Question about the Eastern Orthodox Church

[ralphinal]

Information about the Acacian Schism

I was not too familiar with it. I am still not sure what it means. I will say that it seems like the Pope thought he was the Man in CHarge. What say you?

 

[Volodymyr]

Acacian Schism although the words Papal Supremacy were probably not used, but they signed to be under the Pope nevertheless.

This clearly meets the Ecumenical council criteria by Eastern standards. quote]

The so-named Akakian schism was brought about by because Patriarch Akakij who was complete Orthodox had recognized Petro Mong as bishop of Aleksandria. Bishop of Rome Feliks did not recognize such Mong. This was Akakij’s “crime” for which was taken out of prayers. No one signed such a document to recognize Bishop of Rome Feliks as supreme - only he is known as persecutor of innocent.

What criteria are you talking about? It is not for you to decide Orthodox church must accept other councils as Ecumenical because you think they should.

 

[Peter_the_Aleut]

To which I will just add:

1. There is an ancient principle, I guess one would call it part of the Common Law of the Church, “A patriarch does not submit to another patriarch.” This was chafed against by Rome beginning in the middle of the first millennium, when Rome first tried to assert unwelcome and innovative ‘superpatriarchal’ authority outside its own patriarchate, as opposed to a normal First Among Equals role similar to an ‘ex officio chairman.’ Even when Rome later established “Minor Patriarchates” (Latin) such as Venice, Jerusalem, West Indies, etc., it felt it had to somehow fudge this - I forget how they said this didn’t contravene the ancient principle, but they were and are clearly subordinate to Rome, and from the Orthodox perspective, which seeks to uphold tradition, such things are wrong. Patriarchs have an ordered seniority among themselves, but no patriarch can have the same relationship with another patriarch that he has with the bishops or metropolitans / archbishops of his own patriarchate, for Orthodoxy. This is the way it was in the beginning of the patriarchal system … and it was even more decentralized before then. Why is this important?: It upholds the conciliarity of the Church, the idea that the only One Person in charge is the Lord Whose Body the Church is and Whom the Spirit of God fills just as when He walked this earth - all of it, not only its First Among Equals. It also upholds the fundamental theological equality of all Local Churches, indeed the very reality, the Churchness, of all Local Churches, each as fully the Body of Christ, not as mere outposts or super-parishes of the First See.
2. IIUC, the official name of Constantinople was in fact New Rome from the beginning (like York and New York, Jersey and New Jersey), “Constantinople” being a kind of semiofficial nickname meaning merely “Constantine’s city,” for the emperor who founded it as co-capital and before long sole capital of the Empire of the Romans. To this day the EP’s title in full is “Archbishop of Constantinople New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch.” Calling it New Rome was not some post-1054 anti-Rome move. Conciliar decrees refer to the two as Old or First or Senior or Elder Rome, and New Rome, since Nicea in AD 325.
3. Constantinople’s Church, as remembered by Holy Tradition, was founded by St. Andrew the First-Called Apostle…
4. …who also, as remembered by Holy Tradition, evangelized north of the Black Sea, and preached on the future site of Kiev, from whose See that of Moscow was translated centuries later.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That makes sense to me. It just seemed funny that four of the five were founded by Apostles and one wasn’t.

Actually, it was: St. Andrew founded the Church at Byzantium, which was enlarged into New Rome.

Other Sees did not make the status, although founded by Apostles, e.g. Cyprus has been independent because of its founding by St. Barnabas, confirmed at the Council of Ephesus, but it has never been a patriarchate.

Jerusalem was not always a patriarchate. In fact, its elevation is later than Constantinople.

And the fact that Alexandria has been second place (3rd with New Rome’s elevation), and Antioch after her, although Antioch is far older and founded by St. Peter, Alexandria being founded by his disciple the Apostle Mark.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Roman/Byzantine Emperor wanted a Patriarch in his capital city, hence there was one. The eastern Patriarchs all ran after pretty much every heresy and had to be drawn back over and over again by the Bishop of Rome (usually whenever there was a Catholic Emperor).

The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople I produced the Creed without much (actually, in the second, any) (name removed by moderator)ut from Rome.

Ephesus’ champion was Pope Cyril of Alexandria, another “exception?”

Chalcedon examined Leo’s tome before they accepted it, but they still, despite Leo’s instructions, wrote their own definition.

Patriarch Eutychus held the Fifth Council over Pope Vigilius’ objections, and although the Pope was in town, he did not attempt or take part, and the council struck him from the diptychs.

Sixth Council: Pope Honorius.

The notable exception to this is Athanasius who was Patriarch of Alexandria, and along with the Pope and a few others was one of the only Bishops to not become Arian, when that was what the Ecumenical Councils were voting for without the authority of the Pope. The reason why the Pope didn’t always have authority over the Patriarch of Constantinople is that almost half the time the Patriarch was excommunicated for heresy.

Yes, like St. Gregory Nazianzus, (and St. Meletius in Antioch), St. Nectarios (and St. Flavian) and St. John Chrysostom, Fathers who produced the Creed. At least our Creed.

After each schism the Patriarch would need to sign up to Papal Supremacy to rejoin the Catholic Church. In fact some Patriarchs were removed by the Pope and replaced with others.

This is only claimed once, Pope Agapetus “deposing” Patriarch Anthimus, who had violated the canons by leaving his see. St. Gregory had been removed for the same offense, at the insistence of the Pope of Alexandria.

As for baptism form, sprinkling was always possible though never the primary form. Noone uses the original form now which was naked baptism.

Oh? I’ve been to several, including my two sons.

Also many other practices have changes like Confession, which used to be in front of the whole congregation, only allowed once in your life, only for the most serious sins and followed by years of penance

Only heretics restricted it to once in your life.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This is somewhat very strange information. What ecumenical councils is “voting for” Arianism?? Nikea is condemning this without help of bishop of Rome. Perhaps you mean councils of Arian bishops - several of which occured after Nikean Ecumenical Sobor.

And occured in Rome’s patriarchate.

Where is such document of “sign up” to supreme Pope? Are these preserved in Vatican? How to see such a document??

I believe he is stretching the Formula of Hormisdas, they are fond of that. Yes, the bishops the emperor could strong arm did sign, but only after Patriarch John prefixed a preamble that stated the equality of Old and New Rome, a part they don’t mention. They also don’t mention that multitudes of bishops, including those the suffragans of Rome in Thessalonika refused to sign: Hormisdas told the emperor to use force to secure their signatures. Seems someone is selective of their condemnation of “caesaropapism.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The signing up for Papal Supremacy was after the Acacian Schism in the 5th century. Admittedly the words Papal Supremacy were probably not used, but they signed to be under the Pope nevertheless.

Several Councils intended to be Ecumenical (mostly at Sirmium) voted for semiarianism, with the support of the eastern bishops (except Athanasius and maybe a couple of others) but without the support of the Pope. This clearly meets the Ecumenical council criteria by Eastern standards

No, it doesn’t.

but weren’t due to the Pope not ratifying, though they were overturned later by the First Council of Constantinople, which took a while to be ratified, but the Creed at it was ratified at the Council of Ephesus, with Papal approval, the rest got ratified at Chalcedon which also had Papal approval.

The Council was ratified immediately. The Creed spread, and the order of the patriarchs enacted.

 

[prodromos]

That makes sense to me. It just seemed funny that four of the five were founded by Apostles and one wasn’t.

Moscow is a Patriarchate and became so well after the time of the Apostles. It too is recognised because of the importance of the city, just as Rome and Constantinople.

John