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.
SoMissCatholic said:
In all fairness, I’m sure the Eastern Orthodox would ask the same question of us, i.e., “Doesn’t the reason there is still a schism come down to the simple unwillingness of the Catholic Church to reconsider its position on the universal jurisdiction of the Pope for the simple reason that they don’t want to?”

We would respond, “the Church cannot reconsider its position because the universal jurisdiction of the Pope and his charism of infallibility when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals are part of the Deposit of Faith, which the Church has no authority to change.”

They would respond, “the Orthodox Church cannot reconsider its position because it is part of the Deposit of Faith, which the Church has no authority to change, that the charism of infallibility can only be exercised by an eccumenical council, approved by the bishops and accepted by the whole Church.”
Click to expand...
This exactly. Thank you. This is why we are at a stalemate. Both sides see it as an unfortunate stalemate, but at least both sides are honest about their stands and some credit has do be given that such IS seen as an important issue, not to be cast aside with no consideration.
 
livingwordunity said:
There shouldn’t be a debate since Jesus made it crystal clear what Peter’s role is vis-à-vis the other apostles. And since the authority passed down from bishop to bishop doesn’t diminish with each succession, the essential hierarchical structure should remain intact and the same. The reason for this is because every validly ordained bishop is in the line of succession with one of the apostles. And Pope Francis’ line goes back to Peter.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting where the Orthodox Bishops come from. If the Catholic Church wants unity with the Orthodox there must be this defining moment when the Orthodox to be recognized as where they should be. The Church of Rome cannot make claims on their own for the whole Church if they want the whole Church united. It is only by coming to know each other can this debate be solved towards what can be agreeable for both parties. Have you ever asked yourself why there is an Eastern Orthodox Church in the first place? Don’t you wish to know something about her? Why is it that Catholics are waiting for? If you are waiting for the Orthodox to accept claims by which they were not asked to engage in than this unity will never come. The Church of Rome must come to realise that any dialogue in which will involve our unity must be agreeable to both sides. As yet the Catholic lay people are not that well informed about the Orthodox to even make a reasonable judgment that will move towards any unity. Of course this can be said of the Orthodox as well. There has to be more involvement on discovering each other if unity is to come.
 
shlomo3amrooh said:
Rome needs to see the east as younger brothers. Rather than children.
Click to expand...
I agree (minus the younger bit… No), and I would like to point out the plural you used. Brothers. Too often the view is of East and West, not of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, et al. All must be considered as brothers, not just brother west and brother east.
 
The fact is it is not logistically possible for full administrative unity or to go back in time.

Communal/ecumenical unity can be obtained(and that was the intention of lifting the excommunication, so I believe) but administrative unity is nearly impossible. That would deny the fact that such a severance occurred in the first place.

It’s similar to the situation concerning the parts of the Church of England, or the Episcopal Anglicans, that wished to re-join communion with the Catholic Church. Full union between the Churches would deny the fact there was seperation in the first place, but some Ecumenical/Communal unity is certainly achievable with parts of that Church.
 
We don’t want administrative unity. Never have. In fact that is one of our issues.

The purpose of lifting the excommunications was not to restore Communion, which is exactly in our minds can only come after union - meaning we hold the same faith.
 
dronald said:
So much anger.
Click to expand...
Well … I’ll just trust Nine_Two to know his own mind.

But that aside, I note that the central idea of this thread is for “Christendom, East and West, to be reunited and not divided”. Wouldn’t that include you and other protestants? You are Christian (hence part of Christendom) right?

Seems to me rather odd how, in these the-Orthodox-need-to-unite-with-Rome conversations, protestants tend to be excused (in a rather back-handed compliment of course). :hmmm:
 
Peter_J said:
Well … I’ll just trust Nine_Two to know his own mind.

But that aside, I note that the central idea of this thread is for “Christendom, East and West, to be reunited and not divided”. Wouldn’t that include you and other protestants? You are Christian (hence part of Christendom) right?

Seems to me rather odd how, in these the-Orthodox-need-to-unite-with-Rome conversations, protestants tend to be excused (in a rather back-handed compliment of course). :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Maybe we’re excused because nobody really wants us to take sides? Confessional Lutherans have a great deal in common with both Roman Catholic and Orthodox. Maybe you guys could find a middle ground with us [ducks and runs].
 
livingwordunity said:
Actually, I would like Christendom, East and West, to be reunited and not divided. And I would appreciate it if you would address the points I made. The schism is the reason why Europe is no longer Christian, and I think that’s a big deal. And, perhaps if Christendom had not been weakened by the schism there would still be a Constantinople. Which is better? Weak and divided, or strong and united?

The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome.” (Acts 23:11)
Click to expand...
But do you really want reunion and not just surrender of the East and Orthodox to the West and Latin Catholicism. To me there is quite a difference between submission and reunion.
 
andrewstx said:
But do you really want reunion and not just surrender of the East and Orthodox to the West and Latin Catholicism. To me there is quite a difference between submission and reunion.
Click to expand...
Well, I can fully understand that that wouldn’t be the kind of reunion that you would want, but I don’t think it is fair to say that it wouldn’t be reunion.
 
Peter_J said:
Well, I can fully understand that that wouldn’t be the kind of reunion that you would want, but I don’t think it is fair to say that it wouldn’t be reunion.
Click to expand...
We wouldn’t consider it reunion.
 
Peter_J said:
Well, I can fully understand that that wouldn’t be the kind of reunion that you would want, but I don’t think it is fair to say that it wouldn’t be reunion.
Click to expand...
P.S. To elaborate a bit on my thinking: Suppose an Anglican described their idea of how Catholic-Anglican reunion should go. We Catholics would undoubtedly say “That is not how we think reunion should go.” But we wouldn’t say “That wouldn’t be reunion.” (Or at least that was my thinking when I posted ^^ this. Maybe I’m wrong and we really would say “That wouldn’t be reunion.”)
 
It seems to me from my personal reading of history that it appears that when Rome conquered Greese and the Middle east etc. that there has been distrust due to language and cultural diiferences as well as religious ideas. it seems to me that the Roman empire delt with a heavy hand whenever they felt that their authority was threatened. it aloso seems to me that in the east ie, Middle east that from the start of Christainity that there was differences between the various Churches and there rose up many different religious beliefs such as the Gnostic’s that flousished for nearly two centuries and which forund its way into many of the Christain Churcxhes of the time. After the perscutions ended and a council was called by the emperor Constintine most of the Bishops came from the east and while some Bishops came from the West, according to wat I have read of history not enough time was allowed for all of the Bishops to attend the council which since all the Ecumenical Councils were all in the East it smacks of stacking the cards in favor of the east having their way6 for the most part and the West taking a lessor role in what was decided on. Thought the Pope in Rome oked the decisions made in those councils. but in the end there was i think a distrust of the West since the tme of Roman conquest of the East. At least that is my humble opinion.
 
livingwordunity said:
In the video, Epic - A Journey Through Church History DVD, I learned that the Pope, St. Leo IX (1049-54), was actually dead at the time when both excommunications of the Great Schism of 1054 AD took place. So, it seems to me that one can question whether the excommunications even ever took place. How can a dead Pope Leo IX excommunicate Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople? And how could the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicate a dead pope?So, when both sides lifted their excommunications in 1965 shouldn’t that have meant that both sides were automatically reunited?Doesn’t the reason there is still a schism come down to the simple unwillingness by the Eastern Orthodox to submit to the authority of the Pope for the simple reason that they don’t want to?
Click to expand...
We are all too hard-headed… :o
 
I think you hit the nail on the head with the too hard headed remark.
 
prodromos said:
Firstly, the Bull of excommunication produced by Cardinal Humbert only excommunicated Patriarch Michael and those who followed him, and the Council called by Patriarch Michael only excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and the others with him, one of whom would later become Pope, but that is beside the point. So both were excommunications of individuals. However it did cause a pretty major severing of ties for a while but it really wasn’t until the 4th crusade and the sacking of Constantinople that the breach was set in cement.

No, because that was not the cause of the division. It runs far deeper than that.
Submission to the Pope is unknown in Holy Tradition. Why would we want to do something which simply does not fit into Orthodox ecclesiology?
Click to expand...
You 100% positive without a doubt? Does not fit into Orthodox ecclesiology? Before 1054 or after?
 
I’m surprised this thread has gone on as long as it has without somebody flipping the OPs title question on its head, as it deserves to be – Why should the mutual lifting of the excommunications of 1054 mean automatic reunification? Although I’m not in communion with either of you, so I don’t particularly care about this specific issue or date, I can say from where I’m sitting that formal reunification – which is the only kind that Orthodox are interested in (pastoral exceptions don’t count) – takes a lot more than this or that general recognition or gesture towards better relations. I don’t mean to be a wet blanket at all – certainly lifting the excommunications was a step in the right direction, but that’s all it was: a step. Nobody on either side would do their position any favors if they were to pretend that the intervening 911 years did not occur and further complicate matters. They did pass, and as a result the Latin West and Byzantine East are much further apart than they presumably were in 1054 or even for several centuries after that (the dating being a matter of convenience, really).

So what makes you think that it should or could be this way, OP? Because you watched a DVD? :confused: I don’t get it.
 
👋 Let us all take a deeeeppppppppp breath…aaaahhhh. There…much better? 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top