yiannii Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 whats the deal with the orthodox churches and the catholic church. y do eastern churches claim that we split from them? how can i defend the catholic church when it comes to the orthodox church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 whats the deal with the orthodox churches and the catholic church. y do eastern churches claim that we split from them? how can i defend the catholic church when it comes to the orthodox church? First of all you have to define what eastern churches mean. There are eastern Churches that are in full communion with Rome, i.e. the Ukaranian Catholic Church, the Byzantine Rite, etc.. The Eastern Orthodox however I believe is what you are talking about. They will claim that we split but they reject the Papacy. The Papacy prior to the first split in around 1000 was clearly a part of Catholic belief and all of the Orthodox Churches submitted to the papacy, though the 4 patriarchs offices were honored. (constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). Here is an article that states it much better than I could. http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp It must be remembered that Orthodoxy has valid Bishops and Eucharist. The big difference is that they don't follow the Pope. I think the key points are that they have a problem in dealing with the fact that Ecumenical councils somehow ended, there is no scriptural support for the primacy of their patriarchs, the gates of hell did prevail against at lease one of those patriarchs while the see of Rome has always been true to the Catholic faith, the Papacy can be supported historically and biblically. Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 There is also the whole filioque matter as well. Catholics have in the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (which is what filioque is Latin for) whereas the Eastern Orthodox do not (it would be interesting to know what the Eastern Rite Catholics think of this). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 It must be remembered that Orthodoxy has valid Bishops and Eucharist. The big difference is that they don't follow the Pope. I have a few questions in regard to this... If they do not follow the Pope - yet they still have valid Bishops and Eucharist, then what's the importance of a Pope? If you can have Christ in the Eucharist, without the head of the Church - then what good is the head of the Church? I don't quite follow... How can they stand without the head of the Church? How are they "in communion" if they don't submit to the Pope? How do Bishops select successors without guidance from the Pope. Could it be that they "might" have invalid Bishops chosen, and therefore invalid Priests, and therefore invalid Eucharist. If there is not "lead", then what are they following? Help... What is to stop me from becomeing "orthodox" if I can recieve Jesus there too!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 If they do not follow the Pope - yet they still have valid Bishops and Eucharist, then what's the importance of a Pope? If you can have Christ in the Eucharist, without the head of the Church - then what good is the head of the Church? I don't quite follow... How can they stand without the head of the Church? How are they "in communion" if they don't submit to the Pope? Well, it's not that simple. When the Eastern Orthodox broke from the Catholic Church, they still retained their intention to do what the Church does in the Eucharist, namely, making Jesus truly present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. As for leadership, they follow the Archbishop of Constantinople. So I guess for them, being in communion would be considered being in union with the Archbishop of Constantinople, not the Pope. But you're right, since the former doesn't have the type of authority the latter has, it's harder for them to stand, and that includes doctrinal matters. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Churches aren't really against contraception. I mean, I believe they discourage it, but they don't condemn it. In addition, they believe that a person may divorce and remarry without actually sinning. How do Bishops select successors without guidance from the Pope. Could it be that they "might" have invalid Bishops chosen, and therefore invalid Priests, and therefore invalid Eucharist. If there is not "lead", then what are they following? Again, it has to do with intending to do what the Church does in the Eucharist. When Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church and formed the Anglican Church, they started off with valid orders, but that changed a little bit later. I don't know the details, but I think Henry ordered Anglican priests to deny the Real Presence. I could be wrong, though, and I hope someone will correct me if that's the case. What is to stop me from becomeing "orthodox" if I can recieve Jesus there too!? Because the Catholic Church is guided by Peter's successor, our Supreme Pontiff, the way Jesus intended it. As a result, it cannot fall into error. That's not the case with the Eastern Orthodox, who, although they possess valid orders, have screwed up on some doctrinal issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 How do they validly select succeeding bishops and priests? And if they can't select anymore valid bishops and priests (or the validity becomes questionable), will there be a point when they no longer have valid priests (i.e. no more valid Eucharist)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 How do they validly select succeeding bishops and priests? And if they can't select anymore valid bishops and priests (or the validity becomes questionable), will there be a point when they no longer have valid priests (i.e. no more valid Eucharist)? I guess they can validly accept them because the Eastern Orthodox share a common belief in the Real Presence of Christ. But if they were to reach a point where there was no more validity to their priesthood, then yes, they'd have no more valid Eucharist. But let's think in terms of IF that were to occur, not when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 9 Sept 2003 Russian Orthodox: Time for a Change in Ties With Catholic Church But Metropolitan Kyrill Says Ecumenism Is at a Dead End AACHEN, Germany, SEPT. 9, 2003 (Zenit.org).- A representative of the Moscow Patriarchate said that the time has come for a change in the relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. On Monday, Metropolitan Kyrill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad addressed the meeting "Men and Religions," organized in Aachen by the Community of Sant'Egidio in collaboration with the local archdiocese. The three-day event, which ended today, attracted 500 religious leaders. The head of the Foreign Relations Department of the Moscow Patriarchate spoke during a discussion entitled "Catholics and Orthodox: The Challenge of Ecumenism." Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, also participated in the discussion. "The time has arrived to change the present difficult situation between the Orthodox Church of Moscow and the Catholic Church," Metropolitan Kyrill said. "Moscow is ready to discuss; the issues are on the table," he said. "Once these difficulties are surmounted, the meeting between the Pope and the patriarch of Moscow will serve to turn definitively the difficult page of the past." On this occasion, he avoided the use of the world "proselytism" -- a term often used in Orthodox circles to describe the Catholic Church's activity in former Soviet lands. Instead, the metropolitan referred to "missionary competition," and related it to "the ideology of the free market of religions." For his part, Cardinal Kasper explained that the significant presence of Catholics, especially those of the Eastern rite, in areas such as Ukraine is not due to "a movement organized by the Vatican," but rather is a reflection of grass-roots spirituality. In regard to John Paul II's possible visit to Russia, the metropolitan said: "His trip to Moscow represents a historic event, which must be properly prepared." He added: "The Pope's visits to countries of Orthodox tradition have had a positive meaning." Metropolitan Kyrill also said he believes that "ecumenism has met with a dead end." The ecumenical movement "has become the hostage of humanist secularism which has entered to a great extent in the churches of the West," he contended. "If we want the rebirth of ecumenism, we must change our attitude and put the defense of Christian values in contemporary society at the center of our concerns," the Russian representative added. Cardinal Kasper acknowledged: "We can learn much from the East, which can be for us a valid counterweight given the danger of sliding into theological secularism." Russian Orthodox and Catholics agree that the European Constitution, now being revised, should mention the continent's Christian roots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 This is by no means a full explanation, but there was one thing I wanted to clear up... The Eastern Orthodox Churches do believe in the Real Presence. However, that is NOT WHY their sacraments are valid. Anglicans and Episcopalians believe in the Real Presence, but that does not mean that they actually have it. Eastern Orthodox Churches can validly conscecrate the Eucharist because they have valid Holy Orders. Before the Great Schism, the Orthodox Churches existed along side the Western Church kind of like the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches do today. They had their own liturgical rites and patriarchs, but they were united with Western/Latin Church. The Schism affected their communion with Rome, but not the validity of their sacraments. The Bishops are valid because their ordination/consecration is valid. The Anglican Church altered the words to the ordination rite in such a way that it invalidated the rite (I don't remember exactly what they changed). A validly consecrated bishop can (i.e. is capable of) consecrating bishops. Whether he may (i.e. is allowed to) is another question. For example Archbishop LeFebvre's consecration of four bishops in the 1980's was valid, but gravely illicit. The ordinations performed by those bishops are valid. Therefore, their sacraments are valid. The same thing applies to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I'm sorry if this doesn't flow well; I'm working on other things at the same time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 So... The only thing that seperates them from being "Catholic" is their rejection of the succession of Popes since their schism? Now... If they follow a different Bishop who was not really the Pope, since the schism (some 1000 years ago), how can they have "valid" orders based on the "correct words". I mean, technically, they've been electing new "popes" since then, yet these "popes" are not valid "popes". Help! Someone explain how Christ would allow valid Sacraments and Valid Orders in a group that is severed from the See of Peter; who reject the Holy Spirits promise to the Church? Are their teachings also "Catholic". I mean, if EVERYTHING is the same, and in 1000 years (without the guide of a licit Pope) they have maintained the Valid Orders and Sacrament, then why choose Catholicism over Eastern Orthadox? Same thing with the SSPX peeps. If they are able to present all the Sacraments validly, then what makes being a Catholic any better? If you say, "guidance by the Pope", then I would respond... What good is "guidance of the Pope" if you still can be graced with all the Sacraments! Is it a "teaching" thing? Like without the Pope, they "could" fall into error? If so, have they? And if they have, how does that effect the Sacraments? Or does it? I suppose that then would be the ONE valid reason to be Catholic: You have the Sacraments AND the Teachings of Christ (guided by the Spirit)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Dave, Your explanation was good, except for one tiny matter. The Orthodox do NOT believe that the Patriarch of Constantinople is the head of the Church. Rather, every Partriarch is the head of their own church. The Patriarch of Moscow is the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, etc. This is part of what caused the schism. They believed that all of the major Bishops (Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria) were on equal footing. They could not except a "supreme" pontiff. My recollection is sketchy, but I'm pretty sure about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Oops, my bad. Thanks for setting me straight, Pedro. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 I also read that they allow up to three divorces/remarriages. Is this true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Yup, Norseman, you heard correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cure of Ars Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 The only thing that seperates them from being "Catholic" is their rejection of the succession of Popes since their schism? They do not reject the succession of popes. What they reject is the development of the doctrine of the Papacy. They see Peter and the Popes that succed him as first among equals. They would say that the Pop is not infallable when defining something in regards to faith an morals. They would say only the first 7 ecumenical councils were infallable. Also the authority of performing a sacraments does not come from the pope but from their place as succesor of an apostle a bishop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now