We too also call ourselves Catholic. We regard the application of the word “Catholic” to Old Rome exclusively as unfortunate and inaccurate.
Indeed, similar as I remember scoffing & qualifying the title claimed by my Orthodox family and found myself only using lower case on the O or otherwise qualifying it since I maintain it was Easterners, particularly the horrible legacy of Photius intruding on the rightful See of Ignatius that seen as the root of the whole quarrel. I’ve decided to look instead to shared heritage at every chance & concede shared heritage of universality as much as I wish our orthodoxy would be respected.
While I understand contention over celibacy & Filioque, even if I think it was and is overstated and more of a language issue, I still find some of the arguments from the Photius-Cerularius anti-Roman faction a bit… silly especially casting anathema on the Latins because they fasted three days later in Holy Week or used azyme bread in the Eucharist.
And what exactly is our High Horse? I will completely concede that the Polemics on the Orthodox Side have been oftentimes just as heated, and just as uncharitable. We are all sinners, this is not new. All we are wanting is a return to the way things were before. The Creed unaltered and the acknowledgement of the dignity and EQUALITY of the various Patriarchates and Episcopal thrones is a start, as that is how it was from early on. We are not the ones who attempted to assert Jurisdiction over Rome. It was the other way around.
What is the counter to the historically Latin view doubting the Apostolic origin or tradition of Constantinople, or Byzantion’s status as historically suffragan of Heraclea? Clearly as the capital of the Eastern Empire, it had a certain status but it’s also clear that the Patriarchates were not based on the de facto strength of the chief cities of the Empire (which has long since been extinguished as the east has since been just as conquered and claimed by the Turk, Arab, and Persian as much as the Greeks then scorned the west divided up by Germanic, Frank, and Goth) as much as Apostolic foundation and Succession.
This isn’t about some invisible tally of slights. This is about an Apostolic See that went astray…this is about reconciliation. We admit our sins, Metropolitan Kallistos documents them fairly well in his book the Orthodox Church…perhaps we bear some responsibility in the Latin Church’s slip into schism…Rome was ignored and treated as a cultural backwater, and in turn it went into the arms of the Frankish Kings and all sorts of shenanigans resulted. We will freely talk about all of this. What Rome has to do in return, is acknowledge the novelty of which Universal Jurisdiction stands (among other teachings) and how far from Orthodoxy they have strayed in the last 1000 years. I would say that part of that is our fault. It doesn’t justify schism, but it certainly lessens the bitterness.
I agree with that and find perspective from the ages & history that shaped the world since helps. The quarrel over the Donation of Constantine are ironic and don’t see Divine sanction in giving Pagan Rome an undisputed right to territory or people any more legal or valid than the de facto authority implicit in Pepin’s Donation.
Similarly, I feel shame over the patently overt blackmail perpetrated on the Eastern Bishops, much less the abominable diversion of the Fourth Crusade. I can only feel it was retribution from God to fail to save the City from the Turk or let Hagia Sophia get turned into a mosque, much less a museum. In my dreams the City survived unconquered and the Venetian fleet had the fortune of a few days of better wind and encourage Mehmet II to abandon his siege. And the likely inevitable sieges that would follow… enough that European advances in firearms are able to kick the Turk back across the Bosphorus and make the pseudo-“Byzantine-Vatican” reclaim some of it’s former glory through to at least the discovery of the New World (only another 40 years!). Perhaps the horrible will of Henry VIII and his heirs would have been better tested keeping the Turk out of the City or that our brothers in the east could have helped mitigate the circumstances that gave rise to Martin Luther.
I’m reminded of this quote from the old Catholic Encyclopedia that I always loved:
“One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore. Celibacy, azyme bread, and so on are Latin customs that no one thinks of forcing on them. They need not add the Filioque to the Creed; they will always keep their venerable rite untouched. Not a bishop need be moved, hardly a feast (except that of Photius on 6 Feb.) altered. All that is asked of them is to come back to where their Fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom treated her. It is not Latins, it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers. There is no humiliation in retracing one’s steps when one has wandered down a mistaken road because of long-forgotten personal quarrels.”
I think we could meet them by suppress all titular Latin Rite sees where this is no actual congregation. Accept “First amongst equals” and concede shared custodianship of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven when in a full Ecumenical Council, much as I imagine St Peter himself would have cooperated with all of the other Apostles in One Communion instead of just lording it over them, though I would equally expect the other Apostles to generally defer to him and seek to persuade rather than deride, demand, much less slander or anathematize him, etc
