Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Randy_Carson]

[SIGN]Hi Randy

Thanks so much for tip comment… Mark has given me permission to edit as necessary… And I’ve done quite a bit of softening because sometimes it is a bit sharp…

I will check with Mark on the accuracy and also soften it…

Cheers

David
[/SIGN]

 

[dzheremi]

Speaking of flowery titles, isn’t one of Alexandria’s titles “Judge of the Universe”?
That should really put the value of titles into perspective.

It is in the COC, and (I think) also in the Greek Alexandrian church. I’m going to guess it isn’t in the Coptic Catholic Church.

 

[spina1953]

Dzherimi: I am not understanding what you are saying I have has several posts on my e-mail asking the same question. I do no anythng about Alexander’s titles being Judge of the Universe. or the COC.

 

[dzheremi]

One of the Coptic Orthodox Pope’s titles is “Judge of the Universe”. You can find it as far back HH St. Alexander I, the 19th Pope of Alexandria (313-328). It’s not something you’ll hear every day, but it is one of his titles.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It is in the COC, and (I think) also in the Greek Alexandrian church. I’m going to guess it isn’t in the Coptic Catholic Church.

The proper context of this statement is within a declaration of the official title of a ruling Bishop by the senior deacon at the Liturgy called a phimi which is chanted following the Trisagion at an hierarchical Divine Liturgy. The phimi always uses language that sounds exaggerated to our Western ears, because we are not used to such flowery and excessive language. I do not remember the exact words of the phimi of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, but know that it proclaims His Beatitude as “Thirteenth of the Holy Apostles.” No one actually thinks that means that the Patriarch of Antioch is claiming authority outside of his own Patriarchate by that exalted title.
Because the East routinely uses exaggerated and flattering language, I do not take seriously some of the letters cited during this discussion written by Easterners to the Pope. You have to understand the culture to understand that most of this excessively flattering language often found in such documents is pure hot air.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

The proper context of this statement is within a declaration of the official title of a ruling Bishop by the senior deacon at the Liturgy called a phimi which is chanted following the Trisagion at an hierarchical Divine Liturgy. The phimi always uses language that sounds exaggerated to our Western ears, because we are not used to such flowery and excessive language. I do not remember the exact words of the phimi of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, but know that it proclaims His Beatitude as “Thirteenth of the Holy Apostles.” No one actually thinks that means that the Patriarch of Antioch is claiming authority outside of his own Patriarchate by that exalted title.
Because the East routinely uses exaggerated and flattering language, I do not take seriously some of the letters cited during this discussion written by Easterners to the Pope. You have to understand the culture to understand that most of this excessively flattering language often found in such documents is pure hot air.

Archpriest John W. Morris

That’s an airtight defense you’ve built, Father.

First, you folks claim that no fathers understood the pope to have universal jurisdiction. Then, when anything even remotely approaching that understanding is found, you simply say that it’s flowery language which means nothing.

Impressive.

 

[dzheremi]

You’re missing Fr. John Morris’ point, Randy. It’s precisely because the use of such language doesn’t indicate the understanding that you think it does that it is not evidence of any kind of support for Rome’s universal jurisdiction claims (and besides, to throw your Pope into this is especially ridiculous, since we are talking about our respective Patriarchs of Alexandria when we use that term in the OO or EO churches, not about the Roman Pope).

 

[frjohnmorris]

That’s an airtight defense you’ve built, Father.

First, you folks claim that no fathers understood the pope to have universal jurisdiction. Then, when anything even remotely approaching that understanding is found, you simply say that it’s flowery language which means nothing.

Impressive.

I could say the same thing about some Roman Catholics,who see any sign of respect towards the ancient Popes or appeal to the Pope for support during a controversy as recognition of universal papal jurisdiction. I know that some of the ancient Popes, especially Nicholas I claimed universal jurisdiction, but he never actually exercised it. Even when he wanted to get rid of St. Photius, he had to appeal to a council. Show me a declaration or canon from one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, or some example of how the Pope exercised universal jurisdiction during the pre schism period. All that you can prove historically is what I have already admitted, the Bishop of Rome was the senior Bishop who held a primacy of honor, but did not exercise universal jurisdiction, did not have the authority to unilaterally declare doctrine and had to obey the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils like every other Bishop. No doubt as senior Bishop of the Church the opinion of the Popes carried great authority and prestige, but the decisions were not made by the Pope during all the doctrinal controversies of the age of the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils. The Ecumenical Councils had that authority. However, to be an Ecumenical Council, a council had to be recognized by all 5 Patriarchs not just the Patriarch of the West. That is why the Council of Ephesus of 449, was rejected as a Robber Council. Because Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria had acted wrongly in 449 he was deposed, but not by Rome by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. In other words, the ancient Popes had the same kind of primacy of honor as first among equals now recognized by Eastern Orthodoxy as belonging to the Ecumenical Patriarch. I assure you that no one in Eastern Orthodoxy recognizes His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as having universal jurisdiction or infallibility. The other Patriarchs are quite willing to challenge him if he does something with which they disagree.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s an airtight defense you’ve built, Father.

First, you folks claim that no fathers understood the pope to have universal jurisdiction. Then, when anything even remotely approaching that understanding is found, you simply say that it’s flowery language which means nothing.

Impressive.

Well, if we accept flowery language at face value then Alexandria is home to the judge of the universe, and Constantinople is home to the universal patriarch. According to titles that long predate the schism.

Which I guess means that we Orthodox either use a lot of flowery language, or we are heretics (because believing that a man is judge of the universe is undeniably heretical from a Catholic position - even the most ultramontane).

This has historically led to some interesting situations. At one point the Pope thought Alexandria had submitted to him, and the Lutherans believed that we were on their side during the Reformation.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John. bless,

I could say the same thing about some Roman Catholics,who see any sign of respect towards the ancient Popes or appeal to the Pope for support during a controversy as recognition of universal papal jurisdiction. I know that some of the ancient Popes, especially Nicholas I claimed universal jurisdiction, but he never actually exercised it. Even when he wanted to get rid of St. Photius, he had to appeal to a council.

This is a very good point. As a High Petrine advocate, I always point out to Absolutist Petrine advocates that the Pope always, until the High Middle Ages, worked with the collegial authority of a Synod. Even the much vaunted Unam Sanctam was promulgated with the collegial authority of a Synod of 80 bishops. The College of Cardinals gradually replaced the Synod in the Latin Catholic Church, and for much of that period, the Pope actually was under its thumb more often than not. In any case, the standard of collegiality was always present in the Latin Catholic Church even when the Pope of Rome no longer worked through a Synod (something that Absolutist Petrine advocates often fail to recognize).

However, I do think you might be misunderstanding something about the notion of “universal jurisdiction.” The universal jurisdiction of the Pope is not a unilateral power (contrary to the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates). Magisterial documents from V2 down to our Canon Laws give clear indications that the supreme authority of the Pope must ALWAYS be exercised in communion with his brother bishops. Furthermore, “universal jurisdiction” does not mean that the Pope has proper jurisdiction in every particular diocese around the world (I hope you read the thread I started entitled “The Petrine views,” which I started partly for your benefit )

The only real distinction is the distinction between the Catholic standard of collegiality, on the one hand, and the Orthodox standard of synodality, on the other. In both paradigms, the head bishop must always work with his brother bishops (and this by a divine necessity that the Pope has no authority to contradict - this was explicitly asserted by the authoritative Commission for the clarification of the meaning of collegiality in Lumen Gentium during V2). The only distinction is that the Catholic paradigm does not restrict the divine necessity of cooperation to a Synod.

I hope that helps.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Randy,

I can understand our Orthodox brethren’s point about the flowery language. But I just wanted to say that I find your point that the “flowery” language was used by certain fathers even when not addressing the Pope directly rather compelling (I read that somewhere, but I’m not sure if it was in this thread). ISTM we can expect flowery language when addressing the Pope directly as a show of respect. But to keep using it even when not addressing the Pope directly seems to me an indication of something more than respect.

In any case, I don’t think much of this “flowery language” is flowery language at all. The Coptic Pope is referred to as the Judge of the Universe, but one has got to have a few screws missing if one thinks that is meant literally. The language utilized when referring to the Pope is distinctly more down to earth, IMO, and can conceivably have a real-world application. When the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum, in their exhortations to Pope Vigilius to change his mind, called him their “father and head,” I don’t think that was flowery language at all.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

Well, if we accept flowery language at face value then Alexandria is home to the judge of the universe, and Constantinople is home to the universal patriarch. According to titles that long predate the schism.

Which I guess means that we Orthodox either use a lot of flowery language, or we are heretics (because believing that a man is judge of the universe is undeniably heretical from a Catholic position - even the most ultramontane).

This has historically led to some interesting situations. At one point the Pope thought Alexandria had submitted to him, and the Lutherans believed that we were on their side during the Reformation.

The Lutherans did not have that impression for long. In 1579 a group of Lutheran theologians from the University of Tubingen sent a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession to the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II for comment. He and his theologians wrote a detailed critique of Lutheran doctrine. They exchanged two other letters, but the Patriarch realized that doctrinal agreement with Lutherans was not possible, and ended the exchange.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

To frjohnmorris: you may say that what I wrote is false but if that is so than historains are wrong and have on purpose rewrittn Christan history.I find it rather hard to believe that all of them are incorrect. I do know that there many books out there on the subject of what I wrote that will that will conferm what I wrote. I also know that not every historan will always agree with each other. as to the Fourt Crusade in 1204 it was wrong of the Crusaders to sack Constaninoble and do what they did. however it was not the Pope who told them that they could plunder the city. the Fourth Crusade as I understand itwas to help the eastern Impire defeat the Muslims. it also seems to me that both te East and West has had it problems since the beginning in one way or the other with each other as well as with themselves. there seems to me to always be some argument over one or the other concerning Scripture. there were those who questioned Jesus, then the Apostles, then the Church Fathers, so on and so on it goes. it also seems to that most of the disagreements betwen the Orthodox and the Rome did not exist with the Apostles or those whom they converted. it was only as time went by and long after the death of the Apostles that questions were asked those who did not understand got confused because they did not understand what was being taught to them about Christ. also Catholic Answers was not the only place I found information. over the years I have read over a hundred books on the subject and most say the same thing. many were written by Orthodox historians, while others were written by historians of the West. in the end one will believe what on wants to believe and no amount of discussion will change it unless decides to. we all have a choice to choose what we wants to believe. I mean no disrespect to you or to the Orthodox religion. I do hope that one day we will be once again united in faith as one with Christ.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Lutherans did not have that impression for long. In 1579 a group of Lutheran theologians from the University of Tubingen sent a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession to the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II for comment. He and his theologians wrote a detailed critique of Lutheran doctrine. They exchanged two other letters, but the Patriarch realized that doctrinal agreement with Lutherans was not possible, and ended the exchange.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I believe they only got the detailed reply after they forced the issue in person.

 

[frjohnmorris]

To frjohnmorris: you may say that what I wrote is false but if that is so than historains are wrong and have on purpose rewrittn Christan history.I find it rather hard to believe that all of them are incorrect. I do know that there many books out there on the subject of what I wrote that will that will conferm what I wrote. I also know that not every historan will always agree with each other. as to the Fourt Crusade in 1204 it was wrong of the Crusaders to sack Constaninoble and do what they did. however it was not the Pope who told them that they could plunder the city. the Fourth Crusade as I understand itwas to help the eastern Impire defeat the Muslims. it also seems to me that both te East and West has had it problems since the beginning in one way or the other with each other as well as with themselves. there seems to me to always be some argument over one or the other concerning Scripture. there were those who questioned Jesus, then the Apostles, then the Church Fathers, so on and so on it goes. it also seems to that most of the disagreements betwen the Orthodox and the Rome did not exist with the Apostles or those whom they converted. it was only as time went by and long after the death of the Apostles that questions were asked those who did not understand got confused because they did not understand what was being taught to them about Christ. also Catholic Answers was not the only place I found information. over the years I have read over a hundred books on the subject and most say the same thing. many were written by Orthodox historians, while others were written by historians of the West. in the end one will believe what on wants to believe and no amount of discussion will change it unless decides to. we all have a choice to choose what we wants to believe. I mean no disrespect to you or to the Orthodox religion. I do hope that one day we will be once again united in faith as one with Christ.

I am not an amature when it comes to history. I have taught history on the university level at some well recognized colleges. I also have read a great deal on church history. I have a PhD in history and have taught church history on the college level. I was also once hired by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Shreveport to teach church history as part of their adult education program. I have written books on church history including a 600 page history of Christianity The Historic Church: An Orthodox view of Christian History.
Therefore, I am not writing from ignorance. Here is a short biography from the Amazon listing of my latest book;
Archpriest John W. Morris, is the religious title for Warren B. Morris, Jr. Fr. John received a MTS degree from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of theology, and has been an Antiochian Orthodox Priest for over thirty years. He is now Pastor of St. George’s Antiochian Orthodox Church in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Before entering seminary, he earned a Ph.D. in history at Oklahoma State University, and studied at Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, as a Fulbright Scholar. In addition to his pastoral duties, he has taught history courses at several colleges and universities including Indiana University Purdue University at Fort Wayne, Kent State at Stark County, Southwestern University, and Kirkwood Community College. He has taught courses in Christian history at Marshall University, Malone College, and for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Shreveport. He has written many articles and five other books dealing with German history and theological issues.

It is a fact that every survey on church history has a chapter on the rise of the papacy, because the papacy as it exists today is the product of a long and complex development. No professional historian would disagree with me on this. A Catholic historian will argue that the development was the will of God. I do not agree. I believe that one cannot read the canons and acts of the 7 Ecumenical Councils or the history of the first 1,000 years of Church history and agree with the Roman Catholic point of view because I believe that if the Pope were infallible it would not take until 1870 for the Church to declare it an essential dogma. I am quite certain that the Pope did not exercise universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Patriarchs.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[LionHeart777]

Dear brother Randy,

I can understand our Orthodox brethren’s point about the flowery language. But I just wanted to say that I find your point that** the “flowery” language was used by certain fathers even when not addressing the Pope directly rather compelling **(I read that somewhere, but I’m not sure if it was in this thread). ISTM we can expect flowery language when addressing the Pope directly as a show of respect. But to keep using it even when not addressing the Pope directly seems to me an indication of something more than respect.

In any case, I don’t think much of this “flowery language” is flowery language at all. The Coptic Pope is referred to as the Judge of the Universe, but one has got to have a few screws missing if one thinks that is meant literally. The language utilized when referring to the Pope is distinctly more down to earth, IMO, and can conceivably have a real-world application. When the Fathers of the Fifth Ecum, in their exhortations to Pope Vigilius to change his mind, called him their “father and head,” I don’t think that was flowery language at all.

Blessings,
Marduk

(emphasis mine)

I’m glad you brought that up, as for one reason it gives me a chance to correct where I may have failed to convey my point.

I wrote in an earlier post, speaking of the Anglican S. Herbert Scott’s citing of Pat. John of Jerusalem’s letter to the Catholicos of the Georgian Monks:

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.

What I meant to convey is that the point I highlighted in your post Mardukm, is the point Scott is making, at least approximately; my possible miscommunication of this above notwithstanding. I know I said I was out of this thread and I apologize for breaking my word and popping back in here and there, but I have been lurking still and have been refraining albeit not completely (I really wanted to comment on the 6th Canon of Nicaea and the 7th Ecumenical Council- Nicaea II, but will not)

Regards,

Nick

 

[Randy_Carson]

A Catholic historian will argue that the development was the will of God. I do not agree.

Clearly.

But let me ask: All things occur because God either wills them or allows them to happen, correct? So, which is it? Did God will for the papacy to develop? Or did God allow the papacy develop?

Why did He do that?

 

[Peter_J]

The history of Orthodox-Catholic relations is just a bit too complicated to be reduced to a simple timeline that would satisfy all involved,

But a timeline can be a useful tool.

but even then the timeline chosen is really ridiculous.

Agreed.

How does this one suit you?

orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Orthodox_Church_and_Roman_Catholic_relations

I don’t really have time to read it all, but maybe someone else does. Is there any particular part of it you’re wondering about?

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I’m not Orthodox, but I’m a very “pro-Eastern” Christian

Me too.

Edit: Well, you could say that I am Orthodox, if you’re big on the whole “Orthodox in communion with Rome” thing. (Personally, I don’t take a strong position on that phrase one way or the other.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

But a timeline can be a useful tool.

:extrahappy::clapping::dancing:
:yyeess::whackadoo: