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

[josie_L]

I don’t agree that Peter has a particular role that is substantially different from that of the other apostles, who likewise preached the faith as he did, established churches as he did, served as bishops as he did, ordained bishops to carry on after their departures, etc. in their respective sees. We in the COC do not have an analogous “Markian Office” as you have the concept of the “Petrine Office” as it relates to your Pope, though of course the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church is said to sit on the chair of St. Mark or occupy the See of St. Mark, as plenty of our Papal hymns and even non-Papal ones affirm (like “Efrahi ya Mariam”/“Ounof emmo Maria”, a Marian hymn which ends “We ask You, O Son of God, to keep the life of our Patriarch, Abba Tawadros the high priest. Confirm him upon his throne”)

Of course I recognize that our Lord gave to St. Peter the keys, and with them the power to bind and loose, but this power was likewise given to all apostles (how else do you think churches that don’t have Petrine foundations still have confession?). The keys are symbolic of this power, not a power given to St. Peter alone, and certainly not to be connected to the Roman Pope exclusively in perpetuity throughout the universe. Peter is one of the twelve, and not imbued with power of himself that he could pass on through some lineage to Pope Francis. To St. Mark likewise was given the power to perform miracles (as in his healing of Inianos, the man who ordained as bishop who served in that role after the apostle’s martyrdom in AD 68), but this does not mean that HH Pope Tawadros II has that power. It is from God Himself.

We are all the Lord’s sheep and apostolic succession is real (though we would disagree with the RC conception of what it means, I bet), but it is the Petrine exclusivism that makes the RC interpretation of what this means so unconvincing. Should it apply to Peter alone, then it would mean that only Peter has this task…alright then, I guess every other Patriarch can pack it up, then. Obviously that’s ridiculous…even the Eastern Catholic churches have their own Patriarchs, not all of whom trace their lineage back to Peter. Peter is not, strictly speaking, necessary of apostolic succession, and if our Lord had said this to James or Jude or someone else, it wouldn’t be any less a command. The problem is that the RCC apparently sees some sort of supreme covenant in those words with Peter to the exclusion of others. The Orthodox Church does not.

You meant to say Orthodox churches as the OO and EO are not in communion with each other.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ok, let’s assume for a minute for the sake of argument that I’m quoting out of context. If I can quote out of context an ECF to make them seem to say that Peter has primacy and supremacy then you should be able to do the same and find other quotes where the ECF’s deny this. So, can you? I would bet it would be a much harder task for an EO to try to do this.

I absolutely could, and I have found many in the past. I’ve always chuckled when I come across them, wondered what sort of hornets nest I’d unleash if I did so.

But the fact is I respect the Fathers too much for that. I don’t know any off the top of my head for that very reason. The work I’ve been reading most recently doesn’t concern itself with the Church hierarchy at all so the stuff that is freshest on my mind doesn’t have anything that can be interpreted as supporting either side on that issue.

The question is then not can I, but will I. And the answer is no. While I’m sure I could use a little Google to find the stuff without having to do some actual reading, I don’t bring myself to that level. If you want to discuss a writing of a Father, or maybe a couple of Fathers, to understand the context I’m all for that. But I’ve been through many a quote war on this forum. They don’t accomplish anything. Ever.

 

[livingwordunity]

I absolutely could, and I have found many in the past. I’ve always chuckled when I come across them, wondered what sort of hornets nest I’d unleash if I did so.

But the fact is I respect the Fathers too much for that. I don’t know any off the top of my head for that very reason. The work I’ve been reading most recently doesn’t concern itself with the Church hierarchy at all so the stuff that is freshest on my mind doesn’t have anything that can be interpreted as supporting either side on that issue.

The question is then not can I, but will I. And the answer is no. While I’m sure I could use a little Google to find the stuff without having to do some actual reading, I don’t bring myself to that level. If you want to discuss a writing of a Father, or maybe a couple of Fathers, to understand the context I’m all for that. But I’ve been through many a quote war on this forum. They don’t accomplish anything. Ever.

Go right ahead, show me where the ECF’s clearly deny that Peter has supremacy over the other apostles. I’m not scared.

 

[dzheremi]

You have written a lot to avoid my questions.

You’ve written poor questions and still not seen why they are poor and not going to be answered, even after apparently reading my post. What can I do for you? There is a story of the Desert Fathers that reminds me of this exchange. Paraphrasing, some young men come to St. Anthony, asking what they must do to be saved. He tells them to fast and control their eyes and their tongues. They say they cannot do that. He tells me them then that they are to repay an insult with kindness. They say they cannot do that, either. He tells them then that they are at least not to repay an insult with an insult. They say they cannot do that. After a while more of this, he says “If you cannot do this and you cannot do that, then what do you think I can do for you? What you need is prayers.”

If you cannot see why your mode of discourse undertaken with people who do not think like you do and do not share your presuppositions leads to malformed questions that shut down all conversation, then there is nothing that anyone can do for you. Not only I but also some of your fellow Catholic posters have asked you to try a different way in this thread and you have not. There is little more to be said. Be safe in the Lord; I am through with this conversation unless there are genuine questions asked about my faith.

Note: Badly-needed edit to post #121 that unfortunately it is too late to correct: I meant to write “That is why I’m Orthodox and not Catholic”, of course, not the opposite. Do’h!]

 

[dzheremi]

You meant to say Orthodox churches as the OO and EO are not in communion with each other.

No, I meant to say the Orthodox Church.

 

[dronald]

How do the Orthodox interpret the plural “you” in Luke 22:31 and the singular “you” in all four instances in verse 32?

31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, { The Greek word for b you b ( twice in this verse ) is plural; in verse 32, all four instances are singular } that he might sift you like wheat,

32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers. "

 

[livingwordunity]

dzheremi,

Could it be that the resistance may have more to do with a grudge that the EO are still holding against us Catholics for the conquest of Constantinople despite that Pope Innocent III had condemned the attack? A link to this is offered below:

Pope Innocent III: Reprimand of Papal Legate

Edit:

Also, didn’t the divide between East and West originate when the Holy Roman Emperor of the East wanted to have more influence over the bishops and Church than the Pope does? The Emperor basically wanted to have the supremacy and final say over Church affairs. And doesn’t this still reflect today with how the EO is divided along lines of nationality? By the way, I don’t dislike our EO brothers and sisters. If I didn’t like the EO Christians I wouldn’t want to see you reunite with us.

 

[dzheremi]

I have no idea. I wouldn’t assume a grudge on anybody’s part, but as the historical circumstances that you reference are well outside of my time frame (the OO were long out of the picture by that point), that question would be better addressed to any of our numerous EO posters for whom those events actually have some significance.

[An aside: I thought a much more recent Pope, maybe Pope Emeritus Benedict (?), had issued a formal apology to the EP only a few years ago? I remember hearing something like that in the news recently, and also there are the relics that were returned by JPII before that. I really doubt any residual bitterness is a motivator.]

 

[josie_L]

No, I meant to say the Orthodox Church.

So you’ve established communion with the EO?

 

[Cavaradossi]

So you’ve established communion with the EO?

That is a somewhat misleading false dichotomy (that either the OO must be in communion with the EO or there must be Orthodox “Churches”). He means to say that the Oriental Orthodox Church alone is the only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Just as we (Chalcedonian Orthodox) would claim the same, that we alone are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is indeed heresy to speak of Churches in this fashion, for there can only be one Church, though it is instantiated in numerous churches throughout the world.

 

[josie_L]

A misleading false dichotomy (that either the OO must be in communion with the EO or there must be Orthodox “Churches”). He means to say that the Oriental Orthodox Church alone is the only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Just as we (Chalcedonian Orthodox) would claim the same, that we alone are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is indeed heresy to speak of Churches in this fashion, for there can only be one Church, though it is instantiated in numerous churches throughout the world.

Of course, I believe in OHCAC just that for me it is the CC, and I wasn’t sure what he meant when he said the “Orthodox Church”, but I thank you for the clarification.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m sorry, you were denouncing others in the East as being motivated by politics, when I commented that the Emperor was as well in his choice of religion you suddenly claimed it was too far back to really know.

You misunderstood post #121. You asked:

Are you suggesting the Greek Emperors reasons were not political?

I said: Nope. I was not suggesting, nor had I every suggested, that the Emperor’s reasons did not involve politics perhaps even principally. It would be impossible to rule that out.

I know you like to drag us Orthodox through the mud and act like Catholics are all clean and pure in their motives but that isn’t going to work.

I have repeatedly stipulated that Catholics are NOT all clean and pure in their motives. What I find objectionable is the the idea that realistic criticism of EOs is termed dragging them through the mud, and that there is never a stipulation the EOs have also been unclean and impure. Even to the point of the absurdities that prompted my posting on this thread.

 

[josie_L]

That is a somewhat misleading false dichotomy (that either the OO must be in communion with the EO or there must be Orthodox “Churches”). He means to say that the Oriental Orthodox Church alone is the only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Just as we (Chalcedonian Orthodox) would claim the same, that we alone are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is indeed heresy to speak of Churches in this fashion, for there can only be one Church, though it is instantiated in numerous churches throughout the world.

On second thought, I don’t think that is what Dzheremi meant when he said “the Orthodox Church”, I think he was referring to both the EO and OO, which is why I responded the way I did.

 

[dzheremi]

On second thought, I don’t think that is what Dzheremi meant when he said “the Orthodox Church”, I think he was referring to both the EO and OO, which is why I responded the way I did.

While I’m not sure that this is an area in which the OO and EO differ (as far as I can tell, we both reject RCC claims of a unique role for its bishop, as the RCC itself sets them out), generally speaking if I write “the Orthodox Church”, I am referring to my own communion, as it is the Orthodox Church. Cavaradossi understands correctly.

 

[josie_L]

While I’m not sure that this is an area in which the OO and EO differ (as far as I can tell, we both reject RCC claims of a unique role for its bishop, as the RCC itself sets them out), generally speaking if I write “the Orthodox Church”, I am referring to my own communion, as it is the Orthodox Church. Cavaradossi understands correctly.

It’s just that you didn’t qualify it with “Coptic” and that is where the confusion lay.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh, sorry. Coptic is listed in my little sidebar info thing under “Religion” so I didn’t think it was necessary.

 

[jimmy]

It’s just that you didn’t qualify it with “Coptic” and that is where the confusion lay.

The Syriac, Malankara, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox churches are all part of the same communion but none of them call themselves Coptic.

 

[josie_L]

Oh, sorry. Coptic is listed in my little sidebar info thing under “Religion” so I didn’t think it was necessary.

Dzheremi I’ve been here long enough to know you’re a Coptic Orthodox, I just wasn’t sure what you meant by “the Orthodox Church” as I don’t believe that is the official name of your Church.

 

[josie_L]

The Syriac, Malankara, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox churches are all part of the same communion but none of them call themselves Coptic.

You mean they are in communion with the Coptic Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria.

 

[dzheremi]

Dzheremi I’ve been here long enough to know you’re a Coptic Orthodox, I just wasn’t sure what you meant by “the Orthodox Church” as I don’t believe that is the official title of your Church.

Yes it is. In Coptic it is Ti-Ekklesia en-Remnkimi en-Orthodoxos, literally “the Egyptian Orthodox Church”. This is no different than any of the particular churches that make up the Chalcedonian Orthodox communion, which are all “the Orthodox Church” of a particular place (e.g., the Russian Orthodox Church/Русская Православная Церковь, etc). This is in line with the scriptures, as well (e.g., “Greetings from Paul the Apostle to the congregation/brothers/church of _____ [Galatia, Corinth, etc.]”). There is no particular church which is called “The Orthodox Church” without qualification – rather the Orthodox Church is in either case a communion of particular churches which hold to the Orthodox faith as they understand it, just the Catholic Church is a communion of particular churches which hold to that faith.