Orthodox Question

[Melchizedek]

How would you respond to an (Eastern) Orthodox believer who claims that the Orthodox Church was the one Christ established and that the Roman Catholic Church broke off from it in 1054?

Edited November 25, 2005 by Melchizedek

[Melchizedek]

I'm not sure why this was moved, so I'll just warn you that I might have to "debate" a little in this thread.

[Myles Domini]

With the Orthodox East with whom we are divided more along ecclesiological lines than doctrinal ones it is essential to illustrate how the maxim of St Ambrose 'ubi petrus, ibi ecclesia' 'where Peter is, there is the Church' holds true against scripture and tradition. You have to illustrate how the institutions of the Old Davidic Kingdom foreshadow those of the New Davidic Kingdom (cf. Isa 22:15-20 and Mt 16:16-20).

It is typical of Orthodox ecclesiology to depend on a 'eucharistic ecclesiology' which insists that the whole mystery of the Church is present wherever the eucharist is celebrated under the authority of a lawful Bishop. Naturally this is true but its not the full truth but a slanted version of it. To defeat this line of argument, which legitimately emanates from what we hold true about the mystical body of Christ and the teaching of the Fathers on it, you've got to prove that Christ's Church is a culmination of salvation history as I alluded above.

If you can show from Scripture and Tradition that Jesus intention is not simply to supplant the previous 5 covenants of Salvation History but to fulfil them as the compared quotes from Isaiah and Matthew display then you can make the case that eucharistic ecclesiology is one sided. It is emphasising one part of legitimate ecclesiology at the expense of another. If you can show that it was Jesus' intent to present the Church as the sacrament of salvation in the form of the New Davidic Kingdom complete with a key holding prime minister then nobody who has broken communion with that prime minister even if they have a valid eucharist can claim the patrimony of the 'Universal' or 'Catholic' Kingdom promised to David.

The two titles that will allow you to successfully argue this are Scott Hahn's [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892838299/102-8581725-4345717?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance"]A Father Who Keeps His Promises[/url] and [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1882972546/102-8581725-4345717?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance"]Jesus, Peter & the Keys[/url] by Butler, Dahlgren and Hess. The former will legitimise you looking at the Church as the covenental Kingdom and the latter will give you the proof from the Bible and the Fathers of the Church--importantly both those of West and [b]East[/b]--that you need to show that in the New Davidic Kingdom, Peter and his successors have inherited the role that Shebnah and Eliakhim held in the Old Davidic Kingdom. (As an aside this is also helpful in Protestant anti-Marian controversy in showing how Mary really is the Queen Mother of the New Israel like Bathsheeba and the other Queen Mothers were in Old Israel e.g. 1 Kings 2:19).

Once you've established this point it will probably not be neccessary to go into the doctrines that seperate us because given that the Church is built around the keybearers of Christ it would be illogical that that Church could be in serious error for even a year not to mention 1,000 years--though the Byzantines only decisively excommunicated the West in 1459. Urban II wrote to the Byzantines before the first Crusade asking if there was a schism and they said 'no'. As a matter of fact, personally, I dont believe there are any doctrinal issues that seperate us and this essay on [url="http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp"]Papal Primacy by Emmanuel Clapsis[/url] seems to support my contentions.

However, if you want to get into the ins and outs of the doctrinal differences I would suggest you take a look at [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195124367/102-8581725-4345717?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance"]The Ground of Union: Deification of Aquinas and Palamas[/url] by A.N. Williams. The contents of this book would allow you to illustrate how Western theology is not so far removed from [i]Orthodoxia[/i] as some Easterners believe.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Melchizedek' date='Nov 24 2005, 10:10 PM']How would you respond to an (Eastern) Orthodox believer who claims that the Orthodox Church was the one Christ established and that the Roman Catholic Church broke off from it in 1054?
[right][snapback]799891[/snapback][/right][/quote]
i'd show him ECF testimony from as far back as we have it, which presents a Church that looks more like the Catholic Church than the Orthodox Church.

how can the Orthodox Church be the Church that Christ founded when the Church always had a pope, but the Orthodox Church doesn't have one?? if you were Christian, you had a pope, period. Its obvious that the Orthodox Church was created as a break from this Tradition.

[rkwright]

oops didn't see this got moved to a non debate section...

check out St. Clement's early writings on the Primacy of Peter. It clearly establishes Peter was intended to be more than just first amoung equals.

There are other docrtinal differences that are just as important.

For the filioque, look at even the early Eastern Fathers. All agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father 'through' the Son, and the phrase 'and the Son' seems to hold the same meaning.

The Immaculate conception - A lot will point to a difference in Orginal Sin, though through my research I haven't seen any real difference in the doctrine of Orginal Sin, just misuderstandings on the teachings.

Papal Infallibility - Prove Peter's primacy and this falls into place.

There are other differences, like on salavation, views of heaven and hell, general mysticism vs scholasticism... but none of those are really mutually exclusive.

Edited November 25, 2005 by rkwright

[Melchizedek]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Nov 25 2005, 01:01 AM']how can the Orthodox Church be the Church that Christ founded when the Church always had a pope, but the Orthodox Church doesn't have one?? if you were Christian, you had a pope, period. Its obvious that the Orthodox Church was created as a break from this Tradition.
[right][snapback]800005[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Pretty much what rkwright said. The Eastern Patriarchs did not recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome like Catholics do today. That did consider him the first among equals, but they granted only to councils the ability to make doctrinal decisions. Which is why the split occurred in 1054 when the Pope added the filioque clause by his authority instead of a councils.

[rkwright]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Nov 25 2005, 03:01 AM']i'd show him ECF testimony from as far back as we have it, which presents a Church that looks more like the Catholic Church than the Orthodox Church.

how can the Orthodox Church be the Church that Christ founded when the Church always had a pope, but the Orthodox Church doesn't have one?? if you were Christian, you had a pope, period. Its obvious that the Orthodox Church was created as a break from this Tradition.
[right][snapback]800005[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ya.. not to be debating, but I don't think this is a good argument at face value. The debate centers around the idea that Christ founded a church with a Pope, as supreme head of the Church. You can't just take that idea for granted, and in order to defend the faith against an Orthodox Christian you must be able to prove the Primacy of Peter not just say thats how it always was.

Their tradition is just as long and rich as ours, yet points to a different Church structure, understand that a simple 'well this is how it always was' doesn't fly against a group who have the same history. The simple response is 'umm, no actually it wasn't always like that'.

[Myles Domini]

I dont intend to debate but I must say that some things mentioned here are mistaken, which I say as someonecurrently studying the History and Theology of the Church in the Byzantine Empire 1000-1453 at the University of Oxford as part of my bachelor's degree in Theology.

What the Eastern Patriarch's felt about the Papacy is unclear. However, a consensus view of the patriarchs will yield incomplete results since in Orthodoxy the view of the Patriarch isnt always the view of the Church because of their differing views of ecclesiology. Certainly there is a clear doctrine of the Roman Primacy present in St Ireneaus Adv.Her 3.3.2 which also appears in late great Byzantines like Sts Maximus the Confessor and Theodore the Studite.

Again I emphasise that there was no split in 1054 AD. There is no sound historical basis for this contention. The Papacy was in a period of interregnum at the time and it was not Cerularius' desire to anathemise the West just Humbert and likewise not Humbert's desire to anathemise the West. Moreover, the arguments between Cerularius and Humbert had little to do with the filioque. Rather they focused on the use of azyme bread in the Latin Church and clerical disciplines. Peter III Patriarch of Antioch actually rebuked Cerularius for excommunicating the West saying the differences between the East-West even the filioque, which was the only concern of Cerularius' that he thought was valid, was worth a schim. His comments were echoed at the 11th century Council of Bari by St Anselm and indeed Urban II ensured communion between East and West was present before launching the 1st Crusade.

The real rift begins at this point...

PS) If memory serves the filioque was first sung at Rome in the 1020's

[rkwright]

Myles, I would agree somewhat, but I wouldn't downplay the problem of Papal Authority. If you ask most today it remains the single biggest problem to the division today. Secondly you're right the schism wasn't just in 1054, look to the Phiotian schism some 300 years before. It is basically like a preview of what was to come, and on his list of problems with the western church was the Papal claims along with filioque.

What happened in 1054, like Myles put it, was more like the 'last' straw, 2 quick tempered men that we're too quick on the trigger. The crusades and politics also played a huge role in it. However, that doesn't explain why the churches are still seperated today and the real underlying reasons behind it all.

And since I have the time I'll try to give you something to go with instead of only sending you to other resources (don't skip them though, theres people out there that know so much more than I do and can give better answers, but I know the feeling of posting a question only to be refered to somewhere else)

On the filioque... This is a big issue for most Orthodox and one that most Roman Catholics have a hard time with. There is no doubt that the orginal creed did not include the filioque. The Orthodox will claim that it was added in a synod in Spain around the late 400's. Some Catholic's will point to earlier uses of it, though I like to stay away from pure history, it turns into a battle of pointing fingers. It is true that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, since he is the source of the trinity. It is also clear from scripture and the early fathers that Christ sends the Spirit temporally. (Luke 24:49). Thus the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Aquinas would (in a very simplified way) say that means the same thing as the Spirit proceeding from the Son also. Theologically the filioque is sound.

[rkwright]

"You have to illustrate how the institutions of the Old Davidic Kingdom foreshadow those of the New Davidic Kingdom (cf. Isa 22:15-20 and Mt 16:16-20)."

Myles can you explain this? In a way I can relate to my Orthodox friend? I have kinda been going through the same questions lately.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Nov 25 2005, 05:43 PM']ya.. not to be debating, but I don't think this is a good argument at face value.  The debate centers around the idea that Christ founded a church with a Pope, as supreme head of the Church.  You can't just take that idea for granted, and in order to defend the faith against an Orthodox Christian you must be able to prove the Primacy of Peter not just say thats how it always was.[/quote]
of course, i am aware of that however, tradition certainly holds a noble place. the fathers testify to the deposit of faith and so their words are worth mentioning. its also helpful to show that the east was not as unanimously against the pope as the Orthodox Church makes them out to be.


[quote]Their tradition is just as long and rich as ours, yet points to a different Church structure, understand that a simple 'well this is how it always was' doesn't fly against a group who have the same history.  The simple response is 'umm, no actually it wasn't always like that'.
[right][snapback]800290[/snapback][/right][/quote]
oh trust me, i understand.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Myles, I would agree somewhat, but I wouldn't downplay the problem of Papal Authority.[/quote]

No, no that was not my intention. On the contrary it is the issue upon which all else hangs and falls. If the Popes are what they claim then the other doctrinal issues must logically be reconcilable.

[quote]On the filioque... This is a big issue for most Orthodox and one that most Roman Catholics have a hard time with. There is no doubt that the orginal creed did not include the filioque. The Orthodox will claim that it was added in a synod in Spain around the late 400's. Some Catholic's will point to earlier uses of it, though I like to stay away from pure history, it turns into a battle of pointing fingers. It is true that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, since he is the source of the trinity. It is also clear from scripture and the early fathers that Christ sends the Spirit temporally. (Luke 24:49). Thus the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Aquinas would (in a very simplified way) say that means the same thing as the Spirit proceeding from the Son also. Theologically the filioque is sound.
[/quote]

The rigid Palamites will not always accept the doctrine of the filioque not because of the filioque itself but because of the way the East sees a real distinction existing between God's essence and energies and the West sees the essence as perfectly energetic or perfectly in act. Hence my reference to A.N. Williams book where she attempts to reconcile what underlays the filioque question. It is not simply a question of arguing about the appearance of the filioque at the Council of Toledo 589AD century as a legitimate continuation of the teaching of Hilary, Augustine and Leo. Its what they meant by filioque. Some Orthodox theologians would say the filioque is fine when we speak of the Trinity in its temporal manifestations but not in its eternal immanence e.g. [url="http://www.praiseofglory.com/zizioulis.htm"]One Single Source by Metropolitan John Zizioulas[/url]. Its not the soudness of the filioque that is questioned by Orthodoxy but the soundness of the Trinitarian theology of the essence presented by the West.

[quote]"You have to illustrate how the institutions of the Old Davidic Kingdom foreshadow those of the New Davidic Kingdom (cf. Isa 22:15-20 and Mt 16:16-20)."

Myles can you explain this? In a way I can relate to my Orthodox friend? I have kinda been going through the same questions lately.[/quote]

I could try but I think [url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/papacy.htm"]this article "The Papacy: God's Gift to the Church"[/url] by James Akin does this far better than I could. I would though recommend that you buy 'A Father who keeps his promises' and 'Jesus, Peter and the Keys' for a full exposition of the themes I've touched upon.