Is this history true?


#1

I finally had my brother nearly PWNed in our usual arguments(always calm ones, nothing ever gets tempramental)
Then he gives me this bit of history to show that at least the catholic church is wrong too…

He says that the catholic church was only an offshoot of greek orthodoxy, that the catholic church created things which caused a schism from the original church…

Help please…

The defenition of Greek Orthodoxy…

Definition:
The oldest division in Christianity is between the Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox church (which constitutes the second largest Christian denomination in the world, after Roman Catholicism) is a union of independent churches. Each is autocephalous, which means that each is lead by its own head bishop. These Eastern Orthodox churches share a common faith, common principles and organization, and a common liturgical tradition.

The patriarch in Constantinople is analogous to the pope in that he represents the Eastern Orthodox Church to the world, but he does not now nor has he ever possessed the authority of the popes. He does not have any administrative powers beyond his own territory (patriarchate) and he does not claim infallibility. Eastern Orthodox doctrine was established by seven ecumenical councils which held between 325 and 787 and amended by other councils in the late Byzantine period.

The Great Schism between the West and East was a long time in coming. The pope in the West asserted primacy because it was in Rome that St. Peter was buried - an “apostolic” primacy. The patriarch in Constantinople asserted primacy based on the fact that it was there that the seat of Roman government now existed - a “pragmatic” primacy. For a long time, tensions between the two were resolved in peacefully in councils - for example, the Iconoclastic Controversy.

In 1014, however, irreconcilable differences arose over the word filoque, which means “and from the Son” - the standard Christian creed in the West was rendered to read "I believe … in the Holy Spirit … who proceeds from the Father and the Son, " which church leaders of the East regarded as heretical. The reason why the difference was irreconcilable was the different ways approached the issue: in the West the popes considered themselves the ultimate judges in matters of faith and doctrine, but in the East leaders followed the authority of councils where the local churches spoke as equals.

The principle split between the Eastern Orthodox Christians and those who were under the authority of Rome occurred in 1054 when patriarch Michael Cerularius and papal legates exchanged anathemas.


#2

Wait. Where does this show the Catholic Church is wrong? The Catholic Church acknowledges and follows those same councils. Orthodoxy was the offshoot. That’s like saying Lutheranism was the original and the Catholic Church broke away from the Lutheran Church in the 1500s.


#3

[quote=Genesis315]Wait. Where does this show the Catholic Church is wrong? The Catholic Church acknowledges and follows those same councils. Orthodoxy was the offshoot. That’s like saying Lutheranism was the original and the Catholic Church broke away from the Lutheran Church in the 1500s.
[/quote]

It does show that there was a change from the original church and that the catholic church resulted from that change, I really need help with this before my brother gets back, he’s gone to a protestant concert…


#4

[quote=Valtiel]It does show that there was a change from the original church and that the catholic church resulted from that change, I really need help with this before my brother gets back, he’s gone to a protestant concert…
[/quote]

It shows no such thing.

The original Church was founded by Christ, who appointed Peter as its head. From Peter on, the Bishops of Rome exercised his Apostolic function – many people here have cited one of the most famous, when Clement, the Bishop of Rome, rebuked the church in Corinth and made them take back the bishop and priests they had expelled – at a time when the Apostle John was still alive and living just down the road from Corinth.

The Great Schism occurred long after the Bishops of Rome had been acknowledged by all Bishops (including those sees that later joined the Orthodox.)

And it certainly doesn’t make a case for Protestantism emerging in the 16th Century!!


#5

You have it wrong my friend…The Orthodox split away from the Roman Catholic Church…not the other way around.


#6

Nope. It shows that the Catholic Church is the one that got kicked out of the real church.

Better update all those timelines:

33 – Christ starts Orthodox Church
1054 – Bishop of Rome starts Catholic Church
1517 – Lutherans realize they were duped all along, and split!

:rotfl:


#7

newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm


#8

The Church in Rome alway held primacy over all other Churches. You can see in Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III when he says, “All churches should agree with this church on account of its pre-eminent authority”. He was speaking of the Church in Rome. He then went on to trace the bishops of Rome starting with the apostles.

The filioque is much older than the great schism. It is from the 5th or 6th century. It means basically the same but it is said differently. If you know the Latin and Greek languages, you would know that the Greek word, ekporoumen, and the Latin word, procedere, do not mean the same thing. The Greek word means to proceed from more as an ultimate soouce. The prefix ek- means to proceed out of. The Latin word procedere simply means “to go forth”. So, you can see that these are different. In the Latin procedere is used and in Greek ekporoumen is used.

It is perfectly orthodox to say that The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. You can see this in many of the Church Fathers(I reccomend the article in the Catholic Answers Library). The Catholic Church has always taught that The Father is the ultimate source of the whole God-head. This can be seen in Aquinas’ Summa Theologica where he states that there is one spiration and one source. The council of Florence repeats this. We can see that the Catholic Church taught that it was from the Father as an ultimate source, but also from the Son in a way. It would be true to say that the Spirit proceeds through the Son. He is the mediator between the Father and the people.


#9

[quote=RonWI]Nope. It shows that the Catholic Church is the one that got kicked out of the real church.

Better update all those timelines:

33 – Christ starts Orthodox Church
1054 – Bishop of Rome starts Catholic Church
1517 – Lutherans realize they were duped all along, and split!

:rotfl:
[/quote]

Your timeline is screwed up. You need to do more research.


#10

The office (chair) of Peter, first of 265 Popes, holds primacy. That is now in Rome, but could be anywhere.


#11

[quote=jimmy]The Church in Rome alway held primacy over all other Churches.
[/quote]

Which makes it all the more regretable that it got kicked out of the real church and had to start its own in 1054. I can hear it now: * I do, and I do, and I do for you bishops, and this is the thanks I get!*


#12

[quote=RonWI]Nope. It shows that the Catholic Church is the one that got kicked out of the real church.

Better update all those timelines:

33 – Christ starts Orthodox Church
1054 – Bishop of Rome starts Catholic Church
1517 – Lutherans realize they were duped all along, and split!

[/quote]

Yeah, just look how much Protestantism resembles Orthodoxy. :slight_smile:


#13

[quote=jimmy]Your timeline is screwed up. You need to do more research.
[/quote]

Well, I am just using the generally accpeted numbers. I agree that Jesus was actually born in 4 BC, which means he started the Orthodox church in 29 AD. And the Lutheran Church really was not started until the signing of the Formula of Concord in 1570.

But one date I do have right is 1054: that is when patriarch Michael Cerularius kicked Rome out of the real church, and all the Western Christians had to go and start a new one.


#14

[quote=RonWI]Which makes it all the more regretable that it got kicked out of the real church and had to start its own in 1054. I can hear it now: I do, and I do, and I do for you bishops, and this is the thanks I get!
[/quote]

If you really want to take a side (of the Tiber) on this issue, that is fine, take one. But just trolling in the river will get you nowhere.


#15

[quote=MrS]The office (chair) of Peter, first of 265 Popes, holds primacy. That is now in Rome, but could be anywhere.
[/quote]

Is that right? I thought the chair of Peter was defined as the Bishop of Rome (even though the Bishop of Rome might not reside in Rome).


#16

[quote=Valtiel]It does show that there was a change from the original church and that the catholic church resulted from that change, I really need help with this before my brother gets back, he’s gone to a protestant concert…
[/quote]

As it has been showed above, there was no change from the early Church. The Orthodox left the Church and established there own heirarchy. St. Maximos in the beginning of the 7th century confirms that the west had not changed the doctrine.

Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says ‘the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.’

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit–they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession–but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the ‘also from the Son’) in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.

Saint Maximos’ Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136.

St. Maximos was a Greek who was also fluent in Latin. He confirms that the filioque was not heresy. Maximos is highly revered by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.


#17

[quote=VociMike]Is that right? I thought the chair of Peter was defined as the Bishop of Rome (even though the Bishop of Rome might not reside in Rome).
[/quote]

Hi fellow revert!

Which of the two (chair / Rome) is permanent, and protected by God? Which of the two could we do without?

How are things in Naples with the fledgling AveMaria College.?


#18

[quote=RonWI]Well, I am just using the generally accpeted numbers. I agree that Jesus was actually born in 4 BC, which means he started the Orthodox church in 29 AD. And the Lutheran Church really was not started until the signing of the Formula of Concord in 1570.

But one date I do have right is 1054: that is when patriarch Michael Cerularius kicked Rome out of the real church, and all the Western Christians had to go and start a new one.
[/quote]

It is not generally accepted that The Orthodox were the original Church. It would be more accurate to say it was The Catholic Church that started in 33AD.

Second, you have your history very wrong. First off, Michael Cerularius was booted from the Church before he even tried to make any excommunications. Next, his excommunication was layed on Cardinal Humbert, who had already excommunicated Cerularius, not on Rome. Cerularius had no authority anyway to say anything about who was in the Church. The apostolic Sea always had more authority than the bishops of Constantinople. Even if Cerularius tried, it would mean nothing, because he would be anathematizing himself, as Maximos would have said because the Roman Church was the holder of orthodoxy.


#19

[quote=MrS]The office (chair) of Peter, first of 265 Popes, holds primacy. That is now in Rome, but could be anywhere.
[/quote]

Like Avignon?


#20

[quote=RonWI]Which makes it all the more regretable that it got kicked out of the real church and had to start its own in 1054. I can hear it now: * I do, and I do, and I do for you bishops, and this* is the thanks I get!
[/quote]

Interesting that someone would think “the real church” was a church ordained by Christ to proclaim the gospel no farther than its own backyard…and to hell with the rest of the world.

The Russian Orthodox Church is a great example. After the Bolshevik Revolution, every seminarian admitted to the Orthodox monasteries had to be approved by (early equivalent of) the KGB.

All of the individual Orthodox Churches are compromises with national considerations. None of them are “catholic” or “universal”.

I suppose the Father refused Jesus’ prayer in John 17:

11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

They rejected authority. It’s been going on since the Garden of Eden.

The end result is hundreds/thousands of ‘bible only’ churches all of which disagree and contradict one another.

Peace in Christ…Salmon


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.