OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 10:10:41 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Which church is more open to reuniting??  (Read 15039 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #585 on: April 18, 2012, 04:26:46 PM »

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.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #586 on: April 18, 2012, 04:28:30 PM »


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The excommunications between the EO and RCC were repealed in 1965.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?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #587 on: April 18, 2012, 04:30:33 PM »

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.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #588 on: April 18, 2012, 04:45:25 PM »

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.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #589 on: April 18, 2012, 04:48:08 PM »


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.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,646


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #590 on: April 18, 2012, 05:17:47 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 05:18:27 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #591 on: April 18, 2012, 05:24:25 PM »

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.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #592 on: April 18, 2012, 06:05:22 PM »

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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #593 on: April 18, 2012, 06:08:26 PM »

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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #594 on: April 18, 2012, 06:38:17 PM »

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.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #595 on: April 18, 2012, 06:59:55 PM »

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



Go on, don't be shy.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #596 on: April 18, 2012, 07:14:51 PM »

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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #597 on: April 18, 2012, 07:15:40 PM »

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?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #598 on: April 18, 2012, 07:18:35 PM »

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.  Wink

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.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 07:20:45 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #599 on: April 18, 2012, 07:24:07 PM »

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.  Wink

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.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #600 on: April 18, 2012, 07:34:13 PM »

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.  Wink

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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #601 on: April 18, 2012, 07:36:08 PM »

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.  Wink

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?
Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #602 on: April 18, 2012, 07:50:49 PM »

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.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,252


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #603 on: April 18, 2012, 07:56:04 PM »

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.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #604 on: April 18, 2012, 07:59:06 PM »

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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #605 on: April 18, 2012, 07:59:15 PM »

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?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #606 on: April 18, 2012, 08:07:40 PM »

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

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,763


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #607 on: April 18, 2012, 08:28:43 PM »

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.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #608 on: April 18, 2012, 08:32:11 PM »

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.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #609 on: April 18, 2012, 08:34:47 PM »

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.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #610 on: April 18, 2012, 08:43:22 PM »

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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,763


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #611 on: April 18, 2012, 08:45:36 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 08:46:52 PM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #612 on: April 18, 2012, 08:48:37 PM »

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.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,763


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #613 on: April 18, 2012, 08:49:56 PM »

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.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #614 on: April 18, 2012, 08:56:20 PM »

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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #615 on: April 18, 2012, 09:37:22 PM »

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

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #616 on: April 18, 2012, 09:37:37 PM »

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.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #617 on: April 18, 2012, 09:48:21 PM »

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... Cool
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #618 on: April 18, 2012, 09:59:39 PM »

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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #619 on: April 18, 2012, 10:02:26 PM »

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

Proofs?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #620 on: April 18, 2012, 10:05:28 PM »

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.
Logged

William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #621 on: April 18, 2012, 10:20:00 PM »

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.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #622 on: April 18, 2012, 11:41:33 PM »

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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #623 on: April 18, 2012, 11:58:59 PM »

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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,255



WWW
« Reply #624 on: April 19, 2012, 12:37:10 AM »

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?

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #625 on: April 19, 2012, 01:32:02 AM »

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.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #626 on: April 19, 2012, 03:04:59 AM »

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.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #627 on: April 19, 2012, 03:55:50 AM »

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.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #628 on: April 19, 2012, 09:30:25 AM »

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?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,646


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #629 on: April 19, 2012, 09:52:16 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 09:55:23 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.182 seconds with 73 queries.