Closed Eucharist to Rome?

[vanshan]

Please do not make false historical claims. I cannot believe this has gone unnoticed as long as it did. The Churches were divided through mutual excommunication. Basically, the Eastern Church called the Westerners heretics and kicked them out, and the Western Church called the Easterners heretics and kicked them out. . .

Please, don't play the blame game here. . .
Eric

The previous post contains one of the most fairly written accounts of the schism that I have read.

As with every argument, there are two sides to be heard. I think most Western sources do have a clear bias, which I don't see as some dark conspiracy, but rather just a passing down of a Western worldview.

The question comes down to which side was most in error. Both sides may have handled things differently, but when we see all of the existing patriarchates siding with Constantinople in opposition to Rome, it is clear that it was the single patriarchate of Rome that was departing. Then historically through the crusades, the innovations in theology in the Roman Catholic Church, and many false claims of the Papacy (i.e. sole vicar, infallibility, head of the Church, etc.) further show the decline and clear non-canonical reality of the Roman pariarch. In these matters of faith there cannot be any compromise. Unity can only be acheived when there is unity in belief. Not until there is unity in belief can there be unity in Communion.

Basil

 

[isshinwhat]

This was written by Fr. Thomas Hopko of OCA. It is important to note that the filioque was included in the Creed WITHOUT an agreement of an Ecumenical Council.

It is also improtant to realize that the Catholic Church has said that Filioque is normative only within the Latin right, due to different theological approaches. The normative form in the East and for the Church as a whole is the Creed minus filioque.

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

[/color][/b]

It is also improtant to realize that the Catholic Church has said that Filioque is normative only within the Latin right, due to different theological approaches. The normative form in the East and for the Church as a whole is the Creed minus filioque.

Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me.

 

[isshinwhat]

You are welcome.

From THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT as promulgated by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.

 

[jameseb]

Please do not make false historical claims. I cannot believe this has gone unnoticed as long as it did. The Churches were divided through mutual excommunication. Basically, the Eastern Church called the Westerners heretics and kicked them out, and the Western Church called the Easterners heretics and kicked them out.

I don't know if you were attempting to present those events in chronological order or not, but just for clarity's sake.... it was Rome that excommunicated the East first when Cardinal Humbert slapped down a Bull of Excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia for Patriarch Michael Cerularius. The excommunication was then reciprocated.

 

[katherine2001]

James is correct. If you read a Christian history not written by a non-biased author (neither Catholic or Orthodox), you will find out that it was the Church of Rome who excommunicated the Church of Constantinople first, just as James said. "The Early Church" and Jaroslav Pelikan's books are good souces (Pelikan was not Orthodox when he wrote those).

 

[isshinwhat]

...you will find out that it was the Church of Rome who excommunicated the Church of Constantinople first...

In 1053, the Patriarch of Constantinople had sent to the Western Bishops, the Pope, in particular, a letter condemning chiefly Priestly Celibacy, fasting on Saturday, and the Consecration of unleavened bread. After that, the Patriarch ordered closed all of the particular churches of the Latin Rite in Constantinople, including that of the Papal Legate. The Patriarch's chancellor, Nicephorus, then went to the various churches that had been closed, opened their Tabernacles, and trampled on the Holy Eucharist.

Dialogue continued, and Nicetas Pectoratus, whose letter the Patriach of Constantinople had sent out to other Patriarchs, condemning certain Latin practices and calling them "dogs, bad workmen, schismatics, hypocrites, and liars," eventually recanted in the presence of the papal legates and the emperor, throwing his letter into the fire. This angered Cærularius who then refused to see the Pope's envoy and removed the pope's name from his diptychs.

Only then, after the belittling of Latin traditions, the public slander of the Latin Rite's leaders, and an unholy desecration of Our Lord in the Eucharist, did Cardinal Humbert issue the Bull of Excommunication. The way in which it was given was not befitting a Cardinal, and tensions rose even further. May Lord have mercy on them all for their anger and pride which lent greatly to the Great Schism.

 

[Rilian]

Needless to say, that all didn't come out of the blue. The accession of Charlemagne in the West in 800 gave rise to a increasingly hostile attitude to the Greek speaking part of the church. The changing of the words of 381 of course is infamous, and the Franks readily accused the Greeks of "heresy" for not accepting this change. The Council of Frankfort is also symbolic of the change. The Germanic missionary efforts in Slavic areas, the support of the Papacy for them, and it's anti-Photian position all brought the East and West into direct conflict.

What preceded the actions of Cerularius (and I don't think he was the one that changed the diptychs) was the actions of the Normans, also hostile to the East. They had been forcing Greeks in Byzantine Italy to conform to the Latin rite. His response was harsh and he was short-tempered, but was the summation of what had been building up since the 9th century. The choice of Humbert as legate was probably a monumental mistake, and what he did when he showed up was drop a letter off without salutations. The letter, signed by Pope Leo, but drafted by Humbert was decidedly unfriendly. Cerularius wouldn't have anything more to do with him, and Humbert then placed the letter of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia before returning to Rome.

 

[eightfoot514]

BTW, I wasn't speaking chronologically, although now that I re-read it, it does appear to be chornological. No intended re-writing of history there, heh sorry.

Eric

 

[isshinwhat]

His response was harsh and he was short-tempered, but was the summation of what had been building up since the 9th century. The choice of Humbert as legate was probably a monumental mistake...

Decidedly so on both accounts. What a sad time for the Church. Desecrations of the Altar and the Eucharist, and by against family no less.

Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for unity between the East and West.

 

[Basileus]

Cardinal Humbert had no authority WHATSOEVER to lay the Bull of Excomunication on the altar of Hagia Sofia. Pope Leo was dead for almost a month and with his death the official authority for the mission was also in the grave.

Humbert was just having a hissy fit because Patriarch Cerularius was ignoring him, out classing him, and treating him abominably. He wanted to be dramatic and approached the altar during the height of the liturgical service with the Bull. Little did he know how popular Cerularius was, as evidenced by the riots in Constantinople against Rome.

As for Mr. Silent, he seems anything but.

*Edit* I realised I did not stick to the original theme. My thought is that until Rome reunites with the other Patriarchates (probabably through an ecumenical council) than we can and never will have Communion with one another.

 

[isshinwhat]

Humbert was just having a hissy fit because...

You are correct, his anger had nothing to do with the Desecration of the Holy Eucharist and the closing of Latin Rite Churches... This discussion had been amicable...

 

[Basileus]

My British dry sense of humour. Just commenting on the fact that he is nothing like his name. No malicious intent meant.

 

[Matthias]

Why can't everyone, Christians of all denominations get along! Why kill each other like this in barbaric fashion?!

 

[katherine2001]

Because pushing things under the rug doesn't work. Sweeping differences under the rug and pretending that everything is okay is dishonest and in the end, destroys people because they are not being honest with themselves or with anyone else. Truth often divides because some people don't like the truth. Jesus often said that if you follow him, you will be despised and persecuted, just as He was. The fact is that there are so many God's and Jesus's out there. The God and Jesus worshipped by some of the different churches can be very different from each other.

 

[Reader Nilus]

I have no problems working along side Mennonites and Baptists or any other brand of Christians when it comes to peace and justice issues, and feeding and clothing the poor, but when it comes to theology and worship, there are differences that matter, and as long as there is there is no union in the right faith.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Matthias]

Awww, Jeff, I tried to give you some rep points for that awesome post just above, but it won't let me give you any until I pass more around. Nevertheless, it was a great post.