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

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
This was covered, and refuted, clearly in another lengthy thread in which you participated, I believe. Once more, with feeling:

Honorius did not teach anything in this matter in a formal manner that suggests he was attempting to bind all Christians to that teaching. In fact, the opposite is true for he wrote:

(a) “We must not wrest what they say into Church dogmas”;
(b) “We must not define either one or two operations”;
(c) “We leave the matter to grammarians”;
(d) “We must not, defining, pronounce one or two operations.”

Somehow, despite these clear statements that Honorius had no intention of making a binding decision, some controversialists insist that Honorius was attempting to make a formal, binding pronouncement and, because the matter in questions proved to be heretical, that Honorius’ private opinions disprove papal infallibility.
Click to expand...
Instead, he confessed one will in Christ, a phrase which was used verbatim in the Ekthesis.
 
Cavaradossi said:
“Clerical error” or “utter disregard for history”? How much can one be trusted who thinks that St. Cyril of Jerusalem sought refuge in Rome in the year 430 (perhaps he is thinking of St. Cyril of Alexandria; although St. Cyril was not seeking refuge in Rome, as he was not in danger, but rather seeking common consent and an ally in his fight against Nestorius; I suppose, however, that one could support that claim about St. Cyril of Alexandria using the forgeries of pseudo-Cyril, which were shown to be false at Florence), or who thinks that St. John Chrysostom affirmed papal supremacy (something which he does not do, as he does not link Peter’s privileges as the first Apostle to the bishop of Rome alone)? I could, frankly, understand the arrogant tone (not that I would like it any better), if you were careful to check for errors in the excerpts which you copy and paste from other apologetic sources, but when you are unable to detect and correct such elementary errors in what you repeat verbatim from others, such as confusing St. Cyril of Jerusalem for St. Cyril of Alexandria, I can scarcely imagine how the arrogant tone you take with the Orthodox posters here is warranted.
Click to expand...
Cav-

Have you ever been typing a big document and accidentally put in a wrong date because your mind was going faster than your fingers?

Perhaps you should do a bit of research on Dave Armstrong before you go any further. Among Catholic apologists, Dave is respected for being as fair as they come, and his research is pretty meticulous.

However, I will contact Dave via email and let him know of the error. Thanks for catching it.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Cav-

Have you ever been typing a big document and accidentally put in a wrong date because your mind was going faster than your fingers?

Perhaps you should do a bit of research on Dave Armstrong before you go any further. Among Catholic apologists, Dave is respected for being as fair as they come, and his research is pretty meticulous.
Click to expand...
It’s not a wrong date in this case, but rather the date indicates that he mixed up St. Cyril of Alexandria with St. Cyril of Jerusalem. How can one mix up two entirely different saints (famous for two entirely different bodies of works and for fighting two entirely different controversies) without either an utterly reductionistic approach to the fathers, which reduces them to their use as apologetic tools, or just a general carelessness towards history? I am sorry if I am a bit peeved, but I have a particular love for these two fathers of the Church, and I cannot stand to see them treated in such a flippant fashion. St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s catechetical writings are something which have always had a tremendous impact upon me, and St. Cyril of Alexandria’s explanations on Christology have always struck me not as some philosophical body of works (like some might treat it), but as a fundamental expression of the Christian faith itself.
 
Actually randy, it is your job to prove that they did. You are the one who made the distinction.
And basic reasoning skills demands that you prove the positive, not that I prove the negative. The fact of history is that heretics like Apolinarius were condemned due to personal letters.

Now you are saying that every heretic thought he was infallible.

And you were the one who brought up monothelitism as an accusation against the east. So don’t tell me about replaying it. Again the biggest monothelite of all was honorius.
 
Cavaradossi said:
It’s not a wrong date in this case, but rather the date indicates that he mixed up St. Cyril of Alexandria with St. Cyril of Jerusalem. How can one mix up two entirely different saints (famous for two entirely different bodies of works and for fighting two entirely different controversies) without either an utterly reductionistic approach to the fathers, which reduces them to their use as apologetic tools, or just a general carelessness towards history? I am sorry if I am a bit peeved, but I have a particular love for these two fathers of the Church, and I cannot stand to see them treated in such a flippant fashion. St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s catechetical writings are something which have always had a tremendous impact upon me, and St. Cyril of Alexandria’s explanations on Christology have always struck me not as some philosophical body of works (like some might treat it), but as a fundamental expression of the Christian faith itself.
Click to expand...
When you say that they had an impact on you, do you mean that they helped you to become more loving and more Christ-like?

I have emailed Dave Armstrong about your concern, and I quoted you directly along with the passage that gave such offense. I may disagree with you, but I will correct myself and others when evidence demands it.

Still, it seems to me that you are missing the forest for the tree.
 
I was reading a book by Valdimir Soloviev called the Russian Church and the Papacy and on page 18 of the introduction he says-“Soloviev points to the logic of protest, and makes the demand of Eastern opponents of the papacy. They must offer some altertnative, postive principle of authority. he notes that Eastern antipapal apologists insist on concilarism as the appropriate form of church structure. For them, ecumencial councials constitiute the ulimate authority in matters of doctrime. But Soloviev scoffs at this, The East has never convoked and still cannot convoke an ecumenical councial. The conciliarism advocated by Eastern Orthodox apologists is incomplete, according to Soloviev. Jesus Christ Himself did give a conciliar structure to the Church founded on the councial of apostles. But to maintain harmony within the councial amd among His followers down through the ages, He astablished the papacy as the center and guarantor of unity.” The great majority of the higher Greek clergy belonged to the party called semi-orthodox dogma, either from devotion to the theoretical conviction or from force of habit or from devotion to the common tratition. They had nothing in principle that the center of that unity of a universal Church, provided only that the center of that unity was situated in their mist; and since in point of fact this center was situated elsewhere, they preferred to be gGeeks rather than Christains, and accepted a divided Church rather than the Church unified by a power which was, in their eyes foreign and hostile to their nationality. As Christains, they could not be caesaropapists in principle, but as patriotic Greeks first and formost, they preferred the Byzantine caesaropapism to the Roman papacy. page 31. Sounds to me that since the beginning the East mistrusted the West, I think due to Roman empire conqurering the East, culture and thinking was much different than in the West and still is so far as I see it. It also seems to me to from reading many different histories of the East of that time period to make a lot of sense to me. So in te end I think that distrust stems from that time and to this day and age as one reason why the mutual lifting of the 1054 schism did not automatically mean reunifacation.
 
spina1953 said:
I was reading a book by Valdimir Soloviev called the Russian Church and the Papacy and on page 18 of the introduction he says-“Soloviev points to the logic of portest, and makes the demand of Eastern opponents of the papacy. They must offer some altertnative, postive principle of authority. he notes that Eastern antipapal apologists insist on concilarism as the appropriate form of church structure. For them, ecumencial councials constitiute the ulimate authority in matters of doctrime. But Soloviev scoffs at this, The East has never convoked and still cannot convoke an ecumenical councial. The conciliarism advocated by Eastern Orthodox apologists is incomplete, according to Soloviev. Jesus Christ Himself did give a conciliar structure to the Church founon the concial of apostles. But to maintain harmony within the councial amd among His followers down through the ages, he astablished the papacy as the center and guarantor of unity.” The great majority of the higher greek clergy belonged to the party called semi-orthodox dogma, either from devotion to the theoretical conviction or from force of habit or from devotion to the common tratition. They had nothing in principle that the center of that unity of a universal Church, provided only that the center of that unity was situated in their mist; and since in point of fact this center was situaled elsewhere, they preferred to be greeks rather than Christains, and accepted a divided Church rather than the Church unified by a power which was, in their eyes foreign and hostile to their nationality. As Christains, they could not be caesaropapists in principle, but as patriotic greeks first and formost, they preferred the Byzantine caesaropapism to the Roman papacy. page 31. Sounds to me that since the beginning the East mistrusted the West, I think due to Roman empire conqurering the East, culture and thinking was much different than in the West asnd still is so far as i see it. It also seems to me to from reading many different histories of the East of that time period to make a lot of sense to me. So in te end I think that distrust stems from that time and to this day and age as one reason why the mutual lifting of the 1054 schism did not automatically mean reunifacation.
Click to expand...
Soloviev? *This *ought to be good…

🍿
 
Randy_Carson said:
Soloviev? *This *ought to be good…

🍿
Click to expand...
Hi Randy, I think you would like this book as it follows much of the same thinking you have. Also there is a forward by Scott Hahn and Fr. Ray Ryland. To me it smacks of truth of history many are not willing to accept. I am sure that I will take a lot of heat for writing what I wrote but thats life and those who disagree will continue to do so, but thats my opinion. Hope you get the chance to read this book.
 
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/oo-rc_syrindia/doc/i_oo-rc_syrindia_1984.html

Their Holinesses Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Zakka I wish solemnly to widen the horizon of their brotherhood and affirm herewith the terms of the deep spiritual communion which already unites them and the prelates, clergy and faithful of both their Churches, to consolidate these ties of Faith, Hope and Love, and to advance in finding a wholly common ecclesial life.

First of all, Their Holinesses confess the faith of their two Churches, formulated by Nicene Council of 325 A.D. and generally known as �the Nicene Creed’. The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.
Code: 
Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation.

In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.
Hence we wish to reaffirm solemnly our profession of common faith in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, as Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Moran Mor Ignatius Jacoub III did in 1971. They denied that there was any difference in the faith they confessed in the mystery of the Word of God made flesh and become truly man. In our turn we confess that He became incarnate for us, taking to himself a real body with a rational soul. He shared our humanity in all things except sin. We confess that our Lord and our God, our Savior and the King of all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God as to His divinity and perfect man as to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united to His humanity. This union is real, perfect, without blending or mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without the least separation. He who is God eternal and indivisible, became visible in the flesh and took the form of servant. In him are united, in a real, perfect indivisible and inseparable way, divinity and humanity, and in him all their properties are present and active.

Having the same conception of Christ, we confess also the same conception of His mystery. Incarnate, dead and risen again, our Lord, God and Savior has conquered sin and death. Through him during the time between Pentecost and the Second Coming, the period which is also the last phase of time, it is given to man to experience the new creation, the kingdom of God, the transforming ferment (cf. Mt 13:33) already present in our midst. For this God has chosen a new people, His holy Church which is the body of Christ. Through the Word and through the Sacraments the Holy Spirit acts in the Church to call everybody and make them members of this Body of Christ. Those who believe are baptized in the Holy Spirit in the name of the Holy Trinity to form one body and through the Holy Sacrament of the anointing of Confirmation their faith is perfected and strengthened by the same Spirit.
 
Cavaradossi said:
It’s not a wrong date in this case, but rather the date indicates that he mixed up St. Cyril of Alexandria with St. Cyril of Jerusalem. How can one mix up two entirely different saints (famous for two entirely different bodies of works and for fighting two entirely different controversies) without either an utterly reductionistic approach to the fathers, which reduces them to their use as apologetic tools, or just a general carelessness towards history? I am sorry if I am a bit peeved, but I have a particular love for these two fathers of the Church, and I cannot stand to see them treated in such a flippant fashion. St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s catechetical writings are something which have always had a tremendous impact upon me, and St. Cyril of Alexandria’s explanations on Christology have always struck me not as some philosophical body of works (like some might treat it), but as a fundamental expression of the Christian faith itself.
Click to expand...
Well, that was quick:

Hi Randy,

Thanks for the heads up. So I mixed up the two Cyrils. Mea culpa. I’m delighted that our friend has attained to an ability to never make any typos. Praise God! He has been marvelously blessed. Me, I got a ways to go yet. Sometimes I type the wrong thing. I’m afraid, however, it is not a matter of “an utterly reductionistic approach to the fathers, which reduces them to their use as apologetic tools, or just a general carelessness towards history,” “flippant.” etc.

Nope; just simple, inadvertent human error.

Feel free to post!

Dave
 
Hi jimmy: Great post and I agree with it. Sadly, I think that there will be those who will disagree with it and say it does not speak for all the Orthodox Churches.
 
spina1953 said:
Hi jimmy: Great post and I agree with it. Sadly, I think that there will be those who will disagree with it and say it does not speak for all the Orthodox Churches.
Click to expand...
I agree with it as well. It doesn’t speak for all the Orthodox Churches. It speaks only for the Catholic Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church, or atleast mar Zakka I Iwas. But it does show that the Oriental Orthodox and their saints can’t be accused of heresy. The patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch (and consequently also Constantinople for that time period) weren’t heretics. And for someone like Dave Armstrong who has a name within the Catholic Church to call them heretics shows a blatant disregard for history or for the popes words.
 
Randy_Carson said:
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.
Click to expand...
As someone with a good memory of those threads, I would like to say that I think you’re presenting a slightly biased account. Not that I think Eastern Catholics are perfect (any more than I think Latin Catholics are perfect); in particular, we can be prone to be a little bit “isolationist” (or if you prefer, to have a bit of a “ghetto mentality”), not to mention being imperfect in our charity toward new comers. As I recall, some of us, including myself, made a point called for everyone to be a bit more patient with you.
 
jimmy said:
I agree with it as well. It doesn’t speak for all the Orthodox Churches. It speaks only for the Catholic Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church, or atleast mar Zakka I Iwas. But it does show that the Oriental Orthodox and their saints can’t be accused of heresy. The patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch (and consequently also Constantinople for that time period) weren’t heretics. And for someone like Dave Armstrong who has a name within the Catholic Church to call them heretics shows a blatant disregard for history or for the popes words.
Click to expand...
I agree! I did notice that it was between the Catholic Church and Syriac Orthodox Church and the Patriarch mar Zakka I and not the whole of the Orthodox Churches. It seem to me that since the Orthodox Churches seems to be independent of each other in that they do not like anyone else in other Churches to tell them how to run their Church and they are seemingly nationalistic in structure seems to or appears to be somewhat of a problem in any union between the East and West. It seemed to me from reading history that they did not from the beginning ever wanted any union between the East and West unless they were the authority within the universal Church. buts that my opinion.
 
Peter_J said:
As someone with a good memory of those threads, I would like to say that I think you’re presenting a slightly biased account. Not that I think Eastern Catholics are perfect (any more than I think Latin Catholics are perfect); in particular, we can be prone to be a little bit “isolationist” (or if you prefer, to have a bit of a “ghetto mentality”), not to mention being imperfect in our charity toward new comers. As I recall, some of us, including myself, made a point called for everyone to be a bit more patient with you.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are right, Peter, but MY recollection is of getting a lot of “friendly-fire” from Eastern Catholics.

To be honest, I wasn’t going to get into this again, but when I saw livingwordunity getting swarmed, I couldn’t resist.

It’s a break from arguing sola scriptura and “Maryology” with Protestants all the time, but even this gets old. And at least Protestants argue from scripture…here, not so much…well, not ever really. 🤷
 
Randy_Carson said:
When you say that they had an impact on you, do you mean that they helped you to become more loving and more Christ-like?
Click to expand...
Opened the door, perhaps. But I certainly am not yet so delusional as to think that I am truly repentant, loving or Christ-like enough.
Randy_Carson said:
Still, it seems to me that you are missing the forest for the tree.
Click to expand...
Whether that is true or not is God’s alone to know. But then I am not surprised to see this coming from somebody who once presumed to tell me what my God would say to me on the day when I shall be judged.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Perhaps you are right, Peter, but MY recollection is of getting a lot of “friendly-fire” from Eastern Catholics.

To be honest, I wasn’t going to get into this again, but when I saw livingwordunity getting swarmed, I couldn’t resist.
Click to expand...
IIRC, you ended that episode thinking that all kinds of Eastern Catholics were attacking you for no good reason, since you yourself hadn’t done anything wrong (or something along those lines). I had wondered if you still saw it that way …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top