Of course, no one person can speak for all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches since they are in schism with the Pope of Rome since the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 went into schism with the pope. Thus there is no one who can claim that all the nationalistic Eastern Orthodox Churches teach this, that or the other in a unified manner. They really do need a pope, the true pope, The Bishop of Rome!
A google AI summary:
Yes, the current Patriarch of Constantinople, Patriarch Bartholomew, and the Orthodox Church generally recognize the validity of Catholic sacraments, including baptism, Eucharist, and holy orders. This recognition is based on the belief that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church share apostolic succession and that their sacraments are validly administered. While there are historical and ongoing theological differences, there is a mutual recognition of the validity of each other's sacraments.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
- The Orthodox Church, including the Patriarchate of Constantinople, acknowledges that the Catholic Church possesses valid sacraments, meaning they believe the sacraments are properly performed and possess the intended spiritual effects. This includes sacraments like baptism, where the Orthodox recognize the Trinitarian formula used by Catholics, and the Eucharist, where they believe the bread and wine are truly transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
- A key factor in this recognition is the shared belief in apostolic succession, meaning that both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches trace their ordained ministry back to the apostles of Jesus. This unbroken line of succession is considered essential for the valid administration of sacraments.
- While there have been historical divisions and disagreements between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, there has also been a long history of attempts at reconciliation and dialogue. The mutual recognition of sacraments is one aspect of this ongoing process.
- This recognition of the validity of Catholic sacraments has practical implications. For example, in cases where a Catholic person is in danger of death and a Catholic priest is unavailable, an Orthodox priest could administer the sacrament of extreme unction(anointing of the sick), and it would be recognized by the Catholic Church, according to Quora.
- While there is a general recognition of validity, it's important to note that there are also nuances and differing perspectives among Orthodox Christians regarding the extent to which they fully accept or participate in Catholic sacraments. However, the general stance of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Orthodox Church is one of recognizing the validity of Catholic sacraments.
76 comments:
I will need to come back and read this and the other Eastern/Orthodox post that I couldn't get to yesterday.
Fr. AJM, I'm a dedicated Catholic who has, given proximity, both fondness and empathy for the Orthodox. Many within my peer group do as, particularly in the Pennsylvanian "Holy Land" that's lush with gold domes across the state, we know, see each other and are related.
That being said, a patriarch is not analogous to the pope. A patriarch is the leader of a particular church, mostly national, that were created as orthodoxy spread across the middle east and Eastern Europe. Similar to states of the United States. The pope of Rome, was formerly the Patriarch of the West. Bartholomew, is simply first among equals. There is no papacy, nor any claim to that title and role within the traditional Orthodox Communion. Now, splinter groups like the Orthodox Church, Inc. (whatever they are called), might have a someone playing the part of pope, similar to the Palmarian "Catholics", but, such individuals enjoy no universal recognition. Please be both careful and fair. Historically, and despite opinions and passions, no one knows with absolute certainty who left who first.
Marc, although an American, belongs to one of the nationalistic Eastern Orthodox Churches. He claims that Eastern Orthodoxy does not recognize the sacraments of the Catholic Church. He claims this as though there is a unity about this belief within Orthodoxy. There isn’t. There is no pope in Orthodoxy to make such a unified statement. In Marc’s belief, your Eastern Rite Church would have invalid sacraments too.
This is ByzRus, not Marc, Fr.
Understood. To the more radical Orthodox and so-called "Ortho-Bros", my Eastern Rite Church is populated by apostates and heretics. Fine. Most of the dung throwers are converts who have been radicalized, aren't even Slavic to truly know the history and they should be more concerned with their own sins and salvation than perceived imperfections of my Church. That said, and again in the Pennsylvanian "Holy Land", we exist peacefully and cordially sometimes helping each others. It's really blogosphere/social media and converts who are really vicious and at times, are not completely informed as to why.
Splinter groups aside, there is unity within Orthodoxy regarding Canons and theology. Also including the so-called "Oriental Orthodox" whose beliefs somewhat differ from traditional Orthodoxy and aren't generally recognized as being Orthodox. Agreement/unity exists among this communion of churches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church.
You have to ignore politics that causes disagreement amongst the patriarchs and excommunications/exclusion from commemorations. That's just bickering, not disagreement regarding fundamentals. Ukraine is a totally different story that I have no idea how to unpack.
Interesting. Father, can you provide the source for what was highlighted in the Google AI response?
Nick
Imagine it’s the early Fifth Century, and I tell you the Church teaches Christ is one Divine Person with two natures, and you respond by quoting Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople.
The Greek Orthodox Church baptizes converts coming from Catholicism. I was received into Orthodoxy thru a Greek Orthodox Church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I now attend a Serbian Church. I also sometimes attend a Russian Church. Same theology everywhere…
And when you return to the full communion of the Church, all you have to do is repent, go to confession and be reconciled. You can do that through any of the multiple Eastern Churches in full communion with the pope.
By the way, the Maronite Rite never broke communion with Rome during the East’s Great Schism.
But…but…but Marc, your logic is that you can join the current sects of the Eastern Orthodox Churches that accept Patriarch Nestorius schism with other Orthodox Churches, because their bishops say they are right and you are wrong. Go there and get baptized again. What’s the difference?
But Fr McDonald! Those Eastern Catholic Churches are… nationalistic! I’ve been reliably informed that is a very, very bad thing!
Marc,
But it's not the 5th century and Nestorius was a heretic.
For there to be any chance of re-establishing what Christ established, his Church, not churches, I think the challenge for us all is to put aside pride acknowledging that history could have played out differently on both sides. Could we agree on that much?
Byz, my point was that citing any one bishop doesn’t mean much in Orthodoxy, as I know you know. But many Roman Catholics have a hard time understanding a system that doesn’t work like the papal one.
The Church that Christ established doesn’t need to be re-established. It exists today just as it has since the time of Christ.
I suppose I agree that history could have played out differently. But I’m not sure what that means here: over time, people and groups left the Church. Of course, they didn’t have to do that so that could’ve been different.
There was a time where the Western Church could have easily returned to the fold, but their pride and delusion seemingly wouldn’t allow it.
Interesting to note, my Church is no longer nationalistic in the strictest sense, think American Byzantine Catholic; but stripping out ethnic nuance hasn't been as easily accomplished as was the original intention. Now, we're mostly celebrating in English without forgetting our roots. We remain closely tied to our mother Church in Eastern Europe as well.
I completely understand, Marc.
My question for the here, now and today is where does this leave us? The RC should acquiesce and agree to all terms of the East? Could the East ever agree amongst itself on what terms for reunification should be? Agree to disagree and allow all to "just be"? How about a forced reunification where I suspect a healthy percentage of Orthodox would leave to form The Really Orthodox Church. Last, would seem simply repenting is not what will happen.
Note: While my particular Church is as orthodox as the Orthodox, I suspect many if not most Orthodox would not share that opinion despite it being reality. Conversely, while I could rejoin my ancestral Orthodox Church tomorrow, if commanded to do so and thrive, many couldn't. Additionally, Ukraine was, is, and will remain a tinderbox. So, where does this leave us?
BYRUS, I am somewhat familiar with the Melkite Rite as there is a small parish in Augusta and when I was in Augusta between 1991 to 2004, their pastor, a former married Episcopal priest with five children, who had bi-ritual privileges as a Catholic priest and also my parish’s part time parochial vicar, informed me of some of the differences the Melkite Rite has in terms of Eucharistic Theology (to include no real devotion to the Blessed Sacrament apart from believing in the Real Presence). There are canonical differences too. I am not sure how Melkites understand papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I, if they accept as dogma the Immaulate Conception and Assumption. Obviously, there is a great deal about Vatican II that they are exempt, especially the reform of the liturgy. Thus, it seems to me that full communion with the pope could take place without accepting everything that every ecumenical council since the Great Schism has confirmed. This would seem to be a way to make the SSPX completely regular with the Church too. Apart from that, it is a true absurdity for any part of the “wing nut” aspect of Eastern Orthodoxy to declare that the Western Church headed by the pope has invalid sacraments and thus does not have apostolic succession. They are like those in the Roman Church who say the papacy is now empty since Vatican II.
Fr. AJM,
Agree in a fundamental sense, we do not have adoration in the Western sense. I believe adoration came about in the 12th century following a war in the West. That said, we do have benediction during every Divine Liturgy and prior to the ablutions, "Save your people, O God, and bless your inheritance" with the people being blessed with the consecrated elements in the chalice.
We Easterners fully and completely accept the consecrated elements as the living body and blood of our Lord, God and Savior. Vichnaya (eternal) lamps in our Holy Places denote the true presence. We, like you, believe ourselves to become living tabernacles at reception - the gift we mere and lowly mortals were left with!
Yes, we do "just be" relative to some developments that occurred in the West over the centuries, the Immaculate Conception among them. To us, it's more nuance than material and such things are not part of our inherited tradition. We have been a peaceful and loyal part of the Catholic Communion for centuries since treaties brought us back. There is really no compelling reason all cannot "just be" as retooling on the magnitude perceived as being necessary is likely unrealistic. Again, pride will likely impede achieving that which Christ himself expects.
Father, you have it backward: the Catholic Church does not lack apostolic succession because it has invalid sacraments. Rather, it has invalid sacraments because it lacks apostolic succession — since it departed from the apostolic faith in a number of ways.
Marc, if that delusional thinking helps you with leaving the Church of your baptism, that’s between you and God. But it shocks me that you with your intelligence buys into that kind of fringe thinking, wing nut kind of stuff. It shocks me! You are too bright for that.
Thank you for the compliments, Father. I assure you that what I’m saying is in line with what my Church believes. Definitely not a wing nut or fringe view within Orthodoxy.
I will say this, though. I have a lot of respect for you personally and other Catholics like you that I’ve met along the way. I do think that God works in your life and thru you with folks you encounter.
Marc,
It's not my intention to be confrontational with the above. I respect both you and your Church. Im simply perplexed as to what could be next, does unity interest the mainstream in any way and how do we proceed with our mutual and somewhat perceived errors? Is it beyond repair, or is there a chance to follow that which Christ, I believe, desires?
I have been not well treated on some Orthodox blogs, that's fine, I can deal. But Fr AJM makes a good point with you and I value your perspective as a result (even if I and our priests with which I've discussed this topic don't agree).
Marc,
Priests much well educated on such matters than I maintain that no one knows for certain who broke with who first. My Church is aligned with the Orthodox on about all. The filioque, fixable. Triple immersion baptism arguments aren't as bullet proof per my understanding. Crossing method and Immaculate Conception are largely immaterial. Where I struggle is with the almost universal derision of Bartholomew, the seeming inability of Orthodoxy to agree on many things, locally, GO innovation, OCA constantly suspending someone while ROCOR seems to bring anyone that's been expelled elsewhere under its collective Omophorion. Compounding things are the constant excommunications in Europe, which by appearances could excommunicate Orthodoxy into oblivion while resulting in the erection of more Exarchates and patriarchaites. Who does one go to? I completely understand that large scale isn't really our way with most of life emanating locally from a diocese.
By no means do we not have our own troubles but, here, now and today, where does it end? In your opinion, is there any hope anywhere, or are the "2 lung" Catholics, Westerners mostly, just living in a fantasy world perhaps for all the right reasons?
I forgot, Moscow's hyper politicalization, in part for survival, but is there something more and, honestly, un Christian occurring as well?
My point? I think mutually, we have our respective faults leading to concerns on both sides. As well, we mutually have our blessings and graces that should shine forth, just a little bit, should we choose to allow them to do so.
Byz, I don’t think it’s questionable who left whom: one side innovated while the other didn’t. Where things are is that individual people or groups decide to leave their error(s) and come to the Church.
I don’t see the point in the so-called ecumenical discussions because from both perspectives there is an impasse. For the Orthodox, we cannot capitulate on doctrinal or ecclesiological matters. We won’t accept papal doctrines, Filioque (a heresy, from our view), and all the particular western teachings on sin, etc. For the Orthodox these are major issues that, as you know, really impact the lives of believers. Can we be as Eastern Catholics—in union with Rome but maintaining our own beliefs and practices? I don’t think so because we see these Roman teachings as serious errors and we understand communion differently than what Rome means it to be. And I would note that while you may not see things like Immaculate Conception as material, surely you agree that doctrine itself is a great example of the overall problems: it involves papal infallibility (obviously wrong) and a wrong view of Original Sin and who the Mother of God is. It also reveals a totally different understanding of sin, grace, and repentance. In short, it’s a big deal.
From the Catholic perspective, the pope cannot infallibly declare he is fallible. If he did that, it would disprove the whole system and then, what was the point?
I respect you too and I enjoy these discussions. I think we see what Christ desires differently. You appear to think the Church is divided and Christ desires reunification. I don’t think the Church is divided: Christ prayed it would be one, and His prayer is fulfilled. Christ wants people to join the undivided Church.
Byz, the problem areas you mentioned above are real problems, to be certain. From both perspectives, I suspect the answer for individuals is to live life in their parishes and not online because life in a particular parish really makes those more global issues disappear, doesn’t it?!
For example, whatever my thoughts on Pat. Bartholemew, it doesn’t matter in the slightest!
Here in the real world, most of our community drive from Kansas City to Chicago this weekend to visit our bishop. One of our readers is to be ordained deacon at the Hierarchical Liturgy tomorrow.
We have a women’s convent at our parish. It has doubled in size over the last two years. So one of the sisters is being made abbess at Vespers tonight.
Marc,
Parish life is everything to us, as you know. Communal liturgical prayer leads to breaking the fast sharing a meal/coffee hour, friendships are formed, families take the parish home and pray as a family church, or independently if they live alone. It's our life, one that should be paramount as you are right to note that the problems of the hierarchs should mostly remain the problems for the hierarchs to solve.
Blessings and best wishes to the newly ordained deacon, Axios! As well, congratulations to the newly installed Hegumena!
Mnohaja lita!
"I don’t see the point in the so-called ecumenical discussions because from both perspectives there is an impasse." We must not give up.
"Can we be as Eastern Catholics—in union with Rome but maintaining our own beliefs and practices? I don’t think so because we see these Roman teachings as serious errors and we understand communion differently than what Rome means it to be." As is obvious, I had nothing to do with that which occurred centuries before I was born. So, yes, Eastern Catholics, juridically, theologically and liturgically "just be". We do NOT have the filioque, the Immaculate Conception is not our tradition and I'm mostly indifferent to what the RC does within its own space (though I really want my RC friends to have the TLM back). Why? I certainly am not going to change it and it doesn't directly effect me. To be sure, the Pope is our Patriarch as we're a metropolitinate, not a patriarchiate. That said, his role is almost exclusively limited to the approval of bishops.
Catholics believe the Church to be divided.
Orthodox believe the Catholics left the Church.
I don't know, my friend, I truly hope that someday we will get to say together "In peace, let us pray to the Lord / Mirom Hospodu pomolimsja."
Wishing you a blessed week ahead.
Byz,I think we’ve, at least, identified the difference in ethos (and doctrine?) between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics: it seems to come down to whether it matters — or to what degree it matters — to be in communion with a patriarch who is in error (or if he’s in error in the first place).
Personally, I could not be Eastern Catholic because I think the pope is in error on many important points of doctrine. And while he may not compel me to believe as he does, I think it matters to avoid being under such an erring authority. It would seem that you and Eastern Catholics think differently…?
Have a blessed week! My feet hurt after standing thru the liturgies this weekend! Whew!
Marc,
I understood why you feel as you do if I look at things through your lens.
Ethos is effectively the same as is doctrine between you and I.
The pope is the successor to Peter. The Pope can do what, juridically, no one in Orthodoxy can do, call an ecumenical council.
I was born a Catholic and haven't felt compelled to abandon this Church over the actions of another centuries ago, particularly when it doesn't impact me. Perhaps Leo will be the pope to correct the filioque. Perhaps not. My point with my ramblings on my phone? My commitment to my Eastern Christian Catholic faith outweighs what little righteousness that I have in my being. I also do not believe we are heretics or apostates. Too many miraculous events grace the Churches in the Catholic Communion. Similar Grace's pour forth in Orthodoxy, the myrrh streaming icon Iveron comes to mind. I, therefore, have to trust that the Holy Spirit will guide the current or a future pope to adjust where needed.
S'Bohom! Go with God! ☦
At some later time, we’ll have to discuss whether the pope can, in fact, call an Ecumenical Council—my answer is “no.”
But knowing that you were born Catholic helps me to understand your viewpoint more. I was born nothing and initially converted to Catholicism as a young adult. Without knowing Catholicism, I don’t think I could have known Orthodoxy they’ll way I do — thank God.
Further I can imagine that having a healthy Eastern Catholic parish in which to struggle would greatly mitigate the sense of needing to change or convert to Orthodoxy.
I don’t have your experiences: my only analogous experience was in Trad-dom, where I tried to simply live in the parish and avoid the larger controversies. I was unable to do that, but at that time, I had already experienced Orthodoxy, so there were many things making that solution impossible for me.
I happen to agree with you that it is fundamentally impossible to live Orthodoxy within the Roman Communion. I lived Byzantine Catholicism for many years...the de facto 2nd class citizenship, deeper examination into Church History (Former Roman Catholic Seminarian), and a few other factors led me towards Orthodoxy...Internally, it has been the most peaceful decision that I've made. That being said, I also know there is a ton more nuance to East-West relations since objectively, both come from the same Source...
God grant many years to your newly ordained deacon as well as the convent attached.
Finding the balance between the western and eastern ethos is a rather difficult thing, especially after so many years apart...Traddom was definitely a turn-away for me as well...
The only Church that is confused about the Great Schism are the multiplicities of Eastern Orthodox Churches. They broke with the pope in 1054, regardless of any justifiable reasons. Schism tends to and now is breaking communion with the pope. Only by the grace of God have the Orthodox maintained apostolic succession in the ensuing years. They could have easily gone the way of the Church of England if they had kings or queens that preferred the Protestant Reformation ideologies about the sacraments to include Holy Orders over the Catholic Church’s dogmas regarding these. I believe the poor “Old Catholic Church” which went into schism with the pope after Vatican I has since lost apostolic succession as they now ordain women. Oddly Eastern Orthodoxy seems to have better ecumenical relations with the Anglican Communion than the papacy they went into schism with in 1054.
"The only Church that is confused about the Great Schism are the multiplicities of Eastern Orthodox Churches."
What is this confusion you are referring to?
"Schism tends to and now is breaking communion with the pope."
When did schism become synonymous with breaking communion with the pope?
"Only by the grace of God have the Orthodox maintained apostolic succession in the ensuing years."
If the grace of God sustains the Orthodox communion, why is a pope necessary?
There have been other schisms with the pope since the great schism. They have much in common with the Eastern Orthodox in terms of justifying their schism:
This is a list of Independent Catholic denominations, current and defunct, which identify as Catholic but are not in communion with the Holy See.
Denominations of Roman Catholic tradition
edit
See also: Sedevacantism and Conclavism
Apostolic Catholic Church
Apostles of Infinite Love
Argentine Catholic Apostolic Church
Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church
Palmarian Christian Church
Philippine Independent Church
Traditionalist Mexican-American Catholic Church
Venezuelan Catholic Apostolic Church
Denominations of Old Catholic tradition
edit
Main articles: Old Catholic Church, Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic), and Union of Scranton
American Catholic Church in the United States
American Catholic Church (1915)
American National Catholic Church
Community Catholic Church of Canada
Canonical Old Roman Catholic Church
Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch
Christ Catholic Church
Ecumenical Catholic Church
Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ
Ecumenical Catholic Communion
Imani Temple African-American Catholic Congregation
Mexican National Catholic Church
North American Old Catholic Church
Old Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain
Denominations of Liberal Catholic tradition
edit
Main article: Liberal Catholic movement
Liberal Catholic Church, Province of the United States of America
Liberal Catholic Church International
The Young Rite
This is an illustrative list.
Consider: The Orthodox Church continues unaltered the same beliefs, practices, and ecclesial structure of the first millennium Church. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church departed in each of three areas in the second millennium.
The groups in this list continue to diverge from the first millennium Church, just as the Roman Catholic Church does.
So, these groups have much more in common with the Roman Catholic Church than they do with the Orthodox Church. They are in revolt to various degrees against the first millennium Church because of the incessant desire to develop and change doctrine and praxis.
Schism is in 1054 and now is breaking communion with the pope. Fortunately for the east, its Reformation was not influenced by the Protestant Reformation of Western Europe which was both a schism, breaking with the pope, but also heretical in terms of sacramental doctrine/dogma. The schism of the east from the west was the east’s breaking with the Bishop of Rome and his Universal Mission given Peter and his successors by Christ the Lord, who is the Head of the Church.
I'm asking if you can tell us when the definition of schism became "breaking communion with the pope."
The Great Schism, at the time it occurred, wasn't known to many given the lack of practical means of communication at that time. Things continued in many places as they always had.
The Council of Florence resulted in a brief respite from the divide that occurred gradually after 1054. Not being an ecumenical Council, however, the agreed terms were quickly rejected by the majority of the Orthodox hierarchy.l as carring no weight and being non binding.
Fr. with all due respect, you are thinking like a Roman. That's fine, of course, it's your experience. The Roman mindset is one of compliance without question. The Orthodox will not read what you wrote, say "Why didn't I think of that?" and beat the priest to Catholic liturgy next Sunday. The filioque which my particular Church lacks, is an example. It really makes no sense. The RC wrecked my Church in the US expelling married clergy and causing 2 schisms. Squarely the Roman Church's fault that was beyond ignorant, unnecessary, costly with court battles over property ownership going into the 1980s and destructive to God's people. WE. HAVE. NEVER. RECOVERED, hard stop. So, if the RC really wants to listen, understanding the Eastern viewpoint, ethos, spirituality and liturgy perhaps some progress could be made. Even then, I have my doubts, it's just been too long.
The Catholic Church officially teaches, since the time of the Great Schism, that the schism is primarily one of juridiction and that of the authority of the pope being called into question by the east. The east on the other hand includes various theological and doctrinal diversions, but it is mostly cultural and devotional in reality and semantics as it concerns the Holy Spirit’s manner of procession. But the greater problem that Marc insists upon, which isn’t universal among the Orthodox, since they have no central authority to speak for all the nationalistic Churches, is that the Catholic Church is invalid without apostolic succession since the Great Schism. That’s a whole other ball of wax and would be impossible to resolve if true which it isn’t and many nationalistic orthodox Churches believe the Catholic Church maintains apostolic succession.
But this is the crux of Eastern Orthodoxy’s main problem which isn’t apostolic succession, sacraments or cultural attributes. This is from Wikipedia:
The Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of Papal authority set forth in the Vatican Council of 1870, and taught today in the Catholic Church.[31] The Orthodox Church has always maintained the original position of collegiality of the bishops resulting in the structure of the church being closer to a confederacy. The Orthodox have synods where the highest authorities in each Church community are brought together, but, unlike the Catholic Church, no central individual or figure has the absolute and infallible last word on church doctrine. In practice, this has sometimes led to divisions among Greek, Russian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, as no central authority can serve as an arbitrator for various internal disputes.[citation needed]
Starting from the second half of the 20th century, eucharistic ecclesiology is upheld by Catholic theologians. Henri de Lubac writes: "The Church, like the Eucharist, is a mystery of unity – the same mystery, and one with inexhaustible riches. Both are the body of Christ – the same body."[32] Joseph Ratzinger called eucharistic ecclesiology "the real core of Vatican II's (Second Vatican Council) teaching on the cross".[26] According to Ratzinger, the one church of God exists in no other way than in the various individual local congregations.[33] In these the eucharist is celebrated in union with the Church everywhere.[34] Eucharistic ecclesiology led the council to "affirm the theological significance of the local church. If each celebration of the Eucharist is a matter not only of Christ's sacramental presence on the altar but also of his ecclesial presence in the gathered community, then each local eucharistic church must be more than a subset of the universal church; it must be the body of Christ 'in that place'."[35]
The ecclesiological dimension of the East–West schism revolves around the authority of bishops within their dioceses[36] and the lines of authority between bishops of different dioceses. It is common for Catholics to insist on the primacy of Roman and papal authority based on patristic writings and conciliar documents.[37]
No one in the first millennium would have defined schism as “breaking communion with the pope.” In fact, there were many schisms in the first millennium that didn’t even remotely involve Rome. That the Roman Church didn’t start using that definition until relatively recently is but one example of a significant change from the first millennium ethos that Rome has abandoned.
The manner of the procession of the Holy Spirit is not a semantical issue.
Can you name a theological or devotional divergence in Orthodoxy?
Of course the Orthodox reject the 19th century innovation of papal supremacy! That is the crux of the problem — Rome innovated and Orthodoxy remained the same. And as it has done for 1,200 years, Rome turns around and says the Orthodox are in error for not going along with the innovation.
The persistent need for Rome to innovate away from the Apostolic Church is the crux of the problem indeed!
The Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of Papal authority set forth in the Vatican Council of 1870.
Let's be fair, Jesus intended Peter's primary. No where was Peter's infallibility contemplated. They are not mutually inclusive. Bind and loose might have been hijacked by the RC 1,837 years on.
Reducing the filioque to mere semantics undermines theological arguments and heresies addressed at Nicene. Additionally, and lacking an ecumenical Council, change to something that is a core recitation of beliefs from the Fathers should not have happened. But, my opinion is of little consequence to the Church at large. My thinking, however l, is solidly Eastern.
Byz, I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Fr. McDonald, although well-meaning, exemplifies the complete inability to understand the Orthodox teaching (even if he was to continue to disagree with it). The insistence on seeing things from only the post-schism Roman perspective, with all its accretions over the last thousand years, is tiresomely hubristic. Even reading some of the statements from Rome's so-called ecumenical documents toward the East, one cannot help but notice these false presuppositions.
If the filioque is mere semantics, why then introduce confusion? If just semantics, why not remove ambiguity and restore what Nicene provided? Why wasn't Nicene good enough?
Byz, do Eastern Catholics accept Cappadocian Triadology? I suspect the answer is yes based on what you've written...
Marc hits the nail on the head! The Eastern Orthodox Churches, since we really can’t refer to them as united beyond what they hold in common, since there is no human authority to keep the various nationalistic Churches in check, is ossified and intransigent in that ossification which happened around 1054 depending on whom you rely for this information. They don’t like development of doctrine. An example of this is that if an Orthodox person buys a plant and plants it in the ground, they want no growth or flowering and as soon as they see some growth or buds, they cut it off. Thanks be to God, the Catholic Church is not rigid or ossified but acknowledges, that Christ, the Head of the Church, guides the development of doctrine, in a coherent and logical way, never destroying the roots from which this development occurs or creating a completely different plant, like the Protestants have more or less.
And what a shame that the Catholic Church battled the Arian Heresy, which denies the divinity of Christ, by adding the Filoque Clause. Only the ossified and rigid would denigrate the Holy Spirit’s guidance in this decision, He who proceeds from the Father and Son:
The Filioque Dispute | Eclectic Orthodoxy
The Catholic Church added the "filioque" clause to the Nicene Creed to clarify the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, specifically stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This was done primarily to emphasize the deity of Christ and his equality with the Father. While the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, the Catholic Church believes that the Son's participation in the Spirit's procession does not undermine the Father's unique role as the primary source of the Trinity.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
The Filioque Clause:
The term "filioque" means "and from the Son" in Latin. It was added to the phrase in the Nicene Creed that describes the Holy Spirit's procession, changing it from "proceeds from the Father" to "proceeds from the Father and the Son".
Purpose of the Addition:
The Catholic Church added the filioque to combat Arianism, a heresy that denied the divinity of Christ. By asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, the Church affirmed that the Son is of the same divine essence as the Father, and thus also God.
Orthodox Perspective:
The Eastern Orthodox Church, while acknowledging that the Son is divine, maintains that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. They believe the filioque undermines the Father's unique role as the sole source of the Godhead.
Yes, now we have identified the real issue the I mentioned earlier: Catholics develop doctrine and then fault the Orthodox for not accepting their doctrinal developments. Not only do Orthodox not like development of doctrine: we fundamentally reject it!
As for the rest, your assumption that Orthodoxy is not united has no basis in reality. We do not need a human authority to keep the Churches in check because God does that for us, thankfully.
When making the decision to alter the Creed, they seem to have forgotten the very next line, which undoes Arianism in itself: "Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified." Oddly enough, despite our not accepting the Filioque, we are not Arians -- amazing!
The addition of the Filioque, as your citation notes, is not a semantical issue like you initially claimed. With the erroneous addition to the Creed and the eventual dogmatization of the heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, the Western Church rejected the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity. Ultimately, that false teaching essentially reduces the Trinity to a Diad, practically denying the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Underlying this error is the Western conception of Absolute Divine Simplicity. And coupled together, these errors result in what amounts to practical modalism.
From these errors also flow the erroneous idea of the need for a human "Vicar of Christ" on Earth. That happens because you lack the proper balance in God's transcendence and immanence (as explained by St Gregory Palamas in explicating the apostolic teaching of the Essence-Energies distinction).
The Catholic Church is very clear about the Most Holy Trinity and equality of Divine Persons. Thank you Filoque clause. The ossification of the Orthodox has reduced it to an artificial Christmas Tree, the ones made of aluminum tinsel. And yes, the devil has entered the hopeless Orthodox Church to deny the primacy of Peter, doctrinal development and to keep the Orthodox like a tinsel Christmas tree. You can congratulate each other over that ossified tree at Christmas. Make sure you cut the flowers off the lilies at Easter. Perfect symbol of orthodoxy.
Marc,
Yes, central aspect of our theological understanding, the same as you.
It's your blog.
The tenor and accusations are moving us from decorum and good form.
The Western understanding of Papal primacy has migrated from it's former unity. Eastern structure is as it was at the time of the Apostles. Roman primacy became over time more like empire building. Christ didn't crown a king prior to his ascension. He honored one of the apostles as leader as the others dispersed.
I'm not a schematic person your view, rather, my tradition is my tradition rooted in tradition and unchanged. We were given all that we need by Christ, scripture, patristic writings, the councils. What more is needed that doesn't result in semantic confusion and barbs regarding ossification?
You profess to believe in the equality of the Trinity, but you reject that equality with your Filioque doctrine since you ascribe to the Father and the Son together the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. That error relegates the Holy Spirit to secondary status within the Godhead.
It almost demonstrates well the Roman Catholic reliance on man rather than trust in God as that doctrinal error rests upon rationalism over and above the very words of Christ, who said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Orthodox accept the primacy of St. Peter. We reject the innovation that the bishop of Rome is the exclusive successor of St. Peter and the Luciferian idea that the bishop of Rome is infallible. As one of our great 20th century saints said, "Papism is actually the first and the oldest Protestantism."
It is interesting that you continue to assume that failing to develop doctrine is a bad thing; yet, I notice that you have failed to explain why development of doctrine is actually a good thing or what doctrines are in need of development in the first place... So I'm curious why you think development of doctrine is good in itself such that failing to develop doctrine is inherently bad?
Byrus, I am confused about your own understanding of the Eastern Rite to which you are attached and your broader appreciation for Eastern Orthodoxy. As I understand it, the Eastern Rites in full communion with the papacy and thus the Universal Church, accept all papal teachings as well as ecumenical councils since the Great Schism.
Thus, in your Eastern Rite
Is the Nicene Creed prayed using the Filoque Clause?
Accept the development of doctrine in regards to subsequent Ecumenical Councils?
Accept the Infallible declaration by the pope alone as it concerns the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception which occurred in 1854 prior to the definition of papal infallibility during Vatican I?
Accepted the infallible decree of Pope Pius XII in 1950 concerning the dogma of the Assumption of the BVM body and soul into heaven
Of course, Marc’s nationalistic Orthoodox Church thinks the Church of the West, meaning Rome with her pope lost apostolic succession and thus the primacy of Peter as Christ taught he has. That’s the greatest problem I have with Marc’s version of Eastern Orthodoxy which of course not all of Eastern Orthodoxy accepts.
I know you must have read Vatican II’s decree on the Eastern Rite Churches. Does your Eastern Rite Church accept this document:
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html
The only reason I suggest that Eastern Orthodoxy is ossified in and around 1054 is because they are. But the Eastern Rites in union with the pope and thus in full communion with the Catholic Church are not, although for all practical purposes there aren’t that many differences between Orthodoxy and the Eastern Rites.
Every Orthodox Church teaches that possessing the apostolic faith is a requirement for maintaining apostolic succession.
Not sure how many times I will have to repeat this for it to sink in, Father!
Of the Catholic Church has the apostolic faith, always and forever. Many Eastern Orthodox Nationalistic Churches acknowledge the obvious.
Every Orthodox Church believes Rome departed from the Apostolic Faith. Obviously.
Since we citing Wiki’s as authority here: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession#:~:text=Apostolic%20succession%20is%20the%20tracing,or%20repudiate%20the%20Holy%20Scripture.
And here’s the authoritative document proving this point. Many others could be cited, including the text of the anathemas, part of the Synodikon, sung on every first Sunday of Lent:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
Fr.
I mean no disrespect, I'm not being flippant, it does come down to semantics.
Filioque, not our books.
Immaculate Conception, not our calendar. We have the Feast of Holy Anna on/about that day. It was politically correct to celebrate the IC, but it's not on our calendar and that has mostly stopped.
Assumption. We observe the Dormition, the falling asleep of Mother Mary who, after her passing, was assumed body and soul.
Per our treaty, that of Uzhgorod, guaranteed our traditions and liturgy, not traditions and liturgy when it suits Rome.
My particular Church, self governing. We determine all but the approval of bishops. We function about the same as any Orthodox metropolitan.
VII told the Eastern Churches to embrace our traditions, liturgy among them, as intended. We therefore have removed about all Latinizations. A few still exist in places, a very small minority. To embrace anew our roots, which were Orthodox, we moved back towards that model in all ways.
As for ossified, what could we possibly need that scripture, tradition, patristic writings, the ecumenical councils and our liturgy haven't already provided. Society should change, not us, we're countercultural.
Byrus, just to be clear, your Church is in union with Rome, meaning the papacy, correct? And in this union, the primacy of peter is respected correct? And there is a mutual respect in terms of Apostolic Sucession, correct? And yet, this union allow your Church to continue with the Creed without the Filoque clause correct and the other doctrines you mention, correct.
Thus the main problem with the Orthodox, and it is their problem, not ours, is that they are rigid in what they mean by apostolic Sucession which is ossified and leads them to a dead end street as it concerns any kind of mutual respect of what we do have in common.
Also, Byrus, your Eastern Rite Church and all Eastern Rites are as Eastern as any Eastern Orthodox Church, yet Eastern Rites have found a way, with the assistance of Rome to be in full communion with the Church and the Successor of Saint Peter. There is a way and rigid intransigence about this, that or the other shuts down that way and it is the Eastern Orthodox (certainly not all) who have done so.
And just to be clear, my greatest beef with the Eastern Orthodox the smug insistence among some of them, but not all, that the Catholic Church, including her Eastern Rites don’t have Apostolic Sucession.
Byrus, just to be clear, your Church is in union with Rome, meaning the papacy, correct?
Yes
And in this union, the primacy of peter is respected correct?
Yes
And there is a mutual respect in terms of Apostolic Sucession, correct?
Yes
And yet, this union allow your Church to continue with the Creed without the Filoque clause correct and the other doctrines you mention, correct.
Yes
By treaty, our traditions, liturgy and canon law is to be respected. We aren't rogue, we "just be".
Fr. I feel we have exhausted this topic on a 1"x1" combox square on my phone. I'm not a canon lawyer and, perhaps, you should consider consulting one to better address your questions with significantly more accuracy than I'm able to provide. That would be responsible so as not to mislead your global audience.
Ossified is a term bandied about in AI, I've seen what you are referencing. My OPINION, again, and fundamentally, the East has what it needs to maintain the faith as handed down from the apostles. To tinker with it, to borrow your words, is either semantics, or perilously close to creating something entirely different. My opinion, just because you can innovate, doesn't mean you should.
It's not smug, it's their viewpoint that we left Christ's Church and as a result, apostolic succession is not valid. We must consider the Church through their lens. Forced compliance, stubbornness, and certainly documents like FS won't and aren't helping.
Call me a schismatic, more than once I've thought to myself, "you know, they have a point."
That said, I'm a cradle Catholic and a Catholic I shall remain.
Father, I understand what you are suggesting: You're essentially wondering why Orthodox cannot be like Eastern Catholics, maintaining our traditions while being in communion with the pope. It is a good question.
Orthodox simply reject the idea of a universal bishop and the Catholic ecclesiology that flows from that error. There can be no submission to this false authority. It is worse now that your universal bishop teaches things that the Orthodox Church has declared to be heretical.
Even in these comments, we see the precarious place in which the Eastern Catholic finds himself vis-a-vis Rome, as you are essentially accusing ByzRus of being schismatic. Among other historical reasons that Byz has discussed before, Orthodox take a very dim view of Eastern Catholicism precisely for that reason. It was this very Roman supremacy that led St. Alexis Toth, one of the saints of America, to leave the Roman Church!
Finally, it is not "smug intransigence" for the Orthodox to maintain our ecclesiology. At one time, Rome adhered to that same ecclesiology, so you are railing against your own past here. The united first millennium Church taught that maintaining the apostolic faith was a requirement to maintain apostolic succession. As an example, consider the canons of the ecumenical councils that depose a bishop, removing him from his rank for various reasons. That demonstrates the Church of the first millennium did not teach that the mere laying on of hands consecrated a bishop for all time -- that is why Orthodox do not have vagante bishops like Rome has.
As I mentioned before, this understanding flows from our teaching on ecclesiology. The Church is the very Body of Christ on Earth from which the sacraments flow. Once one is separated from that Body, there are no sacraments.
Marc,
It is for this very reason I'm inclined to exit this discussion. I'm not being a brat, I'm just becoming frustrated.
Yet again, and even if Fr was simply trying to self educate, 2nd class citizenry rears it's tiresome head as i respond with yes/no to a quiz about that to which we adhere and why.
The expectation of the Romans is that all fall into line when they largely do not understand the other 23 churches in the communion but will nonetheless freely share their opinions on compliance and the appropriate degree of compliance. Astonishing. As well, the level of discovery is astonishing when we Byzantines are generally crystal clear on compare/contrast as it pertains to the West.
I definitely understand how you feel. I feel similarly as I'm being repeatedly accused of misrepresenting the doctrines of my own Church!
On the upside, I think this discussion has demonstrated pretty well the difficulties of dialog when there is an unwillingness or inability to see things outside of one's own paradigm. I am thankful to have spent some time in Catholicism, which I think allows me to see things from both sides. And I don't mean that sarcastically -- I maintain that without my time in Catholicism, I could never have appreciated or understood Orthodoxy the way I do.
I also know from this discussion that I will need to read more to understand the Eastern Catholic perspective. Not that I will leave Orthodoxy, but it's just a blind spot for me, as I found in making my last comment regarding why Orthodox cannot adopt the Eastern Catholic position.
Marc,
Agree.
I fully understand your position, our existence is a compromise and an accommodation. It will not be a bridge to Orthodoxy despite being Orthodoxy's Catholic audience that understands what needs to be discussed. Last, it's not a perfect set of circumstances, as is evidenced here. My particular Church should really have been erected as a patriarchaite.
Marc,
Should you choose to read about the Eastern Byzantine Catholic Churches, I'm warning you that it will neither be particularly flattering towards us nor a romanticized journey home. It was purely political, not spiritual or doctrinal. Of course, Ukraine's story will be the most complicated and least flattering.
The same can be said of the Protestant Reformation. Perhaps Martin Luther was pure in his desire for legitimate reforms of corrupted practices as it concerns indulgences and other original problems he had with the Church of his day, but monarchs used the Reformation for political reasons and used Luther in that way. It was the monarchs who made their kingdom Catholic or Protestant. Individuals in those kingdoms had to follow the Monarch’s religion. This was illustrated to me quite clearly when I visited St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin, Ireland. Today it is a part of the Church of England. I went to the building’s basement which has an illustrated history of the Cathedral. Rather than calling the Cathedral Catholic or Protestant, they referred to the type of Missal that was used. It vacillated for a time between the Roman Missal and the Book of Common Prayer. That was the only distinction.
And of course, we know quite well that during the time the Church and the State were one, no separation bishops and popes before and after the Great Schism of 1054 were more interested in political power in their kingdoms than religious truths or unity.
Good AI overview:
The Great Schism of 1054, the formal separation of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, was profoundly shaped by political factors alongside theological and cultural differences.
Here are the key political underpinnings:
Shifting Power Dynamics and Imperial Division:
The division of the Roman Empire into East and West in 395 AD created distinct political and cultural spheres.
The Western Roman Empire's collapse led to the rise of new states and the Papacy's growing influence in the West.
In the East, the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire continued, with the Patriarch of Constantinople gaining increased authority among the Eastern Churches.
Contested Authority between Rome and Constantinople:
A primary political driver of the schism was the disagreement over the authority of the Pope of Rome versus the Patriarch of Constantinople.
The Pope asserted universal authority over all Christians, claiming succession from St. Peter, according to Study.com.
Eastern Churches, however, viewed the Patriarch of Constantinople as "first among equals" and rejected the notion of absolute papal authority.
Disputes over jurisdictional control, like the Photian Schism concerning Bulgaria, highlighted these competing claims.
Political Alliances and Rivalries:
The political ambitions of the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires played a crucial role.
The crowning of Charlemagne as Emperor by the Pope in 800 AD challenged the Byzantine Empire's claim to be the sole successor of the Roman Empire.
This created a complex dynamic of cooperation against common threats (like the Arabs and Normans) and ideological clashes over imperial legitimacy.
Mutual Distrust and the Crusades:
Political and cultural differences fostered a climate of distrust between East and West.
This was exacerbated by events like the Fourth Crusade in 1204, where Western crusaders sacked Constantinople, further solidifying the separation.
In essence, the Great Schism was not solely a theological split, but rather a complex interplay of evolving political landscapes, power struggles between religious leaders, and the divergent trajectories of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, ultimately leading to the enduring separation of the Christian Church
It's a tangle that sadly, won't be undone anytime soon.
All I'm hoping for in my lifetime is a common date for Pascha. We've been mostly aligned with our Orthodox counterparts most of this year calendar-wise, and while it matters not to them when we Eastern Catholics celebrate, I have nonetheless found it to be edifying in a number of ways.
Marc, should you have any interest in connecting on our shared tradition, Eastern Catholicism, etc, pm Fr. he knows how to reach me.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the parting of the ways between East and West began as early as the 800's with the rise of Carolingian reforms in the Western Church that saw rapidly increasing divergences in theology, liturgics, and praxis. For a number of reasons, including the influence of Frankish Christianity (which had come about, at least partly, through the influence of previously exiled Arians), the West began to "reform" its liturgical practice and emphasize different theological points.
Although these things were not necessarily problematic at the time, they became more and more problematic as the West then insisted that the East had deviated from the tradition by not having these things. Perhaps the West genuinely believed their practices to be older, but they were, in fact, not. These were ancient practices like the use of leavened bread for the Eucharist, not fasting on Saturdays, having married clergy, etc.
The Filioque eventually became the major point of contention. With the rise of Charlemagne, what had been a minor point became a theological issue as heretofore the West had not insisted on the Filioque as a theological point so the East believed the West was intending a correct understanding of the phrase (that is, for a time both saw the Filioque as explaining the temporal procession of the Spirit rather than the eternal procession that would find its way into Latin dogma). With the addition of the Filioque to the Creed in the early 11th century -- at the insistence of the Holy Roman Emperor -- things became more serious.
Around the same time, the West saw the rise of Bernard of Clairvoux, who established a system of monasteries all beholden to the pope regardless of location. Again, not bad in itself, but laying the seeds for things to come.
Ultimately, a power vacuum existed in the temporal sphere, and the popes were well-positioned to fill the gap since they had gained temporal power thru the monastic network of Bernard and other machinations. They had also begun to use (what are now known to be) forgeries to support their claims to power, insisting, among other things, that all emperors were subject to the pope.
By 1054, the pope probably believed that the West had legitimate claims to having preserved the more ancient practices and theology, and he might have believed in the legitimacy of the forgeries upon which his power claims were partly based. So, when Patriarch Michael (a not-so-humble character himself) refused to acquiesce to those novel and, frankly, extraordinary-to-Eastern-ears claims, the pope would have felt justify to issue the anathema against him. Interestingly, the anathema itself was based on incorrect information, resorting to outright lies in some cases and appealing the Western falsity that the East had changed its practices along the way.
The 1054 anathema itself was probably hollow, though, since the pope who theoretically issued it had died while his envoy was en route to Constantinople to deliver it.
Probably the events following 1054 are more significant in terms of analyzing the last impact of the schism. The attempted reunion councils are a better lens through which to consider the theological discussions and the impact of politics. By that time, the Filioque was still an issue, of course. But one of the main points by then was the idea of Purgatory, which had been created in the West in the 13th century. Purgatory itself is a good way to focus on understanding the theological issues because the genesis of that doctrine in the West leads to consideration of the real difference in ethos that happened between 1054 and the reunion councils. By the time of those councils, one can see that the Easterners are having a very hard time even understanding what the Westerners were talking about -- the concepts were so foreign to the Orthodox mindset.
It is also interesting to consider how important Purgatory (and its related doctrines) would become just a short time later with the Protestant Reformation.
Marc,
I cannot touch your knowledge on this subject. I truly learn from your posts. Part of our rediscovery in the Eastern Catholic Churches is learning our history as, we, would have been Orthodox until the 1400s.
Knowledge is paramount, of course, not that either of us would attempt to change the other.
Thank you, ByzRus. I do think this history is important -- and not only because it largely vindicates the Orthodox position. But it brings to the fore the reason why there is no reunion between East and West, in my opinion, and we have seen that in the discussions here.
The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church accepts development of doctrine. So much so that it is accurate to say that, at least from the time of Francis of Assisi, the history of the Roman Catholic Church has been one of "reform." I would say that the Roman Church is in a continuously reactionary state, and that sense of need to constantly reform is what underlies its development of doctrine.
Marc,
As I've said many times, and I believe you would share this view, we have ALL that we need from oral tradition, scripture, patristic writings, ecumenical councils and, of course, our liturgy. What more is needed? Why isn't that good enough? Why innovate for innovations sake? Agree, the RC has been obsessed with change for centuries culminating in the last 60 years. That someone can seriously think that a doc like FS isn't perilously close to heresy is beyond me. That a man, elected by men, can wield such authority unchecked, is astonishing. Now, some would think me a schismatic for saying this, but, I'm orthodox, could easily be Orthodox and much of what the West has developed over the years just results in needless churn.
This convo has convinced me, and you, that reunification is highly, highly unlikely. In part, I can't blame the Orthodox for thinking/feeling as they do watching what goes on across the backyard fence. If Pope Leo is serious, truly serious about mending the divide, an in house cleaning and restructuring is needed before even bothering the Orthodox Churches. Pride, perhaps not his, will likely prevent. Symbolic gestures will be meaningless. Until and unless the RC gets beyond "such magnificent liturgy they have!" and "wow, those vestments!", they will never truly understand my particular Church, or yours.
Post a Comment