A question on Catholics view of Eastern Orthodoxy

“Oriental Orthodox”. They do not claim to be “Eastern Orthodox”, and yes I know that “Eastern” and “Oriental” are actually synonyms, but nobody ever confuses their Church with ours. Does anyone mistakenly believe that Anglican Catholics are part of your Church?

The church you mentioned essentially believe that, but no, we don’t agree

A question then, if the Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments(and not just 1 or 2 but all 7), valid apostolic succession, valid priests,valid Eucharist, valid everything. Then we are saying that Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity in the Eucharist the same way RC believes, Baptism, Confession, anointing of the sick, holy orders, marriage, & confirmation is the same way the RC believes. So if i was somewhere that the RC was not present or was a hardship to get to, why would the RC not want me to avail myself of the sacraments if they are the same ? is it just a turf war and Egos?

Primacy of Peter is a valid concern. So is the decision to schism.

Yes there is history here, but we have to ask whether or not Jesus charged Peter to lead the church.

Paul wrote against disunity in the church.

So did Ignatius of Antioch, in rather serious terms.

The RCC may have behaved badly at times, as have others. However, it never chose schism.

Yes, I understand these points.

I guess I am asking is if store “A” has 24K gold for sale and across the street store “B” has 24K gold for sale. They both have legitimate permits to sell gold, the gold came from the same mine, but the stores have different owners. Whats the difference in the 24K gold. Is the 24K gold better from store “A” than the 24K gold is from store “B”?

Actually, they didn’t; it was the other way around.

The Melkites attempted to maintain their long-standing communion with Constantinople when re-establishing Communion with Rome. The Ukranian Church managed this for some time in a prior century.

and reconciled with Rome, but they did not relinquish their claim to be Orthodox even if others may disagree with that claim.

correct. The Antiochan Orthodox Church is a recent consruct by Constantinople to accommodate the bishops who split from the Melkite synod, and the laity and clergy that followed them.

The only definition by which the Melkites are not “Eastern Orthodox” is “in communion with Constantinople.” But then, the Russians have gone in and out a couple of times over the last few years, and I think a couple of others have as well (there is really nothing unusual about periods of non-communion among the EO churches.).

Uhm . . . when the head of one church excommunicates the head of another church, it takes both churches out of communion (the communion of everyone else in the two churches is through them). So when Rome excommunicated Constantinople, it did start the schism.

At the time, however, such breaks weren’t rare, even if they were infrequent.

It took centuries before the schism would come to be taken as seriously as it is today.

AMDG

hawk

They are not in communion with ANY Eastern Orthodox Church.

A cardinal is not the head of the church.

I also wasn’t aware that the first among equals had jurisdiction over the other patriarchs.

No, but a cardinal delivering a Papal bull is acting on Papal authority. (which happebed to have expired with death of the pope, but it still comes down to the pope initiating the break.

I also wasn’t aware that the first among equals had jurisdiction over the others.

Huh?

Under first millennium ecclesiology, he didn’t; the various churches were (usually) in communion, and (particularly Rome and Constantinople) attempted at times to effect changes or policy in the others with varying degrees of success, backed at times by some or all of the other churches, the emperor, or military support (usually the emperor’s, but ISTR that there was an exception to that, too?

AMDG

hawk

Effectively, neither party was a head of a church.

???

The Bishop of Rome, head of the church of Rome, sent a delegate to the Bishop of Constantinople, head of the church of Constantinople, with a document excommunicating the Bishop of Constantinople. The pope died before the delegate delivered the document, although neither the delegate or recipient knew this at the time.

Given that the word to describe the situation of two churches whose leaders have broken communion is “schism”, it’s hard to reconcile these with the statement that “The RCC may have behaved badly at times, as have others. However, it never chose schism.”

Issuing an excommunication of the head of another church inherently starts a schism (barring unintended events such as dying before it’s delivered). Schism was the direct consequence of what the pope commanded.

Now, there is plenty of fault to go around, and worrying excessively about who did what to whom and when really isn’t helpful to getting back on the same page.

AMDG

hawk

Agreed

However we established that neither party was the head of a church. Additionally, the pope in question had died. This event was an escalation between two bishops.

We both know there were tensions prior to that one event and that things continued for a time thereafter.

However, if the patriarch at Constantinople didn’t have jurisdiction over the others, then the others chose to follow him. If it was not required, they had other reasons.

No we didn’t, and I don’t think that it is even arguable that the Bishop of Rome was not the head of the western church, nor that the Bishop of Constantinople was the head of that church. Each was the patriarch of his respective church, and these were two of the five that formed the Pentarchy.

Additionally, the pope in question had died. This event was an escalation between two bishops.

I can’t even tell which two you mean.

The Bishops of Rome and Constantinople were definitely having a dispute. Each was the patriarch of his respective church. That the messenger was a cardinal is irrelevant.

We both know there were tensions prior to that one event and that things continued for a time thereafter.

roughly a thousand years and counting :slight_smile:

However, if the patriarch at Constantinople didn’t have jurisdiction over the others, then the others chose to follow him.

You’re mixing notions of “jurisdiction” here.

Communion between the churches was through their patriarchs; there is no “choose” by the members. The amount of “jurisdiction” of each patriarch in his respective patriarchate varied, and was certainly not the top-down monarchy of today’s west in any of them.

If it was not required, they had other reasons.

Not so much “required” as “consequence”: the head of a church, whether patriarch or other, establishes communion with the other heads. This creates (or breaks) communion for each entire church.

The schism opened by Rome with Constantinople didn’t immediately create schism between either and the other eastern churches.

AMDG

hawk

So there was not a requirement to join the schism, because there was not jurisdiction to force them, but as a consequence they chose to in order to keep their first among equals arrangement, or their communion. Agreed.

Yes, it is true they have all 7 sacraments, however, it is NOT the same. Jesus gave the keys to Peter he said what you bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. So despite having the 7 sacraments they do NOT have the fullness of truth because they do NOT obey the See of Peter. I think of it this way when you have the complete recipe why would you want to subtract the main ingredient that holds everything together?

There’s no force or jurisdiction issue here.

When communion is broken between the heads of two churches, the entirety of each church is in schism with each other. There’s no following, obeying, consenting, or choosing, monarchial rule within the church, or first among equals; the heads are out of communion, and that’s the beginning and end of it.

Conceivably, members of one church could break communion with their own leader, but the Melkites and Antiochan Orthodox are the only instance of this I could name: The Patriarch, with the overwhelming support of his synod, entered communion with Rome. Constantinople then broke communion with Antioch, something like a third of the synod withdrew and joined the new jurisdiction propounded by Constantinople, and entered communion with Constantinople.

AMDG

hawk

:thumbsup:

This gets to the bottom of my op question, thats what I’m trying to figure out.

The Catholic Church does in fact allow Catholics to receive the Sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Annointing of the Sick from Eastern Orthodox clergy when “it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister.”

Catholic Canon Law:
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

You’re confusing terms

You just identified Schism

**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; ****schism ****is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

that does [FONT=&quot]not describe one who is Catholic
[/FONT]

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.