Why didn’t the mutual lifting of the 1054 Great Schism excommunications automatically mean reunification?

[Nine_Two]

Nine_Two, dvdjs, dzheremi, and livingwordunity,

I’m still reading your posts, but I think I should tell you that you’re debating a dead horse – I mean an approach to ecumenism that has been on the way out ever since Vatican II.

Officially, yes. Sadly there are many Catholics who think it is still a good idea.

 

[dzheremi]

Exactly. It’s not dead if it’s still prevalent in every day interactions between Orthodox and Catholics. There’s what Rome would like to see happen or what Rome decrees, and there’s how lay Catholics like our friend Livingwordunity see fit to approach Orthodox Christians.

 

[Nine_Two]

To interpret Peter’s role the way the EO do one would have to believe that all the times that Jesus singled out Peter for leadership was just a coincidence despite the fact that Jesus never singled out anyone else in the way he would to Peter. And, one would have to ignore how there are plenty of places in the writings of the Early Church fathers where they strongly advocate for the primacy of Peter and/or the bishop of Rome. St. Cyprian of Carthage even zealously defended the Papacy from an anti-pope. But I don’t know of a single quote from the Early Church fathers that explicitly denies the primacy of Peter.

If you want to make a persuasive argument you should actually try to learn what we actually believe.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m not willing to settle for anything less than perfect unity. If the unity isn’t perfect, it isn’t unity. My impression is that Catholics would love to see reunification, but the EO side is the one that is resistant. We hold to the doctrine of the primacy of Peter because it is taught in the gospels by Jesus. So, that’s why we can’t just let that one go. Jesus said that he wants perfect unity for the Church, so we can’t let that one go either. But the reasons given by the EOs for why they won’t accept reunification with Rome are mostly because they want things to stay as they are.

We don’t want what you see as “reunion” never have. We never had that type of unity in the first place.

 

[dzheremi]

To paraphrase the EP (which is obviously not something OO regularly do, so you can imagine how strongly we feel about this), nobody denies that unity is the ultimate goal and must be accomplished through His body, the Church; the question is – whose Church?

Catholic and Orthodox visions of what unity entails are simply too different, and any kind of “unity” that isn’t unity as the Orthodox see it is not unity at all. There really is no other choice or way to go about it if you actually want a lasting, open sacramental unity with the Orthodox. It has nothing to do with Orthodox being “resistant” and everything to with the fact that we literally mean different things when we talk about unity. RCC unity is not actual unity, even if any particular Patriarch were to agree with it without condition (which would really just mean that the rest of his communion would cut him off like a gangrenous limb, but anyway…). Resistance or acceptance is not the issue; the issue is definition. We reject your definition of what unity is.

 

[livingwordunity]

St. Cyprian of Carthage claimed that all bishops were the successors of Peter…It is in On the Unity of the Church

The context in St. Cyprian’s Treatises where he says that the bishops have equal power is how the bishops are all equal in relation to the unity that the Eucharist provides to the Church. The subject context is about the Eucharist and not about teaching authority. Catholics agree that every priest has equal power for confecting the Eucharist and that there is a sacramental unity in the Eucharist. But to equate sacramental unity to doctrinal unity is like trying to equate apples to oranges. Here’s a St. Cyprian quote about Peter’s leadership role in the Church from the same work but in Treatise II:

“Peter also, to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He placed and founded the Church…” - St. Cyprian, Treatise II

Also…

St. Cyprian of Carthage on the Papacy

“Peter also, upon whom by the Lord’s condescension the Church was founded…” -St. Cyprian, Treatise IX

“…Since Rome from her greatness plainly ought to take precedence of Carthage…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 48

“Nevertheless, Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built, speaking one for all, and answering with the voice of the Church, says…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 54

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to** the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source**; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 54

“…Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 68

“…and the Church founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also.” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 69

“…For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 70

“For first of all the Lord gave that power to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and whence He appointed and showed the source of unity— the power, namely, that whatsoever he loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven.” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 72

“…Moreover, Peter himself, showing and vindicating the unity…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 73

 

[dzheremi]

It is funny that you talk about context first and then provide a litany of out-of-context quotes that you claim to be about the Roman Papacy…to do what exactly? To prove that St. Cyprian wrote many exalted things about Rome or about Peter? It’s not as though Jimmy does not have eyes and could not see that himself, but furthermore when they are placed back into context they don’t seem to support your treachery at all. Somehow St. Cyprian’s exhortation (Ep. 54) to a brother to not abandon previously exercised ecclesiastical discipline in the face of threats from heretics he had cast out, who were threatening to publicly cast all kinds of false claims his way, somehow that becomes some sort of teaching about the supreme Roman Papacy and/or its universal jurisdiction in prepetuity throughout the universe? Get outta here!

You might as well argue that Alexandrians do not believe in Christ as the Just Judge of mankind since we have been known to call our Pope “Judge of the Universe”! But I suppose this is what happens when you wrench things out of their context for blatantly polemical purposes without even understanding what you’re reading (since you’re not actually reading at all – just looking for ammunition to use in your shotgun sub-apologetics).

Rome deserves so many more thoughtful defenders than this. It really does.

 

[jimmy]

Nice try but you must not have even read what I pointed out because it isn’t about equality of priestly dignity. It is talking about the authority, honor and power of the apostles and it refers to the texts about Peter you guys are referring to. On the Unity of the Church chalter4 specifically says they all have the same power and authority.

 

[livingwordunity]

We don’t want what you see as “reunion” never have. We never had that type of unity in the first place.

Jesus wants nothing less than perfect unity for his Church. He even said that this unity has to be as perfect as the perfect unity that the Father has with the Son. In the Old Testament, God appointed one man, Moses, to lead God’s people. Moses was just a man, but he was God’s direct spokesman. And it would provoke God’s wrath if anyone would go against Moses. So, why is is so hard to believe that God would want the same type of leadership model for the New Covenant? In the Old Covenant, they had “the seat of Moses”. Doesn’t that sound a lot like “the chair of Peter”? Coincidence? I don’t think so.

 

[livingwordunity]

Nice try but you must not have even read what I pointed out because it isn’t about equality of priestly dignity. It is talking about the authority, honor and power of the apostles and it refers to the texts about Peter you guys are referring to. On the Unity of the Church chalter4 specifically says they all have the same power and authority.

No. The context of that quote is sacramental unity. Why don’t you tell me what you think about all the quotes where St. Cyprian is saying that Jesus built the Church on Peter? I provided a lot of them.

1. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; " John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? " Ephesians 4:4 (Source)

 

[Nine_Two]

Jesus wants nothing less than perfect unity for his Church. He even said that this unity has to be as perfect as the perfect unity that the Father has with the Son. In the Old Testament, God appointed one man, Moses, to lead God’s people. Moses was just a man, but he was God’s direct spokesman. And it would provoke God’s wrath if anyone would go against Moses. So, why is is so hard to believe that God would want the same type of leadership model for the New Covenant? In the Old Covenant, they had “the seat of Moses”. Doesn’t that sound a lot like “the chair of Peter”? Coincidence? I don’t think so.

And what you call union isn’t perfect union, or even union at all. It is Cultural Imperialism. Subjugation, slavery, and bondage.

 

[Nine_Two]

To paraphrase the EP (which is obviously not something OO regularly do, so you can imagine how strongly we feel about this), nobody denies that unity is the ultimate goal and must be accomplished through His body, the Church; the question is – whose Church?

Catholic and Orthodox visions of what unity entails are simply too different, and any kind of “unity” that isn’t unity as the Orthodox see it is not unity at all. There really is no other choice or way to go about it if you actually want a lasting, open sacramental unity with the Orthodox. It has nothing to do with Orthodox being “resistant” and everything to with the fact that we literally mean different things when we talk about unity. RCC unity is not actual unity, even if any particular Patriarch were to agree with it without condition (which would really just mean that the rest of his communion would cut him off like a gangrenous limb, but anyway…). Resistance or acceptance is not the issue; the issue is definition. We reject your definition of what unity is.

This is one of the major reasons I believe unity between EO and OO is plausible. When we speak of union we are speaking of the same thing. No one wants Alexandria to submit to the power of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and no one wants Constantinople to submit to the Pope. We can discuss the matter as equals.

We have a long way to go, and even for us unity will require a paradigm shift, but we are speaking the same language, more or less.

 

[livingwordunity]

And what you call union isn’t perfect union, or even union at all. It is Cultural Imperialism. Subjugation, slavery, and bondage.

Why do you suppose God appointed just one man, Moses, to lead all of God’s people? Moses had Aaron, but only to assist him. No other man had equal authority to Moses.

 

[dzheremi]

Maybe there’s something I don’t understand in the RC use of the word “sacramental” (clearly our definitions of ‘unity’ differ, too, but I think Nine_Two is currently making short work of that), but I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say in bringing up chapter 4 of the treatise, Livingwordunity. It seems like basically all of the quoted passage supports Jimmy’s point that the apostles were all to be considered equally (St. Cyprian even writes “Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power”), but you isolate not even a complete sentence but a sentence fragment as though we should all understand how “sacrament of unity” relates back to the point you’re trying to make. Well I don’t get it. What on earth are you even trying to say? How is this about Peter? How is this about the Roman Pope?

 

[livingwordunity]

You are focusing on one quote, which I have shown is about sacramental unity, and ignoring several quotes, a couple of which are in the same document, where St. Cyprian is clearly saying that Peter has primacy. That is called cherry picking. I put a lot of work into gathering all those quotes from St. Cyprian in post #188, so I’m disappointed that they are all being ignored.

 

[dzheremi]

This is one of the major reasons I believe unity between EO and OO is plausible. When we speak of union we are speaking of the same thing. No one wants Alexandria to submit to the power of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and no one wants Constantinople to submit to the Pope. We can discuss the matter as equals.

We have a long way to go, and even for us unity will require a paradigm shift, but we are speaking the same language, more or less.

I am cautiously optimistic about the future of OO-EO talks and relationships. I see the Chalcedonians of either stripe as closer to each other in certain important matters than either are to the OO, probably as a result of having more shared history and similar developments in some perhaps not-strictly-theological areas (e.g., you are both for better or for worse ‘imperial’ churches, and both have some concept of infallibility being resident in your churches, though the form it takes is vastly different between EO and RC), but even then I recognize that the OO and the EO are the two churches in all of Christianity that are closest without being in communion. So I agree that we still have a long way to go, but even then it is a shorter distance than it would take to unite with the RC or their spiritual children the Protestants. We are, at least in matters like what is being discussed in this thread, largely speaking the same language. Generally speaking, our laity see our faiths as substantially similar in ways that we do not see the faiths of the Catholics and the Protestants. I am confident that with the guidance of the Holy Spirit enlightening the minds and filling the hearts of our respective Patriarchs and other partners in the dialogues, we have the opportunity to heal the schism…before the return of Christ.

(…What? I’m hopeful but conservative. The Copts taught me well. )

 

[dzheremi]

You are focusing on one quote, which I have shown is about sacramental unity, and ignoring several quotes, a couple of which are in the same document, where St. Cyprian is clearly saying that Peter has primacy. That is called cherry picking.

Nope. No irony here at all…move along, folks…

(Again, what do you mean when you write “sacramental unity”?)

 

[livingwordunity]

Nope. No irony here at all…move along, folks…

(Again, what do you mean when you write “sacramental unity”?)

How about explaining why you are suggesting that St. Cyprian contradicted himself in the same document? From the same work of St. Cyprian:

“Peter also, to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He placed and founded the Church…” - St. Cyprian, Treatise II

“Peter also, upon whom by the Lord’s condescension the Church was founded…” -St. Cyprian, Treatise IX

And something even more clear from St. Cyprian as follows:

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to** the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source**; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 54

 

[jimmy]

No. The context of that quote is sacramental unity. Why don’t you tell me what you think about all the quotes where St. Cyprian is saying that Jesus built the Church on Peter? I provided a lot of them.

1. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; " John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? " Ephesians 4:4 (Source)

So the way you read a paragraph is that if you can find something that is mentioned in the paragraph that you can use to justify the argument, even if it is barely even mentioned, then it becomes the subject of the paragraph. The Eucharist isn’t the subject of the paragraph. It isn’t the context either. Pay attention to the structure.

The reason why the Eucharist is mentioned is because it is about unity, but that doesn’t make the Eucharist the context of the paragraph. The context is unity, and in that context both the unity of the apostles and that of the Eucharist are mentioned. The authority and power of all the apostles is equal.

 

[livingwordunity]

So the way you read a paragraph is that if you can find something that is mentioned in the paragraph that you can use to justify the argument, even if it is barely even mentioned, then it becomes the subject of the paragraph. The Eucharist isn’t the subject of the paragraph man. It isn’t the context either. You are just grasping for a way to deny what the text says.

I see sacramental unity in the paragraph. And I don’t believe that St. Cyprian contradicted himself. Where do you see it saying doctrinal unity or pastoral authority in that paragraph? Do you believe that he flip-flopped in his beliefs about the role of Peter? To interpret that quote the way you say it should be interpreted it would have to contradict where he said several times that Jesus founded the Church on Peter and gave Peter primacy. At least I dealt with the quote you provided instead of ignoring it as you and the EO’s here have done every time when I provide a quote.

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to** the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source**; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 54