case.

Would you then criticise the Pope who has given Holy Communion to Protestants?

Yep.

[Michał Kalina]

Would you then criticise the Pope who has given Holy Communion to Protestants?

Yep.

Go on, don't be shy.

[Peter J]

Would you then criticise the Pope who has given Holy Communion to Protestants?

Yep.

Go on, don't be shy.

“I have found my own Christian identity by reconciling within myself the faith of my origins with the Mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone.”
- Brother Roger

I guess I'm sympathetic to Brother Roger's thinking. I myself have never broken communion with anyone -- in my case, I'm a cradle Catholic who has never left.

[stanley123]

Would you then criticise the Pope who has given Holy Communion to Protestants?

Yep.

The Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church apparently believes that it is acceptable to give Holy Communion to Protestants under certain limited conditions.  If a Roman Catholic disagrees with the Pope in such a matter, would that make him a dissenting Roman Catholic?

[Peter J]

That and the fact that what was referenced in 1965 was a lifting of anathemas that never happened.

Did The schism did happen in 1054, as proved by the fact that we had 8 ecumenical councils between then and the Council of Florence.  

You mean that, after you left with your papal antichrist and formed a new church in the late 11th century, crucifying Christ a second time for the sake of papal superiority over all life, you happened to have 8 councils before the one in which you hoped to lure Christ's church into your folly? (One of them at Lyon can't really be classified as an attempt to lure since it was more like an attempt to get the Orthodox to take dictation.)

(fixed typo)

Emoticons aside, the plain fact of the matter is that 16th century Catholics, led by Card. Bellarmine, promoted the idea that 8 Western councils which had previously been called General Councils were in fact Ecumenical Councils -- thus effectively dating the East-West schism to the 11 century.

[stanley123]

That and the fact that what was referenced in 1965 was a lifting of anathemas that never happened.

Did schism did happen in 1054, as proved by the fact that we had 8 ecumenical councils between then and the Council of Florence. 

You mean that, after you left with your papal antichrist and formed a new church in the late 11th century, crucifying Christ a second time for the sake of papal superiority over all life, you happened to have 8 councils before the one in which you hoped to lure Christ's church into your folly? (One of them at Lyon can't really be classified as an attempt to lure since it was more like an attempt to get the Orthodox to take dictation.)

Emoticons aside, the plain fact of the matter is that 16th century Catholics, led by Card. Bellarmine, promoted the idea that 8 Western councils which had previously been called General Councils were in fact Ecumenical Councils -- thus effectively dating the East-West schism to the 11 century.

While it is an interesting point of historical discussion, I guess the exact date of the schism (or even if there is an exact date) really doesn't matter too much now that each side agrees that there is at least a schism, and some would go so far as to say heresy.

[Peter J]

That and the fact that what was referenced in 1965 was a lifting of anathemas that never happened.

Did schism did happen in 1054, as proved by the fact that we had 8 ecumenical councils between then and the Council of Florence. 

You mean that, after you left with your papal antichrist and formed a new church in the late 11th century, crucifying Christ a second time for the sake of papal superiority over all life, you happened to have 8 councils before the one in which you hoped to lure Christ's church into your folly? (One of them at Lyon can't really be classified as an attempt to lure since it was more like an attempt to get the Orthodox to take dictation.)

Emoticons aside, the plain fact of the matter is that 16th century Catholics, led by Card. Bellarmine, promoted the idea that 8 Western councils which had previously been called General Councils were in fact Ecumenical Councils -- thus effectively dating the East-West schism to the 11 century.

While it is an interesting point of historical discussion, I guess the exact date of the schism (or even if there is an exact date) really doesn't matter too much now that each side agrees that there is at least a schism, and some would go so far as to say heresy.

I think it is important. Partly because it affects the status of those 8 councils; but even more because of the implication that the Orthodox, even before the Council of Florence, were "in schism" simply by virtue of not being in full communion with Rome.

[stanley123]

That and the fact that what was referenced in 1965 was a lifting of anathemas that never happened.

Did schism did happen in 1054, as proved by the fact that we had 8 ecumenical councils between then and the Council of Florence. 

You mean that, after you left with your papal antichrist and formed a new church in the late 11th century, crucifying Christ a second time for the sake of papal superiority over all life, you happened to have 8 councils before the one in which you hoped to lure Christ's church into your folly? (One of them at Lyon can't really be classified as an attempt to lure since it was more like an attempt to get the Orthodox to take dictation.)

Emoticons aside, the plain fact of the matter is that 16th century Catholics, led by Card. Bellarmine, promoted the idea that 8 Western councils which had previously been called General Councils were in fact Ecumenical Councils -- thus effectively dating the East-West schism to the 11 century.

While it is an interesting point of historical discussion, I guess the exact date of the schism (or even if there is an exact date) really doesn't matter too much now that each side agrees that there is at least a schism, and some would go so far as to say heresy.

I think it is important. Partly because it affects the status of those 8 councils; but even more because of the implication that the Orthodox, even before the Council of Florence, were "in schism" simply by virtue of not being in full communion with Rome.

What then would you give as the exact date of the East West Schism?

[William]

For documentary purposes: the PAOC a few years ago laicised a priest that during his trip to the USA concelebrated with Eastern Catholics.

It's nice to see that this actually happens. I had kinda lost hope when I saw that a Metropolitan of the Romanian Orthodox Church (still an acting metropolitan bishop) had communed in an EC church almost without consequence.

[LBK]

For documentary purposes: the PAOC a few years ago laicised a priest that during his trip to the USA concelebrated with Eastern Catholics.

It's nice to see that this actually happens. I had kinda lost hope when I saw that a Metropolitan of the Romanian Orthodox Church (still an acting metropolitan bishop) had communed in an EC church almost without consequence.

This metropolitan's action were not "without consequence". Folks have posted on the consequences.

[Peter J]

What then would you give as the exact date of the East West Schism?

In the strong sense of the word schism, I would have to say not until the Council of Florence.

[William]

For documentary purposes: the PAOC a few years ago laicised a priest that during his trip to the USA concelebrated with Eastern Catholics.

It's nice to see that this actually happens. I had kinda lost hope when I saw that a Metropolitan of the Romanian Orthodox Church (still an acting metropolitan bishop) had communed in an EC church almost without consequence.

This metropolitan's action were not "without consequence". Folks have posted on the consequences.

I read a thread on this board about it and don't recall much. I recall Augustin kind of gloating about how nothing really happened. His synod was going to question him about it but I don't recall much coming about as a result of that. What are you referring to?

[William]

For reference, this is the thread in question: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16155.0.html

[JamesR]

What then would you give as the exact date of the East West Schism?

In the strong sense of the word schism, I would have to say not until the Council of Florence.

I'd say more around 1204 when your kind invaded and sacked Constantinople; there are still Greeks I know to this day who have not gotten over that.

[Papist]

What then would you give as the exact date of the East West Schism?

In the strong sense of the word schism, I would have to say not until the Council of Florence.

I'd say more around 1204 when your kind invaded and sacked Constantinople; there are still Greeks I know to this day who have not gotten over that.

"Your kind" LOL You guys.

[Papist]

What then would you give as the exact date of the East West Schism?

In the strong sense of the word schism, I would have to say not until the Council of Florence.

I'd say more around 1204 when your kind invaded and sacked Constantinople; there are still Greeks I know to this day who have not gotten over that.

Does it matter that just previous to this event "your kind" massacred the Latins who lived in Constantinople? Just curious.

[Peter J]

What then would you give as the exact date of the East West Schism?

In the strong sense of the word schism, I would have to say not until the Council of Florence.

I'd say more around 1204 when your kind invaded and sacked Constantinople

Hmmm ... I'll be interested to see how many posters agree with you.

[JamesR]

Does it matter that just previous to this event "your kind" massacred the Latins who lived in Constantinople? Just curious.

Does it matter that the Venetians destroyed the Genoese quarters in Constantinople first, had been at war with Constantinople and had supported the Serb uprisings who had been responsible for the siege of Ancona?

Hmmm ... I'll be interested to see how many posters agree with you.

I did express it in an albeit cynic sort of way, however, being serious, I think that 1204 was approximately the time when the schism was really set in stone.

[Papist]

Does it matter that just previous to this event "your kind" massacred the Latins who lived in Constantinople? Just curious.

Does it matter that the Venetians destroyed the Genoese quarters in Constantinople first, had been at war with Constantinople and had supported the Serb uprisings who had been responsible for the siege of Ancona?

Hmmm ... I'll be interested to see how many posters agree with you.

I did express it in an albeit cynic sort of way, however, being serious, I think that 1204 was approximately the time when the schism was really set in stone.

At this point in history, I don't think it realy matter who killed who hundreds of years ago. I just think it's silly that EOs keep bringing it up when their predecessors are guilty of the exact same thing.

[JamesR]

Does it matter that just previous to this event "your kind" massacred the Latins who lived in Constantinople? Just curious.

Does it matter that the Venetians destroyed the Genoese quarters in Constantinople first, had been at war with Constantinople and had supported the Serb uprisings who had been responsible for the siege of Ancona?

Hmmm ... I'll be interested to see how many posters agree with you.

I did express it in an albeit cynic sort of way, however, being serious, I think that 1204 was approximately the time when the schism was really set in stone.

At this point in history, I don't think it realy matter who killed who hundreds of years ago. I just think it's silly that EOs keep bringing it up when their predecessors are guilty of the exact same thing.

Yeah you're right; both sides screwed up big time. Either way, those events did sort of set the schism in stone though. I remember reading that prior to these events, most people were not even aware of the schism.

[Peter J]

I did express it in an albeit cynic sort of way, however, being serious, I think that 1204 was approximately the time when the schism was really set in stone.

Alright, I can see what you mean about setting in stone. The thing is, it wasn't really a schism then, but a lack of communion.

[William]

I wonder what point it was when, according to strict Orthodox ecclesiology, the Catholics lost sacramental grace?

[William]

I did express it in an albeit cynic sort of way, however, being serious, I think that 1204 was approximately the time when the schism was really set in stone.

Alright, I can see what you mean about setting in stone. The thing is, it wasn't really a schism then, but a lack of communion.

Plausible.

[elijahmaria]

I wonder what point it was when, according to strict Orthodox ecclesiology, the Catholics lost sacramental grace?

At the time of the Unia when the Catholic Church finally turned on the Orthodox Churches and called them and treated them as heretics and schismatics.  Didn't matter that the east had treated the west badly prior to those centuries...that was irrelevant, but when the west responded in kind well then...

[Peter J]

I wonder what point it was when, according to strict Orthodox ecclesiology, the Catholics lost sacramental grace?

At the time of the Unia when the Catholic Church finally turned on the Orthodox Churches and called them and treated them as heretics and schismatics.

That wasn't as bad as 1204.

[Michał Kalina]

Didn't matter that the east had treated the west badly prior to those centuries...

Proofs?

[elijahmaria]

Didn't matter that the east had treated the west badly prior to those centuries...

Proofs?

None that you would recognize...poor poor little eastern Orthodoxy.

[William]

Didn't matter that the east had treated the west badly prior to those centuries...

Proofs?

None that you would recognize...poor poor little eastern Orthodoxy.

Sic dixit Maria.

[ialmisry]

Does it matter that just previous to this event "your kind" massacred the Latins who lived in Constantinople? Just curious.

Does it matter that the Venetians destroyed the Genoese quarters in Constantinople first, had been at war with Constantinople and had supported the Serb uprisings who had been responsible for the siege of Ancona?

Hmmm ... I'll be interested to see how many posters agree with you.

I did express it in an albeit cynic sort of way, however, being serious, I think that 1204 was approximately the time when the schism was really set in stone.

At this point in history, I don't think it realy matter who killed who hundreds of years ago. I just think it's silly that EOs keep bringing it up when their predecessors are guilty of the exact same thing.

Oh?  And when do we celebrate our predecessors doing such things?  Because your Vatican celebrates its deeds.

[ialmisry]

Does it matter that just previous to this event "your kind" massacred the Latins who lived in Constantinople? Just curious.

Does it matter that the Venetians destroyed the Genoese quarters in Constantinople first, had been at war with Constantinople and had supported the Serb uprisings who had been responsible for the siege of Ancona?

Hmmm ... I'll be interested to see how many posters agree with you.

I did express it in an albeit cynic sort of way, however, being serious, I think that 1204 was approximately the time when the schism was really set in stone.

Between 1175 to 1275 the Vatican set about stamping out the last remnants of Orthodoxy in the West (for instance, expelling the Orthodox monks from their monastery in the old Hungarian capital and filling it with Ultramontanist Benedictines in 1223), consolidated its Latin anti-Pentarchy (when the Vatican was divided over its "font of unity" the bishop of Rome, each had a seperate set of Latin "Patriarchs" for Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) at its fourth council of the Lateran, the attempt of the Vatican to woo away the metropolitinates of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and autocephalous Churches (e.g. presuming to send a pallium to the Archbishop of Bulgaria, etc.) etc. show that it was this century when the schism was solidified by heresy.

[LizaSymonenko]

Didn't matter that the east had treated the west badly prior to those centuries...

Proofs?

None that you would recognize...poor poor little eastern Orthodoxy.

Maria, what's with this statement?  You are a bit too condescending, don't you think?

[Papist]

Would you then criticise the Pope who has given Holy Communion to Protestants?

Yep.

The Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church apparently believes that it is acceptable to give Holy Communion to Protestants under certain limited conditions.  If a Roman Catholic disagrees with the Pope in such a matter, would that make him a dissenting Roman Catholic?

We are not expected to agree with everything the Pope does or thinks. Only what he formally proposes for belief for the Universal Church.

[PeterTheAleut]

Didn't matter that the east had treated the west badly prior to those centuries...

Proofs?

None that you would recognize...

Then why did you post your pot shot? You know the game. If you can't prove it, don't post it.

poor poor little eastern Orthodoxy.

That was just plain rude.

[stanley123]

Would you then criticise the Pope who has given Holy Communion to Protestants?

Yep.

The Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church apparently believes that it is acceptable to give Holy Communion to Protestants under certain limited conditions.  If a Roman Catholic disagrees with the Pope in such a matter, would that make him a dissenting Roman Catholic?

We are not expected to agree with everything the Pope does or thinks. Only what he formally proposes for belief for the Universal Church.

He is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and as such his liturgical actions set an example for the whole Church. He has given Communion in the hand and has given Communion to Protestants under certain limited conditions.

[JamesRottnek]

Would you then criticise the Pope who has given Holy Communion to Protestants?

Yep.

The Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church apparently believes that it is acceptable to give Holy Communion to Protestants under certain limited conditions.  If a Roman Catholic disagrees with the Pope in such a matter, would that make him a dissenting Roman Catholic?

We are not expected to agree with everything the Pope does or thinks. Only what he formally proposes for belief for the Universal Church.

He is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and as such his liturgical actions set an example for the whole Church. He has given Communion in the hand and has given Communion to Protestants under certain limited conditions.

So, from your understanding of Catholicism, Paul was wrong to criticize Peter at the Council of Jerusalem?

[podkarpatska]

What then would you give as the exact date of the East West Schism?

In the strong sense of the word schism, I would have to say not until the Council of Florence.

Even for a few decades thereafter the rift was not final across the remnants of the Eastern Empire and in parts of the Italian peninsula. Certainly by the end of the 15th century the schism was rigidly in place. The attempts at forced union followed later, beginning in the mid to late-16th century.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Which church is more open to reuniting??