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

[jimmy]

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.

Where did you show it was about sacramental unity? You didn’t. All you did was make an assertion and quote the passage. To ‘show’ that it means something is to demonstrate with rational arguments that your assertion is true. That would require that you explain the paragraph. I have not seen that anywhere on this thread.

Where did you cut and paste the quotes from? I have gone through St. Cyprian’s quotes before on the subject and found them to be not quite as clear as the apologists like to claim.

 

[dzheremi]

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

For what feels like it must be at least the second or third time in this thread (assuming I haven’t confused you with someone else; all terrible RC apologists who can’t handle that not everyone is RC start to blend together after a while), why? Why do I have to try to disprove your own interpretations and ideas to you? Do you think this is a good use of anyone’s time or this site’s bandwith? Is there some reason why you can’t just tell me what you mean by “sacramental unity”, as I’m clearly not interpreting St. Cyprian’s treatise to be about that?

I’m not interested in disproving what you are very clearly going to keep believing regardless of what anyone says. I am interested in finding out what you mean by “sacramental unity”, because I’m not convinced (based on your analysis of the text) that this is would be what St. Cyprian would hold to, in this or any other text.

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

Why do you suppose he created many tribes, instead of just one?

The ways of God are a mystery to us, and what he did in one situation doesn’t prove your case in another completely different situation.

 

[livingwordunity]

Where did you show it was about sacramental unity? You didn’t. All you did was make an assertion and quote the passage. To ‘show’ that it means something is to demonstrate with rational arguments that your assertion is true. That would require that you explain the paragraph. I have not seen that anywhere on this thread.

Where did you cut and paste the quotes from? I have gone through St. Cyprian’s quotes before on the subject and found them to be not quite as clear as the apologists like to claim.

All of the quotes I provided have a source link. I dealt with your quote, so how about you deal with the ones I provided? You can start with this one:

“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]

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

So since you see the word sacramental that becomes the whole meaning of the paragraph. Is there any reason to even discuss this with you? If you can’t read the quotes honestly it is pointless to even discuss it. As dzheremi said earlier, Catholicism deserves better apologists, who are willing to consider a text honestly. As it is, those on this thread want to pretend that the fathers all agreed with them. All the saints professed the doctrines of Vatican I in their full development.

 

[livingwordunity]

So since you see the word sacramental that becomes the whole meaning of the paragraph. Is there any reason to even discuss this with you? If you can’t read the quotes honestly it is pointless to even discuss it. As dzheremi said earlier, Catholicism deserves better apologists, who are willing to consider a text honestly. As it is, those on this thread want to pretend that the fathers all agreed with them. All the saints professed the doctrines of Vatican I in their full development.

I interpret what he said in a way that doesn’t suggest that he flip-flopped in this beliefs about the role of Peter. And, your interpretation, that he was talking about doctrinal unity or about pastoral authority, isn’t even contained within the paragraph.

 

[jimmy]

I dealt with your quote, so how about you deal with the ones I provided? You can start with this one:

“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

No, you didn’t deal with anything. In what way did you deal with it? You quoted it and mentioned that the word sacramental is used? That is amazing. You ignored the whole paragraph except one word and said, ‘oh, it says the word sacramental, therefore it is all about the Eucharist and the authority and power spoken of in the paragraph is only about the Eucharist. All the apostles can consecrate the Eucharist. That is what it is about.’ Thanks for the lesson in reading uncritically.

 

[livingwordunity]

No, you didn’t deal with anything. In what way did you deal with it? You quoted it and mentioned that the word sacramental is used? That is amazing. You ignored the whole paragraph except one word and said, ‘oh, it says the word sacramental, therefore it is all about the Eucharist and the authority and power spoken of in the paragraph is only about the Eucharist. All the apostles can consecrate the Eucharist. That is what it is about.’ Thanks for the lesson in reading uncritically.

I can see that you don’t want to deal with my quotes. Oh well.

 

[jimmy]

:

I can see that you don’t want to deal with my quotes. Oh well.

And you don’t want to deal with those that contradict your worldview. I can recognize that a saint disagreed with my position. I don’t feel the need to make every saint agree on the position of the bishop of Rome. That was the state of the early church; not everyone agreed, especially on the subject of the position of the bishop of Rome.

 

[livingwordunity]

And you don’t want to deal with those that contradict your worldview. I can recognize that a saint disagreed with my position. I don’t feel the need to make every saint agree on the position of the bishop of Rome. That was the state of the early church; not everyone agreed, especially on the subject of the position of the bishop of Rome.

My interpretation of Cyprian’s paragraph in Treatise I is based on what is contained in the paragraph while your interpretation is based on what is not in the paragraph. My interpretation is consistent with St. Cyprian’s other writings while your interpretation suggests that St. Cyprian flip-flopped in his beliefs on the role of Peter. You have only provided one quote to try to argue your position. Whether you agree with my interpretation or not, at least I dealt with it. By contrast, I have provided no less than 10 quotes from St. Cyprian as well as quotes from St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch to make my point. I skimmed through 82 epistles and 12 of St. Cyprian’s Treatises to obtain the quotes. And I provided a clickable source link for every quote so that you can read the whole document that the quote came from if you desired to. But you have flat out refused to even look at those quotes. One of the quotes that I really wish you would at least look at is this one:

“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

 

[dzheremi]

Other people’s interpretations are based on what is contained in the passage. Your interpretation is based on the fragments you have decided to isolate and place in bold text. Far be it for me to tell you how to argue, but don’t make it seem like we’re not all looking at the same thing.

 

[livingwordunity]

What do you think the likelihood is that St. Cyprian was a flip-flopper in his beliefs? Because I don’t believe that he was. Or, on what occasion would a Patriarch of on of the Orthodox churches of today ever make a statement like the following:

“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

 

[dzheremi]

About the same likelihood that what he wrote was meant to be taken as evidence of what you think is evidence of: not the slightest bit likely whatsoever.

 

[livingwordunity]

Before you can say that you have to at least look at all the other St. Cyprian quotes which I provided and compare them to your one quote. But you and the others on here who have been debating me on this refuse to even look at the quotes that I provided. I provided many quotes, but I’m only asking that you look at at least this one:

“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

How do you reconcile your interpretation of that other quote with what St. Cyprian says in this one?

 

[dzheremi]

And why do I have to do that? And what’s more, who’s to say I didn’t?

I’m not just not interested in validating your way of approaching Patristic texts.

 

[livingwordunity]

Because it would be intellectually honest to actually compare the quotes in order to try to get an accurate interpretation of St. Cyprian’s writings instead of focusing only on one narrow quote and ignoring all else that he wrote. Like I said, I don’t believe he was a flip-flopper.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What do you think the likelihood is that St. Cyprian was a flip-flopper in his beliefs? Because I don’t believe that he was. Or, on what occasion would a Patriarch of on of the Orthodox churches of today ever make a statement like the following:

“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

That is mistranslated. In the original Latin, the verb is in the preterite, and should read in translation, “whence priestly unity took its source.”

 

[prodromos]

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.

Bad example if you are trying to argue for the papacy.
Moses is a type of Christ and the Pharisees (plural) sit in Mosea seat. Are you sure you are not trying to argue for the Orthodox position?

 

[livingwordunity]

That is mistranslated. In the original Latin, the verb is in the preterite, and should read in translation, “whence priestly unity took its source.”

I should have known, you can’t trust an encyclopedia.

 

[dzheremi]

Bad example if you are trying to argue for the papacy.
Moses is a type of Christ and the Pharisees (plural) sit in Mosea seat. Are you sure you are not trying to argue for the Orthodox position?

You mean not everything and everyone is Peter?