Define "Supremacy"

[Sarah_Jane]

Fr Ambrose:

Accomplished fairly peacefully and without much bloodshed - unlike the masses of blood spilt at the forced creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the 16th century when entire Orthodox communities were compelled to join the Eastern Catholic Church.

For one example of how Orthodox Russians and other Orthodox were made to join the Eastern Catholic Church see…
cin.org/archives/apolo/199810/0580.html

History is never simple in Europe

Peacefully and without bloodshed?!?

"On March 8-10, 1946, a ‘synod’ of 216 terrorized priests and nineteen laypersons, orchestrated in Lviv under the leadership of this group, abolished the Union of Brest (1596).

This purported to be a synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and to this day the Russian Orthodox Church has claimed it to be such and has steadfastly refused to repudiate either the synod or its own role in the charade. But as the Russian Orthodox Church authorities are well aware, the entire Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy was in prison, and the entire presidium of the synod had in fact already become Orthodox, though this was kept secret until the farce was a fait accompli. The action was followed by massive arrests, interrogations, abuse, trials, banishment and deportations, causing incalculable suffering and death. Russian Orthodox authorities ever since have defended what was done as a canonically legitimate synod of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church that freely and legitimately abolished of the “forced” Union of Brest, and to this day they have refused to disclaim or condemn it. The Acts of the synod were published in Ukrainian in Lviv in 1946, and in 1982 the Moscow Patriarchate issued bowdlerized (i.e., deliberately doctored) versions in Russian and English for the 45th anniversary of the shameful charade. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was not destroyed but driven undergound, to reemerge maimed but still vigorously alive when finally granted freedom in 1989, at which time almost the entire Russian Orthodox Church in Western Ukraine, clergy, parishes, and faithful, re-entered the Catholic Church en masse.
Similar forced renions with the Orthodox Church took place in 1947 in Transcarpathia, 1948 in Romania, and 1950 in Slovakia.

These are the unvarnished facts. This history is important for several reasons. First, it shows the demonstrable falsity of the accusation that the Catholic Church has “reinvented” or “resurrected” a dead and gone “Uniatism,” thereby stalling the Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical dialogue. A more nuanced view, one corresponding to the historical facts, leads one to recognize the following realities. Eastern Catholics were forced into the underground in the 1940’s by one of the bitterest and most violent persecutions in Christian history. Although this was done by Stalinist regimes there is abundant and irrefutable evidence that it had the active support and/or collaboration of at least some Orthodox hierarchs and authoritative exponents. Each case must be taken by itself, and justice demands avoiding generalization, but there can be no doubt that ambiguous figures like Patriarch Justinian Marina in Romania, and Archbishop Makarij Oksijuk in Lviv and Transcarpathia, were active participants in these historic violations of human rights. And one of the chief Romanian Orthodox ideologues of modern times, the Orthodox priest and noted theologian Rev. Dumitru Staniloae (d. 5 Oct. 1993), gave wholehearted vocal support for this massive violation of human rights, insisting that the “reunion [of Greek Catholics with the Orthodox Church which took place in 1948] was entirely free and spontaneous.This is not only a patent lie; it is also a denial of the bitter suffering of martyrs."

-Robert F. Taft - "Anamnesis, not Amnesia : The ‘Healing Memories’ and the Problem of ‘Uniatism’ "

 

[Orthodoc]

[Orthodoc claims that the atrocities done to Eastern Catholics are a payback for the Catholic atrocities against Orthodox; and then you try to claim divine sanction for such atrocities?]

All I did, was point out the similiarities between the creation of the Unia in 1596 and the supression of the Unia in the 1940’s. My comments were - 1) What goes around comes around and 2) You can’t condemn one without the other. It has already been pointed out to you that the first comment is not as pagan as you claim. It’s also a historical fact.

The problem you and others like you have is that so many of you are only willing to go only as far back in history as needed to prove your point. In order to get the whole story one must read the novel starting on page one, chapter one. In this particular instance you are only willing to quote from the last chapter of the novel to condemn Orthodoxy for taking back UNDER PRESSURE FROM STALIN what they considered theirs to begin with and taken from them through deciet and political conquests. May I remind you that approximately 600 current Ukrainian Catholic priests in Ukraine were educated in Orthodox seminaries, by Orthodox professors, paid for with Orthodox money.

In this particular incident the Russian Orthodox Church was damned if it did and would have been damned it it hadn’t since Stalin threatened to increase the persecution against Orthodoxy that had already been in effect for 20+ years if they didn’t comply. He also threatened to close all the Greek Catholic Churches thereby severing the people from the sacraments necessary for their salvation. The Russian Orthodox Church took the only sensible option it could by accepting the Unia back into its fold under political pressure. In doing so it saved itself from even greater persecution and provided the sacraments to those who would have been denied them had the ROC refused. I have no doubt that if the ROC had refused Stalins edict, these same people would be in here complaining how the ROC turned its back on its own brothers in their time of need.

Please tell me how the UGCC would be better off today if the ROC had refused to take them home, feed them, cloth them, sustain their churches, and educate their priests, and provide them with the Sacraments. Where would all the educated UGCC priests have come from after the recreation of the Unia in Ukraine?

[Orthodoc, you consider the acceptance of relics from Constantinople as a sin against the Orthodox by the Pope. Please tell me where and when the Pope ever sanctioned such booty.]

I see you conviently leave out the word ‘stolen’ in your first sentence. Isn’t one of the ten commandments - “Thou shalt not steal”? The Pope sanctioned such booty when he accepted it as it arrived from the Orthodox east knowing full well it was stolen and taken by force. He continued to sanction it by accepting it for another 60 or 70 plus years after.

Access the following for an account of just how the so called booty was acquired -

stmichael.org/ConSack.shtml

And, by the way we Orthodox have been requesting the return of our stolen relics for hundreds of years. Including the Icon you call ‘Our Lady Of Perpetual Help’ that was stolen right from a Greek Orthodox Church in Crete by an Italian wine merchant and accepted by the Vatican when he presented it. The Roman Catholic Church has a history of accepting stolen goods.

Orthodoc

P.S. I’m sorry to hear Fr Ambrose has been sanctioned. So much for having thr right to defend one’s faith.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear John,

Thank you for the explanation. Forgive me for any presumption. I will not even bother to detail my rationale for what I thought, for it does not matter any more.

Dear Sarah,

That was some really good info. But as Father Ambrose has apparently been banned (hopefully temporarily), we won’t ever need to bother with such exposition of sins again. If Father Ambrose returns, perhaps he will have learned his lesson.

God bless,

GregP.S. Such info is important, of course, but it should not be used in a polemic context.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

GAssisi:

P.S. Such info is important, of course, but it should not be used in a polemic context.

I agree but the Orthodox Church must recognize the sins of his sons, especially during the Soviet regim, like the Catholic Church for the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc.

 

[hlgomez]

And, by the way we Orthodox have been requesting the return of our stolen relics for hundreds of years. Including the Icon you call ‘Our Lady Of Perpetual Help’ that was stolen right from a Greek Orthodox Church in Crete by an Italian wine merchant and accepted by the Vatican when he presented it. The Roman Catholic Church has a history of accepting stolen goods.

Orthodoc

Orthodoc,

Which one is better, to accept it or to throw it away? You can never have it back if the Catholic Church would not have accepted it.

BTW, are you also accepting stolen goods? The way you accuse the Catholic Church seems that you are far more perfect than her. Don’t be arrogant.

Pio

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

As I wrote, I’d love to know where you learned that the Pope is First among Equals. Where have you picked up this belief? It must have come from somewhere - is it something you’ve been ‘taught’ from your Church sources?

The term first among equals is firmly planted in your Church’s vocabulary as well.

“Sometimes we fail to create places where all bishops share equally, whether in one geographical area (a synod) or in various geographical areas throughout the world, even though in each of these instances there is in fact a bishop who is first among equals.”

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/ajalat_primacy_episcopacy.htm

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

What you say, in #5 and #8, is that it is your personal opinion that the Pope is *First among Equals *because you can substantiate it negatively. Because nobody has challenged your opinion that the Pope is First among Equals.

Really, Greg, this won’t convince anybody. You need to provide some authoritive statements from the RC Magisterium or all we have is your own private predeliction which, as other Catholics have pointed out to you in another thread, is contrary to modern Catholic ecclesiology.
See
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…27&postcount=10

As I wrote four days ago:

I think that until it is determined whether your belief that the Pope is ***“first among equals” ***is Catholic teaching or not, this thread is rather bogged down in uncertainty.

as I wrote in a previous post, “first among equals” is not new vocabulary to the Orthodox.

**"TWO VIEWS OF LEADERSHIP **

Church scholars in dealing with “ecclesiology” (doctrine of the Church) have described two major ways of looking at leadership in the Church. The first is called “universal ecclesiology”; the second, “eucharistic ecclesiology.”

Simply stated, universal ecclesiology holds that the universal church is the sum of its parts, the local churches (Thus, 1 **+ **1 + 1 = 3). This type of thinking leads logically to an understanding that there must be one patriarch or Pope (both rooted in the meaning of “father”) heading this universal church on earth"

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/ajalat_primacy_episcopacy.htm

One can also look at Cyprian’s language to see, one chair, the source of priestly unity. So even though we don’t see the phrase “first among equals”, in the very early writings, we see the concept clearly described

**Cyprian **

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18] On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

**Cyprian **
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him–when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

why isn’t there an issue made about a chair or successor to Paul or any of the other apostles? Why is it always Peter? First among equals perhaps?

 

[Orthodoc]

[Which one is better, to accept it or to throw it away? You can never have it back if the Catholic Church would not have accepted it.

BTW, are you also accepting stolen goods? The way you accuse the Catholic Church seems that you are far more perfect than her. Don’t be arrogant.]

If you think that stating the truth and historical acts is arrogant then I suggest you reread the first two sentences you replied with. That, my friend, is the height of arrogance and false superiority!

Orthodox

 

[Orthodoc]

Pope St Leo regarding Universal jurisdiction and primacy -

Pope St. Gregory:
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a God, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, p. 226).

Pope St. Gregory to the Pope of Alexandria:
“Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity” (Ibid., p. 227).

Orthodoc

 

[steve_b]

Orthodoc:

Pope St Leo regarding Universal jurisdiction and primacy -

Pope St. Gregory:
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, [snip] (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, p. 226).

Orthodoc
This is an old charge taken completely out of context.

Gregory the Great would have denied that the title “universal bishop” could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other “bishops” were bishops in name only,*** with no real authority of their own***. .
But that isn’t to say that the title didn’t – and doesn’t – have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other “bishops” are not really successors to the apostles, it’s false.

What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch’s act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope.

Some anti-Catholics cite the following quotations to give the false impression that Gregory was rejecting his own universal authority:

“I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of the Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others” (Epistles 7:33).

“If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if besides Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?” (Epistles 5:18)

These critics neglect to inform their audiences that the context of these statements makes it clear that Gregory was not making these statements in regard to himself or to any other pope. He believed the bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops.

Like his predecessors and successors, Gregory promulgated numerous laws, binding on all other bishops, on issues such as clerical celibacy (1:42,50; 4:5,26,34; 7:1; 9:110,218; 10:19; 11:56), the deprivation of priests and bishops guilty of criminal offenses (1:18,32; 3:49; 4:26; 5:5,17,18), and the proper disposition of church revenues (1:10,64; 2:20-22; 3:22; 4:11)

Gregory’s writings show that he regarded and conducted himself as the universal bishop of the Church. He calls the diocese of Rome “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches” (13:1).

He said, “I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church” (5:44). He taught that the pope, as successor to Peter, was granted by God a primacy over all other bishops (2:44; 3:30; 5:37; 7:37).

He claimed that it was necessary for councils and synods to have the pope’s approval to be binding and that only the pope had the authority to annul their decrees (9:56; 5:39,41,44).

He enforced his authority to settle disputes between bishops, even between patriarchs, and rebuked lax and erring bishops (2:50; 3:52,63; 9:26,27).

When Gregory denounced John the Faster’s attempt to lay claim to the title Universal Bishop, his words were in accord with his actions and with his teachings. He was unequivocal in his teaching that all other bishops are subject to the pope

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Orthodoc,

Your attempt to temper the culpability of Russian Orthodox in the forced and violent conversion of Catholics is noted ---- and rejected. It was better for Orthodox to accept Slavic Catholics as prisoners of the fold, than to let them alone? Couldn’t that be the same case when Catholic hierarchs used their local Catholic Church as tools for their territorial advances? But I’m sure you would not be so kind as to give that sort of benefit of the doubt for Catholics. I am not saying this because I feel, “you won’t do it, so we won’t.” I say this because what you propose is simply unbelievable. The Russian Orthodox had no other motives but to increase their membership and their coffers by the subjugation of millions of Catholic faithful. As you and others have suggested, they were trying to get back what was (not rightfully) theirs. Let’s just leave it at that. Catholics have admitted to Catholic sins, and Orthodox should simply fess up to their own sins.

Regarding Leo III and the booty. The link you provided demonstrates that the Pope had simply lost control of the Crusades, and he was not party at all in the exchange of booty. As I’ve asked before, what could he have possibly done, seeing as these Crusaders who possessed the booty had not complied with his wishes in the first place in sacking Constantinople? And even if the Pope wanted to give back these treasures, I ask you what means could have realistically been utilized to return these treasures? Answer these questions before you attempt to give any type of blame to the Pope; otherwise, quit the blame game. I’ve read over five different accounts of the Fourth Crusade, by Catholics, Protestants, and non-Christian authors, and they all agree that the Pope had no part to play in the sack of Constantinople. Only the Orthodox versions seem to want to assign any blame to Pope Leo III.

Speaking of Orthodox versions, I notice the link you provided assigns nearly complete fault to Doge Dandolo for the enterprise against Constantinople, and this from the very beginning. There is the salutary acceptance of some culpability by the East itself, but it is very little. Just to let you know, of the several different accounts of the Fourth Crusade I’ve read, all assign the actual redirection of the army towards Constantinople through the machinations of the Orthodox Alexius IV. Dandolo’s culpability lay in redirecting the army towards Zara. But from thence, it was the succor of Alexius IV which was the primary cause for the sack of Constantinople. And just to let you know just how far out of the Pope’s control this enterprise was, he was not even aware of the deal the Crusaders made with Dandolo for passage at the outset of the Crusade.

Also, FYI, though Constantinople and Venice were commercial rivals, there was a treaty between them. It seems that if Dandolo agreed readily to Alexius IV’s suggestions, it may not have been completely out of greed, but also out of a sense of retribution for the fact that, about 30 years earlier, when Dandolo was sent to Constantinople on a peace mission, the Byzantine Emperor treacherously tried to blind him (he only partially lost his sight due to the ordeal).

God bless,

Greg

 

[GAssisi]

So far, no non-Catholic (particularly Orthodox) has given a solid, irrefutable reason for judging papal primacy as a “dictatorship.” If you feel you have, please point it out concisely because I have not seen it. Let me rephrase my original question, because this is really what I was trying to get at:

If everything the Orthodox Church claims against the papacy can be equally applied to the Orthodox Church (i.e., persecutions, “dictatorship,” simony, use of the secular arm, etc.), what is the real rationale for continued separation?

God bless,

Greg

P.S. In my previous post, I used the phrase “increase their coffers.” Be aware I did not use it in a derogatory sense. I believe every Church has an obligation and a right to “fill their coffers,” but it should not be done forcefully.

 

[Orthodoc]

[Your attempt to temper the culpability of Russian Orthodox in the forced and violent conversion of Catholics is noted ---- and rejected. It was better for Orthodox to accept Slavic Catholics as prisoners of the fold, than to let them alone? ]

Why do you always avoid answering my question with another question? You obviously think that the Russian Orthodox Church should have refused Stalin’s edict to take back the UGC’s into its fold. Since the ROC had only two options - 1) To accept Stalins edict and avoid increased persecution on itself. And in accepting them back, provide sustenance to its wayward children who had left in 1596. or 2) To reject Stalin’s offer and face increased persecution of a church that had already suffered more than any other for 20+ years, and watch the complete desruction of the UGC by Stalin.

While many of its own churches were being confiscated, destroyed, or turned into stables and latrines, the ROC took those former UGCC’s that Stalin allowed to remain open and maintianed them, paid the taxes on them, and educated their priest for them. And for this they are being concemned by you as well as others.

Once again TELL ME HOW THE UGCC WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF TODAY AFTER THE FALL OF COMMUNISM IF THE ROC HAD TURNED ITS BACK ON THEM. It seems I never get an answer from those who condemn the ROC for taking the only option that made any sense and provided better odds for both parties.

[Couldn’t that be the same case when Catholic hierarchs used their local Catholic Church as tools for their territorial advances? ]

I have no idea what you are talking about here!

[Regarding Leo III and the booty. The link you provided demonstrates that the Pope had simply lost control of the Crusades, and he was not party at all in the exchange of booty.]

So now you are going to tell me that this same infallible papal entity you all brag about as being the center of unity within the RCC lost control over his own people. He obviously still had enough control to take advantage of the situation by not only accepting ‘stolen property’ as it was brought back to him but by setting up Latin Patriarchates within Orthodox Patriarchates. He wouldn’t have been able to do that if he lost control.

[And even if the Pope wanted to give back these treasures, I ask you what means could have realistically been utilized to return these treasures? Answer these questions before you attempt to give any type of blame to the Pope; otherwise, quit the blame game. ]

By the same means he utilized to return the relics of Sts Gregory and John Chrysostom a few weeks back.

Orthodoc

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Orthodoc,

Your opinion about these events in the Stalinist period is simply unbelievable. The ROC could have easily told Stalin: “let the Catholics alone” without any repercussions on the ROC. The ROC did NOT enslave the Catholics out of the goodness of their heart towards Catholics. Just stop it! And you keep on about training the priests. I want to ask you if this “training” included anti-Catholic and anti-papal propaganda. If it did, I do not see how that supposed “training” could count as altruistic at all. Paid their taxes, maintained them, and kept them open? Were they such as Catholic Churches or Orthodox Churches? Please, the Orthodox kept them open, paid the taxes and maintained them not for any reason that they may one day become Catholic again, but because the Orthodox accepted this booty from Stalin as their own. Why wouldn’t they keep open, pay taxes for, and maintain their own Churches. That is like saying I stole somebody’s car, kept it up and made it “cherry,” and deny any culpability once I was caught because of the beautiful maintenance I performed on it! Unreal the extent to which some people will go through to falsely assuage their consciences!

You said “I have no idea what you are talking about here” to one of my points. Let me clarify it. If you can claim that the Orthodox are absolved for their acceptance of the booty of Catholic Churches and property because they paid the taxes, maintained them, and kept them open, and trained their priests, then the Catholic Church could just as well be absolved of any wrongdoing when she supposedly “stole” Orthodox Churches during the times of the Unia. Correct?

And, yes, though the Pope is rightly infallible and the ideal center of unity for Christendom, many in the past and present have resisted her doctrinal and moral pronouncements. Will you admit that Jesus had no inherent authority or infallibility because most people in His day rejected him? And erecting a canonical territory does not involve any secular parties. So I do not see your point in comparing that action with having no practical means to influence secular authorities to return booty which were obtained without his consent in the first place. Are you willing to admit full culpability for the Russian Orthodox Church in accepting the booty of Catholic Churches and properties from Stalin? To be consistent in your charges, this certainly must be the case.

Finally aren’t you a little naïve about the return of these stolen goods. Let’s compare circumstances, shall we? Is Constantinople currently under the control of entities at war with Christianity? Is Constantinople currently under the control of entities openly hostile to the papacy? Is Constantinople currently under the control of entities at war with Western European powers? Unless you can give an affirmative answer to all or any of these, then your answer is rather specious.

God bless,

Greg

 

[GAssisi]

Dear ALL,

Any comments on this link?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_russi.htm

It seems Russian Orthodox criticisms of dictatorship by the Catholic Church are rather empty compared to the current practice of the Russian Orthodox hierarchy. I present this not to condemn the Russian Orthodox, but simply to give more food for thought with regards to my question in post # 72.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

"I think that if there was no support for the Orthodox position I don’t think the Orthodox would question understandings in context such as Irenaeus had articulated, etc. The Orthodox patristic views and that implicit reliance in Orthodox theology can not be disregarded or reduced to support the Roman Catholic supremacy developments.

Here are some remarks from a friend of mine who is teaching at Oxford. He has conveyed his approval for me to reference them as they are relavant to the subject matter.

Some of the most straightforward remarks in this regard actually come down to us from St Gregory the Great, pope of Rome in the sixth-seventh centuries A.D. His remarks were occasioned by the Emperor’s application of the title ‘Ecumenical Patriarch’ to St John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople. Gregory was deeply disturbed by this title, not because he felt that its attribution to a patriarch other than that of the see of St Peter was improper, but because he felt the very notion of such a title or rank was incorrect (we must keep in mind that St Gregory understood ‘ecumenical’ to mean universal in authority and power, which is not how the term as it is used in the title ‘ecumenical patriarch’ has come down to us today’). In response to this, St Gregory writes to St John:

“Certainly Peter, the first of the Apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John – what were these but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head …] the prelates of this Apostolic See *, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called ‘universal’ (oikoumenikos) by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. Yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or has seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren …]”
(Excerpted from Book 5 of the collected epistles of St Gregory the Great of Rome, Epistle 18).

Later he writes in a similar vein:

“This name of Universality was offered by the Holy Synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the apostolic see which by the Providence of God I serve *. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this from the mind of a Christian that any on should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honor of his brethren…”
(Book 5, Epistle 43)

When, a short time later he writes to the Emperor (Maurice) on the matter, he is yet more emphatic:

“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.”
(Book 7, Epistle 33)

Later, he writes to the Bishop of Alexandria (Evlogios):

“Your Blessedness …] You address me saying, ‘As you have commanded’. This word ‘command’ I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am and who you are. For in position you are my brother, in character my father. …] In the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg you, most sweet Holiness: do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself …] For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally.”
(Book 8, Epistle 30)

There are multiple things of note in these quotations, but among them I might simply point out Gregory’s own insistence that, prior to his own day (he reposed in A.D. 604), no bishop of Rome had ever claimed episcopal primacy of authority."
**

 

[HagiaSophia]

]
Finally aren’t you a little naïve about the return of these stolen goods. Let’s compare circumstances, shall we? Is Constantinople currently under the control of entities at war with Christianity? Is Constantinople currently under the control of entities openly hostile to the papacy? Is Constantinople currently under the control of entities at war with Western European powers? Unless you can give an affirmative answer to all or any of these, then your answer is rather specious.

As a reader in this thread far more than a participant and unhappily one who is bit “thicker” than most of my learned compatriots here, I’d like to drop an observation and a couple of questions – this thread appears to have at least three different sections to it an I become more confused every time I try to follow it.

One seems to deal with stolen goods vs. returned goods – another (which appears to have been the original intent of it) with Supremacy and a third which is the beating up on one another with claims of you did it, countered by well you did too, followed by well you did worse, responded to by well you did it more times.

I am certain that my personal time in purgatory is going to be a long, long one - but I refuse to spend an hour there because in this year of our Lord 2004 I took out with a verbal battleaxe and mace after either my Christian bretheren or my Orthodox friends about events in the 12-1400’s.

Suffice to say this: both sides fought, both sides had victories, both sides had losses - we excommunicated each other, we warred physically and verbally with each other, we stole from each other, we killed each other, and we view our respective histories through whichever side we happened to be born into or studied under.

Now, can we just talk about it without continuing the bloodletting?
I would be shocked not to expect an Orthodox to have a POV, a history and have conclusions. I would be just as shocked for a Catholic not to have the same.

These histories, these events, are different experiences and thus we aren’t going to be able to solve here what our forebears and antecedents could not in their time - so can we just continue and know that the other team has a different POV - I love hearing it - I never have really heard so much of what I am getting here; it helps me understand how people feel about my faith and the pope and the “stolen/borrowed/won/given/taken” stuff.

We will never agree on these things but we can do better in making the other side understand us. The erudition, the historical study just to participate in the thread boggles me mind.

Now for my question: Since It was 1204 when the Crusaders sacked Constantinople and all its art treasures and its religious treasures went to Venice and the Vatican and it was in 1453 that the Muslims conquered Constantinople. why for 250 years did we continue or keep treasures from Constantinople? Was it the dirty doges greed? Plunder as a way of life? We didna’ like them people over there?

Now keep in mind, I’m slower than the rest of you, so one at a time and first lay down your battleaxe, your mace and your chain mail and educate me. I thank you all!

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Hagia Sophia,

Alas, that intervening period was not ideal. Constantinople was rent by political and religious strife within, adversaries from Western European nations without, and, despite attempts at peace with Rome, Orthodoxy constantly refused what the Emperor was attempting to conciliate. Further, Rome itself was not without its own troubles. In all, I don’t believe anyone thought, anyone had the chance to think, of these religious items much during these 250 years.

God bless,

Greg

P.S. This answer is the short of it from memory. If you want more detail, I’ll have to pull out my books.

P.P.S. Good question

P.P.P.S. Not that it matters on the whole, but the Moslem resurgence began in 1422.

 

[Orthodoc]

Greg:

You write -

[Your opinion about these events in the Stalinist period is simply unbelievable.]

Followed by -

[The ROC could have easily told Stalin: “let the Catholics alone” without any repercussions on the ROC. ]

And you accuse my statement of being unbelievable! I can’t believe there was anyone around that could be that naive to make such a statement. If what you claim had any credibility don’t you thnk the ROC would have told Stalin the same thing about their own churches, hierachy, and people who were being presecuted beyond belief ? Are you claiming Stalin would have complied with the wishes of a church that had excommunicated him and who he was persecuting daily?

[The ROC did NOT enslave the Catholics out of the goodness of their heart towards Catholics.]

What enslavement? Since when is enslavement described as saving churches from destruction and providing its members with the Sacraments so necessary for their salvation? How many more people in the Greek Catholic Church would have been born and died without ever have been baptised, married, buried, or given Confession, Absolution, and most important of all - the Eurcharist if there was no church or no priest around for them? Use your common sense man!

[You said “I have no idea what you are talking about here” to one of my points. Let me clarify it. If you can claim that the Orthodox are absolved for their acceptance of the booty of Catholic Churches and property because they paid the taxes, maintained them, and kept them open, and trained their priests, then the Catholic Church could just as well be absolved of any wrongdoing when she supposedly “stole” Orthodox Churches during the times of the Unia. Correct?]

It always amazes me how a double standard is used when comparing the creation of the Unia with its being absolved in the 1940’s. When its creation is brought up Roman Catholics will reply - “We didn’t steal anything. We obtained the churches through a signed written agreement which we acknowledge was a result of political pressure instituted by a Polish RC government that took all the rights away from the Orthodox as long as they remained Orthodox.” (Read the 33 articles contained in the ‘Union Of Brest’ and ask yourself why it was so important to have such guarantees before a union was signed if the Orthodox were so free under RC domination.) Seems to me the precedence was set in 1596 on what consitutes the transfer of people and property from one religion to another.

As I stated before, one cannot condemn what happened in the 1940’s without also condeming what happened in 1596.

Yet when the exact same thing happened in reverse in the 1940’s where a bunch of Greek Catholic Bishops signed another written agreement under communist pressure to return to the Orthodox Church of their ancestors their churches were stolen and the people enslaved!

[Are you willing to admit full culpability for the Russian Orthodox Church in accepting the booty of Catholic Churches and properties from Stalin? To be consistent in your charges, this certainly must be the case.]

This issue is addressed in my above reply.

Now, as someone has aready pointed out we have gotten of the subject matter of this thread so if you want to continue this thread then open up a new one with the appropriate subject title.

Orthodoc

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Orthodoc,

I am not the one who made these unbelievable excuses for my Church. So I think the double-standard would lie with you. I wonder what good a new thread on this issue will do. Even now you are not willing to assign any blame to the ROC, to the point of suggesting that the ROC enslaved Catholics out of the goodness of their hearts! I wonder if you’ve ever read the minutes of Stalin’s and the Patriarch’s discussions where Stalin basically gave in to all of the Patriarch’s conditions. I do not see why one of these requests could not have been “leave the Catholics alone.” I will try to find the link and supply it in the new thread I will start on this issue. But be warned that the Admins may immediately lock the thread if the dialog does not remain civil.

For now, can you please answer my question in post# 72 above? Thanks.

God bless,

Greg