Who started the East-West Schism in 1054 AD?

[gurneyhalleck1]

And you do not see in this the hand of God? Furthermore for much of its history (before the fall of Rome) the Church was being persecuted, moreover, even after the edict of Milan was issued the Church was only tolerated by the imperial court. It would take some time for the Church to gain the upper hand so to speak. But the situation in the West (after the edict of Milan) was far better than what was happening in the east with the Bishops of Constantinople and the Byzantine emperors. So I’m a little confused here in that you seem to disregard the evidence, and I say this because I have posted examples of these political machinations.

The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity, yes. What does that have to do with papal supremacy and infallibility, I’m not sure? Your contention is that papal infallibility was obvious, embraced by everyone, and used day one until 2009. Constantine adored the Church and was very active in the ecclesiastical life of the Church. He played a hands-on role. Either he had no idea about papal infallibility or he felt himself in charge of the Church when it came to summoning councils and guiding the Church against heresies, etc.

Nobody’s disregarding evidence. The Orthodox have presented historical evidence the other way and you don’t believe them. Bottom line is you’re fixed in your position about the papacy from day one being infallible, that all bishops were inferior to the papacy, all the bishops didn’t have sole jurisdictions over their sees but rather the Pope could override and overrule them, and the papacy had a superior origin and destiny. That’s fine.

You say, “and you do not see in this the Hand of God?” That argument is hardly convincing. One could easily say “there are 14,000,000 Mormons on the planet Earth, can you not see that God obviously has destined the Latter Day Saints to be his true church? Look at how they’ve blossomed in only 150 years!” or “there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and they took the Christian lands of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, Egypt, Turkey, and many other Christian lands from the Christians. Can one not see the Hand of Allah in this? Look at what God has allowed to happen?” God works in mysterious ways throughout history and His hand if not always obvious. Prayerfully we can try our best to make sense of his developments. I’m glad you have come to a conclusion about the papacy. The jury is still out for me. I’m praying about it, reading about it, and perhaps I will come to your conclusion someday soon or a different one. My mind is open and I seriously respect your opinion. Your opinion is an informed, intelligent, thoughtful one.

 

[josie_L]

It is inevitable that when the character and actions of the office are called into question, this ensues. I have indeed made plenty of statements and debate along with these Orthodox in here about my doubts about infallibility. I struggle with it and don’t see the slamdunk you and Josie see, etc. Good for you guys. I’m happy for you. But unlike you I will analyze history and look at the interactions the papacy has had with governments and nations throughout the last two thousand years. I am allowed to do that, right? And I find the actions of some popes cross the line of their power. The actions against Elizabeth and heaven knows there are many more examples, that I could give, are not to say he’s not infallible. I’m merely pointing out that the papacy has done some dastardly things that seem unethical to me. Instead of just calling a spade a spade, you point out the misdeeds of others and deflect the fact. It’s like the kids in my classroom. I catch a kid hitting another kid on yard duty and kid A says, “Oh yeah, I may have hit kid B but he called my mom a __________ and that kid over there kid C cussed at kid D!” What’s the point? Point out the errors of others and never clean your own house.

I am merely stating that many people who doubt the papacy feel it has had way too much power throughout the last 1,000 years or so and that, at times, it has behaved inexcusably. OF COURSE John Paul II was a treasure! That’s a no-brainer. The man should be a saint. Benedict is a decent pope. He’s made some misteps to me but overall he’s a moral, focused, bright shepherd of the RCC. I’m not demonizing every pope for all time. That would be intellectually dishonest and stupid. But I am pointing out that the idea that a bishop of Rome may do whatever he wants politically, start wars, permit assassinations, and turn a blind eye to evils BUT as long as his doctrine is sound, it’s ok, that’s not ok with me. The papacy has left a sour taste in the mouths of many people, including our Founding Fathers and that led to an inherent distrust of Catholics in early U.S. history that was indeed distasteful. Popes in the last 100 years have been wonderful, usually glowing examples of how the Church should be run and have done much to improve the image and respect of the office of the Pope. No one did a better job at defining the perfect pope than JPII. I respect these popes and try to follow the teachings of the Church. I don’t always do the greatest job and fall short like anyone else. But I would be dishonest with you if I said that I’m completely sold on infallibility. Historically I’m torn on it and the behavior of popes has given me pause and I see why the Orthodox and Protestants at times throughout history have distrusted the Holy See. I’m by no means bashing the papacy, just being honest about what I see historically.

I’ve said before that many folks in here make a great case for the Roman Catholic position but Orthodox state their case well also.

And “digging up dirt” is not the intention, just reporting historical facts accurately matters to me. If a pope did something evil, he did something evil. It’s not dirt-digging, it’s history. Sorry you view it that way. Are we forbidden from reporting anything negative that the papacy has done? Also I fail to see what your condom reference had to do with this discussion? Talk about getting off topic! The pope condemns condoms in Africa and all Orthodox bishops of the world are supposed to jump on board and take on that issue with him? Orthodox don’t feel that they have to follow the pope everywhere and echo his sentiments. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. If they didn’t jump on that issue with him it doesn’t mean they condone it? I’m not sure what pertinence this has. I guess we’re both guilty of getting a little off the beaten path.

In any case, Jam, God bless you. Have a great evening.

Are you under the impression that we didn’t know of these misdeeds? Do you think that we need to be reminded somehow because you have doubts about infallibility? Are you helping anyone with this information if as you say for the last one hundred years we have had good popes?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Did I say I agree with it? I asked you what you would have done as you attempted to show only one side of the issue. And it really bothers me when people do that.

Sorry you got “bothered.” I haven’t agreed with many of your statements or angles but none have “bothered” me at all. You said:

I’m curious but what would you have done if you were Pope if Catholics were being killed and perniciously persecuted simply because those who gained from the Reformation (mostly the nobility) were unwilling to separate from their loot and countless treasures that were derived from stripping monasteries and the Church?

This statement sounds as if you’re in agreement to me or at least saying, “well could you have done any better?” You are defending his actions here IMO. What would I have done? I would’ve stayed out of England. As pope, my meddling only serves to agitate an already nasty situation. I certainly wouldn’t have gone to Spain and rallied the troops there and the Armada for an invasion of a sovereign land. Maybe I would’ve actually followed the “just war” doctrines of Augustine here. Who knows? The pope’s job is not to make sure that all countries are Catholics OR ELSE. At least that’s my interpretation. If that’s the case, then we’d need to do a lot of invasions. As the Church has lost its power over the last 500 years, it doesn’t have the ability to do these things anymore and there are MANY checks on the power of the papacy, a world community that would never put up with this stuff today. I feel your statement defended his actions. I guess I’d ask you also, respectfully, Josie, what would you have done?

 

[josie_L]

The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity, yes. What does that have to do with papal supremacy and infallibility, I’m not sure? Your contention is that papal infallibility was obvious, embraced by everyone, and used day one until 2009. Constantine adored the Church and was very active in the ecclesiastical life of the Church. He played a hands-on role. Either he had no idea about papal infallibility or he felt himself in charge of the Church when it came to summoning councils and guiding the Church against heresies, etc.

Nobody’s disregarding evidence. The Orthodox have presented historical evidence the other way and you don’t believe them. Bottom line is you’re fixed in your position about the papacy from day one being infallible, that all bishops were inferior to the papacy, all the bishops didn’t have sole jurisdictions over their sees but rather the Pope could override and overrule them, and the papacy had a superior origin and destiny. That’s fine.

You say, “and you do not see in this the Hand of God?” That argument is hardly convincing. One could easily say “there are 14,000,000 Mormons on the planet Earth, can you not see that God obviously has destined the Latter Day Saints to be his true church? Look at how they’ve blossomed in only 150 years!” or “there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and they took the Christian lands of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, Egypt, Turkey, and many other Christian lands from the Christians. Can one not see the Hand of Allah in this? Look at what God has allowed to happen?” God works in mysterious ways throughout history and His hand if not always obvious. Prayerfully we can try our best to make sense of his developments. I’m glad you have come to a conclusion about the papacy. The jury is still out for me. I’m praying about it, reading about it, and perhaps I will come to your conclusion someday soon or a different one. My mind is open and I seriously respect your opinion. Your opinion is an informed, intelligent, thoughtful one.

The question is, are the Orthodox putting into context that historical evidence? Because truth cannot contradict itself. Moreover, do you not see the many examples of popes applying his authority within the history of the Church (before the schism)? Is scripture not enough to emphasize the authority that Peter alone had? What exactly would convince you? And my mentioning the hand of God was meant to make you think upon the matter so it wasn’t really an argument per se.

p.s. Why did you come back to the Catholic Church (I’m curious)?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The question is, are the Orthodox putting into context that historical evidence? Because truth cannot contradict itself. Moreover, do you not see the many examples of popes applying his authority within the history of the Church (before the schism)? Is scripture not enough to emphasize the authority that Peter alone had? What exactly would convince you? And my mentioning the hand of God was meant to make you think upon the matter so it wasn’t really an argument per se.

p.s. Why did you come back to the Catholic Church (I’m curious)?

We’ve argued this to death, Josie. I have many reasons I came back to the Catholic Church but I’m struggling with some doctrines and the role of the papacy. In the last two years I have come to truly doubt some of the teachings of the Church and some like you have stated. I’m not going to lay out a history or details. I’m not going to be an open book here. My jury is still out. I’m still muddling along as a Catholic and I’m going through some mirky waters as far as my agreement with infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc. As I stated multiple times, I’m glad you have a firm faith and are so completely convinced. May God bless you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Are you under the impression that we didn’t know of these misdeeds? Do you think that we need to be reminded somehow because you have doubts about infallibility? Are you helping anyone with this information if as you say for the last one hundred years we have had good popes?

I’m not under any impression. But I do think you are not intellectually honest about the history of the papacy politically and that you will apologize for any and all misdeeds and chalk it up to the usual, “hey, a pope can do whatever he wants to anybody but his teaching is perfect no matter what.”

Likewise, do I think you need to be reminded about these things. Simply put, yes. I think you have drowned out what you don’t want to hear and focus on anachronistic thinking and only the quotes that support your position. There is no way you’d research the other side here.

Am I helping anyone? I’m not trying to help anyone? Neither are you, Josie. You’re arguing, so am I. Let’s at least call a spade a spade. You’re not helping me at all.

As stated, I’m done arguing this. It’s gotten down to you and I just doing the old back and forth, far off topic from the OP. I disagree with your arguments. Sorry. Throwing Matthew 16 and a flurry of quotes from guys like Cyprian and Irenaeus just aren’t going to do it for me here. May God bless you. I’m done with this argument.

 

[josie_L]

Sorry you got “bothered.” I haven’t agreed with many of your statements or angles but none have “bothered” me at all. You said:

I’m curious but what would you have done if you were Pope if Catholics were being killed and perniciously persecuted simply because those who gained from the Reformation (mostly the nobility) were unwilling to separate from their loot and countless treasures that were derived from stripping monasteries and the Church?

This statement sounds as if you’re in agreement to me or at least saying, “well could you have done any better?” You are defending his actions here IMO. What would I have done? I would’ve stayed out of England. As pope, my meddling only serves to agitate an already nasty situation. I certainly wouldn’t have gone to Spain and rallied the troops there and the Armada for an invasion of a sovereign land. Maybe I would’ve actually followed the “just war” doctrines of Augustine here. Who knows? The pope’s job is not to make sure that all countries are Catholics OR ELSE. At least that’s my interpretation. If that’s the case, then we’d need to do a lot of invasions. As the Church has lost its power over the last 500 years, it doesn’t have the ability to do these things anymore and there are MANY checks on the power of the papacy, a world community that would never put up with this stuff today. I feel your statement defended his actions. I guess I’d ask you also, respectfully, Josie, what would you have done?

I would not have wanted the death of Elizabeth but at the same time I would not accept her as being the head of the Church, the idea is heretical to say the least. Furthermore, you have to remember England was still very much Catholic at this time (I think at this point civil war would have been justified), so I don’t know how to say this without offending anyone’s sensibilities but I think that outside forces should have helped the Catholics within England. This could have been done with the help of the Spanish as they were the strongest (I would use diplomacy first however). You have to remember that Elizabeth’s reign and those after her caused many problems (just think of Ireland and how it was subjected to much cruelty). My view is the pope to some extent was justified in asking the Spaniards for help. The pope did committ some wrongs but you also have to look at it from his perspective. He knew many Catholics were suffering under Elizabeth and would probably continue to if some sort of action wasn’t taken. I think it’s easy to judge but very hard to stand in such shoes when you 're faced with the knowledge that many were suffering because of the greed of a minority, and that their souls were being endangered. I think you were too one sided in your response and that is why I said what I said.

 

[josie_L]

I’m not under any impression. But I do think you are not intellectually honest about the history of the papacy politically and that you will apologize for any and all misdeeds and chalk it up to the usual, “hey, a pope can do whatever he wants to anybody but his teaching is perfect no matter what.”

Yes, I’m being intellectually honest as I’m quite aware of many of the wrong doings of our Church, I just don’t need them to be rehashed again and again ad naseum.

Likewise, do I think you need to be reminded about these things. Simply put, yes. I think you have drowned out what you don’t want to hear and focus on anachronistic thinking and only the quotes that support your position. There is no way you’d research the other side here.

I don’t need to drown myself in tons of books to gain truth. That being said I have read quite a bit of literature about what the other side as to say but not without informing myself fully on the Catholic position first, because it’s necessary for me to understand my faith before I learn about others. Furthermore, I think there is a fine line between being informed and being too open minded.

Am I helping anyone? I’m not trying to help anyone? Neither are you, Josie. You’re arguing, so am I. Let’s at least call a spade a spade. You’re not helping me at all.

I don’t see how bringing up the things that you are is helping anyone as this as nothing to do with whether or not Christ instituted the papacy. For that you would need to focus on tradition, scripture, and the earliest centuries of Church history (before the schism) and that is not what you have done with your posts.

As stated, I’m done arguing this. It’s gotten down to you and I just doing the old back and forth, far off topic from the OP. I disagree with your arguments. Sorry. Throwing Matthew 16 and a flurry of quotes from guys like Cyprian and Irenaeus just aren’t going to do it for me here. May God bless you. I’m done with this argument.

Pax, and God bless.

 

[hawkeye]

I think that it was unwise for you to say such a thing. Might I remind you of another thread that asks “Are catholics their own worst enemy?”

You might wish to reflect upon that.

Ok, can you give me a link so I can respond, thank-you in advance.

 

[Louie1983]

Ok, can you give me a link so I can respond, thank-you in advance.

Hesychios was corrected here, he did apologise for the misunderstanding later on. I don’t think anyone will be responding on this thread anymore, everyone has been through their respective arguments about 3 times each!

 

[hawkeye]

Hesychios was corrected here, he did apologise for the misunderstanding later on. I don’t think anyone will be responding on this thread anymore, everyone has been through their respective arguments about 3 times each!

Ok, thank you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would not have wanted the death of Elizabeth but at the same time I would not accept her as being the head of the Church, the idea is heretical to say the least. Furthermore, you have to remember England was still very much Catholic at this time (I think at this point civil war would have been justified)

That is not accurate at all. England had Catholic recusants in the north mostly but the majority of England according to all histories I have read point to the majority of Brits being content with the Church of England. There were many Geneva-sympathizing Puritans as well. The Church of England had gone through the days of Henry and Edward VI and “Bloody” Mary Tudor and the Catholic return to England left a sour taste in many British. Popular sentiment was highly anti-papacy and the victory over the Spanish Armada was well-received by the people. In fact, according to Moorman’s “History of the Church in England,” the papal bull excommunicating Elizabeth and the Vatican’s edicts actually did more to stir up a hornet’s nest against Catholic recusants than if they had just kept their mouths shut.

Your post stated that you didn’t need to read history to find truth and that you read Catholic teachings first and then it seems you ignore misdeeds and the sins of the Church. When someone reminds you of them “ad nauseum” (a really overused CAF term by the way) occurs but it’s ok to remind the Protestants of persecutions against them and trash Martin Luther “ad nauseum” and remind folks about sola scriptura over and over. “Ad nauseum” is all relative I suppose.

Being open-minded is a sign of intelligence and intellectual honesty IMO. We disagree here evidently. I have my limitations but I go where the truth leads me. I don’t just read some talking points and memorize some quotes and expect all historical events and theology to jive with them or else…that’s just my approach. We differ here. That’s ok.