How Do Orthodox Christians View the Pope?

[Filii_Dei]

Is this what Christ wished his One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to do? To speak words of venom at each other?

We don’t have to stop this discussion, but can’t we all just swallow some of our pride and tone it down, please?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Jesus Christ is the judge

it is for us to pray for eachothers sins,forgiveness,reconciliation and peace

Christians are to be more like God who tolerates so much sin and evil in the world and has patience

Who made any of us Judge

 

[Ubenedictus]

Great post. :yup:

This one made me look again through history, according to wikipedia the aim of that crusade didnt involve the orthodox church or the empire, but things went wrong the venetian and shortage of fund turn the crusade to the empire. The presence of cleric cheering the crusade on was a factor but wikipedia does not show religious hatred as the reason for the atrocities that took place. I think shortage of fund and venetian politic was the mortivating factor. Beside the latin church from the begining forbabe sacking of the xtain states. After the crusades the pope played a ‘diplomatic style’, i dont see why d words ‘crocrodile tears’ was used by a previous poster.
Lastly didnt the latin church apologise for this crusade?
Ubenedictus

 

[Nine_Two]

This one made me look again through history, according to wikipedia the aim of that crusade didnt involve the orthodox church or the empire, but things went wrong the venetian and shortage of fund turn the crusade to the empire. The presence of cleric cheering the crusade on was a factor but wikipedia does not show religious hatred as the reason for the atrocities that took place. I think shortage of fund and venetian politic was the mortivating factor. Beside the latin church from the begining forbabe sacking of the xtain states. After the crusades the pope played a ‘diplomatic style’, i dont see why d words ‘crocrodile tears’ was used by a previous poster.
Lastly didnt the latin church apologise for this crusade?
Ubenedictus

You’re mostly correct, but the fact that the latin church forbade the sacking of Christian states is mitigated by one thing, which I pointed out to Mardukm…
The Pope validated the actions of the army who sacked Constantinople after the fact. Were it not before the Church could have rightfully claimed some distance from the event - no one ever accuses them of playing a part in the sacking of Zeta shortly before, and that’s because the Pope contrary to validating it, excommunicated the guilty army.

By confirming the new, Latin, bishop, and the new, Latin, king, the Pope brought the guilt of the act upon the Church itself.

You’re correct that the Church has apologized for this, a wonderful and necessary thing, but that doesn’t mean others can warp it so that it becomes nothing big.

 

[Ubenedictus]

There were Latin bishops present, and they blessed the enterprise and held the crusade together even when the so-called excommunications were in effect.

According to wikipedia i think u are right some clerics did not all the bishops, and the pope who called the crusade didnt agree with all they did.

Then the sack began, it lasted almost sixty years. These so-called excommunicated bishops and priests and nobles of the crusade went on to elect a Latin rite Catholic man of their own to be the next patriarch!

A latin patriarch is religiously mortivated

The Pope, disappointed as he may have been at first, accepted the new patriarch and the new church and the new Roman Catholic kingdom, lifting the excommunications (and blessing the coronations). The crusaders always had Mass and the sacraments, they buried their guilty dead with the rites of the church and ultimately the Pope accepted the situation crying crocodile tears. The churches of the west were then blessed with many fine donations of Greek eastern origin, like the Holy Shroud of Turin.

the crusaders always had mass and other sacraments from cleric who technically had already been excominicated. And the pope accepted the situation because nobody can turn back the hands of time. He moved foward with what he saw as maybe God bringing good out of evil.

‘Exact same’ is not accurate, your attempts to justify an act of naked military aggression and subjugation by pointing to a single riot in the city are deplorable. What happened 20 years before was an urban race riot, like many similar events that happened in Europe against Jews. It was wrong but it wasn’t an act of war on a foreign government instigated by a church, it was an undisciplined mob of angry people in the street.

This ‘riot’ was what the venetian had against the greeks, this among others caused the sacking.

Interestingly, the Italian merchants were still in Constantinople at the time of the 4th crusade, and doing a thriving business as usual.

What you seem to be saying is that the attack on Constantinople and the subjugation of an entire nation with it’s acompanying killing and stealing by Frankish and Burgundian landed nobles was designed in revenge for what happened to Italian merchants at the hands of a mob two decades earlier, The equation is ludicrous. Besides, the only similarity between the two entirely different groups was in fact their religion and so you seem to be making the sack and subjugation religiously motivated although you deny it.

it was apparent that the riot was religiously mortivated and the venetian were fighting against constantinople, the shortage of fund allowed the venetians use the crusades in their political ambition. The venetians posibly wanted a revenge on the masacre (i think this is why the acrocities are ‘similar’, the desecration of churches, killing of clerics, killing of people etc). So maybe the venetians did have political and religious mortivation to attack the empire but the other crusaders certainly attacked because of lack of fund (to pay the venetians) and not because the had same polical and religious reasons.
Lastly is the related to the thread, ‘how the orthodox view the pope’?
Ubenedictus

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Just put this in the ‘Hot Topics’ email for the week.
DO NOT make me regret it.

 

[Hesychios]

The venetians posibly wanted a revenge on the masacre

I doubt it, the accounts are very clear that the Venetians were involved on a contractual basis. It was all about the opportunity and compensation for them, which is why they suggested the Crusade attack Zara as well.

BTW, Zara was a Roman Catholic town and it was for attacking this town that the Crusaders were excommunicated, they were still technically excommunicated when they laid seige to Constantinople, although it seems that the bishops and nobles present probably hid this fact from the rank and file and continued to serve the liturgy and hear confessions. So the excommunications were not as we think of excommunications today, the public were not denied the sacraments but the bishops and nobles were technically under disfavor as far as the Pope was concerned.

Lastly is the related to the thread, ‘how the orthodox view the pope’?
Ubenedictus

I agree with your concern.

The subject is tengential to the overall topic.

With regard to how Orthodox view the Pope, the problem is the RC has had a longstanding policy of attempting to take over the Orthodox churches. That policy agrees with RC ecclesiology of modern times but not with Orthodox ecclesiology. The Orthodox, knowing this, see the more recent claims of Papal universal jurisdiction as being an even greater motivation to do this kind of absorbing in the future.

For another later example, it appears that when the Bielorussian and Ukrainian bishops of the ‘Union of Brest’ hammered out a deal for inter-communion (several hundred years after the events around the conquests of the crusades), they were counting on guarantees that their independence and ritual traditions would be respected. In other words they were counting on a communion in the Orthodox sense, as equals. Thus the wording of the 32 conditions they insisted upon were called ‘demands’. No one in the RC makes demands of the Pope. The agreements to these conditions were considered ‘promises’ by the Pope. It sounds very similar to the kind of discussions we might have today, such as between the SSPX and the Vatican or between the Orthodox and the Vatican, demands made and promises to be kept.

The end result was that the Orthodox church in Bielorussia and Ukraine was drawn into corporate union with the Papal communion instead, the ecclesiology was altered and the spirituality and liturgy suffered for it. Orthodox are very aware of this kind of thing happening repeatedly in different places around the world and at different times, and are quite reluctant to engage, especially (as I mentioned above) since the RC has ‘recently’ adopted Papal universal jurisdiction as a dogma. Dogmas are usually presumed to be irreversible so that is a huge obstacle to reconciliation.

 

[Ubenedictus]

You’re mostly correct, but the fact that the latin church forbade the sacking of Christian states is mitigated by one thing, which I pointed out to Mardukm…
The Pope validated the actions of the army who sacked Constantinople after the fact. Were it not before the Church could have rightfully claimed some distance from the event - no one ever accuses them of playing a part in the sacking of Zeta shortly before, and that’s because the Pope contrary to validating it, excommunicated the guilty army.

What do u mean by ‘validated’? Is there a document or writting of the pope that ‘validates’ those atrocities?

By confirming the new, Latin, bishop, and the new, Latin, king, the Pope brought the guilt of the act upon the Church itself.

How is that? Aleoxis iv who had a claim to the throne was killed by aleoxis v who put himself on the throne and refused the crusaders, why would the crusader not put a latin man on the throne?, what was the pope to do under the circumstance? Personally i think the pope had to accept the result of the crusade as ’ good out of evil’. This does not make the church responsible for or guilty of the atrocities.

You’re correct that the Church has apologized for this, a wonderful and necessary thing, but that doesn’t mean others can warp it so that it becomes nothing big.

I really dont understand how accepting a latin king and patriarch validated every thing the crusaders did.
Ubenedictus

 

[Nine_Two]

What do u mean by ‘validated’? Is there a document or writting of the pope that ‘validates’ those atrocities?
How is that? Aleoxis iv who had a claim to the throne was killed by aleoxis v who put himself on the throne and refused the crusaders, why would the crusader not put a latin man on the throne?, what was the pope to do under the circumstance? Personally i think the pope had to accept the result of the crusade as ’ good out of evil’. This does not make the church responsible for or guilty of the atrocities.

I really dont understand how accepting a latin king and patriarch validated every thing the crusaders did.
Ubenedictus

The pope didn’t simply accept - as in it was a reality he would have to live with - he confirmed them all in their positions. His role became active at that point.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I doubt it, the accounts are very clear that the Venetians were involved on a contractual basis. It was all about the opportunity and compensation for them, which is why they suggested the Crusade attack Zara as well.

wikipedia thinks the venetians saw it as an opportunity to regain zeta and revenge for the masacre. Where did u get ‘the accounts’?

BTW, Zara was a Roman Catholic town and it was for attacking this town that the Crusaders were excommunicated, they were still technically excommunicated when they laid seige to Constantinople, although it seems that the bishops and nobles present probably hid this fact from the rank and file and continued to serve the liturgy and hear confessions. So the excommunications were not as we think of excommunications today, the public were not denied the sacraments but the bishops and nobles were technically under disfavor as far as the Pope was concerned. I agree with your concern.

are u saying that at that time excommunication simply meant disfavor or that the full scope was not carried out bcos the clerics hid the information?

The subject is tengential to the overall topic.

With regard to how Orthodox view the Pope, the problem is the RC has had a longstanding policy of attempting to take over the Orthodox churches. That policy agrees with RC ecclesiology of modern times but not with Orthodox ecclesiology. The Orthodox, knowing this, see the more recent claims of Papal universal jurisdiction as being an even greater motivation to do this kind of absorbing in the future.

Wow! A policy of taking churches? Wow!!! Where did u get that? The rc wants to take over ocs? The pope usually acted with universal jurisdiction even before that dogma was define.

For another later example, it appears that when the Bielorussian and Ukrainian bishops of the ‘Union of Brest’ hammered out a deal for inter-communion (several hundred years after the events around the conquests of the crusades), they were counting on guarantees that their independence and ritual traditions would be respected. In other words they were counting on a communion in the Orthodox sense, as equals. Thus the wording of the 32 conditions they insisted upon were called ‘demands’. No one in the RC makes demands of the Pope. The agreements to these conditions were considered ‘promises’ by the Pope. It sounds very similar to the kind of discussions we might have today, such as between the SSPX and the Vatican or between the Orthodox and the Vatican, demands made and promises to be kept.

im not a big fan of history, bring another case means i’ll have to check the net again. This is becoming tiring. Ill refer to it after i check the history.

The end result was that the Orthodox church in Bielorussia and Ukraine was drawn into corporate union with the Papal communion instead, the ecclesiology was altered and the spirituality and liturgy suffered for it. Orthodox are very aware of this kind of thing happening repeatedly in different places around the world and at different times, and are quite reluctant to engage, especially (as I mentioned above) since the RC has ‘recently’ adopted Papal universal jurisdiction as a dogma. Dogmas are usually presumed to be irreversible so that is a huge obstacle to reconciliation.

papal jurisdiction? Are we going to argue vatican 1? I belive history bears witness that the pope does not restrict himself to rome alone, but has alway served as a source of unity to the church. The use of the word ‘recently’ is funny i guess it shouldnt be there.
How does the popes universal jurisdiction become an obstacle? Pope Clement(if i remember correctly) wrote authoritatively to corith about (a very long time ago) AD.
Ubenedictus

 

[ByzCathCantor]

With regard to how Orthodox view the Pope, the problem is the RC has had a longstanding policy of attempting to take over the Orthodox churches. That policy agrees with RC ecclesiology of modern times but not with Orthodox ecclesiology. The Orthodox, knowing this, see the more recent claims of Papal universal jurisdiction as being an even greater motivation to do this kind of absorbing in the future.

Is this truly the Orthodox view of modern RC “policy”? When did the RCC first and most recently attempt (successfully or unsuccessfully) to take over an Orthodox church according to Orthodox reckoning? Where is the RCC attempting to do so at present?

 

[Ubenedictus]

I doubt it, the accounts are very clear that the Venetians were involved on a contractual basis. It was all about the opportunity and compensation for them, which is why they suggested the Crusade attack Zara as well.

BTW, Zara was a Roman Catholic town and it was for attacking this town that the Crusaders were excommunicated, they were still technically excommunicated when they laid seige to Constantinople, although it seems that the bishops and nobles present probably hid this fact from the rank and file and continued to serve the liturgy and hear confessions. So the excommunications were not as we think of excommunications today, the public were not denied the sacraments but the bishops and nobles were technically under disfavor as far as the Pope was concerned. I agree with your concern.

The subject is tengential to the overall topic.

With regard to how Orthodox view the Pope, the problem is the RC has had a longstanding policy of attempting to take over the Orthodox churches. That policy agrees with RC ecclesiology of modern times but not with Orthodox ecclesiology. The Orthodox, knowing this, see the more recent claims of Papal universal jurisdiction as being an even greater motivation to do this kind of absorbing in the future.

For another later example, it appears that when the Bielorussian and Ukrainian bishops of the ‘Union of Brest’ hammered out a deal for inter-communion (several hundred years after the events around the conquests of the crusades), they were counting on guarantees that their independence and ritual traditions would be respected. In other words they were counting on a communion in the Orthodox sense, as equals. Thus the wording of the 32 conditions they insisted upon were called ‘demands’. No one in the RC makes demands of the Pope. The agreements to these conditions were considered ‘promises’ by the Pope. It sounds very similar to the kind of discussions we might have today, such as between the SSPX and the Vatican or between the Orthodox and the Vatican, demands made and promises to be kept.

The end result was that the Orthodox church in Bielorussia and Ukraine was drawn into corporate union with the Papal communion instead, the ecclesiology was altered and the spirituality and liturgy suffered for it. Orthodox are very aware of this kind of thing happening repeatedly in different places around the world and at different times, and are quite reluctant to engage, especially (as I mentioned above) since the RC has ‘recently’ adopted Papal universal jurisdiction as a dogma. Dogmas are usually presumed to be irreversible so that is a huge obstacle to reconciliation.

i just check the union i cant find fault with it neither do i understand how it affects the spirituality or litugies. Can u pls provide a link.

 

[Ubenedictus]

The pope didn’t simply accept - as in it was a reality he would have to live with - he confirmed them all in their positions. His role became active at that point.

please give me a document that say the atrocities are validated. What i can find are documents against the atrocities, accepting the results and lifting the excommunication. Till u can provide proof that the pope agreed with all the deeds of the crusade i can only say the opinion is not correct.
Ubenedictus

 

[Cavaradossi]

i just check the union i cant find fault with it neither do i understand how it affects the spirituality or litugies. Can u pls provide a link.

The union isn’t what he’s talking about, it’s what happened in the hundreds of years afterward.

Is this truly the Orthodox view of modern RC “policy”? When did the RCC first and most recently attempt (successfully or unsuccessfully) to take over an Orthodox church according to Orthodox reckoning? Where is the RCC attempting to do so at present?

I think it is a cause of much suspicion. Seeing what happened with several Eastern Catholic Churches gives the Orthodox much pause. This talk of rites of equal dignity basically did not exist before the mid 20th century, so you will have to forgive the Orthodox if they have not yet decided that the Roman Catholic Church has done an about-face in the past fifty years and that this change in mentality is not something temporary.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think it is a cause of much suspicion. Seeing what happened with several Eastern Catholic Churches gives the Orthodox much pause. This talk of rites of equal dignity basically did not exist before the mid 20th century, so you will have to forgive the Orthodox if they have not yet decided that the Roman Catholic Church has done an about-face in the past fifty years which is destined to last.

You’re not going to get much of an argument from me, a Ruthenian, in that regard, but I think its a bit of an over-extension to claim that the RCC actively seeks to take over Orthodox churches today.

Haven’t we gotten to the point officially where the wounds of Uniatism were mutually acknowledged, with a vow to discontinue the practice? I’m referring most specifically to the Balamand Statement of 1993 and subsequent work of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You’re not going to get much of an argument from me, a Ruthenian, in that regard, but I think its a bit of an over-extension to claim that the RCC actively seeks to take over Orthodox churches today.

Haven’t we gotten to the point officially where the wounds of Uniatism were mutually acknowledged, with a vow to discontinue the practice? I’m referring most specifically to the Balamand Statement of 1993 and subsequent work of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

I think that the Roman Church’s rejection of ‘Uniatism’ as a model of union was a step in the right direction. I think it’s now more of a matter of waiting to make sure that they won’t change their minds. Seeing the Eastern Catholic Churches become something like autocephalous churches would probably be another reassuring step. I think some are probably watching to see if this will happen.

 

[Hesychios]

Is this truly the Orthodox view of modern RC “policy”?

Actually it is constitutional with the RC, I think you know that .

For example, the movement of Mar Bawai Soro into the the Catholic church was considered ‘unity’, but the fact that the Church of the East already had a Eucharistic agreement with the RC was not. Why is that?

The dogma of universal jurisdiction is the reason. RC tend to have a very concise idea of what Christian unity is. The only concept RC understand is where there is one corporate body, and a merger of sorts. Anything else is ‘not unity’ in a Roman Catholic sense.

It is not so in Holy Orthodoxy. If the Papacy taught Orthodox theology we could be in communion right away, but our church structures would be no different whatever from what they are right now.

It isn’t just the Orthodox who are organized in this way, the non-Chalcedonians are too. It wasn’t a choice or decision to organize their communion thus, they inherited it. The Pope of Alexandria has no say whatever in how the Jacobite church in Syria conducts it’s business, neither does the patriarch for the Armenians. They don’t control one another because they are in free association with one another because they agree in theology and respect each other. If one church should diverge in a basic theological way the others are quite capable of voicing their concerns, and they could cut off communion if necessary.

But they have not, because they want to agree, they want to be in communion with each other. The relationship is entirely mutual. The goal is to be as conservative in doctrinal matters as possible, always looking to the received faith as the standard. The ecclesiological model of the non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox is basically the same, because they both reflect the organization of the early church.

The RC has definitely evolved it’s ecclesiology. The RC could be part of the Orthodox network of churches. It’s an easy fix.

 

[Hesychios]

You’re not going to get much of an argument from me, a Ruthenian, in that regard, but I think its a bit of an over-extension to claim that the RCC actively seeks to take over Orthodox churches today.

Then it should be easy for the RC to agree to repudiate the dogma of universal jurisdiction.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Actually it is constitutional with the RC, I think you know that .

OK, so exactly which Orthodox church is the RCC attempting to take over? Which one(s) has it successfully taken over? That was the assertion. Are you now saying it is an assumption, implied by the dogma?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Then it should be easy for the RC to agree to repudiate the dogma of universal jurisdiction.

With all due respect, that may be a desired end for some, but that is not what was asserted here.