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

[Peter_J]

I’m surprised this thread has gone on as long as it has without somebody flipping the OPs title question on its head

Just speaking for myself, I didn’t see any need to do so. Many people place a great deal of importance on the role of 1054 in the schism (although presumably less so since the Pope and Patriarch lifted those excommunications) and I’m optimistic that this thread will help some people to rethink that idea.

 

[dzheremi]

Just speaking for myself, I didn’t see any need to do so. Many people place a great deal of importance on the role of 1054 in the schism (although presumably less so since the Pope and Patriarch lifted those excommunications) and I’m optimistic that this thread will help some people to rethink that idea.

Yes, and I"m hoping that one of those people is the OP.

 

[livingwordunity]

Yes, and I"m hoping that one of those people is the OP.

I’m Catholic because Jesus put Peter in charge, and the Catholic Church is the only Church with the successor to Peter. That won’t change, so I won’t change.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m not sure what that has to do with what I posted. The poster I was responding in agreement to, Peter J, is Catholic as well. I wouldn’t for a second seek to challenge your loyalty to your own church.

 

[Nine_Two]

Just speaking for myself, I didn’t see any need to do so. Many people place a great deal of importance on the role of 1054 in the schism (although presumably less so since the Pope and Patriarch lifted those excommunications) and I’m optimistic that this thread will help some people to rethink that idea.

I think you’re right.

1054 saw the mutual removal of Rome from the dyptychs of Constantinople and Constantinople from Rome.

This sort of thing is not uncommon and serves as a formal reprimand between brother Patriarchs, a way of saying “Be very careful here.”
Throughout history one Patriarch has removed another from his dyptychs numerous times and you don’t see the sort of breach you saw between Rome and Constantinople (and we must remember that is all 1054 was, between Rome and Constantinople, none of the other four autocephalous churches were involved).

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Just speaking for myself, I didn’t see any need to do so. Many people place a great deal of importance on the role of 1054 in the schism (although presumably less so since the Pope and Patriarch lifted those excommunications) and I’m optimistic that this thread will help some people to rethink that idea.

Alright. I don’t really know the OP well, but I would hope it for him/her as much as anyone else.

 

[livingwordunity]

What if a future deal were offered where the Patriarch of Constantinople could be eligible, as the Eastern Catholic cardinals are, for selection as the next Pope?

 

[dzheremi]

I think you’re right.

1054 saw the mutual removal of Rome from the dyptychs of Constantinople and Constantinople from Rome.

This sort of thing is not uncommon and serves as a formal reprimand between brother Patriarchs, a way of saying “Be very careful here.”
Throughout history one Patriarch has removed another from his dyptychs numerous times and you don’t see the sort of breach you saw between Rome and Constantinople (and we must remember that is all 1054 was, between Rome and Constantinople, none of the other four autocephalous churches were involved).

Shortly before the Chalcedonian schism, Pope Leo removed HH Pope Dioscoros from the dyptychs of the church at Rome, to which the Alexandrian Pope responded in kind. Shortly after Chalcedon, the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, Patriarch Timothy III (Salophakiolos) apparently got in trouble for including HH Pope Dioscoros in the local Alexandrian Chalcedonian church’s dyptych, which understandably did not sit well with the still-living and presiding Leo who still alive for the first year of Timothy’s reign…I guess somebody hadn’t gotten the memo…

History is fun.

 

[josie_L]

Shortly before the Chalcedonian schism, Pope Leo removed HH Pope Dioscoros from the dyptychs of the church at Rome, to which the Alexandrian Pope responded in kind. Shortly after Chalcedon, the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, Patriarch Timothy III (Salophakiolos) apparently got in trouble for including HH Pope Dioscoros in the local Alexandrian Chalcedonian church’s dyptych, which understandably did not sit well with the still-living and presiding Leo who still alive for the first year of Timothy’s reign…I guess somebody hadn’t gotten the memo…

History is fun.

:dts:

 

[Nine_Two]

What if a future deal were offered where the Patriarch of Constantinople could be eligible, as the Eastern Catholic cardinals are, for selection as the next Pope?

Under the rules presently in place in the Catholic Church any male member of the Catholic Church is eligible for selection. IIRC this rule predates the schism.

However I get the feeling you are suggesting a deal where the Patriarch of Constantinople would hold a very real shot at taking the Papal office as it now stands. I assure you that if he did this, on the basis of that deal alone, he would be immediately stricken from the dyptychs of ever other Church, and his Holy Synod would rise and depose and defrock him (as is their canonical right).

 

[Peter_J]

I was waiting to see what kind of answer that question would get (if any, seeing as we don’t have a what-if machine).

Now here’s a follow up question: What if a future deal were offered where the Pope could be eligible for selection as the next Patriarch of Constantinople?

:idea:

 

[dzheremi]

Now here’s a follow up question: What if a future deal were offered where the Pope could be eligible for selection as the next Patriarch of Constantinople?

Turkish law states that the Patriarch must be a Turkish-born citizen. I’m not sure, but it might additionally state he must be an ethnic Greek, as the government recognizes him as the head of the Greek minority in Turkey (they are inheritors of the old millet system, so he must be distinguished from the much less well-known Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, who is likewise considered the spiritual head of that minority ethnic community, and is subject to the same electoral restrictions).

Exactly how many Turkish-born, ethnically Greek Roman Catholics do you think there are, Peter?

 

[dronald]

Turkish law states that the Patriarch must be a Turkish-born citizen. I’m not sure, but it might additionally state he must be an ethnic Greek, as the government recognizes him as the head of the Greek minority in Turkey (they are inheritors of the old millet system, so he must be distinguished from the much less well-known Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, who is likewise considered the spiritual head of that minority ethnic community, and is subject to the same electoral restrictions).

Exactly how many Turkish-born, ethnically Greek Roman Catholics do you think there are, Peter?

Is this a theological belief or simply for political reasons?

I don’t see why anyone can’t be anything as long as they’re educated?

 

[Nine_Two]

Is this a theological belief or simply for political reasons?

I don’t see why anyone can’t be anything as long as they’re educated?

Political reasons, mandated by the Turkish state rather than the Church itself. Up until a few years ago they also required every member of the Holy Synod to be a Turkish citizen, however this was dropped.

The problem is that since the Patriarchate is located in Turkish territory they are able to determine who can hold the office by virtue of who they allow to be in the country.

 

[spina1953]

Turkish law states that the Patriarch must be a Turkish-born citizen. I’m not sure, but it might additionally state he must be an ethnic Greek, as the government recognizes him as the head of the Greek minority in Turkey (they are inheritors of the old millet system, so he must be distinguished from the much less well-known Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, who is likewise considered the spiritual head of that minority ethnic community, and is subject to the same electoral restrictions).

Exactly how many Turkish-born, ethnically Greek Roman Catholics do you think there are, Peter? /QUOTE
Hi dzheremi: I agree with your statement that by Turkish law that the Patriarch must be Turkish born. I had read that in the news sometime ago, which I did not know till I read that about that law. I also read that the Turks had clsed down nearly all if not all the semanaries and monistaries and now they are talking about making the Church of Sophia into a mosque again. That is sad. It is also my understanding from what I had read that after the Turks took over Constantinople that they pressured the Patriarch to renounce any authority and union with Rome if the Patriarch wanted to continue to be the Patriarch and have their Churches remain open, otherwise, there would be much perscutions of Christains. At least that was my understanding of what I had read of the history of the fall of Constantinople. correct me if I am wrong about it. I do hope that someday there will be reunion; how that will happen I am not sure.

 

[Nine_Two]

Hi dzheremi: I agree with your statement that by Turkish law that the Patriarch must be Turkish born. I had read that in the news sometime ago, which I did not know till I read that about that law. I also read that the Turks had clsed down nearly all if not all the semanaries and monistaries and now they are talking about making the Church of Sophia into a mosque again. That is sad. It is also my understanding from what I had read that after the Turks took over Constantinople that they pressured the Patriarch to renounce any authority and union with Rome if the Patriarch wanted to continue to be the Patriarch and have their Churches remain open, otherwise, there would be much perscutions of Christains. At least that was my understanding of what I had read of the history of the fall of Constantinople. correct me if I am wrong about it. I do hope that someday there will be reunion; how that will happen I am not sure.

You were correct until you got to the point about the Turks pressuring Constantinople to renounce reunion with Rome. Although the Emperor had been Catholic at that time, the Church had not followed him and showed no inclination of doing so. The Turks have nothing to do with the schism.

 

[Peter_J]

Turkish law states that the Patriarch must be a Turkish-born citizen. I’m not sure, but it might additionally state he must be an ethnic Greek, as the government recognizes him as the head of the Greek minority in Turkey (they are inheritors of the old millet system, so he must be distinguished from the much less well-known Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, who is likewise considered the spiritual head of that minority ethnic community, and is subject to the same electoral restrictions).

Exactly how many Turkish-born, ethnically Greek Roman Catholics do you think there are, Peter?

This is what happens when you try to say something supportive of the Orthodox point of view.

 

[dzheremi]

You were correct until you got to the point about the Turks pressuring Constantinople to renounce reunion with Rome. Although the Emperor had been Catholic at that time, the Church had not followed him and showed no inclination of doing so. The Turks have nothing to do with the schism.

I figured as much, but didn’t know for sure (Byzantine history, as you might guess, is largely beyond me). It is funny to see this occur over and over, down to our day: A leader of some traditionally Orthodox people or country becomes Catholic, and for the Catholics that is somehow a sign that the people themselves have accepted becoming Catholic. I’m not sure why. You’d think there is enough counter-evidence from Catholic history (failed reunion at Florence, failed attempts to bring all of the Nasranis under Latin control in India, etc.), but I guess they just look at them differently.

As an OO, I am reminded of the debacle of Ethiopian Emperor Susenyos I (r. 1606-1632), who came under the sway of Portuguese Catholic missionaries during the period following Portuguese assistance in the Ethiopia-Adal war, where the two Christian forces helped put down the Muslim marauder Ahmed Gragn and his army of Muslims who were literally destroying the Ethiopian state and its traditional church. Susenyos I announced his conversion to Catholicism in a public ceremony, and thereby attempted to make Roman Catholicism the state religion. I’ll let Wikipedia describe what happened next: *“Strife and rebellions over the enforced changes began within days of Mendes’ [the Jesuit missionary who replaced the man who had converted Susenyos – dzh.] public ceremony in 1626, where he proclaimed the primacy of Rome and condemned local practices which included Saturday Sabbath and frequent fasts …] The most serious response was launched by a triumvirate composed of his half-brother Yimena Krestos, a eunuch named Kefla Wahad, and his brother-in-law Julius. Susenyos avoided their first attempt to assassinate him at court …] Less than a year afterwards, on 14 June 1632 Susenyos made a declaration that those who would follow the Catholic faith were allowed to do so, but no one would be forced to do so any further. At this point, all Patriarch Mendes could do in response was to confirm that this was, indeed, the actual will of the Emperor, his protector. Catholic Ethiopia had come to an end.” *

His son, Fasilides, ultimately succeeded him to the throne after he abdicated in order to put an end to the constant rebellions, uprisings, and violence. Emperor Fasilides, a committed Orthodox Christian of the native Church, kicked out all the Catholic missionaries and their “Ethiopian” (Portuguese) Patriarch Alphonso Mendes in 1636. Catholic missionaries would not again set foot in the country until 1839. Today there only about 611,000 Ethiopian Catholics (it probably didn’t help that this church was supported and promoted by the Fascist Italians during their short-lived occupation of the country in the 1930s).

 

[dvdjs]

You were correct until you got to the point about the Turks pressuring Constantinople to renounce reunion with Rome. Although the Emperor had been Catholic at that time, the Church had not followed him and showed no inclination of doing so. The Turks have nothing to do with the schism.

Well it would be interesting to have a census of who was on what side from the time of Florence until the Ottomans were ruling. Obviously it was not just the Emperor who was “:Catholic”.

What is fair to say is that, notwithstanding the in-fighting and shifting allegiances, the Patriarchate remained in union, and solemnly proclaimed it; the last liturgy in Hagia Sophia was a liturgy of the united church. After the Fall, the EP was appointed by the Sultan given broad authority over the Christian millet. The Sultan choose to appoint an EP who,after a change of heart, had become an opponent of the union. I think it is fair to say that if the Turks had chosen a pro-union EP, then the schism would have lost its traction - apart perhaps from Russia.

 

[dvdjs]

I figured as much, but didn’t know for sure (Byzantine history, as you might guess, is largely beyond me). It is funny to see this occur over and over, down to our day: A leader of some traditionally Orthodox people or country becomes Catholic, and for the Catholics that is somehow a sign that the people themselves have accepted becoming Catholic. I’m not sure why. You’d think there is enough counter-evidence from Catholic history (failed reunion at Florence, failed attempts to bring all of the Nasranis under Latin control in India, etc.), but I guess they just look at them differently.

I am not sure what you are talking about, but it sure isn’t Florence. Nor do I think that the idea of seeing a " sign that the people themselves have accepted becoming Catholic." has any validity. However clumsy the attempts at unification were, what is apparent is that people had some degree of choice to opt out. A situation that was vastly different in the reverse, whenever that occurred.