RC Split from Orthodox

Have you registered your concerns with the Pontifical Council responsible for this agreed statement?

If we Orthodox can’t trust the statements you guys are agreeing to, then how can we have dialogue?


We’re very up front about the value of these things. As Pope Benedict put it:

The study documents produced by the various ecumenical dialogues are very important. These texts cannot be ignored because they are an important, if temporary, fruit of our common reflection developed over the years. Nevertheless their proper significance should be recognized as a contribution offered to the competent Authority of the Church, which alone is called to judge them definitively. To ascribe to these texts a binding or as it were definitive solution to the thorny questions of the dialogues without the proper evaluation of the ecclesial Authority, would ultimately hinder the journey toward full unity in faith.


Prior such joint working documents have put this right up front, like the Balamand document:

As with all the results of the joint dialogue commissions, this common document belongs to the responsibility of the Commission itself, until the competent organs of the Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Churches express their judgement in regard to it.

The EO dialoguers know the drill. From what I understand, the EO Churches treat such statements the same way (as the above states). These are “good effort” type documents that are steps along the way.


Exactly my point. Sadly sometimes there seems to be more emphasis on compromise than on actual search for what is true. At the same time though, it isn’t anything we agreed on.

There was joint declaration on Filioque by Orthodox and Catholic theologians yet that does not stop Russian Patriarch from trying to attack that Doctrine. And rightly so- that statement has no binding force. If he indeed believes Filioque doctrine is wrong he has moral obligation to defend the Truth as Pastor of the Souls. Same concept applies for the contrary.

Take another example- Orthodox prelates agreed with us during Council of Florence, Council of Lyons and so on… what if we pose the same question? How can we trust Orthodox if they always back out of unity anyway? It isn’t logical to base dialogue on those assumptions.

I have not, though perhaps there would be some good in doing so. However, it isn’t anything definitive about it and I imagine I am not the only one who has problem with language it uses.

My point is entirely that I can put two groups in same category in something without saying they are equal in every aspect. In other words I can put Muhammad and Pope Francis in same category when I talk about “being human” while I can not put them in same category when I talk about “being from South America”. I simply said that those groups do dissent from Catholic Faith which is true.


Quite frankly, this is also the cause of the schism in the Reformation as well.


Sure - I totally agree. These indeed do represent steps along the path to restoration of communion, not the final signed and sealed deal.

Orbis, however, finds fault with Chieti. I’m more inclined to trust the bishops and theologians (both Catholic & Orthodox) involved in the statement, that they know what they’re agreeing to. I find it amusing when folks on internet fora claim the dialogue participants are flat out wrong.

The problem is, they have been problematic in the past. For example, the Joint Statement on Justification with the Lutherans received the following “official response” pointing out the issues with it:


Balamand is another example. While not receiving the same kind of formal response, it was squarely contradicted by subsequent public interventions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), such as in the note on certain doctrinal elements of evangelization, note on the use of the term “Sister Churches,” as well as Dominus Iesus, and the note on certain aspects of doctrine about the Church. Likewise, St. John Paul II’s May 31, 1995 catechetical audience explicitly affirmed the formulation of St. Cyprian and explicitly referred to the definitions of Lateran IV, Florence, and Boniface VIII concerning the dogma that outside the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff there is no salvation (Balamand’s most problematic issue IMO was on this point). Furthermore, the Romanian Greek-Catholic bishops all wrote a letter to the Pope rejecting Balamand, and there was no negative response to that, and others are still evangelizing, opening new churches, etc. in Orthodox territories without their permission, etc.

The fact is, both sides need to be able to get some of their points in and some of those are going to still be disputed (otherwise, these joint docs would either achieve unity or remain unwritten, and clearly neither is the case). The participants get this, but unfortunately don’t always make it clear to those who are not part of the process. I see why they are published, but I also think they can cause confusion and misunderstanding. I think also the participants in these dialogues can be so zealous for unity that they try to give on anything they possibly can in order to achieve it–unfortunately, those pushing boundaries often risk crossing them.

Synodality and its relationship to the primacy is clearly a popular theme these days in the Catholic Church and I expect some formulations from the Church on this point in the coming years. It will be interesting to see if Chieti is contradicted like Balamand before it (although Chieti is a lot less direct than Balamand was).


I agree, maybe more than most.
I believe that the main point of division between Rome and Lutheranism is ecclesiology, not soteriology.
If Rome and Orthodoxy reconciled, I would see it as an undeniable call to unity for the entire Church.

One thing that I find quite interesting about the Great Schism is the aftermath. Rome and Italy remain standing as majority Christian. Constantinople fell and Turkey is majority Muslim. Is that by chance? even recently The Hagia Sophia has gone back to being a mosque not a museum.


Don’t forgot the whole communist yoke thing either…

1 Like

Augustine never said that, actually. Trent Horn covers that here–it’s kinda midway through the document though, it starts with the paragraph that begins with “But I cover one of these because sometimes we will quote the fathers.”


I recommend…

( a ) Schisms & Heresies in Eastern Christianity Before 1054

( b ) In regard to the Early Church (and Rome), I recommend the following book (See the chapters beginning on pages 70 and 89)… I’ve been able to corroborate the vast majority of the quotes in the book… I haven’t had time yet to do the rest…

Cathedra Petri


( c ) Ecumenism and Eastern Orthodox Issues by James Likoudis

Eastern Orthodoxy & Catholicism (Collection) by Dave Armstrong

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. A.D. 130 - 202):
“With this Church [at Rome] on account of her more powerful Headship, it is necessary that every Church - that is, the faithful everywhere dispersed - should agree or be in communion” [Adv. Haer. Lib. iii. c. 3].

Cyprian of Carthage (c. A.D. 200 - 258):
“the Chief or Ruling Church [at Rome], whence the Unity of the priesthood has its source, and to which heretical perfidy cannot gain access” [Epist. lv. ad Cornel. ed. Baluz].

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. A.D. 293 - 373):
“When I left Alexandria, I did not go . . . to any other persons, but only to Rome; . . . having laid my case before the Church . . .” [Defense before Constantius 4, NPNF 2, Vol. IV, 239].


Socrates of Constantinople, Historian (c. A.D. 380 - 450):
“Each one explained his case to Julius, bishop of Rome, and he, by virtue of the prerogative of the church of Rome, strengthened them with very firm letters and sent them back into the East, restoring to them their sees and reprimanding those who had temerariously deposed them” [Historia Ecclesiastica; Book 2, Chapter 15].

Maximus the Confessor (c. A.D. 580 - 662):
“…[the Apostolic See of Rome] from God the Incarnate Word Himself as well as all the holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and definitions, has received and possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy churches of God throughout the world, as well as power and authority of binding and loosing. For with this church, the Word, who commands the powers of heaven, binds and looses in heaven. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman Pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him from the accusation. . . .” [Opuscula 12, Patrologia Graeca 91.141-146].


Where did St. Augustine ever say this?

I would differ on the soteriology part, I think there are important differences that cause significant issues in doctrine and liturgical practice that are core gospel issues. But I would agree that if disagreement along the issue of ecclesiology were rectified, that would go a long way toward removing one of the major barriers to unity. The way I see it, I don’t have an issue with the episcopal polity of the RCC. It is the claims to papal infallibility that create a hard dividing line in the sand.

1 Like

My late rector (11 years late, now) often said the same. I’ve heard other Anglican clergy do so.

1 Like

well, fair’s fair–RC say this about the EO on a regular basis!

:rofl: :thinking:

1 Like

But above it has been stated that:

Thanks for correction :slight_smile:

Though point kind of still stands. There is nice article about this.

To which the apostles responded by bickering who would be the greatest several times after this.

Your text would not be used till third century to bolster the bishop of Rome.


I that like saying East Berlin should be questioned as to legitimacy or rightness because it fell into the wrong hands after the war…pure geography isn’t it ?

1 Like

Both Italy and Spain were invaded by muslims, though. Rome was closer to Islam for a significant period of time than Constantinople, meaning the point of “Orthodox territory was lost to Islam” isn’t just something that happened and would have no matter what.

Yes but they didn’t stay that way. Christianity was not defeated. On the contrary, with the industrial revolution, the European powers practically took over the world. I believe western civilization will never be taken over by Islam.

1 Like
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.