Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Randy_Carson]

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 even then the timeline chosen is really ridiculous. Best not to post things that are needlessly inflammatory.

Thank you, dzheremi! Ahhh … a voice of sanity.

Then why does OrthodoxWiki attempt one here:

orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Orthodox_Church_and_Roman_Catholic_relations

It is not unreasonable to list dates and events in chronological order…that’s what a timeline is.

 

[malphono]

Then why does OrthodoxWiki attempt one here:

orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Orthodox_Church_and_Roman_Catholic_relations

It is not unreasonable to list dates and events in chronological order…that’s what a timeline is.

Randy, maybe it’s just me (I don’t think so but maybe), but it seems you’re just not getting the point. It’s not the “time line” per-se that is a problem. It’s what’s IN the “time line” that is inaccurate at best and inflammatory at worst.

 

[dzheremi]

Then why does OrthodoxWiki attempt one here:

Because it’s an encyclopedia of sorts. That’s the kind of place you’d expect a timeline to appear. Even then, it’s hard to miss the point of view in the way that the events are presented.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, maybe it’s just me (I don’t think so but maybe), but it seems you’re just not getting the point. It’s not the “time line” per-se that is a problem. It’s what’s IN the “time line” that is inaccurate at best and inflammatory at worst.

I got it from Ryan’s first post.

So, is there an online timeline of Orthodox-Catholic history/relations that you feel accurately reflects events in proper order, context and emphasis?

Thanks.

 

[malphono]

I got it from Ryan’s first post.

And you’ve been torturing us anyway??? Why???

So, is there an online timeline of Orthodox-Catholic history/relations that you feel accurately reflects events in proper order, context and emphasis?

Probably not to satisfy me. At least I’ve not seen one that I can recall, but I’m more attuned to Oriental sensibilities than to anything EO. Perhaps someone else can supply one, but I’m still not sure what the point is. What is it that you’re looking for? The historical “time line” is what it is, and I don’t know how much dispute there is over that.

 

[Nine_Two]

Randy, why is it you want a timeline so badly?

If you must have one, the orthodoxwiki one looks fine as far as I read it.

 

[frjohnmorris]

And you’ve been torturing us anyway??? Why???

Probably not to satisfy me. At least I’ve not seen one that I can recall, but I’m more attuned to Oriental sensibilities than to anything EO. Perhaps someone else can supply one, but I’m still not sure what the point is. What is it that you’re looking for? The historical “time line” is what it is, and I don’t know how much dispute there is over that.

The problem with the timeline and much of the patristric quotes and historical incidents used to support the claims of the Popes is that the people citing them are reading back into history their post-Vatican I presuppositions. A true historian looks at the data in context and then makes his or her conclusions. Thus they are doing history backwards. They find a letter written by someone from the East to a Bishop of Rome and take it out of its proper historical context to prove papal supremacy. People, especially Greeks, used flowery and complementary language as a proper form of address. Thus if a Greek wrote a letter to the Pope addressing him with all sorts of exalted titles, that does not mean that he really recognized papal supremacy. If someone in the East is involved in any controversy, it was only natural that they should try to find as many supporters for their cause as possible. Thus they asked for support from the Pope not because he actually had real power, but because as the senior Bishop of the Church, he had a lot of prestige and influence. However, in every major controversy during the period before the schism, a council made the final decision not the Pope. Even Nicholas I, who was one of the first Popes to claim that his status as the successor to St. Peter gave him universal jurisdiction, lacked the power to make a decision on the matter of St. Photius, but had to appeal to a council to decide who should be the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Council of Constantinople of 869 was dominated by opponents of St. Photius and decided for Ignatius. However, Ignatius and the rest of the council rejected the claims of the papal legates that the Pope has the authority to determine the doctrine of the Church, arguing instead that agreement of all 5 Patriarchs is necessary for any decision on doctrine. One looks in vain for any canon of any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils or the local councils recognized by the 7th Ecumenical Council by its acceptance of the canons of the Council in Trullo that justifies the claims of the modern papacy. Instead the councils show that the Pope did not have unilateral authority to determine doctrine. The Council of Chalcedon accepted the Tome of Leo only after determining that its contents were Orthodox, not simply because it was written by a Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

And you’ve been torturing us anyway??? Why???

I haven’t been torturing anyone. I said that I forwarded the comments from RyanBlack to the website owner in the event that the creator wished to make corrections. And I asked for alternatives. If that is your idea of torture, perhaps the Spanish Inquisition should be viewed in a whole new light.

Probably not to satisfy me. At least I’ve not seen one that I can recall, but I’m more attuned to Oriental sensibilities than to anything EO. Perhaps someone else can supply one, but I’m still not sure what the point is. What is it that you’re looking for? The historical “time line” is what it is, and I don’t know how much dispute there is over that.

Randy, why is it you want a timeline so badly?

If you must have one, the orthodoxwiki one looks fine as far as I read it.

The reason is simple. When you guys start talking about various events in history, I’d like to be able to look at a chart to understand the context and so forth. Obviously, it’s important that both Catholics and Orthodox agree on a few key events and dates, etc. at a mininum; otherwise, there isn’t going to be much to discuss in terms of interpretation of those events.

If you have kids, you will have seen that most history textbooks have timelines to show what happened, who was involved, and of course when the events occurred in their proper sequence. Seems like a straightforward request to me.

 

[Contarini]

So, what’s the “grand bargain”?

I say we defer to you all on the Filioque, and the routine ordination of married men, and you defer to us on the Pope (with the guarantee he can change nothing about your traditional liturgy and practices), and divorce and remarriage.

We got a deal?

God Bless

Well, I’m not Orthodox, but I’m a very “pro-Eastern” Christian who has qualms about saying the Filioque in church and has used the existence of the Orthodox for years as an excuse not to be Catholic. And I say that that sounds like a great solution

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The problem with the timeline and much of the patristric quotes and historical incidents used to support the claims of the Popes is that the people citing them are reading back into history their post-Vatican I presuppositions. A true historian looks at the data in context and then makes his or her conclusions. Thus they are doing history backwards. They find a letter written by someone from the East to a Bishop of Rome and take it out of its proper historical context to prove papal supremacy. People, especially Greeks, used flowery and complementary language as a proper form of address. Thus if a Greek wrote a letter to the Pope addressing him with all sorts of exalted titles, that does not mean that he really recognized papal supremacy. If someone in the East is involved in any controversy, it was only natural that they should try to find as many supporters for their cause as possible. Thus they asked for support from the Pope not because he actually had real power, but because as the senior Bishop of the Church, he had a lot of prestige and influence. However, in every major controversy during the period before the schism, a council made the final decision not the Pope. Even Nicholas I, who was one of the first Popes to claim that his status as the successor to St. Peter gave him universal jurisdiction, lacked the power to make a decision on the matter of St. Photius, but had to appeal to a council to decide who should be the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Council of Constantinople of 869 was dominated by opponents of St. Photius and decided for Ignatius. However, Ignatius and the rest of the council rejected the claims of the papal legates that the Pope has the authority to determine the doctrine of the Church, arguing instead that agreement of all 5 Patriarchs is necessary for any decision on doctrine. One looks in vain for any canon of any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils or the local councils recognized by the 7th Ecumenical Council by its acceptance of the canons of the Council in Trullo that justifies the claims of the modern papacy. Instead the councils show that the Pope did not have unilateral authority to determine doctrine. The Council of Chalcedon accepted the Tome of Leo only after determining that its contents were Orthodox, not simply because it was written by a Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Fr. Morris, how would you evaluate Olivier Clement’s You Are Peter? Does he reflect your position, or do you think he concedes too much to Rome?

I found him very convincing, myself.

Edwin

 

[Cavaradossi]

Because when injured by either the courts or government officials, Canadians and Australians always petition the Queen for relief.

Please produce a citation for the origin of the title “primacy of honor”.

But if we are suppose that petitioning others for relief means that those others have a primacy of immediate and ordinary jurisdiction or the authority to solve the matters at hand, then it should lead to all sorts of nonsensical consequences. For example, St. John Chrysostom sent appeals not only to the bishop of Rome, but also sent (if we are to believe his letter) duplicate petitions to the bishops of Aquileia and Milan. Are we then to suppose that all three had primacy of immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over the affairs of Constantinople. Similarly, St. Basil sent six letters to St. Athanasius pleading with him to intervene in Antioch and support Meletius as the legitimate bishop of Antioch. Are we then to assume that the bishop of Alexandria had a primacy of immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over the affairs of Antioch? What bishop then did not have immediate and ordinary jurisdiction outside of his own diocese, since so many were petitioned for help in ancient times?

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you, Cavaradossi, for that most reasonable post. It’s something I’ve been trying to get across for years: Yes, these old letters exist, but what else? Does the existence of the letter(s) themselves mean that Catholics are right because some were written to Rome? What about those written to Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc., or those written from those places to weigh in on disputes between Rome and others, such as those from St. Dionysius of Alexandria, written during the the dispute between the Pope of Rome and St. Cyprian of Carthage? I guess St. Dionysius had jurisdiction over Pope Stephen, then (and his successor, Xystus, to whom he also wrote letters regarding this issue)? If we were to argue as RCs often do, that would have to be the conclusion.

 

[spina1953]

Concerning the reunion between the East and Western Churchs, it seems to me that in reading most of these threads that it is all over the place with the issues being dicussed. So I decided to look up the schism between the two fractions to see what they had to say. It seems to me that it conforms with nearly all the early Church history I have read on the subject. According to Catholic Answers, the schism came in the 1450’s when the Muslims took over the East,( Constanstanoble) where the Muslims pressured the Eastern Churchs to reperdiate their union with Rome. Also it is a popular myth that the schism dates to the year 1054 and that the Pope and patriarch excommunicated each other at that time, but they did not. The Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legate not the Pope or the Church in Rome. so only Cerularius and the legates excommuncated each other, the two Churches of the East and West was not excommunciated. Accordingly, Cerularius when he became Patriarch decided to close all Latin Churches because of the Normans closing the Eastern Churches in Sycily in retaliation. The issuses have so far I can see from history stems after the schism of the 1450’s. There is quite a bit more but I think one can look it up in Catholic Answers on Eastern Orthodoxcy

 

[frjohnmorris]

So, what’s the “grand bargain”?

I say we defer to you all on the Filioque, and the routine ordination of married men, and you defer to us on the Pope (with the guarantee he can change nothing about your traditional liturgy and practices), and divorce and remarriage.

We got a deal?

God Bless

That is a rather uneven deal for us. It does not resolve the major difference between us which is the issue of the papacy. We can recognize the Pope as having a primacy of honor as first among equals, but not universal jurisdiction or the authority to unilaterally and infallibly speak for the Church on matters of faith and morals. We would also insist that an Ecumenical Council have authority over the Pope. We cannot accept the right to the Pope to interfere in the internal affairs of our autocephalous Churches.
The matter of divorce and remarriage is a whole issue that has not been discussed on this thread. We allow remarriage after divorce if the divorced person has repented of whatever they did that led to the death of the marriage and has been reinstated to the Sacramental Life of the Church because we believe that God forgives all sins including the sins that lead to the dissolution of a marriage. If a person makes a mistake when they are 25 and their marriage ends, they should not have to spend the rest of their life suffering for it, especially now that we have no fault divorce in our country. We do not require an annulment. What does an annulment do to the status of children? If the Catholic Church declares that a Sacramental marriage did not exist, does that not make the children of that union illegitimate?
There are other issues such as conception control. Most Orthodox moral theologians do not believe that using non-abortive birth control within marriage is a sin if used for the right reasons. However, we would not bless a marriage if the couple had decided never to have children, but if they want to use birth control for a few years to get to know each other, to space their children, have had all the children that they could care for, or further pregnancy would threaten the health of the mother, we would not consider the use of non-abortive methods of birth control a sin.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Nine_Two]

The problem with the timeline and much of the patristric quotes and historical incidents used to support the claims of the Popes is that the people citing them are reading back into history their post-Vatican I presuppositions. A true historian looks at the data in context and then makes his or her conclusions. Thus they are doing history backwards. They find a letter written by someone from the East to a Bishop of Rome and take it out of its proper historical context to prove papal supremacy. People, especially Greeks, used flowery and complementary language as a proper form of address. Thus if a Greek wrote a letter to the Pope addressing him with all sorts of exalted titles, that does not mean that he really recognized papal supremacy. If someone in the East is involved in any controversy, it was only natural that they should try to find as many supporters for their cause as possible. Thus they asked for support from the Pope not because he actually had real power, but because as the senior Bishop of the Church, he had a lot of prestige and influence. However, in every major controversy during the period before the schism, a council made the final decision not the Pope. Even Nicholas I, who was one of the first Popes to claim that his status as the successor to St. Peter gave him universal jurisdiction, lacked the power to make a decision on the matter of St. Photius, but had to appeal to a council to decide who should be the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Council of Constantinople of 869 was dominated by opponents of St. Photius and decided for Ignatius. However, Ignatius and the rest of the council rejected the claims of the papal legates that the Pope has the authority to determine the doctrine of the Church, arguing instead that agreement of all 5 Patriarchs is necessary for any decision on doctrine. One looks in vain for any canon of any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils or the local councils recognized by the 7th Ecumenical Council by its acceptance of the canons of the Council in Trullo that justifies the claims of the modern papacy. Instead the councils show that the Pope did not have unilateral authority to determine doctrine. The Council of Chalcedon accepted the Tome of Leo only after determining that its contents were Orthodox, not simply because it was written by a Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

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.

 

[Nine_Two]

The reason is simple. When you guys start talking about various events in history, I’d like to be able to look at a chart to understand the context and so forth. Obviously, it’s important that both Catholics and Orthodox agree on a few key events and dates, etc. at a mininum; otherwise, there isn’t going to be much to discuss in terms of interpretation of those events.

If you have kids, you will have seen that most history textbooks have timelines to show what happened, who was involved, and of course when the events occurred in their proper sequence. Seems like a straightforward request to me.

I don’t have kids but I have been involved in the creation and publication of history textbooks.

From that perspective I can tell you that timelines are an afterthought, and because of the vast amount of information that can go in, but the small amount which will fit you have to be very picky about what is important enough to go in. Ultimately this means that they cannot tell the whole story - or even close to it.

Ultimately what I’d recommend is listening to what people say, read up on it on your own (I would recommend books from the library (university libraries even better)) rather than websites (Wikipedia is fine for general overviews though, and they have excellent bibliographies).

 

[spina1953]

Concerning the Papacy, it seems to me that there have been counting St Peter, 23people from the East and Middle East who became Popes in Rome. They all exercised their aurthority over all of the Churches of the East as well as the West. It seems to me that this primicy of honor only stemed after the Muslims made the Patriarchs remounce Rome and the Pope because they did not want Western military to aid the Eastern Chuches. History seems to bear that out. the issues that are now in discussion stem after that time, some are valid and some are not. Also there have been Popes from other parts of Europe and Africa besides who also exirciced their Authority over allthe Churches of the East and West. So not all Popes were from Rome or the West.

 

[Nine_Two]

Concerning the reunion between the East and Western Churchs, it seems to me that in reading most of these threads that it is all over the place with the issues being dicussed. So I decided to look up the schism between the two fractions to see what they had to say. It seems to me that it conforms with nearly all the early Church history I have read on the subject. According to Catholic Answers, the schism came in the 1450’s when the Muslims took over the East,( Constanstanoble) where the Muslims pressured the Eastern Churchs to reperdiate their union with Rome. Also it is a popular myth that the schism dates to the year 1054 and that the Pope and patriarch excommunicated each other at that time, but they did not. The Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legate not the Pope or the Church in Rome. so only Cerularius and the legates excommuncated each other, the two Churches of the East and West was not excommunciated. Accordingly, Cerularius when he became Patriarch decided to close all Latin Churches because of the Normans closing the Eastern Churches in Sycily in retaliation. The issuses have so far I can see from history stems after the schism of the 1450’s. There is quite a bit more but I think one can look it up in Catholic Answers on Eastern Orthodoxcy

You are correct that 1054 is just an easy date to a big event. However following that Rome was struck from the dyptychs of Constantinople (the dyptychs being a list the head of each Autocephalous church keeps saying which church heads they are in communion with), the other Churches then around which make up the Eastern Orthodox Communion would over the next several decades. So you are correct there was no personal excommunication against the pope, there was however an excommunication against the church represented in the person of the pope.
The point at which the schism was made real, however, is generally held to be 1204 with the Forth Crusade. Rightly or wrongly, those in the East came to see the West as another enemy after that event (I don’t want to get into an argument of who did what, I’m merely speaking of the common feeling at the time). It is at this point that inter-communion seems to have stopped.

The only possible significance that 1453 has when discussion relations between the churches is that it saw the deposition, by the Turks, of an Emperor who had converted to Catholicism, a last hope for reunion so to speak. Given the amount of time some spend rallying against Imperial control of the Orthodox Church, it is truly ironic that the fall of Constantine XI is somehow seen as the start of the Great Schism by some.

I have found that Catholic Answers is not a very good source for information on Orthodoxy.

 

[Nine_Two]

Concerning the Papacy, it seems to me that there have been counting St Peter, 23people from the East and Middle East who became Popes in Rome. They all exercised their aurthority over all of the Churches of the East as well as the West. It seems to me that this primicy of honor only stemed after the Muslims made the Patriarchs remounce Rome and the Pope because they did not want Western military to aid the Eastern Chuches. History seems to bear that out. the issues that are now in discussion stem after that time, some are valid and some are not. Also there have been Popes from other parts of Europe and Africa besides who also exirciced their Authority over allthe Churches of the East and West. So not all Popes were from Rome or the West.

No one said they were all from the West. That isn’t even a real consideration. Most of the people here are Westerners and I doubt many, if any, care about the ethnicity of their bishops. My own Metropolitan was raised an Anglican in Boston and has an English surname. My bishop is a French-Canadian (I have no idea of his religious background - most likely Catholic or non-religious).

 

[frjohnmorris]

Concerning the Papacy, it seems to me that there have been counting St Peter, 23people from the East and Middle East who became Popes in Rome. They all exercised their aurthority over all of the Churches of the East as well as the West. It seems to me that this primicy of honor only stemed after the Muslims made the Patriarchs remounce Rome and the Pope because they did not want Western military to aid the Eastern Chuches. History seems to bear that out. the issues that are now in discussion stem after that time, some are valid and some are not. Also there have been Popes from other parts of Europe and Africa besides who also exirciced their Authority over allthe Churches of the East and West. So not all Popes were from Rome or the West.

That is not true. No Bishop of Rome ever exercised authority over the Churches in the East. The schism took place in 1054. The fall of Constantinople was in 1453. Therefore, the claim that the refusal of the Eastern Patriarchs to give up their historic rights of local self-rule is due to Muslim influence is a myth. Look at canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325 which limits the authority of the Pope:

Canon VI.
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.
The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As
also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force.

This canon limits the authority of the Bishop of Rome to those areas traditionally under the authority of Rome and affirms the authority of the Metropolitans of Alexandria and Antioch over those areas traditionally under them. As the Church grew, Constantinople (at Constantinople I in 381) and Jerusalem (Chalcedon 451) were raised to the rank of primate that in time became Pope in Rome and Alexandria and Patriarch for the other 5 Churches. Thus the First Ecumenical Council did not recognize Rome as having universal jurisdiction over the whole Church. Instead the canons mandate local self rule. With only an Ecumenical Council having authority over the whole Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris