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.
That’s fine that many do not agree with the “low petrine” view, and I certainly wouldn’t expect a Roman Catholic priest to agree with such a view. However, it is simply historically incorrect to state that the East was repeatedly rescued from heresies by Rome. There were certainly a number of heresies originating from the East, and they were defeated largely through the work of faithful eastern bishops.
Ryan, I understand your point, its the extremes we see here which deflate or inflate, drag the Saints through coals. Yes, broad sweeping statements.

The period of St Athanasius is a good period to clearly see the view of the See’s and interaction. Course that excels into V-I in development, the low view devalues.

Somewhere in all this is the medium, and probably the closest to the truth at least historically. At least to me its not so much to uphold anyone of these views but to begin to recognize them for what they are. Otherwise we debate from all angles. Doesn’t seem to serve the intended purpose of orthodoxy.
 
You didn’t answer the question Randy. I didn’t ask if there were heretics in the east. I asked what heresies Rome saved the east from.

Second, that is a poorly researched article. Maybe you should read the statements of the recent popes on ‘Monophysitism’. Both Paul VI and JPII made clear statements that the supposed Monophysites, who are found in the Oriental Orthodox Church are actually within the pale of orthodoxy. They aren’t and were never heretics. That said, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch weren’t heretical for that whole time period. That means that the list is false from Dioscorus down. So that is one major error of the article.

And for the sake of full disclosure, the pope was the biggest monothelite of them all. So it is a bit deceptive to call the patriarch of Constantinople a monothelite when the pope was one himself.
 
You didn’t answer the question Randy. I didn’t ask if there were heretics in the east. I asked what heresies Rome saved the east from.
That’s why I followed up with post #321.
Second, that is a poorly researched article.
Of course it is. It was produced by a Catholic.
And for the sake of full disclosure, the pope was the biggest monothelite of them all. So it is a bit deceptive to call the patriarch of Constantinople a monothelite when the pope was one himself.
Honorius never formally taught error in his role as shepherd of the universal church. 'Nuff said.
 
What an interesting claim, that St. Cyril of Jerusalem “sought refuge in Rome” in the year 430, 44 years after he reposed in the Lord.
 
I’m repeating myself here, but here’s a list of those Eastern teachers of the faith who are shown by history to be most responsible for the theological articulation of the orthodox/catholic faith in opposition to eastern heresies.

Athanasius the Great and the Cappadocian Fathers–Arianism
St. Gregory the Theologian–Apollinarianism
St. Cyril of Alexandria–Nestorianism
St. Maximos the Confessor–Monothelitism
 
the supposed Monophysites, who are found in the Oriental Orthodox Church are actually within the pale of orthodoxy. They aren’t and were never heretics.
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_share.aspx

The statement would also make clear that while it is not possible for the Chalcedonian Churches to repudiate or reject any of the seven councils, it is equally difficult for the non-Chalcedonians now to formally accept the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh councils recognized by the Chalcedonian family. It could be made clear that the non-Chalcedonians would refrain from formally condemning either the council of Chalcedon or Pope Leo. The statement will also make clear that the Chalcedonian churches would refrain from condemning Dioscurus and Severus as heretics" (Review;, pp. 141-142; Does Chalcedon, pp. 135-136).
 
They make people like me unlikely to trust either side… which one do I join?
I would suggest that you earnestly read the fathers themselves rather than depending on short little excerpts delivered without context which you find on the internet. You should also ignore anyone who says “you should become Orthodox” or “You should become Catholic”, they are biased (myself included), pray to God to grant you guidance.
 
That’s why I followed up with post #321.

Of course it is. It was produced by a Catholic.

Honorius never formally taught error in his role as shepherd of the universal church. 'Nuff said.
Honorius wrote letters to a patriarch supporting monothelitism and he was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council. If he wasn’t a heretic then there has never been one.

Your article spreads lies that contradict the words of the pope. No one with the most basic knowledge of the Monophysite contravercy would link to that article.
 
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_share.aspx

The statement would also make clear that while it is not possible for the Chalcedonian Churches to repudiate or reject any of the seven councils, it is equally difficult for the non-Chalcedonians now to formally accept the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh councils recognized by the Chalcedonian family. It could be made clear that the non-Chalcedonians would refrain from formally condemning either the council of Chalcedon or Pope Leo. The statement will also make clear that the Chalcedonian churches would refrain from condemning Dioscurus and Severus as heretics" (Review;, pp. 141-142; Does Chalcedon, pp. 135-136).
That articulates the Eastern Orthodox view, yes. But as ones faithful to the Latin church, are you not bound to agree with the theological teachings of your recent popes, such as John Paul II, which was that the Oriental “miaphysites” were not heretics?
 
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_share.aspx

The statement would also make clear that while it is not possible for the Chalcedonian Churches to repudiate or reject any of the seven councils, it is equally difficult for the non-Chalcedonians now to formally accept the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh councils recognized by the Chalcedonian family. It could be made clear that the non-Chalcedonians would refrain from formally condemning either the council of Chalcedon or Pope Leo. The statement will also make clear that the Chalcedonian churches would refrain from condemning Dioscurus and Severus as heretics" (Review;, pp. 141-142; Does Chalcedon, pp. 135-136).
The actual agreement between pope Shenouda and pope John Paul can be read at Vatican.va.
 
No such scandal occurred in Rome, where, as we have seen, heresy was vigilantly attacked by the popes and local Synods, and never took hold of the papacy (not even in the ubiquitous “hard cases” of Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius - none having defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe).
That’s a bit of a double standard, isn’t it? For a Pope to be considered heretical he has to define something infallibly (which we would argue wasn’t a concept at the time), but for an Eastern Patriarch he doesn’t.
 
Look how many of those links exist? Look how many here become a point of compete chaos just as with St Augustine?
I haven’t seen the other links, but the above one is bad. Particularly because it linked to by a catholic and it contradicts the words of the pope. It’s a bit ironic that it is in a post defending the papacy.
 
I would suggest that you earnestly read the fathers themselves rather than depending on short little excerpts delivered without context which you find on the internet. You should also ignore anyone who says “you should become Orthodox” or “You should become Catholic”, they are biased (myself included), pray to God to grant you guidance.
This is the ironic thing though, because I’m told as an Evangelical by Catholics that this makes no sense. (besides of course praying)

I often hear, “how do you know who’s interpretation is correct” and I say I search the Scriptures, pray, etc which is unacceptable. However, when it comes to the two oldest Apostolic faiths this is what I’m meant to do?

If Catholics and Orthodox were united it would be so much easier for everyone else. I read a father and I ask for the interpretation; a Catholic Priest will give me a different interpretation than an Orthodox Priest.
 
What an interesting claim, that St. Cyril of Jerusalem “sought refuge in Rome” in the year 430, 44 years after he reposed in the Lord.
Please forgive the clerical error.

If that is the most serious problem that you found in the post… :rolleyes:
 
That’s a bit of a double standard, isn’t it? For a Pope to be considered heretical he has to define something infallibly (which we would argue wasn’t a concept at the time), but for an Eastern Patriarch he doesn’t.
The pope has to say ‘I declare and define’ and attach an anathema. An eastern bishop only has to mention it.
 
Honorius wrote letters to a patriarch supporting monothelitism and he was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council. If he wasn’t a heretic then there has never been one.

Your article spreads lies that contradict the words of the pope. No one with the most basic knowledge of the Monophysite contravercy would link to that article.
This was covered, and refuted, clearly in another lengthy thread in which you participated, I believe. Once more, with feeling:

Honorius did not teach anything in this matter in a formal manner that suggests he was attempting to bind all Christians to that teaching. In fact, the opposite is true for he wrote:

(a) “We must not wrest what they say into Church dogmas”;
(b) “We must not define either one or two operations”;
(c) “We leave the matter to grammarians”;
(d) “We must not, defining, pronounce one or two operations.”

Somehow, despite these clear statements that Honorius had no intention of making a binding decision, some controversialists insist that Honorius was attempting to make a formal, binding pronouncement and, because the matter in questions proved to be heretical, that Honorius’ private opinions disprove papal infallibility.
 
No heretic ever taught in any more of an official manner than honorius did. No heretic ever bound every catholic to his doctrine.
 
No heretic ever taught in any more of an official manner than honorius did. No heretic ever bound every catholic to his doctrine.
Prove it.

In the mean time, perhaps you have forgotten, but I also posted this:

Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople: Father of Monothelitism

Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople was the driving force behind this doctrine, with the full blessing of the Emperor Heraclius. Coming to the imperial throne in 610, the patriarch had long since converted the emperor to the new doctrine, as by 622, Heraclius had communicated with Bishop Paul of Armenia where the emperor asserted that the energy, or the active force, of Christ was single. This doctrine of Monoenergism was the precursor of Monotheletism.

Heraclius’ interest at the time was focused on Armenia, and it was probably at this time that the emperor decided to use Monothelitism as a political weapon and reconcile the Non-Chalcedonian Church of Armenia with the Imperial Church.] To help bring this about, a synod was held in 622 at Theodosiopolis, called the Synod of Garin where Monoenergism was discussed. Over the next few years Heraclius was preoccupied with his prosecution of the war against the Sassanids, but by 626 he had issued a decree to Arcadius, Bishop of Cyprus, requesting that he teach the doctrine of “one hegumenic energy”. By all accounts this was met with notable success, particularly as there was a large colony of Armenians on the island at that time, and this encouraged Heraclius to attempt to seek a wider approval of his compromise. In 626, he asked Patriarch Sergius to approach Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis, to secure his cooperation.

With the successful conclusion to the Persian war, Heraclius could devote more time to promoting his compromise, which was now more urgent due to the administration of the recovered Monophysite provinces of Syria and Egypt. So in 629, a meeting took place between the emperor and Athanasius the Jacobite at Hierapolis. An agreement was struck whereby the Jacobites were to return to the Imperial Church on the basis of the single energy doctrine, and Athanasius was to be madePatriarch of Antioch. Then in 630, Bishop Cyrus was made Patriarch of Alexandria, and he soon won over another Non-Chalcedonian group. Very soon three of the five Patriarchates – Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria – were teaching about Christ’s “one theandric energy”.

Not everyone was convinced, in particular a monk of Palestine named Sophronius, who believed there was something unsound in the doctrine. Because of this, he became the champion of Dyothelitism – the doctrine of the two wills of Christ. He was concerned that for the sake of ecclesiastical unity, doctrinal expressions were being compromised. For the first few years Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople managed to keep him silent, but when Sophronius was appointed Patriarch of Jerusalem in 634, he used his newfound position of authority to challenge the validity of the doctrine of Monoenergism.

Determined to prevent this formidable challenge to his Christological compromise, Sergius wrote to the Patriarch of the West, Pope Honorius I, at Rome, asking him to endorse a position that Church unity should not be endangered by having any discussions or disputes over Christ’s possessing one energy or two. Pope Honorius’ reply in 635 not only endorsed this view that all discussions should cease, but he also agreed with the doctrine of Monoenergism. Although Honorius himself agreed with Sergius’ formula, he did not define it as dogma using his papal authority. In the meantime the epistola synodica of Sophronius appeared, the outcome of the Synod of Cyprus, and this attempted to show that the new doctrine was inconsistent with orthodoxy. He declared that it was nothing more than a bastardized form of Monophysitism, and consequently it went against the hard fought achievements at Chalcedon. Suddenly, support for the doctrine began to subside and soon former supporters were busy finding flaws and inconsistencies in the proposal. Soon, Sergius and Heraclius abandoned it as a doctrine.

Yet Sergius and the emperor refused to give up. Three years later the patriarch came up with a slightly modified formula, which Heraclius released as the Ecthesis in 638. This edict was considered to be the official response to Sophronius’ letter. It forbade all mention of Christ possessing one or two energies; instead, it now proclaimed that Christ, while possessing two natures, had but a single will. This approach seemed to be a more acceptable compromise, and once again it secured widespread support throughout the East. Sophronius had died before the release of the new doctrine, and his replacement as Patriarch of Jerusalem approved the modified formula. Patriarch Sergius died by the end of 638, and his replacement Pyrrhus was also a devoted Monothelite and a close friend of Heraclius. The two remaining patriarchs in the East also gave their approval to the doctrine now referred to as Monothelitism, and so it looked as if Heraclius would finally heal the divisions in the imperial church.

Unfortunately he had not counted on the popes at Rome. During that same year of 638, Pope Honorius I too had died. His successor Pope Severinus condemned the Ecthesis outright, and so was forbidden his seat until 640. His successor Pope John IV also rejected the doctrine completely, leading to a major schism between the eastern and western halves of the Chalcedonian Church. When news reached Heraclius of the Pope’s condemnation, he was already old and ill, and the news only hastened his death, declaring with his dying breath that the controversy was all due to Sergius, and that the patriarch had pressured him to give his unwilling approval to the Ecthesis.

Ring any bells? 🤷

But we don’t need to replay this…it’s all right here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=838443
 
Please forgive the clerical error.

Is that the most serious problem that you found in the post? :rolleyes:
“Clerical error” or “utter disregard for history”? How much can one be trusted who thinks that St. Cyril of Jerusalem sought refuge in Rome in the year 430 (perhaps he is thinking of St. Cyril of Alexandria; although St. Cyril was not seeking refuge in Rome, as he was not in danger, but rather seeking common consent and an ally in his fight against Nestorius; I suppose, however, that one could support that claim about St. Cyril of Alexandria using the forgeries of pseudo-Cyril, which were shown to be false at Florence), or who thinks that St. John Chrysostom affirmed papal supremacy (something which he does not do, as he does not link Peter’s privileges as the first Apostle to the bishop of Rome alone)? I could, frankly, understand the arrogant tone (not that I would like it any better), if you were careful to check for errors in the excerpts which you copy and paste from other apologetic sources, but when you are unable to detect and correct such elementary errors in what you repeat verbatim from others, such as confusing St. Cyril of Jerusalem for St. Cyril of Alexandria, I can scarcely imagine how the arrogant tone you take with the Orthodox posters here is warranted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top