Is the Roman Catholic Church Schismatic?

[Wigglesworth]

I ask because of the incident where relations broke off between the East and the West.

To clarify what my own thinking is on this issue, I am inclined to say that the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Old Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox, and everybody else you can think of are schismatics. I'm certain that many EO would say the RC broke away from the one, true church by committing heresy, and I'm certain that many RCC would say the EO broke away from the one, true church by rejecting papal supremacy. I can see validity in both points, and I can see that they are both debatable, because heresy may nullify authority, and legitimate authority may excommunicate the heretic.

This is a serious inquiry for cordial comment. This is not a tinder box with which to flame.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[Wigglesworth]

I should add that I'd also like an answer to the question of whether the Eastern Orthodox church is schismatic. Don't let the title of the thread give you the idea I'm prejudiced.

My communion, the Polish National Catholic Church, was founded upon a schism from the Roman Catholic Church. So, there are my dirty hands.

:tutu:

[WarriorAngel]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

[xristos.anesti]

...

[a_ntv]

When Rome states that she is the first among equals and not the queen among slaves - we can start talking -
Rome never said that she is the queen among slaves
That is simply bashing.

[WarriorAngel]

Where did Queen among slaves come from?


If you mean servants of the Lord, isnt that what we all are?

[xristos.anesti]

...

[Albion]

I will change the words so the offense does not perpetuate, with a note that exactly those words describe what I - the non Roman Catholic see when I look at Pope of Rome.


I had the idea, when I read the OP, that Wiggs was asking for everyone to suspend their personal views long enough to reexamine the facts that were in play in this famous turn of events (1054) -- to review them dispassionately, that is.

We could then possibly see what they add up to in the way that someone not already on one side or the other might do.

[xristos.anesti]

I had the idea, when I read the OP, that Wiggs was asking for everyone to suspend their personal views long enough to reexamine the facts that were in play in this famous turn of events (1054) -- to review them dispassionately, that is.

We could then possibly see what they add up to in the way that someone not already on one side or the other might do.

I am also quite sure that it was the idea - the real issue is whether we can be dispassionate about it - as I feel that I can not - I will leave this thread and let those who can to do so.

Many years.

[eoe]

Yes they (among others) are in Schism from the Church.

[Albion]

I am also quite sure that it was the idea - the real issue is whether we can be dispassionate about it - as I feel that I can not - I will leave this thread and let those who can to do so.

Many years.


Certainly an honest POV and one that everyone should adopt if they feel as you do, IMO. I also don't anticipate posting on the topic but for a different reason. I don't have the interest in this subject to really get involved in the debate, although I'm interested enough to check in occasionally and see what others who are more familiar with the facts might present to us.

[WarriorAngel]

I had the idea, when I read the OP, that Wiggs was asking for everyone to suspend their personal views long enough to reexamine the facts that were in play in this famous turn of events (1054) -- to review them dispassionately, that is.

We could then possibly see what they add up to in the way that someone not already on one side or the other might do.

From my understanding, the Bishphoric in Constantinople closed ALL the Roman Churches in his area and scratched the Pope off the list of Patriarchs when he was persuaded to do so by the secular powers that be.

When this occurred, Rome excommunicated that Bishop.
He did not excommunicate anyone else.

The others, however; followed by argument of this Bishop against Rome.
They however [the real Patriarchs]; had other more pressing issues to deal with, and allowed the Bishop of Constantinople decide the matters.

So, if we are honest...and that includes absolute honesty, we should read the history.

Which I posted previously.

[WarriorAngel]

I add...this man became Pope to the East, although he did not claim this...it was his intent. And it became his position of the time.
Giving into secular authorities.

And he succeeded.

One wonders in the end, if it was well worth it.
Where did the power get him?

[Sothron]

I add...this man became Pope to the East, although he did not claim this...it was his intent. And it became his position of the time.
Giving into secular authorities.

And he succeeded.

One wonders in the end, if it was well worth it.
Where did the power get him?


And now, the truth from an unbiased source (wikipedia):

Excommunications and final break
The direct causes of the Great Schism are, however, far less grandiose than the famous filioque. The relations between the papacy and the Byzantine court were good in the years leading up to 1054 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1054). The emperor Constantine IX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_IX) and the Pope Leo IX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_IX) were allied through the mediation of the Lombard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards) catepan of Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catepan_of_Italy), Argyrus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyrus), who had spent years in Constantinople, originally as a political prisoner. Leo and Argyrus led armies against the ravaging Normans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans), but the papal forces were defeated at the Battle of Civitate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Civitate) in 1053 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1053), which resulted in the pope being imprisoned at Benevento (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevento), where he took it upon himself to learn Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language). Argyrus had not arrived at Civitate and his absence caused a rift in papal-imperial relations just at the time when the patriarch was set to open up a Pandora's box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_box).

Meanwhile, the Normans were busy imposing Latin customs, including the unleavened bread—with papal approval. This riled the patriarch Cerularius, who ordered the Latin churches of Constantinople to adopt Eastern usages and when they refused, he shut them down (although this piece of information is questionable for many historians today; it seems that several Latin churches were still open even years later). He then ordered Leo, Archbishop of Ochrid (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leo%2C_Archbishop_of_Ochrid&action=edit), leader of the Bulgarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria) church, to write a letter to the bishop of Trani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trani), John, an Easterner, in which he attacked the "Judaistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism)" practices of the West. The letter was to be sent by John to all the bishops of the West, Pope included. John promptly complied and the letter was passed to one Humbert of Mourmoutiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humbert_of_Mourmoutiers), the cardinal-bishop of Silva Candida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal-bishop_of_Silva_Candida), who was then in John's diocese. Humbert translated the letter into Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) and brought it to the pope, who ordered a reply to be made to each charge and a defence of papal supremacy to be laid out in a response.

Although he was hot-headed, Cerularius was convinced, probably by the Emperor and the bishop of Trani, to cool the debate and prevent the impending breach. However, Humbert and the pope made no concessions and the former was sent with legatine powers to the imperial capital to solve the questions raised once and for all. Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Stephen_IX), and Peter, archbishop of Amalfi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalfi) set out in early spring and arrived in April 1054 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1054). Their welcome was not to their liking, however, and they stormed out of the palace, leaving the papal response with Cerularius, whose anger exceeded even theirs. The seals on the letter had been tampered with and the legates had published, in Greek, an earlier, far less civil, draft of the letter for the entire populace to read. The patriarch determined that the legates were worse than mere barbarous Westerners, they were liars and crooks. He refused to recognise their authority or, practically, their existence.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism#_note-0)

When Pope Leo died on April 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_19), 1054 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1054), the legates' authority legally ceased, but they did not seem to notice.[citation needed] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources) The patriarch's refusal to address the issues at hand drove the legatine mission to extremes: on July 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_16), the three legates entered the church of the Hagia Sophia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia) during mass on a Saturday afternoon and placed a Papal Bull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Bull) of Excommunication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication) (1054 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1054)) on the altar. The legates left for Rome two days later, leaving behind a city near riots. The patriarch had the immense support of the people against the Emperor, who had supported the legates to his own detriment, and Argyrus, who was seen still as a papal ally. To assuage popular anger, Argyrus' family in Constantinople was arrested, the bull was burnt, and the legates were anathematised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema)—the Great Schism had begun.

Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kallistos_Ware) (formerly Timothy Ware) writes, "The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper. . . . After [an initial, unfriendly encounter] the patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a bull of excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom. . . . Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such)" (The Orthodox Church, 67).

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1054), when this unfortunate sequence of events took place. This conclusion, however, is not correct, because in the bull composed by Humbert, only Patriarch Cerularius was excommunicated. The validity of the bull is questioned because Pope Leo IX was already dead at that time. On the other side, the Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legates and abstained from any attack on the pope or the Latin Church."

[Albion]

And now, the truth from an unbiased source (wikipedia):

Wikipedia is not an "unbiased source." It contains whatever anyone wants to post there. As such, it is reflective of whatever bias the most recent poster-editor happens to have.

Nevertheless, it is material that can be studied, which is a big improvement over what some posters do, which is to state their own position but without any information about the event.

[Sothron]

Wikipedia is not an "unbiased source." It contains whatever anyone wants to post there. As such, it is reflective of whatever bias the most recent poster-editor happens to have.

Nevertheless, it is material that can be studied, which is a big improvement over what some posters do, which is to state their own position but without any information about the event.

Unless you have historical evidence that refutes what was posted then it stands. I have two degrees in history and with some degree of speculation inherent on any subject like the Great Schism that is an accurate description of what happened and in what context it took place.

[WarriorAngel]

Wikipedia is not an "unbiased source." It contains whatever anyone wants to post there. As such, it is reflective of whatever bias the most recent poster-editor happens to have.

Nevertheless, it is material that can be studied, which is a big improvement over what some posters do, which is to state their own position but without any information about the event.

I agree it is biased.
I do not agree that there is only one side.
Obviously there are sides...of perspective.
Obviously something happened IN MAN, to make mankind require a split that was not there before.



Unless you have historical evidence that refutes what was posted then it stands. I have two degrees in history and with some degree of speculation inherent on any subject like the Great Schism that is an accurate description of what happened and in what context it took place.

Even historians have their own perspectives.

If that was not true, then we wouldnt have both sides of the fence dogmatically affirming the history on both sides.

Could you explain to me why Constantinople closed Roman Rite Churches?
And who gave him that authority?

Furthermore, I havent yet got satisfaction to where the EO usage of 'First among equals' has derived from.

[WarriorAngel]

Again, these two names come to mind...and I would like information from the EO on their roles in the schism.

PHOTIUS AND CAERULARIUS.

[Albion]

Unless you have historical evidence that refutes what was posted then it stands.

That's not so. Anyone can do one of the two following things.

1. artfully reword parts of the existing statement in order to blur or soften a point or to make it seem open to question. This is done on Wikipedia all the time.

2. post information that runs in the opposite direction from what was there, giving sources that are biased. It is no trick to describe the Great Schism with reference to Catholic historians only or, conversely, to writings of EO historians. This complies with Wiki requirements for documentation or references.

But if you mean that the article itself is more or less correct as it stands, I wasn't commenting on that.

I have two degrees in history and with some degree of speculation inherent on any subject like the Great Schism that is an accurate description of what happened and in what context it took place.

You may be correct. All I was commenting on was the assertion that if it's in Wikipedia it must be "unbiased." That's just not the case.

[Sothron]

I agree it is biased.
I do not agree that there is only one side.
Obviously there are sides...of perspective.
Obviously something happened IN MAN, to make mankind require a split that was not there before.





Even historians have their own perspectives.

If that was not true, then we wouldnt have both sides of the fence dogmatically affirming the history on both sides.

Could you explain to me why Constantinople closed Roman Rite Churches?
And who gave him that authority?

Furthermore, I havent yet got satisfaction to where the EO usage of 'First among equals' has derived from.


If you read the article those churches were not closed, they were still open and in extistence years after the Schism.

The usage of "first among equals" is the appropriate title of the Bishop of Rome. It is a honorific title with no authority other than being a bishop for Ecumenical Council reasons.

[WarriorAngel]

If you read the article those churches were not closed, they were still open and in extistence years after the Schism.

The usage of "first among equals" is the appropriate title of the Bishop of Rome. It is a honorific title with no authority other than being a bishop for Ecumenical Council reasons.

Really?
Then please provide your information in the thread about First among equals. :wave:

The Churches were reopened...because the Roman Bishops helped.
But that doesnt mean they were not closed initially.
And the Pope's name scratched off the list of Patriarchs by Cosntantinople.

However; that is an interesting topic in itself.
The Patriarch of Constantinople...
Which Apostle did he derive from, and is there a list of succession, like the others?

[Sothron]

Again, these two names come to mind...and I would like information from the EO on their roles in the schism.

PHOTIUS AND CAERULARIUS.

ST. Photious the Great, pray for us!

Several months after his exile, a few Ignatius' supporters came together in the Church of Saint Irene and plotted to restore Ignatius to the patriarchate. They made an appeal to Pope Nicholas trying to discrediting his rival Photius' appointment. This was signed by only six metropolitans and fifteen bishops. There were several monks (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Monk) in this camp that set out for Rome, even though Ignatius had voluntarily resigned. They were received by Pope Nicholas I (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Pope_Nicholas_I&action=edit), who was eager to assert his power over the Eastern church. Pope Nicholas had previously been successful in bringing the Western church under his absolute control, and he now sought the same power over the East.

Photius convened a council in the Church of the Holy Apostles in 859. The intent was to stop the controversy about his appointment. This council found that Ignatius had not been elected by a synod (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Synod) and therefore his election to the patriarchate was illegal. He had been appointed by Empress Theodora. Unfortunately the Caesar Barda was vengeful against the opposition and imposed an exile on Ignatius to the island of Mytiline and persecuted some of his followers. Photius strongly objected to this action.

Pope Nicholas felt that the appointment needed the consent of Rome and objected to the fact that Photius was a layperson even though there was precedence for this in both the Western and Eastern churches. He also demanded that the Byzantines give back to Rome the territories of Calabria and Sicily.

In 861, with approval of Photius, Emperor Michael convened a general council in the Church of the Holy Apostles, known as the First-Second Synod. The pope was invited, and he was glad to send his delegates. He sent them with the instruction to investigate the election of Photius in relation to the canons (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Canons) and and to demand that Illyricum and southern Italy be given to Rome. This synod ratified the actions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Seventh_Ecumenical_Council) condemning iconoclasm. Also, Photius was affirmed as the lawful and canonical patriarch. The western delegation accepted the legality of Photius' appointment. Ignatius appeared before the synod and was deposed.

When the delegates returned to Rome and that Nicholas found that his demands for territorial rights were not considered, he became angry and excommunicated his delegates. He convened a council in Rome in 863 in which he deposed and excommunicated Photius on the basis that his appointment was uncanonical. He chose to recognize Ignatius as the legitimate patriarch.
The conflict between Rome and Constantinople reached a climax. Photius not only was defending the autonomy of the Eastern church, but also vital interests of the empire. With the full support of Emperor Michael III, he sent a letter to the pope demanding that he withdraw his decision against Photius.

In 867, a council was held with over a thousand clergymen attending. This council excommunicated Nicholas, condemned the pope's claims of primacy, his interference in Bulgaria, and the innovative addition of the filioque (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque) clause to the creed (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Nicene-Constantinopolitan_Creed). The letters of both Nicholas and Photius were read at this council. The situation was additionally complicated by the question of papal (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Papacy&action=edit) authority over the entire Church and by disputed jurisdiction over newly converted Bulgaria (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Bulgaria). It pronounced that the Latin interference in the affairs of the Byzantine Church was unlawful. The German Emperor Louis II was asked to intervene and depose Pope Nicholas, but he died that same year.

[Sothron]

Really?
Then please provide your information in the thread about First among equals. :wave:

The Churches were reopened...because the Roman Bishops helped.
But that doesnt mean they were not closed initially.
And the Pope's name scratched off the list of Patriarchs by Cosntantinople.

However; that is an interesting topic in itself.
The Patriarch of Constantinople...
Which Apostle did he derive from, and is there a list of succession, like the others?

You are not seriously questioning the succession of the Orthodox Church?

[Sothron]

Check this link for a list:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1143181-apostolic-succession-for-each-see.html

Has all the sees on it.

[Wigglesworth]

It is truly wonderful to see a discussion about this issue outside of OBOB or TAW, so everybody can participate.

Thank you, Erwin and CF, for the Apostolic Churches forum!

:)

[EmperorConstantine]

Yes they (among others) are in Schism from the Church.
That pretty much says it right there...

[xristos.anesti]

The Patriarch of Constantinople...
Which Apostle did he derive from, and is there a list of succession, like the others?

St.Andrew the First called - and yes, there is a list.


If you wish to see the list so as you can rest at peace, please visit this site (http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en).


Many years.

[eoe]

(bah. formatting.)

Andrew the Apostle,
the founder of the Church
of Constantinople [30 Nov.]
Stachys the Apostle [31 Oct.]38-54 Onesimus [15 Feb.]54-68 Polycarp I71-89 Plutarch89-105 Sedekion105-114 Diogenes114-129 Eleutherius129-136 Felix136-141 Polycarp II141-144 Athenodorus (Athenogenes)144-148 Efzois148-154 Laurence154-166 Alympius (Olympius)166-169 Pertinax169-187 Olympian187-198 Mark I198-211 Philadelphus211-217 Cyriacus I214-230 Castinus [25 Jan.]230-237 Eugenius I240-265 Titus242-272 Dometius Rufinus I284-293 Probus303-315 Metrophanes I [4 June]306-314 Alexander [30 Aug.]314-337 Paul I [6 Nov.]337-339, 341-342, 346-351 Eusebius of Nicomedia339-342 Macedonius I342-346, 351-360 Eudoxius (of Antioch)360-370 Evagrius370 Demophilus370-380 Gregory I of Nazianzen [25 Jan.]379-381 (Maximus the Cynic)380 Nectarius [11 Oct.]381-397 John I Chrysostom [13 Nov.]398-404 Arsacius [11 Oct.]404-405 Atticus [8 Jan.]406-425 Sisinius [11 Oct.]426-427 Nestorius428-431 Maximian [21 Apr.]431-434 Proclus [20 Nov.]434-446 Flavian [16 Feb.]446-449 Anatolius [3 July]449-458 Gennadios I [17 Nov.]458-471 Acacius472-489 Fravitas489 Euphemius489-495 Macedonius II [25 Apr.]495-511 Timothy I511-518 John II [25 Aug.]518-520 Epiphanius [25 Aug.]520-535 Anthimos I535-536 Menas [25 Aug.]536-552 Eutychius [6 Apr.]552-565,577-582 John III the Scholastic [21 Feb.]565-577 John IV the Fasting [2 Sept.]585-595 Cyriacus (Cyril) [30 Oct.]595-606 Thomas I [18 Feb.]607-610 Sergius I610-638 Pyrrhos638-641, 654 Paul II641-653 Peter654-666 Thomas II [15 Nov.]667-669 John V [18 Aug.]669-675 Constantine I [9 Aug]675-677 Theodore I [27 Dec.]677-679, 686-687 George I [18 Aug.]679-686 Paul III [2 Sept.]687-693 Callinicus I [23 Aug.]693-705 Cyrus [8 Jan.]706-711 John VI712-714 Germanos I [12 May]715-730 Anastasius730-754 Constantine II754-766 Nikitas I766-780 Paul IV780-784 Tarasios [25 Feb.]784-806 Nikiphoros I [2 June]806-815 Theodotos I Kassiteras815-821 Antonius I Kassimatis821-836 John VII Grammatikos836-842 Methodius I [14 June]842-846 Ignatius I [23 Oct.]846-858, 867-877 Photios I [6 Feb.]858-867, 877-886 Stephanos I [18 May]886-893 Antonios II Kauleas [12 Feb.]893-901 Nicholas I Mysticos [16 May]901-907, 912-925 Euthymios Ι [5 Aug.]907-912 Stephanos II [18 July]925-928 Tryphon [19 Apr.]928-931 Theophylaktos931-956 Polyeuktos [5 Feb.]956-970 Basil I Skamandrinos970-974 Antonios III the Studite974-980 Nicholas II Chrysovergis [16 Dec.]984-995 Sisinius II996-999 Sergius II [12 Apr.]999-1019 Efstathius [31 May]1020-1025 Alexius Stoudite1025-1043 Michael I Kiroularios1043-1059 Constantine III Leichoudis [29 July]1059-1063 John VIII Xifilinos [30 Aug.]1063-1075 Kosmas I of Jerusalem [2 Jan.]1075-1081 Efstratius Garidas1081-1084 Nicholas III the Kyrdiniates1084-1111 John IX Ieromnemon1111-1134 Leo Styppis [12 Nov.]1134-1143 Michael II the Kourkouas1143-1146 Kosmas II the Attic1146-1147 Nicholas IV Mouzalon1147-1151 Theodotos I1151-1153 Neophytos I1153 Constantine IV Chliarinos1154-1156 Luke Chrysovergis1156-1169 Michael III1170-1177 Chariton Eugeniotis1177-1178 Theodosius II Vorradiotis1178-1183 Basil II Camateros1183-1186 Nikitas II Mountanis1187-1189 Leontius Theotokitis1189-1190 Theodosius III or Disitheus1190-1191 George II Xifilinos1191-1198 John X Camateros1198-1206 Michael IV Autoreianos1207-1213 Theodore II the Peaceful1213-1215 Maximos II1215 Manuel I Charitopoulos1215-1222 Germanos II1222-1240 Methodius II1240 Manuel II1240-1255 Arsenios Autoreianos [28 Oct.]1255-1260, 1261-1267 Νικηφόρος II1260-1261 Germanos III1267 Joseph I [30 Oct.]1267-1275, 1282-1283 John XI Vekkos1275-1282 Gregory II1283-1289 Athanasius I [28 Oct.]1289-1293, 1304-1310 John XII1294-1304 Nifon I1311-1315 John XIII Sweet1316-1320 Gerasimos I1320-1321 Isaias1323-1334 John XIV Kaletas1334-1347 Isidore I1347-1349 Kallistos I [20 June]1350-1354, 1355-1363 Philotheos Kokkinos1354-1355, 1364-1376 Makarios1376-1379, 1390-1391 Neilos1380-1388 Antonius IV1389-1390, 1391-1397 Kallistos II Xanthopoulos [22 Nov.]1397 Matthew I1397-1410 Euthymios II1410-1416 Joseph II1416-1439 Metrophanes II1440-1443 Gregory III Mammas1443-1450 Athanasius II1450-1453 Gennadios II the Scholar (1st time)1454-1456 Isidore II1456-1462 Gennadios II (2nd time)1462 Sophronios I1463-1464 Gennadios II (3rd time)1464 Joasaph I1465-1466 Mark II1466 Symeon I (1st time)1466 Dionysios I [23 Nov.]1467-1471 Symeon I (2nd time)1471-1475 Raphael I1475-1476 Maximos III [17 Nov.]1476-1481 Symeon I (3rd time)1482-1486 Nifon II (1st time)1486-1488 Dionysios I (2nd time)1488-1490 Maximos IV1491-1497 Nifon II (2nd time)1497-1498 Joachim I (1st time)1498-1502 Nifon II (3rd time)1502 Pachomios I (1st time)1503-1504 Joachim I (2nd time)1504 Pachomios I (2nd time)1504-1513 Theoliptos I1513-1522 Jeremias I1522-1545 Joannicios I1526 Dionysios II1546-1556 Joasaph II1556-1565 Metrophanes III (1st time)1565-1572 Jeremias II (1st time)1572-1579 Metrophanes III (2nd time)1579-1580 Jeremias II (2nd time)1580-1584 Pachomius II1584-1585 Theoliptos II1585-1586 Jeremias II (3rd time)1587-1595 Matthew II (1st time)1596 Gabriel I1596 Theopanes I1597 Meletius I Pigas (overseer)1597-1598 Matthew II (2nd time)1598-1602 Neophytos II (1st time)1602-1603 Matthew II (3rd time)1603 (ὀλίγαι ἡμέραι) Raphael II1603-1607 Neophytos II (2nd time)1607-1612 Cyril I Lucaris (overseer)1612 Timothy II1613-1620 Cyril I (2nd time)1620-1623 Gregorios IV1623 Anthimos II1623 Cyril I (3rd time)1623-1633 Cyril II (1st time)1633 Cyril I (4th time)1633-1634 Athanasius III (1st time)1634 Cyril I (5th time)1634-1635 Cyril II (2nd time)1635-1366 Neophytos III1636-1637 Cyril I (6th time)1637-1638 Cyril II (3rd time)1638-1639 Parthenius I1639-1644 Parthenius II (1st time)1644-1646 Joannicius II (1st time)1646-1648 Parthenius II (2nd time)1648-1651 Joannicius II (2nd time)1651-1652 Cyril III (1st time)1652 Athanasius III (2nd time)1652 (15 ἡμέραι) Paisios I (1st time)1652-1653 Joannicius II (3rd time)1653-1654 Cyril III (2nd time)1654 (14 ἡμέραι) Paisios I (2nd time)1654-1655 Joannicius II (4th time)1655-1656 Parthenius III [24 Mar.]1656-1657 Gabriel II1657 (8 ἡμέραι) Parthenius IV (1st time)1657-1662 Dionysios III1662-1665 Parthenius IV (2nd time)1665-1667 Clement1667 Methodius III1668-1671 Parthenios IV (3rd time)1671-1673 Dionysios IV (1st time)1671-1673 Gerasimos II1673-1674 Parthenius IV (4th time)1675-1676 Dionysios IV (2nd time)1676-1679 Athanasius IV1679 (12 ἡμέραι) James (1st time)1679-1682 Dionysios IV (3rd time)1682-1684 Parthenius IV (5th time)1684-1685 James (2nd time)1685-1686 Dionysios IV (4th time)1686-1687 James (3rd time)1687-1688 Callinicus II (1st time)1688 Neophytos IV1688-1689 Callinicus II (2nd time)1689-1693 Dionysios IV (5th time)1693-1694 Callinicus II (3rd time)1694-1702 Gabriel III1702-1707 Neophytos V1707 Cyprian I (1st time)1707-1709 Athanasius V1709-1711 Cyril IV1711-1713 Cyprian I (2nd time)1713-1714 Kosmas III1714-1716 Jeremias III (1st time)1716-1726 Paisios II (1st time)1726-1732 Jeremias III (2nd time)1732-1733 Seraphim I1733-1734 Neophytos VI (1st time)1734-1740 Paisios II (2nd time)1740-1743 Neophytos VI (2nd time)1743-1744 Paisios II (3rd time)1744-1748 Cyril V (1st time)1748-1751 Paisios II (4th time)1751-1752 Cyril V (2nd time)1752-1757 Callinicus III1757 Seraphim II1757-1761 Joannicios III1761-1763 Samuel I (1st time)1763-1768 Meletius II1768-1769 Theodosios II1769-1773 Samuel I (2nd time)1773-1774 Sophronios II1774-1780 Gabriel IV1780-1785 Prokopios1785-1789 Neophytos VII (1st time)1789-1794 Gerasimos III1794-1797 Gregory V (1st time) [10 Apr.]1797-1798 Neophytos VII (2nd time)1798-1801 Callinicus IV (1st time)1801-1806 Gregory V (2nd time) [10 Apr.]1806-1808 Callinicus IV (2nd time)1808-1809 Jeremias IV1809-1813 Cyril VI1813-1818 Gregory V (3rd time) [10 Apr.]1818-1821 Eugenius II1821-1822 Anthimos III1822-1824 Chrysanthos1824-1826 Agathangelos1826-1830 Constantios I1830-1834 Constantios II1834-1835 Gregory VI (1st time)1835-1840 Anthimos IV (1st time)1840-1841 Anthimos V1841-1842 Germanos IV (1st time)1842-1845 Meletius III1845 Anthimos VI (1st time)1845-1848 Anthimos IV (2nd time)1848-1852 Germanos IV (2nd time)1852-1853 Anthimos VI (2nd time)1853-1855 Cyril VII1855-1860 Joachim II (1st time)1860-1863 Sophronios III1863-1866 Gregory VI (2nd time)1867-1871 Anthimos VI (3rd time)1871-1873 Joachim II (2nd time)1873-1878 Joachim III (1st time)1878-1884 Joachim IV1884-1886 Dionysios V1887-1891 Neophytos VIII1891-1894 Anthimos VII1895-1897 Constantine V1897-1901 Joachim III (2nd time)1901-1912 Germanos V1913-1918 Meletius IV1921-1923 Gregory VII1923-1924 Constantine VI1924-1925 Basil III1925-1929 Photios II1929-1935 Benjamin1936-1946 Maximos V1946-1948 Athenagoras1948-1972 Dimitrios1972-1991 Bartholomew22.10.1991

[WarriorAngel]

ST. Photious the Great, pray for us!

Several months after his exile, a few Ignatius' supporters came together in the Church of Saint Irene and plotted to restore Ignatius to the patriarchate. They made an appeal to Pope Nicholas trying to discrediting his rival Photius' appointment. This was signed by only six metropolitans and fifteen bishops. There were several monks (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Monk) in this camp that set out for Rome, even though Ignatius had voluntarily resigned. They were received by Pope Nicholas I (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Pope_Nicholas_I&action=edit), who was eager to assert his power over the Eastern church. Pope Nicholas had previously been successful in bringing the Western church under his absolute control, and he now sought the same power over the East.

Photius convened a council in the Church of the Holy Apostles in 859. The intent was to stop the controversy about his appointment. This council found that Ignatius had not been elected by a synod (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Synod) and therefore his election to the patriarchate was illegal. He had been appointed by Empress Theodora. Unfortunately the Caesar Barda was vengeful against the opposition and imposed an exile on Ignatius to the island of Mytiline and persecuted some of his followers. Photius strongly objected to this action.

Pope Nicholas felt that the appointment needed the consent of Rome and objected to the fact that Photius was a layperson even though there was precedence for this in both the Western and Eastern churches. He also demanded that the Byzantines give back to Rome the territories of Calabria and Sicily.

In 861, with approval of Photius, Emperor Michael convened a general council in the Church of the Holy Apostles, known as the First-Second Synod. The pope was invited, and he was glad to send his delegates. He sent them with the instruction to investigate the election of Photius in relation to the canons (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Canons) and and to demand that Illyricum and southern Italy be given to Rome. This synod ratified the actions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Seventh_Ecumenical_Council) condemning iconoclasm. Also, Photius was affirmed as the lawful and canonical patriarch. The western delegation accepted the legality of Photius' appointment. Ignatius appeared before the synod and was deposed.

When the delegates returned to Rome and that Nicholas found that his demands for territorial rights were not considered, he became angry and excommunicated his delegates. He convened a council in Rome in 863 in which he deposed and excommunicated Photius on the basis that his appointment was uncanonical. He chose to recognize Ignatius as the legitimate patriarch.
The conflict between Rome and Constantinople reached a climax. Photius not only was defending the autonomy of the Eastern church, but also vital interests of the empire. With the full support of Emperor Michael III, he sent a letter to the pope demanding that he withdraw his decision against Photius.

In 867, a council was held with over a thousand clergymen attending. This council excommunicated Nicholas, condemned the pope's claims of primacy, his interference in Bulgaria, and the innovative addition of the filioque (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque) clause to the creed (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Nicene-Constantinopolitan_Creed). The letters of both Nicholas and Photius were read at this council. The situation was additionally complicated by the question of papal (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Papacy&action=edit) authority over the entire Church and by disputed jurisdiction over newly converted Bulgaria (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Bulgaria). It pronounced that the Latin interference in the affairs of the Byzantine Church was unlawful. The German Emperor Louis II was asked to intervene and depose Pope Nicholas, but he died that same year.

See, this is close to what I have read...only that Ignatius was removed rather than stepped down.

So it leads me to ask...why would Ignatius plead to be reinstated if he resigned?

Something seems off to me.

Why would Ignatius resign anyway?

It was true Ignatius was 'gone' from the office, but it was Photius who thru the Emporer had him replaced by Photius.

If Photius was not out for the power, why didnt he just remove himself willingly to allow Ignatius back in?

This is curious to me. Thanks for the info, it has a slightly different perspective, but still, the accounts are similar to what I read.





You are not seriously questioning the succession of the Orthodox Church?

No...
I was aksing about the succession of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

I was under the impression that Constantinople was a Bishphoric at the time of 800 AD. [the date may be incorrect however...trying to use my memory] :sorry:

Because the direct successor was Ignatius, who once removed and replaced means the Church was not keeping the succession as per the Church usually keeps it.

I have always been under the opinion, [and in rare instances] does a Patriarch leave his office ...I know it is done, but rare occassions.

It is also under that understanding that if the Patriarch removes themselves [resigns] then it must be decided by the Church who will replace him.

Since Rome and the other Patriarchs did not decide on Photius, and Ignatius was still living, then the succession has a mishap..or it was not a direct succession anymore.

This is what we [the CC] would call an Anti Pope. Anyone who puts themselves in that position without the Churches decision.

Correct me if I am erred. But I do believe that this was true everywhere....and the entire Church removed an anti Pope.
Prior to 1054 AD. IF it was in fact the See of Rome that was being taken 'hostage' ...

Of course, the letter to Rome by Ignatius is quite telling.
It apparently was Rome who had to reconcile the matter.
However; in order for Photius to keep his position, he had to cut the power from Rome and disengage Tradition in order to have Rome removed from that authority. Thus he could keep his position. :wave: Usurping Rome was his only option.


St.Andrew the First called - and yes, there is a list.


If you wish to see the list so as you can rest at peace, please visit this site (http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en).


Many years.

Thank you. :thumbsup:

[nestoj]

This is what we [the CC] would call an Anti Pope. Anyone who puts themselves in that position without the Churches decision.




But the Pope put himself in position of supreme authority against the will of the rest of the Church. Thus, we have schism now....

nestoj
God helps

[WarriorAngel]

But the Pope put himself in position of supreme authority against the will of the rest of the Church. Thus, we have schism now....

nestoj
God helps

Nestoj, first I am in no way trying to convert anyone.
Totally not my intent. I absolutely respect the Apostolic Succession of the Churches. :wave:

What I would like to see is a move towards unity.

That should be all of ours to desire. And I think being absolutely honest about the history would move us towards that goal.

Now, historically the Chair of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of Rome, the successor to Peter was always given more authority over the Churches. Including the East.
Whereas you will find a numerous amount of letters to the East with the Pope removing the heresies.

That is a fact that has been retained in the ECF writings, and the scriptures.

Only Peter was given the keys.
On Peter did Christ built His Church. The Whole Church.

If you do decide to read the writings, you will find an absolute and honest power for the Chair of Peter, and this was never an innovation of Rome.

YOU are Peter [rock]... and UPON this Rock [Peter]..I will build My Church.

SO without Peter, how is there a Church?

It is ON Peter the entire Church is built.

[Sothron]

The Byzantine Emperors had the right to install the Patriarch, just like the HRE did for years by installing or removing various Popes to fit whatever political circumstance at the time. St. Photius himself was removed from office because of political reasons and was persecuted for his faith (sadly like Ignatius was himself) and refusal to yield.

[Sothron]

Nestoj, first I am in no way trying to convert anyone.
Totally not my intent. I absolutely respect the Apostolic Succession of the Churches. :wave:

What I would like to see is a move towards unity.

That should be all of ours to desire. And I think being absolutely honest about the history would move us towards that goal.

Now, historically the Chair of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of Rome, the successor to Peter was always given more authority over the Churches. Including the East.
Whereas you will find a numerous amount of letters to the East with the Pope removing the heresies.

That is a fact that has been retained in the ECF writings, and the scriptures.

Only Peter was given the keys.
On Peter did Christ built His Church. The Whole Church.

If you do decide to read the writings, you will find an absolute and honest power for the Chair of Peter, and this was never an innovation of Rome.

YOU are Peter [rock]... and UPON this Rock [Peter]..I will build My Church.

SO without Peter, how is there a Church?

It is ON Peter the entire Church is built.

That is simply not true. The ultimate authority was always given to Ecumenical Councils, from the first one to the last one. At no point did any Patriarch cede to the bishop of Rome extraordinary power like you are clamiing. In the specific case of Ignatious/Photious they appealed to the Pope to be something of an arbitrator and when he tried to overstep his authority he was rebutted and refused.

[WarriorAngel]

That is simply not true. The ultimate authority was always given to Ecumenical Councils, from the first one to the last one. At no point did any Patriarch cede to the bishop of Rome extraordinary power like you are clamiing. In the specific case of Ignatious/Photious they appealed to the Pope to be something of an arbitrator and when he tried to overstep his authority he was rebutted and refused.

1054 years of history and 7 councils.

How does a council make that sort of authority over all the Churches when it was not until one was called...
and only 7 times.

Don't you think that there were other matters needing leadership between the councils?

Yes, the councils were the whole Church...the whole Church authority [concensus] but it is not a councils authority that deems it a council, but the Pontiff.

It was not without many controversies since the beginning that caused all the Churches to require aid from the Pope.

Alas, even the letter of Ignatius imploring for aid during the time of Photius, that shows again, it was the Pope in Rome who had authority.

To suggest what a council decreed as authority is dislocating what leadership is.

Councils were necessary, but only 7 in how many thousands of years with ongoing heresies, does not an authority, make.

There are the letters of the excommunications by the Pope?
There are the letters from the East asking for aid.
There are letters seeking the Pope's counsel.
There are letters by ECF's and here are some from St Jerome.

link (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm)

1. Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, "woven from the top throughout," John 19:23 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh019.htm#23) since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), Song of Songs 2:15 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/son002.htm#15) and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover "the sealed fountain" and "the garden inclosed," Song of Songs 4:12 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/son004.htm#12) I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) has been praised by Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm). I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm). The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for "the pearl of great price." Matthew 13:46 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat013.htm#46) "Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together." Matthew 24:28 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat024.htm#28) Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. Matthew 13:22-23 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat013.htm#22) In the West the Sun of righteousness Malachi 4:2 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mal004.htm#2) is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, Luke 10:18 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk010.htm#18) has once more set his throne above the stars. Isaiah 14:12 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa014.htm#12) "You are the light of the world," Matthew 5:14 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm#14) "you are the salt (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13403b.htm) of the earth," Matthew 5:13 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm#13) you are "vessels of gold and of silver." Here are vessels of wood or of earth, 2 Timothy 2:20 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2ti002.htm#20) which wait for the rod of iron, Revelation 2:27 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rev002.htm#27) and eternal fire (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm).

Link (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001016.htm)

I meantime keep crying: "He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me." Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus all profess to cleave to you, and I could believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) the assertion if it were made by one of them only. As it is, either two of them or else all three are guilty of falsehood (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm). Therefore I implore your blessedness, by our Lord's cross and passion, those necessary glories of our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm), as you hold an apostolic office, to give an apostolic decision. Only tell me by letter with whom I am to communicate in Syria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14399a.htm), and I will pray (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm) for you that you may sit in judgment enthroned with the twelve; Matthew 19:28 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat019.htm#28) that when you grow old, like Peter, you may be girded not by yourself but by another, John 21:18 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh021.htm#18) and that, like Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm), you may be made a citizen of the heavenly kingdom. Do not despise a soul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) for which Christ died.

[Sothron]

The other matters, the other heresies, have been handled by synods or locally by the bishop or Patriarch. The other sees never gave the see of Rome papal infallibality or supreme authority. A honorific title such as "first among equals" is a far cry from that kind of claim.

If you want unity as you claim, and I do as well, then the pontiff will have to accept "just" being a Patriarch. Personally I would love to see more true Ecumenical Councils that would settle long standing issues and would in time finally bring all of the fragments of the Church (Protestants) back in line with the Church.

[Simon_Templar]

I ask because of the incident where relations broke off between the East and the West.

To clarify what my own thinking is on this issue, I am inclined to say that the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Old Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox, and everybody else you can think of are schismatics. I'm certain that many EO would say the RC broke away from the one, true church by committing heresy, and I'm certain that many RCC would say the EO broke away from the one, true church by rejecting papal supremacy. I can see validity in both points, and I can see that they are both debatable, because heresy may nullify authority, and legitimate authority may excommunicate the heretic.

This is a serious inquiry for cordial comment. This is not a tinder box with which to flame.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:
My view is that the unity of the Church is everyone's responsability and that we can't shove it off on others by labeling them schizmatic and imagine ourselves to be the one true Church.

When Paul wrote to Corinth regarding the divisions in their communion, he commented that they had doctrinal divisions, but his primary criticism was that they did not regard each other in unity when it came to the Eucharist.
I'm always amazed by the degree to which doctrinal disagreements and errors did not constitute reason enough for the Apostles to break fellowship in the new testament.

Its really ironic in some ways. On one hand groups that are virtually identical continue in disunity because of minor disagreements, while at the same time, churches tolerate liberalism within their own ranks that should make them blush.

[ReneeUSMarine]

Umm, not really sure but isn't EO and all the other types of Catholic Churches off branches of the RCC like the Amish are of the Mennonites?

Because before the Reformation, pretty much everyone was RC, was there a EO or any other Catholic Churches? Not really sure so figured i'd kind of put in my 2 c and also ask.

PFC Renee Wells, USMC

[Sothron]

The Great Schism was in 1054 and the non-Chalcedonians was in the 4th century(?) I believe that created OO. Between that time and 1054 I would agree that to some degree all Christians were "Catholics" in the universal meaning of that word.

[nestoj]

Umm, not really sure but isn't EO and all the other types of Catholic Churches off branches of the RCC like the Amish are of the Mennonites?

Because before the Reformation, pretty much everyone was RC, was there a EO or any other Catholic Churches? Not really sure so figured i'd kind of put in my 2 c and also ask.

PFC Renee Wells, USMC
The Great Schism - 1054AD???

Dioceses founded by Apostles split in two parts - diocese of Rome (RCC) on one side and other three (Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople) dioceses (EOC) on other side. I must add that drifting appart started much earlier. Also, before that diocese of Alexandria formed OO (as Sothron said).

Reform came much later.

nestoj
God helps

[Albion]

Umm, not really sure but isn't EO and all the other types of Catholic Churches off branches of the RCC like the Amish are of the Mennonites?

Because before the Reformation, pretty much everyone was RC, was there a EO or any other Catholic Churches? Not really sure so figured i'd kind of put in my 2 c and also ask.

PFC Renee Wells, USMC

The Old Catholics may be said to be in that category because they explicitly and formally broke from the RCC in modern times over what they considered an innovation--Papal Infallibility. But the others can claim a continuous existence from the Early Church to the present, during which period they were at times in communion with the Bishop of Rome and at times were not.

These, with the exception of the RCC itself, would say that so long as there was a unity throughout the Christian world, acknowledging the significance of the Diocese of Rome was agreeable. When, however, the Popes departed from what the others believed to be the received faith or wanted to improperly assert authority over them, they were forced to return to their historic condition of self-governance.

[zhilan]

Umm, not really sure but isn't EO and all the other types of Catholic Churches off branches of the RCC like the Amish are of the Mennonites?

Because before the Reformation, pretty much everyone was RC, was there a EO or any other Catholic Churches? Not really sure so figured i'd kind of put in my 2 c and also ask.

PFC Renee Wells, USMC
The EO is not a branch of the Catholic Church. It did not break off from the Catholic church. The Amish and other Protestant denominations are products of the Reformation, but in Orthodoxy the Reformation never happened. We are pre-denominational if you will. We would claim that before the Schism everyone (well the West, not to diss the OO's) was Orthodox. :)

[WarriorAngel]

The other matters, the other heresies, have been handled by synods or locally by the bishop or Patriarch. The other sees never gave the see of Rome papal infallibality or supreme authority. A honorific title such as "first among equals" is a far cry from that kind of claim.

If you want unity as you claim, and I do as well, then the pontiff will have to accept "just" being a Patriarch. Personally I would love to see more true Ecumenical Councils that would settle long standing issues and would in time finally bring all of the fragments of the Church (Protestants) back in line with the Church.

I dont believe in such a thing as 'just a Patriarch'.
Are they really not important?:scratch:
I find that curious in the EO.

Anyway, until you can show some evidence in history that of anyone calling him just another Bishop, Patriarch, or person...then I might agree.

...
Havent seen anything about his succession being equal.

My view is that the unity of the Church is everyone's responsability and that we can't shove it off on others by labeling them schizmatic and imagine ourselves to be the one true Church.

When Paul wrote to Corinth regarding the divisions in their communion, he commented that they had doctrinal divisions, but his primary criticism was that they did not regard each other in unity when it came to the Eucharist.
I'm always amazed by the degree to which doctrinal disagreements and errors did not constitute reason enough for the Apostles to break fellowship in the new testament.

Its really ironic in some ways. On one hand groups that are virtually identical continue in disunity because of minor disagreements, while at the same time, churches tolerate liberalism within their own ranks that should make them blush.

I am glad to be seeing that being removed....:holy:

Umm, not really sure but isn't EO and all the other types of Catholic Churches off branches of the RCC like the Amish are of the Mennonites?

Because before the Reformation, pretty much everyone was RC, was there a EO or any other Catholic Churches? Not really sure so figured i'd kind of put in my 2 c and also ask.

PFC Renee Wells, USMC

One Church established by Christ.

400 + AD the Church had a schism...one Church that split itself.

1054 AD another schism... One Church which splits itself off again.

One Church still...but schismed...
IE the brothers aren't speaking. :o So they all have their fingers in their ears screaming 'lalalalala...I cant hear you'
Ya know how family reunions are....right?

Imagine being God with these children....:sorry:

He probably would say...
"Dont make me come down there!"

:D

[xristos.anesti]

WA - what you have to prove is that BEFORE Vatican I - there was anyone who said that the Pope of Rome was infallible ruler of the Church and that all of the other bishops were subordinate to Him.

Further to this, you have to prove that anyone ever said anything about speaking Ex Cathedra in apostolic, antenicene, nicene and postnicene period and up until - well the Vatican I - that wasn't sitting in that particular cathedra.

You are very fast to ask anyone and everyone to prove things - you are forgetting that it is the Roman Catholic Church that changed the Nicene Creed, that disregarded Canons, that added to the deposit of the Apostolic faith - and done it incorrectly -

it is not us that have to prove why we stayed being Catholic - and believing ACCORDING TO THE WHOLE - it is you guys who have to prove where in hell you got the ideas that you expect for some macabre reason of us to hold.

Us and Oriental Orthodox have been out of communion for nearly 1500 years - but neither them nor us have any tradition of kneeling before Rome - why would we?! - WE HAVE OUR OWN APOSTOLIC SEES - sorry WA - it just does not work: "prove this prove that"...

NO!!

YOU PROVE!


^_^

Many years.

[EmperorConstantine]

EO =/= RC. RC =/= EO. OO can be added anywhere as well.

Umm, not really sure but isn't EO and all the other types of Catholic Churches off branches of the RCC like the Amish are of the Mennonites?

Because before the Reformation, pretty much everyone was RC, was there a EO or any other Catholic Churches? Not really sure so figured i'd kind of put in my 2 c and also ask.
The Roman Church sees Orthodox as schismatics because we would not use the Filioque (still won't) and we would not bow down to the pope in Rome (still won't). We did not come from the Roman Church. There was also no Reformation or anything really similar in the East.


WA, one of the last two of the Seven Ecumenical Councils stated that since Constantinople is New Rome, it is allowed the same prerogatives and so forth as the Old Rome.


xristos, the post is getting repped.

[a_ntv]

The Roman Church sees Orthodox as schismatics because we would not use the Filioque (still won't) and we would not bow down to the pope in Rome (still won't).
No, the CC consider you schismatic ONLT because you are not in comunion with the pope. Nor because you dont say the Filioque, nor because you dont bow down to the pope.
(and to be schismatic is not a heavy charge in our mind. it is not even a relative to heretic)
I suggest to ask the catohlics here before to male statments like " The Roman Church sees ..."

We did not come from the Roman Church. You are rightThere was also no Reformation or anything really similar in the East.Well, the Old Belivers of the XVII century in Russia is very similar to the porotestantim


WA, one of the last two of the Seven Ecumenical Councils stated that since Constantinople is New Rome,
Such a council was a false council, never considered valid by the Church

[xristos.anesti]

No, the CC consider you schismatic ONLT because you are not in comunion with the pope. Nor because you dont say the Filioque, nor because you dont bow down to the pope.
(and to be schismatic is not a heavy charge in our mind. it is not even a relative to heretic)
I suggest to ask the catohlics here before to male statments like " The Roman Church sees ..."

You are rightWell, the Old Belivers of the XVII century in Russia is very similar to the porotestantim

Such a council was a false council, never considered valid by the Church

First of all - for the record - the Orthodox understanding of the word Catholic (which is a Greek based word) shows that Church of Rome can in no way be the Catholic Church - but rather "Catromanic" Church - as it is not according to the whole but according to Rome.

Further, it is really not important to us what Rome thinks nor what it charges us for - we are out of communion for some reason(s) and until Rome changes her way we will not consider re-communing.


To compare old believers with Protestants and in all actuallity the effects that these caused is like comparing a fire-cracker going off with a nuclear explosion. Let us not be unreasonable and stupid.




Now this really surprises me, you said: "Such a council was a false council, never considered valid by the Church"

You obviously do not know your own canon law or church history or neither - which is O.K. none of us do.

The laws that spoke of primacy and position of the NEW ROME are part of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and have been part of the Roman Catholic Church Canon Law since the time of promulgation (or since 13th century when some canons not accepted at the time of original promulgation were accepted - at the time whe Latins ruled the Constantinople)..

So, I think that you when saying words like:" I suggest to ask the catohlics here before to male statments like " The Roman Church sees ..."" do the very same yourself - because to call Ecumenical councils false and never considered valid and to - at the same time - declare belonging to the RCC is very, very wrong.



Now - let us re-examine the canons speaking of the place of New Rome:

Canon 3 - 2nd Holy and Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church:
Let the Bishop of Constantinople, however, have the priorities of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because of its being New Rome.


Canon 28 - 4th Holy and Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church:
Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of TheodosiusGreat of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities holy Church of that same Constantinople and NewRome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally granted priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object aim hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as comingbeingsecond to her. And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian diocesesor dained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the afore said dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him. of the most enough of her and the next after her, or as shall be of the of and the one the like of the.


Canon 36 - Quinisext Council
Renewing the laws made by the one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers assembled in this God-guarded imperial capital city, and by the six hundred and thirty of those who assembled in Chalcedon, we decree that the throne of Constantinople shall enjoy equal seniorities priorities) with the throne of older Rome, and in ecclesiastical matters shall be magnified like the latter, coming second after the latter; after which the throne of the great city of the Alexandrians come next, then that of Antioch, and after this the throne of the city of the Jerusalemites.



Unlike Rome who needed Vatican I to be an"ecumenical council" in order to support her (wrong) theology - we draw our teaching from the teaching of the true ecumenical councils - the teaching according to the whole - the teaching catholic and the faith true.

I hope that Rome will return to her roots and denounce the incorrect theology of the arrogant and became what she was - the see leading others in love.

Get rid of the papal infallibility and the East will start mentioning his name during the Divine Liturgy, as it should be.



Many years and God helps.