Wikipedia stupidity (What a surprise)

[Carpathian Wolf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

The awesome part:

ReligionRoman paganism until 391, Catholicism from 391-1054, Orthodox Christianity thereafter

ReligionRoman paganism until 391, Catholicism from 391-1054, Orthodox Christianity thereafterReligion Roman paganism until 391, Catholicism from 391-1054, Orthodox Christianity thereafter



Which Church maintains the old cannons and synoids from the 300s up to the schism? The Orthodox one.

Which church brought forth additions and changes, ignoring the ecumenical councils? the papal one...


So how can anyone make such a point?

[Stavroforos]

I think by Catholic church it means the single universal church which existed until the Schism of 1054, not the Roman Catholic Church.

[Carpathian Wolf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic

Thats what I get when I click the link. So to me it means that =/

[Stavroforos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic

Thats what I get when I click the link. So to me it means that =/

Probably an error or a deliberate error on the part of whoever put that link in there, since there is also a Wikipedia article on the "Catholic" church which basically just talks about the "holy catholic and apostolic" church, not a specific sect.

[MaximiIian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic
That's what I get when I click the link.

Up until the schism, the Bishop of Rome had precedence, though more of a first-among-equals system. The pre-schism Catholic(Orthodox) Church was similar enough to the post-schism Catholic Church to call it that.

No, Roman catholic church split from the cannonical communtiy of Christian churches...

No, the Patriach of Rome and Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. It wasn't just one excommunicating the other and being done with it. Both split.

[Iskender-bey]

The Catholic church of the time was also known as the Orthodox church if I remember correctly. This nomenclature exists due to the strict adherence to the Trinitarian concept by the Five Patriarchs (One of which eventually became the pope in Rome), one which was not accepted by all Christians, most notably the Arians. Anyways, the Orthodox church most people think of when they hear Orthodox is the set of Eastern Orthodox Churches which also regard itself as being catholic churches. Catholic comes from the Greek word καθολικός, meaning universal. Hence the "I believe in th Holy Catholic Church" line from the Apostle's Creed.

[bushbush]

stuff related to religious conflict is always very subjective, especially in regards to being who was the right side and wrong side in a conflict from the past; every side will always see itself as the one being right all along and others as heretic. No surprise.

[Iskender-bey]

Wikipedia follows the general notability rule. When people think of Catholic, one usually thinks of Rome and the pope. Thus, when people type in Catholic church on Wikipedia, the article on the Roman Catholic Church pops up. As a further example, when one types in Persia, (s)he will get an article on Iran. I don't know who does it, but apparently they decided to do this since many people refer to Iran as Persia.

[Publius Clodius Pulcher]

Also, remember that Orthodoxy simply means staying true to the original foundings. The organization of the Catholic church was founded in the Roman era, and then the Orthodox faction split from the established church hierarchy after the Great Schism. The official hierarchy of the Catholic church continues from Roman era to the present, and in 1054, the eastern section of that church split from said political hierarchy. Afterwards, the Catholic church became the Roman Catholic church to distinguish the two eras, but Orthodoxy is a split from the established church, not it's continuation.

EDIT: And I SWEAR, if you try to claim that the political hierarchy and official succession of the church don't matter, only maintaining it's traditions do, my head will explode. If you say that, my inevitable comeback will then be to make you admit that the Byzantine Empire wasn't Roman, because you can't have it both ways.

[CiviC]

Also, remember that Orthodoxy simply means staying true to the original foundings. The organization of the Catholic church was founded in the Roman era, and then the Orthodox faction split from the established church hierarchy after the Great Schism. The official hierarchy of the Catholic church continues from Roman era to the present, and in 1054, the eastern section of that church split from said political hierarchy. Afterwards, the Catholic church became the Roman Catholic church to distinguish the two eras, but Orthodoxy is a split from the established church, not it's continuation.

EDIT: And I SWEAR, if you try to claim that the political hierarchy and official succession of the church don't matter, only maintaining it's traditions do, my head will explode. If you say that, my inevitable comeback will then be to make you admit that the Byzantine Empire wasn't Roman, because you can't have it both ways.

Untill 1054 there was ONE Church, neither Catholic neither Orthodox (of course we exclude some splinters that were not the main stream).

After 1054 the one true church splited between Catholic and Orthodox : both are equal succesors of the original church, not Orthodoxs are splited from the Catholic Church as you say. The motives are mainly political, not theological, and today both Catholics and Orthodoxs consider their Churches Sisters.
Going back to 1054, the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and The Patriarch of Constantinople threw anathems on eachother. The main reason was that Catholics pretended that the Pope is the universal leader of the Church, while Orthodox rejected that pretension.

And the Byzantine Empire (as it was named after the fall of Constantinople) it was always named as long it existed as the Roman Empire, because it was continously the same state as that founded by Augustus, not like the later imitations, as Carolingian/Holy Roman Empire that were "restaurations", and had no political tradition. It was Roman in a political sense, not an ethnic sense (ethnicity wasn't that important in Middle Ages in politics). Its citizens named themselves "Romei" because they were Roman citizens (that quality was never retreated from them, because they lived in the same state as Augustus lived) - anyway being a Roman citizen never designed an ethnicity, always the Roman Empire from the times of Caesar had a Eastern part that had a Hellenistic/Greek culture and language, but that doesn't meant they were less "Roman".

[Stavroforos]

Also, remember that Orthodoxy simply means staying true to the original foundings. The organization of the Catholic church was founded in the Roman era, and then the Orthodox faction split from the established church hierarchy after the Great Schism. The official hierarchy of the Catholic church continues from Roman era to the present, and in 1054, the eastern section of that church split from said political hierarchy. Afterwards, the Catholic church became the Roman Catholic church to distinguish the two eras, but Orthodoxy is a split from the established church, not it's continuation.

EDIT: And I SWEAR, if you try to claim that the political hierarchy and official succession of the church don't matter, only maintaining it's traditions do, my head will explode. If you say that, my inevitable comeback will then be to make you admit that the Byzantine Empire wasn't Roman, because you can't have it both ways.

Both Churches split from each other, so both Churches are a continuation of the original Catholic Church.

[clandestino]

Also, remember that Orthodoxy simply means staying true to the original foundings. The organization of the Catholic church was founded in the Roman era, and then the Orthodox faction split from the established church hierarchy after the Great Schism. The official hierarchy of the Catholic church continues from Roman era to the present, and in 1054, the eastern section of that church split from said political hierarchy. Afterwards, the Catholic church became the Roman Catholic church to distinguish the two eras, but Orthodoxy is a split from the established church, not it's continuation

Actually Roman Catholic church split from the rest of Christendom cause of it's dogmatical and canonical errors so it can't be considered as continuation of original Christian church.

[clandestino]

No, Roman catholic church split from the cannonical communtiy of Christian churches by accepting non-Nicean credo and altering some other decissions of oecumenical councils, the dogma of Orthodox churches haven't change a bit since last oecumenical council while Roman Catholic church had introduced many novelties which makes it very different then pre-schism church.

[Stavroforos]

No, Roman catholic church split from the cannonical communtiy of Christian churches by accepting non-Nicean credo and altering some other decissions of oecumenical councils, the dogma of Orthodox churches haven't change a bit since last oecumenical council while Roman Catholic church had introduced many novelties which makes it very different then pre-schism church.

Still doesn't mean that they're not a continuation of the original Church, only perhaps that they have (in your perspective at least) erred in their interpretations and practices. However they have not gone so far against the original teachings and traditions of the Church so as to be considered a "different" Church like the Anglicans or the various Protestant sects.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Also, remember that Orthodoxy simply means staying true to the original foundings. The organization of the Catholic church was founded in the Roman era, and then the Orthodox faction split from the established church hierarchy after the Great Schism. The official hierarchy of the Catholic church continues from Roman era to the present, and in 1054, the eastern section of that church split from said political hierarchy. Afterwards, the Catholic church became the Roman Catholic church to distinguish the two eras, but Orthodoxy is a split from the established church, not it's continuation.

If you want to talk about which Church is the continuation based on a political level, you can't say the "Catholic" church is it because it stopped being Roman a bit after Justinian. In any case that is non sense. The real issue is that the papal church (Or Roman Catholic even though the name to me makes about as much sense as Holy Roman Empire) CHANGED many things on a theological level. If you want to bring Peter in the equation, sorry Peter was Bishop of Antioch first. Let's talk just about the filioque. Why did Bishop Gregory (IIRC his name) in Rome argue against the Franks in adding the filioque?

EDIT: And I SWEAR, if you try to claim that the political hierarchy and official succession of the church don't matter, only maintaining it's traditions do, my head will explode. If you say that, my inevitable comeback will then be to make you admit that the Byzantine Empire wasn't Roman, because you can't have it both ways.

Rome stopped being a political entity of the Roman Empire long before the Schism. This is pretty basic history, friend.

Untill 1054 there was ONE Church, neither Catholic neither Orthodox (of course we exclude some splinters that were not the main stream).

This is non sense. There was the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and those who maintained it were Orthodox. What you see today in Rome is a hybrid of Christianity and Frankish paganism. The Church before 1054 is maintained today as "the Orthodox Church." The "Catholic church" is the one that adopted the changes introduced in the west.

After 1054 the one true church splited between Catholic and Orthodox : both are equal succesors of the original church, not Orthodoxs are splited from the Catholic Church as you say. The motives are mainly political, not theological, and today both Catholics and Orthodoxs consider their Churches Sisters.

This is complete non sense. Father Justin Popovic speaks that this notion is the greatest heresy of the Church of the 20th century (and probably 21st as well.) Politics is an issue in the west. In the east there is a system of checks and balances that doesn't allow politics to over come the theological aspect of the Church. The mentality of the two institutions is like black and white in difference. The sole purpose of the "catholic church" or papal church as I say was simply so that Charlamagne and his heirs could hijack the Roman Empire.

Going back to 1054, the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and The Patriarch of Constantinople threw anathems on eachother. The main reason was that Catholics pretended that the Pope is the universal leader of the Church, while Orthodox rejected that pretension.

The Bishop of Rome at the time wanted to be boss of the whole church. He had a special place in the Roman Empire even though at the time Rome wasn't in the Empire, due to simply the prestige of Rome...on paper. And the rest of the Church rejected the heresy from Rome along with the other heresies such as the filioque.

Both Churches split from each other, so both Churches are a continuation of the original Catholic Church.

Not when one of them changed so many things. You can't consider it the same in a theological sense.

Still doesn't mean that they're not a continuation of the original Church, only perhaps that they have (in your perspective at least) erred in their interpretations and practices. However they have not gone so far against the original teachings and traditions of the Church so as to be considered a "different" Church like the Anglicans or the various Protestant sects.

Oh yes they can be considered altered.. If you follow the theology of the filioque it is Anti-Hristic.

[CiviC]

This is non sense. There was the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and those who maintained it were Orthodox. What you see today in Rome is a hybrid of Christianity and Frankish paganism. The Church before 1054 is maintained today as "the Orthodox Church." The "Catholic church" is the one that adopted the changes introduced in the west.



This is complete non sense. Father Justin Popovic speaks that this notion is the greatest heresy of the Church of the 20th century (and probably 21st as well.) Politics is an issue in the west. In the east there is a system of checks and balances that doesn't allow politics to over come the theological aspect of the Church. The mentality of the two institutions is like black and white in difference. The sole purpose of the "catholic church" or papal church as I say was simply so that Charlamagne and his heirs could hijack the Roman Empire.



The Bishop of Rome at the time wanted to be boss of the whole church. He had a special place in the Roman Empire even though at the time Rome wasn't in the Empire, due to simply the prestige of Rome...on paper. And the rest of the Church rejected the heresy from Rome along with the other heresies such as the filioque.

I'm a Christian Orthodox and I don't share your opinions, I find them to biased. What you say is the oposite to what a biased Catholic would say. I prefer the rational middle way.

[Stavroforos]

I'm a Christian Orthodox and I don't share your opinions, I find them to biased. What you say is the oposite to what a biased Catholic would say. I prefer the rational middle way.

I agree with this this thoughtful position.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I'm a Christian Orthodox and I don't share your opinions, I find them to biased. What you say is the oposite to what a biased Catholic would say. I prefer the rational middle way.

What is the middle rational way inbetween a lie and truth? If you have a choice inbetween going right and going left and going right takes you home, and someone tells you "let's go the middle rational way" does this get you home or lost in the woods?

[bushbush]

I'm a Christian Orthodox and I don't share your opinions, I find them to biased. What you say is the oposite to what a biased Catholic would say. I prefer the rational middle way.

maybe this thread should be in the ethos forum...since it's becoming somewhat a religious debate, which is, frankly speaking, inherently biased.

[Carpathian Wolf]

It would be good to note that in this aspect theology and history go hand in hand. One happened because of the other.