Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?

[Wandile]

@Isaac14, @Wandile, @OrbisNonSufficit, @Hume:

Here’s what I’m wondering:

What if the problem isn’t really theological. What if the problem is more a matter of Sacred Tradition, Church history prior to 1054 and canon law?

And the other aspect of the problem is that we Latins are approaching it with a top down, centralized hierarchical mindset and you guys are approaching it with a decentralized, horizontal collegial mindset?

To conclude: What was the pre 1054 status of the Pope? Was he respected and listened to by the college of bishops; both West and East?

The Pope really had authority in the east. Popes have annulled eastern synods by the stroke of a pen, deposed eastern patriarchs by themselves and revoked councils that thought themselves ecuemnical. Generally the popes had a hands off approach and only involved themselves if the disputes became a threat to the church at a universal level or were appealed to by the disputing parties.

Some of the oldest canons say no decisions may be made without the consent and against the opinion of the bishop of Rome. Other fathers testify a council can’t have authority or call itself ecumenical without roman approval.

The popes hd legates in Thessalonica responsible for appointing eastern bishops for portions of history too.

However the church was NOT as centralized as it is today.

 

[AlNg]

That is not correct. Although some hyper ecumenists would like it to be true. It simply isn’t, the church is the owner and dispenser of sacraments and only in her, or at least with her permission can sacraments be celebrated licitly.

Are Orthodox Sacraments Licit? Liturgy and Sacraments

Proof that the Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of Orthodox Church laws #16 Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already b…

 

[Michael16]

Okay, Wandile.

If the Church wasn’t as centralized as she is now; what was the structure?

 

[Hume]

Per secular academics, it was a primacy of honor that got it’s fingers slapped when it attempted to meddle directly in other powerful seats, particularly Alexandria and Constantinople.

Almost invariably, those who argue Petrine supremacy from the start are people of Catholic faith. Their faith, of course, influences their path of reason.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

That is not correct. Although some hyper ecumenists would like it to be true. It simply isn’t, the church is the owner and dispenser of sacraments and only in her, or at least with her permission can sacraments be celebrated licitly.

Are Orthodox Sacraments Licit? - #5 by FrDavid96

That decree allows for diversity in governance rather than uniformity due to the legitimate local customs that developed in different areas, as the document makes mention of.

 

[Wandile]

Okay, Wandile.

If the Church wasn’t as centralized as she is now; what was the structure?

Pretty much the ideal of the Union of Brest and the council of Florence. Generally if all things were in accord, the east could do as they wanted. So too even the bishops of the west. If issues arose, local synods and patriarchal appeals would be used to deal with the issues unless the issues became so intense that Roman involvement was necessary. However Rome did NOT need permission to intervene and rightly had authority to intervene where it felt it needed to.

There was no congregation for the eastern churches nor did eatsern bishops (generally) need papal approval to be appointed outside their traditional territories.

 

[AlNg]

The law is set by the Church of Christ which is headed in Rome.

Are Orthodox Sacraments Licit? Liturgy and Sacraments

It is exactly as I wrote it. They are licit in-so-far as they follow the Orthodox laws. If an Orthodox priest acts contrary to Orthodox law, he acts illicitly. If he acts according to Orthodox law, he acts licitly. There is no such thing as sacraments being inherently licit. I have no idea what you mean by that phrase. It makes no sense. It is a non-sense phrase. Nothing can be “inherently licit” It is either lawful or it is not lawful. Since laws are subject to change, the criteria …

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

The law is set by the Church of Christ which is headed in Rome.

Are Orthodox Sacraments Licit? - #4 by FrDavid96

I was part of that thread. I’m aware of what Father David said. It’s just that his conclusions don’t seem to follow the reading of the document nor prior catholic tradition concerning the sacraments.

He quotes Vatican II but that paragraph says :

”To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them“

This is clearly speaking about eastern customs being legitimate within the Catholic Church to allay fears of the Eastern Orthodox of Roman pretensions to latinization if union were to occur.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

To conclude: What was the pre 1054 status of the Pope? Was he respected and listened to by the college of bishops; both West and East?

Not necessarily… problem is, that Church was much more decentralized. Communication was harder and Church was occasionally under oppression by nobles (Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople once denied Eucharist to a noble because he was public sinner, for which he got deposed by Emperor… not the best reward for being true to his function).

pre-schism Saint, Pope St. Gregory the Great, does say that in him lies the Peter’s Office and he even says he can annul Eastern Councils with strike of a pen. He later also says that each and every Bishop is equal in dignity and even says Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch are to be respected as his brothers- but he never claims they can annul synods or excludes them from being able to annul all Eastern synods.

Saint who lived during Schism, St. George the Hagiorite, Georgian Monk who is a Saint in Orthodoxy (not in Catholicism, funnily enough) did come to Constantinople around 10 years after the Schism. He came to try and get Georgia their autocephaly, but as soon as he heard that Patriarch of Constantinople broke communion with Latin Church, he asserted in presence of Emperor inerrancy (infallibility, inability to ever be in error) of Roman Church. This Monk had no prior contact with the West, was not latinized nor was he Roman by any sense.

St. Maximus the Confessor said that Rome could not err and for sake of argument did say that if indeed Rome did err, it was like if Angels erred and would still get anathemized… but he did believe Roman See would never go into heresy.

East was collegial in nature, but when at Chalcedon, Emperor influenced Council to make Constantinople rank #2 in Church, other Patriarchs opposed this. This rise of power in Imperial City was uncanonical and illogical to them… but over time, Emperor got what he wanted. Rome rejected this canon but later Popes who came were some from Greece and hence they did not know Rome rejected the canon, so they did not act against it anymore.

cont

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This approach of the East heavily changed when above described situation with Patriarch Ignatius denying Eucharist to unrepentant noble happened. He got replaced by Patriarch Photius, but Rome supported Ignatius. Photius did everything in his power to discredit Latins as heretics, so nobody would listen to their call to depose him. Photius later got deposed, and reconciled with Ignatius. After Ignatius died, Photius became Patriarch again. Patriarch Photius did also military invade Bulgaria to force Greek Christianity upon them (because they were adopting Latin Rite at the time) and took them out of Pope’s jurisdiction, to which they belonged by canons of the Church. Later on, council (one which Orthodoxy regards as Ecumenical btw, but Catholics dont) did solve this but neither Bulgaria nor Constantinople honored will of the council. I’d say that large hit to Roman authority was taken by this incident, and later on faction of Photiuses followers arose within clergy of Constantinople.

Soon, other Patriarchates become almost purely nominal and under Emperor of Eastern Roman Empire. Basically, every Eastern Churchmen was somehow subordinate to Constantinople, which controlled the East. After West tried to assert it’s power, East kinda stopped recognizing that. Anti-Roman Party of Constantinople got their guy, Patriarch Michael Cerularius, elected and this dude started going on his anti-latin campaign. His chaplain apparently stepped on Latin Eucharist calling it invalid. Pope sent Cardinals to deal with situation, but Patriarch ignored their arrival. Pope died and Cardinals were recalled, but Cardinal Humbert was a man of short temper. He drew up invalid bull of excommunication and excommunicated Patriarch for condemning Latin practices. Patriarch in turn called a synod to excommunicate dead Pope (yeah…) and Cardinals.

West did actually hold power in the East- not immediate, but they had power to intervene, and not just when they wanted. Problem was that many times, Patriarchs or Emperors were unwilling to concede to Rome and wanted to pursue their agenda. Relations got hurt first by Pope crowning Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor (unwise move, but in the end this did free Pope from Byzantine control) and then later by adoption of Filioque in the Creed (something held to be actually true and correct theology even in the East, namely in Alexandria… but was not included in the Creed at the time and this change of Creed without consulting them was very strange for them).

From this, I concluded that I want to stand by the Pope, because while it is true that post-schism Papacy grew in centralization of the Church and power over Church became direct (something I kinda dislike btw), it is still based upon a principle which existed in the Church since it’s conception. To abolish this would mean to abolish ancient heritage, to prevent Holy Spirit from leading Church through the Pope and all of that just to please those who do not want to fully draw from this gift of Papacy.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Despite being an issue pertaining to the faith and morals of the church, it was met with a collective eye roll from the East.

Actually it is neither of those… and it was not met by collective eye roll, it was met by pleas to not do it. When other Patriarchs broke communion, most other people did not bat an eye. Why did they care if Rome did so?

Generally the popes had a hands off approach and only involved themselves if the disputes became a threat to the church at a universal level or were appealed to by the disputing parties.

Some of the oldest canons say no decisions may be made without the consent and against the opinion of the bishop of Rome. Other fathers testify a council can’t have authority or call itself ecumenical without roman approval.

This is what Church should look like, in my opinion.

Almost invariably, those who argue Petrine supremacy from the start are people of Catholic faith. Their faith, of course, influences their path of reason.

Yes, because if Petrine “supremacy” as you call it, is true, then Papacy is for sure right and so is Catholicism. Anyone who discovers that just automatically converts to Catholicism. It’s like saying “only Christians believe Christ was God”, or “only creationists believe world was created”. It logically follows.

 

[Wandile]

Sure I’m familiar with it. But I’m also reminded of a controversy in the early church were the Roman Bishop tried to change the date of something, I forget exactly what.

Pope St Victor and the date of easter controversy. In the whole ordeal, not a single church man questioned the popes authority to mandate the change, all they did was question the wisdom of his demand. In fact the eastern synods that were called to reply to the popes suggestion were actually called at the instance of the Pope himself.

Despite being an issue pertaining to the faith and morals of the church, it was met with a collective eye roll from the East.

It was just a calander issue and it wasn’t collective eye roll at all. It was quite the controversy as the east felt authentic tradition was being undermined by Pope St Victor in favour of roman practices. Pope St Victor got what he wanted in the end.

Supremacy had yet to be invested in the Roman seat by Muslim princes.

It was never invested by Muslim princes but was actually detested by them. They sought their subjects to abhor Rome and the west to avoid any allegiance to Muslim enemies by their subjects.

 

[Wandile]

Per secular academics, it was a primacy of honor that got it’s fingers slapped when it attempted to meddle directly in other powerful seats, particularly Alexandria and Constantinople.

Primacy of honor is a myth that even many modern Eastern Orthodox scholars are starting to admit. In the ancient world, particularly the Roman Empire, primacy never was honorific and always entailed some kind of authority. The question between the two churches is over how much authority that really was.

I don’t recall a single instance when Rome “got its fingers slapped”. In literally every dispute and schism between Rome and Constantinople in the first millennium (there were 6 of them I think), Constantinople was wrong in every single instance.

Alexandria long left the church in the 5th century and generally had better relations with Rome than it did with Constantinople as Constantinople was challenging Alexandria’s primacy in the east. The Alexandrian Church in communion with Rome after Chalcedon was nothing more than a Greek satellite church maintaining a hierarchy for the few Greek inhabitants in Egypt. The proper Alexandrian church is the Coptic Orthodox Church which the majority of Egypt followed.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The Chieti document didn’'t settle the subject of primacy. That’s correct

That doesn’t answer the question I asked.

What you don’t see in the dialogue is the responses.

AND

Chieti in proposing going back to the 1st millenium, as the example, does not provide much insight into the meaning of ‘primacy of honor’ that was accorded to Rome.

For example

Going back to the 1st millennium vs what we see today

These 5 cities (called a pentarchy ) were mentioned .

Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem,

Those 5 sees, from the 1st millennium ------> today

1. Rome is still ranked #1 when listing sees among the 5
2. Byzantium, Constantinople, Istanbul, today , and the largest community of Christians in Istanbul is Catholic.
3. Alexandria -----> today Coptic
4. Antioch ————> today Orthodox had moved to Damascus in 14th century, due to persecutions. Those persecutions have only intensified massively, today
5. Jerusalem today barely has 1% Christian population

So just

Re: Russians, the largest of the Orthodox Churches, don’t show up in the Chieti doc.

You’d probably know the answer to this question. How do the Russians view the Chieti dialogue?

 

[steve-b]

Sure I’m familiar with it. But I’m also reminded of a controversy in the early church were the Roman Bishop tried to change the date of something, I forget exactly what.

You might be referring to

the Quartodeciman controversy, and the celebration of Easter.

 

[Isaac14]

If I understand your response, it’s fair to say you disagree with the Chieti statement?

 

[steve-b]

If I understand your response, it’s fair to say you disagree with the Chieti statement?

It’s a dialogue. An ongoing dialogue. It’s not doctrine or dogma.

 

[Isaac14]

It’s a dialogue. An ongoing dialogue. It’s not doctrine or dogma.

I’m pretty sure I’ve said I understand that. I am asking you if you agree with the points made in the Chieti statement, not whether it is dogma or doctrine. Simple question you could answer with a yes or no.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It’s a dialogue. An ongoing dialogue. It’s not doctrine or dogma.

I’m pretty sure I’ve said I understand that. I am asking you if you agree with the points made in the Chieti statement, not whether it is dogma or doctrine. Simple question you could answer with a yes or no.

I’m not obligated to agree or disagree with an ongoing dialogue.

 

[Hume]

shrug

For various secular academics and myself, it is not a religious issue. Ergo I have no emotional desire to see myself proven right.

The current academic environment on the matter is the the Pentarchy had rule of the greater church (though including small, insignificant Jerusalem in it really was a primacy of honor).

As these cities fell to Islamic lords, the enormous Christian populations they controlled contracted, leaving Rome the only honorific of the five to remain under Christian temporal control.

Please note that the Pentarchy wasn’t really a recognized institution. It’s mostly a word used to describe the higher Christian ecclesiastical status quo until the 7th century which saw the fall of possibly the largest at the time; Alexandria.

Until the rise of Islam, Christendom was divided fairly evenly into thirds - Latins with their eyes set on Rome, Greeks with their eyes set on Constantinople and Eastern Christians with their eyes set on Alexandria (and to some extent, Ctesiphon).

After the events in the seventh century, the latter two were Christian realms were believers were steadily culled or converted.

This simply left Rome as the effectively unchallenged Christian center by the concluding 13th century - what scholars describe, as no coincidence, the golden age of Roman Catholicism.

With every contraction of Eastern and Byzantine Christian influence, the remainder of the Christian world was more and more Latin. This, according to seculars on the matter, largely coincided with developments in papal power. The establishment of Papal States. The crowning of a Holy Roman Emperor, the mingling of secular and religious power structures. So on.

There’s no question that papal power grew in time unless you have a religious reason to say otherwise. And to that, again;

shrug