which separated from each other?
We often hear expressions like this: "When the east is separated from the West", "when the Orthodox Church broke away from Roman", "the Greek schismatics" (see Cambridge) and now, as required ecumenical courtesy ... "separated brethren"! Thus, in the consciousness of Western people, the belief was formed in 1054, the Orthodox Church of the East ... separated from Rome "for various historical reasons and the wickedness of man."
A clarification is needed. In fact, we did not separate of anyone. Indeed, the 34th Apostolic Canon provides: " The bishops of each nation must know who is the first of them regard him as their head, and do nothing without his opinion, but do only what is incumbent upon each in its territory and the country annexed to it. But it also (the first) must not do anything without the opinion of all. Only in this way there will be harmony and God will be glorified by the Lord in the Holy Spirit ... "Thus, the structure of ecclesial orthodoxy is based on the apostolic tradition which prescribed the system of autocephalous churches, structured independently one another, "closed", so to speak, about their administration and internal affairs.
No legal interdependence has never existed among the autocephalous churches, each enjoying complete autonomy. The Orthodox Church does not know and never had another form of church structure. If subsequently various autocephalous churches, for purely historical and human, have enjoyed a certain prestige or some rule (in chronological order: Jerusalem - Antioch - Rome - Constantinople), this was to purely honored and moral, but never involved a canonical supremacy of a local church from another local church or centralism on the whole Church.
Each local church is in itself the image of the Church's fullness!
This was historically the relationship between Eastern and Western churches, because at that time all the churches of the West (eg Church of Spain) were not absorbed by Rome.
We do not know not and have never seen a barrel equivalent who prescribed another church structure as defined by the aforementioned third Apostolic Canon. We have never been under the tutelage of Roman and canon law so that we can we impute a "revolt", a "schism" or "posting" of a higher hierarchy. We never existed as part of a Church with a supreme head on earth.
Our relations with Rome, with one rule in dignity stipulated by the 28th canon of the fourth ecumenical council, relations were church-sisters, as equals, and we never existed as a dependency or attachment of the Roman Church.
The gun in question says: "The fathers have attributed the length (or doyenneté) to the throne of ancient Rome, for he was ruling in a city ..." and not because of an alleged divine right of succession from St. Peter.
Even if one takes seriously the challenges of future popes in this regard, it is nonetheless clear that, after Apostolic canons and ecumenical, "the Greeks" have never recognized the pope at Rome anything but a primacy of honor PRIMUS INTER PARES (first among equals). But if, in ancient times, popes have claimed a "divine right to rule", this has always been repulsed by the Greeks (broadly defined) as a unilateral claim of a local church. We can not speak of an acceptance of the undivided Church "on the alleged" divine rights "of the bishop of Rome, several popes have also denounced the idea as absurd.
There has never been "cut", "rupture" or "separation" canonical Orthodox Churches and legal headquarters in Rome, for the mere reason that the Orthodox churches have always been "autocephalous" and " SELF "from the origins of their Apostolic Tradition. It would simply show ignorance to suppose that such autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox churches is either a late phenomenon and later, an expansion of local power, granted as a benefit or privilege granted by dominance hierarchy. The autocephalous Orthodox churches is born with them, it is an integral part of their hypostasis.
The patriarchs of the East have never been ... cardinals, but also the patriarch of the West. The patriarchs of the East have always been independent from their origin as well as the patriarch of the West! (Whether we excuse our rehearsals, but it must be a growing awareness!) Therefore, the Greeks called "schismatic" can not be ignorance or dishonesty theological .
Secondly: disruptions between East and West before the fatal date of 1054 represent a period of time which in total is well over two centuries. These failures were repeated (we indicate this so that we do not assume that the Greeks are "fallen" into schism inadvertently!) If these failures were repeated, is that they were aware: that proves that the Greeks before 1054 did not consider as a condition sine qua non their full ecclesial communion in sacris with ancient Rome! These failures could not be explained if the Greeks had seen the pope as the head of the Catholic Church. But these breaks (and other acts and attitudes that we see later) show that for them at the beginning of the undivided Church, the communion of the interruption in sacris hardly detract their ecclesial fullness. They do not feel crippled because of this interruption, but could live in the fullness of grace be with the pope, or without him.
When have we ever made amends to the pope for having despised his role as so-called "infallible leader of the Church," "Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth" and "by right divine successor of the apostle Peter, "or when we have received and acknowledged as such?
Whoever ignores vehemence with which the Orthodox East for centuries prior to 1054, fought against the dogmatic and liturgical innovations of the West ( Filioque , Saturday fasting, celibacy priests, the bishop alone chrismation, unleavened bread), and who is not aware of the excommunications which then crossed both sides, obviously can not easily understand the full independence that the Orthodox East has always opposed to Rome, pretentious ally of the Emperor Charlemagne.
The mere fact that we can convene a council and the pope excommunicated and anathematized even in some cases ( Honorius), proves that we have never admitted nor as our leader, or that we have never held infallible because of its function sine concessum ecclesiae (without the consensus of the Church). For how could we excommunicate "our leader", which by its very function received the gift of infallibility, without needing the consent of the Church?
So do not be confused with the so-called orthodox "Patriarchs" Uniate and servile, pathetic position in the councils of Rome, fading by taking the name of ... Cardinals!
us Our patriarchs were never Cardinals. Each autocephalous, Orthodox in the east, designated, chosen, elected, swore and inducted its bishops and patriarchs by his own initiative and under his own responsibility. Once the patriarch was consecrated and enthroned, his name is communicated to the other patriarchs as a sign of unity and catholicity of the Church. But our bishops and our patriarchs were never elected or appointed by Pope, and they never received any nomination of him! In addition, our patriarchs, when they saw fit, excommunicated the Pope of Rome, which shows that their behavior toward him has always been a behavior of equals.
In addition, since we have always had disputes with Rome over land claims (eg the Church of Bulgaria, Greek Sicily, etc..). During these disputes, the patriarch of Rome and Constantinople demanded the incorporation of a territory to its own local church. This claim would also be a nonsense if Rome had been the mistress of the whole Church: How could she claim anything from Constantinople, supposedly under its jurisdiction, if Constantinople itself had belonged to him!
We did not separate after 1054 while supposedly in the background "Roman Catholic" or "strong-headed" (somewhat along the lines of "Gallican liberties" or "Council of Basel"), but since Orthodoxy has always had its own voice, she has always heard and that voice has never confessed to the papal system! We have never been "unaware that Catholics", but Instead, we have always protested against all the innovations of Rome from the beginning and very vigorously.
We have always regarded the system of the papacy as an arrogant claim, as an adulterous system and completely alien to the Holy Apostolic Tradition! We did never separated, but we have always denounced and protested against the innovations of Rome.
We were always accused of "frigidity" morbid instead of recognizing our Immutability! We confess Christ an eternal and immutable, and the Church, his Body and his wife, also eternal and unchanging image of her divine Spouse. Practices of church life to its smallest details: fasting, dress, customs, bearing the seal of the holy and life-giving Spirit, and you can not touch it without fear and trembling. Though for the worship of the Old Covenant, God has not neglected the most insignificant details, up to indicate the color of goat hair for making the tabernacle and the number of pickets to use, what veneration should we not now to worship the grace in which we are facing not a law engraved in stone, but Legislator of himself?
Who authorized the Roman pope and to put the sacred business of divine worship upside down, place the life of the Church to the trailer to this deceitful and perishable world, cut, add, change, change? Where do they take their traditions of aggiornamento , RENEWAL, FITNESS?
That shows if we ourselves have changed anything in dogmas, canons and ecclesiastical structure, and we will do penance.
What would our "schism," our "separation" or our heresy? If so we have changed nothing, if there was no home TRAVEL, how could we charge separation? We remain united to the Holy Apostolic Tradition, which knows and has always ignored the Filioque, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, papal infallibility, the liturgical reforms, the aggiornamento. Although there has been separation, but it was not performed by the Orthodox Church. Claim that Orthodoxy split from Rome, it would argue that because of the fall, God has separated from the man. But God is immutable in nature, the responsibility of separation, distance, distance between the Creator and the creature weighs about man alone!
Who then is separated from the other? we could answer it is just a pun. But it's a word game extremely dangerous that Rome has been very effective use. She wanted to put in the position of Orthodoxy "sponsor" she always tries to do these days, even if it replaced the term "schismatic" by "separated brother ," which means exactly the same thing. She wants to impose in people's consciousness the idea that Orthodoxy supposedly violated the primitive church structures and should be justified and answer for his transgression attitude, position "schismatic." After being named as guilty, he is now somewhat easier to pardon him and forgive him. This is the same logic.
However, Orthodoxy refuses the bench of the accused regarding the old church structures. By nature, she does not respond, nor to justify itself being judge and not charged! Of course, if we were administratively or canonically united with Rome, we should leave her where we would consider that faith is in danger. And in this case, we would have we "defend" and "justify" our decision to schism. While in reality, according to the structure of the Church before 1054, we're not even in the case of a "schism justified", having nothing transgressed the old structures.
That calls us "separated brethren" is a term accepted unilaterally but that we do and do not agree. If we are brothers, we can not be separated in sacris , because if we are separated in sacris ... we are not brothers!
Rome, unfortunately, insists on watching us from the top of his clemency. She wants to convince us that we are Catholic in spite of ourselves. Maybe the Catholics somewhat apart and somewhat bizarre, a little margin, but Catholics nonetheless. She would persuade us despite ourselves to be what we are not. Stress is a method like any other. It's a strategy!
While it is exhausting to argue. It is very dangerous for ourselves to take the attitude of "defenders" of Orthodoxy. However, we live in an age where confusion reigns everywhere. This forces us to be on our guard, is alas several hierarchs of the Orthodox Church are only spread and feed this confusion. This compels us to remind them that we expect more from them.
It goes without saying that this polemic is not directed to Catholics as individuals. We do we draw even against the pope himself as a person. We do not question nor virtue, neither the sincerity nor the good intentions of anyone. We are obliged to watch both the pope and Catholics in general as people who are absolutely sincere and good faith. However, neither good faith nor the sincerity in themselves are sufficient in our relationship with God. There are millions of sincere people and in good faith that are lost in different philosophical systems and religions.
We can not understand Rome and we doubt that Rome understands itself! His theological attitude toward us has no basis or reason. She says we are "schismatic" or if you prefer "separated brethren", but admits that our sacraments are valid, we have the grace of the priesthood, we can achieve in our church and hello sanctification! But if this is true, then Rome itself denies. Either it accepts that there can be two churches on the earth! A workshop of salvation and sanctification that would work in parallel with the Church! But in this case, the pope and his dogmas become merely desirable but not essential.
What about this? Theological ignorance? Confusion knowingly maintained? Deadlock or system of the papacy? We have always said, and we took to be "fanatics" and "backward", that Popery Latin is the source of all spiritual anarchy of the West and all heresies and sects followed. Popery Latin is also the cause of the current crisis in the Roman Church. Crisis current is not an accident, it's just the fever of an illness that lasts from the outset. But Rome, with its subtlety and its extraordinary powers of adaptation, might well emerge from this crisis, while preserving its unity and world prestige through reforms very well studied and intelligently applied. We are not talking about the issue of "faith" because it seems to have relegated it to second place. It is rather concerned about its strength and its glory rather than a living faith, having literally robotic its clergy and faithful, having transformed into docile instruments and manageable for its domination.
But not us, nor to his record, nor to propose remedies, it does not need us. What concerns us is the attitude of unconscious and scandalous many Orthodox hierarchs do everything possible to immerse ourselves in the current confusion. Do they forget that if we are contaminated by the same virus, our absorption by the Roman megatherium only be a matter of time and circumstances? These hierarchs would really get us out of this freedom we have in obedience to God for us to swallow rank of "satellite" Uniate intended to follow Rome in all its phases ... "Evolution"? These bishops have already forgotten the Orthodox streams of blood that flowed there is barely 30 years by the murderous hand of kindness Roman Orthodox Serbia, and their leader, by his silence, approved these horrors? No! We do not accept the Latins, nor as persecutors, nor as "separated brethren". We did not separate from the Church of Christ, but we completely separate our responsibility to those who distort the faith! The East has therefore never separated from the West. Just east remained and still is, by divine grace to the place he was summoned by Christ, by the holy apostles and fathers, we have generated by the Gospel. Our only hope and our only glory is to stay at this place, like faithful sentinels at their post, surrounded by the darkness of the night of the world, until the glorious return of our beloved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, when he comes on the clouds with his holy angels and the crowd of witnesses saints and blessed. Dusk till dawn without this glorious day, say with Joseph Vryènios , The master of St. Mark of Ephesus :
"We do not deny thee, beloved Orthodoxy!
We you do not deny, oh piety transmitted by our fathers!
In you, we are born, we live in you,
and if the weather requires,
thousand times for you will die! "
Father Basile Sakkas Mr.
