Are Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox the same?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dje101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PeterJohn said:
Just an idea but…

Could the bishop of Rome, obviously with authority to some degree, be in a position now to have incured a peerless type of authority because the 4 other important bishops whom would have been the closest to his peers from Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople are not all unified with Rome? This might be a dumb question. I am not challenging anything here. I am not schooled under this idea. I am simply searching.
Click to expand...
There’s no one official answer to that question, hence you’re likely to get different answers from different people.

For myself I like the answer that the Orthodox give to their version of the same problem. Namely, from their p.o.v. there’s no Bishop of Rome to be the first-ranking bishop; but they don’t conclude that there is no first-ranking bishop – rather, the Patriarch of Constantinople (who was traditionally the second-ranking bishop) is regarded by them as the first-ranking bishop ever since the Popes ceased to be it.
 
Filii_Dei said:
I don’t quite understand. Do you mind rephrasing the question? What is a “peerless type of authority”? Do you mean that his authority is unmatched by any peer, because he is separated from said peers? :confused:
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
PeterJohn said:
Just an idea but…

Could the bishop of Rome, obviously with authority to some degree, be in a position now to have incured a peerless type of authority because the 4 other important bishops whom would have been the closest to his peers from Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople are not all unified with Rome? This might be a dumb question. I am not challenging anything here. I am not schooled under this idea. I am simply searching.
Click to expand...
Well, the Bishop of Rome today is peerless because he tried to exert such authority over the other primal sees.
 
PeterJohn said:
Could you cite the exact event that took place. Im interested and would like to look into it.
Click to expand...
The Great Schism of 1054. You can trace the history back from there. Basically Rome is asserting more power while Constantinople says no to it. Of course from the Catholic side they say that such authority has always been there and Constantinople is merely trying to make the Pope less than what he is. From the Orthodox side, they maintain that such authority never existed in the Church in the First Millennium and thus to make a claim is “unorthodox” or heterodox.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The Great Schism of 1054. You can trace the history back from there. Basically Rome is asserting more power while Constantinople says no to it.
Click to expand...
1054? What Pope was asserting what power of Constaninople in 1054? Do you remember why the legates were sent?
 
dvdjs said:
1054? What Pope was asserting what power of Constaninople in 1054? Do you remember why the legates were sent?
Click to expand...
Er, the Pope wasn’t asserting the power of Constantinople, he is asserting his (Rome’s) power. I don’t read anything in my post that says otherwise.
 
Technically it was Humbert who was asserting the power of the Papacy, although the papacy backed him when he returned.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Er, the Pope wasn’t asserting the power of Constantinople, he is asserting his (Rome’s) power. I don’t read anything in my post that says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Fine. What power was being asserted by what Pope over Constantinople in 1054?
 
dvdjs said:
Now do some deep drilling.
Click to expand...
This response is unhelpful to me, as unknowing as I am (I am a layman not qualified for “deep drilling” of theology).

Politically, the unfortunate event in 1054 had the deceased Patriarch of the West excommunicating the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople through a legate, and said Patriarch of Constantinople also excommunicating said deceased Patriarch of the West. As I understand it, this event was taken as it was (absurd) by the faithful of East and West both, and communion and communication both continued in years to come. Afterward, both Rome and New Rome developed superiority complexes, but eventually “Old Rome”'s complex was great enough to finally rupture communion with every other Patriarchate in the Church. Or “New Rome”'s complex grew strong enough to only rupture communion with “Old Rome,” and maintain perfect communion with every other Patriarchate in the Church. Depending on perspective.
 
dvdjs said:
Now do some deep drilling.
Click to expand...
What deep drilling? The fact that every Eastern Catholic Church is calling for the Pope of Rome to return to Papal Primacy as it was in the First Millennium? Its telling when the people you are in communion with are telling you that the power you exercise is not representative of what it was in the beginning.
 
Carefree_T said:
This response is unhelpful to me, as unknowing as I am (I am a layman not qualified for “deep drilling” of theology).

Politically, the unfortunate event in 1054 had the deceased Patriarch of the West excommunicating the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople through a legate, and said Patriarch of Constantinople also excommunicating said deceased Patriarch of the West. As I understand it, this event was taken as it was (absurd) by the faithful of East and West both, and communion and communication both continued in years to come. Afterward, both Rome and New Rome developed superiority complexes, but eventually “Old Rome”'s complex was great enough to finally rupture communion with every other Patriarchate in the Church. Or “New Rome”'s complex grew strong enough to only rupture communion with “Old Rome,” and maintain perfect communion with every other Patriarchate in the Church. Depending on perspective.
Click to expand...
Not quite. It was the end of official Communion, though as you say Communion would continue for quite some time. While it may be absurd on the technicality that the Pope who granted Humbert authority was dead, that isn’t something that has been seen in that light until recently.

1054 is an arbitrary date to pick, and in fact only marks the break between Constantinople and Rome, but the other Patriarchies, over the next several decades sided with Constantinople, gradually removing Rome from the Diptychs - a move that effectively declared the Bishop of Rome to be outside the faith. Communion of the faithful would continue until 1204. By 1453, a vocal segment of the Orthodox people openly expressed the belief that subjugation under the Muslims was better than subjugation to Rome.
 
Nine_Two said:
Not quite. It was the end of official Communion, though as you say Communion would continue for quite some time. While it may be absurd on the technicality that the Pope who granted Humbert authority was dead, that isn’t something that has been seen in that light until recently.

1054 is an arbitrary date to pick, and in fact only marks the break between Constantinople and Rome, but the other Patriarchies, over the next several decades sided with Constantinople, gradually removing Rome from the Diptychs - a move that effectively declared the Bishop of Rome to be outside the faith. Communion of the faithful would continue until 1204. By 1453, a vocal segment of the Orthodox people openly expressed the belief that subjugation under the Muslims was better than subjugation to Rome.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification and the history. I do know, and it is very historically interesting, that the Orthodox faithful preferred that Muslims subjugate them politically than the Roman Church rule over their faith theologically. Be it right or wrong in the very end, I am not to say, but it is interesting being the history of my faith.
 
ConstantineTG said:
What deep drilling? The fact that every Eastern Catholic Church is calling for the Pope of Rome to return to Papal Primacy as it was in the First Millennium? Its telling when the people you are in communion with are telling you that the power you exercise is not representative of what it was in the beginning.
Click to expand...
St. Maximos the Confessor (580 - 662 A.D.):
“The Apostolic See (Rome)…from the very Incarnate Word of God and from all the holy synods of all the churches throughout the world in their sacred canons and definitions has received and possesses, in and for everything, dominion, authority and power to bind and loose. With it, the Word, set at the head of heavenly powers, binds and looses in heaven.”
 
Carefree_T said:
This response is unhelpful to me, as unknowing as I am (I am a layman not qualified for “deep drilling” of theology).

Politically, the unfortunate event in 1054 had the deceased Patriarch of the West excommunicating the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople through a legate, and said **Patriarch of Constantinople also excommunicating said deceased Patriarch of the West. **As I understand it, this event was taken as it was (absurd) by the faithful of East and West both, and communion and communication both continued in years to come. Afterward, both Rome and New Rome developed superiority complexes, but eventually “Old Rome”'s complex was great enough to finally rupture communion with every other Patriarchate in the Church. Or “New Rome”'s complex grew strong enough to only rupture communion with “Old Rome,” and maintain perfect communion with every other Patriarchate in the Church. Depending on perspective.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated Cardinal Humbert who later became Pope of Rome.
 
The Ukrainians refer to the Pope as there Universal Pontiff in the Divine Liturgy, and from everything I’ve heard-read (yes I know we’re still awaiting the English translation) the new UGCC catechism upholds Papal Infallibility and also references several Latin documents.
 
Seamus_L said:
The Ukrainians refer to the Pope as there Universal Pontiff in the Divine Liturgy, and from everything I’ve heard-read (yes I know we’re still awaiting the English translation) the new UGCC catechism upholds Papal Infallibility and also references several Latin documents.
Click to expand...
What do you expect? We’re the UGCC, not the SSPX.
 
“In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.” - former Cardinal Ratzinger

Even the current Pope thinks so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top