One of those legates became pope of Rome, Stephen IX (he was the permanent legagte in New Rome from Old Rome. His patron was Henry II, the emperor who inserted the filoque at Old Rome).
IIRC, the consensus is that the “split” wasn’t considered final until the rejection of the Council of Florence by the Orthodox.
Why would he correct it when he was one of the authors of the bull?
That’s my understanding as well. It certainly wasn’t treated as much more than a theological dispute by most of the notables in the West until that time.
Ah, that’s the point.
So in other words, as the Pope of Rome, he approved of the bull of excommunication which was laid at the altar of the Hagia Sophia and did nothing to reverse it?
No, as the Pope of Rome he didn’t do anything about the bull in question, so far as I know. It was a bull issued by Cardinals, and remained a bull issued by Cardinals.
Not quite.
There was no Pope at the time the Cardinals wrote and issued the decree. This is a matter of historical record.
and one of those legates went on to become Pope Stephen IXThere was no Pope at the time the Cardinals wrote and issued the decree. This is a matter of historical record.
They were sent by the previous Pope, yes, but what they issued was not a Papal Bull, and there was no Pope to write a Papal Bull at that time.
Being a Papal legate means little if there is no Pope to be the legate of.
What’s the point? If I go on to be a federal judge, this post won’t become a legal document.
This is a poignant contribution to the whole discussion. It is telling that no one has been able to put forward a rejoinder to your intelligent observation. It’s obvious the excommunication never attained any official capacity in the mind of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. I think the excommunications have really been blown out of proportion by modern Catholic and anti-Catholic polemicists alike.
Doesn’t sound like he could be a heretic by any stretch of the imagination (even if he taught outright heresy), because by his own admission, everything he taught is subject ot the judgement and correction of the Holy Roman Church.
the pooint is pretty obvious. First of all, he was not just an ordinary Cardinal. He was a papal legate, sent by the Pope who had given him authority as a papal legate. He then was there when the bull of excommunication was laid at the altar of the HAgia Sophia. The words of excommunication were particularly strong.:In the presence of the emperor and his grandees, the legates orally pronounced: “whoever obstinately begins to oppose the faith of the holy Roman and apostolic throne and its sacrificial offering, let him be anathema, let him be anathema * maranatha (that is, let him be excommunicated and let him perish at the coming of the Lord) and let him not be considered a Catholic Christian, but a heretical Prozymite (that is, those who do not accept unleavened bread and prefer leavened bread). So be it, so be it, so be it.”What’s the point? If I go on to be a federal judge, this post won’t become a legal document.
Peace and God bless!
I don’t think anyone is saying or would say that truth depends on concensus. But it doesn’t depend on the pope either. Truth stands on its own but we are all witnesses to it. The bishops embody their Churches and consequently they represent the action of the Holy Spirit within the local Church. The idea is that the Spirit acts within the whole Church and not simply within the bishop of Rome. The expectation of consensus is simply a census of how the Spirit guides the Church in all its parts.
I’ve never said he didn’t agree with it, I said I didn’t know what, if anything, the next Pope (this cardinal in question) did about the matter. I also said that subsequent dealings between Rome and the East show that neither side viewed 1054 as a time of definitive seperation.
Yes, kemosabe, but it can be used to recruese.What’s the point? If I go on to be a federal judge, this post won’t become a legal document.
Peace and God bless!
The pope of Rome has been out of the diptychs since 1014, when he sent a confession with the filioque in it, at Henry II’s insistence. That’s been the end of it since then.
I can’t speak on any of the decisions on Constantinople’s side. I do know that at least Antioch did not follow suit so quickly. At any rate, I’m talking about Rome’s position here.
Yet at the same time Latins were openly Communing with Byzantines, and well after the events of the Latin Patriarchates to boot. There is plenty of inconsistancy, and that’s precisely my point; if the Schism was viewed as a dyed-in-the-wool fact, Rome would not have acted in such ways. The Latins and Greeks in Jerusalem were even concelebrating in the twelth century at the Holy Sepulcre!