Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Agrarian; HarleyD; jo kus; Kolokotronis
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

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.

7,938 posted on 06/06/2006 5:57:00 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7899 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50

"...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."

Well stated.


7,952 posted on 06/06/2006 8:31:02 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7938 | View Replies ]

To: kosta50
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.

Very good post. While some people here are certain one side is correct and the other is wrong, I think the above words are good advice - and regardless of fault, both our communions continue to be the One Body of Jesus Christ, the one, holy, catholic (small c) and apostolic Church.

Regards

7,989 posted on 06/07/2006 5:55:05 AM PDT by jo kus (There is nothing colder than a Christian who doesn't care for the salvation of others - St.Crysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7938 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson