Catholic/Orthodox unity

  • Thread starter Thread starter ziapueblo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**Well then…

Name them.

And then we can have a factual discussion about which Church has done more (or less) to fracture Christianity over the last 600 years.**
 
I do agree it is happening, ruling those Anathema’s invalid was probably the act which got it started, but a thousand years of prejudice isn’t going to go away very fast. I do hope to live to see the day when the Patriarch of Rome can celebrate a service (whether it be the Mass or Divine Liturgy) with the other Patriarchs.
I don’t anathemas can be invalid. They can be lifted, I’m sure, but “invalid”?

:cool:
 
**Well then…

Name them.

And then we can have a factual discussion about which Church has done more (or less) to fracture Christianity over the last 600 years.**
I think the argument is who has done more with his talence, rather than bury them and hold onto them until The Master returns.

Fractured, sure! But the spread of Christianity, as we were SENT to do, continues throughout the globe! More come to know Christ through a shard of His image…and may eventually lead to examining His Church, which is what was Commanded.

The Sedevacants have their equivalent in the East!

That LOG may be a speck on your lense.

:cool:
 
**Well then…

Name them.

And then we can have a factual discussion about which Church has done more (or less) to fracture Christianity over the last 600 years.**
Are you saying there are no breakaway groups emanating from Orthodoxy?
 
I don’t anathemas can be invalid. They can be lifted, I’m sure, but “invalid”?

:cool:
It was agreed that they were never valid in the first place on the grounds that the Catholics issued theirs in the name of a dead man, and the Orthodox issued theirs against that same dead man. While anathema’s have been issued against the works of dead people, you can’t actually excommunicate a dead person.

But generally they would be lifted. I know in the '60s the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox agreed to lift their Anathema’s against each other, however I’ve never followed up on whether or not they actually have.
 
Orthodoxy may never have seen something as vast as the Protestant Reformation, but we have our heretics. Pretending they aren’t there and that somehow the lack of breakaway groups makes us better, is folly.

We are all human and we all make mistakes. People breaking away from a church does nothing to prove it wrong.
 
Orthodoxy may never have seen something as vast as the Protestant Reformation, but we have our heretics. Pretending they aren’t there and that somehow the lack of breakaway groups makes us better, is folly.

We are all human and we all make mistakes. People breaking away from a church does nothing to prove it wrong.
[SIGN]Amen[/SIGN]
 
I don’t anathemas can be invalid. They can be lifted, I’m sure, but “invalid”?

:cool:
Have you read the text of the anathemas?

That might add an interesting perspective.

I have not seen the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox anathema against the Cardinals Humbert and Frederic, so I cannot comment on it, but the Latin Catholic/“Papal” anathema against the Patriarch is packed with lies.
 
I have not seen the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox anathema against the Cardinals Humbert and Frederic, so I cannot comment on it, but the Latin Catholic/“Papal” anathema against the Patriarch is packed with lies.
I have not read the document, but my understanding is that it was Cardinal Humbert who issued the bull excommunicating Patriarch Cerularius, not Pope Leo IX. Since Pope Leo IX died on April 19, 1054 and the anathema was issued on July 16, 1054, it could not have been valid. That being said, you should substantiate your allegations that the bull was “packed with lies” by providing the text or source of the bull and specific examples of the “lies” you are referring to.

Regardless of the unfortunate anathemas that were issued from both sides, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I declared the following in 1965 (see link):
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.
I think we should follow their example and put this unfortunate event behind us so that we may move forward in order to one day achieve true unity between our Churches.
 
I have not read the document, but my understanding is that it was Cardinal Humbert who issued the bull excommunicating Patriarch Cerularius, not Pope Leo IX. Since Pope Leo IX died on April 19, 1054 and the anathema was issued on July 16, 1054, it could not have been valid.
This is true. That is why the oft repeated claim the the Orthodox “broke away because they did not want to obey the Pope” is a myth.

I should point out that there were two cardinals. Cardinal Humbert usually takes the blame for this fiasco, but cardinal Frederic (a future Pope Stephen) was involved as well.
 
That being said, you should substantiate your allegations that the bull was “packed with lies” by providing the text or source of the bull and specific examples of the “lies” you are referring to.
I should have said “lies and insults”.

The Excommunication with which Michael Kerularios and his Followers were wounded:

Humbert, cardinal bishop of the holy Roman Church by the grace of God; Peter, archbishop of Amalfi; and Frederick, deacon and chancellor, to all the children of the catholic Church.

The holy, primary, and apostolic see of Rome, to which the care of all the churches most especially pertains as if to a head, deigned to make us its ambassadors to this royal city for the sake of the peace and utility of the Church so that, in accordance with what has been written, we might descend and see whether the complaint which rises to its ears without ceasing from this great city, is realized in fact or to know if it is not like this. Let the glorious emperors, clergy, senate, and people of this city of Constantinople as well as the entire catholic Church therefore know that we have sensed here both a great good, whence we greatly rejoice in the Lord, and the greatest evil, whence we lament in misery.

For as far as the columns of the imperial power and its honored and wise citizens go, this city is most Christian and orthodox. But as far as Michael, who is called patriarch through an abuse of the term, and the backers of his foolishness are concerned, innumerable tares of heresies are daily sown in its midst. Because…
like Simoniacs, they sell the gift of God; [lie]
like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy; [lie]
like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins; [lie]
like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world; [lie]
like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar; [lie]
like Severians, they say that the law of Moses is accursed; like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; [lie]
like the Manichaeans among others, they state that leave is ensouled (animatum); **
like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and, [lie]
in refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan; [this is not clear]
and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church. [lie]

For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to repent. Furthermore, when we, the Pope’s ambassabors, wanted to eliminate the causes of such great evils in a reasonable way, he denied us his presence and conversation [probably because they were being ridiculous mj], forbid churches to celebrate Mass, just as he had earlier closed the churches of the Latins and, calling them “azymites,” had persecuted the Latins everywhere in word and deed. Indeed, so much [did he persecute them] that among his own children, he had anathematized the apostolic see and against it he still writes that he is the ecumenical patriarch. Therefore, because we did not tolerate this unheard of outrage and injury of the first, holy, and apostolic see and were concerned that the catholic faith would be undermined in many ways, by the authority of the holy and individuated Trinity and the apostolic see, whose embassy we are performing, and of all the orthodox fathers from the seven councils and of the entire catholic Church, we thus subscribe to the following anathema which the most reverend pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers unless they should repent.

Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office (abusivus), who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption:

Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. [All lies, here the two cardinals accuse the Patriarch of no less than nine heresies]

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.

(text pdf)
 
That being said, you should substantiate your allegations that the bull was “packed with lies” by providing the text or source of the bull and specific examples of the “lies” you are referring to.
I should have said “lies and insults”.

The Excommunication with which Michael Kerularios and his Followers were wounded:

Humbert, cardinal bishop of the holy Roman Church by the grace of God; Peter, archbishop of Amalfi; and Frederick, deacon and chancellor, to all the children of the catholic Church.

The holy, primary, and apostolic see of Rome, to which the care of all the churches most especially pertains as if to a head, deigned to make us its ambassadors to this royal city for the sake of the peace and utility of the Church so that, in accordance with what has been written, we might descend and see whether the complaint which rises to its ears without ceasing from this great city, is realized in fact or to know if it is not like this. Let the glorious emperors, clergy, senate, and people of this city of Constantinople as well as the entire catholic Church therefore know that we have sensed here both a great good, whence we greatly rejoice in the Lord, and the greatest evil, whence we lament in misery.

For as far as the columns of the imperial power and its honored and wise citizens go, this city is most Christian and orthodox. But as far as Michael, who is called patriarch through an abuse of the term, and the backers of his foolishness are concerned, innumerable tares of heresies are daily sown in its midst. Because…
like Simoniacs, they sell the gift of God; [lie]
like Valesians, they castrate their guests :eek: ] and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy; [lie]
like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins;
like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world; [lie]
like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar; [lie]
like Severians, they say that the law of Moses is accursed ! ]; like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; [lie]
like the Manichaeans among others, they state that leave is ensouled (animatum); **
like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and, [lie]
in refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan; [this is not clear]
and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church. [lie]

For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to repent. Furthermore, when we, the Pope’s ambassabors, wanted to eliminate the causes of such great evils in a reasonable way, he denied us his presence and conversation [probably because they were being largely ridiculous mike], forbid churches to celebrate Mass, just as he had earlier closed the churches of the Latins and, calling them “azymites,” had persecuted the Latins everywhere in word and deed. Indeed, so much [did he persecute them] that among his own children, he had anathematized the apostolic see and against it he still writes that he is the ecumenical patriarch. Therefore, because we did not tolerate this unheard of outrage and injury of the first, holy, and apostolic see and were concerned that the catholic faith would be undermined in many ways, by the authority of the holy and individuated Trinity and the apostolic see, whose embassy we are performing, and of all the orthodox fathers from the seven councils and of the entire catholic Church, we thus subscribe to the following anathema which the most reverend pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers unless they should repent.

Michael, neophyte ! ] patriarch through abuse of office (abusivus), who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption:

Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. [All lies, here the two cardinals accuse the Patriarch of no less than nine heresies]

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.

(text pdf)
 
Thank you for posting this text. I need to study this a bit further before I can comment. Does any one know if Patriarch Michael Cerularius’ anathema was written in a more positive, less harsh way than Cardinal Humbert’s one? I would be very interested to see that text as well.
 
It was agreed that they were never valid in the first place on the grounds that the Catholics issued theirs in the name of a dead man, and the Orthodox issued theirs against that same dead man. While anathema’s have been issued against the works of dead people, you can’t actually excommunicate a dead person.

But generally they would be lifted. I know in the '60s the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox agreed to lift their Anathema’s against each other, however I’ve never followed up on whether or not they actually have.
Thank you, Nine Two.

Prima facie, they do seem invalid!..since they were not issued by The Pontiff.

I’ve learned my something new for the day! It is a scenario I had not considered.

:cool:
 
Thank you, Nine Two.

Prima facie, they do seem invalid!..since they were not issued by The Pontiff.

I’ve learned my something new for the day! It is a scenario I had not considered.

:cool:
I’m pretty sure there were other Anathema’s which were valid and which did have to be lifted, but that was the big one.
 
The Quakers, among other Protestants, don’t have water baptism, yet I’m not willing to say they are non-Christian. I think there is some leeway of consideration. Even where there may not be correct intent, matter and form, think that they may act more Christian than those validly baptized in the Jordan, etc.

The Orthodox see the mysteries, including baptism, as being works within the Church for the salvation of those who are members of the Church (or to become members). Orthodoxy can say that the Holy Spirit is at work in the mysteries within the Church, but Orthodoxy does not categorically declare that the mysteries operate outside the visible Orthodox communion. Orthodoxy, in other words, does not abide by the belief, particularly emphasized by Catholics since Vatican II, that all those baptized are in an imperfect though certain communion with the Catholic Church.
I don’t believe so. The general Orthodox mindset is that we don’t comment on such things outside of Orthodoxy, so while we will comment on whether or not a church is Orthodox and in communion with us, we don’t usually comment on the validity of other churches and their practices. The exceptions to this tend to be when a group is way off mark (so for example there is no formal position on Catholic Baptism, but Mormon baptism is generally rejected).
So is it the Orthodox practice to leave it up to individual priest to decide whether or not a person needs to be baptized and declare a baptism valid or invalid?
 
Good examples of Rome reaching out in friendship.

Peace
James
But they have yet to be backed up by allowing discussion on these very issues. Rome has for the last couple of decades been sending out mixed signals.
 
So is it the Orthodox practice to leave it up to individual priest to decide whether or not a person needs to be baptized and declare a baptism valid or invalid?
In the Catholic Church, it is up to the priest to determine whether a convert being received into the Church has a valid baptism or not. There are some general guidelines on which “churches” have valid Trinitarian baptisms and which ones do not. However, the pastor is responsible to determine whether a convert must be “re-baptized” if the previous baptism is considered invalid (it is really not a second baptism since it is believed that the first one was not valid). When there is doubt on whether someone’s baptism is valid or not, the person is conditionally baptized, which means that if the first baptism was not valid the person receives the Sacrament of Baptism (for the first time). If the first baptism was indeed valid, the the second does not confer the sacrament again.

I don’t think this is much different in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The reason many converts (including Catholics) are re-baptized is because in some Orthodox jurisdictions (some within the Russian Church come to mind) Catholic baptism is not considered valid. Because many others are in doubt, they rather not take chances and re-baptized (the equivalent of conditional baptism) the candidates just in case. In many other jurisdiction, especially in the United States, converts are received into Orthodoxy by Chrismation out of economia.
 
In the Catholic Church, it is up to the priest to determine whether a convert being received into the Church has a valid baptism or not. There are some general guidelines on which “churches” have valid Trinitarian baptisms and which ones do not. However, the pastor is responsible to determine whether a convert must be “re-baptized” if the previous baptism is considered invalid (it is really not a second baptism since it is believed that the first one was not valid). When there is doubt on whether someone’s baptism is valid or not, the person is conditionally baptized, which means that if the first baptism was not valid the person receives the Sacrament of Baptism (for the first time). If the first baptism was indeed valid, the the second does not confer the sacrament again.

I don’t think this is much different in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The reason many converts (including Catholics) are re-baptized is because in some Orthodox jurisdictions (some within the Russian Church come to mind) Catholic baptism is not considered valid. Because many others are in doubt, they rather not take chances and re-baptized (the equivalent of conditional baptism) the candidates just in case. In many other jurisdiction, especially in the United States, converts are received into Orthodoxy by Chrismation out of economia.
Are they stated as that? I know that in the case of a conditional baptism the Catholic priest will say in effect that as long as this has not already been done, I baptize you in the name…

It really bothers me that the one lady was rebaptized with her children even though it was all documented. Such a slap in the face of God. That is what really makes me so angry. While men play their petty religion politics, God gets slapped in the face like He did nothing until the priest from the right pedigree performs the sacrament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top