www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Eastern Schism

Why am I not suprised?

While it is true that the East-West schism is in a lot of ways a complicated mess, fundamentally the article is correct - the Pope had every right to intervene in the affairs of the Church of Constantinople with regard to the deposition of Patriarch Ignatios, and on those few doctrinal questions where the Eastern Orthodox and Rome have found themselves truly at odds, it is Rome who preserves the authentic teaching - whether it be the permanence of sacramental marriage, the actual jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, or the soundness of the authentic teaching of the filioque, it is Rome that is on the side of truth and justice. And on a CATHOLIC message forum, that should hardly be a controversial assertion, coming as it does from one who considers himself a son of both the Byzantine and Latin recensions of the Roman Christian tradition.

As for the New Advent encyclopedia, it is based on the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. While it's neither perfect nor complete, it is generally reliable.

Actually, the Holy Inquisition is the subject of a great deal of disinformation, spread by either the historically underinformed or those who are simply enemies of the Church of Christ. While we should not be surprised at this, it shouldn't be left uncorrected by those who know better.

From the time of St.Constantine, the Roman State (and it's descendents, ala feudal Europe) regarded religious matters as not simply as private religious issues, but as matters of the public good. IOW. crimes against the Catholic faith were looked at in the same way as forging currency or practicing "quack" medicine would be viewed now. This is because such societies took the Christian faith very seriously, for it is in the end the most serious of things. This is where the whole language of "canons" came from - Roman LAW was arranged according to "canons." When the Church began to come under the protection of Kings, they understood such "religious canons" to be govermental affairs just like any other matter of "canon law." That the last remnants of Roman Christendom have been swept away in the last couple of centuries (esp. the 20th) is the only reason why people generally do not grasp this, not to mention the fact that their minds have been poisoned by assumptions which are in fact antithetical to the Christian faith.

For example, "Religious Liberty" is only a RELATIVE good. Vatican Council II did nothing to change this, nor did the idea begin at Vatican II. Fundamentally, however, religious liberty (meaning the PUBLIC EXPRESSION of false religious ideals) is not an absolute moral norm. As such, in their context, the Inquisitions were a valid excercise.

Well, sadly the vast majority of nominal Catholics right now do not attend Divine Services on Holy Days of Obligation, and shamelessly reject the perennial teachings of the Church on such topics as divorce and human sexuality. Even more lamentable is the impotence of the hierarchy (or in many cases, their unwillingness) to do much about this.

As such, I don't know what value such a "democratic appraisal" of the dogma of the faith can possibly have. Crack open a catechism, read the Fathers and Doctors, new and old, read the Ecumenical Councils (ALL of them), and you will have our faith.

I find it curious to read about the failings of Christians of the Latin tradition, with little recognition of the obvious xenophobia and provincialism (both liturgical and dogmatic) that has reigned supreme in much of (seperated) Eastern Christendom for far too long. It wasn't "Latins" who issued the embarassingly horrific encyclical condemning "the Pope and his atheist astronomers" for daring to give astronomical corrections to the Christian calendar, nor was it "arrogant Latins" who from time to time denied the validity of the other party's sacraments.

There's more than enough sin to go around folks. What really matters are the nitty gritty doctrinal questions - and on that score, the Holy See and those in Her fellowship have stood firm, whether they pray in English, Latin, Aramaic, or Church Slavonic.

Dear Indigo,

Thank you for seeing through my hyperbole. My experience both academically and on the ground is in African countries, but I have always kept a lively interest in the spread of Christianity to the east of Eden as well.

It is kind of you to speak well of me. The difficulty here is that I know Ruel from other venues and he understands my manner while others here would only see the negative because they do not know me, and know that much of what I do is tongue in cheek.

Reality is cruel enough and I find bemusement eases the harshness of life. But the judgment stick is out here and I won't be participating further in this discussion since the conclusions are already drawn.

Ruel and I are talking in another venue and that, I think, will bear better fruit. I will do better where it is safer for me to speak freely and poke fun at the received wisdom rather than wielding it like a club.

Mary

OH dear - here we go again

This is NOT a Catholic message forum - it is a Byzantine one - this includes Orthodox Christians as well as Catholics [ of all varieties ] we also have members who belong to neither group

Please note - the title of this Forum is

The Byzantine Forum

just look at the left hand side of the banner - underneath those words it then adds - Discussing the Christian East.

Anhelyna

So was it a valid exercise for Torquemada and his buddies to use the wheel, the rack, the Judas Chair, and other assorted toys on those suspected of heresy?

Joe

How do you know that it is Rome that stands on the side of truth and justice and that you are right? Is it self evident? When I go back and read the historical record, I find enough conflicting evidence to rule out any certitude on the matter. I think that all we can do is make our own best judgment and live with it.

Joe

Joe, I've been finding myself agreeing with pretty much everything you've posted lately. Well said.

Exactly what is so wrong with this article. I read it. And as "conservative" Catholic mom who homeschools 5 and hopefully if God is willing 5 more some day, I have take a bit of offense to the characterization of the New Advent. I found no acrimony in the article at all. Would you please care to define exactly which phrases were so offensive to you?

Holly
Ruthenian Catholic

Dear Friends,

Of course I'm completely new to the world of Catholic-Orthodox discussion, so please bear with me!

The New Advent article is out of date by even contemporary RC scholarship standards. His Holiness Pope Benedict has himself affirmed that the RC church's later doctrinal development is precisely that - later from the deposit of faith and praxis that was once shared with the Eastern Churches prior to the Schism.

Dominus Iesus, for example, addressed the issue of the Filioque and when Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass in Greek, the Filioque was never used in the Nicene Creed recited at those Masses. There is no reason why the Filioque cannot be dropped from the Nicene Creed by all Churches (including the Protestants) since that Creed was established as a creed intended to be used for the universal Church.

We have been through these issues MANY times before here, BTW . . .

I've always wondered something about how the Latin Church accepts St John Damascene as a Father etc. but then St Thomas Aquinas directly challenges and contradicts the Damascene's assertion in his "De Fide Orthodoxa" that "we never say the Spirit proceeds from the Son."

Both are accepted as saints and doctors by the Latin Church - and yet how can both be right on this? I'm asking, not telling.

Also, how can one be a "Byzantine Thomist?" One can be one or the other - but both? How so? Again, asking, not telling.

Without getting into the matter of who was heretical etc., it is clear that Rome's doctrinal development that led to its insistence on the Filioque in the Creed and and its theological explanation, as well as Rome's jurisdictional claims were among the chief reasons why the schism of 1054 occurred.

In terms of the charge of "provincialism," is it not clear that Rome itself imposed its own theological/ecclesiological traditions upon the universal Church - something it had no right to do and especially outside a council? Clearly as well, that Rome chose to become a jurisdictional overlord over other Churches in that manner without benefit of ecumenical council - the Eastern Churches simply rejected this and its other innovations.

Pope Benedict has not denied that these were later Roman developments - who really can with credibility today?

The argument that Rome has always been orthodox on moral teaching - there was a time when Rome taught that the embryo in a woman was not a human being until forty days after fertilization. Today, Rome does not teach that. When was Rome right?

Popes of Rome have been implicated in heresy, or else have set bad moral examples. Pope Liberius is a case where Rome herself refused to give him the honours of the Altar due to what Rome perceived was his lack of nerve on the matter of heresy in his time - this did not, however, prevent the Eastern Churches from acclaiming him as a full Saint. Pope Honorius, we know, was not only implicated with the heresy of the Monothelites - his condemnation was repeated by his immediate successors on the Throne of Peter at Rome until the 12th century.

Also, when Pope Benedict affirms, as he has done, that the Orthodox and Catholics should leave alone their respective traditions and not call each other heretics for adhering to them - he is himself contradicting the tradition of the RC Church at Lyons, at Florence, at Trent etc.

The Filioque has never been proclaimed "ex cathedra." The RC Church today affirms that unity with the Orthodox is "almost complete."

The spirit of the article in New Advent is hopelessly out of date with the development of doctrine perspective of the RC Church and those here who have condemned it as such are perfectly in order.

I am a Ukrainian Catholic, I am for communion with Rome and I am for an as Orthodox faith and praxis expression in our Church as possible.

Unless we as Catholics, Latin or Eastern, can move beyond New Advent and the like, we will continue to go backwards in terms of unity with the East - at the same time as our Popes move forward.

I honour St Thomas Aquinas as a saint, but fail to see how he has any place on the calendars or in the spirituality of the Eastern Christian tradition.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Roman, PhD

Alexander,

Very well said. I do think that there is value in having the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia online. I'm speaking now from a librarian's point of view. The 1912 CE is public domain. You will find many other works from the 19th and early 20th century in the public domain. For posterity's sake, it is good that these texts are preserved. They do represent important historical witnesses to viewpoints that were held at particular times. The scholarship of the 1912 CE is very outdated. And, so, I would hope that New Advent would include a disclaimer to their publication of it. I don't know if they do this or not. The problem is that the average layperson doesn't have a clue as to when this was written or who wrote it or what status the opinions have.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Yes, absolutely. I'm not for burning outdated books (perhaps Byzantine Thomist is, given his support of the Inquisition ).

I do think that RC's who want to be traditional, especially when they see problems with religious practice and morality in their Church, sometimes uncritically assume attitudes that are completely unnecessary - including the old ultramontanism that the New Advent appears to evince.

And since you are so nice, please call me "Alex!"

Alex

Okay, thanks Alex I almost called you Dr. Alex

I think that the presence of texts such as these shows the need for scholars to participate in discussions with the laity. The more there is a gulf between what the academics know and what the laity know, the worse it is for all of us when we try to communicate with one another. One thing that has frustrated me has been the attitude of some academics that their work is only suitable to specialists and that everyone else is "outside the guild." Granted, our work is difficult and requires patience and meticulous research and presentation. But, we should be writing works for the general reading public as well as for other "specialists." Then people would have access to up-to-date presentations of various issues and not have to rely on outdated and innacurate works such as the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia.

Joe