So there was no excommunication because the Vatican objected to the omission of the filioque clause? I thought that this was cited in the excommunication of 1054. Further, is it not true that this excommunication ws not lifted until 900 years later?
What Vatican? What objection? What citation are you refering to?
Yes, Cardinal Humbert issued his own personal excommunication against the Patriarch and two other people. He was also himself excommunicated by the Synod of Constantinople, rightfully so in my opinion. There was no “big split” between the East and the West at that time, however, and the text I cited (and which you yourself reference when you say that the excomunication was not lifted until 900 years later) shows that the incident was “without foundation” and not representative of the Church as a whole.
You hit the proverbial nail on the head — though I think the clause colored in red was meant to say “the Spirit is eternally through the Son.”
Not a lifting of excommunications??
Both sides disavowed the memory of the events, that doesn’t mean there was ever a canonical penalty attached to growing beards or using leavened bread (two things that were “excommunicable offenses” in Humberts bull). Furthermore, if the excommunication was in effect, then the Eastern Catholics would have had to add the filioque clause to the Creed prior to 1965, but that was not the case.
What was Pope Paul VI talking about when he used the term “excommunication”?
I’m inclined to agree with brother Ghosty. If you read the papal/patriarchal decision closely, you will notice that it says that the excommunication is to be “removed from memory.”
They were excommunications, but they were never enforced or given regular status on the Latin side. Again, if you don’t believe me then explain why Catholic priests are allowed to have beards, used leavened bread, and not include the filioque.
That is an interesting distinction between lifting and removing from memory. But it does look like they were imposed.
Why were they imposed?
I don’t know. It was removed from memory.
I’m being half-serious, and half-joking. True enough, many EO, and many Latin Catholics, have not given heed to the papal/patriarchal decision, but I do hope the humor has caused you to consider the intent of distinction that I proposed.Is it all that much better to remove an excommunication from memory rather than lifting the excommunication?I don’t know. It was removed from memory.
Blessings
The difference is that in committing an excommunication to oblivion, the Church recognizes it was a mistake and thus had no real effect to begin with. In merely lifting an excommunication, the Church recognizes that the excommunication was properly given in the first place. If you’ve kept abreast of discussions in the Traditional Catholic Forum regarding the lifting of the excommunications of the Lefevre bishops, you might have noticed that several Traditionalists insist that the lifting of the excommunications was a consignment to oblivion, whereby they claim that the excommunications were invalid in the first place. But that is obviously not true, as the text of the lifting of the excommunications explicitly states that it is a genuine lifting of the excommunications.
They weren’t imposed. They were never put into effect on the Catholic side. Again, just look at the history and you’ll quickly see this is the case. Cardinal Humbert was acting on his own initiative, and didn’t have the authority to excommunicate anyone.
What about the Massacre of the Latins in 1182AD? Wouldn’t that be a strong indication of the way Greeks felt to Latins, especially the Pope? I mean, the decapitated the Papal Legate and tied his head to a dogs tail to run it through the city…
I’m not saying there wasn’t tension, just that the incident of 1054 a) doesn’t represent a definite point of schism, and b) was not enforced (at least by the Catholic side) as a legitimate excommunication. It’s this second point which is key to the discussion at hand, IMO.What about the Massacre of the Latins in 1182AD? Wouldn’t that be a strong indication of the way Greeks felt to Latins, especially the Pope? I mean, the decapitated the Papal Legate and tied his head to a dogs tail to run it through the city…
If point ‘b’ is true, why did Our Holy Father Pope John Paul II (memory eternal) lift that excommunication?
Again, there was no excommunication to lift. The incident was disavowed, but there was no canonical penalties to erase. If the “excommunication” had been in force, then Eastern Catholics would have been reciting the filioque by Vatican demand (when, in fact, just the opposite is true) and Catholic priests would not be permitted to have beards (one of the excommunicable offenses, according to Humbert in the Bull). Was St. Francis excommunicated under the Censures of 1054?
There were many factors, but I’ve never heard of this one you mention. The biggest seem to involve political struggles (especially in Eastern Europe) and cultural estrangement. Capping it all off with the sacking of Constantinople by renegade Crusaders from the West really helped seal the deal.
So what did Our Holy Father lift?Again, there was no excommunication to lift. The incident was disavowed, but there was no canonical penalties to erase. If the “excommunication” had been in force, then Eastern Catholics would have been reciting the filioque by Vatican demand (when, in fact, just the opposite is true) and Catholic priests would not be permitted to have beards (one of the excommunicable offenses, according to Humbert in the Bull). Was St. Francis excommunicated under the Censures of 1054?
So the Massacre of the Latins, where ‘every’ Latin (man, woman, and child) in Constantinople was murdered or sold into slavery to Muslims, about 20 years earlier didn’t seal the deal?
Nothing was lifted; the event was renounced by both sides. There was no mention of lifting any existing canonical penalties.
As I said, there were plenty of events. This is not the thread for such a discussion, however.