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

[Peter_J]

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.

Good thing, I think someone would have a coronary if they heard Catholics arguing from Scripture.

(Kidding.)

 

[Nine_Two]

This is the ironic thing though, because I’m told as an Evangelical by Catholics that this makes no sense. (besides of course praying)

I often hear, “how do you know who’s interpretation is correct” and I say I search the Scriptures, pray, etc which is unacceptable. However, when it comes to the two oldest Apostolic faiths this is what I’m meant to do?

If Catholics and Orthodox were united it would be so much easier for everyone else. I read a father and I ask for the interpretation; a Catholic Priest will give me a different interpretation than an Orthodox Priest.

Believe me, anyone who has converted knows and understands it would be so much easier if there was just one body

I would agree it is a bad idea to just read things yourself and interpret them. Look at how they have been interpreted by others. Look at them in the context of Christ’s message, and look at the consistency with which they preach.

 

[Nine_Two]

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

Flippant is an excellent word to describe that email.

 

[Nine_Two]

The pope has to say ‘I declare and define’ and attach an anathema. An eastern bishop only has to mention it.

If only Arius had been from the West. He would never have become a heresiarch.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Flippant is an excellent word to describe that email.

Dave’s point, I believe, was that he simply typed the wrong name as he was banging it out. Dave is TRULY prolific with lots of books and blog posts to his credit and he turns out thousands of words daily.

For anyone to take issue with what was essentially a clerical error TO AVOID DEALING WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT is pathetic.

To attack me because I didn’t catch it is even worse. Like I’m supposed to have memorized the dates of every father who ever lived.

That is called a dodge, and I don’t blame him for seeing it that way at all.

But I notice that no one has dealt with the substance…namely, that the EAST was in heresy for hundreds of years and only the orthodoxy of Rome preserved the Church from falling into error.

Just. Like. Jesus. Planned.

Out.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The pope has to say ‘I declare and define’ and attach an anathema. An eastern bishop only has to mention it.

Not exactly. A pope can be a heretic as a private theologian. However, unless a pope says, “I declare and define, etc.”, then his personal heresy has nothing whatsoever to do with papal infallibility.

And yes, lots of Eastern bishops have been heretics as was demonstrated (and passed over) previously.

But you probably know all this.

 

[jimmy]

Dave’s point, I believe, was that he simply typed the wrong name as he was banging it out. Dave is TRULY prolific with lots of books and blog posts to his credit and he turns out thousands of words daily.

For anyone to take issue with what was essentially a clerical error TO AVOID DEALING WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT is pathetic.

To attack me because I didn’t catch it is even worse. Like I’m supposed to have memorized the dates of every father who ever lived.

That is called a dodge, and I don’t blame him for seeing it that way at all.

But I notice that no one has dealt with the substance…namely, that the EAST was in heresy for hundreds of years and only the orthodoxy of Rome preserved the Church from falling into error.

Just. Like. Jesus. Planned.

Out.

That has been dealt with and you continue to ignore it. The fact is that after reading it, I am not impressed with his knowledge of the early church. If he is going to throw the word heresy around where there is none, it is hard to believe anything he said. And with that error removed, Rome had as many heretical patriarchs as Alexandria did. Alexandria had a total of one heretical patriarch according to the list once the error is corrected. Antioch and Constantinople had a couple more, but not many.

The problem with the article is that it portrays the east as if it was constantly in need of the west, but the reality is that the east solved its own problems. They held their own councils, and condemned the heresies themselves. And when the west offered its opinion it was accepted because it was good, not because it was said by the pope. Pope Leo’s Tome was accepted because it was read and determined to be a good summation of the faith at Chalcedon. Not because pope Leo spoke. And he didn’t change any opinions. They would have voted the way they did had Rome said nothing.

 

[Peter_J]

Dave’s point, I believe, was that …

I think these conversations would be a lot easier if you would come right out and say that “Dave” is really you.

npatrol:

 

[jimmy]

Not exactly. A pope can be a heretic as a private theologian. However, unless a pope says, “I declare and define, etc.”, then his personal heresy has nothing whatsoever to do with papal infallibility.

And yes, lots of Eastern bishops have been heretics as was demonstrated (and passed over) previously.

But you probably know all this.

No one has denied that there have been many eastern bishops who were heretics. What is denied is the idea that the west always came in to save the day when a heresy arose. That is pure nonsense and isn’t based on history at all. Yes, the west had a positive influence in certain instances, but that is the exception to the rule. The west dealt with their own problems.

This isn’t about papal infallibility, it is about whether a pope was a heretic. Honorius was a heretic in the same manner that Arius, Apolinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Sergius were. No eastern bishop has ever claimed infallibility, so no heretic ever bound anyone by his heresy. So the west, including Rome has had its own heretics, even if they didn’t say ‘I declare and define’. Honorius’s letters were responsible for the spread of monothelitism as a viable opinion. And interestingly it was the east that cleaned up the mess through the sixth ecumenical council.

The worst part of this is that the west likes to point fingers but can never look at their own problems. You would think the west has had a pure and angelic history since the beginning. But they ignore the reformation, Pelagianism, and every other error that stemmed from the west. And often, these heresies were supported by bishops. So don’t point fingers because when you point your finger there are always three pointing back at you.

 

[jimmy]

I think these conversations would be a lot easier if you would come right out and say that “Dave” is really you.

npatrol:

Yes that would be easier. It is hard to have a discussion with Dave Armstrong when he isn’t even here.

But maybe its just that he likes referring to himself in the third person. I do that sometimes. ‘Jimmy is really enjoying himself.’

 

[spina1953]

Jimmy: Your post #370 you made the statement that Honrius was an heretic in the same manor as Arius. In this you are incorrect as Arius teachings denied that Jesus was God or co-entenal with the Father. Honrius did not teach anything but was condemned because of a letter that he wrote to the Patriarch that was later brought before the council which in turn condemned him as a heretic, However, since it is my opinion based on the history of that time and event, it seems to me that they were wrong in condemming him for not doing anything about the heresy or what he understood about the problem then being preached in the East… Also so far as I understand from history I fail to see where there were heresies in the West being propogated as you state.

 

[RyanBlack]

Jimmy: Your post #370 you made the statement that Honrius was an heretic in the same manor as Arius. In this you are incorrect as Arius teachings denied that Jesus was God or co-entenal with the Father. Honrius did not teach anything but was condemned because of a letter that he wrote to the Patriarch that was later brought before the council which in turn condemned him as a heretic, However, since it is my opinion based on the history of that time and event, it seems to me that they were wrong in condemming him for not doing anything about the heresy or what he understood about the problem then being preached in the East… Also so far as I understand from history I fail to see where there were heresies in the West being propogated as you state.

No heresies propagated in the west? That’s not the case at all. Here’s a list, which is certainly not exhaustive.

Sabellianism
Marcionism
Donatism
Pelagianism
Catharism
Berengarian Heresy
Jansenism

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t understand the point of the last several pages about heresies or Orthodoxy of the East or West. Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy no matter where it resides or originates, and heresy is heresy no matter where it resides or originates. We in the Coptic Orthodox Church venerate and celebrate liturgically Roman saints (including pre-Chalcedonian bishops) who held to the Orthodox faith as proclaimed equally in Alexandria and Rome (and Antioch, Thessaloniki, etc.), without respect to the fact that they are “Westerners”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And somehow by the Divinely instituted teaching authority we made it. What a story, you couldn’t make this stuff up. Whew, thank God you guys were there especially those first couple hundred years. Did you read Newman on Cyprian, they soaked up his blood with their clothing when he was martyred, and some would tell us that’s not in the Bible. You think he was still working out the primacy himself in the five years prior to his death?

The Nature of Christ was a critical point and they were quick to call someone a heretic as we see. Honrius was guilty of apprehensive, indecisive, bad behavior for a Pope. He wasn’t speaking infallible though he was speaking out of the side of his neck so to speak. Look at Origen, he wrote so much he worked out theology in theory on paper, and for entertainment. And died in the company of Saints. Did Augustine not have double theories of excess on paper to which he returns to a single point? Sin, we don’t have much recorded till Augustine was thrown out to the wolves to defend the Church.

Teaching authority.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

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.

Swarmed? livingwordunity was not being swarmed, his/her polemical statements were being answered by various Eastern Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. Rebuttals are hardly “an attack.”

Argue from Scripture? Again, we don’t read the Scriptures that way. EVERYTHING is taken in context, and the whole is considered. The Liturgy, Hymnology, Scripture, Prayers, The Lives of the Saints…it is all interwoven. Proof Texting is foreign to Orthodox praxis, although you see some Orthodox polemicists attempt to do it (a sad development).

Many of us have repeatedly attempted to explain this to you, but you don’t get it. It highlights the very different approaches between East and West.

From our POV, The Papal Claims are propped up by a handful of Bible quotes taken out of context.

An entire theology or ecclesiology built on a few select verses from the Bible…sounds very familiar.

This is part of the reason Aleksei Khomiakov, the great Russian theologian observed that the Pope is the “First Protestant.”

To us, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are two sides of the same coin…AKA Western Christianity.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Dave’s point, I believe, was that he simply typed the wrong name as he was banging it out. Dave is TRULY prolific with lots of books and blog posts to his credit and he turns out thousands of words daily.

For anyone to take issue with what was essentially a clerical error TO AVOID DEALING WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT is pathetic.

To attack me because I didn’t catch it is even worse. Like I’m supposed to have memorized the dates of every father who ever lived.

That is called a dodge, and I don’t blame him for seeing it that way at all.

But I notice that no one has dealt with the substance…namely, that the EAST was in heresy for hundreds of years and only the orthodoxy of Rome preserved the Church from falling into error.

Just. Like. Jesus. Planned.

Out.

If you are going to launch a polemical attack on Orthodoxy, it definitely helps to not mix up your saints, particular important ones like them.

This isn’t about memorizing “every saint”…this is about knowing what you are talking about, instead of cutting and pasting various sources without internalizing them and at least doing a rudimentary scrub of their contents.

We have dealt with the “Substance” of your arguments…repeatedly. Your assertions do not match up with the reality. The East dealt with Heresy in its own way. Your assertion to the contrary is an insult to Eastern Christians both Orthodox and within your own Communion. Perhaps that explains the “Friendly Fire” you are getting.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I don’t understand the point of the last several pages about heresies or Orthodoxy of the East or West. Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy no matter where it resides or originates, and heresy is heresy no matter where it resides or originates. We in the Coptic Orthodox Church venerate and celebrate liturgically Roman saints (including pre-Chalcedonian bishops) who held to the Orthodox faith as proclaimed equally in Alexandria and Rome (and Antioch, Thessaloniki, etc.), without respect to the fact that they are “Westerners”.

Indeed.

 

[Nine_Two]

Dave’s point, I believe, was that he simply typed the wrong name as he was banging it out. Dave is TRULY prolific with lots of books and blog posts to his credit and he turns out thousands of words daily.

For anyone to take issue with what was essentially a clerical error TO AVOID DEALING WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT is pathetic.

To attack me because I didn’t catch it is even worse. Like I’m supposed to have memorized the dates of every father who ever lived.

That is called a dodge, and I don’t blame him for seeing it that way at all.

But I notice that no one has dealt with the substance…namely, that the EAST was in heresy for hundreds of years and only the orthodoxy of Rome preserved the Church from falling into error.

Just. Like. Jesus. Planned.

Out.

Actually that argument has been dealt with (by more than just me). I see that you’re not dealing with the responses though. Ignoring them and hoping they’ll go away?

The issue with the history Dave gave was more than just the mixing up of names, although interesting that THAT is what you would attach to.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think these conversations would be a lot easier if you would come right out and say that “Dave” is really you.

npatrol:

Um…because I am not Dave Armstrong?

Are you suggesting that I fabricated the email from Dave?

Or that Dave and I think so closely alike that for all intents, I might as well be Dave?

 

[Randy_Carson]

No one has denied that there have been many eastern bishops who were heretics. What is denied is the idea that the west always came in to save the day when a heresy arose. That is pure nonsense and isn’t based on history at all. Yes, the west had a positive influence in certain instances, but that is the exception to the rule. The west dealt with their own problems.

This isn’t about papal infallibility, it is about whether a pope was a heretic. Honorius was a heretic in the same manner that Arius, Apolinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Sergius were. No eastern bishop has ever claimed infallibility, so no heretic ever bound anyone by his heresy. So the west, including Rome has had its own heretics, even if they didn’t say ‘I declare and define’. Honorius’s letters were responsible for the spread of monothelitism as a viable opinion. And interestingly it was the east that cleaned up the mess through the sixth ecumenical council.

The worst part of this is that the west likes to point fingers but can never look at their own problems. You would think the west has had a pure and angelic history since the beginning. But they ignore the reformation, Pelagianism, and every other error that stemmed from the west. And often, these heresies were supported by bishops. So don’t point fingers because when you point your finger there are always three pointing back at you.

The only reason that Honorius is of interest at all is that some folks seem to think that his condemnation is proof that papal infallibility is a false doctrine. Since he never formally taught error but followed others (as was clearly shown in other threads), infallibility is not disproved. Honorius was condemned because he did NOT act against heresy - not because he was the cause of it.