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.
livingwordunity said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is another tactic employed frequently. Whenever we produce quotes that EXPLICITLY deny some aspect of Orthodoxy, it is alleged that we are taking the quotes out of context. This enables folks to dismiss the fact that those quotes EXIST and that they say very CATHOLIC things.

If that fails, they switch to some nonsense about “flowery language that is characteristic of Eastern thought” to dismiss anything remotely positive about the papacy. Just you wait.

You’re in for the “Whack-A-Mole” game of your life now. 😛
 
livingwordunity said:
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.
Click to expand...
:clapping:

Preach it, brother. Just don’t get banned or suspended. 😉
 
livingwordunity said:
To me, the question of who is to blame for the Schism is irrelevant. We have to forget about that and try to work at healing the schism. I think the Pope is willing to do everything short of denying the role of the office of Peter which was established by Christ. Rome’s motivation isn’t motivated by any grudge, but the same can’t be said for the Eastern Orthodox who constantly remind us of the wrongs of 500 or more years ago. The fact that the EO always bring these historical grudges up in the discussion shows that it is a significant motivating factor for why they don’t want reunification. Someone else made the point that the average Eastern Orthodox church goer wouldn’t see any significant change in the liturgy. From what I can see, Rome is always reaching out for reconciliation but keeps getting rejected. Perhaps I’m unaware, but have the Eastern Orthodox ever initiated a move to reconcile with Rome?
Click to expand...
No it goes both ways, Constantinople contacted Rome immediately when Pope Francis asked us all to pray for him., as have a good deal of others as noted here, and visa versa. In fact I believe Rome is heading to Istanbul for a Feast soon. St Andrew I believe I read last week.

Negotiations simply broke down heading towards unity, a primacy of jurisdiction with unilateral authority would diminish the autonomy of Constantinople, this was and is the issue. It usurps its authority within its own social cultural sphere.
 
prodromos said:
Bad example if you are trying to argue for the papacy.
Moses is a type of Christ and the Pharisees (plural) sit in Mosea seat. Are you sure you are not trying to argue for the Orthodox position?
Click to expand...
Quite certain. Perhaps you are unaware of the “High Priest” spoken of frequently in the NT?

John 11:50-52
50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

Luke records this:

Acts 23:3-5
3 Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”
4 Those who were standing near Paul said, “How dare you insult God’s high priest!”
5 Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’”

Here, Paul clearly refers to a single person as the ruler of the Jewish people.
 
livingwordunity said:
How many times are you going to personally attack me? Anyone who doesn’t like Catholicism because of this thread didn’t like it before seeing this thread. Even Jesus was unpopular when he spoke the truth.
Click to expand...
Clear evidence you are doing well in this ecumenical dialogue.
 
livingwordunity said:
In the hypothetical situation, the decision would rest on me, and therefore the reunification would happen. But it was a fantasy hypothetical situation in response to something someone else said just to make the point that I believe strongly that the East/West Schism should not have happened. The Pope is apparently against the ongoing schism between East and West, too, or he would not be making efforts at reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox churches. The ECF were also strongly against schism. I don’t have delusions of grandeur, if that’s the impression that anyone got. Perhaps a better way I could have said it is, if everyone hated the schism as much as I do there would be no schism.
Click to expand...
The ECF were strongly against Schism, yet you don’t see them communing with those who don’t share their faith. Athanasius didn’t accept Arianism to avoid schism.
 
Randy_Carson said:
A red herring.

LivingWordUnity must be doing well… 👍
Click to expand...
A non-sequitur actually. The purpose of which is to point out that the argument it is replying to is also a non-sequitur.

I was wondering when we’d see your hubris in this thread Randy. You do not disappoint.
 
Originally Posted by Peter J
And I don’t understand how you don’t see that your attitude does nothing but harm our relations with the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
livingwordunity said:
You did so by saying that this thread (the one I started) is going to cause people to hate Catholicism.
Click to expand...
So, you’re still seeing things that aren’t there … but I’m glad to see at least that you’re no longer saying that I “blame the division between the East and West on [you]”. :o

But that’s really beside the point anyhow. The important thing is, if you want someone to try to convince you that the so-call traditionalist approach to ecumenism is wrong, there are probably plenty of Catholic posters here who are willing to do so (Jimmy perhaps?). But not me personally; I have far too little time on my hands.
 
Okay, fine then: You do disappoint. I’m very disappointed in you, Randy. :tsktsk:

Happy?
 
livingwordunity said:
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...
The East would bring up theological reasons, but a lot of it comes down to inherited attitudes in the laity on both sides. Thus as one Orthodox Metropolitan has said here youtube.com/watch?v=-sMLQMGAWXU without the acceptance of the laity there won’t be unity, no matter what the hierarchy does.
 
josephback said:
The East would bring up theological reasons, but a lot of it comes down to inherited attitudes in the laity on both sides. Thus as one Orthodox Metropolitan has said here youtube.com/watch?v=-sMLQMGAWXU without the acceptance of the laity there won’t be unity, no matter what the hierarchy does.
Click to expand...
And apparently, that could take centuries. There is no definite criteria by which it can be determined whether the laity have “spoken” or not…it’s just a matter of waiting it out.
 
Randy_Carson said:
And apparently, that could take centuries. There is no definite criteria by which it can be determined whether the laity have “spoken” or not…it’s just a matter of waiting it out.
Click to expand...
😦 I like the Orthodox. They haven’t set out to endlessly subtract like Fundamentalism. If not for the question of Papal supremacy, I would be Orthodox. They have a strong sense of community where I live.
 
Randy_Carson said:
And apparently, that could take centuries. There is no definite criteria by which it can be determined whether the laity have “spoken” or not…it’s just a matter of waiting it out.
Click to expand...
This is one of those differences between the East and the West that we’re going to have to each get used to if we want unity of any sort.

The West likes to know what is going on. It insists on having things defined. If there is a line it must be clearly marked out so that everyone knows where it is.

The East basks in uncertainty. We don’t particularly care where the line is as long as we know the general area. It all works for us.

Just as we in the East must accept that the West is going to try to define things that we believe to be either undefinable, or not needing a definition, the West also has to accept that we don’t use clear definitions. Neither of these positions is necessarily wrong (though they can be if improperly applied).

With all that said the laity don’t “speak”. The attitudes of the laity are influential, but they don’t have an official voice when it comes to a decision. A primate who ignores them is a fool but at the same time they have no rights to speak. So no, it doesn’t take centuries to figure out if they have spoken. They’ll give their opinion right away.
 
josephback said:
😦 I like the Orthodox. They haven’t set out to endlessly subtract like Fundamentalism. If not for the question of Papal supremacy, I would be Orthodox. They have a strong sense of community where I live.
Click to expand...
Does wanting the Orthodox to become Catholic count as liking them?
 
livingwordunity said:
In the hypothetical situation, the decision would rest on me, and therefore the reunification would happen. But it was a fantasy hypothetical situation in response to something someone else said just to make the point that I believe strongly that the East/West Schism should not have happened. The Pope is apparently against the ongoing schism between East and West, too, or he would not be making efforts at reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox churches. The ECF were also strongly against schism. I don’t have delusions of grandeur, if that’s the impression that anyone got. Perhaps a better way I could have said it is, if everyone hated the schism as much as I do there would be no schism.
Click to expand...
The ECF’s hated heresy even more than schism though. They would never have compromised or continued union with someone they disagreed with on important matters of faith.
 
jimmy said:
The ECF’s hated heresy even more than schism though. They would never have compromised or continued union with someone they disagreed with on important matters of faith.
Click to expand...
This back-and-forth seems like the kind of futile conversation I was talking about earlier. Not meaning to be a know-it-all, but I would think you would know better after all your experience on this forum. 🤷
 
Peter_J said:
This back-and-forth seems like the kind of futile conversation I was talking about earlier. Not meaning to be a know-it-all, but I would think you would know better after all your experience on this forum. 🤷
Click to expand...
You are right. This whole discussion is futile. It has degraded into bickering. Sadly there never was much more though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top