The events the Catholic Curch and the Orthodox Church faced, have shaped them.

[Raylight]

English is not my native language, sorry for any misspellings.

Through my reading about the early Church and the later history of Christianity, also by reading some threads here. I know now that the Catholic Church ( Church of Rome ) faced many events in history that shaped her and her followers until today, yet, the Orthodox Church didn't face such events, but it faced a different kind of events that also shaped the Orthodox Church until today including her followers.

I believe the Catholic Church faced what we call it the dark ages, but it wasn't the case where the Orthodox Church was. Some heretics rose in the east have lead the Orthodox to face them, yet another type of heretics rose in the west and also the Church there had to face them. Wars, both Churches, the Catholic and the Orthodox have faced wars.

How did these events shape each Church and their followers then and today ?

I do realize it is very small question but it needs a long answer, but I don't want long perfect answer. I just want to you personal opinion and thoughts on the issue ?

Peace.

[TheTrisagion]

I think two main things have shaped the Orthodox Church, one is the Great Schism which has caused great suspicion by the Orthodox against western Christianity. Two is the Muslim invasion which I think has cultivated a greater sense of struggle as a higher goal in Orthodoxy.  Whereas Christianity can be looked upon as largely triumphalistic in the West, Orthodoxy has a great concentration on the struggle of the Christian life.  Given the state of the world, the sense of struggle makes more sense to me.

That is about as short as I can make my answer. This topic really could extend out into a volume of books.

[Porter ODoran]

Raylight, you make a fair point. Yet West and East also set their faces against their problems in different ways. When I read historical documents, I discern a difference in Rome almost from the beginning. (While, on the other hand, when I read, say, the Cappadocian Fathers, I discern a difference from the normal as well, a blessed difference.)

[Raylight]

Raylight, you make a fair point. Yet West and East also set their faces against their problems in different ways. When I read historical documents, I discern a difference in Rome almost from the beginning. (While, on the other hand, when I read, say, the Cappadocian Fathers, I discern a difference from the normal as well, a blessed difference.)

You mean to say that the way the Orthodox Church faced her problems in a different way than the Catholic Church did. right ?

[Porter ODoran]

West = Rome, East = Constantinople, yes.

[Raylight]

I think two main things have shaped the Orthodox Church, one is the Great Schism which has caused great suspicion by the Orthodox against western Christianity. Two is the Muslim invasion which I think has cultivated a greater sense of struggle as a higher goal in Orthodoxy.  Whereas Christianity can be looked upon as largely triumphalistic in the West, Orthodoxy has a great concentration on the struggle of the Christian life.  Given the state of the world, the sense of struggle makes more sense to me.

That is about as short as I can make my answer. This topic really could extend out into a volume of books.

I believe the East looked suspiciously to the West from the time the Byzantine Empire and what the Emperor there wanted. I don't claim that this is a fact, but this is merely my personal opinion.

[Mor Ephrem]

East = Constantinople

Ugh, gross.

[TheTrisagion]

East = Constantinople

Ugh, gross.

You're just jealous.

[Raylight]

West = Rome, East = Constantinople, yes.

Correct, but could you please say in what way they both were different ? If you want of course.

[Mor Ephrem]

East = Constantinople

Ugh, gross.

You're just jealous.

LOL, never.  Not for that reason, anyway.

[TheTrisagion]

East = Constantinople

Ugh, gross.

You're just jealous.

LOL, never.  Not for that reason, anyway.

It is obvious that you are miffed at not being invited to the party.  Here, maybe this will make you happy.

West = Rome
East = Constantinople
Further East = Yerevan

 

[Porter ODoran]

East = Constantinople

Ugh, gross.

Well, I meant in my post that Ray asked me to interpret.

[Porter ODoran]

If I got to go to a church that looked like this, the "East" (Greeks) might never see me again.

[Mor Ephrem]

East = Constantinople

Ugh, gross.

You're just jealous.

LOL, never.  Not for that reason, anyway.

It is obvious that you are miffed at not being invited to the party.  Here, maybe this will make you happy.

West = Rome
East = Constantinople
Further East = Yerevan

 

If we're being serious, it really is

West = Old/New Rome
East = Everything Else

[Mor Ephrem]

If I got to go to a church that looked like this, the "East" (Greeks) might never see me again.

Pretty sure you can find that in the NW. 

[podkarpatska]

East = Constantinople

Ugh, gross.

You're just jealous.

LOL, never.  Not for that reason, anyway.

It is obvious that you are miffed at not being invited to the party.  Here, maybe this will make you happy.

West = Rome
East = Constantinople
Further East = Yerevan

 

You left out 'East of Yerevan'....or was that a 1930's road movie?

[Porter ODoran]

East = Constantinople

Ugh, gross.

You're just jealous.

LOL, never.  Not for that reason, anyway.

It is obvious that you are miffed at not being invited to the party.  Here, maybe this will make you happy.

West = Rome
East = Constantinople
Further East = Yerevan

 

If we're being serious, it really is

West = Old/New Rome
East = Everything Else

Then how do we denominate the important differences between Old and New Romes? They may not have been anywhere as great as that between Rome and eastward, but they are still worth having a name.

[Mor Ephrem]

East = Constantinople

Ugh, gross.

You're just jealous.

LOL, never.  Not for that reason, anyway.

It is obvious that you are miffed at not being invited to the party.  Here, maybe this will make you happy.

West = Rome
East = Constantinople
Further East = Yerevan

 

If we're being serious, it really is

West = Old/New Rome
East = Everything Else

Then how do we denominate the important differences between Old and New Romes? They may not have been anywhere as great as that between Rome and eastward, but they are still worth having a name.

Assuming they are actual differences and not just one side wanting to have it both ways, you could always distinguish between the West and the Wild Wild West. 

[TheTrisagion]

East = Constantinople

Ugh, gross.

You're just jealous.

LOL, never.  Not for that reason, anyway.

It is obvious that you are miffed at not being invited to the party.  Here, maybe this will make you happy.

West = Rome
East = Constantinople
Further East = Yerevan

 

If we're being serious, it really is

West = Old/New Rome
East = Everything Else

Oh you monophysites, everything has to revolve around Chalcedon for you, doesn't it? 

[Mor Ephrem]

If we're being serious, it really is

West = Old/New Rome
East = Everything Else

Oh you monophysites, everything has to revolve around Chalcedon for you, doesn't it? 

Who said anything about Chalcedon? 

I know you are joking, but for over a decade now I've been amused at how much projection there is from EO people on this point. 

[Porter ODoran]

East = Constantinople

Ugh, gross.

You're just jealous.

LOL, never.  Not for that reason, anyway.

It is obvious that you are miffed at not being invited to the party.  Here, maybe this will make you happy.

West = Rome
East = Constantinople
Further East = Yerevan

 

If we're being serious, it really is

West = Old/New Rome
East = Everything Else

Then how do we denominate the important differences between Old and New Romes? They may not have been anywhere as great as that between Rome and eastward, but they are still worth having a name.

Assuming they are actual differences and not just one side wanting to have it both ways, you could always distinguish between the West and the Wild Wild West. 

I perceive the differences as very important but hard to label, as they were largely unofficial. When St. Constantine chose Byzantium, he chose a region and culture that were very different from the old heart of the Empire. The move to Asia minor was a purposeful commitment to ways more ancient and much more beneficial than the ways of Rome qua Rome. I am thinking how to be more specific, but in the meantime I'll just add another broad observation -- that I think this move was spiritually vital for Christianity.

[TheTrisagion]

If we're being serious, it really is

West = Old/New Rome
East = Everything Else

Oh you monophysites, everything has to revolve around Chalcedon for you, doesn't it? 

Who said anything about Chalcedon? 

I know you are joking, but for over a decade now I've been amused at how much projection there is from EO people on this point. 

I posted a semi-related post on the other thread, but that projection probably comes from the opinion of many/most EO that there is no difference between EO and OO other than Chalcedon.

[Mor Ephrem]

I posted a semi-related post on the other thread, but that projection probably comes from the opinion of many/most EO that there is no difference between EO and OO other than Chalcedon.

I think there is some truth in that, both in terms of "There's no other real difference, so why not sign on" but also in terms of promoting Chalcedon as some sort of superdogma without which everything falls apart.  No matter how "generous" the EO are toward the OO, those are the two ends of the spectrum.  No one ever considers alternatives as anything other than silliness.   

[TheTrisagion]

Since I am (hopefully) anonymous on this forum, I shall just come out and say it.  I think Chalcedon was kind of a silly council and shouldn't be considered ecumenical.  I agree with the theology of it, but the split it caused was not worth it.  Not by a long shot.

*awaits the excommunication police to show up on doorstep*

[Nephi]

I think Chalcedon was kind of a silly council and shouldn't be considered ecumenical.

You're not alone.

I consider it a local (and flawed) council, myself.

[Raylight]

I think Chalcedon was kind of a silly council and shouldn't be considered ecumenical.

You're not alone.

I consider it a local (and flawed) council, myself.

Catholics got the Vatican II to hate, and Orthodox got the Chalcedon to hate. Interesting   

[Mor Ephrem]

I think Chalcedon was kind of a silly council and shouldn't be considered ecumenical.

You're not alone.

I consider it a local (and flawed) council, myself.

Catholics got the Vatican II to hate, and Orthodox got the Chalcedon to hate. Interesting   

What do the Protestants hate? 

[kelly]

I think Chalcedon was kind of a silly council and shouldn't be considered ecumenical.

You're not alone.

I consider it a local (and flawed) council, myself.

Catholics got the Vatican II to hate, and Orthodox got the Chalcedon to hate. Interesting   

What do the Protestants hate? 

Tradition

[Porter ODoran]

I think Chalcedon was kind of a silly council and shouldn't be considered ecumenical.

You're not alone.

I consider it a local (and flawed) council, myself.

Catholics got the Vatican II to hate, and Orthodox got the Chalcedon to hate. Interesting   

What do the Protestants hate? 

Everything.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: The events the Catholic Curch and the Orthodox Church faced, have shaped them.