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

[Peter_J]

This whole discussion is futile.

Well, I can’t say for sure as I don’t remember the whole thread. But I can at least remember that a lot of back-and-forths seemed quite futile to me.

I have a hunch, which may be way off, that this section is recently seeing more discussion with “traditionalist” Catholics – which may throw some of us for a bit of a loop, if we aren’t accustomed to it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, I can’t say for sure as I don’t remember the whole thread. But I can at least remember that a lot of back-and-forths seemed quite futile to me.

Well, if it has proved that unmemorable, then I suppose that really does make it futile, does it not?

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t know if it was futile. I think at least one Catholic traditionalist learned that the issue is not as simple as he seemed to think it was.

But maybe I’m an optimist.

 

[dronald]

They make people like me unlikely to trust either side… which one do I join?

 

[livingwordunity]

It is also true that whenever a Catholic makes a stout defense of our faith, the same voices cry out that we are harming relations…but I have never seen ANYONE criticize the EO for harming relations with us by their outrageous statements against the papacy, our liturgy, etc…

Why is that, do you suppose?

Great point.

 

[livingwordunity]

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.

You can be an Eastern Catholic. They have all that the EO’s have and are in communion with Rome. Here’s a link about it: Annunciation Parish

I just had an idea. Since the EOs apparently don’t want to reunite with us (judging from the responses in this thread), what if the Catholic Church would just focus our East/West relationship efforts on building up our Eastern Catholic churches?

 

[RyanBlack]

You can be an Eastern Catholic. They have all that the EO’s have and are in communion with Rome. Here’s a link about it: Annunciation Parish

I just had an idea. Since the EOs apparently don’t want to reunite with us (judging from the responses in this thread), what if the Catholic Church would just focus our efforts of uniting East with West on building up our Eastern Catholic churches?

Not on terms dictated by Rome, just as the Catholic Church would not agree to unity on terms dictated by the Orthodox. You’re really being terribly one-sided in the remarks you are making on this matter.

 

[livingwordunity]

Not on terms dictated by Rome, just as the Catholic Church would not agree to unity on terms dictated by the Orthodox. You’re really being terribly one-sided in the remarks you are making on this matter.

I offered a hypothetical scenario where we would basically give them the papacy, and one of them still said they would reject that. But there’s no way we can abolish the papacy by redefining what was defined by Jesus himself in the gospels where Jesus explicitly puts Peter in charge of the universal church. I don’t know how anyone can interpret heaven and earth to mean not universal. What part of the gospels would the EO’s be going against if they submitted to the primacy of Peter? While the EO position is based primarily on historical gripes and grudges against Catholics and wanting things to stay the same; the Catholic position on the Office of Peter is based primarily on the words of Jesus in the gospels. We have no other motivation. That’s why I said perhaps the Catholic Church should just focus her East/West relations efforts on building up our Eastern Catholics since they are already in communion with Rome and therefore aren’t asking us to go against what we strongly believe is the irrevocable teaching of Jesus.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t know if it was futile. I think at least one Catholic traditionalist learned that the issue is not as simple as he seemed to think it was.

I guess I was wrong.

 

[RyanBlack]

I offered a hypothetical scenario where we would basically give them the papacy, and one of them still said they would reject that. But there’s no way we can abolish the papacy by redefining what was defined by Jesus himself in the gospels where Jesus explicitly puts Peter in charge of the universal church. I don’t know how anyone can interpret heaven and earth to mean not universal. What part of the gospels would the EO’s be going against if they submitted to the primacy of Peter? While the EO position is based primarily on historical gripes and grudges against Catholics and wanting things to stay the same; the Catholic position on the Office of Peter is based primarily on the words of Jesus in the gospels. We have no other motivation. That’s why I said perhaps Catholics should just focus our East/West relations efforts on building up our Eastern Catholics since they are already in communion with Rome and therefore aren’t asking us to go against what we strongly believe is the irrevocable teaching of Jesus.

Are you aware that the Orthodox do participate in ecumenical dialogue with the Catholic Church?

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

How much authority. Having a hard time with all this authority and a "poor, dirty, missionary, church.

Yes, yes, yes, I heard all the divinely instituted part (I believe, I believe), but, we are on the authority part, the supreme unilateral part.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s why I said perhaps the Catholic Church should just focus her East/West relations efforts on building up our Eastern Catholics since they are already in communion with Rome and therefore aren’t asking us to go against what we strongly believe is the irrevocable teaching of Jesus.

I don’t know why you say “just”, but I am entirely in favor of building up our Eastern Catholics churches.

Do you personally have an interest in become Eastern Catholic? If so, it’s pretty far off the topic of this particular thread; but if you start a thread about it in the Eastern Catholicism section I am certain you will get tons of info about going Eastern. (Ditto for any other Latin Catholics reading this.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

Do you personally have an interest in become Eastern Catholic?

How did you get this above out of…“asking US to go against what WE strongly believe is the irrevocable teaching of Jesus.”

That’s not a stretch. its a leap.

 

[livingwordunity]

I don’t know why you say “just”, but I am entirely in favor of building up our Eastern Catholics churches.

Do you personally have an interest in become Eastern Catholic? If so, it’s pretty far off the topic of this particular thread; but if you start a thread about it in the Eastern Catholicism section I am certain you will get tons of info about going Eastern. (Ditto for any other Latin Catholics reading this.)

Thank you for the offer. I actually do have an interest in Eastern Catholic liturgy. I have asked my wife if she wanted to try going to an Eastern Catholic Mass, but she has no interest in it. Although I can appreciate the beauty of an Eastern Catholic liturgy, I can also appreciate the beauty of the Latin Rite.

How did you get this above out of…“asking US to go against what WE strongly believe is the irrevocable teaching of Jesus.”

That’s not a stretch. its a leap.

Peter J got it from the part where I said:

perhaps the Catholic Church should just focus her East/West relations efforts on building up our Eastern Catholics since they are already in communion with Rome.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yet its suggested we should google ecumenism of return. I understand what you are saying, I fail to see the overall thinking. Non-Orthodox returning to the Orthodox Church? Non-Catholics returning to the CC.

It suggests then orthodox returning to orthodox. Which suggests what? Seems to me the individual understanding of ecumenism varies from one to another. As do different paradigms of understanding.

There is but one way in which the unity of Christians can be embraced, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church? Where is that?

 

[prodromos]

While the EO position is based primarily on historical gripes and grudges against Catholics and wanting things to stay the same

Our position is not based at all on historical gripes and grudges against Catholics. That may be your perception because you are not able to appreciate that our respective churches are fundamentally different in the theology behind our ecclesiology, so you imagine the reason must be something else and come up with the above…
We do indeed have cause to be cautious in our dealings with the Catholic Church because of events which have occurred in the past, but that iz not what our position is based on.

 

[prodromos]

what if the Catholic Church would just focus our East/West relationship efforts on building up our Eastern Catholic churches?

They could certainly do with some building up, they currently make up less than 1% of the Catholic Church.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I offered a hypothetical scenario where we would basically give them the papacy, and one of them still said they would reject that. But there’s no way we can abolish the papacy by redefining what was defined by Jesus himself in the gospels where Jesus explicitly puts Peter in charge of the universal church. I don’t know how anyone can interpret heaven and earth to mean not universal. What part of the gospels would the EO’s be going against if they submitted to the primacy of Peter? While the EO position is based primarily on historical gripes and grudges against Catholics and wanting things to stay the same; the Catholic position on the Office of Peter is based primarily on the words of Jesus in the gospels. We have no other motivation. That’s why I said perhaps the Catholic Church should just focus her East/West relations efforts on building up our Eastern Catholics since they are already in communion with Rome and therefore aren’t asking us to go against what we strongly believe is the irrevocable teaching of Jesus.

Again, you do not see how insulting “offering us the Papacy” is, as if it was about pride and mere power.

I don’t say that to impugn your character, as you are obviously sincere in your convictions. Your interpretation of the Papacy is flawed from our POV for several reasons:

1.) We don’t believe the Pope has the authority you attribute to him.
2.) We deny the very idea of a “Petrine Ministry” as the Latins believe. Antioch is the senior “Petrine See” and a “successor to St. Peter” and yet it doesn’t flex the type of Muscle Rome claims. The very idea of the authority of a See being tethered and based in it’s Founder is bizarre and perplexing from an Orthodox POV. St. Peter founded several Sees, as did the other Apostles. All of powers that St. Peter received were also received by the other Apostles. St. Peter was special, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the subsequent Bishops of Rome were “special” in that sense, any more than say the Patriarch of Antioch. That certainly begs the question of “Why not Antioch?”

Rome is “special” primarily because St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred there. Their blood consecrated that ground (as well as the Martyrs that followed). THAT in itself is pretty darn special, and we don’t begrudge Rome’s proper place.

It is very unfair to characterize our POV in that way, as if nothing we say has any merit at all. This is not the Spirit of Dialogue my Patriarch has espoused, and I certainly know it isn’t what your Pope is saying.

I think it is great for your Communion to grow closer to the East, but I would ask what you mean by “Building up the Eastern Catholics.” One has to be careful, lest the U-Word rear it’s ugly head once more…

 

[Misplaced_Book]

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.

As we have attempted to explain to you countless times, Randy, We don’t read the Fathers that way. It isn’t alleged… the quotes are being taken out of context. Much like the quote from St. Ignatius being used because he refers to the Catholic Church…as if he had the Latin Church specifically in mind when he said it.

Our Bishops speak very lovingly to each other, because it is a brotherhood. We spoke that way to Rome as well, when she was in the fold. Note that there is no Orthodox Patriarch of Rome. Technically, the See of Rome has been vacant since the Schism from our Ecclesiological POV…we could certainly have appointed a successor, just as we did in Alexandria when that Schism occurred (referring to the messy business with the OO, one that I do not want to rehash in this thread…I’m using it as an example).

As long as there is hope, we will continue to leave a chair open for your Pope to sit in it. This isn’t about the mean ole Orthodox not wanting to play nice. There are real issues to hash out.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And there you read the low petrine view as opposed to the high.

To which the statement follows within the Church, form without reform equals nothing but disobedience. Just as formation reduced to simplification becomes poorly formed. And the low to high view “within” the Church goes sort of like that. To make a long story short.