Topic: Question about anathemas

[loser]

I was reading that in 1965, the eastern orthodox and catholic decided to lift anathemas from each other. So doesnt that mean that they are no longer divided and that a catholic can now commune in an EOC?




Also, does anyone know if anathemas have been lifted on the OOC by catholics or EOC?

[Alpo]

So doesnt that mean that they are no longer divided and that a catholic can now commune in an EOC?

Nope. Generally speaking only EOs are allowed to commune in EO churches.

[Jetavan]

I was reading that in 1965, the eastern orthodox and catholic decided to lift anathemas from each other. So doesnt that mean that they are no longer divided and that a catholic can now commune in an EOC?




Also, does anyone know if anathemas have been lifted on the OOC by catholics or EOC?

It seems to me that the lack of anathemas doesn't mean that intercommunion is possible. I don't recall the Orthodox and the Baptists anathematizing each other, yet, no one thinks intercommunion is possible just because there are no anathemas.

[Melodist]

I was reading that in 1965, the eastern orthodox and catholic decided to lift anathemas from each other.

The anethemas were lifted from the persons excommunicated, not churches. This did not restore communion.

[Shanghaiski]

I was reading that in 1965, the eastern orthodox and catholic decided to lift anathemas from each other.

The anethemas were lifted from the persons excommunicated, not churches. This did not restore communion.

Exactly. Also, the anathemas of Cardinal Humbert had no weight because the pope was dead and he and Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his clergy knew that. So, in 1965, the pope "lifted" totally void anathemas while the patriarch lifted real anathemas. No, whether or not the partriarch has the authority to single-handedly lift the anathemas against a cardinal and a couple bishops (one of whom became pope later, IIRC) dead 1,000 years is a separate question. It was an empty symbolic act with real consequences for confusion.

[Melodist]

No, whether or not the partriarch has the authority to single-handedly lift the anathemas against a cardinal and a couple bishops (one of whom became pope later, IIRC) dead 1,000 years is a separate question.

He did. It was the Patriarch of Constantinople that made the excommunication, so no reason why the Patriarch (although a later one, but still holding the same office) can't lift it.

But, there is more to the current division than those particular (local) anethemas, so while lifting them may be a sign of improving relations, it does not heal the division.

[Basil 320]

I've read that Patriarch Athenagoras did consult with the heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches about rescinding the "anathema," but I've read much more information that he did not, that he acted unilaterally, though I imagine the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate approved the action.

It's a fair question because Patriarch Michael convened an Extraordinary Synod of the Ancient Patriarchates at the time which acted to anathematize the Church of Rome, and was recognized by the Holy Orthodox Churches thereafter, so doesn't it become the property of the Holy Churches, and not just the Church of Constantinople?

I don't think the anathema Cardinal Humbard placed upon the Holy Table of the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom, the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople, that anathematized the "Patriarch Michael and all who follow him," should be viewed as a "void anathema" or that it had "no weight" because neither of the Church's took issue with its competency at the time or any time thereafter, in fact, it was recognized as an anathema, although it was generally believed that it would be a temporary situation, until 1204, of course.

[Shanghaiski]

It was a void anathema because the pope was dead when it was put on the altar. Therefore, it had no authorization.

Also, Antioch told Patriarch Michael where he could put his anathema.

[Basil 320]

I was reading that in 1965, the eastern orthodox and catholic decided to lift anathemas from each other. So doesnt that mean that they are no longer divided and that a catholic can now commune in an EOC?

Also, does anyone know if anathemas have been lifted on the OOC by catholics or EOC?

It seems to me that the lack of anathemas doesn't mean that intercommunion is possible. I don't recall the Orthodox and the Baptists anathematizing each other, yet, no one thinks intercommunion is possible just because there are no anathemas.

Baptists and Eastern Orthodox Christians do not share the same faith, the same beliefs, the same understanding of what Holy Communion is and what effects it has for its recipients; so how can they share the same chalice?

[William]

Some Orthodox bishops also called the EP out and said his actions were illegal.