Is the REAL dividing point between Catholics & Orthodox whether or not communion with Rome is necessary?

[ProdglArchitect]

The 5th century is the 400s AD.

 

[dochawk]

Well, most people I know believe that the two groups completely excommunicated the other group.

The legate of the decease Pope played the bull of excommunication from the late Pope, and the EP respond in kind.

As a practical matter, excommunication of the head of a church by the head of the other excommunicates the entire membership of the other group.

Yes. And then it was ignored for a while, and then accelerated again. There was no “cure” at sometime after 1054, but it got much worse, and existed in practice, after the failure at Florence.

hawk

 

[dochawk]

Could you please explain this a little bit more? Why do they say the council lead to the split?

As the Muslim horde pressured the Eastern Empire more and more, there was increased interest in solving the schism and bringing western (Catholic) military aide into play.

Accounts differ (and not in surprising ways) about whether the terms of Florence were agreed to by agreement or under duress. (tragically, similar terms could have been agreed to by both sides!)

In the East (and the West until after the Schism), conciliar edicts weren’t automatically adopted. Rather, some form of acceptance was needed. In the West, the Pope approved, while in the East, it’s, well, fuzzier, and is some kind of general acceptance.

The West accepted Florence, but in the East, led particularly by St. Mark of Ephesus (recognized as a saint by the Orthodox, not Rome!), repudiated the “false council”. (By that time, there were a handful of councils that meant to be Ecumenical, but weren’t accepted). The council was widely rejected int East.

Until that time, the schism was technically there, but widely ignored. After this time, the actuality of the schism became the norm.

Even so, there were various churches that never broke communion with each other (E.g., Ukrainian, Ruthenian, and Melkite with Rome), but never continued to establish it with each new leader, either.

hawk

 

[AlNg]

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

But who is the successor of Peter. Should it be the Orthodox bishop of Antioch since that is where Peter was first? Or are all Orthodox bishops successors of Peter? I think that the Orthodox recognize that in an undivided Church, the Roman Pope would have primacy of honor, but not universal jurisdiction. Further, they maintain that it was Rome that broke away from the four ancient Patriarchal Sees. And they do not agree on the reasons given by Cardinal Humbertus for the excommunication of Patriarch Cerularius in 1054. For example, the fact that priests are required to have beards or that there are married priests in the Orthodox Church. Even the Vatican recognizes that there have been married Popes, so it does not seem right for them to give a married clergy as one of the reasons to excommunicate Patriarch Cerularius and all of his followers.

 

[AlNg]

The Orthodox churches choose to not recognize his role/authority.

Instead of attempting reconciliation and dialog, Cardinal Humbertus chose to drop a letter of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054.

 

[AlNg]

It would be hard to imagine Irenaeus, a second century bishop who knew both East and West, and who spent time in Rome, regarding communion with Rome as merely optional.

What is the evidence for a Christian community in Lyons in the second century? In any case, many scholars say that this passage is a fabrication.

 

[phil19034]

MikeInVA:

The Orthodox churches choose to not recognize his role/authority.

Instead of attempting reconciliation and dialog, Cardinal Humbertus chose to drop a letter of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054.

And Catholics today would say he was wrong in doing do.

 

[dochawk]

But who is the successor of Peter. Should it be the Orthodox bishop of Antioch since that is where Peter was first? Or are all Orthodox bishops successors of Peter?

There are writings of Popes that state that in some ways Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome are actually a single see, the Petrine See.

The Orthodox believe, as you ask, that all bishops share the Petrine Ministry. (I admittedly have trouble wrapping my head around that one–so the successors to the apostles all share in a ministry that eleven of the twelve didn’t? There must be more to it than this . . .)

I think that the Orthodox recognize that in an undivided Church, the Roman Pope would have primacy of honor, but not universal jurisdiction.

Not “would” but “do”. Except for the date of Easter the Orthodox are sticklers about proclamations from councils.

The universal (immediate) jurisdiction is a post-schism papal claim. The Orthodox would recognize the (for lack of a better term) universal appellate jurisdiction that Rome exercised in the first millennium.

(Yes, there are a couple of claims by Popes in the first millennium to absolute jurisdiction. Everyone else just laughed and went about their business )

hawk