Author Topic: Why 1054?  (Read 39082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #135 on: May 04, 2009, 10:38:05 AM »
I heard it!  OOH OOH!  PICK ME!
Ha! Seriously, what was that all about?

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #136 on: May 04, 2009, 10:57:40 AM »
Quote
The Patriarch of Antioch, Macarios III Zaim (1647-1672), who succeeded Euthymios III of Chios, also had very good relations with Rome since he is called cryptocatholic, but he hesitated to declare himself. It is certain that in 1633 this patriarch sent a letter to the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in which he affirmed "his irrevocable intention to work for the union of the Eastern Church until the last breath of his life... and to undermine the wall of enmity posed by the enemy of all good (the devil),” entirely professing that it is "Christ who is the head of the holy Church.” The Congregation sent him a chalice and the patriarch thanked them in the letter cited above. The journey of this patriarch to Russia was considered by the missionaries at that time as the voyage of an apostle who "with prudence and catholic zeal goes to confirm the good begun by the Latin missionaries.”
Excerpt from:http://phoenicia.org/greek_melkite_catholic.html

What implications does this have on someone who is in an Antiochian parish? Does this mean that Catholic saints up to the year 1717 may be venerated? Does this also include Catholic devotions up to the year of 1717?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 10:58:39 AM by PoorFoolNicholas »

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,785
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #137 on: May 04, 2009, 11:55:06 AM »
What implications does this have on someone who is in an Antiochian parish? Does this mean that Catholic saints up to the year 1717 may be venerated? Does this also include Catholic devotions up to the year of 1717?
None whatever. We don't care about Catholic saints. We don't care about Catholic devotions. We care only about those in whom we find faith. If the Catholics also recognize their faith, goody for them, but it means absolutely nothing whether they do or not.

You're not going to get the answers you seek, because you seek a concrete date and a concrete act for the Schism. There is none. We have told you this repeatedly, yet you persist. Why? Are you trying to justify a Catholic devotion that means something to you?
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #138 on: May 04, 2009, 12:29:11 PM »
You're not going to get the answers you seek, because you seek a concrete date and a concrete act for the Schism. There is none. We have told you this repeatedly, yet you persist. Why? Are you trying to justify a Catholic devotion that means something to you?
No, not at all. The history of the Church, and the Schism, just completely confuses me. How do I understand the history of Orthodoxy, and its development of Tradition, if I don't understand when Catholic Tradition broke itself away? It is very muddy, and I can't seem to put my finger on it.

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,785
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #139 on: May 04, 2009, 01:51:33 PM »
^ You don't need to understand Catholicism to understand Orthodoxy. Yes, it's muddy, because history is not as simple as the history texts make it out to be. We began very early to grow apart, and we are still growing apart now. Much more important than when or how we broke communion is why. There was much pride and misunderstanding, as well as real theological issues such as the Pope's position as first among equals and the role of the laity in ecclesiastical government. I believe that the primary reason for schism was an inability to distinguish what was theological and what was personal. I believe in 1054, the schism could still have been prevented. To an extent it was, because the schism was not finalized until much later. When exactly that was eludes us, but we do know that we are now two religions and not one.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #140 on: May 04, 2009, 05:05:31 PM »
Blessed Damien of Molokai pray for us all!

Saint Damien, as of October 11, 2009. :)

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #141 on: May 05, 2009, 09:32:31 AM »
...When exactly that was eludes us, but we do know that we are now two religions and not one.
I see. Thank you.

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: Why 1054?
« Reply #142 on: May 05, 2009, 09:45:46 AM »
Something still troubles me though. If we don't really know when the official split happened, is 1054 just a modern "sign post" for the Schism?