Why do we refer to the Orthodox Christians as schismatic? I mean the political split of Rome was in 395. True we didn't excommunicate each other until 1054 but the split had taken place much earlier. Couldn't it be that the Orthodox Christians are more or less equal to Catholics. We have never read their thinkers and they never have read ours. They never read Augustine. So why should we assume that they should think like us? At the time of the political split the Roman pope wasn't anything. He was the weakest of all the patriarchs. Now I know all the stuff that it says in the bible but how are they schismatic? Why can't these two different traditions be purly authentic forms? They aren't like the Protestants that broke away and changed what they believed. The orthodox never believed it in the first place because the Eastern Church developed in a different social environment.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 08, 2003

Answers

-- (top@top.top), October 08, 2003.

I never thought they were considered schismatic. We are allowed to marry them, and participate in their masses, and essentially all the teachings are the same as far as I understand. One of my uncles who is orthdox said that Peter himself created the orthdox church and the catholic church, which still confuses me. Even though the orthdox priests are allowed to marry it doesn't contradict the bible. Their masses are done in another fasion typically longer, and the protection of the holy laces in Jerusalem are shared by the Franciscan monks and them. My family is a mixture of catholics and orthdox, but because of that I didn't think there were important reasons to be seperate.

Since we are allowed to marry them and participate in their masses, (also vice versa from their part), I don't think the church is calling them schismatic or say that they are like protestants that broke away. The question is, about the 2 groups withink the orthdox church which constantly fight each other. That is what needs a solution.

This is still a confusing issue. How could Peter create both churches at the same time? That's confusing but then in that case, the split took place very early, and then it should be before the political split. I know that the church doesn't consider them schismatic, but is one group inside them called schismatic?

Also there is another problem. We acknowledge them and treat them well, but they seem to have a particular hatred for the pope, at least in certain countries. I do not know the reason for that, or which group that is, but all this seems like a confusing issue which creates a deep distance between us and them.

One more serious thing - I don't know wheter the priests are like that but many prominant orthdox christians who have important roles in their church, sadly, have very twisted explanations of the bible. These may be individuals but does the church have any control of them, and does the explanation of the bible and theology differ from ours?

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), October 08, 2003.

I think that the main issue is the Pope, and line of succession. Tht and a few incedental details. As to Peter foundign Both Churches, that's not too hard to iamgine, the two explanatiosn I have heard ws that ti was all oen churhc initially, and split later, thus both can claim beign founded by him, or both churches where foudned at different toimes, origionaly in a sort fo loose confederacy and after the split with noncommunication with each other.

-- ZAR (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 08, 2003.

Peter didn't found ANY Churches. It was Christ who said, in reference to Peter, "upon this rock I WILL BUILD my Church". Note - "Church", not "Churches". If the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were both founded in the first century, we should expect to find documents of both churches, and historical references to both churches in every century from that time forward. There are no documents of an "Orthodox Church", and no historical references to an "Orthodox Church" until the 11th century, because the 11th century is the time when that church came into existence by formal rejection of the authority of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, an act which does indeed constitute schism.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 08, 2003.

I think that you (Paul) saying that there wasn't a reference to an Orthodox Church until the 11th century is a view from someone that hasn't studied enough history. If there was one Church up until the 11th century then why are the two "Churches" so distinct? If we don't know anything about the eastern Churches before the 11th century why do we know about the Hagia Sophia, Justinian, or iconoclasm? Why did Charlemagne build a church modeled after the Hagia Sopia if there were no references to the Orthodox Church until the 11th century?

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 09, 2003.

Schism makes two churches distinct. The word derives from the same root as "scissors" - it cuts them apart into two distinct entities. We do know a great deal about the eastern churches before the 11th century - and all of them were Catholic. Some of the greatest Catholic saints were members and leaders of those eastern Catholic Churches. The Orthodox Church had not yet severed ties with the other eastern Churches, and thereby with the entire universal Catholic Church, of which the eastern churches were an integral part, and still are today. There are no documents written by any Christian church other than the universal Holy Catholic Church prior to the 11th century - because no other Christian church existed until then.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2003.

There is a lot of confusing issue here. Peter was not founding churches, but he established the order in Rome as well as in Antiochia, which is called the apostolic Antiochian church. The catholic church is universal, but the members are from differents parts of the world with great diversity, and the syrian orthodox members are from the middle east and India - from Syria it began and then to the east. As far as I know, in the counsil before Ad 500, there Roman and the Greek churches stayed with the counsil but the Antiochian and Alexandrian did not. I think the main difference between catholics and the orthodox is in the idea that formed in the counsil that christ has 2 natures, human and divine, but the eastern churches said he had one other nature from the 2 natures. This one difference is what caused the split in the universal church which beacame Catholic (Roman) and Orthodox (Antiochian), from a class I had on church history a long time ago.

Here, the Greek Orthodox church in the counsin before 500 AD stayed with the Roman church, but the Syrian church did not. I think that is the beginning of the split in the orthodx church against these 2 groups. Also the Syrian Orthdox church in India (the Malankara church) is a vital part of the Antiochian church. It is said that From the point when St Thomas came until the Portuguese came, the church followed the syrian tradition, and then the Portuguese came and introduced the Latin tradition, where several embraced it and several stayed with the old tradition.

So basically the church was universal with different traditions and diversity around the world, but at the counsil which explained Christ's nature, Antiochian and Alexandrian group opposed the Roman and Greek group and they stayed away, which resulted in the schism.

From what I know, they are accused of the heresy of Monophysitism, but they say that it is a misunderstanding that is accused of them, and they I still don't clearly understand what thier view is, but they acknowledge the human and divine part, but there is one more, perhaps the reincarnated nature. I am unclear on this issue.

But then again we can't say that the orthodox churches were not heard of until the 11th century since the split happened before 500 AD. I don't know if the split was actually in 395 AD. The main problem is the difference between the western and the oriental churches, in everyway. It is taught as church history by the catholic priests there. Is there another difference between the accounts of church history by east and west, even among catholics?

Excummunicating each other was funny in one sense, but now it is virtually impossible for the churches to merge, as before the split had happened. I am used to include them when saying catholic, as if we are all different groups ie I am Roman, they should be Antiochian etc. Still the split is there and things just got worse and worse after that.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), October 09, 2003.

Paul , I agree with your answers 95% of the time. When Frank got sick, you were one of the person I felt could do a good job for the forum.

But this is one situation where I will disagree with you.

Jesus chose Peter to establish his Church. So far so good. Peter did not found a Church? I disagree.

Jesus established a community of disciples,Peter founded the churches of Jerusalem and Cesarea ( The conversion of the gentiles). Peter also gave the OK for the conversion fo the Samaritans and the gentiles of Antioch and beyond. This is in Acts. The Church ( properly called now this way since is now an organization) was known as the Way.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 10, 2003.

Dear Elpidio,

Peter did exactly what you said he did - "founded" local communities, or "churches", in several geographic locations. So did Paul, Thomas, and the other Apostles. That was the mission of the Apostles - to "go forth and make disciples of all nations". They exercised this ministry as missionaries of THE Church which sent them, The One True Church founded by Jesus Christ. Jesus told Peter "Thou art rock, and upon this rock I WILL BUILD my Church". He did not say "Thou art Rock, and I want YOU to found a Church for me". Pentecost is the birthday of THE Church, and Pentecost was an action of God, not of Peter. If THE Church had not been founded by Christ, and if the Apostles were not members of it, then they could not have gone forth to establish local "churches" which were simply geographic representations of THE One True Church established and maintained by Jesus Christ Himself.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 10, 2003.

Advent of Man - TIME OF GENTILES ENDED - Why? (Taken from Address by Rev. Fulton Sheen, back in 1934

THE WAR WITH TEMPTATION The great characteristic of our age is not its love of religion, but its love of talking about religion. Even those who would smite God from the heavens make a religion out of their irreligion, and a faith out of their doubt. On all sides - from a thousand pens, a hundred microphones, scores of university rostrums - we have heard it repeated, until our very heads reel, that the "acids of modernity" have eaten away the old faith and the old morality, and that the modern man must have a new religion to suit the new spirit of the age.

This new religion, we are told, must be absolutely different from anything that ever existed before. It must be just as fresh and modern as the brilliant age in which we live, with its new hopes, new visions, and new dreams. When we inquire diligently into the characteristics of this new religion, we are told it must be social, it must be political, it must be worldly.

By social they mean it must dedicate itself, not to the illusory pursuit of the spirit, but to the practical needs of the body. The religious man of the new era will be the one who gives bread to hungry stomachs, clothes to naked backs, and roofs to unsheltered heads. Better milk for babies, better play grounds for children, better bread for the poor - these, and not faith, grace, and sacraments, are the things on which man lives; and that religion which gives these social necessities is the religion of the future.

RIGHTS OF CREATOR GOD IGNORED Next, we are told that the new religion must be political, and by that is meant that it should cease talking about the Kingdom of God and begin talking about the republics of earth. All its energies and zeal must be directed to support governmental policies such as liquor control, gold standards, and labor codes; there must be a swing away from the stress on eternity, prayers, and the communion of saints; for the world problems in need of a solution are not religious, but economic and political.

The final characteristic of the new cult will be its worldliness. Too long, we are told, has religion emphasized responsibility to God, and dwelt on duties to Him, instead of service to our fellowmen. The new religion has no time for the thought of responsibility to God, for the modern man, George Bernard Shaw tells us, is too busy to think about his sins. It makes man the master of all he surveys, the lord of his own life and therefore one who may shuffle off by his own hand if he chooses; for who is there who will dare say Nay?

-- Chuckie (kingcharles@yahoo.com), October 17, 2003.