No, I haven't forgotten.
We'll start with this one, although I don't have much hope that it will be accepted as nothing daniel has posted which is well researched, has been either.
The EO do not accept the supremacy of the pope.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm
UNAM SANCTAM Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
you alleged that different rites of the Catholic Church had different teachings on salvation. The EO are not a rite of the Catholic Church, do you understand what you are talking about?
|
More As concerns Unam Sanctum, its plain inference is that the Orthodox are damned, but as often seen here, and in an 2006 FR thread on that subject, and in which you can see both sides represented, as with so much of infallible and non-infallible pronouncements (once you use your fallible human reasoning to full separate the two), this is open to interpretation. While there are Catholics* and Orthodox who hold that the plain import of Unam Sanctum is that all who will not confide themselves to the pope, submitting themselves to his care as the supreme magistrate, yet the majority view in Catholicism is that this does not excommunicate them, or that “excommunicate” does not necessarily mean they are damned. And the few today who hold that EENS (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus = outside the Church® there is no salvation) statements exclude Protestant do not see it has exlding Eastern Orthodox**. Besides linguistics, most Roman Catholics will explain the more exclusive understanding Unam Sanctum away by saying that it was directed against French Catholics who were not submitting to the pope, and was part of an effort to to force the French bishops to pay a papal tax. And some will state that the current Catholic understanding of such EENS statements means that ultimately salvation comes instrumentally through her, thus allowing some Protestants to be saved (“how” being problematic and open to interpretation), and will assert that the Church does not have the power to “send” anyone to Hell. We have seen the sophistry regarding the latter recently here, being akin to arguing that the Supreme court does not have the power to send one to the electric chair, though those that do await its decision, while as many statements attest, formal submission to the pope was meant, with damnation being assured for those who would not. The East–West Schism between Rome and the EOs formally dates to a mutual excommunication of 1054, however, the historical reasons for the this must be appreciated, and both sides vary in their understanding of the causes, or the degree of importance regarding the issues involved. Below are excerpts from the WP article on the East–West Schism (which, with its notes, I think gives a fair, if not fully indisputable, concise description) The East–West Schism of 1054, sometimes known as the Great Schism,[1] formally divided the State church of the Roman Empire into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches, which later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, respectively. Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes.[2] Prominent among these were the issues of "filioque", and whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist,[3] the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.[4] Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius heightened the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains. In 1054, Roman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches.[2] Cerularius refused. The leader of the Latin contingent, Cardinal Humbert, excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and other legates The validity of the Western legates' act is doubtful, since Pope Leo had died, while Cerularius's excommunication applied only to the legates personally.[2] Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed, with each side accusing the other of having fallen into heresy and of having initiated the division. The Crusades, the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, the capture and sack of Constantinople in 1204, and the imposition of Latin Patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult.[2] This included the taking of many precious religious artifacts and the destruction of the Library of Constantinople. Apparently in mutual mudslinging, the charges of the papal Bull against the Patriarch of Constantinople and his followers (not against all the Orthodox), were that , like Simoniacs, they sell the gift of God; like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy; like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins; like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world; like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar; like Severians, they say that the law of Moses is accursed; like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; like the Manichaeans among others, they state that leave is ensouled (animatum); like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and, in refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan; and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church. For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to repent. — http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf Oddly enough, the mutual excommunication of 1054 was partly due to one of the significant forgeries (among others) Rome used to assert her supremacy, that of the Donation of Constantine, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850, and often cited during during the Middle Ages in support of the Roman Church's claims to spiritual and temporal authority (and later exposed as a forgery by a humanist Italian Catholic priest and others in the early 1400s, though its authenticity was occasionally defended till about 1600.) In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent a letter to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, that cited a large portion of the forgery called the Donation of Constantine, believing it genuine.[56] The official status of this letter is acknowledged in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, entry on Donation of Constantine.[57] "The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon it was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood."[58] Leo IX assured the Patriarch that the donation was completely genuine, not a fable or old wives' tale, so only the apostolic successor to Peter possessed that primacy and was the rightful head of all the Church. The Patriarch rejected the claims of papal primacy, and subsequently the Catholic Church was split in two in the Great East-West Schism of 1054. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Mutual_excommunication_of_1054 * Catholics who hold to Unam Sanctum as damning the Orthodox, and by extension all who have removed themselves from the care of the pope, would be mostly found among sedevacantists, such as state, Thus we are left with an apologetical task brethren, to dismantle the position of the eastern hoard of schismatics, those servants of the diabolical one who claim to be the sheep of Christ but are not. For Our Predecessor Boniface VIII declared concerning these liars who have abandoned the Ark in his Bull of 1302: Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' These schismatics are hidden beasts presenting themselves as men. http://www.romancatholicism.net/epistle20120205.htm Note that the above sedevacantist group may not speak for all of them, but is one of the many sects within Catholicism interpreting Scripture, Tradition and history differently, as they have no assured infallible interpreter of their assuredly infallible magisterium. This “ultramontane” group, which musters an extensive list of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus statements, (http://www.romancatholicism.net/extraecclesiam.htm), is the most extreme in its positions, but not without warrant for all of them based upon historical documents, though its holds that, “The Vatican II cult, headed by Benedict XVI, is a false sect. It is not the original catholic faith. John XXIII (1958) and his successors inhabiting the Vatican have all been false popes.” **One might think that a Catholic who holds that Protestants can only be saved if they die in Catholics faith might also place the same requirement on the Eastern Orthodox since they reject papal infallibility and Romish supremacy as being consistent with Tradition, Scripture and history. But while both claim to be the particular OTC in fullness, each claiming , apostolic succession even though their lines differ (and while Catholics use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 to support apostolic succession, yet tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church), and “to be authentic, a bishop must teach Apostolic Faith” (which they somewhat significantly differ on), so that a “Bishop who breaks away from the unity of the Church loses his claim to Apostolic Office,” (http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076) yet both sides overall see each other as legitimate bishops and proper successors of Peter. For Rome as holds, “once a priest always a priest” (and in ordination if they “intend to do what Rome does”), though this leads to more “Catholic” denominations. (http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurchnp.com) Yet besides some Catholics excluding EOs, some EOs hold that the apostolic succession of Roman Catholicism is valid but is “basically empty and devoid of any importance since they are no longer part of the Apostolic Church,” (http://www.orthodoxforum.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=537) and the excommunication of Orthodox was mutual. Besides the excommunication by Patriarch Michael Cærularius of Pope Leo IX, St Mark of Ephesus wrote, We have excised and cut them [the Papists] off from the common body of the Church, we have, therefore, rejected them as heretics, and for this reason we are separated from them"; they are, therefore, heretics, and we have cut them off as heretics. All of which examples how under sola ecclesia and not just under SS there can be formal divisions, besides internal uncertainty and disagreements (yet note the standard for obedience and testing truth claims). Comments and some of the issues of disagreements are provided here. |