Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[ByzCathCantor]

The Good ol’ Days™.

An interesting catch phrase for it …

But isn’t the Catholic Church a bit past the “Italian dynasty”?

I think we have seen what is possible when the doors are open to other possibilities.

And yes, I do think Nine_Two is entirely correct, even in today’s context. Cardinal Dolan certainly doesn’t have a New York accent!

 

[steve_b]

I believe that the Church of Corinth and of Greece were, from the first to the eight century, under the direct authority of the Roman Pontiff. That might be the reason they wrote to Clement instead of John.

Source please?

 

[ConstantineTG]

yeah and the CC believe florence is an ecumenical council, the filioque was added in agreed upon at florence.

The Filioque has been in use in the West long before the Council of Florence.

he didnt just go agaist the popes authority he violated canon law and according to canon law that offense ‘guaranteed’ excommunication for those ordained and the bishop who ordained.

Canon Law is the expression of the Pope’s authority. Canon Law comes from the Pope.

because the latin church didnt see or consider it a full schism untill the 15th century.

Doesn’t matter. Why do they have to wait for a schism? If the bishop is heretic, shouldn’t the bishop be replaced to prevent a schism?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Source please?

I am writing an essay on the Byzantine Empire and its councils for my high school exams, so you’re in luck that I have a lot of sources at my disposal at the moment

“More momentously, this was probably the time when Leo revoked papal jurisdiction over the empire’s western territories and awarded it to the patriarchate of Constantinople. This act deprived the popes of their traditional ecclesiastical authority not only over Sicily and Calabria, but over Byzantine Greece and the Aegean islands.”

Warren Threadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, page 355.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

i seriously doubt that, augustine refused to use the vulgate for some reasons. He used the greek scriptures instead.
Ubenedictus

Augustine didn’t really know Greek:

“But what were the causes for my strong dislike of Greek literature, which I studied from my boyhood? Even to this day I have not fully understood them. For Latin I loved exceedingly – not just the rudiments, but what the grammarians teach. For those beginner’s lessons in reading, writing, and reckoning, I considered no less a burden and pain than Greek. Yet whence came this, unless from the sin and vanity of this life? For I was “but flesh, a wind that passeth away and cometh not again.””

St. Augustine, Confessions, 1:20

and he used latin translations:

“I desire, moreover, your translation of the Septuagint, in order that we may be delivered, so far as is possible, from the consequences of the notable incompetency of those who, whether qualified or not, have attempted a Latin translation.”

St. Augustine, letter 82, to St. Jerome.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Augustine couldn’t really read and understand Greek. He says so much in his Confessions I think.

He does mention something about his struggle with Greek in Confessions.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

He does mention something about his struggle with Greek in Confessions.

Yes, see the quote above

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, see the quote above

Right we crossed posts,

 

[mardukm]

It was once the norm that individuals from all jurisdictions could lead other churches. I’m not certain when this changed, though it has changed in both the East and the West. My feeling is that it is more recent among the Greeks, and much older for the Latin’s and the Slavs.

To what point in time are you referring? 4th century Canons indicate that bishops or priests could not cross jurisdictions.

Or maybe the concept of ecclesiastical territory/jurisdiction was simply not so legalistic back then as it is now.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

To what point in time are you referring? 4th century Canons indicate that bishops or priests could not cross jurisdictions.

Or maybe the concept of ecclesiastical territory/jurisdiction was simply not so legalistic back then as it is now.

Blessings,
Marduk

Just because bishops and priests could not cross jurisdictions without the permission of the other bishop, that does not mean that the bishop of a see had to be selected from people within that see. See St. John Chrysostom, for example.

 

[Nine_Two]

To what point in time are you referring? 4th century Canons indicate that bishops or priests could not cross jurisdictions.

Or maybe the concept of ecclesiastical territory/jurisdiction was simply not so legalistic back then as it is now.

Blessings,
Marduk

Crossing jurisdictions is something completely different than serving in a jurisdiction in which you have not previously lived.

However during the first millennium was when it was common at the highest levels, among the Greeks this seems to have been the case until the last few hundred years, something which ended only with the rise of Nationalism.

Russia is the only case I can think of where the Patriarch seems to have almost always come from the territory under his control.

And of course for bishops in general, as was pointed out, it is still common for them to oversee regions they don’t come from. This has nothing to do with the canons restricting movement through the sees of others.

 

[Nine_Two]

Just because bishops and priests could not cross jurisdictions without the permission of the other bishop, that does not mean that the bishop of a see had to be selected from people within that see. See St. John Chrysostom, for example.

Well said. Examples are nearly endless.

Well, long anyway.

 

[Hesychios]

Well said. Examples are nearly endless.

Well, long anyway.

Quite so, Origen being one famous early example as an Egyptian incardinated into the Metropolia of Ceasarea Maritima.

 

[steve_b]

I am writing an essay on the Byzantine Empire and its councils for my high school exams, so you’re in luck that I have a lot of sources at my disposal at the moment

“More momentously, this was probably the time when* Leo revoked papal jurisdiction* over the empire’s western territories and awarded it to the patriarchate of Constantinople. This act deprived the popes of their traditional ecclesiastical authority not only over Sicily and Calabria, but over Byzantine Greece and the Aegean islands.”

Warren Threadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, page 355.

I’m curious, who does Warren Threadgold footnote for that information?

 

[LionHeart777]

Nope.

I said that the whole of moden-day Greece was, up until the Iconoclast emperors, under the direct jurisdiction of Rome.

Credo ergo sum,

where are you getting this information from?

Thanks

edit: ok I see, but:

a) would also like to see where your source get’s that info from

b) If I’m understanding you correctly, you seem to imply that Greece and other parts of the east were under Rome’s jurisdiction but not the entire east. If this is so, where are you drawing this conclusion from? Also, do Eastern Orthodox scholars agree with Treadgold that the [P]opes had “’…traditional ecclesiastical authority…over Sicily and Calabria…Byzantine Greece and the Aegean islands.’” ? (your citation, emphasis removed)

thanks

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I’m curious, who does Warren Threadgold footnote for that information?

a) would also like to see where your source get’s that info from

Milton Anastos, “The transfer of Illyricum, Calabria and Sicily to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 732-33” SBN9 (1957), 14-31. That’s what it says in the footnotes.

Gibbon adds (Chapter 49, note 86):

“The great diocese of the Eastern Illyricum, with Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily, (Thomassin, Discipline de l’Eglise, tom. i. p. 145: ) by the confession of the Greeks, the patriarch of Constantinople had detached from Rome the metropolitans of Thessalonica, Athens Corinth, Nicopolis, and Patrae, (Luc. Holsten. Geograph. Sacra, p. 22) and his spiritual conquests extended to Naples and Amalphi (Istoria Civile di Napoli, tom. i. p. 517-524, Pagi, A. D 780, No. 11.)”

b) If I’m understanding you correctly, you seem to imply that Greece and other parts of the east were under Rome’s jurisdiction

I do.

but not the entire east.

I don’t imply that. Only a more indirect jurisdiction.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Also, do Eastern Orthodox scholars agree with Treadgold that the [P]opes had “’…traditional ecclesiastical authority…over Sicily and Calabria…Byzantine Greece and the Aegean islands.’” ? (your citation, emphasis removed)

thanks

Milton Anastos, the source of my source, is an Eastern Orthodox source.

 

[LionHeart777]

Milton Anastos, the source of my source, is an Eastern Orthodox source.

OK, thanks.

I don’t see Milton Anastos agreeing with other Eastern Orthodox Christians that I have seen claim that Corinth was under the jurisdiction of Rome from the first century until the 8th or so (note: obviously as a Catholic I believe in the Pope’s universal jurisdiction from the beginning.) That is, if I understand him correctly:

Previously the lands which Leo ΙΙΙ now placed under the authority of the Church of Constantinople,(128) although subject to the civil rule of the emperor of Constantinople ever since the end of 395 or the beginning of 396, had nevertheless depended upon Rome ecclesiastically, except for a few brief interruptions in 421 and, perhaps, to some extent during the Acacian schism, 484-519.

This had amounted to a staggering concession on the part of the Constantinopolitan
government, according to which the Roman see had been permitted from 395 on to exercise supervision over Greek-speaking churches in Greece, and in such important Byzantine cities as Thessalonike, which was only three hundred miles from Constantinople. Ιn severing ecclesiastical jurisdiction over these areas from the Roman see, Leo intensified their Byzantine character and deprived the popes of a most important sphere of influence, which Popes Ηadrian Ι (772-95) and Nicholas Ι (858-67), for example, were exceedingly anxious to recover. After the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204, Rome did regain some measure of control over these Greek lands, but by that time the hold of Rome had been broken, and the popes had practically no success what-ever in persuading the Greeks to recognize Roman ecclesiastical sovereignty.

Source: myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_12.html (emphasis mine)

I have seen Eastern Orthodox Christians say that Corinth was under the jurisdiction of Rome from the 1st century until the 8th (I think that’s the cut off), but I have never seen any evidence to back it up. This appears to be their rebuttal to Catholics using Pope St. Clement’s letter as proof of universal jurisdiction (which I believe is proof of universal jurisdiction.)

 

[LionHeart777]

Milton Anastos, “The transfer of Illyricum, Calabria and Sicily to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 732-33” SBN9 (1957), 14-31. That’s what it says in the footnotes.

Gibbon adds (Chapter 49, note 86):

“The great diocese of the Eastern Illyricum, with Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily, (Thomassin, Discipline de l’Eglise, tom. i. p. 145: ) by the confession of the Greeks, the patriarch of Constantinople had detached from Rome the metropolitans of Thessalonica, Athens Corinth, Nicopolis, and Patrae, (Luc. Holsten. Geograph. Sacra, p. 22) and his spiritual conquests extended to Naples and Amalphi (Istoria Civile di Napoli, tom. i. p. 517-524, Pagi, A. D 780, No. 11.)”

I do.

I don’t imply that. Only a more indirect jurisdiction.

(Emphasis mine)

I apologize for assuming that.

 

[steve_b]

I am writing an essay on the Byzantine Empire and its councils for my high school exams, so you’re in luck that I have a lot of sources at my disposal at the moment

“More momentously, this was probably the time when Leo revoked papal jurisdiction over the empire’s western territories and awarded it to the patriarchate of Constantinople. This act deprived the popes of their traditional ecclesiastical authority not only over Sicily and Calabria, but over Byzantine Greece and the Aegean islands.”

Warren Threadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, page 355.

By saying it like you did, in the context we were talking in, I felt it was very confusing

The page you’re refering to from Threadgold, is books.google.com/books?id=nYbnr5XVbzUC&pg=PA355&lpg=PA355&dq=Leo+revoked+papal+jurisdiction,+the+patriarchate+of+Constantinople.&source=bl&ots=EAJm94A6d1&sig=EPJF5njxQNbv1lovqQOXzDqPDTM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cgP7T4aRCuPq2QWNtJj9Bg&ved=0CE4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Leo%20revoked%20papal%20jurisdiction%2C%20the%20patriarchate%20of%20Constantinople.&f=false

Before reading this from Threadgold, I wasn’t sure which era in history, and which Leo you were refering to, pope Leo or emperor Leo. We were talking about Clement of Rome 1st century and then you jumped to the 8th century and Byzantine emperor Leo, who revoked papal jurisdiction, over Western territories and gave them to the patriarchate of Constantinople.

Without background to your response, I was thinking you were saying pope Leo voluntarily gave up ecclesiastical jurisdiction over to the patriarch of Constantinople, which obviously isn’t the case. Can you see where my confusion came from?

I’m still not sure how you are connecting the 8th century in this matter, with 1st century Clement.