Thanks to both of you for the clarification. I didn't really think there was a hard disagreement between the two sides, and I knew it wasn't the reason for division. My understanding was that the RCC was dogmatically transubstantiationist whereas EO was more open to consubstsantiationist or transubstantiationist views.
Weekly communion/eucharist
3,886 Views |
53 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by Thaddeus73
jaborch99 said:
Thanks to both of you for the clarification. I didn't really think there was a hard disagreement between the two sides, and I knew it wasn't the reason for division. My understanding was that the RCC was dogmatically transubstantiationist whereas EO was more open to consubstsantiationist or transubstantiationist views.
I'm glad I was able to offer some clarity. Catholicism is generally more "defined" than Orthodoxy in terms of what I would describe as "governance." But on many if not most things of theological significance we agree, with the big exceptions already noted above.
Here's an example to demonstrate the point. The Byzantine Catholic Churches are in communion with Rome but they have a Divine Liturgy and do quite a few things that are more Orthodox than Latin in praxis. There are many other eastern rite churches that are in communion with Rome whose liturgies look much more like what you would see in a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy than a Catholic Mass.
Frankly, the stark similarities between Rome and the east on so many things compared to the radical differences between Rome and all of "Protestantism" would be something that needs some explanation if I was a Protestant who believed the Reformers "recovered" the Gospel.
I dont think you can necessarily fit the eastern view into those debates. We'd probably come closer to denying the premise. There's a lot of underlying philosophical presuppositions you have to take before you can elaborate the difference between the two. I'm not sure I have much of an opinion about them.
I think a good portion of Protestants have studied church history enough to expect the Orthodox and Catholic faiths to be quite similar. A very elementary study of church history provides a decent understanding that the split occurred between east and west as a political response to the fading power of the Roman Empire and the resulting power shift to the east as a result of Constantine's move from Rome to "Istanbul." Very little of that split had anything to do with doctrine. Since the early split was largely political and not doctrinal; and given that the reformation was driven much more by differences in doctrine…one would very much expect the eastern faith to be most similar to the Catholic faith.FTACo88-FDT24dad said:jaborch99 said:
Thanks to both of you for the clarification. I didn't really think there was a hard disagreement between the two sides, and I knew it wasn't the reason for division. My understanding was that the RCC was dogmatically transubstantiationist whereas EO was more open to consubstsantiationist or transubstantiationist views.
Frankly, the stark similarities between Rome and the east on so many things compared to the radical differences between Rome and all of "Protestantism" would be something that needs some explanation if I was a Protestant who believed the Reformers "recovered" the Gospel.
ETA: Catholics and Protestants share the same church history for 1,500 of the last 2,000 years. It's in Protestants' DNA to study church history and understand the evolution of various doctrines. Most understand the purpose of the church councils that established orthodoxy that successfully attempted to eliminate heresy. That also provides an understanding of the various power struggles between east and west that resulted from the later councils and eventually led to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church.
Then they should have no problem getting back together. You'll just have to unite over:Quote:
A very elementary study of church history provides a decent understanding that the split occurred between east and west as a political response to the fading power of the Roman Empire and the resulting power shift to the east as a result of Constantine's move from Rome to "Istanbul." Very little of that split had anything to do with doctrine.
-Filioque
-leavened or unleavened bread
-who and what exactly is the Pope
Here's a couple of starters. The youtube videos just cover the most basic history of the church and a simple interview with an orthodox priest. So kind of opposite ends of the spectrum: How the church came to be, and what church life looks like right now. The audiobooks will provide a really good overview of the tenants. Orthodoxy has a lot to cover so it takes a while.jaborch99 said:The more I learn about Orthodox theology, the more intrigued I become. I just wish the Orthodox church packaged it in more accessible ways. I'm sure this book is full of wonderful insights.Zobel said:
I recommend reading Welcoming Gifts: Sacrifice in the Bible and Christian Life by Jeremy Davis to better disambiguate the concept of sacrifice, anamnesis or memorial, and how the sacrifices of ancient Israel are fulfilled in the continuing practices of the church.
https://www.amazon.com/Know-Faith-Handbook-Christians-Inquirers/dp/194496701X
https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Orthodox-Church-Introduction-Christianity/dp/1557259216
The longest, deepest, (most meandering) walk through tenants of Orthodoxy packaged up in a modern form is this podcast. I would recommend starting with the first episode and going through at least the first five-ish episodes before picking and choosing the next to listen to.
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/angels_and_demons_introducing_lord_of_spirits
As always, the best way to learn about it is to experience it. Divine Liturgy is at 10. Invite is for everyone who is in Houston and interested. The church I go to is heavily protestant converted and exploding in inquirers, especially people who were devout in some other denomination.
Exactly the point of the poster I was responding to….the catholic and eastern doctrine are much closer to one another than either are to the protestant doctrine despite being separated for 1,500 or so of the last 2,000 years.Martin Q. Blank said:Then they should have no problem getting back together. You'll just have to unite over:Quote:
A very elementary study of church history provides a decent understanding that the split occurred between east and west as a political response to the fading power of the Roman Empire and the resulting power shift to the east as a result of Constantine's move from Rome to "Istanbul." Very little of that split had anything to do with doctrine.
-Filioque
-leavened or unleavened bread
-who and what exactly is the Pope
He asked if Protestants ever wondered why. My apologetic response was to revisit the primary drivers between the original split almost 1,500 years ago. The doctrinal differences you enumerated seem fairly similar to many of the issues that had been decided at previous councils. The political issue of the location of the papa being other than in Constantinople and more powerful than the papa in Rome just could not be agreed by council.
In short, yes Protestants attempt to learn their church history and how their various denominations evolved over the last 2,000 years from the congregations described in the New Testament. And, 1,500 of those years are shared with our catholic brethren….both the good and the not so good.
I would like to add, my sister in law goes to one of the 'top' nondemonational churches. They were cutting edge a few years ago by having communion (symbolic) every sunday, and offered by it being real bread loafs and wine. They now do 21 day no meat diets in january. You ask them why, and its mostly 'the early church did it and its denying yourself and making you slimmer!' There is talk of doing feasts as well, of course, starting with the major jewish holidays not the early churches feasts.
Stay tuned, next year might have some office hours reserved for hearing people who just have to tell someone about the bad things they've done.
Stay tuned, next year might have some office hours reserved for hearing people who just have to tell someone about the bad things they've done.
one MEEN Ag said:
I would like to add, my sister in law goes to one of the 'top' nondemonational churches. They were cutting edge a few years ago by having communion (symbolic) every sunday, and offered by it being real bread loafs and wine. They now do 21 day no meat diets in january. You ask them why, and its mostly 'the early church did it and its denying yourself and making you slimmer!' There is talk of doing feasts as well, of course, starting with the major jewish holidays not the early churches feasts.
Stay tuned, next year might have some office hours reserved for hearing people who just have to tell someone about the bad things they've done.
Is that DFW area?
HarleySpoon said:Exactly the point of the poster I was responding to….the catholic and eastern doctrine are much closer to one another than either are to the protestant doctrine despite being separated for 1,500 or so of the last 2,000 years.Martin Q. Blank said:Then they should have no problem getting back together. You'll just have to unite over:Quote:
A very elementary study of church history provides a decent understanding that the split occurred between east and west as a political response to the fading power of the Roman Empire and the resulting power shift to the east as a result of Constantine's move from Rome to "Istanbul." Very little of that split had anything to do with doctrine.
-Filioque
-leavened or unleavened bread
-who and what exactly is the Pope
He asked if Protestants ever wondered why. My apologetic response was to revisit the primary drivers between the original split almost 1,500 years ago. The doctrinal differences you enumerated seem fairly similar to many of the issues that had been decided at previous councils. The political issue of the location of the papa being other than in Constantinople and more powerful than the papa in Rome just could not be agreed by council.
In short, yes Protestants attempt to learn their church history and how their various denominations evolved over the last 2,000 years from the congregations described in the New Testament. And, 1,500 of those years are shared with our catholic brethren….both the good and the not so good.
Isn't the issue that there's very little evidence that most Protestant churches of whatever stripe resemble in praxis, ecclesiology or theology what the historical church was and what Catholicism and Orthodoxy continue to be to this day?
Houston, but they aren't pioneers here. I've heard of other churches doing basically the same things.
I don't think your understanding of the great schism is correct. The canonical principle of Constantinople as a co-equal see to Rome due to being the capital dates all the way back to the second ecumenical council in 389. The western Roman empire fell in 476.
The filioque dates to 589, but controversy didn't come about until the late 700s. The filioque as heresy and criticism of papal primacy with it was crystallized in 867 by St Photios. It was sung in Rome for the first time in 1014. The Schism was in 1054.
Paraphrasing St Photios, the azymes issue isn't that big of a deal. In the end the filioque was the wedge and papal primacy was the hammer driving it.
If anything, the real geopolitical cause of the schism was the power exerted over the Roman papacy by Frankish and German monarchs, who essentially forced the adoption of the filioque in Rome.
The filioque dates to 589, but controversy didn't come about until the late 700s. The filioque as heresy and criticism of papal primacy with it was crystallized in 867 by St Photios. It was sung in Rome for the first time in 1014. The Schism was in 1054.
Paraphrasing St Photios, the azymes issue isn't that big of a deal. In the end the filioque was the wedge and papal primacy was the hammer driving it.
If anything, the real geopolitical cause of the schism was the power exerted over the Roman papacy by Frankish and German monarchs, who essentially forced the adoption of the filioque in Rome.
I apologize....that wasn't the issue I have been addressing. Another poster asked the following question which I was trying to address:FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
Isn't the issue that there's very little evidence that most Protestant churches of whatever stripe resemble in praxis, ecclesiology or theology what the historical church was and what Catholicism and Orthodoxy continue to be to this day?
"Frankly, the stark similarities between Rome and the east on so many things compared to the radical differences between Rome and all of "Protestantism" would be something that needs some explanation if I was a Protestant who believed the Reformers "recovered" the Gospel."
I think the subject you have raised is different enough and broad enough to warrant its own thread. However, my answer/opinion to the question you posed about resembling the historical church would be:
I think there is no doubt a third or fourth century catholic Christian (meaning the very vast majority of practicing Christians at the time) would find a 21st century catholic mass much more relatable than a 21st century protestant worship service. A protestant service would seem completely foreign to them and no doubt be declared heretical....although a good burning would have been several centuries away.
However, I think a first century gentile Christian would find a 21st century worship service much more relatable than a third or fourth century catholic mass. I believe a catholic service to both Christians of Jewish and gentile decent would have felt the catholic service was much more akin to a temple service attended by their hebrew friends and family.
Nevertheless...and whatever may be the actual case....the point I was making is that both catholics and protestants share the same church history for the first 1,500 years....both the great parts and the not so great parts of that history. And....in answer to the original question he asked....yes, we do study our church history and understand why the eastern church and catholic church are so similar but what caused their separation.
what are you basing this on?Quote:
However, I think a first century gentile Christian would find a 21st century worship service much more relatable than a third or fourth century catholic mass.
History indicates that the concept of papal rule of the whole church was established in slow and painful stages. However it misleading to speak of the papacy before Leo's day. But what really got the whole ball rolling toward a departure between east and west? In May of 381 the emperor Theodosius made an appearance at the council in Constantinople desiring a renewal of the Nicene Creed. He wanted to bring order to his official church. However, he only invited bishops from the eastern part of his empire. He notably did not invite Damasus, the bishop of Rome and Damasus didn't even send a representative.Zobel said:
I don't think your understanding of the great schism is correct. The canonical principle of Constantinople as a co-equal see to Rome due to being the capital dates all the way back to the second ecumenical council in 389. The western Roman empire fell in 476.
The Roman church immediately recognized the impact of this event and its effect of boosting the power of the churches in the east and the promotion of the bishop in Constantinople. Damasus objected to the council's actions and insisted that the preeminence of the Roman bishop did not depend upon the status of some city in the empire. At the synod in Rome the next year the west argued the Holy Roman Church should take precedence over the other churches on the basis of Jesus words to Peter.
The split only widened from there with the east relying on its political position while the Roman church was quickly filling the vacuum of political power caused by the crumbling of the Roman empire. Eventually, Leo stepped in and sealed the deal.
What Leo are you talking about?
This is like historical post hoc ergo propter hoc gone wild.
This is like historical post hoc ergo propter hoc gone wild.
As I said, subject is broad enough to warrant its own thread. Did not mean to derail OP's topic….it annoys me when others do the same. I apologize to the OP.Zobel said:
What Leo are you talking about?
This is like historical post hoc ergo propter hoc gone wild.
But in answer to your question:
Leo I that negotiated the peaceful pillage of Rome with Gaiseric, king of the Vandals on June 2, 455. Leo saved the lives of untold thousands from a brutal death and had accomplished what the remnants of the empire's army could not achieve.
This was the day that the bishop of Rome's power and political influence exceeded that of the emperor and the status of the pope became politically supreme in the west. Leo was then the first bishop of Rome to tie the supremacy of his office to the biblical relationship between Christ and the apostle Peter. Claims of supremacy by the bishops of Rome prior to Leo were based upon the political position and power of Rome itself within the Roman Empire.
I didn't know if you meant Leo III as he plays a kind of pivotal role (claimed by both sides) in the filioque controversy.
Your last paragraph is not correct. Stephen made the claim of supremacy due to the chair of Peter in the 3rd century. And just in what we've discussed, the see Constantinople was co-equal to Rome by canon from the 4th century. We're talking six lifetimes between the second ecumenical council and the schism.
It seems to be a combination of cynicism and inconsistency to read history this way. Yes, what we call geopolitics was closely related to what we call religion today. No, they are not one and the same. Yes, the geopolitical situation in the western Roman empire influenced the political dynamics and eventually the theological dynamics in Rome. But no, they are not what I would call the proximate cause, or even the sole cause, of the schism (simple check would be to see if that happened the next time the "father" see was surpassed by the "child" - Rome and Constantinople stand as one example, Russia and Constantinople as another).
If anything, as I said, the subordination of papal temporal power to Frankish and German imperial power is what triggered the schism. Those powers influenced Rome to change in a way that was beyond the limits of continued communion with the East, to a point where it could no longer be ignored as local practice - official endorsement of the filioque used in Mass in Rome.
It is a habitual protestant reading of history to point to the fall of Rome as the cause of all of the woes and abuses of the RCC. I should probably say enlightenment instead of protestant, though, because that is actually a pernicious and subtle anti-Christian dig, like much of enlightenment thinking. Undergirding that claim is the idea that pre-Christian philosophy and thought were superior - a common sentiment in some areas of the West as Rome fell (St Augustine writes against this temptation). The Protestants point more directly to the uniting of the temporal power with the episcopal - which is true but not complete. The theological side doesn't vanish merely because the temporal side imposes.
Separation, both linguistically, culturally, and geographically, lead to a drift in praxis and theology, as the two go hand in hand.
We have to accept at some point that many of these men were pious and sincere, on both sides of the argument, and that the theological arguments they made were not merely cover for temporal power and striving.
Your last paragraph is not correct. Stephen made the claim of supremacy due to the chair of Peter in the 3rd century. And just in what we've discussed, the see Constantinople was co-equal to Rome by canon from the 4th century. We're talking six lifetimes between the second ecumenical council and the schism.
It seems to be a combination of cynicism and inconsistency to read history this way. Yes, what we call geopolitics was closely related to what we call religion today. No, they are not one and the same. Yes, the geopolitical situation in the western Roman empire influenced the political dynamics and eventually the theological dynamics in Rome. But no, they are not what I would call the proximate cause, or even the sole cause, of the schism (simple check would be to see if that happened the next time the "father" see was surpassed by the "child" - Rome and Constantinople stand as one example, Russia and Constantinople as another).
If anything, as I said, the subordination of papal temporal power to Frankish and German imperial power is what triggered the schism. Those powers influenced Rome to change in a way that was beyond the limits of continued communion with the East, to a point where it could no longer be ignored as local practice - official endorsement of the filioque used in Mass in Rome.
It is a habitual protestant reading of history to point to the fall of Rome as the cause of all of the woes and abuses of the RCC. I should probably say enlightenment instead of protestant, though, because that is actually a pernicious and subtle anti-Christian dig, like much of enlightenment thinking. Undergirding that claim is the idea that pre-Christian philosophy and thought were superior - a common sentiment in some areas of the West as Rome fell (St Augustine writes against this temptation). The Protestants point more directly to the uniting of the temporal power with the episcopal - which is true but not complete. The theological side doesn't vanish merely because the temporal side imposes.
Separation, both linguistically, culturally, and geographically, lead to a drift in praxis and theology, as the two go hand in hand.
We have to accept at some point that many of these men were pious and sincere, on both sides of the argument, and that the theological arguments they made were not merely cover for temporal power and striving.
I always took the frequency of consuming Christ as the Eucharist to be daily, like Jesus says in the Our Father prayer, to give us today our daily bread (like the manna used to be)...
Featured Stories
See All
85:33
12h ago
4.4k
Texas A&M earns top-25 win over Creighton in Las Vegas, 77-73
by Luke Evangelist
7:22
17h ago
7.4k