L
Little_Boy_Lost
Guest
Flip to Page 31 with the article titled “A catholic Factor in an inter-Orthodox controversy”
It’s a short but interesting read from Catholic Scholars Quarterly.
catholicscholars.org/publications/quarterly/v32n3fal2009.pdf
Just some of my reflections from reading the article…
It seems canon 28 from chalcedon was widely accepted in the east and the eastern catholic churches continue to hold this idea, all of the byzantine rite being part of the patrimony of Constantinople. If it was reaffirmed by the quintext council in the 7th century then it is a legitimate canon, as two popes, Adrian I and a later pope affirmed these canons and they continue to be in effect in the governance of the byzantine rite churches.
Within the context of pan-orthodox relations, I think there will have to be humility on Russia’s part and on Constantinople’s part. I have always been given the impression that Constantinople in the last century has seen itself as the mother of her churches and has tried to shepherd them under her wing. With Russia wishing to gather to herself all the chicks she can find and effectively “run” the orthodox church as she would like it owing to her size. I do think Constantinople has rightful claim to being second after Rome in honor, however, what that means, for the orthodox hasn’t not been adequately defined in the context of the Church after the fall of Byzantium whereby Kiev and eventually Moscow became the center of Orthodoxy. This I think is part of a larger issue at hand which trickles over to Catholic dialogue. What does primacy mean? This is the same issue the orthodox face when confronted with the Roman Patriarchate. How is it to be understood.
Effectively you have two methods of control following the disintegration of the Western Roman Empire. The western Church, with one patriarchate under Rome, seeks out the Frankish kingdom to unify the west and provide stability. In the process pushing out regional traditions in favor of the latin one. The eastern imperial church, with sees in all the remaining patriarchates no longer has one sole see of importance like the east, so I hypothesize constantinople’s elevation to second place is an attempt to rectify the loss of Rome to non-imperial control. Gradually as the churches split apart, the east sought unity and control in the form of “KingMaking”. Whereby various autocephalous churches headed by patriarchs were created by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. It seems this is a departure from the authority of the ecumenical council to grant status of patriarchate. As you had one emperor and a byzantine empire with lots of money, this allowed this autocephalous communion to work, so long as trade continued, Byzantium could bribe neighbors and make ethnic patriarchates. When Constantinople fell to the turks, you no longer had imperial authority to provide leadership and stability to the autocephalous churches. This becomes problematic. Especially when after years of Ottoman rule in the balklands, the Ecumenical Patriarchate begins to reassert herself on a scene she had languished from for hundreds of years. How will the Orthodox treat power, authority, honor. That is what it comes down to.
The opposite I s’pose could be said about Rome. Now having many smaller, ethnic churches that suddenly come into communion with her, with a very different orientation of hierarchy. How does the western church react? How does the Catholic Church go forward, suddenly being thrusted back into the 5th or 6th century? And it’s even more complicated as you have churches from non-chalcedonian churches seeking communion. Some that developed for years outside the imperial banner of Hellenic Roman Empire.
It’s interesting. I don’t know if either side can go back… but we can try and go forward together.
It’s a short but interesting read from Catholic Scholars Quarterly.
catholicscholars.org/publications/quarterly/v32n3fal2009.pdf
Just some of my reflections from reading the article…
It seems canon 28 from chalcedon was widely accepted in the east and the eastern catholic churches continue to hold this idea, all of the byzantine rite being part of the patrimony of Constantinople. If it was reaffirmed by the quintext council in the 7th century then it is a legitimate canon, as two popes, Adrian I and a later pope affirmed these canons and they continue to be in effect in the governance of the byzantine rite churches.
Within the context of pan-orthodox relations, I think there will have to be humility on Russia’s part and on Constantinople’s part. I have always been given the impression that Constantinople in the last century has seen itself as the mother of her churches and has tried to shepherd them under her wing. With Russia wishing to gather to herself all the chicks she can find and effectively “run” the orthodox church as she would like it owing to her size. I do think Constantinople has rightful claim to being second after Rome in honor, however, what that means, for the orthodox hasn’t not been adequately defined in the context of the Church after the fall of Byzantium whereby Kiev and eventually Moscow became the center of Orthodoxy. This I think is part of a larger issue at hand which trickles over to Catholic dialogue. What does primacy mean? This is the same issue the orthodox face when confronted with the Roman Patriarchate. How is it to be understood.
Effectively you have two methods of control following the disintegration of the Western Roman Empire. The western Church, with one patriarchate under Rome, seeks out the Frankish kingdom to unify the west and provide stability. In the process pushing out regional traditions in favor of the latin one. The eastern imperial church, with sees in all the remaining patriarchates no longer has one sole see of importance like the east, so I hypothesize constantinople’s elevation to second place is an attempt to rectify the loss of Rome to non-imperial control. Gradually as the churches split apart, the east sought unity and control in the form of “KingMaking”. Whereby various autocephalous churches headed by patriarchs were created by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. It seems this is a departure from the authority of the ecumenical council to grant status of patriarchate. As you had one emperor and a byzantine empire with lots of money, this allowed this autocephalous communion to work, so long as trade continued, Byzantium could bribe neighbors and make ethnic patriarchates. When Constantinople fell to the turks, you no longer had imperial authority to provide leadership and stability to the autocephalous churches. This becomes problematic. Especially when after years of Ottoman rule in the balklands, the Ecumenical Patriarchate begins to reassert herself on a scene she had languished from for hundreds of years. How will the Orthodox treat power, authority, honor. That is what it comes down to.
The opposite I s’pose could be said about Rome. Now having many smaller, ethnic churches that suddenly come into communion with her, with a very different orientation of hierarchy. How does the western church react? How does the Catholic Church go forward, suddenly being thrusted back into the 5th or 6th century? And it’s even more complicated as you have churches from non-chalcedonian churches seeking communion. Some that developed for years outside the imperial banner of Hellenic Roman Empire.
It’s interesting. I don’t know if either side can go back… but we can try and go forward together.