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

[Cavaradossi]

Neither are Old Catholics, SSPX and other breakaway groups truly Catholic…but golly, somehow, you never let us forget about* them*.

Your double-standard is on display for all to see.

Frankly, Randy, that is an outrageous lie. If you will do a search for posts of mine including the term SSPX, you will find only 14 results (I suppose including this post, that will be 15), and of those, only half of those posts (six to be precise, including this post that would be seven) actually have me writing the term SSPX, in the other half, the term is either in the thread title, or in a post which I quoted. Does that sound like, “never letting us forget about them”? Frankly, if I have brought them up in my posts only six times in over two years of posting here (and averaging 3.4 posts per day), I think it can be said rather that I almost never mention them.

In fact, about the only time I ever bring up breakaway groups which call themselves “Catholic” (like sedevacantists and SSPX) is precisely to dispel the very double standard which you accuse me of propagating, that is, when posters here claim that Orthodoxy is not one because of Old Calendarists and other groups which call themselves ‘Orthodox’.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Frankly, Randy, that is an outrageous lie. If you will do a search for posts of mine including the term SSPX, you will find only 14 results (I suppose including this post, that will be 15), and of those, only half of those posts (six to be precise, including this post that would be seven) actually have me writing the term SSPX, in the other half, the term is either in the thread title, or in a post which I quoted. Does that sound like, “never letting us forget about them”? Frankly, if I have brought them up in my posts only six times in over two years of posting here (and averaging 3.4 posts per day), I think it can be said rather that I almost never mention them.

In fact, about the only time I ever bring up breakaway groups which call themselves “Catholic” (like sedevacantists and SSPX) is precisely to dispel the very double standard which you accuse me of propagating, that is, when posters here claim that Orthodoxy is not one because of Old Calendarists and other groups which call themselves ‘Orthodox’.

Sheesh.

I didn’t mean YOU, Cav, specifically; I meant YOU EO.

We hear this all the time - especially from Protestants when we are discussing the thousands of churches that have splintered off from one another over the past 500 years. They say, “Well, you have the same problem” and they go on to cite the sedevacantists and SSPV/SSPX, etc. I’ve even had a few try to claim that the fact that we have Jesuits and Dominicans is another example of the disunity with Catholicism. One poster in this forum is fond of referencing feminist nuns and some famous theologians as further evidence of this alleged lack of unity.

But, and this is where I come back to “you”, Orthodox like to portray themselves as unified to the outside world, but as I have learned over the past few months, when you really start to look more closely, not so much. Some of your “churches” aren’t even in communion with each other to say nothing of that other Patriarch in Rome. Then you come along and mention these groups like the “old Calendarists” and dismiss them as simply “not Orthodox”.

Well, I’ve had my feet held to the fire one too many times to let that go. If Orthodoxy has splinter groups like Catholicism does, then I think it might be better to discontinue any further attacks on the Catholic Church along those lines, don’t you? It’s simply inaccurate to say that the West split off from the true church and that everything is hunky-dory back East. You have fringe groups claiming to be Orthodox just as we have folks claiming to be Catholic.

In closing, I do see that my statement about “you” personally was misleading and inaccurate, so I apologize for that. I hope that this clarification is helpful.

 

[jimmy]

Monophysitism refers to one group and one group only in this context. The patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were neither appolinarian nor were they eutychians. And there is no confusing them with either group. The writings of the early ‘monophysites’ are pretty clear; they rejected both groups. it isnt that hard to find thsm either, so there is no excuse. Your argument is an avoidance of the facts. Instead of admitting the error you will continue to spread a lie; one that contradicts the words of the pope.

Apolinarians are never mixed with Monophysites. No apolinarian was ever condemned as a Monophysite. They are two distinct ideas and movements. If someone was an apolinarian he was condemned as an apolinarian. Apolinarianism is hard to even call a movement. The idea was condemned by the Cappadocians and Apolinarius himself rejected it. Apolinarianism didn’t even survive Apolinarius.

Second, the document isn’t a binding resolution on anyone. It is a statement of the recognition of orthodoxy. The recognition by the pope of the orthodoxy of the Syriacs is the same as the recognition of the orthodoxy of the Copts, Ethiopians, and every other oriental church. The fact is that the pope recognized the orthodoxy of the oriental Christology. Which patriarch signed it is irrelevant. The only reason why it matters that an orient patriarch signed is because it shows reciprocity. The Syriac patriarch is showing that he recognizes the roman Christology as saying basically the same thing with different language. So whether pope Shenouda signed it or not is irrelevant, because the pope of Rome (John Paul II) recognized the orthodoxy of pope Shenouda’s Christology. It wouldn’t even matter if the patriarch of Antioch didn’t sign it because that wouldn’t change the fact that the pope of Rome recognizes the orthodoxy of oriental Christology.

The orientals haven’t changed. The Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch and the other early oriental saints is still recognized as the orthodox position by them. They still use the same words and the same way of speaking.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Alternately Dave could defend his own arguments, or failing that you could come up with your own, instead of hiding behind the words of others to attack the faith of those less knowledgeable, then using the excuse “well I didn’t say it” when someone points out how wrong/misleading they are.

He could quite capably, but I suspect that he thinks discussions like this are a waste of time. A conclusion that I and apparently many others (LionHeart77, SanctusPecator, livingwordunity, etc.) can agree with.

Just a point of clarification in response: yes, I COULD come up with my own arguments (and I would choose to argue for the supremacy of the Pope from Sacred Scripture since we can both be sure of the texts), but I’m not sure it would be the best use of my time. At some point, you have to shake the dust from your feet and move on.

However, please recall that I posted the LONG list of heretical Eastern Patriarchs from Dave Armstrong in direct response to a question from jimmy (post #314). By contrast, you folks have pinned all your hopes on one heretical Pope - Honorius, and that claim has been demonstrated in other threads to be baseless. Are there others? Names? Details?

My quotes from Armstrong can be found in posts #320 & #321, and IMO, the answer to his question was this:

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.

At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.

Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.

Roman Steadfastness

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). Rome never succumbed to heresy. It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or decadent popes, the Protestant Revolt, the “Enlightenment,” Modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself. The papacy continues unabated to this day, with venerable power and prestige - the oldest continuing institution in the world. Thus, Rome has far and away the most plausible claim for apostolic faithfulness, and its history is a striking confirmation of the Catholic claims. An Orthodox position of papal primacy (not supremacy) can be synthesized fairly plausibly with these facts, but the anti-ecumenical stance assuredly cannot.

Is there any dispute concerning Dave’s calculations of the amount of time the East was in heresy?

Quibble if you will, but that facts of history are that Rome was steadfastly orthodox while the East was frequently heterodox. Fortunately, Peter has continuously strengthened his brothers - just as Jesus commanded.

 

[jimmy]

And the demonstration in defense of honorius has never been convincing. Your list has been shown to be erroneous but you continue to defend it. All said and done, Rome has had just as many heretical bishops as Alexandria, and only a few less than the other sees of the east.

 

[prodromos]

Some of your “churches” aren’t even in communion with each other

Oh, which ones would they be?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And the demonstration in defense of honorius has never been convincing.

It’s pretty tough to convince folks who need Honorius to be guilty so badly.

Your list has been shown to be erroneous but you continue to defend it. All said and done, Rome has had just as many heretical bishops as Alexandria, and only a few less than the other sees of the east.

Do you have a link to a listing of these heretical Roman bishops?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh, which ones would they be?

There’s a list here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orthodox_churches

Some are in full communion; some are not.

I’m sure there are good explanations as to why, but there it is.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sheesh.

I didn’t mean YOU, Cav, specifically; I meant YOU EO.

We hear this all the time - especially from Protestants when we are discussing the thousands of churches that have splintered off from one another over the past 500 years. They say, “Well, you have the same problem” and they go on to cite the sedevacantists and SSPV/SSPX, etc. I’ve even had a few try to claim that the fact that we have Jesuits and Dominicans is another example of the disunity with Catholicism. One poster in this forum is fond of referencing feminist nuns and some famous theologians as further evidence of this alleged lack of unity.

But, and this is where I come back to “you”, Orthodox like to portray themselves as unified to the outside world, but as I have learned over the past few months, when you really start to look more closely, not so much. Some of your “churches” aren’t even in communion with each other to say nothing of that other Patriarch in Rome. Then you come along and mention these groups like the “old Calendarists” and dismiss them as simply “not Orthodox”.

Well, I’ve had my feet held to the fire one too many times to let that go. If Orthodoxy has splinter groups like Catholicism does, then I think it might be better to discontinue any further attacks on the Catholic Church along those lines, don’t you? It’s simply inaccurate to say that the West split off from the true church and that everything is hunky-dory back East. You have fringe groups claiming to be Orthodox just as we have folks claiming to be Catholic.

In closing, I do see that my statement about “you” personally was misleading and inaccurate, so I apologize for that. I hope that this clarification is helpful.

And which Orthodox posters would those be, who never let you forget about the SSPX and sedevacantists? Please, do provide examples. Frankly, I think you are just arguing with strawmen.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There’s a list here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orthodox_churches

Some are in full communion; some are not.

I’m sure there are good explanations as to why, but there it is.

But from our perspective, only the Churches which are under the omophor of a canonical Orthodox bishop are truly Orthodox. Just as from your perspective, the SSPX and the sedevacantists cannot be accounted as truly Catholic.

 

[jimmy]

It’s pretty tough to convince folks who need Honorius to be guilty so badly.

Do you have a link to a listing of these heretical Roman bishops?

Since there was only one heretical bishop of Alexandria, there is no need. There was one Arian bishop of Alexandria, and there was one monothelite bishop of Rome. Antioch and Constantinople had a few more, but only a few. It wasn’t continuous heresy as you like to imply.

I don’t need Rome to be guilty; it is you guys who posted the quotes implying that the east is hopeless without the west. It is your quotes that claim the east was continually in heresy and in need of Roman intervention. You continually post this list of ‘heretical’ bishops (which turns out to be an erroneous list), expecting us to fall down at the knees of Rome and say that Rome came in and saved the day. So it sounds like you need the east to be guilty.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, livingwordunity started the thread, but we haven’t heard from him in awhile, and we are hopelessly off-topic. Therefore, I think I will bid this thread farewell, also.

I enjoyed the discussion, and I appreciate your time and effort explaining Orthodoxy to me.

If I don’t see you elsewhere before then, Merry Christmas to you all!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Since there was only one heretical bishop of Alexandria, there is no need. There was one Arian bishop of Alexandria, and there was one monothelite bishop of Rome. Antioch and Constantinople had a few more, but only a few. It wasn’t continuous heresy as you like to imply.

I don’t need Rome to be guilty; it is you guys who posted the quotes implying that the east is hopeless without the west. It is your quotes that claim the east was continually in heresy and in need of Roman intervention. You continually post this list of ‘heretical’ bishops (which turns out to be an erroneous list), expecting us to fall down at the knees of Rome and say that Rome came in and saved the day. So it sounds like you need the east to be guilty.

The argument form is also one which uses the fallacy of reification. The Patriarchal sees are not concrete entities so much as the people who come to be elected to fill them.

 

[prodromos]

There’s a list here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orthodox_churches

Some are in full communion; some are not.

I’m sure there are good explanations as to why, but there it is.

The wikipedia article clearly labels as in schism those which are not incommunion thus by definition they are cut off from the church. You will find even among the Old Calendarists that they are not even in communion with each other. I’m not sure what you think this proves.

 

[Nine_Two]

he could quite capably, but i suspect that he thinks discussions like this are a waste of time. A conclusion that i and apparently many others (lionheart77, sanctuspecator, livingwordunity, etc.) can agree with.

Just a point of clarification in response: Yes, i could come up with my own arguments (and i would choose to argue for the supremacy of the pope from sacred scripture since we can both be sure of the texts), but i’m not sure it would be the best use of my time. At some point, you have to shake the dust from your feet and move on.

However, please recall that i posted the long list of heretical eastern patriarchs from dave armstrong in direct response to a question from jimmy (post #314). By contrast, you folks have pinned all your hopes on one heretical pope - honorius, and that claim has been demonstrated in other threads to be baseless. Are there others? Names? Details?

My quotes from armstrong can be found in posts #320 & #321, and imo, the answer to his question was this:

these historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all monophysite), and 640-42 (monothelite): A total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.

At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: An astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the east, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of constantinople, alexandria, and antioch were outside the catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.

Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and alexandria were monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while constantinople, the seat of the byzantine empire and the “new rome,” was embroiled in the monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.

Roman steadfastness

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). Rome never succumbed to heresy. It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or decadent popes, the protestant revolt, the “enlightenment,” modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself. The papacy continues unabated to this day, with venerable power and prestige - the oldest continuing institution in the world. Thus, rome has far and away the most plausible claim for apostolic faithfulness, and its history is a striking confirmation of the catholic claims. An orthodox position of papal primacy (not supremacy) can be synthesized fairly plausibly with these facts, but the anti-ecumenical stance assuredly cannot.

is there any dispute concerning dave’s calculations of the amount of time the east was in heresy?

Quibble if you will, but that facts of history are that rome was steadfastly orthodox while the east was frequently heterodox. Fortunately, peter has continuously strengthened his brothers - just as jesus commanded.

woosh…

 

[prodromos]

And which Orthodox posters would those be, who never let you forget about the SSPX and sedevacantists? Please, do provide examples. Frankly, I think you are just arguing with strawmen.

And Randy has left the building (although he is still online)

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Nope.

I could name dozens (and this leads me to believe that the number is in the thousands worldwide) of people who set out to prove the Catholic Church wrong once and for all…Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray and Fr. Dwight Longenecker just to name to who are more public than most (you can find their books on Amazon).

Guess what? The more they examined history and scripture, the more they realized that the Catholic Church had gotten a couple of things right…well, maybe a few, actually…gee, here’s another……

Next thing you know, they’re being received into the Church. So, we just keep laying out the data and letting the facts and the Holy Spirit speak for themselves.

Catholicism has NOTHING to fear from history or from Scripture, and eventually, that sinks in.

He was trying to be conciliatory and gracious. Perhaps that was lost on you.

We keep doing this dance again and again. We are not Protestants with Incense and Icons. Please understand and realize this. Your posts still smack of arrogance and condescension. You thanked us for teaching you about Orthodoxy before, and now you come right back blazing in with your offensive tone.

I got a bit polemical myself. Looking back now, I regret that and ask forgiveness from anyone who was offended. It is the Nativity Fast, and in getting in a tit for tat I violated that Fast and the Spirit that permeates the season.

Your tactics might work against Evangelicals, but we are completely different.

I hope you have a good Christmas also. Perhaps 2015 will be a better year.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And which Orthodox posters would those be, who never let you forget about the SSPX and sedevacantists? Please, do provide examples. Frankly, I think you are just arguing with strawmen.

On October 24, Khalid posted:

The Roman Catholic Church is the most universal by numbers and geographic spread, yes, but not by doctrine. Ask the Melkites - “Orthodox in communion with Rome” - each time they reject the Roman doctrines papal infallibility, purgatory, original sin, etc. for the Orthodox understandings of each, and say, “We can be Catholics while believing these things, even though the Pope says we can not”.

The Roman church (inclusive of the 23 sui iuris churches) has a higher degree of superficial unity (ranging from SSPX and FSSP to Nancy Pelosi, Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, and the evolutionist heretic Teilhard de Chardin) but a lesser degree of deeper unity. The Orthodox church has a lesser degree of superficial unity, but a greater degree of (yet not absolute, nor even close to absolute) deeper unity based on the Seven Oecumenical Councils and the interpretations of the Fathers.

I’ll leave the Protestants out because there’s no way to handle the even the unities and diversities of a blanket term for groups as diverse as Independent Fundamental Baptists and Liberal Episcopalians in a single forum post.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Christ’s prayer, “that they may be one as the Father and I are one…glorify them with the glory I had with thee before the foundation of the world”, awaits the parousia to be fulfilled.

I’m surprised you didn’t remember that one because you responded to Khalid immediately:

The term Protestant is almost meaningless these days, considering everything that gets lumped under that label.

Also, on October 26, Knitnut posted (in a locked thread which I cannot quote):

**The Roman Church isn’t demonstrating the kind of discipline you suggest within its own communion…I’m not exactly seeing any whips cracking with the SSPX after decades of disobedience & strife (and the anguish of thousands of souls who’ve been dragged into the dispute)? **The Orthodox Synods are not afraid of bold action in our Churches - a cursory search will produce lots of examples to support this. This is why I suggest that Rome use the energy to deal with the issues within her own communion, rather than look for trouble elsewhere. I dunno, it’s a troubling issue.

So, are these posters “strawmen”, Cav?

And with that, I think I will leave the building. Or at least go to bed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He was trying to be conciliatory and gracious. Perhaps that was lost on you.

We keep doing this dance again and again. We are not Protestants with Incense and Icons. Please understand and realize this. Your posts still smack of arrogance and condescension. You thanked us for teaching you about Orthodoxy before, and now you come right back blazing in with your offensive tone.

I got a bit polemical myself. Looking back now, I regret that and ask forgiveness from anyone who was offended. It is the Nativity Fast, and in getting in a tit for tat I violated that Fast and the Spirit that permeates the season.

Your tactics might work against Evangelicals, but we are completely different.

I hope you have a good Christmas also. Perhaps 2015 will be a better year.

Thanks, MB. If we can get through 2014 first…

 

[prodromos]

Neither are Old Catholics, SSPX and other breakaway groups truly Catholic…but golly, somehow, you never let us forget about* them*.

Your double-standard is on display for all to see.

Sheesh.

I didn’t mean YOU, Cav, specifically; I meant YOU EO.

We hear this all the time

On October 24, Khalid posted:

Also, on October 26, Knitnut posted (in a locked thread which I cannot quote):

So, these are a couple of the “strawmen” with whom I was arguing. I dunno…the word “vindication” comes to mind.

“paranoid delusion” is what comes to my mind
Also, Khalid describes himself as Evangelical Eastern Orthodox, so I’m not even sure if he is part of the Orthodox communion. Be that as it may, availing yourself of the search function of this forum you have only managed to come up with two instances where orthodox have raised the issue of the former catholic schismatic groups?