You took the words out of my mouth. The Russian Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe benefitted enormously when Stalin confiscated all the Catholic Churches and seminaries and handed many of them over to the Orthodox Churches. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, some of these properties were handed back to the original owners, but most were not.
I think Putin is still using the Russian Orthodox Church for corrupt political purposes, and they are still happy to be used since it gives them a monopoly position and a lot of perks.
BTTT
The Schism resulted from what by my lights are rather insignificant quibbles over leavened vs. unleavened bread for the Host, dating of religous holidays on the calendar, and minor differences in the wording of the Nicene Creed. The Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople didn't get along and excommunicated each other over this kind of trivia.
Both of them acted in violation of Christ's instruction that the Church should be of one body, and both branches of the Church are obligated to try their best to heal the Schism.
In my opinion, the Catholic Church under John Paul the Great has made a worthy effort towards this goal. The Eastern churches basically spit in his eye.
-ccm
Here is irony for you -- Catholics wonder about the lack of progress in relations with the Orthodox, and in the same breath demonize these same Orthodox they are supposedly trying to merge with, heaping hatred upon them. How can the Orthodox resist such overwhelming Christian love and understanding? Maybe the real problem is staring these Catholics in the face? It certainly would be, if they looked hard in the mirror.
Interesting that some vocal catholics basically dismiss the entire Russian Orthodox church as communist. One can only appreciate what a vile insult this is, if one knows that the Russian Orthodox endured perhaps the greatest slaughter and martydom of Christians in the past century at the hands of the communists. Communist agents in the priesthood were readily identified and purged when communism fell, and Communism is not taught in Russian seminaries (I really wonder about "liberation theology" embraced in a minority of Catholic seminaries, though).
Of course, the Orthodox/Roman Catholic split long predates the existence of communism, so perhaps it is folly to focus on it as a reason for the split. Perhaps it is easy and emotionally satisfying to caricature sincere Orthodox christians as a bunch of communists rather than facing the problems honestly. Unfortunately such ugly gossiping about the Orthodox sets back true understanding and poisons the well.
Cicero actually suggests that the Russian Orthodox benefited from Stalin. This is about as intellectually honest as saying Hitler benefitted the Jews. Educate yourself about the catastrophe of slaughter and repression the Russian Orthodox endured under Stalin. A couple of seminaries weighed against this means nothing.
CCmay first dismisses any substantive reason for the split, then questions how papal infallibility could be a reason for it when it came 800 years later. You have to understand there were substantive reasons for the split, and then later there were additional obstacles placed in the way of reunification. The recent innovation of papal infallibility would fall in the second category of additional obstacles. The introduction of papal supremacy, versus papal primacy, would be an example of one of the substantive reasons for original split.
Another additional obstacle is the fact that one of the crusades targetted the Orthodox equivalent of Rome, desecreting, slaughtering and looting fellow Christians. A huge number of religious artifacts in Vatican museums today are dated 1204, the date they were stolen from Constantinople.
A further obstacle would be the extremely tragic history of the Uniates, which goes a very long way to explaining mistrust of Catholic moves in Orthodox countries today. The pope unfortunately exacerbated this wound by sainting one of the key historical uniate figures associated with these attrocities against the orthodox. Sadly this article mentioned nothing about the uniate history, or much of anything else from the perspective of the orthodox.
Nor does the article explain the Orthodox perspective on how several recent Catholic misteps in Russia soured relations. For example, the naming of 12 new catholic Dioceses in Russia on Feb 2002 basically made the Orthodox think that the Catholic "two lungs of the same church" encyclical was a big lie. To use CCmay's words, the Orthodox felt like this was spitting in their eye -- it brought ecumenical efforts in Russia to an abrupt halt, and doomed any possibility of a papal visit.
CCmay dismisses the change to the Nicene creed as mere wording. A very serious theological point is involved, regarding the nature of who is worshipped, one which earlier Catholics in an ecumenical council declared could never, ever be changed -- because it was so essential to the faith. A person who does not care what and how they are worshipping might dismiss a foundational prayer as mere words that are as good as one another. That attitude is alien to the Orthodox. This particular problem could easily be solved, just go back to the prayer that was good enough for the Christians of the first 12 centuries. The pope had no problem reading the original version.
Basically Orthodox believe as Catholics did of the first millenium, and several roman catholic innovations in the second millenium pose additional alienating obstacles to reunification (western catholics of the first centuries might well be equally alienated if they were alive today). Certain aspects of Vatican II probably didn't help. Any future move to admit women or openly gay priests would pose additional obstacles -- thankfully it doesn't look like that will happen.
Hopefully I'm not writing this in vain. Reunification is not going to happen when folks caricature the history, problems, and people involved. I do sincerely pray for unification on the basis of truth. It's not going to happen through trickery, pretending essential aspects of the faith don't matter, or pretending things are the same when they aren't.
Maybe it feels good for some to listen to the roman Catholic echo chamber that completely ignores the Orthodox perspective -- where the roman Catholics are portrayed as being the *only ones* reaching out and doing nothing wrong, and the Russian orthodox are caricatured as all communists being difficult for no substantive reason. Perpetuating this false illusion just sets relations further back. When you demonize the orthodox, you do the demons work. Why not put the same energy into sincere understanding, and have a little humility about it. Then we can all unify on the basis of the original truth faith and be one.
Pre Vatican II, I would not be saved. Post Vatican II, I'm saved, but not fully and only because of and through the Catholic Church. All of it, hogwash.
I don't follow the Catholic Church. I follow an Apostolic Church. A Church founded by the Apostles.
I will never achnowledge the Pope as the head of the Christian Church. The head of the Church is Jesus. I am saved because of belief in Christ, not because of belief in the Pope. The Pope is just a man, elected by men.
The dream of uniting Christianity will never happen. It's a fool's errand.
Luke 22: 24 A dispute also arose among them (the 12 Apostles), as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
It would be so easy if Jesus would have just said, "Peter, of course." He did not. It would be easy if the Apostles discussed this again after Jesus's ascension. They did not.
The whole arguement over Peter is based on two verses: Matthew 16:18-19. These are the only verse that the Catholic Church can point to so they can claim all of Christianity. If this was such a pivotal moment, why at the end of the discussion does Jesus focus on himself, rather than Peter.
Matthew 16:20 - Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
But what about Peter?...
3 verses later, Matthew 16:23 - But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."
If Peter was so important he would have been mentioned in verse 20. If Peter was so important he would not be rebuked less than 5 verses after the cornerstone verse of the Catholic Church. (My personal opinion, of course)
The Church is built on the knowledge that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God". (Matt 16:16) The Church was built on the rock by the Apostles after the Ascension.
I follow an Apostolic Church, and I will never accept the authority of the Catholic Church. So what is there to discuss?
The Catholics have been doing this, primarly by the sword, for the past 1000 years. The catholic invasions of Kieven Russ during the Mongol invasions, when the princes asked their western Christian brothers for help, is a prime example.
A big job for the next Pope. Problem is that Ukrainian/Russian Orthodox Church got infested with KGB operatives parading as priests being tool of Soviet Oppressors
Something you guys will never understand: we Orthodox do not wish to be under the Papal Yoke. No more so then the protestants.
The headline at the end of Reagan's term might also have been "Reagans Dream of Defeating Communism Goes Unfulfilled". These things take time.
Jesus Christ, son of the living God, have mercy on all of us, sinners.
Amen.