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

[dzheremi]

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

This is a very RC way of putting it. They are indeed in communion with Alexandria, but they are just as much in communion with Etchmiadzin, Axum, Antioch, etc. The OO communion does not revolve around any one see, but around the one faith shared by all. Individual churches may be hierarchical (in the sense that any church is, I suppose: we’ve got laity, priests, bishops, archbishops, etc.), but our ecclesiology across the communion definitely is not. HH Pope Tawadros II is ‘my’ Patriarch by virtue of my reception into the COC, but he is not higher/above, say, HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas of the SOC, HH Abune Matteous of the Ethiopians, HH Abune Antonios of the Eritreans, etc. We are truly equal churches and no one dictates to any other. Alexandria is not the lynchpin that holds it all together or what have you.

 

[jimmy]

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

They are in communion the patriarch of Alexandria, but they aren’t Coptic. They are all particular Churches within the Oriental Orthodox Church. So for dzheremi to not modify it with Coptic isn’t out of the ordinary. I would think he would want to include these churches, like a Russian Orthodox would want to include Greeks, Bulgarians and Antiochians.

 

[Peter_J]

Nine_Two, dvdjs, dzheremi, and livingwordunity,

I’m still reading your posts, but I think I should tell you that you’re debating a dead horse – I mean an approach to ecumenism that has been on the way out ever since Vatican II.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Eastern Church’s…

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Eastern+Churches

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

If Peter had been the one to betray our Lord (which, after all, he did at one point) and remain unrepentant (which, thankfully, he didn’t), we would probably be processing around the Church backwards chanting “Baaaaaawlos, Baaaawlos – transgressor of the law!” Instead, we remember Judas as the betrayer. The point is, it wouldn’t change our faith or ecclesiology one bit.

To paraphrase our teacher St. Disocoros (completely out of context, but hey…), our concern is with the apostolic faith, not one man.

It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing.

In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think I should tell you that you’re debating a dead horse – I mean an approach to ecumenism that has been on the way out ever since Vatican II.

What’s your approach?

catholicnewsagency.com/news/coptic-pope-stresses-urgency-of-christian-unity-at-vatican/

“The most important aim for both the Catholic and Coptic Churches is the promotion of ecumenical dialogue in order to get to the most pursued goal, unity,” Pope Tawadros said in his remarks to Pope Francis.

He said he wished “the excellent relationships between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Catholic may become stronger and more prosperous.”

Pope Tawadros also invited Pope Francis to visit Egypt and suggested that from today forward the two Churches should observe May 10 as “a celebration of brotherly love between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church.”

Pope Francis answered him assuring him of his prayers and invoking the protection of the apostles Saints Peter and Mark, who established the two Churches.

“If one member suffers, all suffer together, if one member is honored, all rejoice together,” Pope Francis said, quoting St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.

 

[livingwordunity]

Nine_Two, dvdjs, dzheremi, and livingwordunity,

I’m still reading your posts, but I think I should tell you that you’re debating a dead horse – I mean an approach to ecumenism that has been on the way out ever since Vatican II.

I’m not willing to settle for anything less than perfect unity. If the unity isn’t perfect, it isn’t unity. My impression is that Catholics would love to see reunification, but the EO side is the one that is resistant. We hold to the doctrine of the primacy of Peter because it is taught in the gospels by Jesus. So, that’s why we can’t just let that one go. Jesus said that he wants perfect unity for the Church, so we can’t let that one go either. But the reasons given by the EOs for why they won’t accept reunification with Rome are mostly because they want things to stay as they are.

 

[Peter_J]

What’s your approach?

catholicnewsagency.com/news/coptic-pope-stresses-urgency-of-christian-unity-at-vatican/

“The most important aim for both the Catholic and Coptic Churches is the promotion of ecumenical dialogue in order to get to the most pursued goal, unity,” Pope Tawadros said in his remarks to Pope Francis.

He said he wished “the excellent relationships between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Catholic may become stronger and more prosperous.”

Pope Tawadros also invited Pope Francis to visit Egypt and suggested that from today forward the two Churches should observe May 10 as “a celebration of brotherly love between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church.”

Pope Francis answered him assuring him of his prayers and invoking the protection of the apostles Saints Peter and Mark, who established the two Churches.

“If one member suffers, all suffer together, if one member is honored, all rejoice together,” Pope Francis said, quoting St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think I should tell you that you’re debating a dead horse – I mean an approach to ecumenism that has been on the way out ever since Vatican II.

Kliska View Post
This is beating a dead horse that protestants aren’t buying… neither are the Orthodox.
You may be right. I guess we haven’t been beating it hard enough.

“Me- It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone.”

This dead horse that we disagree on? I don’t see how to stop beating it. We disagree, and the point stands

Yet the debate hinges on this point, a point which btw, I never bring up. note…it was already bought up, And obviously I disagree with the summary. Not to belabor the point.

Also it leaves this undefined…

“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.”

Just saying. Seems to me the issue resolves here. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

[RyanBlack]

I’m not willing to settle for anything less than perfect unity.

It’s not what laity will or won’t settle for that matters.

 

[RyanBlack]

My impression is that Catholics would love to see reunification, but the EO side is the one that is resistant. We hold to the doctrine of the primacy of Peter because it is taught in the gospels by Jesus. So, that’s why we can’t just let that one go. Jesus said that he wants perfect unity for the Church, so we can’t let that one go either. But the reasons given by the EOs for why they won’t accept reunification with Rome are mostly because they want things to stay as they are.

And the Catholic Church isn’t resistant too? Which Catholic positions that are points of difference are the Catholic Church willing not to have “stay as they are?” Papal infallibility? Universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome? The Immaculate Conception as a matter of dogma to be held definitively by all the faithful? The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a matter of dogma to be held definitively by all the faithful? Purgatory as a matter of dogma to be held definitively by all the faithful? The Tridentine teaching of original sin as a matter of dogma to be held definitively by all the faithful? The filioque as a matter of dogma to be held definitively by all the faithful?

The Catholic Church is no more willing that the Orthodox Church to compromise for the sake of unity. The differences in the two approaches to ecumenism are essentially differences in style, not in substance. Neither side is willing to compromise on essential matters of the faith–the Orthodox are simply more blunt in stating so.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

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?

But what if the Patriarchs of all those Sees, and more, were already in the custom of addressing the Pope in Rome as their “father” ?

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”.

The Bible does not record the Lord giving a new name to Saint Mark. It records a new name being given to Abram and Jacob, for example, but not Saint Mark. I think that is grounds for thinking that there’s something special about Saint Peter.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

…you will find strong Petrine claims connected to our See of Antioch and its Patriarch, Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas (I wouldn’t doubt if the same was also true to some degree for the Chalcedonians and their Patriarch of Antioch, HH John X Yazigi, but I don’t know for sure). Not to Rome. Rome is in no sense considered the Petrine See among the Orthodox, as we recognize that there is more than one (as ancient Roman bishops did, as well), and certainly the Roman Pope is in no way recognized as St. Peter’s exclusive successor.

Well, as Saint Cyprian in an earlier quote here wrote, there is the possibility of sharing in Peter’s authority by being in union with him.

Moreover, I think the Council Fathers of Chalcedon - our common spiritual forefathers - did declare that they heard the voice of Peter speaking through his successor, Leo:

*“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! Thus the Orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!” *

I think Catholic and Orthodox do not need to “agree to disagree” but rather need to “agree to work together toward unity”. Since Vatican II there has been a lot more work done on ecclesiological structures, on differentiating between what is of divine constitution and what is established by the Church for her temporal welfare, etc. I think we live in a time where we can see a reunion where no one’s identity or patrimony is necessarily lost or sacrificed. I also think we can all perceive the good that a unified East and West could bring to the world.

I personally think the doctrine of papal primacy was one that developed over time. But I also believe that this doctrine owes its legitimacy from the authority of Scripture and Christ; notwithstanding, I think that like how the Church only came with time to develop the formulation of her belief about the nature of Christ (both fully, truly God and fully, truly man), and the Trinity, for examples, so did it happen with papal primacy and infallibility. Still, the papacy is for the Church, and especially her unity, and not the Church for the papacy.

 

[Peter_J]

“Me- It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone.”

This dead horse that we disagree on?

Well, no. I think you’re mixing things up a little (if not a lot). When I said:

Originally Posted by Peter J
I think I should tell you that you’re debating a dead horse – I mean an approach to ecumenism that has been on the way out ever since Vatican II.

that wasn’t a reference to Kliska’s post, on a different thread, that also involved the expression “a dead horse”. (See the bolded portion.)

 

[KyrieEleison17]

What’s your approach?

catholicnewsagency.com/news/coptic-pope-stresses-urgency-of-christian-unity-at-vatican/

“The most important aim for both the Catholic and Coptic Churches is the promotion of ecumenical dialogue in order to get to the most pursued goal, unity,” Pope Tawadros said in his remarks to Pope Francis.

He said he wished “the excellent relationships between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Catholic may become stronger and more prosperous.”

Pope Tawadros also invited Pope Francis to visit Egypt and suggested that from today forward the two Churches should observe May 10 as “a celebration of brotherly love between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church.”

Pope Francis answered him assuring him of his prayers and invoking the protection of the apostles Saints Peter and Mark, who established the two Churches.

“If one member suffers, all suffer together, if one member is honored, all rejoice together,” Pope Francis said, quoting St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.

Now that is heart-warming and full of promise. I like Pope Tawadros’s suggestion.

 

[jimmy]

It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing.

In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone.

You just contradicted yourself. If it is disputed whether they are the same metaphor, then the claim that Peter recieved the keys alone is on shaky ground, since all the apostles were given the same power to bind and to loose in Matt18. Some modern Roman theologians make the distinction between the keys and the power to bind and loose, but everyone else believes it is the same thing.

 

[jimmy]

I’m not willing to settle for anything less than perfect unity. If the unity isn’t perfect, it isn’t unity. My impression is that Catholics would love to see reunification, but the EO side is the one that is resistant. We hold to the doctrine of the primacy of Peter because it is taught in the gospels by Jesus. So, that’s why we can’t just let that one go. Jesus said that he wants perfect unity for the Church, so we can’t let that one go either. But the reasons given by the EOs for why they won’t accept reunification with Rome are mostly because they want things to stay as they are.

What does it matter what you are willing to settle for? Are you a bishop? Are you a member of the Roman Curia? If not then it doesn’t matter what you are willing to settle for.

Maybe you should read some Orthodox sources instead of the new catholic encyclopedia on the Orthodox. Maybe you should read the fathers writings instead of quotes from the fathers from catholic answers apologetics articles. The resourcement theologians of 20th century Catholicism saw things quite differently than you do. Maybe you should read some Yves Congar. But then again maybe you don’t want something that will challenge your world view.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I’m not willing to settle for anything less than perfect unity. If the unity isn’t perfect, it isn’t unity. My impression is that Catholics would love to see reunification, but the EO side is the one that is resistant. We hold to the doctrine of the primacy of Peter because it is taught in the gospels by Jesus. So, that’s why we can’t just let that one go. Jesus said that he wants perfect unity for the Church, so we can’t let that one go either. But the reasons given by the EOs for why they won’t accept reunification with Rome are mostly because they want things to stay as they are.

And we contend that your interpretation of those scripture passages is wrong.

Primacy and Supremacy are two different things. We acknowledge the former and deny the latter.

We won’t resume Communion with the Latin Church because the Latin Church abandoned Orthodoxy (from our POV). We can’t get back together because we have some very serious disagreements. What do you mean by “we want things to stay as they are” ?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Some modern Roman theologians make the distinction between the keys and the power to bind and loose, but everyone else believes it is the same thing.

This is the point some do, as to everyone else there are various Petrine views from absolute to low. The point above that the laity cannot really do much about this, is why I am already reluctant to belabor the topic. Nines point was well taken also in regard to the Saints and quotes which we all agree on. The other points Ryan bought up are valid, I tend to see them as related more to this point perhaps.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

To KyrieEleison17:

“Well, as Saint Cyprian in an earlier quote here wrote, there is the possibility of sharing in Peter’s authority by being in union with him.”

REPLY: Again, we are in union with St. Peter through Antioch and elsewhere.

"Moreover, I think the Council Fathers of Chalcedon - our common spiritual forefathers - did declare that they heard the voice of Peter speaking through his successor, Leo:

*“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! Thus the Orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!” * "

REPLY: The Fathers of Chalcedon did not accept the Tome on the Pope’s say so. They examined it and found it to be Orthodox.

“I think Catholic and Orthodox do not need to “agree to disagree” but rather need to “agree to work together toward unity”. Since Vatican II there has been a lot more work done on ecclesiological structures, on differentiating between what is of divine constitution and what is established by the Church for her temporal welfare, etc. I think we live in a time where we can see a reunion where no one’s identity or patrimony is necessarily lost or sacrificed. I also think we can all perceive the good that a unified East and West could bring to the world.”

REPLY: For a truly Collegial model to prevail, the Latin Pope would have to give up all pretense and claim of a “Universial Jurisdiction.” The Pope has no right to interfere in the affairs of another See. Attached to that is Infallibility, which is incompatible with the Early Church’s Collegiality.

“I personally think the doctrine of papal primacy was one that developed over time. But I also believe that this doctrine owes its legitimacy from the authority of Scripture and Christ; notwithstanding, I think that like how the Church only came with time to develop the formulation of her belief about the nature of Christ (both fully, truly God and fully, truly man), and the Trinity, for examples, so did it happen with papal primacy and infallibility. Still, the papacy is for the Church, and especially her unity, and not the Church for the papacy.”

REPLY: Yes, the Papal Doctrines are an Innovation. An Innovation that we cannot accept, and will not accept.