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

[spina1953]

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.

jimmy: I do agree with what you have posted. I wish I could have stated it better than I did, you have stated it better. I also agree that Arianism that came into the West with the onslought of the Goths, Vandels etc… were Arians and it did take a long time to rid the heresy. I did not have any real disagreement on what Ryan Black posted in my response to my post after I looked into where these heresies were coming from. Also I want to point out that I am not interested in trying to make the Orthodox look bad or that they are somehow always wrong or incorrect in everything that they post. I may not always agree with any position they take but I do respect their position in these debates.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is what I was talking about earlier with Rome/Antioch and Julius and Athanasius, thus the primacy functioning in this period and the relationship of see’s.

Romes correspondence to Antioch concerning Julius/Athanasius

Pope Julius letter is reserved in its entirety in Athanasius Apology against the Arians. The letter was written by Julius in 341-AD pre-dating Athanasius work by 6-years. It is a defense of Athanasius written at the request of Rome’s synod, and was sent to the Bishops of Eusebian party at Antioch. It stands not only as a defense for Athanasius, but as a reproach to the Bishops for their attitude of disrespect for the Council of Nicea and to the see of Rome. Berlin and Leipzig 1935 pp 88-168 Greek translation…

"For if it is entirely as you say, that some offense was committed by those persons, judgment ought not have been made, not as it was but according to the ecclesiastical canon.

It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. For they were Bishops who suffered, and they were not ordinary Church’s which suffered, but were those which the apostles themselves had governed. And above all why was nothing written to us about the Church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?

If the any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here (Rome). But now, after they have done as they pleased. they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him.

Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. I besech you, bear with me willingly: what I write about this is for the common good. For what we have received from the Blessed Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you."

Faith of the Early Fathers

 

[spina1953]

This is what I was talking about earlier with Rome/Antioch and Julius and Athanasius, thus the primacy functioning in this period and the relationship of see’s.

Romes correspondence to Antioch concerning Julius/Athanasius

Pope Julius letter is reserved in its entirety in Athanasius Apology against the Arians. The letter was written by Julius in 341-AD pre-dating Athanasius work by 6-years. It is a defense of Athanasius written at the request of Rome’s synod, and was sent to the Bishops of Eusebian party at Antioch. It stands not only as a defense for Athanasius, but as a reproach to the Bishops for their attitude of disrespect for the Council of Nicea and to the see of Rome. Berlin and Leipzig 1935 pp 88-168 Greek translation…

"For if it is entirely as you say, that some offense was committed by those persons, judgment ought not have been made, not as it was but according to the ecclesiastical canon.

It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. For they were Bishops who suffered, and they were not ordinary Church’s which suffered, but were those which the apostles themselves had governed. And above all why was nothing written to us about the Church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?

If the any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here (Rome). But now, after they have done as they pleased. they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him.

Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. I besech you, bear with me willingly: what I write about this is for the common good. For what we have received from the Blessed Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you."

Faith of the Early Fathers

Good for you. I agree with what you just posted. I am sure you will hear disagreements on it but it is a strong argument for the Papacy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well I think it shows the continuity of scriptural understanding as posted in relation to the interaction of the See’s. Servant of Servants in perspective with the primacy/teaching authority. As to the degree of authority and responsibility as expressed in V-I, not so much my point. That’s expressed by Cardinal Newman on this thread and as mentioned with Fr Hardin and Lambeth.

In this understanding first among equals is plausible, position of honor and proto’s which denotes an authority of responsibility when needed. However as Newman elaborated further on, that’s a somewhat different debate. This was communion though and how it functioned.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

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.

And you are reading your own interpretation into the text. I never see the word “ruler” mentioned in the passage.

By all means, post the entire verse. Or the entire gospel for that matter.

My choice of that passage was deliberate. If the Pope is superior, than they are not brothers…they are vassals and suffragans.

That is my entire point. Another poster mentioned the title Servant of the Servants of God. Papal Supremacy is not a Service, it is Subjugation.

For Centuries, The Papacy spoke in terms of “submitting” to Rome…the “Supreme Pontiff” and all of that.

My point is that with the Papal claims, which claim authority they have no right to, coupled with the history of the Papacy demonstrates that the Pope is anything but a Servant in this context.

Even the most Pious of Popes wore the Tiara, and the cloak of Imperium…The Bishops were Princes under a Temporal Religious King, who ruled in Italy.

The Patriarchs of Constantinople could be very worldly, but their shenanigans did not alter our Ecclesiology, nor did they make the (from our POV outrageous) claims of Authority that the Roman Bishop did.

Was the Imperial Papacy what Christ had in mind? We think not. Therein lies the disagreement.

That is why I cited the passage…the very history of the Papacy condemns it’s claims.

The modern Popes are quite nice (albeit boxed in by their Ecclesiology), and I think Pope Francis is rather embarassed by the trappings of old.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

Not sure what the point of the remark is but…

The East originated Arianism and, at times, held to it officially within the EP. The Catholic Church in the West was not Arian. The East conquered Arianism, ultimately, by Imperial mandate and by the westward expulsion of the Arian Germanic tribes that they had converted to Arianism. Those tribes held secular power in the West; ultimately, however, were they converted by the Catholic Church to the orthodox catholic faith.

 

[Nine_Two]

Not sure what the point of the remark is but…

The East originated Arianism and, at times, held to it officially within the EP. The Catholic Church in the West was not Arian. The East conquered Arianism, ultimately, by Imperial mandate and by the westward expulsion of the Arian Germanic tribes that they had converted to Arianism. Those tribes held secular power in the West; ultimately, however, were they converted by the Catholic Church to the orthodox catholic faith.

Arianism was conquered through the work of St. Athanasius (a pope of a different see). And while the Bishop of Rome attempted to assist him in this, St. Julius was not as strong and gave lip service to Arianism as required by the Emperor (though there is no evidence he was ever Arian).
The Emperors ceased attempting to force Arianism on the Church when Julian (known as ‘The Apostate’) took the Imperial throne.
Julian’s reign was followed by the Emperor Jovian who ruled for only eight months. Emperor Jovian was of course influenced in his return to Orthodoxy by St. Athanasius.

The Germanic tribes were not a dominant, or even influential group when it came to religion at this point in time specifically because they were nomads. Their presence in or near the area doesn’t have an affect on religion of the Empire. It is true that it is during this time that they picked up the Arian faith, but they only became a political/religious force after they became a sedentary people (in the West).

 

[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…

And you are reading your own interpretation into the text. I never see the word “ruler” mentioned in the passage…

As you can see, it was in the passage that YOU quoted.

yeah…

 

[Randy_Carson]

By all means, post the entire verse.

I did quote the full context. You didn’t. That’s why YOUR proof-text failed.

My choice of that passage was deliberate. If the Pope is superior, than they are not brothers…they are vassals and suffragans.

Then you chose poorly. But as for one brother being superior over his brothers, what are your thoughts concerning David and the rest of Jessie’s sons? Or this passage concerning Jacob and Ishmael:

Genesis 25:23
The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”

That is my entire point. Another poster mentioned the title Servant of the Servants of God. Papal Supremacy is not a Service, it is Subjugation.

That’s just an opinion, isn’t it? :yup:

For Centuries, The Papacy spoke in terms of “submitting” to Rome…the “Supreme Pontiff” and all of that.

Are you subjugated when you obey a court order or when the Supreme Court rules on a lower court ruling?

My point is that with the Papal claims, which claim authority they have no right to, coupled with the history of the Papacy demonstrates that the Pope is anything but a Servant in this context.

Even the most Pious of Popes wore the Tiara, and the cloak of Imperium…The Bishops were Princes under a Temporal Religious King, who ruled in Italy.

Tiaras? Cloaks? Like these?



http://blog.cleveland.com/world_imp...iarch-bartholomew-patriarch-kirill-070509.jpg

The Patriarchs of Constantinople could be very worldly, but their shenanigans did not alter our Ecclesiology, nor did they make the (from our POV outrageous) claims of Authority that the Roman Bishop did.

Was the Imperial Papacy what Christ had in mind? We think not. Therein lies the disagreement.

That is why I cited the passage…the very history of the Papacy condemns it’s claims.

The modern Popes are quite nice (albeit boxed in by their Ecclesiology), and I think Pope Francis is rather embarassed by the trappings of old.

Thanks for sharing your personal opinions. It’s always nice to know exactly where the other person is coming from when you are speaking with them.

I do look forward to getting back to discussing the Word of God when you’re ready, however.

 

[dzheremi]

I think it’s most fair to say that while all bishops, including Popes, are to be servants of servants, it hasn’t always been that way – not in Rome, nor in Constantinople, nor in Alexandria, etc. The only difference is that in the Orthodox Church, since we do not share the RC contention that anyone is infallible, we have means of forcibly removing bad bishops and do use them as necessary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think it’s most fair to say that while all bishops, including Popes, are to be servants of servants, it hasn’t always been that way – not in Rome, nor in Constantinople, nor in Alexandria, etc. The only difference is that in the Orthodox Church, since we do not share the RC contention that anyone is infallible, we have means of forcibly removing bad bishops and do use them as necessary.

God has His own means, and He uses them, also.

 

[dzheremi]

Er…okay…I don’t disagree…

God’s means:


(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

 

[SoMissCatholic]

"Misplaced_Book:

Even the most Pious of Popes wore the Tiara, and the cloak of Imperium…

Tiaras? Cloaks? Like these?

http://www.novinite.com/media/images/2008-10/98346.jpg

http://blog.cleveland.com/world_imp...iarch-bartholomew-patriarch-kirill-070509.jpg

 

[Randy_Carson]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f...tican_on_pope_resignation_day_zpsb3fdefd6.jpg

Glad to see the Vatican is being re-energized!

 

[GaryTaylor]

The pictorial segment of the threads are always interesting.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Cav-

Dave Armstrong has corrected the article on his website to read:

Final Court of Appeal

The Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the Church universal in the early centuries. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East’s most revered Church Fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Alexandria (430) [emphasis added], and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them unambiguously, and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.

Source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

Catholic apologists strive to make their arguments as accurate and air-tight as possible in order to win as many over to the true faith as possible.

Thanks for your assistance.

:tiphat:

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cav-

Dave Armstrong has corrected the article on his website to read:

Final Court of Appeal

The Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the Church universal in the early centuries. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East’s most revered Church Fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Alexandria (430) [emphasis added], and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them unambiguously, and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.

Source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

Catholic apologists strive to make their arguments as accurate and air-tight as possible in order to win as many over to the true faith as possible.

Thanks for your assistance.

:tiphat:

But if it were truly accurate, it would mention that St. Cyril was seeking Rome as an ally against Nestorius. To represent St. Cyril’s dealings with Pope Celestine as seeking refuge in a final court of appeal would be a stretch. Nor can the events surrounding the Council of Ephesus be reasonably interpreted this way, for it was the Formula of Reunion, not the decisions of the Council of Ephesus supported by Pope Celestine, which provided for the legal and ecclesiastical solution to the Nestorian controversy and the ecclesiastical crisis after Ephesus. In this case it was Theodosius who proved to be the final court of appeal.

 

[jimmy]

I see you still haven’t dealt with the bigger issue of false accusations of heresy in the article.

 

[Peter_J]

Catholic apologists strive to make their arguments as accurate and air-tight as possible in order to win as many over to the true faith as possible.

The thing is, some of them (not going to name names or point fingers) make it sound like they are really *not *trying to win converts to Catholicism, when in fact they are.