Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Peter_J]

Yikes. I’ve only been gone since Saturday … is this thread taking growth hormones?

Originally Posted by Peter J
Interesting, I didn’t realize it was like that over there.

Well, I can’t really blame you. Like I said, I don’t use the “Ignore” feature myself (I used to).

Incidentally, I can’t help noticing that some of my fellow ECs seem more annoyed with you than I am (just slightly, of course ). I can’t help wondering if I would feel the same as them if I had read every one of your posts.

 

[malphono]

Yikes. I’ve only been gone since Saturday … is this thread taking growth hormones?

I think it’s something more like anabolic steroids.

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you, Fr. John.

This is exactly what I have been saying.

You and Father are agreeing? I’m scared, and it’s not even Halloween yet.

 

[Peter_J]

“Thou art Peter and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church.”
-Matthew 16:18

Renounce your schismatic ways!!!

 

[Peter_J]

Uh oh…he put it in a weird font…and underlined a few things…I can feel my commitment to traditional ecclesiology weakening…!

I just realized, we can keep our old health insurance if we’re happy with it!

:happy face:

 

[Nine_Two]

Jerusalem added at the time of Constantinople?

My mistake. Constantinople was recognized before Jerusalem.

Constantinople in 381, Jerusalem in 451.

 

[Nine_Two]

When Chrysostom was exiled he appealed to the pope for help, but his request was made too late for the pope to be able do anything to save him before John died…
newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm

I can’t find the part where it says Chrysostom appealed to the pope (although I only did a search for the word “pope”), but what I did find was a reaction by the Bishop of Rome (I don’t believe the title “pope” had yet come in to use - semantic, I know.) that matches what any Patriarch would do in the modern Orthodox Church under the circumstances.

He did not depose any bishops, rather he stuck them from his dyptychs (Does Rome even maintain these anymore?) until the saint had passed, and he re-established communion.

 

[steve_b]

My mistake. Constantinople was recognized before Jerusalem.

Constantinople in 381, Jerusalem in 451.

I’m still not understanding.

 

[steve_b]

I can’t find the part where it says Chrysostom appealed to the pope (although I only did a search for the word “pope”), but what I did find was a reaction by the Bishop of Rome (I don’t believe the title “pope” had yet come in to use - semantic, I know.) that matches what any Patriarch would do in the modern Orthodox Church under the circumstances.

He did not depose any bishops, rather he stuck them from his dyptychs (Does Rome even maintain these anymore?) until the saint had passed, and he re-established communion.

Let’s turn the question around. Is Constantinople at peace ecclesiastically with Rome at this time? No. Otherwise why would Chrysostom be involved with this? “The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome”

So

• there is already in 396, conflict between Constantinople and Rome.
• and the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were also involved with Constantinople in the exile of Chrysostom

So who contacted the pope in Rome? It wasn’t any of the sees mentioned. Who is the only one who can benefit from the pope’s involvement? Chrysostom…right?

When Pope Innocent found out about Chrysostom, he and emperor Honorius, exerted influence dioplomatically on Chrysostom’s behaIf.

“When the circumstances of his deposition were known in the West, the pope and the Italian bishops declared themselves in his favour. Emperor Honorius and Pope Innocent I endeavoured to summon a new synod, but their legates were imprisoned and then sent home. The pope broke off all communion with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch (where an enemy of Chrysostom had succeeded Flavian), and Constantinople, until (after the death of Chrysostom) they consented to admit his name into the diptychs of the Church. Finally all hopes for the exiled bishop had vanished. Apparently he was living too long for his adversaries. In the summer, 407, the order was given to carry him to Pithyus, a place at the extreme boundary of the empire, near the Caucasus. One of the two soldiers who had to lead him caused him all possible sufferings. He was forced to make long marches, was exposed to the rays of the sun, to the rains and the cold of the nights. His body, already weakened by several severe illnesses, finally broke down. On 14 September the party were at Comanan in Pontus. In the morning Chrysostom had asked to rest there on the account of his state of health. In vain; he was forced to continue his march. Very soon he felt so weak that they had to return to Comana. Some hours later Chrysostom died.”

newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm

One could argue I suppose, given the history we know that ultimately took place, this story shows the seeds of schism are already being sewed

 

[Zekariya]

My mistake. Constantinople was recognized before Jerusalem.

Constantinople in 381, Jerusalem in 451.

Jerusalem (called Aelia at that time) was raised to its place by the 1st Ecumenical Council.

“Canon 7. Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan.”
Source: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm

 

[Cavaradossi]

Jerusalem (called Aelia at that time) was raised to its place by the 1st Ecumenical Council.

“Canon 7. Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan.”
Source: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm

Untrue, for this canon specifically dictates that the bishop of Aelia was not to be afforded the rights of a metropolitan. Only later did Jerusalem gain Patriarchal dignity and its ranking as the fifth see.

 

[Zekariya]

Untrue, for this canon specifically dictates that the bishop of Aelia was not to be afforded the rights of a metropolitan. Only later did Jerusalem gain Patriarchal dignity and its ranking as the fifth see.

I stand corrected.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m still not understanding.

You made a statement that Jerusalem came before Constantinople. I was merely informing you that Jerusalem was also added later.

 

[Nine_Two]

So who contacted the pope in Rome? It wasn’t any of the sees mentioned. Who is the only one who can benefit from the pope’s involvement? Chrysostom…right?

Rome would have been informed as a matter of course, just like all the other sees. The fact that he was informed doesn’t mean St. John was appealing to the Pope to intercede on his behalf. You are reading quite a lot into this.

When Pope Innocent found out about Chrysostom, he and emperor Honorius, exerted influence dioplomatically on Chrysostom’s behaIf.

Honorius did, the Bishop of Rome exerted ecclesiastical influence. At the same time he didn’t take an active role. He took the role the modern Orthodox Church says he would - and should - be able to in such a situation.

One could argue I suppose, given the history we know that ultimately took place, this story shows the seeds of schism are already being sewed

No, if you know history you know that this sort of thing wasn’t particularly unique. Although the East and West were probably already starting to move away from each other, as the Western Empire crumbled, they were still united as one church and the issues of communication which would ultimately lead to the schism had not yet set in.

 

[steve_b]

Rome would have been informed as a matter of course, just like all the other sees. The fact that he was informed doesn’t mean St. John was appealing to the Pope to intercede on his behalf. You are reading quite a lot into this.

All you had to do is ask me for evidence for what I wrote. When I wrote previously “The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome”

Flavian being of Antioch, Chrysostoms previous home, but now Chrysostom is the new Bp of Constantinople, you know there has to be correspondence between Bp John and pope Innocent, …right?

Letters: in sequence

Bp Chrysostom to Pope Innocent…and Pope Innocent back to Bp Chrysostom etc etc. I draw your attention to the first letter 1st section. Chrysostom did inform Innocent and petitioned him. But don’t stop reading there
newadvent.org/fathers/1918.htm
n:

No, if you know history you know that this sort of thing wasn’t particularly unique. Although the East and West were probably already starting to move away from each other, as the Western Empire crumbled, they were still united as one church and the issues of communication which would ultimately lead to the schism had not yet set in.

Given all the hereises in the East, the seeds of schism were there…that’s all I’m saying. And because we have the advantage of looking at this story in reverse, we know how this story played out.

 

[steve_b]

You made a statement that Jerusalem came before Constantinople. I was merely informing you that Jerusalem was also added later.

So you’re speaking of the Patriarchal system and the pentarchy as used in the East?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Untrue, for this canon specifically dictates that the bishop of Aelia was not to be afforded the rights of a metropolitan. Only later did Jerusalem gain Patriarchal dignity and its ranking as the fifth see.

It was the Council of Chalcedon that raised the rank of Jerusalem to the patriarchal rank in 451.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[LionHeart777]

Thank you for the reference. I was hoping he might have included enough information to find out a little more context.

You’re welcome.

As far as context for that citation, no. This is found at the end of the book in the section “Summary and Conclusions”. It appears Scott is paralleling it to a passage of St. Maximus the Confessor precisely in order to rebut that these are not just mere honorific titles bestowed on the Pope by Easterners by showing that in the citation by St. Maximus (he references in a footnote St. Theodore the Studite to the Emperor which he gave earlier in the book) and the one Wandile gave by Pat. John of Jerusalem, they are not speaking to a Pope but about him to someone else.

Before the citations of St. Maximus and Pat. John he writes:

“The objection that Westerns must not take every honorific title given to the Roman bishop in these appeals Scott was just discussing appeals to the Pope, even that of St. John Chrysostom which is being discussed now] as evidence of the Eastern belief in his supremacy might be urged with more force if those appeals stood alone. But they are supported, as I have shown, by testimony from [C]ouncils. And this is further noted: the same appellations, the same titles, the same prerogatives are attributed to the [P]ope in writings not addressed to him, 20 here is the footnote to St. Theodore I spoke of above] and which in all probability he never saw. Take the following for example…” (Scott, pg. 358) (my notes in blue)

Then he goes on to cite St. Maximus and Pat. John.

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pgs. 358-359.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Interesting Catholic-Orthodox timeline here:

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.php

 

[frjohnmorris]

You’re welcome.

As far as context for that citation, no. This is found at the end of the book in the section “Summary and Conclusions”. It appears Scott is paralleling it to a passage of St. Maximus the Confessor precisely in order to rebut that these are not just mere honorific titles bestowed on the Pope by Easterners by showing that in the citation by St. Maximus (he references in a footnote St. Theodore the Studite to the Emperor which he gave earlier in the book) and the one Wandile gave by Pat. John of Jerusalem, they are not speaking to a Pope but about him to someone else.

Before the citations of St. Maximus and Pat. John he writes:

“The objection that Westerns must not take every honorific title given to the Roman bishop in these appeals Scott was just discussing appeals to the Pope, even that of St. John Chrysostom which is being discussed now] as evidence of the Eastern belief in his supremacy might be urged with more force if those appeals stood alone. But they are supported, as I have shown, by testimony from [C]ouncils. And this is further noted: the same appellations, the same titles, the same prerogatives are attributed to the [P]ope in writings not addressed to him, 20 here is the footnote to St. Theodore I spoke of above] and which in all probability he never saw. Take the following for example…” (Scott, pg. 358) (my notes in blue)

Then he goes on to cite St. Maximus and Pat. John.

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pgs. 358-359.

That some Easterners appealed to Rome for support is simply a recognition of the influence of Rome as holding a primacy of honor. It is not support for the claims of universal papal jurisdiction. The East has never denied the rank of Rome as the senior Bishop of the Church. However, that does not mean that the East recognized the right of Rome to interfere in the internal affairs of the Eastern Patriarchs or to assume the prerogatives that belong only to an Ecumenical Council. In every case before the schism doctrinal decisions binding on the whole Church were only made by Ecumenical Councils, not the Bishop of Rome. The Ecumenical Councils also exercised authority over the Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris