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

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Misplaced_Book said:
“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.
Click to expand...
Still a valid point though… But I also believe that this doctrine owes its legitimacy from the authority of Scripture and Christ; notwithstanding,

Then the argument that doctrine is further defined. Which we have to concede it does.

The different views of the charisma of the teaching authority, thus the keys. All valid views above but still no resolve.

Further compounded by High to Low views of the primacy. Which many of those questions we see here from high to low which are valid. Let alone all others in Christology.

Prayer, the advice of desert fathers posted was excellent. 😉
 
RyanBlack said:
It’s not what laity will or won’t settle for that matters.
Click to expand...
So, you believe that evangelization should be entirely left up to the bishops? I don’t remember reading that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
Peter_J said:
Well, joking aside, they are common spiritual forefathers of Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans.
Click to expand...
None of whom he wrote that response to, Peter J. Come on…don’t pretend like you don’t know why that would be hilarious. Laugh a little bit. It’s the only way to get through the day. 🙂
 
“The ancient Fathers, especially those who held the more illustrious chairs of the East, since they accepted these privileges as proper to the pontifical authority, took refuge in the Apostolic See whenever heresy or internal strife troubled them. For it alone promised safety in extreme crises. Basil the Great did so, as did the renowned defender of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius, as well as John Chrysostom. For these inspired Fathers of the orthodox faith appealed from the councils of bishops to the supreme judgement of the Roman Pontiffs according to the prescriptions of the ecclesiastical Canons. Who can say that they were wanting in conformity to the command which they had from Christ?” (Source)
 
So is that why all the illustrious sees of the east broke communion with Rome? And I mean all when I say all. Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and etc. Alexandria and Antioch obviously disagreed with any concept of universal jurisdiction and infallibility atleast since the beginning of the fifth century considering that is when the break with both the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church occurred. And it is hard to make the claim that anyone else really accepted it because none of them behaved as if they did. Acacian schism shows that Constantinople didn’t think much of universal jurisdiction and infallibility.
 
jimmy said:
So is that why all the illustrious sees of the east broke communion with Rome? And I mean all when I say all. Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and etc. Alexandria and Antioch obviously disagreed with any concept of universal jurisdiction and infallibility atleast since the beginning of the fifth century considering that is when the break with both the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church occurred. And it is hard to make the claim that anyone else really accepted it because none of them behaved as if they did. Acacian schism shows that Constantinople didn’t think much of universal jurisdiction and infallibility.
Click to expand...
Nearly everyone left Jesus when he told them about the Holy Eucharist, and nearly all of the apostles abandoned Jesus when he was arrested.
 
livingwordunity said:
They could ask that question to us, but on what basis? Catholics have the words of Christ in the gospels giving Peter the keys to the kingdom (Matt. 16:18-19) and saying “feed my sheep” (Jn. 21:15-17) and “strengthen your brethren” (Lk. 22:32). The Christians of today’s world are Christ’s sheep just as much as the early Christians were. So, for Peter to carry out this universal directive given to him by Christ Peter would have to have successors (the popes) who would have the same authority to do what Peter did in feeding Christ’s sheep and strengthening his brethren. Plus, see my second post about where the Early Church fathers stood on the issue. And further, the EO would have to argue against apostolic succession if they try to say that the successor to Peter doesn’t have all the same authority that Peter had since it is essential to the doctrine of apostolic succession that the bishops have all the same authority as that of the apostles with none of it lost in the laying on of hands from a bishop to his successor. And the EO churches are divided along lines of nationality.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox (sometimes wilfully) misinterpret certain scriptures. Certain well respected instructors of the clergy in the OCA have stated that the Feed My Sheep bit in the Gospel of John is Peter being “readmitted to the twelve”…

Many Orthodox theologians claim the rock is not Peter himself, but the faith Peter professed. (This one is at least linguistically plausible, albeit not readily apparent as the most probable read.)

Most Orthodox theologians hold issue with the Papacy exceeding the authority of a council; they believe in the church as a whole being the final authority, not in any particular office.
 
livingwordunity said:
Nearly everyone left Jesus when he told them about the Holy Eucharist, and nearly all of the apostles abandoned Jesus when he was arrested.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but that isn’t the argument. Your quote implied that the bishops of the eastern churches were behind the roman doctrines. Now you are abandoning that and implying that the eastern bishops were unfaithful. A 180 flip.
 
I remember our priest telling us a while back that the EO Churches will continue to come back to Rome, (and they are coming back in record numbers) to the successor of Peter. The Orthodox Churches already recognize him as having primacy of honer among all the bishops, since he is the successor of St. Peter, head of the apostles. The only stumbling block remaining is the affirmation of Rome in terms of primacy of jurisdiction. This is a minor issue which could be solved in our lifetime. Once the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches reunite with Rome, the Church will have all the successors of the apostles under one roof.

Granted, you all are so much more informed on he subject, this is only what I remember being told, so thought I would share for whatever reason I had to pipe in. 😛
 
Aramis said:
The Orthodox (sometimes wilfully) misinterpret certain scriptures. Certain well respected instructors of the clergy in the OCA have stated that the Feed My Sheep bit in the Gospel of John is Peter being “readmitted to the twelve”…

Many Orthodox theologians claim the rock is not Peter himself, but the faith Peter professed. (This one is at least linguistically plausible, albeit not readily apparent as the most probable read.)

Most Orthodox theologians hold issue with the Papacy exceeding the authority of a council; they believe in the church as a whole being the final authority, not in any particular office.
Click to expand...
You are going to have to take this complaint up with St John Chrysostom, who I guess willfully misinterpreted the gospel on both points. Both points are directly taken from his homilies on the gospels. Read the homilies on those two texts and you will see it clearly. And he isn’t the only father who interprets the texts like this.
 
Aramis said:
The Orthodox (sometimes wilfully) misinterpret certain scriptures. Certain well respected instructors of the clergy in the OCA have stated that the Feed My Sheep bit in the Gospel of John is Peter being “readmitted to the twelve”…

Many Orthodox theologians claim the rock is not Peter himself, but the faith Peter professed. (This one is at least linguistically plausible, albeit not readily apparent as the most probable read.)

Most Orthodox theologians hold issue with the Papacy exceeding the authority of a council; they believe in the church as a whole being the final authority, not in any particular office.
Click to expand...
To interpret Peter’s role the way the EO do one would have to believe that all the times that Jesus singled out Peter for leadership was just a coincidence despite the fact that Jesus never singled out anyone else in the way he would to Peter. And, one would have to ignore how there are plenty of places in the writings of the Early Church fathers where they strongly advocate for the primacy of Peter and/or the bishop of Rome. St. Cyprian of Carthage even zealously defended the Papacy from an anti-pope. But I don’t know of a single quote from the Early Church fathers that explicitly denies the primacy of Peter.
 
livingwordunity said:
To interpret Peter’s role the way the EO do one would have to believe that all the times that Jesus singled out Peter for leadership was just a coincidence despite the fact that Jesus never singled out anyone else in the way he would to Peter. And, one would have to ignore how there are plenty of places in the writings of the Early Church fathers where they strongly advocate for the primacy of Peter and/or the bishop of Rome. St. Cyprian of Carthage even zealously defended the Papacy from an anti-pope. But I don’t know of a single quote from the Early Church fathers that explicitly denies the primacy of Peter.
Click to expand...
St. Cyprian of Carthage claimed that all bishops were the successors of Peter.

Modern Orthodox don’t deny the primacy of Peter either.
 
jimmy said:
St. Cyprian of Carthage claimed that all bishops were the successors of Peter.
Click to expand...
Show me the quote so I can see the context. Why did he zealously defend the Papacy from an anti-pope?

“…Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 68

“…For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church…” - St. Cyprian, Epistle 70
 
livingwordunity said:
Why did he zealously defend the Papacy from an anti-pope?
Click to expand...
Why did Dioscorus of Alexandria break communion with Rome? (That is rhetorical)

Why did St. Cyprian deny that any one bishop had supreme authority, and that all bishops are successors of Peter?
 
livingwordunity said:
Why did he zealously defend the Papacy from an anti-pope?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t he? St. Dionysius of Alexandria similarly intervened in the controversy between Pope Stephen and St. Cyprian regarding rebaptism (which provides direct counter-evidence to the modern RCC stance that Rome is the arbiter in disputes, but anyway…), because we all care about unity of the Church. Once Rome started claiming for itself rights it never had, the earlier conciliar/balanced model started to be reinterpreted by Rome’s partisans, but there’s still plenty of evidence of all kinds of saints up until the major schisms weighing in on this or that, both in favor of the Roman bishop (as in the case of the anti-Pope) and in favor of his opponent (as in the case of St. Cyprian’s fight with the Pope over rebaptism).

This actually helps the Orthodox case if you think about it for five seconds and don’t solely depend on later Roman apologetics.
 
livingwordunity said:
Go right ahead, show me where the ECF’s clearly deny that Peter has supremacy over the other apostles. I’m not scared.
Click to expand...
I get the feeling you didn’t read what I wrote. Your feelings don’t enter into the reasons I gave for why I won’t get into this.
 
jimmy said:
Why did Dioscorus of Alexandria break communion with Rome? (That is rhetorical)
Click to expand...
Rhetorical or not, IIRC Leo removed HH St. Dioscoros from the dyptychs of the Church at Rome first, to which HH St. Dioscoros responded in kind…so it’s more accurate to say that Rome broke communion with Dioscoros. (Suffice to say that no matter how you look at it, the two seemed not to like each other very much; I can’t say I blame HH St. Dioscoros all that much, in the context of arrogant stupidity like Leo’s 445 letter trying to tell Alexandria that their practices should match those of Rome, which was promptly ignored…but anyway…ancient history and surely not relevant to today’s scene. ;))
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top