Joe wrote:
I believe the Orthodox is inferior (although only slightly) because it is seperated from Eternal Rome
Forgive me, but I think your history is skewed....It was the Romans (as in under Rome) who separated from the church....They shook the "dust" from their sandels when they left the church, not the other way around. Let's not confuse history......
Historically:
What brought matters to a head was the Norman French invasion of Italy. In 1052, the Normans forced Byzantine-Rite churches, of which there were many in Italy, to adopt Western customs. The Emperor at Constantinople reacted by shutting down all the Western-Rite churches in Constantinople that would not adopt Eastern customs, and there were many of them.
In the heat of this charged atmosphere, the Roman church changed in 1053 to the use of unleavened bread at the altar, a Jewish practice which aroused suspicion among the Easterners. Tempers were hot; therefore, Pope Leo IX sent a delegation headed by the most hot-tempered and tactless churchman available — Cardinal Humbert — to negotiate with Patriarch Michael of Constantinople (no model of patience himself). When Humbert and his cohorts arrived at New Rome, they refused the usual courtesies to the Patriarch and thrust into his hands a paper listing their demands, including the submission of all the Patriarchs of the East to the Pope. After this initial contact, Michael simply refused to meet with the delegation. Before long, Humbert lost patience and drew up a Bull of Excommunication against Michael and "those in sympathy with him."
Early on the morning of June 16, 1054, Humbert and the others entered the Cathedral before the service and slapped the Bull of Excommunication down upon the altar. Ignoring the Deacons who ran after them pleading with them to reconsider, they left the city, shook the dust off their feet, and reported to Rome. Curiously, Pope Leo, on whose authority they supposed they were acting, had died three months before they cast their sentence at Michael. The Patriarch, for his part, summoned a council of Bishops who excommunicated Humbert and "all those responsible" for the incident. At this point, communion between Rome and the East was effectively and irreversibly shattered.
In the 1080’s, the Eastern Patriarchs appealed to the Pope to initiate the standard procedure for re-establishing communion between two churches: they begged him to write a confession of faith, of the sort St. Gregory the Great had written to St. John the Faster, in accord with the Early Christian Fathers and Orthodox tradition. This was to be followed by their affirmation of the Pope as the most honored of Patriarchs, but it was not to be. The Pope angrily retorted that neither he nor his faith could ever be brought into question by mortal men
Schism or family quarrel?
Hindsight, as the saying goes, is 20/20, and as we look back on the events of 1054 we can detect a decisive rift between Christian West and Christian East. However, the original terms of the Schism were limited to a dispute between Rome itself and Constantinople itself, and there are signs of more closeness between other parts of Christian East and West during this time. For example, Western pilgrims to the Holy Land were still given Holy Communion by the Greek clergy at the holy places. In the minds of many Christians, the squabble between Old and New Rome might have been merely another family altercation of the sort which had happened before and could always happen again. Yet the Schism in 1054 was permanent, for several reasons:
Filioque: Before 1054, the filioque caused disturbances, but in the main the Popes stood firmly against it, which pacified the Eastern churches. After 1014, filioque invaded Rome itself and the Popes began ordering the Easterners to adopt it. In 1054, this was the only dogmatic issue on which Rome and the East could not at all see eye to eye. Soon after 1054, Western theologians hastened to justify the Creed change with a number of "dogmatic" opinions, cementing the mistake in place.
Papal Power: As we saw earlier, East-West unity was severely threatened in the 9th century by Pope Nicholas I’s power dramas. After a century of dormancy, a series of 11th-century Popes stirred up the unholy fires of ambition afresh, and Papal power reached its peak in the 13th century. At Rome, the papal pretensions finally grew so ingrained that no moderating voice could be found to reconcile Pope to Patriarchs.
Disparity of Customs: The Greeks were already wary of certain liturgical innovations adopted at Rome, such as unleavened bread (1053) and single-immersion baptisms (in some regions). This suspicion was often leveled against the West indiscriminately, and in some circles had risen to nothing short of a fever pitch. Ancient Western customs, such as omitting the singing of "alleluia" during Lent and the manner of preparing the bread and wine for the Eucharist, etc., were bitterly attacked.
However it is a proven historical fact that the ordinary of the Tridentine Mass (with the obvious exception of some of the names in the mementos) is older than any Liturgy still in use
If I was a liturgical Schmemanist I would be impressed! Thankfully, I'm not. :mrgreen: And knowing the divinely inspired nature of some of the Orthodox liturgies, I somehow find talk such as "my liturgy is older than yours! nyah!" rather irrelevant.
I'm really at a loss as to saying something about the whole pants thing. Every time I try I end up going into a long diatribe. To sum up: people seem to be caught up in cultural norms not their own. The point of Christian tradition regarding clothing for women is: seek modesty and do not appear "manly". The problem is that people mistakenly make custom into tradition, and fail to recognize that different cultures have different ideas about these topics. Some would see hair uncovered or "loose" at any time as immodest, for eample; for other cultures, this is no problem at all. Likewise, some might see pants as a purely manly article of clothing. If you believe that way, that's fine. You don't have a justifiable right to have a fit when the rest of us follow along with our culture (cf 1 Pet. 2:13-17 ) though, seeing pants as neutral, and acceptable for usage by women in some contexts (though not in Church).
Justin
Women's pants are generally cut differently from men's pants so what is the big deal? There is a distinction!
anastasios
Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.
