I’m confused. How can the RC Church claim to be the authentic church founded by Jesus, when it was they who split from the Orthodox? The RC church added the filioque and changed the governance structure of the church. Wouldn’t the “keys” actually be with the Orthodox?
I think you’re assuming your premise; i.e. that the RCC split from the Orthodox. It wasn’t about the filioque anyway. It could as easily be said that the Eastern Orthodox changed the governance. At the time of the schism, there were other churches that had split based on which councils they accepted. Governance was never entirely clear, as it was (and is) assumed in Orthodoxy that “consensus” carried the day when it came to matters of faith and morals, rather than the more pyramidal structure where the Pope could make pronouncements in coordination with the bishops.
The schism was much more about “global” politics than about the content of prayers or even the exact meaning of papal primacy.
There was no ecumenical council associated with a schism of the Catholic Orthodox Church into independent Catholic and Orthodox churches. All bishops are called to be in communion with Rome.
The Council in Constantinople in 381 was a local council of the east, also known as the un-ecumenical council, where the Symbol of Faith was modified.
Note what is written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, 76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
76 Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.
The Symbol of Faith from 325 AD is:
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.
I hadn’t considered that-and it’s a very good point, virtually proving Rome’s position that a single voice/entity is necessary in order to maintain any true unity. If each church decides for themselves then disunity of beliefs is eventually guaranteed.
Which split are you addressing? This was not a one-and-done deal. And the Orthodox did submit back to the Western Church more than once, only to ‘split off’ again and again.
It is a murky and complex situation. However, the Eastern Church was the one which was most plagued by strife, heresies (cough, iconoclassicism, cough), and ‘attempted changes’, so it is surprising that you’re claiming the Western Church was the one trying to make changes and implying that the stalwart and faithful Eastern Church was trying to keep things ‘straight’.
First of all, there is no “RC” Church. Check. The Church doesn’t use the term in an official capacity (even for us Latins). Second of all, you’re going to, actually have to, you know, provide evidence for your claim.
If the argument is that the catholics split from the orthodox by provlaiming filioque, then it could easily be argued that chalcedonians split from the oriental orthodox by proclaiming the hypostatic union.
Except the Oriental Orthodox have no problem with the hypostatic union. But otherwise, yes, you could easily argue that the Chalcedonian Churches split from the Oriental Orthodox, and I’m sure the Oriental Orthodox argue exactly that.
There is no contradiction between the following two statements:
George Washington was the son of Augustin Washington
George Washington was the son of Augustin and Mary Washington.
The second statement respects the principle of non-contradiction, as did the insertion of filioque into the creed, which the Pope was perfectly entitled to do.
Because from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church, it was the Orthodox who split from them?
Would you please share the line of Popes the Orthodox Church declares is authentic?
The Filioque is theologically correct. If someone doesn’t accept the Filioque, one, at best, has an incomplete understanding of God.
What is the change in governance structure you mention?
Since Jesus gave the keys to Peter, the authentic church has the line of Peter.
Here is the Catholic Line: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
Which ecumenical council gave him that entitlement?
Are you reading Orthodoxinfo.com?
This is not a good source for the fullness of Orthodox tradition, which is more nuanced than my brethren at that site wish to admit.
Convertitis runs strong on that site. Beware of those claiming to speak for the Holy Tadition but not admitting different schools of thought.
Not all that glitters is gold and not all that is Orthodox is orthodox.
There was no Eastern Rite Churches until the Apostles went out evangelizing those areas; and up until about 700 - 800 AD or so, there was not an outright rejection of the authority of the See of Peter; those in the East and the West acknowledged that binding authority.
Subsequently matters came up in which there was dissension; and it grew until after 1000 AD, culminating in Eastern Churches breaking off from Rome.
So your history needs more study, as to the times and the issues which arose, and the issues of dissent as they rose.
The Roman rite (and other rites, such as the Maronite Rite) did not break up, and that u;nity exists through the centuries to today.,
Further, study will show that churches have made their way back to unity with Rome over time; thy are often referred to a “uniate” Churches, which I have been told is intended as at least a bit of a slur to them, if not more than a bit.
You might also want to do research on the Papacy, with particular emphasis on the first millennium.
As to the filioque, at least some of the Eastern Rite Churches in Union with Rome do not recite that when saying the Nicene Creed, so I woud encourage you to do more study as to the Creed and how the East and the West Churches, in unity, respond to it.
As to the governance structure, I am not sure what change you are suggesting was made; perhaps you could articulate that more fully.
The Pope does not need an ecumenical council because this entitlement was given to the first pope by our Lord Himself. This is the meaning of His words:
“thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. … whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Yet the Bishop of Rome does not act in a vacuum. He works with his brother bishops. In the case of the Filioque, was it not first introduced by the Frankish Church? Then gradually over time it came to be accepted by all the bishops of the West until finally the Bishop of Rome ratified it… there was nothing arbitrary about it. It was a long and organic process.
In my view, this is the position, without support in the early Church, that is the main cause of the Great Schism.
This is the dispute that must be resolved to reunite East and west.
With all respect, even this language implies division. “All the bishops of the west” is not an ecumenical council.
The Bishop of Rome can speak for his see and those who are in communion with him, but in that way he does not speak for the entirety of the Church Militant. Only a council can do that.