1054 AD Excommunication lifted in 1965

[SyroMalankara]

Rites are the Rituals and practices of a particular sui juris Church. I never mentioned there being a separation, so no need to mention that

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Rites are the Rituals and practices of a particular sui juris Church. I never mentioned there being a separation, so no need to mention that

So then we are clear that the body of Jesus Christ is not seperate individual, or isolated Church’s. Rites do not make a different Catholic Church from one another or an invention of a denomination. See how these terms do not justify the body of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[SyroMalankara]

So then we are clear that the body of Jesus Christ is not seperate individual, or isolated Church’s. Rites do not make a different Catholic Church from one another or an invention of a denomination. See how these terms do not justify the body of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

Is English your native language??

Your grammar is not easily understood. Perhaps you misunderstand the English translation of the Church’s documents.

So then we are clear that the body of Jesus Christ is not seperate individual, or isolated Church’s.

I have no idea what you are clear or not clear in regards to the Church. What I am sure of is that the Catholic Communion is made up of 23 (or 22) self-governing (sui iurus) particular Churches. There is no isolation in Catholicism, the Church in essence lacks nothing. In essence, the Catholic Church is whole and complete, universal.

Rites do not make a different Catholic Church from one another or an invention of a denomination.

This is not English.

See how these terms do not justify the body of Jesus Christ.

I do not “see” as you do, I “see” these terms just as the Church, the Holy Father, the Patriarchs, the Magisterium “sees” them. You must “see” them in some other very dim light.

 

[Ghosty]

Gabriel of 12: I want to point out the proper language of the Catholic Church with regard to the Sui Juris Churches. Here’s from the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.

And here’s from the Eastern Code of Canons:

Canon 1
The canons of this Code affect all and solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless, with regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise.

So there are many Catholic Churches within the Catholic Communion. The Communion itself is also called the Catholic Church when referring to the whole collection, but the individual Churches are indeed called Churches, complete with their own Canon Laws and hierarchies.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12

: I want to point out the proper language of the Catholic Church with regard to the Sui Juris Churches. Here’s from the Code of Canon Law:

And here’s from the Eastern Code of Canons:

So there are many Catholic Churches within the Catholic Communion. The Communion itself is also called the Catholic Church when referring to the whole collection, but the individual Churches are indeed called Churches, complete with their own Canon Laws and hierarchies.

Peace and God bless!

Thank you Ghosty and SyroMalankara for your paitence and understanding; For one I dont disagree with canon law or code thereof; What has been revealed here to me, is what the problem the Magisterium had with Martin Luther; the Magesterium stuck to the letter of the law, while Martin Luther was introducing, what he thought involved the Spirit of the law.

Allow me to digress here; What is being revealed from a canon or a code of the canon is written and is subject to change, not in difference but in deeper understanding, or what the magisterium has termed “Growth”. That said, I merely reflected upon the Spiritual aspects of the Law that does not change and will never change. That is; what has already been written and what has been handed down, and what has been practiced by Apostolic Tradition in the "Catholic"Church these past 2000 years, by all valid Rites and valid Holy orders** in communion **with the chair of Peter or in schism with the authority of the Pope.

I Cor.10:16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17
**Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. **

What part of this teaching which involves Spiritual Truth and what is written conflicts with the canon or code of canon from any hemishphere? (East or West)

It is believed by all Catholics that the Catholic church is the body of Jesus Christ, how? see ICor. 10:16 above. Breaking down canon law and code of canons can be very boring and very confusing to those outside these understanding viewing here, so forgive me for interjecting the Spiritual Truth to the written law from biblical standards, to clear up to non catholics that the Catholic church is One faith, in One baptism, in One Lord, though our Church’s are in different parts of the World, live in different cultures, speak different languages, and adhere to different Catholic Rites, does not seperate the Body Of Jesus Christ, not even death can seperate us From the love of God…

Peace be with you

 

[Formosus]

Well rather then watering down the truth of the fact that Eastern Churches are Sui Iuris churches does not teach a spiritual truth. Referring to Eastern Catholic Churches as “Rites” only continues to spread ignorance of what Eastern Churches really are, and ultimately what the Catholic Church really is.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well rather then watering down the truth of the fact that Eastern Churches are Sui Iuris churches does not teach a spiritual truth. Referring to Eastern Catholic Churches as “Rites” only continues to spread ignorance of what Eastern Churches really are, and ultimately what the Catholic Church really is.

Maybe you can answer me this question? If I were someone totally uninformed of any Christianity. How would you explain in layman terms, what is the relationship and the one unifying factor between Orthodox in communion with the Pope, Orthodoxy in not communion with the Pope, Eastern Sui luris Church’s? Leaving the complications of Political terminology, and jurisdiction authority outside your definition?

Much conversation on these forums deal with what each ones topic of importance is; For one you appear to seek recognition of each Eastern Sui luris Church, and how an Eastern Church should be viewed surpersedes (lack of a better term) what is it that unites and or makes up the Catholic Church. I believe recognizing the Rites of each Catholic community gives credence to the culture, language and identity of each Church in the body of Jesus Christ. It does not define the Eastern Catholic Church’s as a whole but what part makes up the many members of the body of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[Aramis]

Gabriel:

I explain that the Catholic Church is a union of 23 self-governing churches under the pope. Each has its own bishops, liturgy, and traditions. These are grouped into 6 Rites, those of Rome, Antioch, Byzantium, Alexandria, The Chaldeans, and the Armenians.

They are separate but equal in the same way as the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard are; united under the JCS and the President, each operates with its own procedures, protocols, uniforms, rank titles, and areas of responsibility, but all combine to form one United States Military; likewise, all 23 Churches unite their separate traditions into the one unified whole that is the Catholic Church.

 

[Formosus]

Maybe you can answer me this question? If I were someone totally uninformed of any Christianity. How would you explain in layman terms, what is the relationship and the one unifying factor between Orthodox in communion with the Pope, Orthodoxy in not communion with the Pope, Eastern Sui luris Church’s? **Leaving the complications of Political terminology, and jurisdiction authority outside your definition?
**
…

Peace be with you

If this is the prerequisite then I’d be curious to see how you define what the Latin church is since classical roman legalism is no stranger to the Latin church.

If you want to continue to use false terms to describe what the Church is then I suppose that is your choice. The Catholic Church is not one monolithic entity that is composed of many “rites” but is a communion of self governing churches united in love and faith with the Patriarch of Rome. We share the same faith, but express it differently. We each hold our own Traditions,theologies, customs, liturgy, and laws.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If you want to continue to use false terms to describe what the Church is then I suppose that is your choice.

Every thing you stated above here, does not conflict with any of my commentary and I agree with you totally. I sensed that we were on the same page, but coming from a different mindset.

I speak of the communion. The distinction of each church to self govern is a beautiful freedom. My Bishop himself, has the liberties and freedom to excercise what you have listed above in our diocese different from another Bishop in another part of the World, including his own laws. The Bishop as successor of the Apostles is responsible for the Eucharistic celebration. All liberties are given and granted, so that they dont introduce a new gospel teaching, or change from the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Faith. How each community expresses this faith is subject to change, but the faith is itself is not subject to change.

Peter, in the Popes does not dictate change from ones own culture, laws etc. The Pope and the magisterium are always present to see that the gospel message of Jesus never changes, who are key holders and protectors of the faith from heresy’s and heretics, or man made theologies from infecting the faithful.

Peace be with you

 

[jcld]

Due to three main points:

• Some diffierences in theology (the ‘filioque’ issue, the matter of purgatory, eternity of hell, some issues on the Petrine Primacy)
• Canonical issues
• After almost 1000 years of separation it is not easy to unifies two churches that have gone their separate ways.
  Moreover: There is not ONE but SEVERAL Orthodox Churches, such as the Greek-Orthodox and the Russian-Orthodox which are also not completely united among them.

I am willing to bet, that it may already be like this since 325AD… BUT way back then, East and West were sisters and did not treat each differently…

I pray they could easily find a way around it… just like Sui Iuris concept… he he he he Only God can say… and I pray it will be ok SOON

 

[Peter_J]

Catholic-Orthodox Joint declaration of 1965 lifted the mutual excommunications dating from 1054. Since it is lifted up. Why aren’t Catholics and Orthodox united?

The main lesson of the 1965 Joint Declaration is that 1054 was not (contrary to popular assumption) a very significant year with regard to the schism. The schism happened gradually, and wasn’t set-in-stone until the 15th century.

 

[Vico]

Pope Urban II complained to Kaiser Alexius I that the papal name had been removed from the diptychs of the Church of Constantinople without justification and asked for it to be restored. A Synod presided over by Alexius was held to consider this in 1089, attending were also the Patriarch of Constantinople, Patriarch of Antioch, eighteen metropolitans and two archbishops. Alexius found out that there were no supporting documents and that the removal was uncanonical. Alexius said that the name should be restored, to which the bishops said, too much time had passed to do that. A compromise was proposed but there was only a temporary communion after that and the step to make it permanent was not taken.

See page 217, A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Hundred Years edited by Kenneth Meyer Setton, Marshall W. Baldwin

 

[Schism_hater]

The main lesson of the 1965 Joint Declaration is that 1054 was not (contrary to popular assumption) a very significant year with regard to the schism. The schism happened gradually, and wasn’t set-in-stone until the 15th century.

Except that the Joint Declaration, while being made on the occasion of the lifting of excommunications of 1054, goes on to address some of the issues of the Schism in general. I do not think the importance of that shpuld be downplayed. Unfortunately, I don’t believe either side has really remained in the spirit that motivated the Declaration. We have all, to some extent, slipped back into the old sinful ways.

 

[Surnaturel]

The Catholic Church is a communion of particular churches, the Church of Rome being one among and equal with the others,'but the bishop of Rome (the pope) has a special charism for unity and leadership among the churches. These are the paraphrased words of Benedict XVI when he was prefect of the CDF.

 

[Peter_J]

Except that the Joint Declaration, while being made on the occasion of the lifting of excommunications of 1054, goes on to address some of the issues of the Schism in general. I do not think the importance of that shpuld be downplayed. Unfortunately, I don’t believe either side has really remained in the spirit that motivated the Declaration. We have all, to some extent, slipped back into the old sinful ways.

I don’t think it’s a matter of downplaying – that is, it’s not a matter of how much significance the Joint Declaration had, it’s a matter of what kind of significance the Joint Declaration had.

The schism between Rome and Constantinople didn’t happen in a short time like the schism with Alexandria in the 5th century. Rather, it took centuries. After the 1054 excommunications, relations were still good enough to hold a reunion council in the 13th century (Lyons II). Sadly that failed, and worsened relations … but even then, not so much that we couldn’t try again in the 15th century (Florence).

So, as Mannyfit75 brought up in the OP, the joint declaration of 1965 *doesn’t *mean that Catholics and Orthodox are still united today, but it *does *reflect the fact that Catholics and Orthodox weren’t (fully) in schism for about 400 years after the 1054 excommunications. I’d say that’s pretty significant.