How would I refute this from Orthodox Claims?

This gave me questions that I cannot answer.

The great schism was the result of the CATHOLIC church leaving the Pentarchy, not the other way round. Under Justinian law there shall be five patriarchs: Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople. Rome left union with the four patriarchs, the Orthodox church DID NOT LEAVE THE UNION. Under the Petarchy, the “pecking order”, as stated by Roman law was: Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. HOWEVER IN THE CODE JUSTINIAN Emperor Justinian declares that the Papacy and Constantinople are on equal grounds. Mistranslations of the code justinian say that Emperor Justinian granted political power to the Papacy, however this is FALSE. Justinian, by the right of God, kept the power of excommunication to HIMSELF not to the church, as Emperor Constantine had done before him.The reasons why the Church split:Language–Communication became difficult as they spoke different languages.Culture–Completely differentByzantine Papal Supremacy–The Byzantine Emperor, not the Pope had religious and secular powers, something the Papacy did not like. There is no evidence of Justinian or Constantine handing over powers to the Papacy at any set time. The Papacy illigimately seized power after a dispute over…Filioque–filioque was created as a mistranslation of the Council of Nicae, which changes the terms and agreements of the Holy Trinity by making the Holy Spirit lesser to the father and the son. The Pope CANNOT change it, as though being head of the Pontiff, a change must be agreed by the Pentarchy first, which he did not do. Furthermore, in the council of Nicae it was agreed that it COULD NEVER BE CHANGED. The Papacy broke Roman law as well as Holy Law and accepted heretical texts as doctrine. I emphasise that the Filloque was created by ACCIDENT.Now the good old arguement of “Gave St. Peter the Keys to Rome”. Rome moved. Constantinople’s orginal name was Nova Roma, New Roma. It was Emperor Constantine who moved the seat of the Church to his new capital. The Papacy moved WITH Constantinople. However, when Emperor Constantine was Emperor the most important Christian Patriarch was Alexandria, not Rome. Once Islam was threatening Alexandria, power shifted to Rome. It is a total misconception that any of the Byzantine Emperors gave AUTHORITY to the Roman church to do this, and yet again is ILLEGAL under Constantine’s law. However, it was generally ignored, as a strong alliance with the Papacy could ensure help in the wars against the Normans who were invading Byzantine territories in Sicily.

Please help me refute. Thanks.

Constantine moved HIS seat. He has no authority to move the Chair of Peter. And the Church really doesn’t care if it is operating legally - it had been operating contrary to Roman law for nearly 300 years.

You do realize that you are wading into a debate that goes back to the year 1053 and before - entire books have been written about this subject (hundreds of them). The chances that you’re gonna get an answer on this forum that will convince the author of that passage are very slim.

Funny, when I read the New Testament and the Fathers of the Church, I don’t see the Roman Emperor as having any power whatsoever to dictate matters of the Christian religion but maybe I missed something.

Yeah… this is a heady topic for SURE.

As a Catholic of the Latin or “western” rite - I would agree that communication and culture became a divide but I would disagree that this was because the Catholic church left the union. I think using that terminology makes it sound like it was completely voluntary or done for political reasons.

The history behind it is more complicated and nuanced. To some degree it was a regrettable sequence of events caused by the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west, incursions by barbarians and the complications of distance and time which separated them.

Whenever I’ve read something online about the schism, what I come away with is that the separation was gradual and not fully realized 'til it was much later. Then the differences in theology (filoque) and organization (authority of the Pope) were already present and had been for many years.

In my opinion, the Schism happened in the vacuum created when the empire collapsed

And that is probably right on. But to follow up with this question, why has God allowed it? Attending an eastern rite church is valid for us Latin Rite folk but why isn’t it valid for a eastern rite to go to a latin rite?

Another issue, whenever I talk with eastern rite folks they are VERY defensive and rather aggressive towards me and my Latin Rite faith, why is that?

Right on, michaelmas,

Inferiority complex, maybe? :smiley:

Even the two branches of Orthodoxy (Oriental and Eastern) can’t get along.

The OP may find useful material at James Likoudis’ website:

credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm

Only under certain (emergency-type) circumstances. You can’t just attend an Eastern Mass (and receive Communion) anytime you pleased.

but why isn’t it valid for a eastern rite to go to a latin rite?

The Eastern Churches recognize the validity of our Orders and our Eucharist, but they impose a discipline on their members that precludes attending a Latin-Rite Mass. It’s a less permissive discipline than the Latin Church imposes on us Latin Rite folk.

Another issue, whenever I talk with eastern rite folks they are VERY defensive and rather aggressive towards me and my Latin Rite faith, why is that?

I think some feel a bit insulted that most Latin Rite Catholics know NOTHING about the Eastern Faiths (and that even includes those Eastern Churches who are in full communion with Rome). They perceive Latins as thinking they’re the only Catholics out there (and, for the most part, I think their perception is right).

Of course, we haven’t done an especially good job educating Latins about the Latin Rite either.
[/quote]

The problem here is you are seeing them as two branches of the same thing. From the Orthodox perspective, they can say the same about the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglicans, Lutherans, and other Reformation Churches. And even today with the SSPX and sedevacantists.

Not just because they both call themselves Orthodox means they are somehow related today.

You don’t have to…
I am personally happy the est orthodox and catholics have removed the anathemas between them. Total reconcilliation/unification would be the job of the high hierarchy.
God bless them.

Same here.

:highprayer:

Yeah. People who claim Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy are “branches” are not understanding history. The non-Chalcedonian body commonly known as the Oriental Orthodox left communion with the Chalcedonians after the Council of Chalcedon. Centuries later, the group commonly called the Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonians) broke with Rome (also Chalcedonians) over the issue of Rome’s growing claims to authority. To call the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox “branches” of Orthodoxy is misleading, because it implies that a body called “Orthodoxy” left communion with Rome and then split into two branches, Eastern and Oriental, when that’s not what actually happened. If anything, from an historical perspective, Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are two “branches” of Chalcedonian Christianity, while Non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodoxy represents a more basal branch of Christianity. Of course, theologically, this sort of thinking is unacceptable, because we reject all forms of branch theory.

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.