OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 10:22:26 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: When did latins become schism and way ?  (Read 2183 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justionios
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68



« on: May 04, 2005, 01:25:10 PM »

Christ has uprisen!

 Why is latins rong ? When and why did latins become what they are today ?
Don't latins have the same rules as orthodox , what I mean is that orthodox are following the apostolic rules and rules from the synods, when and how did the latins stop following this rules ?
Was it something that happend automaticly with schism are has it gone worse over time ?

In Christ
« Last Edit: May 04, 2005, 01:27:53 PM by Justionios » Logged

ΧΑΙΡΕ ΑΝΟΡΘΡΩΣΕΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ , ΧΑΙΡΕ Κ
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2005, 03:03:33 PM »

First, let me say in the words of St. Paul, 'For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.' As Orthodox we don't live by 'rules,' but by the guidance of the Spirit as expressed in the Body of Christ, and I say this as a canonist, not as one who, by any means, despises the decrees of the Ancient Synods.

Secondly, to answer your question as to the origin of the Great Schism, it can technically be traced back to A.D. 1012 when Benedict VIII was elected bishop of Rome, and in his letter informing his brother patriarchs of his election to the papal throne, he included in the Creed the filioque clause. Benedict VIII's name was NOT entered into the Dyptics of the Great Church of Christ and the Patriarchate of Rome ceased to be commemorated in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia. A.D. 1054 was the first significant confrontation after this formal breaking of Communion.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Justionios
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68



« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2005, 02:29:41 AM »

Christ has truley upprisen,

I don't get it, did all begin with a Pope that choose an unorthodox name , was it something so small that cause the begining of the schism ?

But greekchristian , how can you do a shism or condecm a patriate for heretic if he is following the rules ? What I now the EP have tried to throw the Jerusalem Patriatarch away in 199+ , but still even if EP don't agree with Jerusalem , no one can directly point out the Jerusalem as schism though the are under the orthodox rule.
The same with Latins , how can we be so hard and condemt them as a schism if they were following orthodox rule, it can not be possible that the schisml began with a new name ?

By the way (even today's pope's name is Benedict) I know that that after the lost Benedict it followed two big wars, God save us for the poisons this Benedict will give us.

Lord have mercy
« Last Edit: May 05, 2005, 02:31:37 AM by Justionios » Logged

ΧΑΙΡΕ ΑΝΟΡΘΡΩΣΕΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ , ΧΑΙΡΕ Κ
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2005, 02:37:05 AM »

First, we don't have rules, we have canons, we have dogmas, we have anathemas, we have decrees...these are manifestations of truths, some in time and some out of time, but they are not rules, as I said before we are not under the Law we are under Grace.

Second, it had nothing to do with his name, his name was not entered into the Dyptics (the Symbol of our Communion) because he included the filioque clause in his creed, that was the cause of the schism.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2005, 12:54:12 PM »

Pope Benedict VIII did more than insert the filioque, although that was a fruit of his political views.

Pope Benedict VIII was a powerful layman when he was elected. His election was opposed. Henry II of the "Holy Roman Empire" was having problems getting everyone to recognize his position, so, after Henry supported Pope Benedict instead of the rival, the pope crowned him as Holy Roman Emperor. This marriage between the pope and the "Holy Roman" emperor wasn't anything new by this time.

The Germans helped Pope Benedict VIII secure his power over all Christians in Italy at the expense of Constantinople. This pope was focused on the consolidation of political and military power for the new papal states. He also implemented "reforms" moving the West further from the East, such as the filioque and the requirement of celibacy for all priests.

The schism was gradual.  In my view, it really started with the Donation of Pepin.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2005, 01:00:57 PM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2005, 01:00:27 PM »

Dead on the money, cizinec.
The separation started earlier but really got going at that time.

(Are we reading the same books?) Cool
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2005, 01:01:52 PM »

Ahh kaint reed cuz ahhm n ohkee so that kaint bee it.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2005, 01:04:44 PM »

 :brew:
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,461


« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2005, 01:20:47 PM »


The schism was gradual. In my view, it really started with the Donation of Pepin.

When (and what was the "Donation of Pepin") was Pepin again?  I know he preceded Karl der Grosse (blame the Germans - the "Franks" - not the French).  Btw, I e-maile Vincent Rossi if there ever was a western saint named "Charles" (for all of those forms of Charles through history - Karl, Carlos, etc.) and the best he could find was a monk named Carloman, a son of Charles Martel).
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2005, 02:32:39 PM »

In 751 the Lombards took Ravenna and had their sites set on Rome.  Pope Stephen III was nervous so he told Pepin the Short that he would support his claim to be the Frankish king if he forced out the Lombards and gave him Ravenna. Pepin forced out the Lombards and gave Ravenna to the pope. 

Charlemagne, Peppin’s son, later supported Pope Leo III’s reinstatement as pope (he had been deposed) and confirmed the donation of Pepin.  The argument Charlemagne and his advisors used was that no earthly power could judge the Pope.  Three days later the pope crowned Charlemagne the “Emperor of the Romans.”

It is important to note that the Lombards had just conquered Ravenna from Byzantium and Ravenna was the seat of power for the Byzantine Empire in Italy.  That didn’t do a lot to help communion.

At the turn of the millennium the Papacy had really reached a depth of depravity that, in my mind, reaches the level of First Century Rome.  Otto III was a real winner in that regard, making deals with the popes for more land and putting his relatives up as popes.  He gave himself the title “Emperor of the World.” 

If I made any mistakes, someone please correct me.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2005, 05:37:47 PM »

Yep. We be readin' da' same books, regional impediments notwithstanding. Interestingly, my sources in print are Itatians, and they bear this out. Surprised me, I can tell you.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2005, 06:12:23 PM »

I like how Bishop Kallistos Ware puts it... with the culmination of Cardinal Humbert placing the Bull of Excommunication upon the atlar and marching out of the Church of the Holy Wisdom.

"It is this incident which has conventionally been taken to mark the beginning of the great schism between the Orthodox east and the Latin west. But the schism, as historians now generally recognize, is not really an event whose beginning can be exactly dated. It was something that came about gradually, as the result of a long and complicated process..."
« Last Edit: May 05, 2005, 06:13:10 PM by SouthSerb99 » Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,461


« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2005, 06:24:46 PM »

In 751 the Lombards took Ravenna and had their sites set on Rome. Pope Stephen III was nervous so he told Pepin the Short that he would support his claim to be the Frankish king if he forced out the Lombards and gave him Ravenna. Pepin forced out the Lombards and gave Ravenna to the pope.

Charlemagne, Peppin’s son, later supported Pope Leo III’s reinstatement as pope (he had been deposed) and confirmed the donation of Pepin. The argument Charlemagne and his advisors used was that no earthly power could judge the Pope. Three days later the pope crowned Charlemagne the “Emperor of the Romans.”

It is important to note that the Lombards had just conquered Ravenna from Byzantium and Ravenna was the seat of power for the Byzantine Empire in Italy. That didn’t do a lot to help communion.

At the turn of the millennium the Papacy had really reached a depth of depravity that, in my mind, reaches the level of First Century Rome. Otto III was a real winner in that regard, making deals with the popes for more land and putting his relatives up as popes. He gave himself the title “Emperor of the World.”

If I made any mistakes, someone please correct me.

Interesting. Thanks for the history recap.

Oh, and an interesting link involving probably the best preserved (...and destroyed and reconstructed, etc.) walled city and castle in all of western Europe.  I visited it in 95 with my parents, unfortunately for only a few hours.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/bbcp/english/
« Last Edit: May 05, 2005, 06:53:32 PM by Elisha » Logged
lpap
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 228

I stopped participating in this forum.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2005, 08:49:49 AM »

You can find an interesting historical analysis here: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/F/Fi/Filioque_clause.htm

In this web page you can find the following statement:

"Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on October 25, 2003. This document, provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:

1. That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
2. That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
3. That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
4. That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
5. That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
6. That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
7. That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the filioque is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion, once again. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate."
« Last Edit: May 07, 2005, 09:02:21 AM by lpap » Logged

Life is to live the life of others.
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2005, 12:10:56 PM »

Schisms in General

A "schism" is a rending, a tearing away.  "Formal" or "open" schisms typically have roots which go back further than their obvious manifestation.  I think it can fairly be said that there are always new "opportunities for schism" or "new seeds" being planted for future schism.  Fortunately, by God's grace, these often come to nothing, and are more or less resolved.

One historical example of this was the "Easter controversy" in the second century, where the date for the celebration of Pascha (which differed between certain Eastern Churches and Western ones - the former typically using the Jewish Passover as their date, while the Romans and other westerners always kept it on a Sunday) became so contentious that the Pope of Rome (St.Victor) was threatening to excommunicate those who did not come over to the Roman usage.  The problem was further frustrated by the fact that both sides claimed an Apostolic origin for their respective practices.  Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and for the time being everyone "agreed to disagree", until the matter was eventually settled by the first Ecumenical Council.

Right now, we are (imho) living in dangerous times, precisely because there are plenty of significant opportunities for major schisms to erupt if certain people continue to act outside of a genuinely catholic frame of reference, and pursue their own agendas without adequate consultation of other local Churches.  Hopefully, it will all come to naught.

Earliest Period of the Roman Church

The Latin schism had very deep roots, some of them going back (imho) to the decades following the "legalization" of Christianity itself under St.Constantine.  If one cares to read the pre-Nicean Fathers, something becomes quite conspicuous - there is generally an absence of "Papal claims" as such.  While the Roman Church is spoken of with honour, even this is framed differently than it will be in later centuries; it is so honoured because of it being a major Christian centre consecrated by the blood of so many martyrs.  Whenever it's "apostolic origins" are cited, they unfailingly mention (and emphasize) both Sts. Peter and Paul.

The closest thing we have to a "pro-papalist" argument in the ancient Fathers, is in one place in the writings of St.Irenaeus's Against Heresies, where he is often quoted as saying that the faith of all of the Church's throughout the world is somehow measured against Rome (the idea drawn from this being that Rome is somehow "the standard", that communion with her is necessary to be a genuine Christian.)

Of course, the problem with this is two fold.  On one hand, all that remains extant of Against Heresies is the Latin translation - the original being written in Greek.  More significantly though, is that recognizing this, and examining the awkward Latin of the extant translation, there is plenty of reason to believe St.Irenaeus' actual meaning has been misunderstood.  The context of the passage itself indicates as much, if you consider the "set up" in the text for the remarks about Rome (namely, that it would take too much time for the author to have given a listing of the apostolic succession of all of the various local Churches throughout the world, showing them to thus be genuine as opposed to the self consecrating gnostic heretics he was fighting).  Many now believe, his point was that Rome reflected the Catholic (Universal), Orthodox faith of the Church - that she received the testimony not only of herself, but of all of the other Orthodox Churches throughout the world (which was quite hard to avoid, given that she was the Imperial capital, indeed pretty much the centre of the civilized world at that time), particularly in the form of the martyrs shipped from throughout the world, to Rome, to be put to death.

Thus the one so called "clear" advocacy amongst the early Fathers for those later Latin claims, is hardly so clear at all.  Other oft cited (though "less unambiguous") texts tend to be cited as well, such as St.Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians.  The problem with these texts of course, is that besides not advocating anything resembling the "papism" of later centuries (and certainly not the craziness of the post-schism Latins, including so called "infallibility"), there is actually some good reason to believe that when St.Clement was writing them, he was not even a Bishop, or at least not the ruling Bishop of the Roman Church (and hence "Pope", though such a title did not formally exist at that time.)  One reason for believing this, is that most of the traditional "listing" for Bishops of Rome, place St.Clement's reign of the Roman Church toward the last years of the first century (his reign did not last long; he died a holy, martyr's death).  Secondly, there are two elements in St.Clement's writings which indicate he was writing more towards the close of the 60's A.D., than towards the end of the first century itself.

(a) He speaks of the temple sacrifices (in Jerusalem) as something contemporary to him; well, the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D.

(b) He speaks of the martyrdoms of Sts.Peter and Paul as having been relatively recent events, and also speaks of the circumstances of their martyrdoms (indicating that they were somehow betrayed, perhaps by someone within the Roman Church itself).  Well, most traditional hagiographies place the joint martrydoms of these two Apostles in the 60's A.D., the decade before the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed.

Given this, it would seem pretty clear (to me at least, as well as many others) that St.Clement was writing in the mid-late 60's A.D., just before the Romans leveled the temple in Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, any involvement by the Roman Church in the affairs of it's neighbouring Churches (or beyond) is viewed by papism-apologists as being some kind of endorsement of later developments.  However this makes no sense, since Church history is filled with many examples of one Church involving itself (rightly or wrongly, depending on the situation) in the affairs of another local Church.  It seems though, when a Roman Bishop (or member of the Roman Church) does this, a lot more is read into it.

"Middle Period"

By "middle period", I mean the centuries after the Edict of Milan (313 A.D., when St.Constantine legalized the Church and restored Her property to Her, as well as endowing Her with many more), ending with the period of time others here have already spoken of (when the new Germanic lords of western Europe, ruling amongst the ruins of what once was the western part of the Roman Empire; some here have cited Pepin, which seems correct to me, though most cite the rise of "Charles the Great", aka. Charlemagne, and his coronation as "Holy Roman Emperor" by Pope Leo III as more decisive.)

During this "middle period", I think you see a lot of jockeying for power and "ecclessiastical rights" by many parties.  Unfortunately, such avarice and defending of one's perceived "turf" has never really come to an end, and there are many relatively recent events in the history of the Orthodox Church indicating as much (indeed, the whole situation of western "juristictionalism" is a clear example of this.)  The Popes of Rome were certainly not unique in this regard; many were indulging these ambitions in some fashion, with different ways of arguing in their favour.

It was also this period which saw the rise of a new perspective on the Church Herself.  Where as previously, St.Ignatius of Antioch's statements on ecclessiology were pretty much the norm (that each local Church, overseen by a Bishop, celebrating the Holy Eucharist, embodied the "fullness" of the Church), in this new situation there was an increasing emphasis upon the Church as a universal body - seen from an outward, "above" perspective... a "collection" of local Churches, all cumulatively comprising a single, larger Church. St.Cyprian of Carthage was probably the one key Father to grapple with this subject; interestingly some Papal-apologists cite his works as evidence of their ecclessiology, though this should be perceived as odd for obvious reasons (namely, the fact that St.Cyprian himself thumbed his nose at a Pope in what some might call an early "test case" for Papal claims.)

This also seems to be the period where gradually (and it was, I think, precisely because of the above juristictional disputes) you see the Romans (who were slowly becoming "Latins" as well - since in the earliest period they were Greek speakers) begin to drop mention of St.Paul, when it claim to bolstering the claims of their local Church.  Also, slowly something else also changed - it was no longer their "Church" (the Roman Church) which was so honoured and held in reverence, but the Bishop of Rome himself.  This of course mirrored the juristictional jockeying of other hierarchs in Christendom at that time, so it was not a uniquely Roman failing.

This period also seems to be the one where we see the beginings of very exalted arch-episcopal titles, which if taken too seriously, imply things which are actually contrary to the Orthodox faith (for example, St.Gregory the Great's concerns over the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" being bestowed upon the Patriarch of Constantinople).

It was also toward the end of this time, that some of the more provincial (and divisive) changes occured in Roman liturgical custom.  At the earliest, it may have been toward the end of this "middle period" that the epiklesis was dropped from the anaphora/canon of the Roman Liturgy.  It was also likely in this "middle period" that the Roman Liturgy gained unique traits not found elsewhere, like it changing in some substantial ways depending on what "liturgical season" it was being celebrated in (this is a trait which would eventually spread throughout all of the various western liturgies, before they were finally suppressed and replaced with the Roman Rite or it's various local recensions.)  Not all of these changes were objectively bad, but they did not necessarily "help" things either (because of the unfortunate human tendency to want to associate with people superficially like ourselves.)

It's in this period (IMHO) that the seeds of eventual, long term schism are to be found.

The Latter Period

I won't say much about this period, as many both on this forum and elsewhere have written about it.  "Unique" changes in praxis/discipline continued in Rome, which was now in a cautious/fearful relationship with it's new (Germanic) secular lords.  Things like the so called "Donation of Constantine" make their appearance during this time - a fraud to be sure, but one which oddly enough likely originally intended for use against the Franks and not Orthodox Christians to the East (basically, scholars like the late Fr.John Romanides argued that the so called "donation" was an attempt to keep Frankish hands off of the Papal domain, and to ensure the Popes had some measure of independence from the Germanic Emperors.)  Sadly, that it was a fraud was forgotten, and eventually it just became another piece of poorly argued evidence in favour of Papism.

This was also a period of growing corruption in Roman Church - in the final century of the first millenia, some profoundly obscene situations had developed in regard to the Papacy and it's occupents.  Eventually the political ambitions of the German Emperors conquered and occupied the Roman See itself in the form of "German Popes", and the antagonism of the Franks toward the actual Roman Emperors of Constantinople (and the "Eastern" Orthodox Church, which was rightly perceived to be a friend and booster of this Emperor) now won out.  Thus it's not a coincidence that soon the "filioque" would be officially accepted by the Popes, and a lasting schism would begin (first with Pope Benedict VIII not being entered into the Diptychs of Constantinople - later, and more significantly, by the pseudo-excommunication by Cardinal Humbert of the Ecumenical Patriarch.)

After this "great schism", Rome would continue on it's "merry" way, adding error upon error.  "Purgatory" became a dogma amongst the Latins, understood in a sense which the Orthodox world could not accept.  Papism only grew, culminating in the 19th century with the First Vatican Council (where the Popes became "infallible" - oddly enough, they needed a Council of Bishops to tell them this and declare it a matter of fact...wrap your mind around that one).  Liturgical deviance grew with the Latins, and in some respects in ways which are unnacceptable to Orthodoxy.  "Indulgences" entered the picture, and strange over simplifications of the economy of salvation (which in a way, the "indulgences" heresy depends upon.)  Latin minimalism/legalism took hold, and you saw the begining of things like "baptism by pouring", etc.

Of course, the West did not know even a "worldly peace" during this time of ever growing falsehood.  The various Protestant revolts broke out, undoubtedly spurred on by circumstances the Latins themselves had created, though sadly these revolts did not improve the situation, but typically "threw the baby out with the bathwater", and introduced monstrous heresies into the world of their own.  All of this gave rise to secularism and popular atheism; basically people of some intelligence got sick of the a-historical madness which western Christendom had often degenerated into, and so committed themselves to the ultimate "Protestantism", and simply abandoned God entirely, confusing the fantasies (idols) of heresies with the Living God.

Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2005, 12:22:57 PM »

Ipap,

The document you cite is hardly the "worst" of some of the ecumenical enterprises I've seen in my time.  If read carefully, much of what you cited is an example of allowing the Latins to "save face", while slowly disengage themselves from heresies their forefathers concocted.

However, I'm highly skeptical of the value of statements like this, not only because they require such a careful reading (so as to not be tantamount to a Judas kiss; for example point #2 is only possible if points #6 & 7 are strictly adhered to by the Latins, which so far they have not), but because of other things said and done by the "Orthodox participants" in this movement, which do amount to white-washing, or a disparaging of our forefathers who divided the "word of truth" properly.

Also, while I know it's a matter of diplomacy (and an attempt to let the Latins "save face") to try and "spread the blame" or take both parties aside and address things to both of them, the fact the matter is that there is ultimatly not equity in this matter - it's because of what the Latins of the past have said and done, that we now have a fundamentally "divided Christendom."  Period.  Yes, there have been some serious failures in charity on the Orthodox side - but these were all reactions to, once again, things said and done by the Latins, and would not have occured without this.  IOW, the Latins went into schism and have become heterodox, while for all of their own sins, the Orthodox have maintained the apostolic doctrine and comprise the theandric Body of Christ.

While you can let your adversary "save face" for the sake of peace (and such is actually quite a good and merciful thing, in so far as it can be legitimatly done without transgressing into error), if there is no sense at all in this that it is the Latins who need to repent and turn their back on things they've done...well, then what exactly are "we" signing up to here?  This is beside the fact that as of right now, it is hardly clear that the Roman Catholics are serious about renouncing anything.  In fact, if we take Pope Benedict XVI seriously (given his past statements), he's proposes a solution which for Orthodox Christians, is no solution at all (basically, Latins keep their heresies, Orthodox don't have to adopt them; and we all concelebrate and pretend we're on the same boat.)

Frankly, that's the most devilish "solution" of all, and would be a travesty for everyone - particularly the Orthodox, since if anyone on the nominally "Orthodox side" accepted it, I can guarantee it would create a significant schism (with those "agreeing" to such an arrangement being the schismatics, entering into a kind of "Unia lite".)

Logged
lpap
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 228

I stopped participating in this forum.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2005, 02:54:41 PM »

Ipap,

The document you cite is hardly the "worst" of some of the ecumenical enterprises I've seen in my time. If read carefully, much of what you cited is an example of allowing the Latins to "save face", while slowly disengage themselves from heresies their forefathers concocted.


Dear Augustine,
 
I agree with you. I avoid to make comments about the statement because itself is unveiling enough about its ecumenical (non-orthodox) character .

My post is reffering to an agreed statement made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on October 25, 2003 !

You can find information regarding this "North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation" in the Catholic site: http://www.usccb.org/seia/dialogues.htm and in the Orthodox site: http://www.scoba.us/resources/#consultation

The Orthodox side is sponsored by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of America (SCOBA). http://www.scoba.us/jurisdictions/

The full statement can be found in : both the Catholic web site / and in the Orthodox web site

Here is a photograph of "A meeting of the SCOBA Hierarchs in South Bound Brook, New Jersey from December 17, 2002" from the SCOBA web site:


I wonder why Orthodox bishops signed such a statement???
« Last Edit: May 07, 2005, 03:16:41 PM by lpap » Logged

Life is to live the life of others.
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.089 seconds with 44 queries.