Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[Randy_Carson]

I honestly don’t know the historical record well enough to comment one way or the other. That is why I simply provided a quote from someone more learned than me. However, I do know enough about logic to state that your last sentence is fallacious. It does not logically follow that because 4 of the 5 patriarchates ultimately rejected the universal jurisdiction of the pope in the 11th century that the early church did not believe in such universal jurisdiction at any point in the previous thousand years leading up to the Great Schism.

Indeed, driven by politics or jealousies, the Patriarchs had EVERY reason to reject the rightful place of Peter’s successor simply by virtue of the fact that none of them *were *that successor.

Let us see how the evidence lies for the Pope’s supremacy.

As to this doctrine the question is this: whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century are the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.

. . . While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope . . .

. . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were “of one heart and soul,” it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws . . .

When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops,and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . .

Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the power of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be the necessary consequence . . . as St. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him:so Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not establish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that Polycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian should both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it went beyond its province . . .

On the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the first instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out more probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course of the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal supremacy.

It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .

Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.

 

[Nine_Two]

You are correct that historical accounts more often than not disagree on facts. However, no honest historian sets out to create a history that deliberately contains error. If the Gospel accounts are historical and they have God as their author, then it follows that they cannot err in basic facts. If an honest historian had a choice to either insert a statement he knew to be factual or a statement statement he knew to be false, he would never choose the false statement. Why, then, would God ever put a false statement in a historical account when he knows the correct statement? The Scriptures were penned by human authors who could err by themselves, but they have God, who cannot err, for their primary author, which is why Peter says, Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

But I have shown you there are discrepancies. While you’ve been able to convince yourself the timeline of the passover meal isn’t such an issue, there is the issue of the Angels which I brought up. Beyond that there are hundreds more. God is not the literal author of the bible. He is the author insofar as he is the creator and the Bible is the story of his creation.

When I said I would side with the Synoptics if the Gospels disagreed on the date of the Last Supper, I was not saying I believed that they disagreed or that they could disagree, but I was making a concession for the sake of an argument. The argument put forward by certain Orthodox polemicists is that leavened bread is the only valid matter for the Eucharist because Christ used leavened bread, the Last Supper being before the Passover. However, the only Gospel account which even seems to justify moving the Last Supper to before Passover is John’s Gospel. But, as Fr. Morris said, John’s Gospel draws much more heavily on the symbolism of the lamb, so John would have more reason to move the actual dates (to draw out symbolism), whereas the Synoptic writers do not have any special reason to move the Crucifixion to after the slaughtering of the lambs Christ actually was crucified with the lambs. That is why I said that if the Gospels disagreed (which they don’t), I would side with the Synoptics, since they don’t have any reason to deviate from the factual dates whereas John conceivably might.

Your point is well taken, but even the Synoptics don’t have a great record of the dates - Luke places Harod’s census as taking place during the rule of a governor who came after he had died. It seems the answer is to accept them as two different but valid traditions, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and only taking one.

In fact, the Gospels do not disagree on the date of the Last Supper. It almost without doubt occurred the evening of Nisan 15, the same night that the Passover meal was eaten. All three Synoptics agree on this point. Moreover, one of the Evangelists was the Apostle Matthew, who would not have forgotten the date of the Last Supper and Crucifixion. If you say that Matthew is wrong on this point, I don’t see how this is anything other than a denial of Matthean authorship. The Eastern Orthodox deny that there is any development of doctrine and they believe the same traditions that have been handed down from the Apostles. The unanimous tradition of the Church is that Matthew authored the Gospel bearing his name so it is not clear how it is possible to believe so strongly in the authority and stability of Tradition if the Fathers all erred on this point. For that reason, I would be inclined to take Matthew at his word. John also was an Apostle, but his Gospel can be easily read in a way that does not deny the Synoptic chronology. The solutions are not difficult ones.

As I already said, I doubt the issue of the date was as important to them as to you. Your argument could equally be used to say that John would not have forgotten therefore to say that Gospel is wrong is to deny St. John’s authorship. Additionally the reason the Synoptics agree is the very reason they are called the Synoptics - they used each other as a source.

I want to remind you that I’m not arguing for a certain date for the Last Supper, or what kind of bread should be used. As Fr. John said those who are arguing that are just looking for division.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Indeed, driven by politics or jealousies, the Patriarchs had EVERY reason to reject the rightful place of Peter’s successor simply by virtue of the fact that none of them *were *that successor.

This argument (I see it all the time) is a rather bad case of petitio principii. You have to assume Papal authority (the thing you are attempting to show to be true) already to be true, in order for the argument to work in favor of Papal authority.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I honestly don’t know the historical record well enough to comment one way or the other. That is why I simply provided a quote from someone more learned than me. However, I do know enough about logic to state that your last sentence is fallacious. It does not logically follow that because 4 of the 5 patriarchates ultimately rejected the universal jurisdiction of the pope in the 11th century that the early church did not believe in such universal jurisdiction at any point in the previous thousand years leading up to the Great Schism. That would be akin to me saying “if Eastern Orthodoxy had really preserved the true ancient faith, then Catholics would not outnumber Eastern Orthodox almost 6 to 1.”

One thing that you do not understand about Eastern Orthodoxy is that we do not like change. The development of the papacy was a change. If the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem had once accepted universal papal jurisdiction, what happened that made them change in the 11th century? Why should one believe one Patriarch when the other four disagree with him?
Even if you believe that Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople was wrong in 1054 to refuse to submit to Cardinal Humbert’s demands, what has that to do with Antioch and Jerusalem, who were not really involved in the dispute between Constantinople and Rome, or included in Cardinal Humbert’s excommunication of Patriarch Michael I but were thrown out of office by the Crusaders?

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

I’m surprised Fr. John didn’t answer this one. If you have any experience with historical documents you know they abound with such basic discrepancies. In fact it is quite suspicious when they agree completely.

I may be an historian, but I do not treat the Bible as any other historical document. An historian judges an historical document. As a Christian, I must be judged by the Bible. Historical documents are written by fallible men and women. I consider the Bible divinely inspired and infallible.
That there seem to be contradictions between the various accounts in the Gospels does not bother me, because I do not approach the Bible with my mind. I approach it with my heart. The historical details are not important. It is the spiritual message of the Holy Scriptures that are important. Therefore, I do not try to reconcile the minor contradictions between the 4 Gospels.
Modern Biblical scholarship approaches the holy text with certain post-Enlightenment anti-supernaturalist presuppositions. Underlying most modern liberal Biblical scholarship is the assumption that the Gospels cannot be true because there is no place for miracles in their world view.Therefore they go through all sorts of intellectual gymnastics to “demytholoize” the Gospels.
They claim that their work is the historical critical method, but do not use the same methods used by secular historians. Secular historians draw their conclusions from documents that actually exist and can be examined by other historians. Most liberal Biblical scholars base their work on nothing but speculation. If I were to treat the Gospels as historical documents, I would only be able to state that the Gospels represent the beliefs of the ancient Church about Jesus Christ. Because they are the only sources from that period, we do not have the materials necessary to judge the historical accuracy of the Gospels. However, since I believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, I believe in the Gospels.
Most modern liberal Biblical scholars also assume without any real proof that the Gospels are not based on eyewitness accounts because they believe that the Gospels could not be based on real eyewitness accounts. That would require them to give up their post-Enlightenment anti-supernaturalism. Naturally, they dismiss the argument that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the Gospels named after them. The most commonly accepted view is that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke based their Gospels on the Gospel of St. Mark and another lost document containing a collection of sayings of Christ, called the Q document from Quella, the German word for source. They usually also argue that St. John did not write the Gospel associated with his name.
Underlying the whole discipline is Protestantism. The original Protestant declared that the Church had perverted the teachings of Christ with human traditions. Thus the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils have no authority for them. Therefore, the Protestants rejected Holy Tradition and taught the doctrine of “sola scriptura.” The liberals agree that the Church distorted the message of Christ, but took the Protestant position one step further. They believe that the authors of the New Testament also distorted the message of Christ. That being the case, they search for the historical Jesus, but the Jesus they find is the Jesus they want to find to support their own personal preferences. The most popular view of Christ is some kind of social reformer whose teachings they shape to fit into political correct views that know nothing of personal sin except for the “sins” of anti-feminism, homophobia, etc. Unfortunately many modern Roman Catholic scholar are highly influenced by liberal Protestant Biblical theories.
The historic understanding of Eastern Orthodox scholars on the Gospels is that the Gospels were actually written by the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. From an ancient document called the fragment of Papias, the traditional view is that Matthew and John were Apostles whole recorded what they saw Christ do and heard Him say. Mark transmitted the teachings of St. Peter and Luke the teachings of St. Paul.

Fr. John

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I may be an historian, but I do not treat the Bible as any other historical document. An historian judges an historical document. As a Christian, I must be judged by the Bible. Historical documents are written by fallible men and women. I consider the Bible divinely inspired and infallible. If I were to treat the Gospels as historical documents, I would only be able to state that the Gospels represent the beliefs of the ancient Church about Jesus Christ. Because they are the only sources from that period, we do not have the materials necessary to judge the Gospels as historical documents.
That there seem to be contradictions between the various accounts in the Gospels does not bother me, because I do not approach the Bible with my mind. I approach it with my heart. The historical details are not important. It is the spiritual message of the Holy Scriptures that are important. Therefore, I do not try to reconcile the minor contradictions between the 4 Gospels.
Modern Biblical scholarship approaches the holy text with certain post-Enlightenment anti-supernaturalist presuppositions. Underlying most modern liberal Biblical scholarship is the assumption that the Gospels cannot be true because there is no place for miracles in their world view.Therefore they go through all sorts of intellectual gymnastics to “demytholoize” the Gospels. They claim that their work is the historical critical method, but do not use the same methods used by secular historians. Secular historians draw their conclusions from documents that actually exist and can be examined by other historians. Most liberal Biblical scholars base their work on nothing but speculation. They also assume without any real proof that the Gospels are not based on eyewitness accounts because they believe that the Gospels could not be based on real eyewitness accounts because that would require them to give up their post-Enlightenment anti-supernaturalism. Naturally, they dismiss the argument that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the Gospels named after them. The most commonly accepted view is that Matthew and Luke based their Gospels on the Gospel of St. Mark and another lost document containing a collection of sayings of Christ, called the Q document from Quella, the German word for source. They usually dismiss the Gospel of St. John entirely. Underlying the whole discipline is Protestantism.
The original Protestant declared that the Church had perverted the teachings of Christ with human traditions. Thus the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils have no authority for them. Thus, the Protestants rejected Holy Tradition and taught the doctrine of “sola scriptura.” The liberals agree that the Church distorted the message of Christ, but took the Protestant position one step further. They believe that the authors of the New Testament also distorted the message of Christ. That being the case, they search for the historical Jesus, but the Jesus they find is the Jesus they want to find to support their own personal preferences. The most popular view of Christ is some kind of social reformer whose teachings they shape to fit into political correct views that know nothing of personal sin except for anti-feminism, homophobia, etc.
The historic understanding of most Eastern Orthodox scholars on the Gospels is that the Gospels were actually written by the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. From an ancient document called the fragment of Papias, the traditional view is that Matthew and John were Apostles whole recorded what they saw Christ do and heard Him say. Mark transmitted the teachings of St. Peter and Luke the teachings of St. Paul.

Fr. John

Enjoyed the post, but specially the bolded part!

When I was away from the Church but immersed in Scriptures a particular passage hit me very hard.

John 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Once this settled in my heart, I knew where I needed to go and follow Christ

Praise to You, Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Enjoyed the post, but specially the bolded part!

When I was away from the Church but immersed in Scriptures a particular passage hit me very hard.

John 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Once this settled in my heart, I knew where I needed to go and follow Christ

Praise to You, Lord Jesus Christ.

You see despite our disagreements over the papacy, Eastern Orthodox and Catholics have more in common than we have differences. We are the only hope for Christianity. The Protestants have either surrendered to liberalism, or have become more and more shallow as one can see from the Megachurches, which can be called “Christianity for Dummies.” Therefore we must find a way to form an alliance to witness the truth of Christ to our increasingly anti-Christian secularized society.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .
.

There is a lot in early Christian history to contradict the development of the modern papacy, that is the conciliar system that was the norm in the ancient undivided Church. It cannot be denied that all important doctrinal and administrative decisions were made by councils during the first 1,000 years of Christian history. The Pope had primacy of honor and great influence as the senior Bishop of the Church, but had to respect the rights of the other 4 Patriarchs and to yield to the voice of the rest of the Church expressed in the Ecumenical Councils.

Fr. John

 

[Randy_Carson]

This argument (I see it all the time) is a rather bad case of petitio principii. You have to assume Papal authority (the thing you are attempting to show to be true) already to be true, in order for the argument to work in favor of Papal authority.

I’m not assuming anything. I’m attempting to explain what is.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fr. John-

You have indicated that you are not impressed with the historical information provided by numerous Catholics in various threads. Fair enough.

Here is my question for you: As an objective historian, you must read the work of other historians on both sides of the great divide. Which Catholic scholars do you respect for their objective treatment of the history of Catholic-Orthodox relations?

I’m not asking you for those you necessarily agree with; what I want to know is who among Catholic historians do you respect for their scholarship even though you may disagree with their conclusions?

Anyone?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You see despite our disagreements over the papacy, Eastern Orthodox and Catholics have more in common than we have differences. We are the only hope for Christianity. The Protestants have either surrendered to liberalism, or have become more and more shallow as one can see from the Megachurches, which can be called “Christianity for Dummies.” Therefore we must find a way to form an alliance to witness the truth of Christ to our increasingly anti-Christian secularized society.

Fr. John

Don’t give up on the LCMS, Father. They seem to have much in common with us.

 

[Peter_J]

Don’t give up on the LCMS, Father. They seem to have much in common with us.

I too have a high opinion of the LCMS; but unfortunately such groups are few and far between.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I too have a high opinion of the LCMS; but unfortunately such groups are few and far between.

Peter, we agree on something?

:yyeess:

I may take the rest of the day off just to bask in the glow…

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry about that … My twin brother often gets mistaken for me. (I also have a suspicion that he’s evil, but I don’t want to burden you all with my family issues.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Change your password.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John-

You have indicated that you are not impressed with the historical information provided by numerous Catholics in various threads. Fair enough.

Here is my question for you: As an objective historian, you must read the work of other historians on both sides of the great divide. Which Catholic scholars do you respect for their objective treatment of the history of Catholic-Orthodox relations?

I’m not asking you for those you necessarily agree with; what I want to know is who among Catholic historians do you respect for their scholarship even though you may disagree with their conclusions?

Anyone?

That is a difficult question to answer, because I normally do not pay a whole lot of attention to the religious beliefs of an historian when I consult his or her work. I do not even know how many books and articles on various aspects of Church history that I have read since I entered graduate school in 1970 and received my PhD in history in 1974. My real specialty in church history is the Protestant Reformation, which I studied at Goethe University in Frankfurt, on a Fulbright Fellowship after I finished my MA in 1971. I can tell you this, the bibliography of my 660 page survey of Christian history, The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Christian History, is 15 pages long. There are 1,965 footnotes in the work.
Thus. I have read or consulted literally hundreds of works on Church history. One can learn factual information from any good historian, even if you disagree on how they interpret those facts. For example Bihlmeyer and Tuchle recognize that the Popes exercised no authority over the East, but their interpretation is that the Pope had the right to authority over the East if he wanted to do so. That the Popes never exercised authority over the East is an historical fact. However, Bihlmeyer and Tuchle’s view that this was a concession by the Popes who had the authority to exercise authority over the East, but chose not to do so is interpretation.
I like John Julius Norwich’s 3 vol history of Byzantium, but have no idea what his religious beliefs are. Philip Schaffs’ multi vol. History of the Christian Church is filled with facts. He was a Protestant follower of the Mercersburg Theology, which is a kind of high church Calvinism. On the Fathers, by far the best work is Patrology by Johannes Qasten, whom I assume was Catholic since he taught at the Catholic University of America. I like For this discussion, For this discussion, , multi vol. Church History. I know that they are Catholics because the book has an Imprimatur on it. Kenneth Scott Latourette’ massive A History of Chistianity is good, but I have no idea what his religious beliefs are. In my opinion, besides my own book, about which I admit am prejudiced, the best general survey of Church history is Williston Walker’s A History of the Christian Church, I suspect that he was a Protestant because it is now in its 4th edition and the authors who wrote additional material were all associated with Union Theological Seminary.
On the Eastern Western schism, the best work is Steven Runciman’s The Eastern Schism. For this discussion, I have mostly consulted the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, which is the most complete collection of the Fathers. The last vol., contains the canons and acts of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the local councils recognized at Trullo. You can download each vol. as a Pdf file for free at ccel.org/fathers.html
It is always to put things in their proper historical perspective. For example a papal document claiming extensive authority really means nothing, unless one can show that the rest of the Church accepted those claims. Likewise, an appeal to Rome for support by someone in trouble with the emperor or his own Bishop does not necessarily mean that person really recognizes universal papal jurisdiction. Regardless of whatever complements and flowery language that someone like St. Athanasius or St. Maximos the Confessor used, that does not necessarily mean that person would recognize papal authority without qualifications. That is why, I dismiss quotes that some people use to prove papal authority. I look at what actually happened and what power the Popes actually were able to exercise rather than any claims by the Pope or anyone else who at that moment in history is seeking the favor of the Pope. The historical record is that during the time of the ancient undivided Church, the Church operated on the conciliar model. That is the model enshrined in the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the model actually followed everywhere except for Rome, where the Popes concentrated more and more power in their own hands as they began to act more and more like a medieval absolute monarch following the same model that they followed when governing central Italy. I also believe and Bihlmeyer and Tuchle confirm that the forged Donation of Constantine played a major role in the growth of papal authority.
In summary, the East continued to operate on the conciliar model, while in the West more and more power was concentrated in the hands of the Pope. As long as the Popes confined their quest for authority to the West, the East did not consider it their business to interfere in the internal affairs of the Western Patriarchate. However, when the Popes tried to exercise the same authority over the East that they did over the East, the result was the schism, because the East refused to give up their ancient conciliar practices and accept papal domination. The flash point was Bulgaria where Latin and Eastern missionaries met and immediately clashed. Then after the closing of the Byzantine Churches in southern Italy, a dispute over divergent liturgical practices erupted that led to Cardinal Humber’s disastrous mission to Constantinople.

Fr. John

 

[SoMissCatholic]

That is a difficult question to answer, because I normally do not pay a whole lot of attention to the religious beliefs of an historian when I consult his or her work. I do not even know how many books and articles on various aspects of Church history that I have read since I entered graduate school in 1970 and received my PhD in history in 1974. My real specialty in church history is the Protestant Reformation, which I studied at Goethe University in Frankfurt, on a Fulbright Fellowship after I finished my MA in 1971. I can tell you this, the bibliography of my 660 page survey of Christian history, The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Christian History, is 15 pages long. There are 1,965 footnotes in the work.
Thus. I have read or consulted literally hundreds of works on Church history. One can learn factual information from any good historian, even if you disagree on how they interpret those facts. For example Bihlmeyer and Tuchle recognize that the Popes exercised no authority over the East, but their interpretation is that the Pope had the right to authority over the East if he wanted to do so. That the Popes never exercised authority over the East is an historical fact. However, Bihlmeyer and Tuchle’s view that this was a concession by the Popes who had the authority to exercise authority over the East, but chose not to do so is interpretation.
I like John Julius Norwich’s 3 vol history of Byzantium, but have no idea what his religious beliefs are. Philip Schaffs’ multi vol. History of the Christian Church is filled with facts. He was a Protestant follower of the Mercersburg Theology, which is a kind of high church Calvinism. On the Fathers, by far the best work is Patrology by Johannes Qasten, whom I assume was Catholic since he taught at the Catholic University of America. I like For this discussion, For this discussion, , multi vol. Church History. I know that they are Catholics because the book has an Imprimatur on it. Kenneth Scott Latourette’ massive A History of Chistianity is good, but I have no idea what his religious beliefs are. In my opinion, besides my own book, about which I admit am prejudiced, the best general survey of Church history is Williston Walker’s A History of the Christian Church, I suspect that he was a Protestant because it is now in its 4th edition and the authors who wrote additional material were all associated with Union Theological Seminary.
On the Eastern Western schism, the best work is Steven Runciman’s The Eastern Schism. For this discussion, I have mostly consulted the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, which is the most complete collection of the Fathers. The last vol., contains the canons and acts of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the local councils recognized at Trullo. You can download each vol. as a Pdf file for free at ccel.org/fathers.html
It is always to put things in their proper historical perspective. For example a papal document claiming extensive authority really means nothing, unless one can show that the rest of the Church accepted those claims. Likewise, an appeal to Rome for support by someone in trouble with the emperor or his own Bishop does not necessarily mean that person really recognizes universal papal jurisdiction. Regardless of whatever complements and flowery language that someone like St. Athanasius or St. Maximos the Confessor used, that does not necessarily mean that person would recognize papal authority without qualifications. That is why, I dismiss quotes that some people use to prove papal authority. I look at what actually happened and what power the Popes actually were able to exercise rather than any claims by the Pope or anyone else who at that moment in history is seeking the favor of the Pope. The historical record is that during the time of the ancient undivided Church, the Church operated on the conciliar model. That is the model enshrined in the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the model actually followed everywhere except for Rome, where the Popes concentrated more and more power in their own hands as they began to act more and more like a medieval absolute monarch following the same model that they followed when governing central Italy. I also believe and Bihlmeyer and Tuchle confirm that the forged Donation of Constantine played a major role in the growth of papal authority.
In summary, the East continued to operate on the conciliar model, while in the West more and more power was concentrated in the hands of the Pope. As long as the Popes confined their quest for authority to the West, the East did not consider it their business to interfere in the internal affairs of the Western Patriarchate. However, when the Popes tried to exercise the same authority over the East that they did over the East, the result was the schism, because the East refused to give up their ancient conciliar practices and accept papal domination. The flash point was Bulgaria where Latin and Eastern missionaries met and immediately clashed. Then after the closing of the Byzantine Churches in southern Italy, a dispute over divergent liturgical practices erupted that led to Cardinal Humber’s disastrous mission to Constantinople.

Fr. John

But that (the bolded statement above) is itself an interpretation, no? It appears from that statement, at least to me, that you are engaging in at least some form of confirmation bias/selective perception in discounting any evidence of the universal jurisdiction of the papacy in the early church because it does not fit the narrative that you have decided is correct. I don’t mean that disrespectfully, and I admit that I probably do the same thing, but you can at least see how such a bias may color your interpretation, correct? If you don’t mind me asking, were you Eastern Orthodox when you started your study of church history or did your study of church history lead you to Orthodoxy?

 

[SoMissCatholic]

That is a difficult question to answer, because I normally do not pay a whole lot of attention to the religious beliefs of an historian when I consult his or her work. I do not even know how many books and articles on various aspects of Church history that I have read since I entered graduate school in 1970 and received my PhD in history in 1974. My real specialty in church history is the Protestant Reformation, which I studied at Goethe University in Frankfurt, on a Fulbright Fellowship after I finished my MA in 1971. I can tell you this, the bibliography of my 660 page survey of Christian history, The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Christian History, is 15 pages long. There are 1,965 footnotes in the work.
Thus. I have read or consulted literally hundreds of works on Church history. One can learn factual information from any good historian, even if you disagree on how they interpret those facts. For example Bihlmeyer and Tuchle recognize that the Popes exercised no authority over the East, but their interpretation is that the Pope had the right to authority over the East if he wanted to do so. That the Popes never exercised authority over the East is an historical fact. However, Bihlmeyer and Tuchle’s view that this was a concession by the Popes who had the authority to exercise authority over the East, but chose not to do so is interpretation.
I like John Julius Norwich’s 3 vol history of Byzantium, but have no idea what his religious beliefs are. Philip Schaffs’ multi vol. History of the Christian Church is filled with facts. He was a Protestant follower of the Mercersburg Theology, which is a kind of high church Calvinism. On the Fathers, by far the best work is Patrology by Johannes Qasten, whom I assume was Catholic since he taught at the Catholic University of America. I like For this discussion, For this discussion, , multi vol. Church History. I know that they are Catholics because the book has an Imprimatur on it. Kenneth Scott Latourette’ massive A History of Chistianity is good, but I have no idea what his religious beliefs are. In my opinion, besides my own book, about which I admit am prejudiced, the best general survey of Church history is Williston Walker’s A History of the Christian Church, I suspect that he was a Protestant because it is now in its 4th edition and the authors who wrote additional material were all associated with Union Theological Seminary.
On the Eastern Western schism, the best work is Steven Runciman’s The Eastern Schism. For this discussion, I have mostly consulted the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, which is the most complete collection of the Fathers. The last vol., contains the canons and acts of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the local councils recognized at Trullo. You can download each vol. as a Pdf file for free at ccel.org/fathers.html
It is always to put things in their proper historical perspective. For example a papal document claiming extensive authority really means nothing, unless one can show that the rest of the Church accepted those claims. Likewise, an appeal to Rome for support by someone in trouble with the emperor or his own Bishop does not necessarily mean that person really recognizes universal papal jurisdiction. Regardless of whatever complements and flowery language that someone like St. Athanasius or St. Maximos the Confessor used, that does not necessarily mean that person would recognize papal authority without qualifications. That is why, I dismiss quotes that some people use to prove papal authority. I look at what actually happened and what power the Popes actually were able to exercise rather than any claims by the Pope or anyone else who at that moment in history is seeking the favor of the Pope. The historical record is that during the time of the ancient undivided Church, the Church operated on the conciliar model. That is the model enshrined in the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the model actually followed everywhere except for Rome, where the Popes concentrated more and more power in their own hands as they began to act more and more like a medieval absolute monarch following the same model that they followed when governing central Italy. I also believe and Bihlmeyer and Tuchle confirm that the forged Donation of Constantine played a major role in the growth of papal authority.
In summary, the East continued to operate on the conciliar model, while in the West more and more power was concentrated in the hands of the Pope. As long as the Popes confined their quest for authority to the West, the East did not consider it their business to interfere in the internal affairs of the Western Patriarchate. However, when the Popes tried to exercise the same authority over the East that they did over the East, the result was the schism, because the East refused to give up their ancient conciliar practices and accept papal domination. The flash point was Bulgaria where Latin and Eastern missionaries met and immediately clashed. Then after the closing of the Byzantine Churches in southern Italy, a dispute over divergent liturgical practices erupted that led to Cardinal Humber’s disastrous mission to Constantinople.

Fr. John

By the way, and this is off topic, but I see that you are in Vicksburg. I grew up in Clinton (I live in Brandon now), and there used to be an Eastern Orthodox church not far from my house. I think it was Greek Orthodox, but not sure. Are you from MS originally? It is not always the easiest thing being Catholic/Orthodox in the very heart of the Bible belt!

 

[dcointin]

Fr. John,

Thank you for your reply! My understanding of church history, while far less extensive than yours, agrees with what you have said. I became Orthodox about 10 years ago from LC-MS Lutheranism precisely because of my study of church history and the fathers.

I would have to say that the Church of Rome seems to have always understood itself as possessing more than a primacy of honor, and has based this understanding on a belief in its unique succession from St. Peter. This seems incontrovertible based on the writings of many early popes and western fathers, such as those quoted in this thread. I completely agree that primacy is not the same as supremacy and infallibility, however. I further question the idea of a “primacy of honor” that excludes jurisdiction. Can this be shown from the fathers?

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is always to put things in their proper historical perspective. For example a papal document claiming extensive authority really means nothing, unless one can show that the rest of the Church accepted those claims.

How does the rejection of a legitimate claim become the standard by which the legitimacy is determined? You’ve never been a substitute high school teacher, have you?

And wouldn’t the fact that 80% of the Catholic-Orthodox world has recognized the pope suggest that the clams ARE legitimate? I mean you are in the minority…and even though 4 out of 5 Patriarchs surveyed reject the claims of the Bishop of Rome, you keep reminding me that numbers don’t matter. So, which is it? 4 out or 5 Patriarchs matter while 4 out of 5 Christians don’t?

Likewise, an appeal to Rome for support by someone in trouble with the emperor or his own Bishop does not necessarily mean that person really recognizes universal papal jurisdiction.

Then why did they bother making the appeal? To whom do we appeal for justice but those we believe to be a higher authority than the person who has denied us that justice?

Regardless of whatever complements and flowery language that someone like St. Athanasius or St. Maximos the Confessor used, that does not necessarily mean that person would recognize papal authority without qualifications.

Nor can we assume that they would reject it, can we? Or do you simply assume that they would because you do? I suspect that they would need to brush up on their theology a bit before rendering judgment, and there would be a lot for them to catch up on since their have been a lot of developments since their day.

That is why, I dismiss quotes that some people use to prove papal authority.

I don’t see much justification for dismissing them other than, “This Father has said some complimentary things concerning the successors of Peter, but I don’t like the implications of that, so, I’ll dismiss them.” It sounds silly when you say it out loud like that, but isn’t that the nub of your position?

I look at what actually happened and what power the Popes actually were able to exercise rather than any claims by the Pope or anyone else who at that moment in history is seeking the favor of the Pope.

If that is true then you must be mightily impressed by the Papacy, for the Pope is the undisputed head of the vast majority of Christendom. If you are concerned purely with actions and not words, then you should acknowledge that God has either willed or allowed the Roman Church to grow FAR beyond anything seen in the East.

The historical record is that during the time of the ancient undivided Church, the Church operated on the conciliar model. That is the model enshrined in the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the model actually followed everywhere except for Rome, where the Popes concentrated more and more power in their own hands as they began to act more and more like a medieval absolute monarch following the same model that they followed when governing central Italy.

None of this proves that the rise of the papacy is illegitimate; it simply establishes your opposition to it. But you said, “I look to what happened…rather than any claims”…well, what happened is that the papacy got stronger, and this is not just a mere claim; it is a historical fact that you yourself have railed against on more than one occasion. So, which is it? Does the “actual” rise of the modern papacy prove its legitimacy or not? Or does the “actual” rejection of that papacy by a minority of people prove its illegitimacy? Isn’t it simply the case that one of these “actual” facts suits you and the other doesn’t?

Final question: much has been made over the fact that the EO has been oppressed by Islam and Communism, and I have commended the EO for their faithfulness in the face of such harsh persecution. I’m just curious, though…how might things have developed differently in terms of East-West relations had the Muslims and the Communists allowed the West to interact with Orthodoxy more freely? In other words, if dialogue had been easier for the past 1,000 years or so, do you suppose that MORE EO would be accepting of the modern papacy than understand it now due to having been cut off from the West for so long?