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

[Peter_J]

I don’t know why you say “just”, but I am entirely in favor of building up our Eastern Catholics churches.

Do you personally have an interest in become Eastern Catholic? If so, it’s pretty far off the topic of this particular thread; but if you start a thread about it in the Eastern Catholicism section I am certain you will get tons of info about going Eastern. (Ditto for any other Latin Catholics reading this.)

P.S. Conversely, it seems to me that the Orthodox ought to pay more attention to their Western Rite.

 

[Peter_J]

They could certainly do with some building up, they currently make up less than 1% of the Catholic Church.

Actually more than 1% (well, unless you mean just us Greek Catholics, in which case “less than 1%” is right).

 

[jimmy]

And there you read the low petrine view as opposed to the high.

To which the statement follows within the Church, form without reform equals nothing but disobedience. Just as formation reduced to simplification becomes poorly formed. And the low to high view “within” the Church goes sort of like that. To make a long story short.

I didn’t understand a word of what you just said.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I didn’t understand a word of what you just said.

Misplaced_Book, his view is indicative of the low petrine view. Nothing wrong or right about it, it simply exists as do the others. They resolve in the remainder of my comments within the Church.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

To KyrieEleison17:

“Well, as Saint Cyprian in an earlier quote here wrote, there is the possibility of sharing in Peter’s authority by being in union with him.”

REPLY: Again, we are in union with St. Peter through Antioch and elsewhere.

But Antioch is not the See of the Successor of Saint Peter. Rome is. Saint Peter’s cathedra was settled in Roma.

"Moreover, I think the Council Fathers of Chalcedon - our common spiritual forefathers - did declare that they heard the voice of Peter speaking through his successor, Leo:

*“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! Thus the Orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!” * "

REPLY: The Fathers of Chalcedon did not accept the Tome on the Pope’s say so. They examined it and found it to be Orthodox.

As I said, I believe the doctrines of papal primacy and infallibility developed over time and this was one step in that direction and the acknowledgement or understanding of it by the universal Church.

REPLY: For a truly Collegial model to prevail, the Latin Pope would have to give up all pretense and claim of a “Universial Jurisdiction.”

But if it’s not “pretense” or a personal “claim” but of the Church’s divine constitution, then he can’t give it up even if he wanted to or tried.

The Pope has no right to interfere in the affairs of another See.

He has a right to “interfere” in matters that touch upon or affect the universal Church.

Attached to that is Infallibility, which is incompatible with the Early Church’s Collegiality.

Infallibility is not incompatible with collegiality. Ecumenical Councils are generally agreed to be infallible when pronouncing definitively on matters of faith or morals. Infallibility is a gift of the Holy Spirit to and for the Church to protect the Church. It is not meant to glorify a particular See or that See’s bishop: it is meant, ultimately, to glorify God.

REPLY: Yes, the Papal Doctrines are an Innovation. An Innovation that we cannot accept, and will not accept.

We can demonstrate the roots of the doctrine from sacred Scripture and the early Church Fathers. We can demonstrate the bases of the doctrine and have witnesses to it as early as Saint Ignatius of Antioch, for example. This is scarcely some random “innovation” that appeared out of nowhere: we find testimony to it in the earliest authorities of Church history.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for the offer. I actually do have an interest in Eastern Catholic liturgy. I have asked my wife if she wanted to try going to an Eastern Catholic Mass, but she has no interest in it. Although I can appreciate the beauty of an Eastern Catholic liturgy, I can also appreciate the beauty of the Latin Rite.Peter J got it from the part where I said:

LivingWord-

Whenever I have brought up a point (and it doesn’t really matter what it is), the response from the East is, “Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself?”

The tactics displayed in this interfaith dialogue are amazing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As we have attempted to explain to you countless times, Randy, We don’t read the Fathers that way. It isn’t alleged… the quotes are being taken out of context. Much like the quote from St. Ignatius being used because he refers to the Catholic Church…as if he had the Latin Church specifically in mind when he said it.

Our Bishops speak very lovingly to each other, because it is a brotherhood. We spoke that way to Rome as well, when she was in the fold. Note that there is no Orthodox Patriarch of Rome. Technically, the See of Rome has been vacant since the Schism from our Ecclesiological POV…we could certainly have appointed a successor, just as we did in Alexandria when that Schism occurred (referring to the messy business with the OO, one that I do not want to rehash in this thread…I’m using it as an example).

As long as there is hope, we will continue to leave a chair open for your Pope to sit in it. This isn’t about the mean ole Orthodox not wanting to play nice. There are real issues to hash out.

I have always thought there were some similarities between the Orthodox and the sedevacantists…now, I am proved right. The chair of Peter is vacant.

As for Ignatius, he had in mind the one Christian Church which he recognized as valid in his day…the Church which he referred to as the “catholic church”, and that term quickly became a proper noun.

One Protestant author who is honest about this is the renowned early-Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, who has written,

“As regards Catholic,' its original meaning was universal’ or `general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

According to Kelly, within 75 years or so after the death of the Apostle John at the latest, the followers of the Way were calling themselves members of the Catholic Church.

The more I dig into this “disagreement” the less impressed I am with Orthodox arguments. I applaud your spirituality and your faithfulness in the face of oppression and like all Catholics, I invite you to come home, but your justifications for continuing the rebellion against the successor of Peter who was established by Jesus as the head of all the apostles are just empty. But to be fair, I do understand why they are so important to you.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Somehow St. Cyprian’s exhortation (Ep. 54) to a brother to not abandon previously exercised ecclesiastical discipline… becomes some sort of teaching about the supreme Roman Papacy and/or its universal jurisdiction in prepetuity throughout the universe? Get outta here!

But it is not “out of context”. Saint Cyprian establishes Peter’s special role in and for the Church in the context of the Church’s life and “discipline,” as you say. That actually puts it in the context Catholics would expect to find it in, similarly as Saint Irenaeus would place the importance of the Roman Church in the context of the authority of Apostolic Succession against the heretics of his time to show their doctrines to be false innovations without the needed support from established Church authority.

This is beginning to sound like a pattern.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

To Randy Carson:

“I have always thought there were some similarities between the Orthodox and the sedevacantists…now, I am proved right. The chair of Peter is vacant.”

REPLY: St. Peter has multiple chairs. Patriarch John X currently sits on the throne of Antioch.

“As for Ignatius, he had in mind the one Christian Church which he recognized as valid in his day…the Church which he referred to as the “catholic church”, and that term quickly became a proper noun.”

REPLY: Yes, we were one Church once upon a time. St. Ignatius recognized that.

"One Protestant author who is honest about this is the renowned early-Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, who has written,

“As regards Catholic,' its original meaning was universal’ or `general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

According to Kelly, within 75 years or so after the death of the Apostle John at the latest, the followers of the Way were calling themselves members of the Catholic Church."

REPLY: Yes, We are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We never stopped claiming that, despite the exclusive claims to the word “Catholic” by the Latins. The Church is quite visible, even today.

“The more I dig into this “disagreement” the less impressed I am with Orthodox arguments. I applaud your spirituality and your faithfulness in the face of oppression and like all Catholics, I invite you to come home, but your justifications for continuing the rebellion against the successor of Peter who was established by Jesus as the head of all the apostles are just empty. But to be fair, I do understand why they are so important to you.”

REPLY: St. Peter has many successors. I am in communion with them, and appreciate your concern but it is unwarranted. You saying that our arguments are empty does not make them so. The patronizing tone certainly doesn’t help your case here either. In the course of these dialogues, Randy you have managed to alienate every Orthodox poster on this board, in addition to some of your Eastern Catholic co-religionists.

You are more than welcome to explore Our Orthodox Faith, Randy…

 

[Misplaced_Book]

To KyrieEleison17:

“But Antioch is not the See of the Successor of Saint Peter. Rome is. Saint Peter’s cathedra was settled in Roma.”

REPLY: St. Peter was martyred there, yes. But St. Peter labored in many places. How could you say that Antioch is not where St. Peter’s Successor is? It too is a See of Peter.

"As I said, I believe the doctrines of papal primacy and infallibility developed over time and this was one step in that direction and the acknowledgement or understanding of it by the universal Church.

But if it’s not “pretense” or a personal “claim” but of the Church’s divine constitution, then he can’t give it up even if he wanted to or tried."

REPLY: IF it is not. We say it is not of the Church’s Divine Constitution, but a power that the Papacy took upon itself.

“He has a right to “interfere” in matters that touch upon or affect the universal Church.”

REPLY: Where is that in the Early Church? Being an arbitor of disputes is one thing…a court of appeals. HOWEVER, the idea that the Pope can depose any bishop anywhere, and that he is not subject to a Council? Nonsense.

“Infallibility is not incompatible with collegiality. Ecumenical Councils are generally agreed to be infallible when pronouncing definitively on matters of faith or morals. Infallibility is a gift of the Holy Spirit to and for the Church to protect the Church. It is not meant to glorify a particular See or that See’s bishop: it is meant, ultimately, to glorify God.”

REPLY: Infallibility does not belong to any one bishop. No man is infallible.

“We can demonstrate the roots of the doctrine from sacred Scripture and the early Church Fathers. We can demonstrate the bases of the doctrine and have witnesses to it as early as Saint Ignatius of Antioch, for example. This is scarcely some random “innovation” that appeared out of nowhere: we find testimony to it in the earliest authorities of Church history.”

REPLY: I have seen the proof texts that Latins use to support these teachings. I would recommend reading Orthodox sources that answer these claims. On this very board, some of our more knowledgable posters such as Cavaradossi, dzheremi and others (who are well versed in Patristics) have answered these arguments.

 

[jimmy]

Randy, regarding your quote. It doesn’t say or imply that catholic was a proper noun. Catholic wasn’t an official title for the Church. It was modifier - just like the word orthodox - that was only applied to certain groups. That is all it says.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Bishop of Rome is St Peters successor.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930127en.html

“On the basis of this tradition, Vatican I also defined: “The Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy” (DS 3058). The definition binds the primacy of Peter and his successors to the See of Rome, which cannot be replaced by any other see. However, it can happen that, due to circumstances of the times or for particular reasons, the bishops of Rome take up residence temporarily in places other than the Eternal City. Certainly, a city’s political condition can change extensively and profoundly over centuries. But it remains, as is the case with Rome, a determinate space to which an institution such as an episcopal see is always referred–in the case of Rome, the See of Peter.”

“The Church of Rome is acknowledged as having a “more excellent origin,” which is that of Peter and Paul, the greatest representatives of the authority and charism of the apostles: the “keybearer of the Church” and the “Doctor of the Gentiles.” The other churches can live and work only in agreement with her; agreement entails unity of faith, teaching and discipline, precisely what is contained in the apostolic tradition. The See of Rome is thus the criterion and measure of the apostolic authenticity of the various churches, the guarantee and principle of their communion in universal “charity,” the foundation (kephas) of the visible organism of the Church established and ruled by the risen Christ as the eternal shepherd of the entire sheepfold of believers.”

catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter-and-the-eastern-orthodox

“Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome.”

 

[jimmy]

What heresies did the pope save the east from? The east called and held the first seven councils, none of which was attended by the pope.

 

[RyanBlack]

“Petrine authority was not a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they created but could not overcome.”

Complete and utter rubbish. Someone who would say such a thing is either ignorant of the history, or is being less than truthful.

Arianism: defeated in the East by Sts. Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa

Apollinarianism: defeated in the East by the (all eastern) Fathers of the First Council of Constantinople, especially St. Gregory the Theologian.

Macedonianism/Pneumatomachianism: defeated in the East by St. Athanasius and the (all eastern) Fathers of the First Council of Constantinople.

Nestorianism: defeated in the East largely through the work of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Monophysitism: I’ll give part credit on this one to Pope St. Leo, but the Council of Chalcedon was held in the East, and most of the bishops were eastern.

Monothelitism: defeated largely by St. Maximos the Confessor–most of the bishops who condemned it at the Third Council of Constantinople were eastern.

 

[Peter_J]

I have always thought there were some similarities between the Orthodox and the sedevacantists…now, I am proved right.

I already *knew *that there is.

Now back to …

 

[GaryTaylor]

Fr. Ray Ryland, a convert from the Episcopal Church, taught theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville and the University of San Diego. He is now on the staff of Catholic Answers.

Point being many do not agree with the low petrine view. And so forth and so on.

 

[RyanBlack]

Fr. Ray Ryland, a convert from the Episcopal Church, taught theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville and the University of San Diego. He is now on the staff of Catholic Answers.

Point being many do not agree with the low petrine view. And so forth and so on.

That’s fine that many do not agree with the “low petrine” view, and I certainly wouldn’t expect a Roman Catholic priest to agree with such a view. However, it is simply historically incorrect to state that the East was repeatedly rescued from heresies by Rome. There were certainly a number of heresies originating from the East, and they were defeated largely through the work of faithful eastern bishops.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You saying that our arguments are empty does not make them so.

And clearly, claiming otherwise proves nothing, either.

The patronizing tone certainly doesn’t help your case here either. In the course of these dialogues, Randy you have managed to alienate every Orthodox poster on this board, in addition to some of your Eastern Catholic co-religionists.

And yet, I came to the Eastern Catholicism forum and these threads with no presuppostions and prejudices. I was about as blank a slate as they come several months ago. However, interaction with the folks you referenced has taught me far more than I expected about both the FACTS and the FEELINGS associated with East-West relations, and frankly, what I have learned does not offer much encouragement. I’m certainly not to blame for any alienation between Orthodox and Catholics that clearly existed in this forum long before I ever thought to post on this subject. No, I was just one of a long line of Catholics destined to become a lightning rod. livingwordunity has your attention now, and others will come after him. It is an endless cycle.

Off-hand, have you ever wondered why some of the more prolific Catholic posters DO NOT post in the Eastern Catholicism forum? Is it a coincidence that most Orthodox DO NOT venture into the Apologetics forum?

You are more than welcome to explore Our Orthodox Faith, Randy…

Given the Orthodox abhorrence of doctrinal development, I’m not sure there is much to explore that was not already present within Catholicism 1,000 years ago, but thanks. I encourage you to explore the Catholic faith as well.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What heresies did the pope save the east from? The east called and held the first seven councils, none of which was attended by the pope.

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy
Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.

At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.

Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.

Roman Steadfastness

No such scandal occurred in Rome, where, as we have seen, heresy was vigilantly attacked by the popes and local Synods, and never took hold of the papacy (not even in the ubiquitous “hard cases” of Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius - none having defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe). Rome never succumbed to heresy. It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or decadent popes, the Protestant Revolt, the “Enlightenment,” Modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself. The papacy continues unabated to this day, with venerable power and prestige - the oldest continuing institution in the world. Thus, Rome has far and away the most plausible claim for apostolic faithfulness, and its history is a striking confirmation of the Catholic claims. An Orthodox position of papal primacy (not supremacy) can be synthesized fairly plausibly with these facts, but the anti-ecumenical stance assuredly cannot.

Source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

However, it is simply historically incorrect to state that the East was repeatedly rescued from heresies by Rome. There were certainly a number of heresies originating from the East, and they were defeated largely through the work of faithful eastern bishops.

The Necessity of the Roman See for Doctrinal Orthodoxy

The Catholic response to the latter position is a demonstration that the Roman See and the papacy - irregardless of their ultimate status vis-a-vis the government of the Universal Church (it doesn’t affect the validity of the argument) - were absolutely necessary for the purpose of upholding Christian orthodoxy (literally, correct doctrine), and preserving apostolic Tradition. A view that the East was always “primary” and orthodox, was the apostolic “mainline” (over against Roman and Western orthodoxy), and never forsook the Christian Tradition, is incoherent and self-defeating. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox ecumenical outlooks entail this logical conundrum. Only the “anti-Catholic” Orthodox view does, based on the following historical facts:

Schisms Prior to 1054

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

The Arian schisms (343-98);
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415);
The Acacian schism (484-519);
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681);
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43).

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

Final Court of Appeal

The Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the Church universal in the early centuries. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East’s most revered Church Fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (430), and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them unambiguously, and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.

Many of these venerable saints (particularly St. John Chysostom), and other Eastern saints such as (most notably) St. Ephraim, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Theodore of Studios, also explicitly affirmed papal supremacy. The popes functioned as the “supreme court” of the Church, and they presided over (personally or through papal legates) and ratified the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. One may argue that this was mere custom or a particularly “pragmatic,” “governmental” aspect of the primacy of honor, but whatever view one takes, the historical facts of the papacy as “final court of appeal” are undeniable.

Source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/…tiques-of.html