Did the Pope and Patriarch Go to Hell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RainDown
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RainDown

Guest
Did the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of Constantinople go to Hell? Because I’ve been taught that both Churches are correct, and if they are, doesn’t that mean that excommunicating each other sent them both to Hell? And what about every single pope and patriarch since, excluding those from sometime around 1961 when the pope and patriarch lifted the excommunications and reconciled?
 
RainDown said:
Did the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of Constantinople go to Hell? Because I’ve been taught that both Churches are correct, and if they are, doesn’t that mean that excommunicating each other sent them both to Hell? And what about every single pope and patriarch since, excluding those from sometime around 1961 when the pope and patriarch lifted the excommunications and reconciled?
Click to expand...
No. First off, the excommunication of the Pope would have been invalid on its faith–another bishop cannot excommunicate the Roman Pontiff.

Second, they are not both right. The Orthodox err in regards to rejecting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. See the Fourth Question of this text:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html#_ftn17

The Pope and Patriarch did not reconcile, but rather expressed good will and an intention to seek reconciliation in a fraternal way.
 
Excommunication doesn’t mean you’ll go to hell …RIGHT
 
catholic1seeks said:
Excommunication doesn’t mean you’ll go to hell …RIGHT
Click to expand...
Actually, it doesn’t. It means you’re not allowed to receive communion in the Church till you repair whatever error it was that caused you to incur this penalty.

If you die without doing so, you may very well go to Hell, but that’s God’s call, not ours.
 
theistgal said:
Actually, it doesn’t. It means you’re not allowed to receive communion in the Church till you repair whatever error it was that caused you to incur this penalty.

If you die without doing so, you may very well go to Hell, but that’s God’s call, not ours.
Click to expand...
Exactly - it means that you’re cut off from communion with the Church, not necessarily automatically hellbound - even if you die without it being reversed.

Remember St Joan of Arc was excommunicated, albeit by a corrupt political bishop, and died without that excommunication being reversed, and yet she’s in heaven. 🤷
 
It’s significant that Patriarch Peter III (note the name) told both Pope and Patriarch to kiss and make up.

And actually, at the time of the excommunications, Humbert’s legatine authority had lapsed with the death of the Pope at the time.
 
Further, Patriarch Michael Cerularius did not excommunicate the pope (Leo IX was dead anyway) – he excommunicated Humbert and his aides – one of whom, Frederick of Lorraine, would one day become Pope Stephen X (IX) – and their followers. As has already been noted, the death of Leo IX removed any papal authority that Humbert had so his excommunication was actually null and void.

Deacon Ed
 
Hm, I thought that the 2 Churches taught that the other was a “true but defect church.” I guess not.

I never realized that Leo was already dead by the time it happened. Didn’t mean to say “reconciled”–my mistake.
 
First, a valid excommunication puts one outside the Church.
Second, there is no salvation outside the Church.

Therefore, anyone under excommunication is in a very serious situation in regards to their salvation.
 
theistgal said:
Actually, it doesn’t. It means you’re not allowed to receive communion in the Church till you repair whatever error it was that caused you to incur this penalty.

If you die without doing so, you may very well go to Hell, but that’s God’s call, not ours.
Click to expand...
HOWEVER, for an excommunicated person to receive communion would be a mortal sin. If the Patriarch received the Body and Blood of Christ (as of course he did) after being excommunicated, wouldn’t that mean he died in a state of mortal sin?
 
Aramis / Formosus,

That is why this schism is such a scandal.I know that we claim that the issues dividing us are wide and deep, but I honestly can’t help but truly think that they are wide and deep becuase we have made them that way, not because our differences truly are that wide and deep.
 
The divisions are deep amongst many of the clergy.

On the ground, it tends to be less so, with a few radicals far exceeding the clergy.

In general, tho’ at the local levels, it’s far less an issue than most of the vocal elements want to admit.
 
Deacon_Ed said:
Further, Patriarch Michael Cerularius did not excommunicate the pope (Leo IX was dead anyway) – he excommunicated Humbert and his aides – one of whom, Frederick of Lorraine, would one day become Pope Stephen X (IX) – and their followers. As has already been noted, the death of Leo IX removed any papal authority that Humbert had so his excommunication was actually null and void.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Even further, The Blessed Emperor Constantine XI Palaeologus Dragases died (was martyred) while in Communion with the Roman Pontiff. He was the last Roman Emperor who defended Constantinople with his last breath.

http://www.byzantines.net/byzcathculture/images/hagiasophia_fl.jpg

NEVER FORGET!
 
You are correct, my son. 😉

For those who know, keep your mouth shut! 😃
 
question, if the excommunication did not happen, then why Pope Paul VI and Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras I simultaneously lifted excommunication between churches, does this mean that their action is also invalid?
Formosus said:
The Patriarch was never validly excommunicated…
Click to expand...
 
marlo said:
question, if the excommunication did not happen, then why Pope Paul VI and Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras I simultaneously lifted excommunication between churches, does this mean that their action is also invalid?
Click to expand...
The text admits that actions of excommunication took place.
The text never admits that the excommunications were against each others’ Churches.
The text admits that the excommunication did not rupture relations between the Churches, but rather that it was one of the circumstances that eventually led to the rupture in unity.

Joseph Ratzinger, in his book “Theological Highlights of Vatican II” written in 1966 states plainly that the parties recognized the excommunications were against the Patriarch himself (not the EOC) and the papal legates (not the CC).

The lifting of the excommunications was not an invalid act.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
marlo said:
question, if the excommunication did not happen, then why Pope Paul VI and Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras I simultaneously lifted excommunication between churches, does this mean that their action is also invalid?
Click to expand...
It is a formal way of establishing that the excommunications were invalid.

Excommunication is lifted for one of two reasons: repentance of the offense or invalidity of the excommunication.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top