Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[dzheremi]

Dzheremi, what does your name mean if I may ask, or what is the significance?

Sorry, I was running out the door as I was typing that last reply, so I missed this earlier. My name is just my given name (Jeremy) in transliterated Russian. When I joined this board I had several years of Russian language training under my belt (a lot of good it does me now…haha), so when I saw that my given name was taken, I went for the pseudo-Russian alternative since I knew it wouldn’t be in use already. It seems anachronistic and weird now, but hey…I did happen to meet a Russian Copt (as in, an ethnic Russian who had converted to Coptic Orthodoxy) on another board where I absentmindedly brought this moniker with me, so I guess it wasn’t totally useless. He thought he had found another Slavic convert. Oops. There are not too many Slavic OO around.

 

[frjohnmorris]

First the Emperor and then Photius sent letters to Rome and ASKED for Legates after they failed to coerce the rightful Patriarch, Ignatius, from resigning his See. Photius was raised through Holy Orders in six days, worse yet ordained by Gregory Asbestas who already been excommunicated for his insolence against his lawfully elected Patriarch, Ignatius. Photius letter at this point was quite respectful, if deceitful, and he doesn’t turn heel against Rome until his slander against Ignatius was rejected about 5 years later

Unfortunately the legates took bribes, were convicted, and degraded to lay status as a result.

During his exile, Ignatius also sent a letter to Rome in the hands of a friend. Nicholas THEN issued his opinion stating that Ignatius must be restored.

 

[LionHeart777]

Sorry, I was running out the door as I was typing that last reply, so I missed this earlier. My name is just my given name (Jeremy) in transliterated Russian. When I joined this board I had several years of Russian language training under my belt (a lot of good it does me now…haha), so when I saw that my given name was taken, I went for the pseudo-Russian alternative since I knew it wouldn’t be in use already. It seems anachronistic and weird now, but hey…I did happen to meet a Russian Copt (as in, an ethnic Russian who had converted to Coptic Orthodoxy) on another board where I absentmindedly brought this moniker with me, so I guess it wasn’t totally useless. He thought he had found another Slavic convert. Oops. There are not too many Slavic OO around.

No problem, thanks for taking the time:thumbsup: I can see it now My assumption was that it was something in Arabic but not so much…

 

[Nine_Two]

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…

Knee-jerk means a reflex action without thought.

I’m simply trying to establish that he had his reasons to distrust Latins, that we can agree that he wasn’t an unthinking monster. Once we establish that we can have an actual discussion on what those reasons were and how valid they may have been - mind you Latin polemics are making that much more difficult.

 

[frjohnmorris]

First the Emperor and then Photius sent letters to Rome and ASKED for Legates after they failed to coerce the rightful Patriarch, Ignatius, from resigning his See. Photius was raised through Holy Orders in six days, worse yet ordained by Gregory Asbestas who already been excommunicated for his insolence against his lawfully elected Patriarch, Ignatius. Photius letter at this point was quite respectful, if deceitful, and he doesn’t turn heel against Rome until his slander against Ignatius was rejected about 5 years later

Unfortunately the legates took bribes, were convicted, and degraded to lay status as a result.

During his exile, Ignatius also sent a letter to Rome in the hands of a friend. Nicholas THEN issued his opinion stating that Ignatius must be restored.

That is not exactly what happened. First of all it is still the custom that when a new Patriarch assumes office, he sends letters to the other Patriarchs announcing his assumption of the patriarchal throne. Thus it was natural that St. Photius should send a letter to Rome informing the Pope as Patriarch of the West of his elevation to the Patriarchate.
The Papal legates were asked to Constantinople by Emperor Michael III to attend a council affirming the decisions of the 7th Ecumenical Council. They were not asked to come to Constantinople to mediate the dispute between Ignatius and St. Photius. However, since they were there, both sides asked them as a neutral party to mediate the dispute. However, at the same time St. Photius made it clear that his decision to submit the case to the representatives of the Bishop of Rome was voluntarily and was not to be interpreted as a recognition of the right of Rome to intervene in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The papal legates declared the election of Ignatius illegal because the Empress Theodora had not gone through the usual nominating process that required that three names be submitted to the imperial authorities. However, Pope Nicholas I held his own council in Rome that declared Ignatius the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople something he had no canonical right to do.
However, in 867 Basil the Macedonian assumed the imperial throne and wanted to restore good relations with Rome. He then deposed St. Photius and recalled Ignatius to the patriarchal throne. Pope Hadrian II sent a delegation to Constantinople to participate in a council, the Council of Constantinople of 869, which declared against Photius because he had been advanced from the laity to the episcopate too quickly. Significantly, the canons of the council made no mention of the right of Rome to intervene in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In fact, when the Roman delegates asked the council to recognize the right of Rome to determine the doctrine of the Church, the delegates refused stating that doctrinal matters required the approval of all 5 Patriarchs. Thus even the anti-Photan council did not recognize Rome’s claims to possess universal jurisdiction or the authority to act alone to declare doctrine.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

I’m simply trying to establish that he had his reasons to distrust Latins, that we can agree that he wasn’t an unthinking monster. Once we establish that we can have an actual discussion on what those reasons were and how valid they may have been - mind you Latin polemics are making that much more difficult.

Oh definitely not at all an unthinking monster. A brilliant scholar and prolific writer and unfortunately most proud and unscrupulous. If his pride was less and ambitions more humble, he could have been one of the greatest men of his age, but I can’t help but feel sad he wasted his talents in petty insolence against his rightful Patriarch, to say nothing of the Rock of St Peters and was the chief author of Schism.

We’ll most likely never agree on his equivocation regarding Roman primacy or jurisdiction, but I’m far more interested how I never really see any easterners much address, let alone defend his usurpation of Ignatius, nor his ordination by an Excommunicate, nor his non-canonical elevation and how any of those can reflect anything but badly on his character to be eligible for such a venerated position in the east.

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

Well, the “Photian Schism” was 863-867. I would assume that when you say “Photius’ second exile and demise” you’re not talking about something that happened in those 4 years.

I’m talking bout when Leo VI deposed Photius in 886. It was still a few years yet even then before a synod renewed communion between Rome and Constantinople. That would last until 1054, of course.

You won’t find him as author of any polemics against the Latins before 862, however. And his letters before that were most respectful and of a far different tone all the way around.

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

That is not exactly what happened. First of all it is still the custom that when a new Patriarch assumes office, he sends letters to the other Patriarchs announcing his assumption of the patriarchal throne. Thus it was natural that St. Photius should send a letter to Rome informing the Pope as Patriarch of the West of his elevation to the Patriarchate.
The Papal legates were asked to Constantinople by Emperor Michael III to attend a council affirming the decisions of the 7th Ecumenical Council. They were not asked to come to Constantinople to mediate the dispute between Ignatius and St. Photius. However, since they were there, both sides asked them as a neutral party to mediate the dispute. However, at the same time St. Photius made it clear that his decision to submit the case to the representatives of the Bishop of Rome was voluntarily and was not to be interpreted as a recognition of the right of Rome to intervene in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The papal legates declared the election of Ignatius illegal because the Empress Theodora had not gone through the usual nominating process that required that three names be submitted to the imperial authorities. However, Pope Nicholas I held his own council in Rome that declared Ignatius the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople something he had no canonical right to do.
However, in 867 Basil the Macedonian assumed the imperial throne and wanted to restore good relations with Rome. He then deposed St. Photius and recalled Ignatius to the patriarchal throne. Pope Hadrian II sent a delegation to Constantinople to participate in a council, the Council of Constantinople of 869, which declared against Photius because he had been advanced from the laity to the episcopate too quickly. Significantly, the canons of the council made no mention of the right of Rome to intervene in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In fact, when the Roman delegates asked the council to recognize the right of Rome to determine the doctrine of the Church, the delegates refused stating that doctrinal matters required the approval of all 5 Patriarchs. Thus even the anti-Photan council did not recognize Rome’s claims to possess universal jurisdiction or the authority to act alone to declare doctrine.

That’s certainly an interesting interpretation of the history. There’s probably no point in quibbling over most of the details, particularly the motivation of Basil in deposing Photius, which you must not think legitimate.

Suffice it to say the other Patriarchs agreed with the Patriarch of the West in 869 that Photious illegally usurped the rightful position of Ignatius, that he illegally ordained by an excommunicate (and thus excommunicate for that alone, regardless of his other crimes against canon law), and was illegally elevated to the episcopate. What would you say of a such a man who would try to claim the Patriarchate today? You must then think that Ignatius was rightfully deposed? Curious if you think Stephen was a legitimate Patriarch or not.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Oh definitely not at all an unthinking monster. A brilliant scholar and prolific writer and unfortunately most proud and unscrupulous. If his pride was less and ambitions more humble, he could have been one of the greatest men of his age, but I can’t help but feel sad he wasted his talents in petty insolence against his rightful Patriarch, to say nothing of the Rock of St Peters and was the chief author of Schism.

We’ll most likely never agree on his equivocation regarding Roman primacy or jurisdiction, but I’m far more interested how I never really see any easterners much address, let alone defend his usurpation of Ignatius, nor his ordination by an Excommunicate, nor his non-canonical elevation and how any of those can reflect anything but badly on his character to be eligible for such a venerated position in the east.

Perhaps it is because that we do not agree with the rather prejudiced Western evaluation of St. Photius. His rapid advance through Holy Orders is not without precedent. Remember St. Ambrose of Milan. He also advanced rapidly through Holy Orders.
You are right on one point, we do not accept your understanding of Roman primacy or jurisdiction. The Pope had a primacy of honor, but none of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils give him jurisdiction outside of his own Patriarchate of the West. The case of St. Photius was the first time that Rome claimed such authority and Rome had to back down. Even the anti-Photian council of 869 refused to recognize the right of Rome to declare doctrine and insisted that only all 5 Patriarchs had that right. Read the canons of the council of 869, there is nothing in them giving the Pope any special authority to interfere in the internal affairs of another Patriarchate or define doctrine for the whole Church. Historically, Rome never exercised jurisdiction over the Eastern Patriarchs. Even the Roman Catholic Church did not declare the Pope infallible until 1870 long after the schism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

Perhaps it is because that we do not agree with the rather prejudiced Western evaluation of St. Photius. His rapid advance through Holy Orders is not without precedent. Remember St. Ambrose of Milan. He also advanced rapidly through Holy Orders.

Sure and by itself, it could be well have positive attributes, though one wonders if such pride would ever deign to submit to the tradition of the interstices. In Photius case, it was wedded with his status as a de facto excommunicate unworthy of the diaconate, to say nothing of the episcopate and bundled with the far more serious charges you never address. That those charges were confirmed by the other Patriarchs, as well as the First amongst them…

I’ll ask again, though, what of the other charges?

 

[Cavaradossi]

That’s certainly an interesting interpretation of the history. There’s probably no point in quibbling over most of the details, particularly the motivation of Basil in deposing Photius, which you must not think legitimate.

Suffice it to say the other Patriarchs agreed with the Patriarch of the West in 869 that Photious illegally usurped the rightful position of Ignatius, that he illegally ordained by an excommunicate (and thus excommunicate for that alone, regardless of his other crimes against canon law), and was illegally elevated to the episcopate. What would you say of a such a man who would try to claim the Patriarchate today? You must then think that Ignatius was rightfully deposed? Curious if you think Stephen was a legitimate Patriarch or not.

He was exonerated by the synod of 879, which not only doubled the attendance of the synod of 869, but also annulled that aforementioned synod. As far as we are concerned, that settles the matter. It is rather odd, I must add, that one would be so quick to impugn the memory of a man venerated as a saint by his very coreligionists (the Melkites, I mean).

 

[Wandile]

Perhaps it is because that we do not agree with the rather prejudiced Western evaluation of St. Photius. His rapid advance through Holy Orders is not without precedent. Remember St. Ambrose of Milan. He also advanced rapidly through Holy Orders.
You are right on one point, we do not accept your understanding of Roman primacy or jurisdiction. The Pope had a primacy of honor, but none of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils give him jurisdiction outside of his own Patriarchate of the West. The case of St. Photius** was the first time that Rome claimed such authority** and Rome had to back down.

Popes Leo and Gregory the Great as well as Pope Damasus amongst others already claimed universal jurisdiction long before these events. Even St maximus the confessor and some other easterners taught the universal jurisdiction of the Holy Roman Church.

Even the anti-Photian council of 869 refused to recognize the right of Rome to declare doctrine and insisted that only all 5 Patriarchs had that right. Read the canons of the council of 869, there is nothing in them giving the Pope any special authority to interfere in the internal affairs of another Patriarchate or define doctrine for the whole Church. Historically, Rome never exercised jurisdiction over the Eastern Patriarchs. Even the Roman Catholic Church did not declare the Pope infallible until 1870 long after the schism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Yes but the belief of the infallibility of the pope was a common tradition in the west long before the official declaration by Vatcian I. The same is true for the immaculate conception. It wasn’t even foreign to the east.

From John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his see:

“‘As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance.** Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.**’”

 

[Peter_J]

I’m simply trying to establish that he had his reasons to distrust Latins, that **we can agree that he wasn’t an unthinking monster. **Once we establish that we can have an actual discussion on what those reasons were and how valid they may have been - mind you Latin polemics are making that much more difficult.

Well, I should hope we can agree on that. Actually the fact that it doesn’t go-without-saying doesn’t seem very promising.

Honestly, I think Orthodox and Catholics are very far apart concerning Pat. Photius. On the Orthodox side, not only is he considered an official saint, but also one of the three Pillars of Orthodoxy, and is called “St. Photius the Great.” On the other hand, Catholics typically* don’t believe that he is / should be an official saint, and in fact don’t even consider him a good patriarch.

*There are exceptions of course. I know for a fact that there are some of us on this forum (and a lot of ECs in general) who don’t have a problem calling him St. Photius.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Well, I should hope we can agree on that. Actually the fact that it doesn’t go-without-saying doesn’t seem very promising.

Honestly, I think Orthodox and Catholics are very far apart concerning Pat. Photius. On the Orthodox side, not only is he considered an official saint, but also one of the three Pillars of Orthodoxy, and is called “St. Photius the Great.” On the other hand, Catholics typically* don’t believe that he is / should be an official saint, and in fact don’t even consider him a good patriarch.

*There are exceptions of course. I know for a fact that there are some of us on this forum (and a lot of ECs in general) who don’t have a problem calling him St. Photius.

I honestly do not understand why St. Photius is so vilified by the West. When Latin missionaries clashed with Eastern missionaries in Bulgaria and St. Photius responded by defending Eastern customs. He objected to the filioque which at that point in history was used by the Franks, but had not yet been accepted in Rome. He refused to surrender the historic rights of his patriarchate to the efforts of Pope Nicholas I to extend his power over Constantinople. Nicholas I was one of the most ambitious of the Popes and was the first to attempt to exercise jurisdiction over the Eastern Patriarchates, claiming authority at least partially on the forged Donation of Constantine. Some Popes before Nicholas I had made statements claiming excessive power, but long as they confined their efforts to extend their authority to the West, the Eastern Patriarchs did not consider it their business to interfere in the internal affairs of the Western Patriarchate. However, when Nicholas I attempted to extend his authority to the East, an unprecedented action at that time and one that cannot be supported by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, St. Photius defended the historic rights of his patriarchate. Significantly even the council of 769 that deposed St. Photius refused to accept the papal claims, but instead insisted that the Bishop of Rome had no special rights above the other 4 Patriarchs of the Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[LionHeart777]

The Patriarch of Constantinople Ignatius, certainly recognized Roman Primacy being by Divine Right.

Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople to Pope Hadrian II, 867 A.D., upon being restored to his See by Basil I in the conflict with Photios:

‘Art has provided many physicians for the wounds in the limbs of men…but of wounds in the members of Christ our God and Savior, the Head of us all, and of His Spouse, the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Supreme Chief and most powerful Word, Orderer, Healer and Master, the God of all, has produced one only and pre-eminent and most universal physician, that is, your fraternal and fatherly goodness. Wherefore He said to Peter, the great and chief Apostle: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ And again, ‘I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.’ For such blessed words He did not circumscribe and define to the Prince of the Apostles alone by a kind of chance, but through him He transmitted them to all who, after him as successors were to be made Chief Pastors, and divine and sacred pontiffs of Elder Rome.
This is why, since the most ancient times, each occasion that heresy and prevarication have come to light, your predecessors on this throne, that is to say, the successors of the Prince of the Apostles, and imitators of his zeal for the Christian Faith, have torn up the tares and destroyed the members which were corrupt or incurably affected.’

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/thomaqui.htm

Also, fwiw, Bulgaria certainly wasn’t originally part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to my understanding; hence the conflict.

Also, I am not aware of any objections to Pope St. Leo the Great’s “interference” in the affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (edit).

Thus he [Pope St. Leo] reverses (Epistle 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12)…

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 17 Oct. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

One can also clearly see in Pope Hadrian’s letter to the 7th Ecumenical Council, his view:

If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world. But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors. For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

 

[Peter_J]

I honestly do not understand why St. Photius is so vilified by the West.

I know what you mean.

It doesn’t surprise me, in general, that there’s a lot of anti-Orthodox and anti-Eastern sentiment among a lot of Catholics (or that there’s a lot of anti-Catholic and anti-Western sentiment among a lot of Orthodox) but it’s really strange how so much it uses Pat. Photius as a focal point.



:sigh:

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Patriarch of Constantinople Ignatius, certainly recognized Roman Primacy being by Divine Right.

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/thomaqui.htm

Also, fwiw, Bulgaria certainly wasn’t originally part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to my understanding; hence the conflict.

Also, I am not aware of any objections to Pope St. Leo the Great’s “interference” in the affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (edit).

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 17 Oct. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

One can also clearly see in Pope Hadrian’s letter to the 7th Ecumenical Council, his view:

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

In order to evaluate documents from that period of history, you have to understand that this was an age of flowery and excessive language. A lot of that stuff was not taken literally, but was pure verbage. We Americans are more straight forward in our speech and because of our culture do not understand that half of what they said and wrote they did not really mean. That does not mean that they were lying. It just means that they had a different understanding of the nature of telling the truth than we have today. Even today, we fudge a lot. How often when someone asks you how you are doing do you go through a litany of your medical problems, unless they are a very good friend? No. You say, “I am doing fine.” Therefore, you cannot take documents from this period of history at face value. You have to look at what actually happened. What actually happened was that that despite all the flowery language, the Bishop of Rome never exercised authority over the Eastern Patriarchs or over the Ecumenical Councils. Notice that even in the case of St. Photius, Rome did not presume to act alone, but through a council, the Council of 469. The Pope did not chose the Eastern Patriarchs and had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of their Patriarchates. They showed a certain deference towards Rome, but never allowed him to interfere in the internal affairs of their Patriarchates. For example, the case of the Melitian Schism in Antioch, a dispute that is too complex to go into here shows that the East did not recognize Rome as having universal jurisdiction. There were two rival claimants to the Patriarchal throne, Melitius and Paulinus. Paulinus had the support or Rome and Alexandria. After Melitius died, Rome proposed that Paulinus be recognized as the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch. However, the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople 1 in 381, rejected Rome’s recommendation and elected Flavian Patriarch of Antioch. This shows that Rome did not have universal jurisdiction and that an Ecumenical Council did not have to accept the Pope’s recommendations.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[1AugustSon7]

The Pope had a primacy of honor, but none of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils give him jurisdiction

Well, just leaving aside the ambiguous “primacy of honor” claim.

The Ecumenical Councils are a little too late:

The Roman Church, by 110 AD, is already said by one Eastern Bishop to “preside in charity” (St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Ad Rom. 1, 1).

Before the second century A.D closed (about 180 AD), another Bishop, himself a Greek from the East, writes - in the context of defending the true faith of the Church against heretics by appeal to sacred Tradition,

“For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord” (St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 3, 2).

But even after the early Ecumenical Councils, but before the East-West Schism relating to the time of Photius, another saint from the East (probably Constantinople or Palestine), writes:

“from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her” (St. Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theo).

None of this speaks of a “primacy of honor”. The earliest speaks of a presiding, the next speaks of the whole Church -all the faithful everywhere- of necessity having to be in accord with the Roman Church and the last witness says, even after the early Ecumenical Councils, that the Roman Church is (still) the only “basis” and “foundation” of all Christian churches.

This belief that was held by Christians both in the East and in the West clearly pre-dates the the major Schisms and the Ecumenical Councils, which arose themselves in the context of the novel situation of a Christian Empire and emperor, let alone the novelty of activist emperors who for largely political reasons called the first Councils. The Emperors’ aims were usually securing the political peace and unity of their realms that were troubled by doctrinal dissension and disputes: no doubt they meant no harm or disservice to the Church and genuinely wished for the true doctrine to be maintained, but they were scarcely of necessity theologians; however, their presence, influence or interference in the Church created a new situation for the Church that hitherto did not have to deal with such things - I mean the novelty of a layman summoning the whole Church to a council. There was of course no precedent for this; and the Church had gone on centuries without recourse to ecumenical Councils.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Fr. Morris, you cannot say that the pope did not mean what he said on the basis that he did not meddle in the affairs of the Eastern patriarchates. If we were operating off that premise universally, we would have to assume things like the Church never had the authority to have ecumenical councils and that Nicaea was a great novelty. The fact that the pope did not interfere to the full extent of the power he claimed does not mean he did not think he possessed that power in theory. A father might leave his kids’ rooms alone for some time if they are good, and then suddenly one day discipline his children and take away their toys when they have been failing in their duty to keep their rooms clean (sorry, if this is a patronizing example). This would be unprecedented, but not outside his authority.

Rather, what I would say is that Pope Hadrian’s words do not unambiguously claim universal jurisdiction, but not that he didn’t mean the things he said. There is a difference between flowery language and fantasy. No one ever claimed any pope could throw lightning bolts from his hands.

 

[Zekariya]

Rather, what I would say is that Pope Hadrian’s words do not unambiguously claim universal jurisdiction, but not that he didn’t mean the things he said. There is a difference between flowery language and fantasy. No one ever claimed any pope could throw lightning bolts from his hands.

Speaking of flowery language… St Cyril of Alexandria addresses many bishops that he wrote a letter to as his brother except for the bishop of Rome whom he calls his father. Pope Celestine always responded calling St Cyril his brother.