"The leaders excommunicated each other, but not the communities in question."
JK, this is a technicality that obscures the reality. What is excommunication if it is not a state of not communing with each other? The Orthodox have steadfastly refused to enter into communion with Catholicism until we come to complete agreement in the faith. Even after the false union of Ferrara/Florence, the records show that even those Orthodox bishops who actually signed the accord would not take communion at the Catholic mass that was served to celebrate the "union."
The problem is that the word "excommunication" has a lot of overtones and baggage to it that aren't very nice and politically correct. But given the fact that ever since the Schism, the rule in Orthodoxy has been that a member of the Latin church had to be received into Orthodoxy and renounce Latin errors in order to receive communion in an Orthodox church should tell the story as to whether the members of the communities were, in practice, excommunicated. I daresay that prior to very recent times, the same thing was required by Catholicism of any Orthodox who wanted to commune in Catholic churches.
This is not stirring up trouble, it is just stating the facts of how things really are -- not how they are in someone's theoretical construct of how Orthodoxy and Catholicism are somehow One Church. If we were One Church, we would be in communion with each other. It is fine that we have very similar objections to Protestant distinctives, but it is a very long way from that to being One Church. one Body.
"The Orthodox believe in a third "place" of existence besides heaven and hell. You are merely trying to divide the Body with such talk."
The first statement is true. We believe in a sort of "intermediate state" in which the soul is after its separation from the body. The state of separation from the body is an unnatural one, and neither the fullness of bliss and union with God nor the fullness of anguish and separation from God are complete until the body is someday resurrected and united again with the body, returning each man to his normative state.
What we do not believe is that there is any sort of fire or pain that a soul has to go through in order to be purified of unconfessed venial sins or to clean the slate from uncompleted penances for sins forgiven in confession. We believe that we know very little about this intermediate state other than the fact that for each person, the ultimate fate is decided by the basic orientation of each soul at the time of death, and that this cannot be changed after death.
We know that the souls of the departed are helped by our prayers, almsgiving in their names, commemoration at the liturgy, memorial services, etc. But how exactly they are helped and to what degree we have little or no idea. We certainly cannot quantify it and say that we have wiped the slate clean with a plenary indulgence given for something of that sort. We just don't know.
As you can see, Harley, while there are significant differences (at least to us Orthodox) between traditional Catholic ideas of purgatory and the Orthodox view of the afterlife, the beliefs that we Orthodox have are equally wrong by your Reformed lights.
You aren't dividing the Body, because there is no Body to divide at this point -- Catholicism is already in a state of error and schism from the Orthodox perspective, and Orthodoxy is in a state of schism (and really, if Catholics are honest, error) from Catholicism's perspective.
What you *are* doing, is using a faulty argument -- and I can't help but think that you are too smart a guy not to realize this. You cannot compare what happened at the Great Schism with what happened at the Protestant Reformation. After the Schism, both the Roman patriarch's church and the Church comprised of the jurisdictions of the 4 other patriarchs and other local Eastern churches remained intact, orderly, in full communion within each respective body, and continuing the same practices that each had arrived at by that point in time.
Protestantism did not result in the schism of one church from others, but rather in a state in which the Church never was at any other point in its existence -- with a radical change in belief and practice, and with ever splintering groups and denominations and ecclesiastical structures, each with its own widely varying beliefs and practices. These newly formed ecclesiastical bodies were cut free, to varying degrees, from ancient traditional understandings and beliefs, and replaced them with theoretical reconstructions of the New Testament Church.
You are approaching a valid point, because it is disingenuous for Catholics to be harshly critical of Protestants for leaving their True Church, while (nowadays, anyway) giving Orthodoxy a free pass for doing the same thing. But the whole image of bishops sitting in Purgatory until excommunications are lifted is just plain silly. From the perspective of each body, obviously the excommunication of the other was of none effect! No Catholic would believe that the Pope who did the excommunicating of the Patriarch of Constantinople on doctrinal grounds was in error for doing so.
In my mind Orthodox are not "equally" wrong with Catholics and non-Reformed Protestants; for the eastern church is built upon certain established paradigms which does seem to trace back through history. Where most make a mistake is to assume Reformed theology does not trace back through the western church. It does. Roman Catholics and non-Reformed Protestants "borrow" doctrinal beliefs from Orthodox and Reformed to varying degrees resulting in a muddled mess of doctrine. Where I see an Orthodox Church following an established process, I see others following inconsistencies. To me these inconsistencies are annoying much like trying to match socks on wash day.
My goal is to convince everyone to become Reformed (preferred) or Orthodox (OK). Life would be so much simplier.
BTW-When I first heard about the Reformed belief three years ago, after considerable research of tracing theology and history, I came to the conclusion that either I would have to become Reformed or Orthodox. I didn't know if I could wear a robe, a beard and one of those funny hats! ;O)
Being that the Orthodox are an apostolic Church, we do share communion. To my knowledge, an Orthodox person can receive communion at a Latin Mass. The same is not the case for a Latin coming to an Orthodox Liturgy, as you point out. And this is because we don't approach the Trinity in the exact same way? Which "de fide" beliefs from the first 1000 years is Rome ignoring? There is a difference between de fide declarations and common, yet undefined teachings. Our differences are not based on Eastern Orthodox/Latin Catholic flouting of dogmatic declarations made at Nicea or Chalcedon.
What we do not believe is that there is any sort of fire or pain that a soul has to go through in order to be purified of unconfessed venial sins or to clean the slate from uncompleted penances for sins forgiven in confession.
I don't know if that is correct - as what would be the purpose of a third state of existence if we died and went to immediate heaven or hell? What does the Orthodox envision for this third "place"? Because we have not completed theosis upon our death (most of us), what exactly occurs in this third state? It is likely analogous to what happens here on earth. We will be purified of sin and habits that remain that turn us from God. How is sin and sinful habits purified here on earth? I would think there is a pretty large amount of Orthodox writing on the subject!
We know that the souls of the departed are helped by our prayers, almsgiving in their names, commemoration at the liturgy, memorial services, etc. But how exactly they are helped and to what degree we have little or no idea. We certainly cannot quantify it and say that we have wiped the slate clean with a plenary indulgence given for something of that sort. We just don't know.
The Church has ALWAYS had this power. Ever since public confessions, the Church has had the power to forgive post-Baptismal sins and grant indulgences to remit punishment. Do you think that a person sitting in a sack cloth outside the Church doors was "earning" forgiveness from God??!!
You aren't dividing the Body, because there is no Body to divide at this point -- Catholicism is already in a state of error and schism from the Orthodox perspective, and Orthodoxy is in a state of schism (and really, if Catholics are honest, error) from Catholicism's perspective.
Again, you are incorrect in your assumptions. Being in a state of schism is NOT a separation from the Body. We still share the same bread, the same baptism, the same apostolic Traditions and Scriptures. There is not TWO Bodies of Christ! There is only one. It is a mistake to say "the Orthodox are the Body of Christ and the Latins are not"(or vice versus). Such talk is plainly incorrect - and my argument will be based on baptism by schismatics and heretics as still being part of the Body of Christ (though incompletely) - an accepted Tradition by both of our church communities.
Protestantism did not result in the schism of one church from others, but rather in a state in which the Church never was at any other point in its existence -- with a radical change in belief and practice, and with ever splintering groups and denominations and ecclesiastical structures, each with its own widely varying beliefs and practices. These newly formed ecclesiastical bodies were cut free, to varying degrees, from ancient traditional understandings and beliefs, and replaced them with theoretical reconstructions of the New Testament Church.
I would agree with that, with the addition that there have always been "Protestant" groups who didn't follow the teachings of the Church and the Fathers. Many of the heresies have an interesting way of resurfacing many years later with different names... Consider the Reformed view of evil material (man) with the Neo-Platonic view.
You [Harley] are approaching a valid point, because it is disingenuous for Catholics to be harshly critical of Protestants for leaving their True Church, while (nowadays, anyway) giving Orthodoxy a free pass for doing the same thing.
Well, we in the West are trying to be more open to reconciliation. That won't happen until both sides take a long hard look at what led each side to interpret the Fathers the way they did. It is ludicrous to think the Fathers can only be interpreted ONE way on such subjects as the Trinity or original sin. We come from different cultures and backgrounds. Thus, it is imperative that we try to understand WHAT the other is saying when they formulate that the Divine uncreated Energies come to man but not the Divine Essence... Or when the West talks about created Grace.
On the surface, you earlier divided the Trinity, a heresy. But after further explanation, I see a more valid explanation. And we move on. But remaining stubbornly entrenched in your idea of what Catholics believe will NEVER unite the two halves of the Apostolic Church (excuse me if I do not include the Coptics and such, it is easier to say "halves")
Perhaps the East would be better served by taking the Vatican 2's line on this - that we don't contradict, we compliment each other. Most of what we disagree over was not defined in the first 1000 years, but is subject to our particular nuances of Apostolic Tradition. Only a united Ecumencial Council will be able to consolidate our "minor" difference. Until then, it does no good to say one side is right and the other is wrong (contradicts). After reading about the East/West view on Trinity, I see we approach it from different angles, but neither is wrong (complimentary).
Regards
Very true. I am glad that Catholics and Orthodox are talking to each other about union, but union won't happen any time soon. I think that the major reason Rome sounds so agreeable is that Catholicism is shrinking in Western Europe, while millions of Muslim immigrants continue to flood in. Rome needs allies to counter its waning influence and numbers in Europe.
I am sure there is a great sense of camaraderie in teaming together to refute Protestants, but at some point Catholics and Orthodox will have to sit down and discussion in substance the profound issues that separate the two communions. You can portray those differences as being very slight, but I think history has shown otherwise. If you accuse Protestants of ignoring history, I hope you won't be guilty of the same.
Many of the issues that brought about the Protestant Reformation are the same issues that separate Rome from the Orthodox. Good luck. When you get it all resolved, let me know and I will apply for membership. But I think that would require a belief in reincarnation in order to live and see this happen.
If we are really going to get technical on this issue, the Pope in whose name his legate Cardinal Humbert excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch was dead for three months when this "excommunication" took place. Cardinal Humbert had no authority to excommunicate anyone in the name of the Bishop of Rome, because his mandate as the Pope's legate expired upon the the Popes passing.
Cardinal Humbert certainly had a right, as a bisop, to excommunicate another bishop, but not in the name of the Patriarch of the West.
For that reason, the excommunication coming from the Bishop of Constanpinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch, was directed only at Cardinal Humbert and not at the deceased Pope, or the Latin Church.
Thus, from a legal point of view, and I would invite Kolo to comment on this, there was no "excommunication" of either the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Constantinople.
The picture is even more complicated than that (the Ecumenical Patriarch at that time was himself a man of temper and has contributed his share to sparks lfying). If anything, the whole episode was one of most un-Christian behavior among top Church officials, and one void of any charity on both sides. Suffice it to say that treating these issues lightly on FR does no one any justice.
The same goes for the degree of schism of the Latin and Greek Churches. For sure, the differences can be exaggerated or minimized, but they are there. Until such time that they are resolved, we cannot commune in each other's churches, although it is safe to say that there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which either one or both are incomplete representations of Her. I think it is wise to leave it at that.