Catholic/Orthodox question

[steve_b]

Prodromos has already commented quite accurately on this. I would like to expand upon this for the benefit of others.

As many know, under the old ecclesiology of the church, the Latin-rite parishes were set up under the Patriarch of Constantinople to serve merchants and travelers, as well as some probable immigrants from the west. They were representation parishes set up for the benefit of those people with the permission of the Patriarchal Synod at Constantinople.

When those parishes were closed, the people were not thereby denied the Eucharist, they had only to go down to the nearest church, serving the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

A different situation existed in Italy and Sicily. The whole of southern Italy was following the ‘Byzantine’ rite: the typica and holorologion of the Greek church, and not the liturgy of Rome, but of St John Chrysostom. That was because they were Hellenes in the Patriarchate of Constantinople at the time and within the bounds of the Byzantine empire.

When southern Italy was seized by the Frankish Normans (who were nothing but bandits) they, who followed the Roman rite as used in northern Gaul, politically transferred the entire territory into the Roman Patriarchate, replacing the bishops with Latin ones and began closing down the Greek churches and converting them to Latin rite liturgies.

There had not been any formal agreement yet, confirming the transfer. The political situation was far too unstable and the Byzantines might have mounted an attack that would have reversed the process. In any case, the theological/spiritual/ritual practices of the Eastern Orthodox Catholics should have been protected under the new Patriarch. They were not.

This is why today, almost the entire population of southern Italy can claim Greek roots in their family histories, but they are Roman Catholics. It is also why the Pope was no longer commemorated in the dyptichs, and the Patriarch was no longer commemorated in the Roman dyptichs. That issue had not been settled yet, but they were not out actually of communion.

To be sure the Pope felt under threat from the Normans himself, and initially had looked for Byzantium to kick them out. But Byzantium was busy with the Turks at the time and could not spare the resources. It was a perfect crime of opportunity for some French knights looking for spoil.

This must have helped set up the later pattern, because the illegal action of the Norman bandits in southern Italy was forgiven even as the churches were converted to Papal obedience. A nice deal all around for western Christians.

But that is why the Latin parishes in Constantinople were closed, under the original ecclesiology of the church, the local patriarchal synod had control of all of the parishes within it’s own territory, and this was a diplomatic response.

Michael

The Normans were originally the Vikings from Sweden and Norway. While they may have been Christianized when they conquored French territories and intermarried, they kept their Viking ways. They began the conquest of Southern Italy, Circa 1015. As you know, the map makers were busy people during these conquest episodes in history. Lines were constantly being redrawn. Just as the Byzantines conquored S. Italy, circa 550, they gave it up to new conquorers 500 years later.

The pope had nothing to do with the invasion of the Normans. The pope was even held hostage by the Normans. Bottomline, Italy had seen many invasions over its history.

Cerularius over in Constantinople, thought the worst and blamed the Catholic Church in general and the pope in particular for the plight of the Byzantines in S. Italy when in fact it was just part of the constant conquest process of empire builders of which Byzantines took their part as well. Ultimately the Byzantine empire would be swallowed up by Islam.

 

[steve_b]

We forget nothing Marduk. We know the Pope protested and never ceased to take opportunities to demand Southern Italy back. Not only did he do nothing when the Normans took over, he probably considered it God’s providence. He took full advantage of the situation
If you say so, I guess it must be true then

:doh2: sheesh!!!

Did you know the pope linked up with the Byzantines ***against ***the Normans?

It’s during this time that I wish I could access the old forum. You and I had a discussion on this before.

 

[steve_b]

We forget nothing Marduk. We know the Pope protested and never ceased to take opportunities to demand Southern Italy back. Not only did he do nothing when the Normans took over, he probably considered it God’s providence. He took full advantage of the situation
If you say so, I guess it must be true then

:doh2: Continued

Battle of Civitate

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Civitate

John,

You need to lighten up.

 

[Hesychios]

Did you know the pope linked up with the Byzantines ***against ***the Normans?

It’s during this time that I wish I could access the old forum. You and I had a discussion on this before.

This is correct, but it did not last. The Pope was very vulnerable to the Normans.

As the situation played out, the Papacy made a switch in alliances. The Roman empire (Byzantine) was in no position to do the heavy lifting against the Normans. They became less reliable as a military friend and easier to dismiss, for the first time in centuries.

So the whole Realpolitick of Italy changed. To the Papacy the Normans transformed from a feared enemy to a respected (if not so very well liked) friend. The Byzantine state changed (in their perspective) from a respected friend to a not-so-feared distant enemy.

This had major implications for the future of southern Italy, and all of Europe.

 

[mardukm]

Just a point of order: Jefferson Davis wrote his “Rise and Fall of the Confederacy” soon after the events took place, but hardly an unbiased statement of historical fact, due to the apologia.

The “falsification” would have to be evaluated in the context of the rest of the historian’s accuracy, etc.

Fact remains: something happened. Btw, compare the Ems dispatch incident.

Granted. I’m just wondering why brother Michael thought I gave no proof. I’m glad you have a level head about the matter. I’m wondering if you have the same benefit-of-the-doubt attitude towards polemic reports against the Eastern Catholic St. Josaphat, since the only “proof” that he did any bad things was from an anti-Western politician.

This seperation of Church and State that keeps “exhonerating” the papacy is an anachronism. Case in point: the Crusades might be said to be a movement, but the ecclesiastical power set them in motion.

Why is it an anachronism? There is ample proof that the Pope resisted the Norman invasion.

And what does it prove that the Crusades were set in motion by the ecclesiastical power? It was not the ecclesiastical power that set up the Latin patriarchates (except perhaps the one in Constantinople after the Eastern patriarch had fled). It was not the ecclesiastical power that directed the Crusaders to Constantinople. What is your purpose for mentioning this?

And why was aid from the West always linked to submission to the church of Rome?

When has Rome ever withheld help for the East because of a lack of ecclesiastical submission? Wasn’t it always the Eastern emperors who OFFERED that possibility as a bargaining chip? Why blame the bishop of Rome for that?

A little more thought, a little less emotion…

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

We forget nothing Marduk.

Then EO shouldn’t be so selective in presenting facts for their apologetics and rather present the whole story, so EO apologetics wouldn’t be so easily charged with hypocrisy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios

So the whole Realpolitick of Italy changed. To the Papacy the Normans transformed from a feared enemy to a respected (if not so very well liked) friend. The Byzantine state changed (in their perspective) from a respected friend to a not-so-feared distant enemy.

That is true, politically speaking. Ecclesiastically speaking, the Easterns seem to have had a big anti-Latin chip on its shoulder quite early on, its non-Catholic (i.e., non-universal) character quite evident as early as the Trullan Council where the East attempted to impose Eastern disciplines and practices on the Latins.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[peary]

So as it stands now with the Popes from the time of King Charlamain on, the Holy Trinity looks like this: The Most Holy Trinity is Eternal: The Father eternally begets the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the two of Them.

Before then, the reality of the Most Holy Trinity was: The Most Holy Trinity is Eternal: The Father eternally begets the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.

It is my understanding that the pope decided to interject “through the Father and the Son” into the filioque because of a heretical view in vogue at the time with regard to the Trinity - that the Spirit proceeds from the Father ONLY and is sent BY the Son.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Normans were originally the Vikings from Sweden and Norway. While they may have been Christianized when they conquored French territories and intermarried, they kept their Viking ways. They began the conquest of Southern Italy, Circa 1015. As you know, the map makers were busy people during these conquest episodes in history. Lines were constantly being redrawn. Just as the Byzantines conquored S. Italy, circa 550, they gave it up to new conquorers 500 years later.

Conquored S. Italy? S. Italy (at the time called Magna Graecia “Greater Greece”) had been part of the Roman empire since c. 200 B.C.

The pope had nothing to do with the invasion of the Normans. The pope was even held hostage by the Normans. Bottomline, Italy had seen many invasions over its history.

Yes, he was hostage to the Normans’ cousins, the Arian Ostrogoths until Emperor Justinian drove them out.

Cerularius over in Constantinople, thought the worst and blamed the Catholic Church in general and the pope in particular for the plight of the Byzantines in S. Italy when in fact it was just part of the constant conquest process of empire builders of which Byzantines took their part as well. Ultimately the Byzantine empire would be swallowed up by Islam.

Or, depending on who you ask, transferred to Moscow.

Swallowed up by Islam? Hmm…last I checked the Greece, Bulgaria,Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, the Crimea…managed to have Islam spit them out like Jonah from the whale.

And then there’s other parts of the Roman Empire, like Italy.

Where’s Eurabia?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

:doh2: sheesh!!!

Did you know the pope linked up with the Byzantines ***against ***the Normans?

It’s during this time that I wish I could access the old forum. You and I had a discussion on this before.

 

[peary]

1. BEFORE the Bull was even conceived, the Patriarch of Constantinople had imposed the Greek rite on the Latins in the East, and forcibly closed down Latin churches in the East who did not accede to his tyranny.

Blessings,
Marduk

But that happened only after groups had imposed the Latin rite on the Greeks who had settled in Sicily and southern Italy, and closed down the eastern churches there. Also, they forced them to use unleavened rather than leavened bread according to their tradition…all with the pope’s approval at the time? That’s a matter of conjecture, of course.

 

[mardukm]

Dear peary,

But that happened only after groups had imposed the Latin rite on the Greeks who had settled in Sicily and southern Italy, and closed down the eastern churches there. Also, they forced them to use unleavened rather than leavened bread according to their tradition…all with the pope’s approval at the time? That’s a matter of conjecture, of course.

That has already been pointed out. The reason it should not be discussed is because we are talking here about actions initiated by ecclesiastical authorities, not secular powers.

There is no conjecture about the matter of the imposition of the Latin rite on Greeks in Sicily and southern Italy. The Pope was being held prisoner by the invading Normans. He was in no position to do anything about what these Latin-rite invaders did.

Something which had come to my attention only in the past week is the fact that there was generally more freedom regarding Liturgies in the Western patriarchate than in the Eastern patriarchates. The Easterns since the Council of Trullo had demonstrated their opposition to diversity in Tradition, when they attempted to enforce their practices and disciplines on Latins, Armenians, and North Africans. Thankfully, the Pope rejected the Council of Trullo.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Dear brother Hesychios

That is true, politically speaking. Ecclesiastically speaking, the Easterns seem to have had a big anti-Latin chip on its shoulder quite early on, its non-Catholic (i.e., non-universal) character quite evident as early as the Trullan Council where the East attempted to impose Eastern disciplines and practices on the Latins.

Blessings,
Marduk

I did not want to address the Council of Trullo at this time, and I will not put much time into that. But I understand that it still plays an enormous role in the praxis of Byzantine Catholicism, so you might want to take this subject up with them on the other board.

Still, for my part I am surprised at (and really don’t think much of) your assertion on the subject of Trullo. The Quinisext Council decreed disciplinary Canons for the church (it was a “housekeeping” affair), the Bishop of Rome refused to sign on (or approve it, in other words). The canons took effect all over the church east and south of Rome anyway, and forms a major part of the Byzantine Eastern Catholic patrimony to this day.

My issue presently is with the big “anti-Latin chip” expression. I disagree with what you seem to say.

I do believe that they had a serious problem with

1. 
   *]The Normans, in their time
   *]Franks in general, and…
   *]Frankish influence in the Latin church.
   So in a sense, we might be in agreement, but I am not sure and I would certainly not use your “anti-Latin chip” expression, that implies something I cannot subscribe to.
   
   Especially since the Mediterranean Latins (in Italy and Provence, mostly) formed a core population of the old Roman nation, which Byzantines identified with deeply. The fact that northerners (Germanic, of all things) came to hold a dominant or influential position in the “Latin” church was a problem that they could not work around. Frankish power was projected over the Mediterranean Latins in general, and in some ways influenced the church at Rome. They (the Romans of Constantinople) had to deal with this as a new reality and they did not particularly like it.
   
   That’s my interpretation.
   *
   Michael*

 

[Hesychios]

Dear peary,
That has already been pointed out. The reason it should not be discussed is because we are talking here about actions initiated by ecclesiastical authorities, not secular powers.

It’s nap time for me, so I will be brief and sign off.

The new Latin bishops were indeed ecclesiastical authorities. It is clear that the Pope had no influence on them. Had he any real authority those bishops would have…

• been named by the Pope
• carried out policies set for them by the Pope
  I don’t necessarily believe the Norman princes (or whatever they should be called) particularly cared much about the religious orientation of the people except that it could be a “national security” issue. But the culture was much more Greek-Byzantine than just the religious aspect, the language was Greek for one thing.

I just think the new Norman bishops had a strong bias against the ‘strange’ Greek church they were living off of and found all kind of ways to inhibit them and “straighten them out”.

The Pope was being held prisoner by the invading Normans. He was in no position to do anything about what these Latin-rite invaders did.

I can agree to a point.

He couldn’t have done anything even before he was a prisoner. He just did not routinely exercise that kind of authority at the local level in those days. Universal Jurisdiction was an unknown and untried concept.

I think I read that the Pope was a prisoner for nine months. His reign lasted a considerable length of time afterward, didn’t it? He did chum up to the Normans later. It was an astute political move.

You seem to be trying to show that the removal of the Pope from the dyptichs was baseless, because he was “innocent”. But that is how it works, there is a dispute between the churches and the Patriarchs don’t get commemorated. Then the whole process of “kiss and make up” begins, as they talk their way through to a solution. It is an established procedure and the Patriarchs are the representatives of each respective synod.

In fact, I am not sure it was this Pope who was initially removed from the dyptichs, it could have happened earlier and for some other reason. It is even possible that the Popes had ceased the old practice of asking for communion and thus were not formally notifying their counterparts of their accession.

In other words I think it would be fair to say we don’t know nearly enough about all of the things that happened in those days.

• Michael*

 

[anthony022071]

As a life long Catholic, I do have a question regarding the great schism. At one of the ecumenical councils, the second one, I believe, the Nicaean Creed was pretty much set in stone and it was determined that no changes could be made without approval of the council. When the western church added the filiique clause without approval, did this not violate the council? I’ve never heard or read what I considered an adequate explanation for this.

The filioque was added to the creed with the approval of the popes and a later council. It should be remembered that the popes have authority even over the ecumenical councils. The decisions of a council have to be ratified by the pope. If it was left up to the councils to pronounce doctrine on their own authority,then any one of those large heretical councils in the East could have been considered ecumenical. It was the approval of the pope that made the decisions of a council legitimate.

The Council of Constntinople 1 added to the Nicene creed with the line “who proceeds from the Father”. So technically,that council already altered the Nicene creed. And at the Council of Ephesus,it was the original creed of Nicaea that was read,not the creed of Constantinople 1. So the Council of Constantinople 1,and its creed,was not binding on the whole Church at that time.

Here is a very thorough explanation of the history of the filioque.

catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html

 

[anthony022071]

The filioque was added to the creed with the approval of the popes and a later council. It should be remembered that the popes have authority even over the ecumenical councils. The decisions of a council have to be ratified by the pope. If it was left up to the councils to pronounce Church doctrine on their own authority,then any one of those large heretical councils in the East could have been considered ecumenically binding. It was the approval of the pope that made the decisions of a council legitimate.

The Council of Constntinople 1 added to the Nicene creed with the line “who proceeds from the Father”. So technically,that council already altered the Nicene creed. And at the Council of Ephesus,it was the original creed of Nicaea that was read,not the creed of Constantinople 1. So the Council of Constantinople 1,and its creed,was not binding on the whole Church at that time.

Here is a very thorough explanation of the history of the filioque.

catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

It should be remembered that the popes have authority even over the ecumenical councils.

Please show us an authoritative document to support this assertion. Until then, I would disagree (I’ve never read or heard of the idea from orthodox Catholics).

Blessings

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Anthony,

Please show us an authoritative document to support this assertion. Until then, I would disagree (I’ve never read or heard of the idea from orthodox Catholics).

Blessings

§3. It is for the Roman Pontiff, according to the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops is to exercise its function collegially regarding the universal Church.

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

Can. 340 If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of a council, the council is interrupted by the law itself until the new Supreme Pontiff orders it to be continued or dissolves it.

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P17.HTM

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The filioque was added to the creed with the approval of the popes and a later council. It should be remembered that the popes have authority even over the ecumenical councils. The decisions of a council have to be ratified by the pope. If it was left up to the councils to pronounce doctrine on their own authority,then any one of those large heretical councils in the East could have been considered ecumenical. It was the approval of the pope that made the decisions of a council legitimate.

That large heretic council of Aachen in the West in 809 (after the small heretic council of Toledo in 589) approved the filioque. Pope Leo forbade it, and ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets and placed on the door of St. Peter’s and on St. Paul’s tomb without the filioque so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future, with the inscription “HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI” (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26)

Several decesions of the Ecumenical Councils were resisted by popes, only to be accepted later (i.e. Chalcedon canon 28). The Church didn’t wait.

I’ve posted the proof Mardukm asked you for in support of the allegations of your church on this matter.

The Council of Constntinople 1 added to the Nicene creed with the line “who proceeds from the Father”. So technically,that council already altered the Nicene creed. And at the Council of Ephesus,it was the original creed of Nicaea that was read,not the creed of Constantinople 1. So the Council of Constantinople 1,and its creed,was not binding on the whole Church at that time.

Constantinople I was also the one that made the canon forbidding altering the Creed. Do you think the Fathers were anathematizng themselves?

The council of Toledo was long after Ephesus, so your point?

And we know that the Creed was already in circulation by Ephesus.

Here is a very thorough explanation of the history of the filioque.

catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html

“Explanation” is not the correct term.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I did not want to address the Council of Trullo at this time, and I will not put much time into that. But I understand that it still plays an enormous role in the praxis of Byzantine Catholicism, so you might want to take this subject up with them on the other board.

Still, for my part I am surprised at (and really don’t think much of) your assertion on the subject of Trullo. The Quinisext Council decreed disciplinary Canons for the church (it was a “housekeeping” affair), the Bishop of Rome refused to sign on (or approve it, in other words). The canons took effect all over the church east and south of Rome anyway, and forms a major part of the Byzantine Eastern Catholic patrimony to this day.

My issue presently is with the big “anti-Latin chip” expression. I disagree with what you seem to say.

I do believe that they had a serious problem with

1. 
   *]The Normans, in their time
   *]Franks in general, and…
   *]Frankish influence in the Latin church.
   So in a sense, we might be in agreement, but I am not sure and I would certainly not use your “anti-Latin chip” expression, that implies something I cannot subscribe to.
   
   Especially since the Mediterranean Latins (in Italy and Provence, mostly) formed a core population of the old Roman nation, which Byzantines identified with deeply. The fact that northerners (Germanic, of all things) came to hold a dominant or influential position in the “Latin” church was a problem that they could not work around. Frankish power was projected over the Mediterranean Latins in general, and in some ways influenced the church at Rome. They (the Romans of Constantinople) had to deal with this as a new reality and they did not particularly like it.
   
   That’s my interpretation.
   *
   Michael*

1. 
   Yes, it was the case of the Romans of the East dealing with the German conquers of the Romans in the West, which had been going on ever since the Arian Goths took over Italy and deposed Romulus Augustulus. The Romans of the East, lead by the Orthodox Catholic Roman Emperor Justinian ever tried to restore the empire’s authority and Orthodox Catholic Christianity, always opposed by the Germanic Ostrogoths, Visigoths (who dreamed up the filioque) and Franks (who spread the filioque), Normans (who enforced the filioque) and Saxons (who forced the pope of Rome to accept it).
   
   Btw pope Leo IX, who sent the anathematizing party to Constantinople in 1054, is considered one of the most, if not the most, important German popes of Rome. I am hoping B XVI takes that title.