Religion Orthodoxy and Catholicism: From Separation to Unification

Will Orthodox and Catholic Chrurch be unified in the future?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • No

    Votes: 8 88.9%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
I think history of Churches and religion should be teached at Schools,

Wars happened from the ignorance and fear of people,

Personally I believe that History of at least big and established religions should taught at Schools,
Not the Dogma, but the history
just to avoid situations that sprung from ignorance.

for example the title of Papa (pope)
which is not only the Patriarch of Rome, but also of Alexandreia
or the authorities of Patriarchs (Papa included, he is a Patriarch) (named as Σταυροπηγιακα)
to send a cross to put at foundation of a church building, simmilar to Roman empire emperors who send the first stone, the Anguli,
and the symbolic Αγιον Μυρον (holy perfume) which is a kind of αυτοκεφαλον, of shelf indipedence but under apostolical continuity

etc etc

the story has
first patriarchate Jerusalem
then Antiocheia
then Alexandreia
then Rome
4 in Number

the new ones
Rome gave birth to Nova Roma
After this used the principle of Cardinals
a title if I remember correct equal to Archbishop but with limited priviledges of a Patriarch etc etc
Cardo is simmilar to Αrch- Αρχη-Αρχαι

Nova Roma gave birth to
Serbia
Moscow Russia
Romania

lately Bulgariadeclare Patriarchate,

Armenian church
is another story,
But is the third church that holds 'spears' Λογχη' at Jerusalem Holy Grave tomb
which makes it a strong one historically

Coptic church is another story mainly around Egypt,

Other Historical churches,
they are some in number
around Egypt and Near-East Middle East
like the Chaldean, Maronites, Melkite, etc etc
the Arianism Monophysistism Nestorianism etc
inherite a lot of theoritical problems there
which with the expand and Dominion of Islam there
created many churches and Dogmas there,
in the eyes of a Western Christian,
might be seen as peculiar

Reformation and Protestantism
that is another story away from this post,
so I will not expand to that
 
I think history of Churches and religion should be teached at Schools,

Wars happened from the ignorance and fear of people,

Personally I believe that History of at least big and established religions should taught at Schools,
Not the Dogma, but the history
just to avoid situations that sprung from ignorance.

for example the title of Papa (pope)
which is not only the Patriarch of Rome, but also of Alexandreia
or the authorities of Patriarchs (Papa included, he is a Patriarch) (named as Σταυροπηγιακα)
to send a cross to put at foundation of a church building, simmilar to Roman empire emperors who send the first stone, the Anguli,
and the symbolic Αγιον Μυρον (holy perfume) which is a kind of αυτοκεφαλον, of shelf indipedence but under apostolical continuity

etc etc

the story has
first patriarchate Jerusalem
then Antiocheia
then Alexandreia
then Rome
4 in Number

the new ones
Rome gave birth to Nova Roma
After this used the principle of Cardinals
a title if I remember correct equal to Archbishop but with limited priviledges of a Patriarch etc etc
Cardo is simmilar to Αrch- Αρχη-Αρχαι

Nova Roma gave birth to
Serbia
Moscow Russia
Romania

lately Bulgariadeclare Patriarchate,

Armenian church
is another story,
But is the third church that holds 'spears' Λογχη' at Jerusalem Holy Grave tomb
which makes it a strong one historically

Coptic church is another story mainly around Egypt,

Other Historical churches,
they are some in number
around Egypt and Near-East Middle East
like the Chaldean, Maronites, Melkite, etc etc
the Arianism Monophysistism Nestorianism etc
inherite a lot of theoritical problems there
which with the expand and Dominion of Islam there
created many churches and Dogmas there,
in the eyes of a Western Christian,
might be seen as peculiar

Reformation and Protestantism
that is another story away from this post,
so I will not expand to that

I agree with you. To a large extent the history of Europe is the history of Christianity. As you say, in a pluralistic society such as that of the U.S. it shouldn't be about indoctrination into dogma; it should be about teaching the history of western civilization, and you can't teach that without teaching the history of Christianity. You also can't teach the history of the Near East without teaching about it, as well as about Islam.

Unfortunately, from what I can tell history is less and less a part of the curriculum. It's much more about teaching "pluralism". What's the point of teaching pluralism if you understand nothing of the past of any of these groups of people. It's just absurd.

American television does a lot of "on the street" interviews with people not about ancient of medieval history, but about American history. It's only about a 300 year period, for goodness' sakes, and the level of ignorance is astounding. I literally can't watch these segments. I don't find it at all funny; it's sad.
 
Islam - Catholic

Language perspective is similar. Praying in Arabic and Latin. Turkey tried to change pray language as Turkish pray call(ezan), but it didn't succes. So both religion have same perspective in this case.

Islam - Protestan

There is no marriage ban

Islam - Orthodox Christianity

Maybe something with Sunni Islam/Orthodox Islam

Hıdırellez and St. George day is common festival.

Islam - Eastern Orthodox

Especially, Eastern Orthodox christian who lives in Middle East are more similar with Islam then the others in community/cultural rules. It is effect of living side by side.

and I know that there Christians who believe that Jesus was just a man and prophet as in Islam.

but I don't see clear similarity between Islam and one Christianity branch.



Its not only the fact that they live side by side what makes them similar. Its the fact that Islam is a much younger religion than Christianity. Its about 700 years younger I think. People who become Muslims belonged to Orthodox Christianity before they made the transition to Islam. So many Orthodox teachings were adopted to Islam. Is it a coincidence that Islam also accepts that very first people who appeared on earth were Eva and Adam? So that is why there is a striking similarity among both religions Islam and Orthodoxy. The only difference is that Christ speaks for Orthodoxy and Mohamed for Islam, but they say almost the same thing even though they lived different lives. Largely Islam was born out of Orthodox teachings with minor differences.
 
Its not only the fact that they live side by side what makes them similar. Its the fact that Islam is a much younger religion than Christianity. Its about 700 years younger I think. People who become Muslims belonged to Orthodox Christianity before they made the transition to Islam. So many Orthodox teachings were adopted to Islam. Is it a coincidence that Islam also accepts that very first people who appeared on earth were Eva and Adam? So that is why there is a striking similarity among both religions Islam and Orthodoxy. The only difference is that Christ speaks for Orthodoxy and Mohamed for Islam, but they say almost the same thing even though they lived different lives. Largely Islam was born out of Orthodox teachings with minor differences.

Can you please pick up a book on these subjects so that you don't make these kinds of egregious errors?

There was no Orthodox Christianity when Islam began or took over the Middle East. There was only Christianity, albeit Christianity with slightly different rituals depending on the area. The schism which created orthodoxy dates to the Middle Ages and mainly concerned whether the Bishop of Rome was one among equals with the Patriarchs of the eastern rite churches or the PRIMATE or first among them. There was also a theological dispute described by Yetos in his thread, which would have no effect on anyone's behavior or attitudes. It's like the medieval arguments about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

If you're a believing Muslim you believe the Koran is the inspired word of God. If you're not you probably believe the scholars who say Mohammed picked up bits and pieces of the basic beliefs of Jews and Christians and incorporated them into his new religion. There is nothing in the statements about Jesus and Mary in the Koran which are at all specific to Orthodox versus Roman Catholicism. I'd tell you to prove otherwise but you can't, which is why you haven't posted any proof for any of your other ridiculous claims.
 
Its not only the fact that they live side by side what makes them similar. Its the fact that Islam is a much younger religion than Christianity. Its about 700 years younger I think. People who become Muslims belonged to Orthodox Christianity before they made the transition to Islam. So many Orthodox teachings were adopted to Islam. Is it a coincidence that Islam also accepts that very first people who appeared on earth were Eva and Adam? So that is why there is a striking similarity among both religions Islam and Orthodoxy. The only difference is that Christ speaks for Orthodoxy and Mohamed for Islam, but they say almost the same thing even though they lived different lives. Largely Islam was born out of Orthodox teachings with minor differences.



DUpidh

That is the second Stupist thing I read in this Forum
and the first is also by you in this Thread,


So how Come Muslims come from Orthodox Christians at 600-800 AD
when the schism started at 870 Ad with 'Photios schism' and completed at 1054 with the anathemas
maybe at your Maths 600 is bigger than 900
but in mine, NOT


the most stupid think I heard,
Orthodox and Catholics existed before 911 AD

Just ignorance and stupidity

For your information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photian_schism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism


as for your information
at 1054 the division Orthodox Catholic is this

200px-Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png



Now tell us how come Ortodox connected with Islam there
since the area is already under Islamic domination

Beside if you know the story of Hadji Bektas (Bektashi) and Alovites Turks
then surely reecosinder what you talk about

The Supremacy of Papa

the supremacy of Papa starts from the times of Onoria and the decline of the West Roman empire,
The emperrors of the West exit very weak after Huns and Goths,
so someone should replace the emperor,
the only one who could claim power since the emperror is not strong is a religious archon ,
That is why Papa is the only Patriarch that has state and guard,
and since no emperror in the West,
Papa turn to East many times, in order to ask help for Rome,
and there starts the race for supremacy, who should be more protected, or which patriarch the will is stronger to the emperror
1 in jerusalem
1 in Asia
1 in Africa
1 in the Roman empire (Europe)
meaning who Patriarch must be considered as first priority by emperror,

this ended By the creation of Carlomagneian state
which I believe was designed and programmed so to create stability and a normal status at West.

but later East Roman had problem with Bulgarians
and the emperror choose Patriarch without asking Papa
so that was a direct hit on Papa supremacy,
it is called the Photios Schism by Western scholars


something similar Hapened at East Roman but under different circumstances
After the fall of Con/polis, Mohamet knew that he should find a new leader for the Byzantines,
so he gave priviledges to Patriarch of Con\polis
and the last work as the leader of the of Γενος (nation)
the head of Rums the time of Ottomans was the Patriarch due to the authorities and priviledges given by Mohamet
infact that is considered the smartest move that Mohamet did, even smarter than the conquest of Con\polis
he created a political supreme leader frm the classs of religion, that he will be always a kind of prisoner,
that is why patriarchate of Con/polis gave so many expels to rebels against Ottoman rule,
who would follow an expeled one, all want to follow the blessed one
 
Last edited:
Can you please pick up a book on these subjects so that you don't make these kinds of egregious errors?

There was no Orthodox Christianity when Islam began or took over the Middle East. There was only Christianity, albeit Christianity with slightly different rituals depending on the area. The schism which created orthodoxy dates to the Middle Ages and mainly concerned whether the Bishop of Rome was one among equals with the Patriarchs of the eastern rite churches or the PRIMATE or first among them. There was also a theological dispute described by Yetos in his thread, which would have no effect on anyone's behavior or attitudes. It's like the medieval arguments about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

If you're a believing Muslim you believe the Koran is the inspired word of God. If you're not you probably believe the scholars who say Mohammed picked up bits and pieces of the basic beliefs of Jews and Christians and incorporated them into his new religion. There is nothing in the statements about Jesus and Mary in the Koran which are at all specific to Orthodox versus Roman Catholicism. I'd tell you to prove otherwise but you can't, which is why you haven't posted any proof for any of your other ridiculous claims.

I have not read the Koran but I have seen theological debates on You tube. Islamic's admit the Existence of Jesus and Mary, but they disagree if he was the son of God, or a earthly thing like all of us, who God chose to communicate his teachings. That's why Islamic's insist: There is no God but Allah. Which means Jesus was a prophet.
I disagree with you when you say there was not Orthodox Christianity when Islam took over. Orthodox Christianity is the same like Christianity of East. Are YOU SAYING THERE WAS NOT Christianity IN THE East?.Christianity unified to a certain degree after the invention of printing machines. Before it has had numerous sects. Even today is not unified Christianity. Not all Christians agree that Jesus was born on Christmas day. I am not saying that rites of Orthodoxy and Islam are similar, but the ideology is strikingly similar. I may sound provocative but that how many scholars of theology think that Orthodoxy and Islam share large part of ideology, for the reasons I posted in previous parts. If curious you may discus the matter with impartial scholars of theology, and see what they have to say.
 
You have failed to produce links to statements by theologians which support your view. Now you claim that scholars support your view. Please provide the appropriate links, or admit that they don't exist and your statement was incorrect.

As for the remainder of your post it's absolutely false. Are you aware that a good number of the churches in the East are in fact in communion with the Roman church and merely maintain a different liturgy?

Where you have gotten the absurd idea that Eastern Christian women follow Muslim codes in dress other than out of fear of harassment and worse I have no idea.

https://www.debate.org/debates/Orthodoxy-and-Islam-are-similar-in-many-ways/1/
 
I have not read the Koran but I have seen theological debates on You tube. Islamic's admit the Existence of Jesus and Mary, but they disagree if he was the son of God, or a earthly thing like all of us, who God chose to communicate his teachings. That's why Islamic's insist: There is no God but Allah. Which means Jesus was a prophet.
I disagree with you when you say there was not Orthodox Christianity when Islam took over. Orthodox Christianity is the same like Christianity of East. Are YOU SAYING THERE WAS NOT Christianity IN THE East?.Christianity unified to a certain degree after the invention of printing machines. Before it has had numerous sects. Even today is not unified Christianity. Not all Christians agree that Jesus was born on Christmas day. I am not saying that rites of Orthodoxy and Islam are similar, but the ideology is strikingly similar. I may sound provocative but that how many scholars of theology think that Orthodoxy and Islam share large part of ideology, for the reasons I posted in previous parts. If curious you may discus the matter with impartial scholars of theology, and see what they have to say.

First: never take what some random people on youtube say as gospel.

Second: I'll say this as simply as possible once more and then that's it. THERE WERE NO ORTHODOX CATHOLICS IN THE NEAR EAST at the time of the Muslim conquest, just as there were none in eastern Europe. ALL CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE AT THAT TIME BELIEVED BASICALLY THE SAME THINGS in terms of doctrine and theology, except for minor differences. THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES WERE LITURGICAL. THE SCHISM TOOK PLACE LATER.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism

The major theological difference was over this clause in the Nicene Creed. The eastern Catholics wanted it to say only from the Father. That's it. It has to do with the Holy Spirit and has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,who proceeds from the Father ⟨and the Son⟩.Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified."

The other major difference had to do with the supremacy of the Pope, and there were other disputes over whether unleavened bread should be used at communion, and canonical differences having to do with the celibacy of regular parish priests. Monks in the eastern churches are, of course, supposed to be celibate. Of course, the language used in the liturgy was different.

Again, absolutely nothing to do with Islamic doctrine or dogma. You have repeatedly been asked to link to articles by actual theologians or church historians. You haven't done so, and I can tell you why. They don't exist. Take it from someone who was force fed theology for forty-five minutes a day every school day for more than four years, and then took some theology courses later in life as well. There are consequences here for posting misinformation or refusing to provide documentation for absurd claims. This is your last warning.

The one link which you provided is to a site which is so loaded with malware or other malicious software that my system won't let me access it. That should tell people everything they need to know. Infractions can also be given for that. Don't do it again.
 
Latin hasn't been used in Roman Catholic liturgy or prayer for decades, not since Vatican II.

Thank you for update,

After the WW2 - rising leftist less religious people in Europe, there aren't left to much thing left in Catholicism. Where are those good Latinized Christians?
:grin:

They have stayed in back, for reform. Now they are tring to do as Vatican 2 (1962) - Thanks again
:heart:

Similarly, the babies who died before baptist ceremony were wenting to Hell, but now, they are not. I remember, Pope statement when he was in Africa.

As for your second bolded comment, whatever those people claim they are, whatever they were born or raised, they're not Christians, and I include in that members of Unitarian churches. It's like saying you don't believe Mohammed is the Prophet, but you're still a Muslim.

To be a Christian one has to believe in some version of the Nicene Creed. It's part of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed


That is too puritan idea and Mohammed example is not proper, I mean comparing about totally not believing and seeing as a just a prophet.

But I see your point which is classical view.


 
@ Dupidh

For your information
the etymology of the word Papa is from the Greek Eatern pronouncation of the Aramaic Αββα Abba = Father

so the modern word that orthodox use for dad is babba from Aramaic Antiocheian christian Abba
the word that orthodox use for a priest as father of community is παππά pappά
the change of tone give emphasis to the word as ULTIMATE FATHER (of faith).
and was used not only at Rome but also at Alexandreia
Even islam uses the same word as Abu

even the word Catholic etymology is from Greek Καθ'ολικον =to all

the things you should read first are the historical facts that all churches, scholars etc do not deny
and then the fantastic conspiracy

and I suggest to read this first about the Ecuminical congresses and counsils of THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC church

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council

and the heresies of the ecumenical counsil (global)

the ones you read are confusing you in Purpose.

scholars say this:
ISLAM FOUND EASY WAY TO EXPAND AT THE LANDS OF MONOPHYSITES AND OTHER HERETIC
the ones who were expelled by Global councils

Scholars do not say :
ISLAM FOUND EASY WAY TO EXPAND AT THE LANDS OF ORTHODOX
WHO WAS CREATED 3 CENTURIES AFTER. IT IS ATOPON even to the most conspiracy theory


 
Orthodoxy and Catholicism From Separation to Unification

I re-read Platos Republic last year, the first time I read it was a very long time ago in a Galaxy far away. I didnt think his work so amazing back than but I do today, I want to thank Joe Quinn for pushing me to read it again and you Janus for this thread.
 
No, and I think that if Rome had been more like the Orthodox, there wouldn't have been a Protestant schism; sure, there were the devout like the Lollards and Anabaptists who were earnest evangelicals, but as you can see Protestantism is primarily a Germanic development. If the Germanics had been allowed their independent churches (like with the Orthodox; they have Serbian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, each people with a discrete church) the Reformation would probably have been just a folk movement, like Pietism in the Lutheran world, or Puritanism in English Protestantism.
 
I sincerely doubt that.

It very much depends on the type of Protestantism.

Episcopalians and Lutherans are one thing, but sects like the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Baptists, and the Quakers are a completely different kettle of fish, and, btw, they're not "Germanic" sects, unless you consider Calvin Germanic.

There could never have been "communion" between them and Roman Catholics.

The doctrinal or theological differences are huge. So huge, that to get away from Anglicanism they went to the New World so they could impose their own "brand" of Christianity, outlawing all other forms, including the Anglicanism of their home country,

There are no doctrinal differences between Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics. It all started over politics: who should be THE PRIMATE, the Bishop of Rome or Constantinople. The rite is different, of course, but it's very similar to the rites of the Eastern Catholic Churches who are indeed in communion with Roman Catholics.

Even decades ago when I was in high school I was told that if I couldn't find a Catholic Church on Sunday, to go to an Orthodox one. There are now splinter Anglican ones which have already unified.
 
I sincerely doubt that.

It very much depends on the type of Protestantism.

Episcopalians and Lutherans are one thing, but sects like the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Baptists, and the Quakers are a completely different kettle of fish, and, btw, they're not "Germanic" sects, unless you consider Calvin Germanic.

There could never have been "communion" between them and Roman Catholics.

The doctrinal or theological differences are huge. So huge, that to get away from Anglicanism they went to the New World so they could impose their own "brand" of Christianity, outlawing all other forms, including the Anglicanism of their home country,

There are no doctrinal differences between Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics. It all started over politics: who should be THE PRIMATE, the Bishop of Rome or Constantinople. The rite is different, of course, but it's very similar to the rites of the Eastern Catholic Churches who are indeed in communion with Roman Catholics.

Even decades ago when I was in high school I was told that if I couldn't find a Catholic Church on Sunday, to go to an Orthodox one. There are now splinter Anglican ones which have already unified.

Yes, the relationship between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is now very fluid. As you say, Greek Catholic churches are a bridge between both, and a natural one at so. The only discussion is the Russian Orthodox Church, which tries to make life difficult for this relationship. In my family, we have a combination of Catholics and Orthodox, and we have practical experience on that.
 
It took a thousands year (in 1965) for Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras I to nullify the anathemas of 1054. It will take another 1000 years for the unification.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
I agree with you. To a large extent the history of Europe is the history of Christianity. As you say, in a pluralistic society such as that of the U.S. it shouldn't be about indoctrination into dogma; it should be about teaching the history of western civilization, and you can't teach that without teaching the history of Christianity. You also can't teach the history of the Near East without teaching about it, as well as about Islam.

Unfortunately, from what I can tell history is less and less a part of the curriculum. It's much more about teaching "pluralism". What's the point of teaching pluralism if you understand nothing of the past of any of these groups of people. It's just absurd.

American television does a lot of "on the street" interviews with people not about ancient of medieval history, but about American history. It's only about a 300 year period, for goodness' sakes, and the level of ignorance is astounding. I literally can't watch these segments. I don't find it at all funny; it's sad.

History of the Europe in the last 3000 years is mostly the history of Roman Empire, it impact was huge and still is. Christianity was a revolution that later turn into a religion used mostly for political power by controlling people. At the moment the faith was used for political power at this moment they had nothing to do with Christ(the revolutionary) and more to do with Constantin(the emperor).


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Last edited:
Yes, the relationship between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is now very fluid. As you say, Greek Catholic churches are a bridge between both, and a natural one at so. The only discussion is the Russian Orthodox Church, which tries to make life difficult for this relationship. In my family, we have a combination of Catholics and Orthodox, and we have practical experience on that.

Exactly so.

The leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church is what stands in the way, and given that now as always it is more controlled by the state than the Roman Church ever was, it doesn't seem that formal unification will happen anytime soon, despite the fact that the Roman Church would do it expeditiously.

There is, as I said, but as most people don't realize because the rite is so different, no insurmountable theological difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity. Every theologian who taught me, and that was for 45 minutes a day, five days a week, for four years of secondary school, said that Roman Catholics could perfectly properly not only attend Orthodox services, but accept communion at those services, because their priests are within the apostolic succession, and their celebration of the mass is a true sacrament.

The rest is just politics.

@Blevin,

I recommend to you Tom Holland's "DOMINION: How Christianity Remade the World"
https://books.google.com/books/about/Dominion.html?id=CWyGDwAAQBAJ
 
@Angela, there is a minute theological difference between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic adherents, the filoque. It come down to whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Orthodox) or the Father and the Son (Catholics). It is a completely esoteric and for me useless sophism. The most substantial differences are the papal primacy (for Orthodox he's the first among equals) and the papal infallibility doctrine.
 
@Angela, there is a minute theological difference between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic adherents, the filoque. It come down to whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Orthodox) or the Father and the Son (Catholics). It is a completely esoteric and for me useless sophism. The most substantial differences are the papal primacy (for Orthodox he's the first among equals) and the papal infallibility doctrine.

Yes, I know, but all the recent popes have seemed very willing to enter into dialogue on those points. There doesn't seem to be any equal willingness on the other side.

Coincidentally, I went to an eastern rite service (church in communion with Rome) this week end. I found it very beautiful, more beautiful than what the liturgy has become in Roman Catholicism.
 
Yes, I know, but all the recent popes have seemed very willing to enter into dialogue on those points. There doesn't seem to be any equal willingness on the other side.

Coincidentally, I went to an eastern rite service (church in communion with Rome) this week end. I found it very beautiful, more beautiful than what the liturgy has become in Roman Catholicism.

It can be with a very good cantor or chorus. Unfortunately where I grew up we had neither and the priest was old, did not have a good voice and hurried through the liturgy.
 

This thread has been viewed 25001 times.

Back
Top