Sharing an article from the “Dear Padre” column.
Dear Padre,
The Greek Orthodox religion seems a lot like the Roman Catholic. Why did they break away from our Church? ~ Dar C.
Dear Dar C.,
Not only does the Greek Orthodox Church seem similar to the Roman Catholic Church, they are also alike in practice. Jesus founded only one Church, and when it began, it was fully united. Peter, as Christ’s successorand the first pope, established the Church in Rome, which was the political centre of the ancient world. This base helped the Church to grow, develop and maintain unity.
The Church spread even further when the Roman Emperor Constantine legalised Christianity in AD 313. When the empire fell in 476, the city of Rome was no longer the focal point of civilisation. Language began to separate people, and differences arose between the Greek-speaking East and the Latin-speaking West.
The Great Schism, or divide between the East and West happened in 1054, when Pope Leo IX and Eastern Patriarch Michael I excommunicated each other. The primary cause was a dispute over papal authority. The Eastern churches denied that the pope had any unique authority over them. There was also a dispute over the Nicene Creed known as the filioque. While the Western Church stated that the Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son, the Eastern Church believed the Holy Spirit to be only of the Father.
Although there is still a division, we do have much in common with the Orthodox. In May of 2001, Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Christodoulos Paraskevaides of Greece met to begin a reconciliation. Each forgave the other’s church for past wrong-doings. We continue to pray for more unity among Christians worldwide.
Fr Patrick Keyes C.Ss.R
From many days being a Christian I have a doubt in this why the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches split, by reading this article I got very good answer for this, I thank author for sharing this.
In the above brief article, Fr. Patrick Keyes correctly pointed out the political events and differences in language which later arose between the greek speaking and latin speaking churches. However, the theological differences are not minor nor negligible issues. It wasn’t papal authority which the Eastern Churches had a problem with. it was a new version of papal authority which claims supremacy and alien to the patristic writings and Traditions of the One Church which were the points of contention. For a better understanding on what unites and separates the East and the West, may i suggest this website:
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
Dear Sinnersymeon,
Thanks for your reference for further reading relating to the differences between the Eastern Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. What I hope readers can also reflect on, besides understanding the differences in each of our faiths, be it Eastern Churches and Roman Catholic Churches, and those of other faiths like Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism etc is –
What can we do to bridge these differences between people of different faiths so that we can come to understand and respect each human person for his/her beliefs to promote peace regardless of religious background.
Dear Author,
I thank you for this submittal.
It is the most concise and condensed general cause to be found during my research yet.
Truly, this piece of text is an elegant work of art.
Much appreciated.
Hi English…
Thanks and do drop by again.
Ordinary Guy
I am glad the author wrote this, i was very confused on the seperation of the churches and this was very helpful when writing my research paper.
thank u very much u helped us pass our world history debate:))
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
Maybe they should reunite as one this in this century.
They can discuss this in english, which is a universal language
What are the requirements for being a pope?
Hi Peter,
Here’s a link that could explain the entirety of who can become pope, the selection process etc.
http://www.saintlawrence.net/howapopeischosen.pdf
hello,
You have to start by being a priest. In becoming a bishop a pope should appoint you. But it’s not always that a bishop will get appointed. Then If it’s needed the pope will declare you a cardinal and once you’re a cardinal, you can be a part of electing a pope when for instance the pope will leave the earth or resign. Not all priests can be bishops or will be appointed. A cardinal doesn’t run for pope unlike a president of a country, the pope is elected when it is needed. And yes the pope represents God on earth. A pope is also the successor of Peter.
Is the pope really God on earth?
God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent. From this, you will be able to discern if the pope is God or not.
The pope is human like all of us. It is by Jesus (who is God) who sent the pope to represent him here on earth, merely to guide us. Just like when a herd of sheep needs a shepherd to guide them. God is God and no human being can be God. (Jesus is God, both 100% divine and 100% human). The pope is an earthly representation of a shepherd or a leader one who will guide us.
But, is he “God on earth”? It clearly states he is God on earth. Does he play the same role? Different role?
Hi Peter,
Perhaps you may like to share your thoughts from where you ‘ve learnt that the pope is God on earth? And what is his role base on your understanding? What do you believe?
My question exactly. Who is the pope? And what is his duty?
You will find the answer you have been seeking here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
He is a servant of the Catholic Church to lead the faithful.
After reading this, it cleared up many questions. But, why does this author infer that Jesus said Peter is the head of the church? “not primus inter pares, but the undisputed head of the Church.” I thought Jesus was the head of the church? And what does Jesus mean by “keys”? Peter sits at the gate to heaven with these keys, or the principles set forth by Jesus?
Jesus is not only the head of the Church. He is the Church. Literally speaking when you describe the “head”, it denotes someone of authority/position. The contextual understanding is that “Church” do not just refer to an organisation, group. The “Church” is an embodiment of the Lord’s teachings, Traditions, way of life of the Cross – both vertical & horizontal. Jesus is that embodiment of entirety of what the faithful would believe. We have little churches everywhere. At the place of worship, at our work-place, in our homes, in our hearts. Because “Church” is where Christ exists among the faithful believers.
“Upon this rock I will build my church”, Jesus said to Peter. Definitely not asking Peter to gather workers to start putting slabs of stones to build a place of worship. But to build communities of believers. How to build? By living an exemplery faithful life, be a witness of Christ by living the life Jesus taught so that others can see Jesus in you. We are the living, walking, talking Bible where others can read your actions, expressions, responses and hopefully they see some of Jesus in us.
As for “keys”, I would not think that Jesus had actually handed a set of keys to the pearly gates of heaven. “Keys” is an authoritative symbol. When you are handed a set of keys to the house, you have full control. Jesus is not asking Peter. Jesus commissioned Peter to continue the mission of Christ in leading the flock and building communities.
So the entire scripture passage should be read in a contextual form.
I see, and agree that Jesus is the head of the Church. As for keys being an authoritative symbol, yes; and having full control, I am confused about. Peter, an apostle, has full authority to continue the mission of Christ? Along with everyone other human being, implications of being faithful to the Word ect. to be able to continue Christ’s mission well. I don’t mean to start disputes, Ordinary Guy, just asking questions.
Thank you very much.
The pope isn’t exactly in full control of church. In fact, the pope’s modern day control, to my knowledge, is much more reasonable and ideal, in the fact he doesn’t have the political power (Vatican city isn’t a country in the normal sense) but more of a unifying quality (back when the pope was more of a political figure, this led to events that led to the splitting of the church, because the Pope isn’t supposed to have power over others, as he to is man). Basically, the whole idea of having a pope is for the main purpose of keeping the church stable and to make sure that the church, at the center, has the same faith and ideals that it has been teaching 2 thousand years (unlike the protestant churches, whom, without a unifier, have split and split for the past several centuries(not saying their wrong, but this why we have a pope))
the pope is here to lead us the way God wanted him to, so the pope is more of a supervisor of a business and God is the owner who controls everything.
Thanks Peter for sharing your thoughts. I do not know everything about my catholic faith and I’m also walking along the journey towards him…sharing a bit of him with those around. Wishing you a fruitful journey.
Thank you for your time.
Cheers for the post! really helped in my research!
dear writer,
i like this site it was interesting and a lot of help on my research
Someone might be interested in the view held by some Bible scholars that the “Little Horn” of Daniel 7 actually refers prophetically to the papacy and to its domination of Christendom for a time interval of “a time, [two] times and half a time”. It is important to realise that this time interval refers only to the dominance of the papacy not its existence because we know the papacy existed before and after these dates. A clue to the symbolism may be seen in Revelation 11 where this interval is matched up with “a thousand two hundred and three score days”. On the day for a year basis of the symbology explained in Elliott’s Horae Apocalypticae this evidently means 1260 years which is the time during which the papacy dominated Christendom. This could have several entry and several corresponding exit dates for this period. Civil authority and precedence of the bishop of Rome over the other bishops at that time, (in Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople) was given to the bishop of Rome by the Roman Emperor Justinian. The first publication date of Justinian’s Codification of Roman Law was AD 529. So the period of 1260 years would end in 1789 when the outbreak of the French Revolution saw the nationalisation of the Catholic Church in France and its property confiscated. Another interesting entry and exit date for this prophecy is AD 536 when Justinian’s army under Belisarius invaded Italy then under the Ostrogoths, thereby freeing the pope. In 1796 Napoleon invaded Italy threatening the pope who was forced to pay a tribute and eventually in 1798 the pope was expelled and sent into exile.
hi may I know the summary of the entire Estern and West split? with the schism and all which came first? thanks
Hi,
I also read the script by Father Michael Azkoul, given here in an earlier post.
There is so much he says abotu R.C. beleifs which are erroneous; he doesn’t understand the concept of original sin in the R.C. sense ~ and so interprets it through the eyes of Orthodoxy.
God being ” angry” with man is not what we beleive at all!!!
It also states that the Pope is not equal to the other Bishops…We think he is equal, however God in His justice wouldn’t establish a church and then not give someone the grace to be His representative. That would be too unkind.
For example; If a ship has no captain- just a crew of admirals, then who gives the orders to steer?
I found the piece very frustrating to read – it’s full of incorrect assumptions.
As a Roman Catholic myself, he doesn’t give an accurate picture of the beleifs of the Roman Catholic church and its practices.
The tract is a subtle arguement which attempts to place the Roman Catholic church at a disadvantage. I understand that he is trying to be true to his faith, but that is his faith, and he is being untrue to mine.
Hi,
I thought that the script by Fr. Michael was very correct in the Orthodox sense. We can’t blame him for not understanding the R.C. sense all the way in the same way I do not blame Catholics for not understanding the Orthodox all the way. How could we understand each other in a completely intimately spiritual way having never been of each other’s faith?
The reason the church actually split are pretty much what is said in the actual article being commented. Fr. Michael’s article enlightens us on some reason why is would be difficult to reunite the churches.
And to those who think Fr. Michel was being biased, of course he would be. It’s the same way a R.C. would be biased if writing about Orthodoxy- of course he’s not going to say “you know, you should all just join the Orthodox Church- same difference.”
What I hope for everyone, though, is that we focus on what is similar. First, we are all baptized in the name of the Trinity. Second, we believe in the Kingdom of Heaven. Third, we all love Jesus and His teachings. Fourth, the Theotokos is a model of the kind of person we should be. And there are many more similarities. So yeah, there are some differences- even some really BIG ones, but in the end, we should all try to see what is similar and appreciate the differences for what they are and love the similarities because they help us grow in our relationship to Christ.