I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
not that is sovles all the problems but emphasizing that, and that Leo was dead (and therefor Umbert’s authority expired) helps the Vatican side on this issue with the Orthodox.
Why did the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church Split from one another?
- Status
B
bobzills
Guest
However, did later Popes in any way refute the Papal Bull of excommunication which was laid at the altar of the Hagia Sophia by the papal legates in 1054?
D
Doubtingseeker
Guest
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
'Nuff said
Peter is the boss.*
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
'Nuff said
Peter is the boss.*
G
Ghosty
Guest
First off, it wasn’t a Papal Bull; it was written in Constantinople by the Cardinals. It was a bull (a sealed letter), but it wasn’t from the Pope.
As for refuting it later, why would they? The letter itself contained errors and bizarre slanders, but the excommunication was reasonably valid IMO, considering the fact that the original reason the legates were sent to possibly excommunicate the Patriarch was due to his insistence that unleavened bread was improper and invalid for use in the Eucharist. He maintained that erroneous position, and continued to attack the Latins over the issue, so for that reason alone he was worthy of excommunication.
The filioque (and beards, and other non-sense) were thrown in by Humbert and the others, but the originally reason for the excommunication stood pretty solid.
Peace and God bless!
B
bobzills
Guest
Because it was offensive to the Greeks and exacerbated bad feelings between the two Churches.
IMHO, the Church is better served by charitable diplomacy rather than hateful anathemas.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I agree, but my point is that the failure to remove the anathema doesn’t indicate an endorsement of the wilder notions found in the bull, such as the “omitting the filioque” accusation. The reason for the excommunication, at least as regards the denial of the use of unleavened bread which it was originally intended to address, was sound and an accurate accusation against Patriarch Michael.
Peace and God bless!
C
Chellow
Guest
The Catholic-Orthodox Joint declaration of 1965, which was read out on December 7, 1965, simultaneously at a public meeting of the Second Vatican Council in Rome and at a special ceremony in Istanbul. Led to rescinding of the 1054 excommunications.
B
bobzills
Guest
If the 1054 excommunications are rescinded, then why are Roman Catholics who convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church excommunicated?
P
Pravoslavac
Guest
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
'Nuff said
Hmmmm sounds like the EO position. Note it states PRIMACY not AUTHORITY. Remember EO originally saw the Bishop of Rome as the first in primacy. First Among Equals!!!
G
Ghosty
Guest
Schism is an excommunicatable offense. The excommunications of 1054 have nothing to do with that fact.
Technically though, by leaving the Catholic Communion they’ve brought themselves out, they haven’t been put out by the Catholic Church.
Peace and God bless!
T
tdgesq
Guest
May Eastern Orthodox who convert to Roman Catholicism receive communion in the Orthodox Churches?
P
Pravoslavac
Guest
No they can not.
T
tdgesq
Guest
I know.
B
bobzills
Guest
What all this amounts to is that the lifting of excommunications imposed in 1054, did not really accomplish all that much.
G
Ghosty
Guest
It was never going to. It wasn’t the reason for our split in the first place; even after 1054 both Sees viewed eachother as in Communion (they even concelebrated during the early Crusades).
It was later developments that actually caused the split, and 1054 has just been inappropriately marked as the “watershed” moment because it typifies the problems that were growing, not because it actually accounts for the separation.
Peace and God bless!
T
tdgesq
Guest
Perhaps not for some apostolic churches. On the part of the Catholic Church, there is Canon 844 and Orientalium Ecclesiarum 27.
A
Aramis
Guest
It both accomplished much and almost nothing.
Nothing, in that it did not fundamentally alter the general perceptions.
Much, in that it opened the potential for dialogs.
Nothing, in that it did not fundamentally alter the general perceptions.
Much, in that it opened the potential for dialogs.
B
bobzills
Guest
What you say is true, but what I find odd (and please correct me if I am wrong on this) is that even though the excommunications were officially lifted, if a Roman Catholic joins the Eastern Orthodox Church he is ipso facto excommunicated?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Which is why it happened in Constantinople: they wanted it to be in Palestine, but the Patriarch of Jerusalem would have none of it.
But yes, it did remove somewhat an obstacle to discussion.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, but it makes sense considering that the Jerusalem Patriarchate is less “ecumenical-minded” than e.g. Antioch, Constantinople, or Moscow.
- Status