Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Peter_J]

In the ancient undivided Church the Bishop of Rome only had a primacy of honor. He did not have universal jurisdiction. **Like every other Bishop, he was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. **

Yes and no, I don’t believe it’s quite that simple.

If the 34th Apostolic Canon,
“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent but neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity…”

applies at the universal level as well, then the Pope (as the one “who is first among them”) has a say in the decisions of an ecumenical council.

The II Council of Constantinople demanded that Pope Vigilius accept its decrees. He hesitated, but finally under threat of excommunication signed the decree.

Alright, but of course the fact that he gave in doesn’t prove that he had to give in. (If it did, then we could say “So-and-so gave in to Pope So-and-so, so So-and-so had to give in to Pope So-and-so.”)

 

[frjohnmorris]

Yes and no, I don’t believe it’s quite that simple.

If the 34th Apostolic Canon,
“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing ofneither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity consequence without his consent but …”

applies at the universal level as well, then the Pope (as the one “who is first among them”) has a say in the decisions of an ecumenical council.

Alright, but of course the fact that he gave in doesn’t prove that he had to give in. (If it did, then we could say “So-and-so gave in to Pope So-and-so, so So-and-so had to give in to Pope So-and-so.”)

You are completely misinterpreting the canon. This canon establishes local self rule under the local Metropolitan. Had the canon had the intent of giving the Pope the authority of Metropolitan over the Metropolitians, it would have stated this. Even if we apply the canon internationally and recognize the Pope as having the authority given the Metropolitan by the canon, you should notice that the canon does not give the Metropolitan on the local level or the Pope on the international level the kind of authority now claimed by the Popes, because the phrase limits the authority of the Bishop of Rome “neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity” means that the Metropolitan must submit to the decisions of the local Synod just as a modern Orthodox Patriarch must submit to the decisions of the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate.
You also forget Canon VI of the Nicaea 1 in 325 which designates the areas under the jurisdiction of the 3 Metropolitinates in existence at that time, does not give the Pope universal authority, but limits his jurisdiction only to those already under Roman authority. The canon also affirms the jurisdiction of Alexandria and Antioch to the areas already under them. This canon shows the beginning of the Pentarchy which was completed by the addition of Constantinople and Jerusalem. Like the auocephalous Churches of modern Orthodoxy, each Patriarchate governed its own affairs. The position of the Pope of Rome was only a primacy of honor, not of jurisdiction. I could spend hours citing canons that totally disprove the claims of the modern papacy to universal jurisdiction. The canons show that Bishops were elected locally and formed a council that governed the Metropolinate under the leadership of the Metropolitan. There are no canons giving the Bishop of Rome authority over the other Patriarchs. A primacy of honor is not a primacy of jurisdiction.
The actions of the 5th Ecumenical Council show that the Ecumenical Council considered the Pope under its authority, as did all the Ecumenical Councils. Even in the West there was a major controversy when the Popes claimed beyond the authority to an ecumenical council called the Concilliar Movement during the 15th century.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

You are completely misinterpreting the canon. This canon establishes local self rule under the local Metropolitan. Had the canon had the intent of giving the Pope the authority of Metropolitan over the Metropolitians, it would have stated this.

Yes, I realize there are differing opinions about whether Canon 34 applies at the universal level as well. I’m a bit rusty on that, but possibly someone else will take up that debate.

 

[Peter_J]

Even if we apply the canon internationally and recognize the Pope as having the authority given the Metropolitan by the canon, you should notice that the canon does not give the Metropolitan on the local level or the Pope on the international level the kind of authority now claimed by the Popes,

That’s fine, seeing as I never claimed that it did.

because the phrase limits the authority of the Bishop of Rome “neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity” means that the Metropolitan must submit to the decisions of the local Synod just as a modern Orthodox Patriarch must submit to the decisions of the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate.

IMO that reading seeing a little myopic. The first part of Canon 34 is important too.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Yes, I realize there are differing opinions about whether Canon 34 applies at the universal level as well. I’m a bit rusty on that, but possibly someone else will take up that debate.

I suggest that Canon IX of the Council of Antioch in Encaeniis in 341 is relevant to this discussion. This canon specifically states that each local Bishop is under the authority of the Bishop of the Metropolis of the province. The canon does not mention any authority higher than the local Metropolitan such as the Bishop of Rome.
It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.
I honestly believe that the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils provide for local self government of the Church with the highest authority being an Ecumenical Council, and provide for no special rights held by Rome over the other Patriarchs. The only special authority recognized by the Councils is found in Canon V of the Council of Sardica, which allows for a bishop to appeal to Rome in case he believes that he has wrongly been accused of an offense by the other bishops of the region. However, the canon does not give the Pope the authority to adjudicate the matter, Instead, the canon provides that the Pope may appoint other “nearest the province” to hear the appeal and make a decision on the case. If the accused contests the decision of the Bishops appointed by the Pope, he may then ask the Pope to appoint a special legate to hear the case and made a decision. Basically, the Ecumencial Patriarch enjoys the same rights in the Orthodox Church today as the “first among equals.”
The Greek concept of seniority or presbia, has nothing to do with authority. For example, I have presbia over most other clergy in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, because I am an Archpriest of longer service than most clergy, but outside of my own parish, I have no authority. If we all line up according to rank as we do when we concelebrate with the Bishop at a convention, I am closer to the Bishop than a newly ordained priest and would have seniority over him on neutral ground. However, if I visit his parish, I would concelbrate with him as junior priest, because a priest has seniority in his own parish. Thus the Eastern Church recognition of the Pope has having presbia as senior Bishop of the Church before the schism, never meant that the Eastern Church recognized the Pope as having any special authority over the Eastern Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

…

Unless I completely missed it, one thing I see absent here is any mention of Patriarchates and the authority of the Patriarchal Synod. It bears on the discussion because of OO ecclesiology.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Unless I completely missed it, one thing I see absent here is any mention of Patriarchates and the authority of the Patriarchal Synod. It bears on the discussion because of OO ecclesiology.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church no primate has absolute authority. He presides over the council of leading Bishops of the autocephalous Church that he leads, which we call the Holy Synod. The Holy Synod has the real authority and the primate must abide by the decisions of the Holy Synod. I use the term primate, because every autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church is not a patriarchate. For example, the Churches of Greece and Cyprus are both autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches, but their primates are called Archbishops. The Orthodox Church in America (OCA) which has been granted autocephaly by Moscow is led by Metropolitan. It should be noted that the autocephaly of the OCA has not been universally recognized. For example the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch is in full Communion with the OCA but does not recognize its autocephalous status.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

In the Eastern Orthodox Church no primate has absolute authority. He presides over the council of leading Bishops of the autocephalous Church that he leads, which we call the Holy Synod. The Holy Synod has the real authority and the primate must abide by the decisions of the Holy Synod. I use the term primate, because every autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church is not a patriarchate. For example, the Churches of Greece and Cyprus are both autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches, but their primates are called Archbishops. The Orthodox Church in America (OCA) which has been granted autocephaly by Moscow is led by Metropolitan. It should be noted that the autocephaly of the OCA has not been universally recognized. For example the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch is in full Communion with the OCA but does not recognize its autocephalous status.

Yes, I know the organizational structure. Since I’m an Oriental, I think it’s a little strange, but I do know it. Nonetheless, it still doesn’t answer the question I raised earlier.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Yes, I know the organizational structure. Since I’m an Oriental, I think it’s a little strange, but I do know it. Nonetheless, it still doesn’t answer the question I raised earlier.

What was the question that I did not answer? How do you consider our organization strange? I would be interested in knowing. I assumed that you meant by Patriarchal Synod the same thing that you mean by the Holy Synod of an autocephalous Church. If you mean a Synod of all the primates of Orthodoxy. It would have authority, but not absolute authority since any decision would be subject to the approval of the Holy Synods of the autocephalous Churches. According to Orthodox practice, even an Ecumenical Council is not Ecumenical until it is received and approved by the clergy and faithful of the Church and recognized as expressing the Orthodox Faith.

Archpreist John W. Morris

Fr. John

 

[malphono]

What was the question that I did not answer? How do you consider our organization strange? I would be interested in knowing.

I really don’t have the wherewithal for a major discussion, but I will briefly say that it’s simply that I find the OO eccesiological model to be more logical.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I really don’t have the wherewithal for a major discussion, but I will briefly say that it’s simply that I find the OO eccesiological model to be more logical.

What is the OO ecclesiological model?

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Aramis]

Have you heard of the mass murder and cruelty at the Jasenovac concentration camp, where
Roman Catholic Ustase brutally tortured and murdered Orthodox Serbs?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp#Mass_murder_and_cruelty

That’s actually laity on laity, and basically irrelevant. In the Ukraine, it went the other direction. The Orthodox persecutions of the Catholics were brutal. And later, backed by the Soviet secret police. Again, laity on laity, without the endorsement of the hierarchy.

It’s like claiming the US is a nation endorsing serial killers because a we have a significant number of them who have no sanction from the nation itself.

Now, the crusades were endorsed… and thus relevant, especially since the popes underreacted to the sacking of Constantinople by crusaders.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Actually they were Sassanid Persians, not Parthians. The Parthians were ousted by the Persians. The Persians were mainly Zoroastrian, not Nestorian or any other type of Christian. There was a tolerated minority of Syriac Christians in the Persian Empire, but the wars between the East Roman and Persian empires can not be considered wars between two Christian empires.

Or the wars between Orthodox Byzantines & Nestorian Parthians.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Actually they were Sassanid Persians, not Parthians. The Parthians were ousted by the Persians. The Persians were mainly Zoroastrian, not Nestorian or any other type of Christian. There was a tolerated minority of Syriac Christians in the Persian Empire, but the wars between the East Roman and Persian empires can not be considered wars between two Christian empires.

That was not my point. I did not mean to imply that the wars between the East Roman Empire and the Persian Empire were between two Christian states. What I meant that as a minority living under the Persians, the Church of the East or Assyrian Church was in a position that it had to show that it was not allied with the Byzantines by asserting its independence from Constantinople. I cannot help but believe that factor played a major role in the schism.
Today we do not have that problem. In fact the Catholicos of the Assyrian Church lives in or near Chicago. Therefore, I hope that ecumenical dialogue with between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church will soon begin.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

If all of these issues are so trivial, why did the Roman Catholic Church go out of its way to excommunicate Cerularius and start the schism?

Don’t conflate ALL of the issues with one broad brush. While I can understand the anathema towards those who would add to the Creed (though would dispute the appropriate context of filioque as a qualification given the specifics of the linguistics involved), do you yourself think that medieval Latins, much less modern Roman Catholics are, as Photius put it, “forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God” because we fast on Saturdays, don’t begin Lent until Ash Wednesday, or enforce a celibate presbyterate?

I would also be seriously wary of any in the clergy of any rite who willfully commit multiple violations of canon law, from the disobedience and insolence against his lawful Patriarch (Ignatius) to accepting ordination from an excommunicate, to slandering said lawful Patriarch, etc etc.

In Cerularius’ case, he was fostering the party created by Photius himself and certainly guilty of many an indefensible. I’m told that the Orthodox still pray for the dead, though, (despite the contention over purgatory) and bearing no animus of my own against Photius or Cerularius even if I see them as the principle authors of Schism to this day and pray that God forgives them the consequences, both intentional and not, that resulted; just as I pray for the clergy of my own Rite who… failed to live up to the highest ideals of our faith. I certainly fail all too often myself.

Have you noticed that some modern-day Latins seem to have more of an ax to grind against Pat. Photius than the Latins of his own day did?

Eh? What about the Bull of Excommunication??

And, of course, a (belated) welcome to the forum.

Thank you very much.

Now, the crusades were endorsed… and thus relevant, especially since the popes underreacted to the sacking of Constantinople by crusaders.

Excommunication isn’t enough?? It was definitely abominable but as a student who was always fascinated by the Crusades and fairly memorized Runciman and Riley-Smith, et al, I recall that the Comneni line was not deposed by Latins… the dichotomy of the Byzantine has always fascinated me with the extremes they themselves would fall into from admirable monasticism to savagery and rebelliousness. The vast majority of failed and aspirant Emperors and their kin who had their eyes put out by perfectly orthodox Christians, or the treatment towards the Bulgars or the various Heretics certainly meets anything the Crusaders did tit for tat.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Father John,

I was responding to this quote from another poster:

Originally Posted by jimkhong forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Or the wars between Orthodox Byzantines & Nestorian Parthians.

That was not my point. I did not mean to imply that the wars between the East Roman Empire and the Persian Empire were between two Christian states. What I meant that as a minority living under the Persians, the Church of the East or Assyrian Church was in a position that it had to show that it was not allied with the Byzantines by asserting its independence from Constantinople. I cannot help but believe that factor played a major role in the schism.
Today we do not have that problem. In fact the Catholicos of the Assyrian Church lives in or near Chicago. Therefore, I hope that ecumenical dialogue with between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church will soon begin.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

As long as we can agree it wasn’t simply a knee-jerk anti-Latinism as the post I was replying to seemed to indicate.

Once we’ve gotten that far perhaps we can try to discuss where the feelings came from?

I think that’s precisely my point, though. It WAS knee-jerk after the decision of Pope Nicholas in 862.

Hard to see how it could have ever been avoided without Ignatius submitting and voluntarily degrading himself as the Emperor and his man wished. Would that such scholarly brilliance and relentless ambition been better bent towards maintaining the unity of the Church and to persuade rather than anathematize…

 

[Tomdstone]

That’s actually laity on laity, and basically irrelevant. In the Ukraine, it went the other direction. The Orthodox persecutions of the Catholics were brutal. And later, backed by the Soviet secret police. Again, laity on laity, without the endorsement of the hierarchy.

It’s like claiming the US is a nation endorsing serial killers because a we have a significant number of them who have no sanction from the nation itself.

Now, the crusades were endorsed… and thus relevant, especially since the popes underreacted to the sacking of Constantinople by crusaders.

Not true. It was not laity on laity exclusively. For example, Miroslav Filipovic was a Roman Catholic military chaplain of the Franciscan Order and as commandant of the Jasenovac concentration camp, many Orthodox were brutally tortured and murdered under his command. He murdered Orthodox children in cold blood. True, he was expelled in 1943 from the Franciscan Order, but that was after much damage, including the murders and tortures of Serbian Orthodox men, women and children, had already been done in 1942 and earlier.
The Serbian Orthodox victims of this Roman Catholic Franciscan had to kneel in front of him (and other executioners) until they were touching their foreheads to the ground, and he would fire his revolvers at the backs of their heads. If death wasn’t instant, he or another executioner would grab a knife and slit the victim’s throat.
Review of International Affairs: Politics, Economics, Law, Science, Culture by Savez novinara Jugoslavije, Socijalistički savez radnog naroda Jugoslavije, Jugoslovenska stvarnost (Firm), Institut za međunarodnu politiku i privredu (Belgrade, Serbia); Federation of Yugoslav Journalists: 1950, pg. 22

 

[Wandile]

Not true. It was not laity on laity exclusively. For example, Miroslav Filipovic was a Roman Catholic military chaplain of the Franciscan Order and as commandant of the Jasenovac concentration camp, many Orthodox were brutally tortured and murdered under his command. He murdered Orthodox children in cold blood. True, he was expelled in 1943 from the Franciscan Order, but that was after much damage, including the murders and tortures of Serbian Orthodox men, women and children, had already been done in 1942 and earlier.
The Serbian Orthodox victims of this Roman Catholic Franciscan had to kneel in front of him (and other executioners) until they were touching their foreheads to the ground, and he would fire his revolvers at the backs of their heads. If death wasn’t instant, he or another executioner would grab a knife and slit the victim’s throat.
Review of International Affairs: Politics, Economics, Law, Science, Culture by Savez novinara Jugoslavije, Socijalistički savez radnog naroda Jugoslavije, Jugoslovenska stvarnost (Firm), Institut za međunarodnu politiku i privredu (Belgrade, Serbia); Federation of Yugoslav Journalists: 1950, pg. 22

Are you seriously putting this on the catholic church? Like the pope and the cardinals were smiling at what was happening. People do bad things. What about the orthodox slaughter of latins in Constantinople???

The perpetrators were made up of a Greek Eastern Christian mob

Massacre of the Latins (Italian: Massacro dei Latini; Greek: Σφαγή των Λατίνων) was a large-scale massacre of the Roman Catholic (called “Latin”) inhabitants of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, by the Eastern Orthodox population of the city in May 1182.

The Roman Catholics of Constantinople at that time dominated the city’s maritime trade and financial sector. ** precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time, was wiped out or forced to flee**. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and ** 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

We can all play the “YOU’RE SO EVIL BECAUSE YOU KILLED US” card.

 

[Tomdstone]

Are you seriously putting this on the catholic church? Like the pope and the cardinals were smiling at what was happening. People do bad things. What about the orthodox slaughter of latins in Constantinople???

The perpetrators were made up of a Greek Eastern Christian mob

We can all play the “YOU’RE SO EVIL BECAUSE YOU KILLED US” card.

I was responding to the statement that the situation in the Jasenovac concentration camp and other camps in Croatia was a case of Catholic laity against Orthodox laity. I gave an example to show that Catholic clergy were involved. Also, have you ever heard of Bishop Alois Hudal who was rector of the Pontificio Istituto Teutonico Santa Maria dell’Anima in Rome, who helped the Nazi war criminals escape, and of Father Krunoslav Draganović who from headquarters at the San Girolamo degli Illirici Seminary College in Rome, organized escape routes for the Ustase war criminals who had targeted Serbian Orthodox in Croatia? It was not simply a case of Catholic laity against Orthodox laity.