Are Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox the same?

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Pork Roll

The ironic thing about the current split in the church is that it likely did prevent, or at least limit, latinization of the eastern catholic churches (look at the Maronites). You know well the liturgical disarray of the roman rite and that if not for "schismatic" churches, that banality would have spread more easily. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a catholic must admit that there has been some good with the eastern orthodox's complete autonomy from Rome. After all, the church started in the east and in some ways, has superiority in its ancient traditions and theology.

I agree, but with a heavy heart. Schism is not ultimately good for either of us.

One of the problems which was avoided in the East through the schism was the several dispensations given by various Popes to hold multiple Sees. This was seen as a serious abuse and scandal in the west which contributed to the rise of Protestant reaction and the fall of the church in many places. I think that if the east-west schism had not occurred when it did, the developing Papacy would have attempted to introduce the problem into the eastern churches.

On the other hand, if the schism had not occurred when it did, subsequent development of the Papacy and Conciliar findings would have been mitigated considerably, and we might have not seen a Papacy with the power to give such dispensations in the first place.

[TrueLight]

Just want to say this is an interesting thread and it has motivated me to get a good book on the Great Schism. Any recommendations?

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

If indeed your recollection relates to the suppression of the title of Patriarch of the West, it is understood that to Orthodox Christians this seemed to be a big step backward in the journey toward reunion.

I think I can understand why many Orthodox would view it that way, but in my opinion it was really a huge step forward in the journey toward reunion.

As long as the ecumenical paradigm is that of one Patriarch claiming practical authority over all the others, I don't see a meeting of minds ever happening. Removing the idea of the Pope as a Patriarch helps us focus on the unique role of the bishop of Rome in the entire Church as a whole, which is really where the substantial disagreement lies. Only by viewing the problem clearly and being honest about it can there be substantial ecumenical progress, it seems to me.

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

I think I can understand why many Orthodox would view it that way, but in my opinion it was really a huge step forward in the journey toward reunion.

As long as the ecumenical paradigm is that of one Patriarch claiming practical authority over all the others, I don't see a meeting of minds ever happening. Removing the idea of the Pope as a Patriarch helps us focus on the unique role of the bishop of Rome in the entire Church as a whole, which is really where the substantial disagreement lies. Only by viewing the problem clearly and being honest about it can there be substantial ecumenical progress, it seems to me.

But that idea works as well as any group with two leaders, if the one leader unilaterally changes his title to make himself seem over the others - it doesn't help much. Especially since a number of Churches in the East (The Georgian and Armenian come to mind) have a title that is above that of Patriarch - though in inter-church relations the holders are still seen as equal to the other Patriarchs.

Besides, in the Orthodox view, there is nothing particularly special about the title "Pope"

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

I think I can understand why many Orthodox would view it that way, but in my opinion it was really a huge step forward in the journey toward reunion.

As long as the ecumenical paradigm is that of one Patriarch claiming practical authority over all the others, I don't see a meeting of minds ever happening. Removing the idea of the Pope as a Patriarch helps us focus on the unique role of the bishop of Rome in the entire Church as a whole, which is really where the substantial disagreement lies. Only by viewing the problem clearly and being honest about it can there be substantial ecumenical progress, it seems to me.

I'm not sure if you're making it sound more like the latter or the former -- but, in any case, I tend to think it was really neither.

[ThatOneGuy92]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

I think I can understand why many Orthodox would view it that way, but in my opinion it was really a huge step forward in the journey toward reunion.

As long as the ecumenical paradigm is that of one Patriarch claiming practical authority over all the others, I don't see a meeting of minds ever happening. Removing the idea of the Pope as a Patriarch helps us focus on the unique role of the bishop of Rome in the entire Church as a whole, which is really where the substantial disagreement lies. Only by viewing the problem clearly and being honest about it can there be substantial ecumenical progress, it seems to me.

Just because the Pope has officially removed the title "Patriarch" from his honor call does not mean the Orthodox have stopped viewing him as such.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

... Removing the idea of the Pope as a Patriarch helps us focus on the unique role of the bishop of Rome in the entire Church as a whole, which is really where the substantial disagreement lies. Only by viewing the problem clearly and being honest about it can there be substantial ecumenical progress, it seems to me.

Sounds like manipulating the facts to me.

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

Sounds like manipulating the facts to me.

Not if the idea of the Pope as Patriarch was never especially meaningful or historically accurate. It seems to me the removal of the extra title was a clarification of what the Pope is, not a change or a manipulation of the facts.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Carefree T

This response is unhelpful to me, as unknowing as I am (I am a layman not qualified for "deep drilling" of theology).

Politically, the unfortunate event in 1054 had the deceased Patriarch of the West excommunicating the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople through a legate, and said Patriarch of Constantinople also excommunicating said deceased Patriarch of the West. As I understand it, this event was taken as it was (absurd) by the faithful of East and West both, and communion and communication both continued in years to come. Afterward, both Rome and New Rome developed superiority complexes, but eventually "Old Rome"'s complex was great enough to finally rupture communion with every other Patriarchate in the Church. Or "New Rome"'s complex grew strong enough to only rupture communion with "Old Rome," and maintain perfect communion with every other Patriarchate in the Church. Depending on perspective.

The deep drilling that I was talking about is in the realm of history. CTG presents a view of the history of the events around 1054 that lacks perspective. It should be noted that Cerularius was very aggressive in asserting undue authority. He had earlier removed the pope from the diptychs and authorized desecration of the Eucharist in Latin churches. These actions were the immediate precursor to the stern letter from the Pope to Cerularius, and the dispatching of the legates. Thanks to good relationship between Rome and the Emperor - forged in part because of common interests against the Norman aggression in southern Italy - there was hope that this would all be worked out. But the reception of the legates by the Patriarch was inhospitable to say the least - notwithstanding the friendly reception by the emperor. Actually Cerularius had contempt for the emperor and designs on the imperial throne. His intrigues earned him exile.

I agree with a good bit of what you write about the incidental nature of the formal excommunications, and the slow deterioration of the relations. I think this in this case, contact through the early Crusades led to the development of string mutual loathing within some parties. However the final break probably came with the collapse of Florence, finished by civil authorities - Sultan and Czar. Bishop Tikhon retired OCA DoW recently made some remarks over at Monomakhos that reinforced this latter point.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

Not if the idea of the Pope as Patriarch was never especially meaningful or historically accurate. It seems to me the removal of the extra title was a clarification of what the Pope is, not a change or a manipulation of the facts.

Since he is in fact the patriarch at Rome, he should not pretend he is not nor pretend to be anything else.

This is the crux of the problem.

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

Not if the idea of the Pope as Patriarch was never especially meaningful or historically accurate. It seems to me the removal of the extra title was a clarification of what the Pope is, not a change or a manipulation of the facts.

The idea of the title of "Pope" as something especially meaningful is historically inaccurate.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

Not quite. It was the end of official Communion, though as you say Communion would continue for quite some time. While it may be absurd on the technicality that the Pope who granted Humbert authority was dead, that isn't something that has been seen in that light until recently.

1054 is an arbitrary date to pick, and in fact only marks the break between Constantinople and Rome, but the other Patriarchies, over the next several decades sided with Constantinople, gradually removing Rome from the Diptychs - a move that effectively declared the Bishop of Rome to be outside the faith. Communion of the faithful would continue until 1204. .

There was no joint statement from Eastern Patriarchs until after Florence. The situation was clouded by the effect of the massive influx of Latins in the Crusades, and the loss of Latin territory and influence in waning years. Communion of the faithful extended beyond 1204 in many places. In fact Rome was approving Eastern bishops in Galicia areas beyond that time.

By 1453, a vocal segment of the Orthodox people openly expressed the belief that subjugation under the Muslims was better than subjugation to Rome

Does any reasonable person still think that way?

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

Since he is in fact the patriarch at Rome, he should not pretend he is not nor pretend to be anything else.

This is the crux of the problem.

If this is not the essence of his place in the Church, then the insistence by others that he is the patriarch of Rome demonstrates the need to get rid of the title Patriarch of the West (note, Patriarch of Rome was never an official title, unless I'm mistaken), which was only officially used since the 19th century and rarely employed in any way prior to the Counter-Reformation, when it was used in an attempt to assert greater practical control over Western Europe.

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

The idea of the title of "Pope" as something especially meaningful is historically inaccurate.

Not in itself, though its a convenient and originally affectionate title that to most Western Christians has come to denote the bishop of Rome specifically, whose unique role in the Church is very meaningful and historical.

[TheAtheist]

Pardon me, but may i toss in an interjection from the Peanut Gallery?

Tied to this question about Eastern Catholics is the whole matter between Catholics in general and their Orthodox brethren and this continual search for some sort of negotiated "unity."

Which leads me to my question - Why bother?

Alright, i know this is the part where someone quotes the whole "One Holy Apostolic Church" line and how much of it is a travesty for these divisions that exist within what you would describe as the supernormal reality that is the body of christ.

BUT - for all intents and purposes it seems like one group is essentially waiting for the other group to submit to a specific viewpoint. And have been waiting for quite some time in fact.

Putting the practical (read: political) matters aside for a second, both of your organizations have developed in such different manners throughout the years since your schism.

And the current practices of either church re: unification seem...well.. nonproductive.