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

[dzheremi]

How on earth do you expect anyone of any confession to answer such a question in the context of your post, livingwordunity? Come on. You don’t have to agree with your interlocutor’s ecclesiology, but at least don’t treat him like a complete moron or contemptible anti-Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

You can get even more from Fr Taft who recounts our missteps and misdeeds in great detail, while always waiting in vain for the merest sign of reciprocity.

Wow … never would have thought it would take this long for Fr. Taft’s name to come into the conversation!

 

[Peter_J]

How on earth do you expect anyone of any confession to answer such a question in the context of your post, livingwordunity? Come on. You don’t have to agree with your interlocutor’s ecclesiology, but at least don’t treat him like a complete moron or contemptible anti-Christ.

Sadly, no group is completely immune to unreasonability. (No, not even us Catholics who get the anti-unreasonability vaccine twice a year.)

 

[livingwordunity]

How on earth do you expect anyone of any confession to answer such a question in the context of your post, livingwordunity? Come on. You don’t have to agree with your interlocutor’s ecclesiology, but at least don’t treat him like a complete moron or contemptible anti-Christ.

I asked the question because his answer basically suggested that nothing could ever justify the EO reuniting with Rome. If the East and West were not divided I would not have to ask the question “would Jesus want the Church to be divided?”. But I ask the question because I think the division is a big deal. We can’t just pretend that there is no problem and never ask any challenging or uncomfortable questions.

 

[RyanBlack]

I asked the question because his answer basically suggested that nothing could ever justify the EO reuniting with Rome. If the East and West were not divided I would not have to ask the question “would Jesus want the Church to be divided”.

He stated:

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).

I have to agree with him, because if any Orthodox Patriarch were to accept the office of the Papacy as currently defined by Rome (papal infallibility and universal ordinary jurisdiction), he certainly would not be followed by the rest of Orthodoxy, who accept neither papal infallibility nor universal ordinary jurisdiction. I don’t understand why you found his post to be offensive.

 

[livingwordunity]

He stated:

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).

I have to agree with him, because if any Orthodox Patriarch were to accept the office of the Papacy as currently defined by Rome (papal infallibility and universal ordinary jurisdiction), he certainly would not be followed by the rest of Orthodoxy, who accept neither papal infallibility nor universal ordinary jurisdiction. I don’t understand why you found his post to be offensive.

I’m frustrated because the primacy of Peter is something that was instituted by Christ in the gospels (See post #4). And the EO always seem to ignore that and instead focus on legalities and historical gripes and grudges. We have the same gospels.

 

[RyanBlack]

I’m frustrated because the primacy of Peter is something that was instituted by Christ in the gospels. And the EO always seem to ignore that and instead focus on legalities and historical gripes.

No, they do not ignore that, but they do not understand papal primacy in the same way as Catholics do. Furthermore, there are other matters of disagreement.

 

[livingwordunity]

No, they do not ignore that, but they do not understand papal primacy in the same way as Catholics do.

Papal primacy is about Peter. And I don’t see how they can interpret Jesus’ words to Peter different than us when Jesus was so clear and direct. Jesus didn’t single out any other of the apostles the way he did to Peter. I noticed that whenever I talk with them and try to bring the discussion to the gospels they always pull the discussion away to historical gripes and legalities.

 

[RyanBlack]

Papal primacy is about Peter. I don’t see how they can interpret Jesus’ words to Peter different than us when Jesus was so clear and direct. And Jesus didn’t single out any other of the apostles the way he did to Peter.

Where did our Lord clearly, directly state anything about either infallibility or universal ordinary jurisdiction?

 

[dzheremi]

There are different interpretations of that verse going back to the Fathers. That’s the entire reason why we have different traditions in the first place – Rome’s influenced by the Fathers it chooses to emphasize, and others by other readings of the Fathers. This speaks to a broader understanding of tradition in the early, undivided Church that has since narrowed so that there is a recognizable tradition to which any one church adheres which might not be in accord with other churches (and not just on the matter of St. Peter or the Roman Pope, but on all things; there are distinct hermeneutical traditions related to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, etc. which really relate back to the preeminence of these Sees at different points in Christian history; the Alexandrian tradition, for instance, is very different than the Antiochian; Edessa also has its own unique patrimony in this regard).

None of this is a problem until/unless you have one church demanding that its interpretation be the only (valid) interpretation, or otherwise have supremacy above all others. The Roman Catholic eccelsiology is only one way of organizing the Church, and not one that is shared by any outside of its communion (and, arguably, even some within it).

 

[Nine_Two]

So, what you are saying is if Rome were to extend a hand it would be bitten off. Do you believe that Jesus wanted the Church to be divided?

No, what I’m saying is that if Rome tried to bribe a Patriarch with offers of power he would no longer be Orthodox, or a Patriarch.

 

[Nine_Two]

Nope. It’s hard to know what anyone would have done without the politics - also in 1054 and further back.

So you’ll use “politics” as an argument to demean your opponents but when it is your guy suddenly it is “too far back” (even when it is recorded quite clearly). How political of you.

I would break off this conversation here, but I can’t find anything saying Patriarch Athanasius II was a part of the Catholic faction. That he retired to Mount Athos, and later relocated to Ukraine in contrast to openly pro-Roman Patriarchs who tended to go to Rome after being deposed is all that I can find. If you could show me something that unambiguously shows Athanasius II’s allegiance that would be most appreciated.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m frustrated because the primacy of Peter is something that was instituted by Christ in the gospels (See post #4).

I’m sure that nobody is questioning our right to believe what we believe. But I’d like to ask why you’re so down on the Orthodox? Have you considered that Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc all reject those same Catholic doctrines and more besides? Or does freedom-of-belief suddenly go out the window when the Orthodox tell us their beliefs?

 

[livingwordunity]

Where did our Lord clearly, directly state anything about either infallibility or universal ordinary jurisdiction?

The EO do with these verses what the Protestants do with “this is my body”, but here are the verses:

Matthew 16:18-19

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.** I will give you the keys** of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The “keys” of authority that Jesus gives to Peter is even acknowledged in Heaven.

Luke 22:32

but I [Jesus] have prayed for you [Peter] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

John 21:17

He [Jesus] said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep."

Are we not Jesus’ sheep?

 

[Nine_Two]

I asked the question because his answer basically suggested that nothing could ever justify the EO reuniting with Rome. If the East and West were not divided I would not have to ask the question “would Jesus want the Church to be divided?”. But I ask the question because I think the division is a big deal. We can’t just pretend that there is no problem and never ask any challenging or uncomfortable questions.

If we are going to reunite as equals Rome has to (and it has, for the most part - the Laity tend to be the ones that don’t) recognize that the Orthodox is not a homogenous organization but rather a group of 15 completely independent voices.

If Rome were to target just one of those groups (Churches as we call them) and ignore the other 14, and were somehow successful, the one would be breaking from the 14.

You’re also assuming that the EP has real power of his own, he doesn’t. He is granted power by his Holy Synod, and can be deposed by them if he goes into error, therefore making offers that target the patriarch alone would only end with him being deposed.

The fact is this scenario isn’t one that is foreign to us. Something very similar has happened.

 

[Nine_Two]

The EO do with these verses what the Protestants do with “this is my body”, but here are the verses:

Matthew 16:18-19

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.** I will give you the keys** of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The “keys” of authority that Jesus gives to Peter is even acknowledged in Heaven.

Luke 22:32

but I [Jesus] have prayed for you [Peter] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

John 21:17

He [Jesus] said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep."

Are we not Jesus’ sheep?

The problem is you interpret those verses to refer to the Pope.

You’ll notice no pope is mentioned in any of those verses.

 

[livingwordunity]

If we are going to reunite as equals Rome has to (and it has, for the most part - the Laity tend to be the ones that don’t) recognize that the Orthodox is not a homogenous organization but rather a group of 15 completely independent voices.

If Rome were to target just one of those groups (Churches as we call them) and ignore the other 14, and were somehow successful, the one would be breaking from the 14.

You’re also assuming that the EP has real power of his own, he doesn’t. He is granted power by his Holy Synod, and can be deposed by them if he goes into error, therefore making offers that target the patriarch alone would only end with him being deposed.

The fact is this scenario isn’t one that is foreign to us. Something very similar has happened.

If those 15 were to disagree on a doctrinal issue how would they resolve it between each other?

 

[livingwordunity]

The problem is you interpret those verses to refer to the Pope.

You’ll notice no pope is mentioned in any of those verses.

“Pope” is a word that Catholics use to refer to the successor to Peter. The word “Bible” isn’t in the Bible either. So, getting back to Peter. Do you agree that Jesus is clearly giving universal authority and primacy to Peter in those verses?

 

[dzheremi]

“Pope” is a word that Catholics use to refer to the successor to Peter. The word “Bible” isn’t in the Bible either. So, getting back to Peter. Do you agree that Jesus is clearly giving universal authority and primacy to Peter in those verses?

But what if Pope were a title used to refer lovingly to the senior bishop of the See of St. Mark in Alexandria, Egypt and only much later to the senior bishop of the See of Rome?

And by “what if”, I mean that’s exactly what happened. The modern Roman Catholic claims are indeed the problem. Only Rome interprets any reference to Peter as somehow relating back to their Pope. You won’t hear a Copt ever say “the Bible says X about St. Mark, therefore X is true about HH Pope Tawadros II”. Only the Roman communion does this, and it’s completely baffling to the rest of the churches. I’m guessing that this is at least one of the main reasons why the mutual lifting of the anathemas hasn’t had the desired effect – your ecclesiology and hermeneutical methods are way too far from Orthodox ecclesiology and hermeneutics. There’s no substantial common ground.

 

[livingwordunity]

dzheremi,

Can you please first answer my question about Peter before jumping to your hypothetical “what if” questions about the Pope?

Do you agree that Jesus is clearly giving universal authority and primacy to Peter in those verses (in post #96)?