The Great Schism of 1054

Holy Trinity Website ^ | Unknown | Bishop Kallistos Ware

[TexConfederate1861]

Hermann: I highly suspect you are getting your take on Orthodoxy from those apostates to the faith, the "Uniates" or "Byzantine Catholics"....don't take them for Orthodox, because they are NOT!

[TexConfederate1861]

Yes indeed, and she WAS without corruption when she gave birth to the Savior...not from HER birth however!

[TexConfederate1861]

So Hermann:

Let me get this straight...You believe sex in marriage is ONLY for the pro-creation of children? Oh Brother....sounds like a doctrine made up by a bunch of celibate men to me....

Sex and sexual desire was ordained BY GOD, and as long as it is within the Sacrament of Marriage, blessed by God...

I believe it says in the Scripture, "The marriage Bed is undefiled"

[TexConfederate1861]

Excellent Reply...couldn't have said it better myself!

[George W. Bush]

I think we need to be careful about making a 4th member of the Holy Trinity as well.

I certainly was not suggesting that the Orthodox have done so. But it is quite clear what Rome has done and what more Rome plans to do.

• Alfonsus de Liguori (1696-1787) was a principal proponent of the Marianist Movement, which glorifies Mary. He wrote a book entitled The Glories of Mary which is famous, influential and widely read. In this book, de Liguori says that Mary was given rulership over one half of the kingdom of God; Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice. De Liguori said that people should pray to Mary as a mediator and look to her as an object of trust for answered prayer. The book even says that there is no salvation outside of Mary. Some people suggest that these views are extreme and not representative of Catholic Church teaching. However, instead of silencing de Liguori as a heretic, the Catholic Church canonized him as a saint and declared him to be a “doctor of the Church” (a person whose teachings carry weight and authority). Furthermore, his book is openly and officially promoted by the Catholic Church, and his teachings have influenced popes. [William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, page 87]
• Pope Benedict XV said of Mary that “[O]ne can justly say that with Christ, she herself redeemed mankind.” [In the Encyclical Intersodalicia (1918). Quoted in Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 1, page 196].
• Pope Pius IX said, “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.” [In the Encyclical of February 2, 1849. Quoted in Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 1, page 196]

But what about the Assumption of Mary? Where did this Roman doctrine originate historically and what position(s) has Rome held upon the Assumption of Mary?

The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church. In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible” pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine. [William Webster, pages 81-85]

So, the early infallible popes absolutely and officially declared any belief in the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy. And then in 1950, another infallible pope declared it was heresy not to believe in the Assumption of Mary, a doctrine which has been upheld by the subsequent infallible popes including the current one. As is often the case, a pope's claims to infallibility founder upon their own proclamations of doctrine which contradict their infallible predecessors.

But to Rome, even Mary is not the complete power in the salvation of men. Look at this statement from an encyclical published just this year [Ecclesia de Ecuharista]:

“Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of the consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father. As in creating the world it was sufficient for God to have said, Let it be made, and it was created. He spake, and they were made, so it is sufficient for the priest to say, ‘Hoc est corpus meum,’ and behold the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Jesus Christ. ‘The power of the priest,’ says St. Bernadine of Sienna, ‘is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world’.”

“With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it.”

In this statement, we see that God has indeed become the slave of the Roman church. Only Mary counts. This is why they pray to Mary ten times for each time they pray to God.

It's a horrible mockery of the ancient faith. The Orthodox are quite prudent in keeping their distance from Rome.

[RussianConservative]

You know, Bohemians originally Orthodox but force converted to Catholic. Maybe why several times they threw off Papist yoke, like in 1400s.

[RnMomof7]

Alfonsus de Liguori (1696-1787) was a principal proponent of the Marianist Movement, which glorifies Mary. He wrote a book entitled The Glories of Mary which is famous, influential and widely read. In this book, de Liguori says that Mary was given rulership over one half of the kingdom of God; Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice. De Liguori said that people should pray to Mary as a mediator and look to her as an object of trust for answered prayer. The book even says that there is no salvation outside of Mary. Some people suggest that these views are extreme and not representative of Catholic Church teaching. However, instead of silencing de Liguori as a heretic, the Catholic Church canonized him as a saint and declared him to be a “doctor of the Church” (a person whose teachings carry weight and authority). Furthermore, his book is openly and officially promoted by the Catholic Church, and his teachings have influenced popes. [William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, page 87]

Incredible.! There is absolutely no foundation for this teaching..it might make an interesting movie however..

[Hermann the Cherusker]

What do you think we teach when we say "guilt of original sin"? It is nothing but the absence of original justice and sanctifying grace and the existance of concupiscence - our tendency to sin. "... original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally." (St. Thomas, Summa). In other words, the matter is our damaged nature passed on by human generation from Adam "in whom all sinned" as St. Paul teaches, and the form is the lack of sanctifying grace within the body and soul at conception.

Ask him if the Orthodox believe in original sin.

I would certainly hope you believe that man is born without grace and a tendency to sin as an inherited defect from Adam. Are you telling me otherwise? Is man's nature not injured? Are little children born sanctified? Obviously not, and that is original sin.

On the OCA link you posted, it says: "In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin."

Well, no kiding! We DON'T believe that either. "... original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Para. 405) Its seems to me that Eastern Orthodoxy takes a word in Latin theology they object to, misinterprets it, and then demolishes the numerous strawmen created by the misunderstanding, all the while accusing Catholics of being heretics. I fail to see the difference in our teaching and yours, other than matters of semantics, such as our description of concupiscence - the tendency to sin - as "guilt".

Here's another example. On this Orthodox site, it says: "So Rome is left with a need to explain how Christ could be born of a human parent yet without sin. The immaculate conception dogma tries to break this chain by making Mary the exception, not Christ."

Amazing that this sort of "insight" into Roman Catholicism, which I've heard often from Orthodox believers, did not occur to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, who state the sanctification of Jesus was by virtue of the hypostatic union, not the holiness of the flesh of Blessed Mary. The Immaculate Conception was to prepare an appropriate tabernacle for the Lord Jesus - one pure and without blemish - "an ark of incorruptible wood", the holy womb of Our Lady which was inhabited by none but God Himself. The Immaculate Conception of Mary was wholely unnecessary to make Jesus free of Original Sin.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Let me get this straight...You believe sex in marriage is ONLY for the pro-creation of children? Oh Brother....sounds like a doctrine made up by a bunch of celibate men to me....

Here's the Catholic explanation:

Marriage has a threefold good and set of ends - children, the indissoluble unity of the spouses, and the holiness of the Sacrament. The form of the sacrament is the mutual consent of the spouses, and the matter is their bodies, so the Sacrament of Matrimony (or Holy Crowning if you will) is only completed by their coming together in sexual intercourse, and every time the spouses have sexual intercourse with each other, provided that grevious sins that cry to heaven such as sodomy, fellatio, and contraception are avoided, they can grow in grace because of the Sacrament. Their action is Holy because it signifies the union of Christ and his bride the Church.

Marriage was instituted, as Genesis teaches us, for the propagation of the human race within a stable family environment, and the creation of that stable family environment by the pleasure and attraction of sex between the husband and wife. Christ has blessed and raised this union to the dignity of a sacrament, whereby Christians can grow in grace by its reception and exercise to better support their children and each other towards salvation. So the crowning good of Holy Matrimony is the Holiness of the Sacrament, but its first end is children.

So Holy Matrimony, and sexual intercourse in Marriage, have three purposes.

The frustration of the natural first end of sex within Marriage, the conception of children, makes the entire Marriage into a lie. "When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps." (St. Augustine, Against Faustus 15:7, AD 400). (Note well that he says "taken away", not "absent" - the sin is in the human will, not defects in the human body such as sterility, or temporary inability because of pregnancy or the natural cycle of the woman.)

Because Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and His Church, contraception is the equivalent of Christ (the husband) or His Church (the wife) preventing His Church from gaining new offspring (pregnancy) through conversion (conception). As abominable and unimaginable as this blasphemy is, so is artificial contraception.

Sex and sexual desire was ordained BY GOD, and as long as it is within the Sacrament of Marriage, blessed by God...

But it must be exercised to the due ends and with due means. Simply because one is married does not make lawful that which is inherently unlawful, such as the abominable peversion of sodomy. Lust is a vice, not a virtue, even within Marriage. It is laudable to want sexual union with ones wife as an exercise of the holy union between husband and wife or for children, and the pleasure attached to it is a blessing from God when enjoyed in these bounds. It is a fault to wish it for sensual pleasure alone though, because that is no different than fornication, and this is intrinsically what artificial contraception does, because it frsutrates one of the ends which must always be present (as regards sex during pregnancy, the openness to children during sex has already occurred to cause the pregnancy, therefore it suffices that the spouses come together to signify their union; the openness to children is implicit in the physical circumstances of the woman).

I believe it says in the Scripture, "The marriage Bed is undefiled"

"Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13.4). It is not saying "do whatever you will", but rather, "keep your marriage bed pure". You cannot keep it pure by using contraceptives, or by other common perversions like rectal intercourse, coitus interruptus (withdrawal), consummated fellatio, and mutual consummated masturbation. Simply put, husband and wife are free within marriage to caress and kiss each other as they will, but if they continue to the point where they wish to or will have an orgasm, the husband MUST climax inside the woman's vagina without artificial barriers or drugs in the way to prevent conception. Otherwise, they have sinned.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Not only have we Catholics canonized St. Alphonsus, but the Pope declared his writings free of all doctrinal and moral errors. He is therefore considered by us as the surest guide on the several topics he specialized in, including the Doctrines of the Council of Trent, Moral Theology, and Mariology, just as we consider St. Thomas Aquinas the preeminent Dogmatic Theologian, and require our seminarians be formed by studying his explanations of Revelation, Philosophy, and Theology.

We also follow the Second Council of Nicea and ANATHEMATIZE those who do not implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin:

"The Lord, the apostles and the prophets have taught us that we must venerate in the first place the Holy Mother of God, who is above all the heavenly powers ... If anyone does not confess that the holy, ever-virgin Mary, really and truly the Mother of God, is higher than all creatures visible and invisible, and does not implore, with a sincere faith, her intercession, given her powerful access to our God born of her, let him be anathema." (Second Council of Nicea, Session IV, AD 787)

The book even says that there is no salvation outside of Mary.

That's not an exact extract from the book, but the gist of what is meant is taught by the 7th Ecumenical Council above. Prayer for Blessed Mary's intercession is viewed by us as a vital necessity.

We fly to your patronage, O Holy Mother of God:
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O Glorious and Blessed Virgin.
-Prayer "Sub tuum", 3rd Century AD, Egypt

[Hermann the Cherusker]

You know, Bohemians originally Orthodox but force converted to Catholic.

The Bohemians never used the Eastern Liturgy. They were converted by Germans.

[MarMema]

In contrast, here is what the Orthodox church says, from my link in a previous post ( dormition).

"The services of the feast repeat the main theme, that the Mother of Life has "passed over into the heavenly joy, into the divine gladness and unending delight" of the Kingdom of her Son. (Vesper verse) The Old Testament readings, as well as the gospel readings for the Vigil and the Divine Liturgy, are exactly the same as those for the feast of the Virgin's nativity and her entrance into the Temple. Thus, at the Vigil we again hear Mary say: "My soul magnifies the Lord and my Spirit rejoices in God my Saviour." (Luke 1:47) At the Divine Liturgy we hear the letter to the Philippians where St. Paul speaks of the self-emptying of Christ who condescends to human servitude and ignoble death in order to be "highly exalted" by God his Father. (Philippians 2:5-11) And once again we hear in the Gospel that Mary's blessedness belongs to all who "hear the word of God and keep it." (Luke 11:27-28)

"Thus, the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos is the celebration of the fact that all men are "highly exalted" in the blessedness of the victorious Christ, and that this high exaltation has already been accomplished in Mary the Theotokos. The feast of the Dormition is the sign, the guarantee, and the celebration that Mary's fate is, the destiny of all those of "low estate" whose souls magnify the Lord, whose spirits rejoice in God the Saviour, whose lives are totally dedicated to hearing and keeping the Word of God which is given to men in Mary's child, the Saviour and Redeemer of the world.

Finally it must be stressed that, in all of the feasts of the Virgin Mother of God in the Church, the Orthodox Christians celebrate facts of their own lives in Christ and the Holy Spirit. What happens to Mary happens to all who imitate her holy life of humility, obedience, and love. With her all people will be "blessed" to be "more honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim" if they follow her example. All will have Christ born in them by the Holy Spirit. All will become temples of the living God. All will share in the eternal life of His Kingdom who live the life that Mary lived. In this sense everything that is praised and glorified in Mary is a sign of what is offered to all persons in the life of the Church. It is for this reason that Mary, with the divine child Jesus within her, is called in the Orthodox Tradition the Image of the Church. For the assembly of the saved is those in whom Christ dwells.

[RussianConservative]

During the ninth century this group of Slavs accepted Christianity under the preaching of Saints Cyril (for whom the Cyrillic alphabet is named) and Methodius, two Orthodox Greek monks. This Orthodox Christianity, however, was overtaken by German missionaries who converted the Western Slavs to Roman Catholicism. That’s why Czechs and Poles, for example, are Roman Catholics while Russians and Serbians are Orthodox Christians.

Where you learn history from? Your parts either lies or warped or make Islamic thinking look sane.

The earliest history of the Orthodox Church on the territory of the Czech Republic is connected with the mission of St. Cyril and Methodius, who came to this region from Constantinopole to introduce the liturgical and canonical order of Eastern Orthodox Church. After the death of Methodius in 885 this order was interdicted by Pope Stephen V and the disciples of these Slavonic apostles were forced to leave the country in which they had come to establish the Eastern canonical order. Our Orthodox Church follows the work of Cyril and Methodius and considers itself their heir.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Pope Benedict XV said of Mary that “[O]ne can justly say that with Christ, she herself redeemed mankind.” [In the Encyclical Intersodalicia (1918). Quoted in Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 1, page 196].

Pope Pius IX said, “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.” [In the Encyclical of February 2, 1849. Quoted in Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 1, page 196]

These are great "excerpts" that take the quoted words completely out of context. When you feel like learning what we really believe, George, feel free to consult the original sources rather than Evangelical misrepresentations.

But what about the Assumption of Mary? Where did this Roman doctrine originate historically and what position(s) has Rome held upon the Assumption of Mary?

Last I checked, the Orthodox and Copts and Syrians also held to this belief, and had Churches named after the feast and icons painted of it.

In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation.

The Popes condemned apocryphal works which distorted the truth. They never condemned the Assumption.

There is a very simple proof of the reality of the Assumption. The body and relics of Holy Mary are not to be found in any ancient Church, be it Roman Catholic, Eastern, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or the Church of the East. The body of St. James is in Campostella in Spain. St. Peter is under his basillica in Rome. St. Thomas is in India. Etc., etc., etc. No one has ever at any time, anywhere, claimed to have the bodily relics of Blessed Mary, who has always been considered the greatest of the saints.

Another proof - the Coptic and Syraic Churches which broke off from what I will call the Orthodox Catholic Church after the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) celebrate the Assumption liturgically. If the belief did not exist prior to that date, it seems incredible we would find them celebrating a feast from a Church they considered heretcal. In fact, the celebration of the feast can be shown to go back to the 4th Century in Antioch - prior to that, there simply are not written records on much, and so much from before then is lost.

This is why they pray to Mary ten times for each time they pray to God.

Only in the Holy Rosary. In the Holy Mass and the Breviary, the ratio is quite reversed.

What you've written is a wonderful exercise in Jungian distortion, and it happily has little to do with Catholic belief.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

As to how Blessed Mary could have been a sinner and somehow end up "more glorious than the cherubim", its a mystery!

[Hermann the Cherusker]

There was no "Greek Orthodox" Church in the 800's AD. There was simply one Church. St. Methodius worked in Moravia and Pannonia (Hungary), not Bohemia. Note well that he worked as commanded by the Pope. The conversion of the Czechs began with the Baptism of their princes at Ratisbon in Germany, in AD 846. Bohemia was part of the diocese of Ratisbon until AD 973, when the diocese of Prague was created.

Most Poles only converted after AD 996, and they went straight into the Latin Rite of the unified Church.

And from your second website, I hope you'll stop complaining about Catholic Bishops in Russia, so long as the Orthodox are creating Orthodox dioceses in Western Europe.

[RussianConservative]

I never had problem with Catholic in Russia, one of 5 official religions...where did I? I have problem with Catholic attitude.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Slav is a Latinism for Slaves. Yep, I said that. Its right there in the Concise Oxford Dictionary [...] "Even origin of word "Slav" is unsure.

You don't see the contradiction here?

In Slavic languages that word is "Slowianie"

In Russian it is slavyanskii.

"Slovene" etc, with obvious similarities to word "Slowo" meaning "Word", so "Slowianie" would mean "people who can speak" as opposed for Slavic word for Germans "Niemcy" that is, "dumb", "people who cannot speak". Other obvious similarity is to word "Slawa", that is "glory" or "praise"(with common root with "Slowo"), however some linguists believe that that obvious connections are false ..."

While many others believe that the obvious connection to slava/slovo is true.

I did point out that the Slavs called themselves Slovene, not Slavs or Slava.

Well, duh, "slavs" is an english word.

[RussianConservative]

Oh, and directed by Patriach of Rome maybe but taught Greek litergery. This is typical Catholic attitude that piss me and others off, again, I understand fully now Protestant anti-feelings toward Catholic.

In the eastern part of the present Slovak Republic the Orthodox Church lasted due to the influence of the Kiev Russia until the 17th century, when the Union with Rome was instituted by the Viennese Court, Jesuits and noblemen in 1649.

Oh, this how well Orthodox Church play with facists while some others like them better...no names need mentioning.

During the occupation and the World War II this small church showed how firmly it is connected with the Czech nation. The church proved its qualities like fighting spirit, bravery and devotion to matters of justice. By providing a shelter to Reichsprotector Heydrich's assassins, which were later disclosed by Nazis, the church was struck a hard blow. On 4th September 1942 Bishop Gorazd, Vaclav Cikl, the senior of the cathedral church, Dr Vladimir Petrek, the priest, and Jan Sonnevend, the chair of the board of elders, were shot dead. Their families and many other people died in a fascist concentration camp, the Orthodox priests were sent to forced labour, the church was interdicted and its property confiscated.

[Aliska]

claimed to have the bodily relics of Blessed Mary, who has always been considered the greatest of the saints.

That is a good point; however, is it possible that John could have anticipated this, possibly through revelation, and hid her body?