1054 AD Excommunication lifted in 1965

[Mannyfit75]

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?

This is what the Catholic-Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 states,

*"3. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

1. Since they are certain that they express the common desire for justice and the unanimous sentiment of charity which moves the faithful, and since they recall the command of the Lord: “If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brethren has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go first be reconciled to your brother” (Matt. 5:23-24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that:

A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.

C. Finally, they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factors—among which, lack of understanding and mutual trust—eventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.

1. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through cleansing of hearts, through regret for historical wrongs, and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands.

They hope, nevertheless, that this act will be pleasing to God, who is prompt to pardon us when we pardon each other. They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church.*

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html

 

[Ismael]

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?

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.

 

[josephdaniel29]

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.

There also is not one but “several” Catholic Churches, such as the Ruthenian, Maronite, Melkite and Chaldean Catholic Churches.

Not sure what your point is.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[bpbasilphx]

This accomplished EXACTLY the same thing that lifting the excommunications against SSPX did.

It simply removed a barrier to restablishing community.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

There also is not one but “several” Catholic Churches, such as the Ruthenian, Maronite, Melkite and Chaldean Catholic Churches.

Not sure what your point is.

Yours in Christ
Joe

What he means, I think, is that in the Eastern Orthodox Church (or Churches) there’s no central figure (i.e. the Pope) who can accept or reject any decision towards unity. My understanding is that every Orthodox Patriarch and bishop must decide while gather in an Ecumenical Council or Synod. In other words, even if the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope (of Rome) could resolve the issues that separate us and agree on unity, the other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops would have to be onboard as well or unity could not be reached.

In the Catholic Church, the Pope can consult (and probably would) the other bishops, but could potentially make a decision even if other Catholic bishops did not agree. Now, I know that there’s some difference in interpretation between the Western/Latin and Eastern Catholics in regards to the supreme authority of the Pope (I’ve seen the debates on this forum). However, if the Catholic Church (through the Pope) proclaimed full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Archbishop of Washington, for example, did not agree, it would not change the fact that the whole Catholic Church would be bound including the Archdiocese of Washington and the Church in the United States. Not so with the Eastern Orthodox Church. If, let’s say, the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow did not agree, one of two thing could happen: Unity between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church could not be reached; or the Russian Orthodox Church would find itself out of communion with the rest of the Church.

Then again, I’m sure things are actually more complex than stated and it’s possible I didn’t get all the “technical” details correct. This is my best understanding of how the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches work and I’m open to correction.

God bless,
AG

 

[Ghosty]

The incident of 1054 was not the cause of the split. In fact the Churches remained in Communion with eachother for some time, even concelebrating during the Crusades. The excommunications of 1054 are often highlighted as “the big break”, but really they were a relatively minor road-bump at the time (Antioch, for example, remained in full Communion with BOTH Rome and Constantinople during this heated period).

Even if the 1054 incident had been a major issue and cause of the split, there was reunion and schism after that point (with the Council of Florence and the fall of Constantinople, respectively), so this particular event was not the barrier we tend to think of today. In fact, I’ve not seen any indication that the mutual excommunications were even brought up at Florence.

In short, 1054 is, and was, a non-issue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Harpazo]

What he means, I think, is that in the Eastern Orthodox Church (or Churches) there’s no central figure (i.e. the Pope) who can accept or reject any decision towards unity. My understanding is that every Orthodox Patriarch and bishop must decide while gather in an Ecumenical Council or Synod. In other words, even if the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope (of Rome) could resolve the issues that separate us and agree on unity, the other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops would have to be onboard as well or unity could not be reached.

If an Orthodox Church wanted to submit to Rome, it could do so without consulting an Ecumenical Council. Needless to say, that church would no longer be Orthodox (small o or big O) in our eyes.

In the Catholic Church, the Pope can consult (and probably would) the other bishops, but could potentially make a decision even if other Catholic bishops did not agree. Now, I know that there’s some difference in interpretation between the Western/Latin and Eastern Catholics in regards to the supreme authority of the Pope (I’ve seen the debates on this forum). However, if the Catholic Church (through the Pope) proclaimed full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Archbishop of Washington, for example, did not agree, it would not change the fact that the whole Catholic Church would be bound including the Archdiocese of Washington and the Church in the United States. Not so with the Eastern Orthodox Church. If, let’s say, the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow did not agree, one of two thing could happen: Unity between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church could not be reached; or the Russian Orthodox Church would find itself out of communion with the rest of the Church.

The Ecumenical Patriarch is not an “Eastern Pope” nor has he ever been (or will be for that matter). If he decided to lead his Church in submission to Rome, he could do so. The other Patriarchates would not have to follow. Autocephaly, while possibly having some disadvantages, works great for preserving the Faith in a hypothetical situation like above. The Archbishop of Washington, could split from the RCC if he really wanted to in that instance, should he disagree with the Pope of Rome that much. What’s stopping him?

Then again, I’m sure things are actually more complex than stated and it’s possible I didn’t get all the “technical” details correct. This is my best understanding of how the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches work and I’m open to correction.

God bless,
AG

Things are complex, more complex than some would lead you to believe. It’s a shame that the schism happened and I pray it will be healed, but we cannot rush to reunion. I’m not saying you are particularly, I just wanted to point that out.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Roman_Army]

Lifting an excommunication does not automatically mean that things are alright again. There is still a physical separation between the Churches. There are still strong doctrinal, dogmatic, liturgical, and ecclesiological disagreements.

 

[Hesychios]

Greetings,

Ismael;5972182:

… 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.

What he means, I think, is that in the Eastern Orthodox Church (or Churches) there’s no central figure (i.e. the Pope) who can accept or reject any decision towards unity.

Although in fact there are 23 separate churches in communion with the Pope.

… even if the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope (of Rome) could resolve the issues that separate us and agree on unity, the other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops would have to be onboard as well or unity could not be reached.

In the Catholic Church, the Pope can consult (and probably would) the other bishops, but could potentially make a decision even if other Catholic bishops did not agree.

What you seem to be suggesting by making this comparison following upon Ismael’s comment is that the bishop of Rome could compel the Ukrainian Greek Catholics to join the Orthodox in communion, even if they are themselves unwilling. Ditto in the case of the Romanian Greek Catholics, they can be compelled to join the Romanian Orthodox upon the bishop of Rome’s decision even if they themselves object.

Am I reading you right, is that a function of this central figure, to nullify self determination expressed by the particular churches?

 

[Claire_from_DE]

If an Orthodox Church wanted to submit to Rome, it could do so without consulting an Ecumenical Council. Needless to say, that church would no longer be Orthodox (small o or big O) in our eyes.

The Ecumenical Patriarch is not an “Eastern Pope” nor has he ever been (or will be for that matter). If he decided to lead his Church in submission to Rome, he could do so. The other Patriarchates would not have to follow. Autocephaly, while possibly having some disadvantages, works great for preserving the Faith in a hypothetical situation like above. **The Archbishop of Washington, could split from the RCC if he really wanted to in that instance, should he disagree with the Pope of Rome that much. What’s stopping him? **

Things are complex, more complex than some would lead you to believe. It’s a shame that the schism happened and I pray it will be healed, but we cannot rush to reunion. I’m not saying you are particularly, I just wanted to point that out.

In Christ,
Andrew

What’s stopping him? Probably the fact that he would be a schismatic bishop out in no man’s land. He would have abandoned his archdiocese, which would remain Catholic. He would remain a validly ordained bishop but, not being in union with the Pope and the other bishops, would not have the right or ability to oversee a diocese. Another would be appointed to take his place. From the Catholic point of view this system works great for preserving the faith in the event you describe above.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Greetings, Although in fact there are 23 separate churches in communion with the Pope. What you seem to be suggesting by making this comparison following upon Ismael’s comment is that the bishop of Rome could compel the Ukrainian Greek Catholics to join the Orthodox in communion, even if they are themselves unwilling. Ditto in the case of the Romanian Greek Catholics, they can be compelled to join the Romanian Orthodox upon the bishop of Rome’s decision even if they themselves object.

Am I reading you right, is that a function of this central figure, to nullify self determination expressed by the particular churches?

I’m sure Ad Gentes will respond to you but, if I may, I’d like to add my comments as a Latin Rite Catholic. The answer to your last question is no, unless your definition of self-determination is the right to hold to false doctrine.

If the Romanian Orthodox and the Catholic churches were to arrive at the understanding that there is a true unity in belief (although perhaps expressed in terms peculiar to each), they could achieve full unity. Knowing human nature, this could only be accomplished by an outpouring of God’s grace. The faithful could then receive Eucharist in any of the united churches. However, this does not necessarily mean Romanian Greek Catholics would be compelled to become members of the Romanian Orthodox Church. The relationship between those two bodies would need to be worked out carefully and with the full participation of those concerned. The pope would not unilaterally make a decision of this sort. I think, in theory, he could do so for members of one of the rites of the Catholic church but not for one of the self-governing eastern churches in union with the Catholic church.

As a Catholic, I would say that the function of the ‘central figure’ is unity in matters of faith and morals. As well as a unity (but not rigid uniformity) in the liturgies of the Latin rite.

And, of course, the ‘central figure’, taking our Lord as a model, is to serve the church, not rule it as a despot.

I’m willing to accept correction from the many Catholics who are much more familiar with the eastern rites and churches in union with us.

 

[Hesychios]

… this does not necessarily mean Romanian Greek Catholics would be compelled to become members of the Romanian Orthodox Church. The relationship between those two bodies would need to be worked out carefully and with the full participation of those concerned. The pope would not unilaterally make a decision of this sort. I think, in theory, he could do so for members of one of the rites of the Catholic church but not for one of the self-governing eastern churches in union with the Catholic church.

So it appears that you would see the same problem on the Catholic side as on the Orthodox side. That having a Pope, a central figure, makes no difference because he can not, or will not, compel the sister churches into unity with the Orthodox on his own authority. They would each need to agree.

Is that right?

 

[Ron_Conte]

The lifting of juridicial excommunication (ferendae sententiae) does not lift the automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) that occurs for every sin of heresy and schism.

 

[SyroMalankara]

According to current juridical thinking, ‘heresy’ can only be committed by an individual who had some measure of knowledge regarding their error and ‘schism’ can only be committed by an individual who was once within the Church.

EWTN:

Definitions

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. 

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; 

apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; 

schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

The same is true of apostasy. The person who leaves not just the Catholic Church but who abandons Christ Himself is materially an apostate. He is formally an apostate through willful, and therefore culpable, repudiation of the Christian faith.

Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics.

Excommunication

When it comes to Catholics who are formally guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, states,

c. 1364

1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
2. If long lasting contumacy or the seriousness of scandal warrants it, other penalties can be added including dismissal from the clerical state.
   This canon is saying that once a person willingly repudiates Christ, embraces a heresy, knowing it to be contrary to divine and Catholic faith, or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff (or communion with the members of the Church subject to him), by virtue of the law itself they are automatically excommunicated. No ecclesiastical act is necessary and no public notice.

However, to incur this latae sententia excommunication one must satisfy the general conditions for canonical culpability set out in the Code. For example, a person who has not been diligent (prudently weighing the issues involved) in their action is not punished.

 

[SyroMalankara]

c. 1321 
1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or culpability. 
2. A person who has deliberately violated a law or a precept is bound by the penalty stated in the law or that precept; unless a law or a precept provides otherwise, a person who has violated that law or that precept through a lack of necessary diligence is not punished. 
3. Unless it is otherwise evident, imputability is presumed whenever an external violation has occurred.

A person who lacks the proper use of reason is likewise not punishable.

c. 1322 Persons who habitually lack the use of reason are considered incapable of an offense even if they have violated a law or a precept while appearing to be sane.
The following canon completes the list of conditions that can prevent the application of an excommunication and other ecclesiastical sanctions.

c. 1323 
The following are not subject to penalties when they have violated a law or precept:
(1) a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age; 
(2) a person who without any fault was unaware of violating a law or precept; however, inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance; 
(3) a person who acted out of physical force or in virtue of a mere accident which could neither be foreseen nor prevented when foreseen; 
(4) a person who acted out of grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or out of necessity or out of serious inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or verges on harm to souls; 
(5) a person who for the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another acted against an unjust aggressor with due moderation; 
(6) a person who lacked the use of reason with due regard for the prescriptions of cann. 1324, part 1, n. 2 and 1325; 
(7) a person who without any fault felt that the circumstances in nn. 4 or 5 were verified.

Reconciliation

The penalty of excommunication carries with it the prohibition of receiving the sacraments, while not excusing from obligations such as Sunday and Holy Day Mass, Easter Duty etc… To be reconciled to the Church a person who has been excommunicated, even if that fact is known to the person alone, must first have the excommunication lifted. With the exception of certain crimes reserved to the Holy See, each bishop has the authority to remit the penalty of excommunication. However, he generally delegates this faculty to his priests, or at least to certain confessors (usually at the Cathedral).

Thus, by going to confession one can usually have the penalty lifted. If recourse to higher authority is needed the confessor will say so and invite the person to return the following week or at another time. He will then obtain the remission of the penalty from the bishop (protecting the person’s anonymity, of course.) and communicate it to the penitent. The person is then free to make a good confession and be fully reconciled with Christ and the Church.

The Special Danger of Ultra-Traditionalist Movements

There is within the Church today a special danger for those who, often for seemingly legitimate reasons (abuses of the liturgy, the open promotion of heresy even by clergy, and similar causes), have sought refuge in traditionalist movements on the margins of the Church. These groups, distinguishable from those who love the Tridentine tradition of the Mass and sacraments and who celebrate them in Communion with the Pope, go their own way outside of the laws of the Church. They typically rationalize their disobedience by attacking the Second Vatican Council, the current liturgical rites, ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, and often Pope John Paul II personally, never distinguishing between teaching and law on the one hand, and the abuse of it by dissenters and the disobedient on the other.

 

[SyroMalankara]

These groups, such as the Society of St. Pius X, of Pius V, the “We Resist You to Your Face” movement, Br. Dimond and Holy Family Monastery, make ready use of scandals to gain support among the unwary, who, discouraged by their local situation, may think they are joining a more perfect orthodoxy and a more loyal remnant of Catholics. Thankfully such motives may excuse the average person who takes comfort in such groups, at least initially, though as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches to take scandal in other’s sins is istself sinful. However, there is a great danger that starting from the material schism of refusing submission to the Pope, that all these groups have in common, the Catholic cannot long maintain the schizophrenic position of saying they are being submissive to the Pope while disobeying him. At some point they must choose and formally adhere to the schism of the group. In some cases the group identity depends on some formal repudiation of the “Novus Ordo” Church, very effectively hastening the spiritual demise of the lay adherent.

Also unfortunate for such souls is the fact that these ultra-traditionalist groups profess to be doctrinally orthodox, an orthodoxy which necessarily includes the teaching that Outside the Church There Is No Salvation. This means that someone who has formally separated himself from the Church through heresy or schism, or knowing the Church to be true failed to enter her, cannot be saved, unless of course they renounce their own will and reconcile with the Church. Unlike the non-Catholic Christian, can the super-orthodox claim invincible ignorance of this teaching? Can they escape the condemnation of Pope Boniface VIII, who in first elaborating it said, "this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God …? No wonder that given enough time such groups inevitably produce those who claim that the See of Peter is vacant, since the logic of their schismatic attitude is ultimately irreconcilable with the doctrine of papal primacy, as enunciated by both Pope Boniface and Vatican I.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Can they escape the condemnation of Pope Boniface VIII, who in first elaborating it said, "this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God …? No wonder that given enough time such groups inevitably produce those who claim that the See of Peter is vacant, since the logic of their schismatic attitude is ultimately irreconcilable with the doctrine of papal primacy, as enunciated by both Pope Boniface and Vatican I.

Well, a lot of things are “ultimately irreconcilable with the doctrine of papal primacy, as enunciated by both Pope Boniface…”, including Lumen Gentium**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There also is not one but “several” Catholic Churches, such as the Ruthenian, Maronite, Melkite and Chaldean Catholic Churches.

Not sure what your point is.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Correction; these are Eastern Orthodox Church’s **with Catholic rites **in obedience to Peter and his successors in the historical line of the Popes. So, there are never several Catholic Church’s but one in the body of Jesus Christ.

 

[SyroMalankara]

What you have posted above is nonsense.

The Catholic Church is a Communion of Churches, 22 or 23 (depending on how one counts) - each of the sui juris Churches are equal in dignity and honor, none superior to the other. Just as God is Communion of Three Divine Persons, so the Catholic Church is a Communion of Churches.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=SyroMalankara;6003598]What you have posted above is nonsense.

The Catholic Church is a Communion of Churches, 22 or 23 (depending on how one counts) - each of the sui juris Churches are equal in dignity and honor, none superior to the other. Just as God is Communion of Three Divine Persons, so the Catholic Church is a Communion of Churches.

No, No there is no nonsense, just confusion and misunderstandings. The number of Catholic Rites in full communion does not indicate an individual Church seperated from the other who adminster valid sacraments. Listen to St. Paul who clears up what was stated;

ICor.10:15 I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying. 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? Because the loaf of bread is ONE, WE, THOUGH MANY, ARE ONE BODY, FOR WE ALL PARTAKE OF THE ONE LOAF.

It is incorrect to believe that One church is above another or seperated from another when they are all particpating in the one body and blood of Jesus Christ. Those in schism with the authority of Peter with valid sacraments are not isolated from the body of Jesus Christ. The schism is a tear in the one body of Jesus Christ not a total seperation. The authority issue has nothing to do with the laity of whom all believe in the True presence of Jesus Christ. Pride, political, recognition, status, jurisdiction has nothing to do with what All Catholics believe in the one body of Jesus Christ.

I am of the biblical belief that Pauls teachings of the one body should be introduced in all conversations of Ecumenism councils, Orthodoxy, and authority.

Peace be with you