When will Rome be in the Church?

[Light of the East]

In another thread (I was doing some archiving on a couple of topics) Fr. Matt stated that Rome stopped being in the Church when She left the Church (circa 1054 aka "The Great Schism.")

So here's my simple question: what actions will the Patriarch of Rome have to take to rejoin the Church in unity?

 

[ArmyMatt]

renounce all her heresy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In another thread (I was doing some archiving on a couple of topics) Fr. Matt stated that Rome stopped being in the Church when She left the Church (circa 1054 aka "The Great Schism.")

So here's my simple question: what actions will the Patriarch of Rome have to take to rejoin the Church in unity?

Not to disrespect ecumenical organizations, but the church is the elect, and only the elect. --not some organization.

 

[Philip_B]

In another thread (I was doing some archiving on a couple of topics) Fr. Matt stated that Rome stopped being in the Church when She left the Church (circa 1054 aka "The Great Schism.")

So here's my simple question: what actions will the Patriarch of Rome have to take to rejoin the Church in unity?

Given that the mutual excommunications of 1054 were lifted following the 2nd Vatican Council, it seems to me we live in an era of greater hope of the reconciliation than perhaps any other in the last 1000 years. Perhaps the two great areas of concern historically were

• The insertion of the filioque to the Nicene Creed
• The nature of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, (conciliar or authoritarian)

Were Rome prepared to give ground on these issues, then we would be left with a range of other issues that have been flagged since then, including perhaps some of the dogmatic definitions in sacramental theology, some of the Marian Dogmas, and the understanding of Papal Infallibility.

For those who despair, I would remind you that all things are possible en Christo.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Not to disrespect ecumenical organizations, but the church is the elect, and only the elect. --not some organization.

Why even bother posting that on an Orthodox board? Do you actually think that is going to be beneficial or are you just trying to start a row on a post that had absolutely nothing to do with protestants?

Not to disrespect but the apostles founded a physical church, and the elders they appointed were quite clear on the matter, as was Paul when he stated which kind of beliefs were to be expelled.

 

[☦Marius☦]

In another thread (I was doing some archiving on a couple of topics) Fr. Matt stated that Rome stopped being in the Church when She left the Church (circa 1054 aka "The Great Schism.")

So here's my simple question: what actions will the Patriarch of Rome have to take to rejoin the Church in unity?

Well humility in stepping down from the "first among equals" nonsense that has been an issue since the beginning, and our own Ecumenical Patriarch should do the same. If the two were to prostrate in front of each other and ask forgiveness for 1000 years of hatred between the two, then a start could be made.

After that, Rome would yes, have to renounce 1000 years of added tradition, much heretical, and somehow go back to a traditional rite.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Given that the mutual excommunications of 1054 were lifted following the 2nd Vatican Council, it seems to me we live in an era of greater hope of the reconciliation than perhaps any other in the last 1000 years. Perhaps the two great areas of concern historically were

• The insertion of the filioque to the Nicene Creed
• The nature of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, (conciliar or authoritarian)

Were Rome prepared to give ground on these issues, then we would be left with a range of other issues that have been flagged since then, including perhaps some of the dogmatic definitions in sacramental theology, some of the Marian Dogmas, and the understanding of Papal Infallibility.

For those who despair, I would remind you that all things are possible en Christo.

the mutual excommunications were not lifted. one bishop cannot do that on behalf of the Church without consensus from the Church.

Rome is still anathema.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not to disrespect ecumenical organizations, but the church is the elect, and only the elect. --not some organization.

technically this is not true, and this forum is not the place for debate.

 

[Light of the East]

renounce all her heresy.

In his paper on Rome called http://Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time + Fr. Thomas Hopko said that while he was listing only Roman changes that would have to be made, there would be changes necessary in Orthodoxy as well.

Can you think of any steps that the East would have to take when the West renounces Her heresies?

 

[Light of the East]

the mutual excommunications were not lifted. one bishop cannot do that on behalf of the Church without consensus from the Church.

Rome is still anathema.

Okay, given this fact, did Patriarch Michael Cerularius speak for Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch besides himself, or was this an argument between two very proud and stubborn personalities and their respective patriarchates?

When did the Orthodox East as a whole take up the excommunication of Rome and make it formally part of the larger body of Orthodoxy rather than a local issue between two warring patriarchs.

If you cannot mutually lift the excommunications, then you cannot excommunicate on behalf of all either!

 

[ArmyMatt]

In his paper on Rome called http://Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time + Fr. Thomas Hopko said that while he was listing only Roman changes that would have to be made, there would be changes necessary in Orthodoxy as well.

Can you think of any steps that the East would have to take when the West renounces Her heresies?

be open to legit Western expressions of Orthodoxy. but Rome must renounce her heresy first.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Okay, given this fact, did Patriarch Michael Cerularius speak for Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch besides himself, or was this an argument between two very proud and stubborn personalities and their respective patriarchates?

When did the Orthodox East as a whole take up the excommunication of Rome and make it formally part of the larger body of Orthodoxy rather than a local issue between two warring patriarchs.

If you cannot mutually lift the excommunications, then you cannot excommunicate on behalf of all either!

they didn't. the excommunications grew. it didn't happen suddenly, but the Pope has been stricken from the dyptycs. that means Rome was fully excommunicated by the East, which means it would take the whole Church to lift the excommunication fully.

 

[Philip_B]

the excommunications grew.

I am not sure what you are saying. 16 July 1054, three months after Pope Leo's death in April 1054 and nine months before the next pope took office, they laid on the altar of Hagia Sophia, which was prepared for celebration of the Divine Liturgy, a bull of excommunication of Michael Cerularius 1 and his supporters. In a very real sense that is an event. Four days later to compliment was returned.

There were a series of events that led to that, marked no doubt by the inclusion of the Filioque in Rome under Benedict VIII at the behest of the new HRE. No doubt there is a trail of destruction that leads to the events of July 1054, and a trail of destruction that leads from it.

Humbert may have been acting in excess of his authority, acting in the name of a dead Pope.

"3. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

1. Since they are certain that they express the common desire for justice and the unanimous sentiment of charity which moves the faithful, and since they recall the command of the Lord: "If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brethren has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go first be reconciled to your brother" (Matt. 5:23-24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that:

A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.

C. Finally, they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factors—among which, lack of understanding and mutual trust—eventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.

1. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through cleansing of hearts, through regret for historical wrongs, and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands.

They hope, nevertheless, that this act will be pleasing to God, who is prompt to pardon us when we pardon each other. They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church.

from the joint statement issued.​

The point needs not be be forgotten, that excommunication refers to persons, and schism refers to groups/churches. The lifting of the excommunications did not end the schism. It hopefully marks a step along the way to the recovery of the unity that the Creed of the Council of Constantinople points us all to.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am not sure what you are saying. 16 July 1054, three months after Pope Leo's death in April 1054 and nine months before the next pope took office, they laid on the altar of Hagia Sophia, which was prepared for celebration of the Divine Liturgy, a bull of excommunication of Michael Cerularius 1 and his supporters. In a very real sense that is an event. Four days later to compliment was returned.

There were a series of events that led to that, marked no doubt by the inclusion of the Filioque in Rome under Benedict VIII at the behest of the new HRE. No doubt there is a trail of destruction that leads to the events of July 1054, and a trail of destruction that leads from it.

Humbert may have been acting in excess of his authority, acting in the name of a dead Pope.

"3. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

1. Since they are certain that they express the common desire for justice and the unanimous sentiment of charity which moves the faithful, and since they recall the command of the Lord: "If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brethren has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go first be reconciled to your brother" (Matt. 5:23-24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that:

A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.

C. Finally, they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factors—among which, lack of understanding and mutual trust—eventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.

1. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through cleansing of hearts, through regret for historical wrongs, and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands.

They hope, nevertheless, that this act will be pleasing to God, who is prompt to pardon us when we pardon each other. They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church.

from the joint statement issued.​

The point needs not be be forgotten, that excommunication refers to persons, and schism refers to groups/churches. The lifting of the excommunications did not end the schism. It hopefully marks a step along the way to the recovery of the unity that the Creed of the Council of Constantinople points us all to.

meaning that the other patriarchates excommunicated Rome.

and there is no unity to recover. Orthodoxy possesses the unity of the Creed of Constantinople. Rome departed the Church, so there is no disunity.

 

[Philip_B]

meaning that the other patriarchates excommunicated Rome.

and there is no unity to recover. Orthodoxy possesses the unity of the Creed of Constantinople. Rome departed the Church, so there is no disunity.

I hear the argument, yet but it is a bit like saying we are simply moving the wall from wall street to the mexican border.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I hear the argument, yet but it is a bit like saying we are simply moving the wall from wall street to the mexican border.

not really, every Synod affirms Rome's heresy. it's more like the wall grew, not moved.

 

[abacabb3]

Ironically, Rome excommunicated themselves when they tried replacing everyone's Bishops. Up until the 13th century Orthodox would still allow western bishops to ordain clergy. But, the long the Latins occupied and tried to destroy local church government, the more Orthodox realized Rome wanted no part with them.

The last holdout was Alexandria. They too eventually were invaded and given the same treatment in the 13th century. They too stopped communing with the Roman Catholics after this.

 

[prodromos]

Humbert may have been acting in excess of his authority, acting in the name of a dead Pope.

Unless a messenger was dispatched immediately on Pope Leo's death, and weather conditions were all favorable for the various stages of the journey the messenger would take, it is quite likely Cardinal Humbert would have been unaware of Pope Leo's death. That is also assuming that it was considered necessary to inform the legates. After all, they were operating with the authority of the bishop of Rome. The decisions made by a particular bishop do not evaporate on his death, but remain in force unless an equal or greater authority rescinds them.

I've also heard suggestions that the Bull of Excommunication was a forgery produced by Cardinal Humbert and his fellow legates, and not something the Pope had given the legates to use as a last resort. It is an argument which surprises me in that Catholics are more than happy to slander their own, including one who would subsequently become Pope himself.

Whether it initially had authority or not, it was upheld by every subsequent Pope until Pope Paul VI.

 

[Barney2.0]

Unless a messenger was dispatched immediately on Pope Leo's death, and weather conditions were all favorable for the various stages of the journey the messenger would take, it is quite likely Cardinal Humbert would have been unaware of Pope Leo's death. That is also assuming that it was considered necessary to inform the legates. After all, they were operating with the authority of the bishop of Rome. The decisions made by a particular bishop do not evaporate on his death, but remain in force unless an equal or greater authority rescinds them.

I've also heard suggestions that the Bull of Excommunication was a forgery produced by Cardinal Humbert and his fellow legates, and not something the Pope had given the legates to use as a last resort. It is an argument which surprises me in that Catholics are more than happy to slander their own, including one who would subsequently become Pope himself.

Whether it initially had authority or not, it was upheld by every subsequent Pope until Pope Paul VI.

We don’t slander are own, we call out heresy in all its forms, whether outside or inside the Church. Every subsequent Pope held no choice, but to uphold the Bull of Excommunication because the Patriarch of Constantinople Excommunicated Rome and all subsequent patriarchs upheld the Excommunication, not being in communion with Rome is heresy and naturally all Popes upheld the Bull issued by Humbert regardless if it was wrong or not, however canonically the original Bull of Excommunication was not legitimate since it did not come from the Pope. Regardless if every single following Pope holds to it, since it has no legitimate origin to begin with.

 

[ArmyMatt]

We don’t slander are own, we call out heresy in all its forms, whether outside or inside the Church. Every subsequent Pope held no choice, but to uphold the Bull of Excommunication because the Patriarch of Constantinople Excommunicated Rome and all subsequent patriarchs upheld the Excommunication, not being in communion with Rome is heresy and naturally all Popes upheld the Bull issued by Humbert regardless if it was wrong or not, however canonically the original Bull of Excommunication was not legitimate since it did not come from the Pope. Regardless if every single following Pope holds to it, since it has no legitimate origin to begin with.

that's not how it works. every Pope was not bound to uphold the excommunication. plus, not being in communion with Rome is not heresy by default, if Rome is the one who is heretical.

please just stop.