A couple of questions(I'm totally ignorant on Eastern Catholicism /Orthodoxy)

[Allyson]

So what is the point of Eastern Churches “reuniting” with Rome if they don’t recognize the Pope’s supremacy? I’ve been learning more about the Eastern churches but I must admit that the more I read the more confused I get. They are almost indistinguishable from their Orthodox counterparts (which I understand for obvious reasons) but I expected that the similarities would end when discussing the Pope but I’m getting different answers everywhere. The EC even have different canon law and everything. I respect and appreciate the Eastern tradition and will be attending a Byzantine (Ruthenian) parish frequently but I want to understand their relationship to the Pope a bit better. Any “official” sources?

Think of it this was. The Pope is the patriarch of the West, and so in that sense he has a sort of “supremacy,” although the modern catholic understanding is far more extreme on this than what was understood in the first millennium of Christianity. However, the Eastern Catholic Churches are sui iuris churches - that is Churches under their own law. It is a separate and equal yet One thing.

I guess that the question that should be asked is whether it is essential to being Catholic that Papal supremacy must be recognized by all Churches sui iuris? An interesting and controversial question.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Old Medic!
I don’t have a problem with the substance of your post, but a few comments on just a couple of points with which I disagree.

Not all of the Eastern churches left with the Schism. Many continued to follow the leadership of Rome.

None of the eastern churches left with the schism. Rome left, which explains why it was basically standing alone, think about it.

Among the eastern churches there is no common central leadership which can order such a thing, and no conspiracy to “leave” the church in the historical record. In fact the opposite is very clearly represented, with different eastern churches trying to mediate the dispute and keep communion with both sides. There was no “one mind” about the Orthodox at the time of the schism, Rome (which had no living Pope at the initial outbreak ) simply cut ties with Constantinople, then during the Crusades (which followed shortly afterward) tried to replace the Eastern Catholic bishops with Latin ones wherever they had the military/political muscle to do so.

It worked in southern Italy and Sicily, which never did get free from that, with virtually the entire population being converted to the Latin rite, first by replacing the Greek bishops with Latin bishops who then incardinated Latin priests who introduced the Latin Mass. In the rest of the Mediterranean east the Christian population was largely alienated by these heavy-handed tactics which could only last as long as the crusading armies lasted and the schism hardened everywhere.

First, the Papacy broke with the eastern sister churches under the leadership of Cardinals influenced by the Gregorian reformation. Then they tried to replace the hierarchies of the sister churches with Latin bishops by force, destroying their Autocephaly (and Sui Iuris status).

Unfortunately, with the myriad of wars and conflicts, some of those churches were lost for long periods of time, and in effect had to be reconciled with Rome at a later date.

This is historical revisionism. I am not blaming you for it, undoubtedly you read this somewhere.

Only two Sui Iuris churches today can be traced to a relationship with Rome that possibly predates the schism, and both are very dubious histories.

Others, for various reason, chose to return to the fold, accepting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Usually political.

What is often overlooked is that as soon as the political restraints were removed, many if not most of them returned to Orthodoxy.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Old Medic!
I don’t have a problem with the substance of your post, but a few comments on just a couple of points with which I disagree.

Not all of the Eastern churches left with the Schism. Many continued to follow the leadership of Rome.

None of the eastern churches left with the schism. Rome left, which explains why it was basically standing alone, think about it.

Among the eastern churches there is no common central leadership which can order such a thing, and no conspiracy to “leave” the church in the historical record. In fact the opposite is very clearly represented, with different eastern churches trying to mediate the dispute and keep communion with both sides. There was no “one mind” about the Orthodox at the time of the schism, Rome (which had no living Pope at the initial outbreak ) simply cut ties with Constantinople, then during the Crusades (which followed shortly afterward) tried to replace the Eastern Catholic bishops with Latin ones wherever they had the military/political muscle to do so.

It worked in southern Italy and Sicily, which never did get free from that, with virtually the entire population being converted to the Latin rite, first by replacing the Greek bishops with Latin bishops who then incardinated Latin priests who introduced the Latin Mass. In the rest of the Mediterranean east the Christian population was largely alienated by these heavy-handed tactics which could only last as long as the crusading armies lasted and the schism hardened everywhere.

First, the Papacy broke with the eastern sister churches under the leadership of Cardinals influenced by the Gregorian reformation. Then they tried to replace the hierarchies of the sister churches with Latin bishops by force, destroying their Autocephaly (and Sui Iuris status).

Unfortunately, with the myriad of wars and conflicts, some of those churches were lost for long periods of time, and in effect had to be reconciled with Rome at a later date.

This is historical revisionism. I am not blaming you for it, undoubtedly you read this somewhere.

Only two Sui Iuris churches today can be traced to a relationship with Rome that possibly predates the schism, and both are very dubious histories.

Others, for various reason, chose to return to the fold, accepting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Usually political.

What is often overlooked is that as soon as the political restraints were removed, many if not most of them returned to Orthodoxy.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Wow, listen to St. Maximus on the Papacy:

The new Ecthesis is worse than the old heresies—Pyrrhus and his predecessor have accused Sophronius of error—they persuaded Heraclius to give his name to the Ecthesis:

“they have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what is laughable, or rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy… Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. **For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.”

THis is very interesting coming from the lips of an eastern!

 

[dvdjs]

Hello Old Medic!
I don’t have a problem with the substance of your post, but a few comments on just a couple of points with which I disagree.
None of the eastern churches left with the schism. Rome left, which explains why it was basically standing alone, think about it.

Among the eastern churches there is no common central leadership which can order such a thing, and no conspiracy to “leave” the church in the historical record. In fact the opposite is very clearly represented, with different eastern churches trying to mediate the dispute and keep communion with both sides. There was no “one mind” about the Orthodox at the time of the schism, Rome (which had no living Pope at the initial outbreak ) simply cut ties with Constantinople, then during the Crusades (which followed shortly afterward) tried to replace the Eastern Catholic bishops with Latin ones wherever they had the military/political muscle to do so.

It worked in southern Italy and Sicily, which never did get free from that, with virtually the entire population being converted to the Latin rite, first by replacing the Greek bishops with Latin bishops who then incardinated Latin priests who introduced the Latin Mass. In the rest of the Mediterranean east the Christian population was largely alienated by these heavy-handed tactics which could only last as long as the crusading armies lasted and the schism hardened everywhere.

First, the Papacy broke with the eastern sister churches under the leadership of Cardinals influenced by the Gregorian reformation. Then they tried to replace the hierarchies of the sister churches with Latin bishops by force, destroying their Autocephaly (and Sui Iuris status). This is historical revisionism. I am not blaming you for it, undoubtedly you read this somewhere.

Only two Sui Iuris churches today can be traced to a relationship with Rome that possibly predates the schism, and both are very dubious histories.
Usually political.

What is often overlooked is that as soon as the political restraints were removed, many if not most of them returned to Orthodoxy.

What is there to say about this bologna?
Precisley what Fr. Taft is reported to have said at the Orthodox Constructions of the West meeting.
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/orthodox-constructions-of-the-west-report-1/

Orthodoxy needed to undertake its own examination of conscience and adopt a less polemic view of history. Fr. Taft noted, for example, that the Catholic apology for past sins against the unity of the Church was met largely with indifference, with Russian and Greek bishops even averring that Orthodoxy, for its part, had nothing to apologize for never having resorted to uniatism or used the secular arm to impose its will or oppress the conscience of others (this elicited some nervous chuckling from a largely scholarly audience).

.
… all powers, not just Western ones, had sought to impose religious conformity by force. It was, Fr. Taft brutally argued, time for Orthodox polemicists to “grow up.”

The return of Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy was, for the most part, a result of military conquest. Where there is some actual religious freedom, the majority have remained as Greek Catholics. That includes, btw, the middle east, where Greek Catholics considerably outnumber Eastern Orthodox: think about it.

 

[KyivAndrew]

What is often overlooked is that as soon as the political restraints were removed, many [Eastern Catholics] if not most of them returned to Orthodoxy.

Not true, especially in contemporary times. Indeed, the political “restraint” was often on the other foot (to use the gentle euphemism of “restraint”) and on Ukrainian Greek Catholics (the largest Eastern Catholic Church) in the last century. They were to be by law only Russian Orthodox in Soviet Ukraine, as their Ukrainian Catholic Church and hierarchy were liquidated in 1946. When this ahem political “restraint” was lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union, many if not most of these millions of faithful returned to Ukrainian Greek Catholicism. The Church is back in the millions after only a couple of years after being allowed to come out of the underground, after living through the golgotha of communism.

Indeed, the arrested Metropolitan Head of Ukrainian Catholics, Yosyp Slipyj, was approached several times in the Soviet Gulag with the proposal that the Soviets would free him if he just renounced Catholicism and they even offered him a plumb job as a Hierarch in the Russian Orthodox Church! He refused while knowing he would probably die there in the Gulag, a tortured man, like the rest of his Catholic bishops. Talk about political force being used to “convert” someone. He remained stubbornly in the Gulag until JFK and HH John XXIII raised a ruccus to have the poor devout man freed from the Gulag. The Soviets finally relented but released him bound by conditions to not speak of his suffering or against the Soviets. The Soviet K.G.B. would even send agents pretending to be priests from the underground church in Ukraine to Cardinal Slipyj to spread misinformation and gain info on the underground Ukrainian Church as ex-K.G.B. agent’s Mitrokhin’s archive makes clear.

So history is not simply as clear-cut as saying once political restraints from Catholic powers were no more, “many if not most” came running to Orthodoxy. Indeed, the political pressure often came from the other side in most recent times. But, indeed, this was the same Soviet pressure that was brought to bear on the pre-Sergian Russian Orthodox Church from the Bolsheviks, which Church also suffered. The Russian Orthodox Church in the diaspora refused to deal with the Sergian Russian Orthodox Church even well after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So one must be careful in overly-generalizing. History is much more complex.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Not true, especially in contemporary times. Indeed, the political “restraint” was often on the other foot (to use the gentle euphemism of “restraint”) and on Ukrainian Greek Catholics (the largest Eastern Catholic Church) in the last century. They were to be by law only Russian Orthodox in Soviet Ukraine, as their Ukrainian Catholic Church and hierarchy were liquidated in 1946. When this ahem political “restraint” was lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union, many if not most of these millions of faithful returned to Ukrainian Greek Catholicism. The Church is back in the millions after only a couple of years after being allowed to come out of the underground, after living through the golgotha of communism.

Indeed, the arrested Metropolitan Slipyj, head of the Ukrainian Churhc, was approached several times in the Soviet Gulag with the proposal that the Soviets would free him if he just renounced Catholicism and they even offered him a plumb job as a Hierarch in the Russian Orthodox Church! He refused while knowing he would probably die there in the Gulag, a tortured man, like the rest of his Catholic bishops. Talk about using political force being used to “convert” someone. He remained stubbornly in the Gulag until JFK and HH John XXIII raised a ruccus to have the poor devout man freed from the Gulag. The Soviets finally relented but released him bound by conditions to not speak of his suffering or against the Soviets. The Soviet K.G.B. would even send agents pretending to be priests pretending to be from the underground church in Ukraine to spread misinformation and gain info on the underground Ukrainian Church as ex-K.G.B. agent’s Mitrokhin’s archive makes clear.

So history is not simply as clear-cut as saying once political restraints from Catholic powers were no more, “many if not most” came running to Orthodoxy. Indeed, the political pressure often came from the other side in most recent times. But, indeed, this was the same Soviet pressure that was brought to bear on the pre-Sergian Russian Orthodox Church from the Bolsheviks, which Church also suffered. The Russian Orthodox Church in the diaspora refused to deal with the Sergian Russian Orthodox Church even well after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So one must be careful in overly-generalizing. History is much more complex.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

The Eastern churches did in fact leave, pretty much as a bloc. While they recognize no central authority, it was commonly agreed that they would no longer consider themselves under the authority of Rome, or of any council that was sponsored by Rome.

As to the question above (paraphrased), “If they won’t recognize the authority of the pope, what is the use of reconciling”, those Eastern Churches that have reconciled with Rome DO recognize the authority of Rome and the pope.

I would also remind those Latin Rite Catholics that in most matters, the Pope does not speak “Ex Cathedra”. In fact, this has been done only one time in the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church (I will leave it to the student to figure out when that one time was, if they don’t already know). When the Pope is speaking, or pronouncing anything that he does not label as being “Ex Cathedra”, he is speaking with no more authority than any other Bishop. ALL BISHOPS (Eastern or Western) have exactly the same powers and rights, with that one exception.

Unless he is making a pronouncement on faith or morals, as the Supreme Bishop (meaning Ex Cathedra), his pronouncements have no more bearing on the everyday life of Roman Catholics than the pronouncement of any other Bishop. Almost all Popes have recognized the Supremacy of the Council, to their individual views.

Take the matter of female priests. Pope John Paul II did NOT speak, “Ex Cathedra” on that matter, he expressed his opinion as the Bishop of Rome. This allows for the possibility that, at some future date, the Holy Spirit could work through the church to allow such a thing (I doubt if I will ever live to see it, but it is possible).

The issue of a married priesthood is similar. The Church could, at any time, reinstitute the right of married men to serve as Priests in the Latin Rite. There is neither any theological reason why this can not be done, nor has any Pope ever outlawed this as a matter of “Faith and morals”. In fact, there are several thousand Latin Rite Roman Catholic Priests that ARE married. Granted that most of them were Protestant Ministers prior to becoming Catholic, but still they are married priests.

I met my first American married priest in the 1960’s, in Germany. he was a former Luthern Minister, who was married when he joined the Catholic Church. he was put through a “quickie seminary”, ordained as a priest, and immediately sent to Europe (because it was felt the American Church could not accept such a thing at that time).

There is much beauty, and a great deal of reverence within the Eastern Churches. Much could be learned, and incorporated into the Latin Rite, that would make worship more meaningful and much more reverential. Those Latin Rite Catholics that know little (or nothing) of the Eastern Churches would benefit from learning about them.

I am simply amazed at how many “Cradle Catholics” have little or no knowledge of their own Eastern Rite Roman Catholic Churches, much less of the Orthodox Churches. I learned a great deal about them when I entered prep seminary, back in the 1950’s. I would strongly recommend that all Latin Rite Catholics make a point of studying the Eastern Churches.

Sadly, the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church have two very, very different versions of the history behind the “Great Schism”. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Both hardened their positions over the centuries, both buried the conflict under tons of ill feeling, and neither is willing to give enough to allow for a true reconciliation. It was a huge step when the cousin churches lifted the excommunications that they had leveled upon each other.

With the help of the Holy Spirit, I hope that the fears, the lies and the misunderstandings between the two largest branches of Christ’s church can be overcome, and that they can once again become reconciled.

I suspect the Jesus weeps at the way his peoples fight among themselves. He established ONE CHURCH, and then mankind sundered it into myriad parts. Man, with his pride and anger (and I suspect with the full and complete help of Satan) has allowed Christ’s church to become an angry mess.

Is the Latin Church without fault in this? NO, it has great fault on it’s conscience, and has made great strides in recognizing and admitting to this fault. Perhaps not enough has been done, but a good beginning has been made. There is still room for improvement on our part however.

Are the Eastern Churches without fault in this matter? NO, but they are a bit slower to reconcile their fault probably because they do lack a structural administration and it is difficult for them to admit their faults, as every Bishop or Priest can fight against such a thing.

 

[Miserissima]

This is another 5-star thread. I was wondering how to frame the same questions that the OP posated. I thank all of the participants for their replies.

 

[Hesychios]

… it was commonly agreed that they would no longer consider themselves under the authority of Rome, or of any council that was sponsored by Rome.

Well then, you are just going to have to demonstrate this with some references. {<— I hate this smiley, and this is one of the few times I have ever used it!} Show us the common agreement.

It’s really not historically supportable.

In the first place, the bishops of Rome did not control any eastern churches, each was (and still is) governed by it’s own synod.

In fact, the level of control bishops of Rome had in the west was limited as well, but not to the same degree. This is very well documented, even to the point that western synods at times boldly opposed the ‘Popes’, or otherwise ignored them. Such a thing would be unthinkable today.

This situation did eventually change in the west, most especially after the Gregorian reformation (11th century), but the fact that it did not enjoy a supreme jurisdiction should be easy to see. Any attempt to place Popes above or in control of eastern churches is telescoping history, reading a modern Papacy that was not there back into the past.

I assume that you are familiar with the historical details for the break in 1054AD, and the reasons Cardinals Humbert and Frederic gave for breaking communion with the See of Constantinople, so I won’t post that here at this time.

If you want to discuss it though, I am open to it.

 

[dvdjs]

Sadly, the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church have two very, very different versions of the history behind the “Great Schism”. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Both hardened their positions over the centuries, both buried the conflict under tons of ill feeling, and neither is willing to give enough to allow for a true reconciliation.

A huge problem, and not just about the schism, but all of the post schism church history and and even moments of pre-schism church history.

More from the lecture of Fr. Taft, who remarks that progress toward rapprochement

… continued to be plagued by failure to accept and confront respective responsibility for “a dolorous past.” … Fr. Taft pointed to the need for steps like abandoning “selective histories” and adopting “shared history” that would be based on common hermeneutic principles.

Arguably this effort might start with the now: the present times and recent past; it might start with the acknowledgment of complicity in the brutal* liquidation* of Greek Catholic churches in Eastern Europe and acceptance of the desire of this Greek Catholics, when free to choose, to re-establish their Church. My experience at CAF: every request for this acknowledgment is tacitly refused. Maybe it will be different this time.

 

[Hesychios]

… it was commonly agreed that they would no longer consider themselves under the authority of Rome, or of any council that was sponsored by Rome.

Well then, you are just going to have to demonstrate this with some references. {<— I hate this smiley, and this is one of the few times I have ever used it!} Show us the common agreement.

It’s really not historically supportable.

In the first place, the bishops of Rome did not control any eastern churches, each was (and still is) governed by it’s own synod.

In fact, the level of control bishops of Rome had in the west was limited as well, but to varying degrees. This is very well documented, even to the point that western synods at times boldly opposed the ‘Popes’, or otherwise ignored them. Such a thing would be unthinkable today.

This situation did eventually change in the west, most especially after the Gregorian reformation (11th century), but the fact that it did not enjoy a supreme jurisdiction should be easy to see. Any attempt to place Popes above or in control of eastern churches is telescoping history, reading a modern Papacy that was not there back into the past.

I assume that you are familiar with the historical details for the break in 1054AD, and the reasons Cardinals Humbert and Frederic gave for breaking communion with the See of Constantinople, so I won’t post that here at this time.

If you want to discuss it though, I am open to it.

 

[prodromos]

It seems no one is willing to discuss it.