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

[GaryTaylor]

Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? distorting a quotation from me to support your position?

You then subsequently cut and paste some stuff that has already been posted before in one of the other numerous threads. There are no doubt other Protestant Scholars who disagree with them (Our scholars certainly do). What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. Unsubstantiated snippets taken out of context do not make your case.

I posted the link and with Father John last time we had this conversation. There simply is no logical way to separate faith and person. There is no way around the personal blessing gifted to this Apostle by the Lord, nor in scripture, nor in history. I don’t know that most orthodox disagree with this? Without a doubt there is charisma, a gift by the Lord and historically and in reality till today He has blessed His own gift.

Nor can the preponderance of evidence by the Saints be ignored. I don’t understand your understanding of what you think occurred here, St Peter is the spokeman and for the universal church, biblically, and has been and continues to be. You seem to think he was simply an equal chair at the round table.

 

[Peter_J]

Aren’t you in communion with Peter J and RyanBlack?

You mean like a “dual communion” arrangement? (E.g. how the EC-USA is in communion with the ELCA, which is in communion with the UCC.)

 

[Peter_J]

Swarmed? livingwordunity was not being swarmed, his/her polemical statements were being answered by various Eastern Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. Rebuttals are hardly “an attack.”

I don’t think I used the word “attacked” did I?

Misplaced_Book, you might be thinking of livingwordunity, who said (IIRC) that I personally attacked him and blamed him for the East-West schism.

 

[Peter_J]

Um…because I am not Dave Armstrong?

Oops, I guess I am getting forgetful after all.

Originally Posted by Peter J
I think these conversations would be a lot easier if you would come right out and say that “Dave” is really you.

Sorry for the confusion I caused. Randy Carson and Dave Armstrong are certainly two different people. As a matter of fact, I remember now seeing them both at a diocesan Christmas party last year.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I posted the link and with Father John last time we had this conversation. There simply is no logical way to separate faith and person. There is no way around the personal blessing gifted to this Apostle by the Lord, nor in scripture, nor in history. I don’t know that most orthodox disagree with this? Without a doubt there is charisma, a gift by the Lord and historically and in reality till today He has blessed His own gift.

Nor can the preponderance of evidence by the Saints be ignored. I don’t understand your understanding of what you think occurred here, St Peter is the spokeman and for the universal church, biblically, and has been and continues to be. You seem to think he was simply an equal chair at the round table.

We don’t deny that St. Peter was important. What we deny is the Latin interpretations of what that means for his successors (which is not the Roman Bishop alone, but are also found in Antioch and elsewhere).

All Bishops are Peter. Where the Bishop is, so there is the Church. We don’t ignore the Saints, we just dispute your interpretations of their words, which are often Latter Day Papal Supremacist viewpoints read back into the history, with quotes and passages cherry picked to “build a case” so to speak.

The Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor. That was not disputed. If you want to see what that Primacy would look like, I would point you to our own Ecumenical Patriarch or your Dean of the College of Cardinals.

Matthew 20:20-26

“20 Then the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant,”

It shall not be so among you…

 

[GaryTaylor]

We don’t deny that St. Peter was important. What we deny is the Latin interpretations of what that means for his successors (which is not the Roman Bishop alone, but are also found in Antioch and elsewhere)…

Where’s yours as in we? There doesn’t seem to be consensus.

All Bishops are Peter. Where the Bishop is, so there is the Church. We don’t ignore the Saints, we just dispute your interpretations of their words, which are often Latter Day Papal Supremacist viewpoints read back into the history, with quotes and passages cherry picked to “build a case” so to speak…

Where are yours with consensus? The All Bishops are Peter and in Antioch etc was addressed with no response on this thread.

Bishop of Rome “has” a primacy which to the degree of importance we haven’t discussed.

The Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor. That was not disputed.

Has, still present. I would point you to your own Patriarchs in this Catholic Church, and historically.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Matthew 20:20-26

“20 Then the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant,”

It shall not be so among you…

Infallible teaching of the EO or sola scripture reading(source)? Is this that cherry picking thing you mentioned above?

 

[spina1953]

No heresies propagated in the west? That’s not the case at all. Here’s a list, which is certainly not exhaustive.

Sabellianism
Marcionism
Donatism
Pelagianism
Catharism
Berengarian Heresy
Jansenism

Sorry to burst your bubble but so far as I have been able to find out from history is that all those heresies you claim come from the West originally came from the East. So far as I understand it, it seems to me that history bare’s that out. Some of these heresies are just componets of other heresies that had started in the East, but were not able to find ground to grow on as they did in the East.

 

[RyanBlack]

Sorry to burst your bubble but so far as I have been able to find out from history is that all those heresies you claim come from the West originally came from the East. So far as I understand it, it seems to me that history bare’s that out. Some of these heresies are just componets of other heresies that had started in the East, but were not able to find ground to grow on as they did in the East.

What ideas in the East produced the Berengarian heresy? What ideas in the East produced Jansenism? Furthermore, there is no questioning the historical fact that Sabellianism, Marcionism, Donatism, Pelagianism, and Catharism were western heresies. There may have been varying degrees of eastern intellectual influence (no surprise, since the East had a greater population, and there was more intellectual activity than in the West), but these heresies most certainly were propagated (your choice of words) in the West. Of course, the Arian heresy, though certainly eastern in origin, plagued the West for centuries after it ceased to be a problem in the East (thanks to the work of eastern bishops such as St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers). Absurd is far too weak an adjective to describe the assertion that there were no western heresies in the ancient church–not to mention all the western heresies that arose from the medieval era through the modern age.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? distorting a quotation from me to support your position?.

I think he misunderstood when you quoted me without the normal quote function…

Were you responding by phone?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oops, I guess I am getting forgetful after all.

Sorry for the confusion I caused. Randy Carson and Dave Armstrong are certainly two different people. As a matter of fact, I remember now seeing them both at a diocesan Christmas party last year.

That was YOU?

We still haven’t gotten all the stains to come out…

 

[Randy_Carson]

We don’t deny that St. Peter was important. What we deny is the Latin interpretations of what that means for his successors (which is not the Roman Bishop alone, but are also found in Antioch and elsewhere).

All Bishops are Peter. Where the Bishop is, so there is the Church. We don’t ignore the Saints, we just dispute your interpretations of their words, which are often Latter Day Papal Supremacist viewpoints read back into the history, with quotes and passages cherry picked to “build a case” so to speak.

The Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor. That was not disputed. If you want to see what that Primacy would look like, I would point you to our own Ecumenical Patriarch or your Dean of the College of Cardinals.

Matthew 20:20-26
“20 Then the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant,”

It shall not be so among you…

MB-

Now *THAT *is proof-texting. :sad_yes:

In the FULL context of the passage, Jesus goes on to describe the characteristics that a legitimate ruler in the kingdom of God should have…NOT those of the Gentiles who Lord it over one another, but as a ruler who serves. We can be sure of this because Jesus interjects His own example AS A SERVANT into the scene:

Matthew 20:24-28
24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Jesus never DENIES that there WOULD be a ruler…He simply clarifies the attitude the godly ruler should have. Futher, since Jesus Himself IS a legitimate ruler, we know that legitimate rulers who serve as He did exist, and that is the kind of ruler that Peter was to become. Peter himself remembered this lesson and humbled himself when he wrote:

1 Peter 5:1-4
5 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

By his own example, he teaches humility to the elders while encouraging them to care for the smaller flocks that they are called to shepherd just as he shepherds the whole Church as Jesus’ vicarious shepherd.

In the same way, the Holy Father (who is superior) refers to his “brother bishops” thereby exalting them and humbling himself. They, in turn, refer to him as “Your Holiness” in deference to his position of authority.

I’m glad we discussed proof-texting previously so that your example would be more instructive.

 

[Peter_J]

That was YOU?

We still haven’t gotten all the stains to come out…

You’re thinking of my twin brother. (I suspect he’s an Orthodox-sympathizer. )

 

[SoMissCatholic]

We don’t deny that St. Peter was important. What we deny is the Latin interpretations of what that means for his successors (which is not the Roman Bishop alone, but are also found in Antioch and elsewhere).

All Bishops are Peter. Where the Bishop is, so there is the Church. We don’t ignore the Saints, we just dispute your interpretations of their words, which are often Latter Day Papal Supremacist viewpoints read back into the history, with quotes and passages cherry picked to “build a case” so to speak.

The Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor. That was not disputed. If you want to see what that Primacy would look like, I would point you to our own Ecumenical Patriarch or your Dean of the College of Cardinals.

Matthew 20:20-26

“20 Then the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant,”

It shall not be so among you…

I don’t think the quote from Matthew 20:26 supports the position you cite it for. If you look at the parallel in St. Luke’s Gospel, we see that Jesus singles out St. Peter as the leader of the apostles in this discourse:
Luke 22:24-32 (NAB):

24 Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. 25 He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; 26 but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. 27 For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.

28 It is you who have stood by me in my trials; 29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

First, looking at verses 25-27 we can see that the “among you it shall not be so” does not mean that there will not be a leader of the apostles as Jesus clearly speaks of “the leader” using the definite article. This indicates that there is indeed to be a leader among the apostles. What Jesus is saying is not that there is to be no leader of the apostles, but that the one who is the leader will not “lord it over them.” Rather this leader is to be “as the servant,” just as Jesus, who is clearly the leader of His apostles, is “among [them] as the one who serves.” We see Jesus put this exhortation in to action in John 13:1-17 when He washes the disciples’ feet (both the speech in Luke and the washing of the feet in John occur at the last supper).

Next, in verses 28-30, Jesus confers on the twelve a share in His kingdom, placing them in positions of authority to judge “the twelve tribes of Israel” (which under the New Covenant includes both Jew and Gentile). Finally, in verses 31 and 31, after having conferred His kingdom on all of the apostles, Jesus singles out Peter and instructs him to strengthen his brothers in the face of the coming attacks from the devil. This instruction to “strengthen your brothers” is clearly a servant role. Peter, as the leader of the apostles, is to serve the other apostles by strengthening them. We see this in action down to today in the papal office. This is why one of the Pope’s titles is “Servant of the Servants of God.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Would it be more accurate to say that Jerusalem was the first place of primacy, and then Rome?

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/ratzinger_succession_apr05.asp

Who recognized Antioch as Peter’s See with the Early Fathers, Ecumenical Councils, or in theology the school dates from around 250 forward.

Also

Ancient ranking of sees

before Constantinople

Rome
Alexandria
Antioch
Jerusalem

after Constantinople

Rome
Constantinople
Alexandria
Antioch
Jerusalem

Did you find the patristic “Christian” writing on first among equals? Are you saying St Peter in Rome is now in charge of Antioch and Jerusalem. But he left you guys with a Bishop and “your own” responsibility and position of authority. But he [Peter] moved on to Rome.

It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing.

In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone.

“I don’t agree that Peter has a particular role that is substantially different from that of the other apostles, who likewise preached the faith as he did, established churches as he did, served as bishops as he did, ordained bishops to carry on after their departures, etc.”

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

Karl Keating

Some agree with this on this thread, but no consensus.

“Antioch is not the See of the Successor of Saint Peter. Rome is. Saint Peter’s cathedra was settled in Roma.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930127en.html

“On the basis of this tradition, Vatican I also defined: “The Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy” (DS 3058). The definition binds the primacy of Peter and his successors to the See of Rome, which cannot be replaced by any other see. However, it can happen that, due to circumstances of the times or for particular reasons, the bishops of Rome take up residence temporarily in places other than the Eternal City. Certainly, a city’s political condition can change extensively and profoundly over centuries. But it remains, as is the case with Rome, a determinate space to which an institution such as an episcopal see is always referred–in the case of Rome, the See of Peter.”

“For Catholics, the fact that the new name for Simon is Peter is in fact itself very significant. In the Old Testament God is frequently referred to as a Rock or stone. Jesus refers to himself as the cornerstone. The Book of Daniel contains a prophecy that a Rock or stone from the mountain of God (heaven) will come down to earth and destroy the pagan kings. The rock will then grow itself until it covers the entire earth. Protestants consider this prophecy to allude to the end times but Catholics consider the prophecy to refer specifically to Jesus as the Rock from Heaven. Further, Catholics see the fact that the Rock does not leave but stays to until it covers the entire earth to mean that the Church, built of the Rock of Peter, is the body of Christ, the Rock from Heaven, and that the Rock will eventually cover the entire Earth which is why the term Catholic (universal or worldwide) is the most common designation for the Catholic Church”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Peter

The power of binding and loosing belonged to all priests, the power of the keys — authority to open and shut — was proper to the supreme pontiff; and that this expression signified his authority to rule the Church, to define dogma, to legislate, and to dispense from laws.

“The Bible uses a key as a symbol of authority. In Isaiah 22:22, we see Eliakim the priest receiving “the key of the house of David…on his shoulder.” Revelation 3:7 uses similar symbolism. A trusted servant to the king wore the key to the king’s house on a hook on his shoulder. Therefore, he had the authority to open or close the king’s house.” USCCB

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

 

[spina1953]

Ryan Black: I did some research on these heresies and while some it seems orginate in the West, however it also seems that that they are variations of earlier heresies orginating in the East and some have or variations of the Gnostic’s that also orginated in the East, especially from the religion of Mazdayani Zorathushtri or Zoroasterism for some of the various heresies. It seems to me that heresies come and go and can come from anywhere. jesus said that there would be false teachers. Also i would like to point out that is why doctrines were developed to bring understanding of wht it was that Christains were to believe as over the centuries at one time or another someone can always come up with some interpretation or religious belief that can lead one astray. So in the end I think we are both correct.

 

[spina1953]

Ryan Black: I did some research on these heresies and while some it seems orginate in the West, however it also seems that that they are variations of earlier heresies orginating in the East and some have or are variations of the Gnostic’s that also orginated in the East, especially from the religion of Mazdayani Zorathushtri or Zoroasterism for some of the various heresies. It seems to me that heresies come and go and can come from anywhere. Jesus said that there would be false teachers. Also i would like to point out that is why doctrines were developed to bring understanding of wht it was that Christains were to believe as over the centuries at one time or another someone can always come up with some interpretation or religious belief that can lead one astray. So in the end I think we are both correct.

 

[dzheremi]

Ryan Black: I did some research on these heresies and while some it seems orginate in the West, however it also seems that that they are variations of earlier heresies orginating in the East and some have or are variations of the Gnostic’s that also orginated in the East, especially from the religion of Mazdayani Zorathushtri or Zoroasterism for some of the various heresies. It seems to me that heresies come and go and can come from anywhere. Jesus said that there would be false teachers. Also i would like to point out that is why doctrines were developed to bring understanding of wht it was that Christains were to believe as over the centuries at one time or another someone can always come up with some interpretation or religious belief that can lead one astray. So in the end I think we are both correct.

If this is how you want to approach the issue, then it can be fairly said that all Christianity in the West is but a “variation” of Christianity from the East, and on balance a much, much more heretical or heretically-inclined variation than what is found in the East, given how the hundreds of Protestant denominations which have attempted to revive and rehabilitate the ancient heresies as new orthodoxies are entirely of Western origin.

In other words: What kind of baloney is this?

 

[spina1953]

zheremi: In sense you are correct, however if I remember correctly Cristainity is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion, since Christ came to the Jews first. The Apostles preached the Good news first to the Jews before preaching to the Gentiles. We know that the Jewish leaders did not accept Jesus and His teaching or that he was the Son of God made man, or that He was the Missiah. As for the Protestants they broke away first due to the abuses by Pope Alexander VI. They then developed their own doctrines which it seems to me to be continuing today. However, I doubt that the Catholic Church is heretical if that is what you are implying. My post was in no way a smack in the face towards the Eastern Orthodox as that was not my intent. My thought was that there are heresies and that most seem to have originated in the East or were a varaition of the ideas that had emerged in one way or the other from the East and made its way at one time or another to the West. Either way the Churches in the East and the Church in the West settled the matters in one way or the other. It is also my understanding that there were a great many religious beliefs that came from the East that found it way to pagan Rome even before the first century that were pagan to start with.

 

[jimmy]

Whether they are variants of eastern heresies is irrelevant. In a sense, every heresy is a variant of one or two ideas. they all boil down to arianism or docetism. The west developed them in their own fashion, and often after the east had eliminated the heresy. As Ryan Black pointed out, Arianism was rampant in the west long after the east had conquered it. And this is shown in the fact that the west argues for the inclusion of the Filioque because it was designed to conquer Arianism.