Rome let Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joseph651
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
agiosotheos said:
No, originally it was caesaro-papist, which was more like the Imperial Russian Church than the Roman Church.
Click to expand...
You are right, however that organizational structure is far closer to the Roman Catholic structure than it is to the modern Anglican structure. I was simply looking for a quick and easy comparison, you’re right though, the Russian Orthodox Church under the tzar’s is a much better example, although still not perfect.
 
agiosotheos said:
What does that have to do with his question? The Liturgy of John Chrysostom was not the liturgy originally used in the Apostolic age (even if such a fantastical liturgy existed).
Click to expand...
The question was asking if the East still used the same liturgy it used since day one. I pointed out that the most common liturgy makes no such claims.
 
agiosotheos said:
There were two continuous groups to separate in the 5th century (though I don’t consider both of them orthodox), the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Click to expand...
Which one don’t you consider truely Orthodox, and why?
 
Hesychios said:
First the emperors in Constantinople appointed the Popes, later the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire in the west appointed them. It’s a travesty, I know.
Click to expand...
Pope Vigilius was the first known “Byzantine” Pope. This was in the era when Emperor Justinian was reconquering the West, and attempting to bring the non-Chalcedonians back into the fold. I think prior to that time, the Popes were pretty much left alone by their Goth conquerors. There must have been a point where the West was once again lost to the emperor. You get different points of view on the wisdom of his policy, especially since at the beginning of Pope Vigilius’ reign, he was actually an anti-pope. It was several months before the previous occupant finally resigned the post. Vigilius was excommunicated by the African church and disliked in the West, and excommunicated in the East as well. The Western church viewed the Emperor’s policies, and Vigilius’ adherence to them - and the condemnation of the Three Letters - as a betrayal of Chalcedon. Vigilius vacilated back and forth on the Three Letters depending on whether or not he was in prison by the emperor.

Western church histories are less friendly to Justinian then Eastern ones, although a GOA website describes Justinian’s non-Chalcedonian policy essenially as a well-intentioned failure.
If you maintain that this sort of thing means they served at the pleasure of the emperors, then you have some very serious reassessments to make about the charism of the Papacy.
Click to expand...
I’ve read some ingenious defences of Vigilius, to wit, that when he was apparently tilting towards Monophysite heresy, it was while he was still an anti-pope, but as soon as he was pope, he resisted the emperor’s policies, even though his installation as pope by Justinian was related to his willingness to adhere to the Emperor’s policies towards the Oriental Orthodox. As it is, Justinian failed to reconcile them, and alienated the Western and African churches.

Although both East and West followed the same Councils for several centuries, there were differencers of opinion over Chalcedon and Nicea II between the Eastern and Western church. The latter council rehabilitated the orthodoxy of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Justinian is reputed to have inserted his TheoPaschite formula into the Divine Liturgy.
 
Mickey said:
I do not know. Is there evidence that it did not exist that early?
Click to expand...
Evidence of absence is something rather hard to come by. But absence of evidence is usually taken as an indication of absence. Most scholars believe that the Liturgy of James was composed in the late 4th century, at the very earliest. I found the OrthodoxWiki article to have some good information:

orthodoxwiki.org/Liturgy_of_St._James
 
Nine_Two said:
You are right, however that organizational structure is far closer to the Roman Catholic structure than it is to the modern Anglican structure. I was simply looking for a quick and easy comparison, you’re right though, the Russian Orthodox Church under the tzar’s is a much better example, although still not perfect.
Click to expand...
Under the Emperor after 1721 it was even more so. Under Peter “the Great”, the Patriarchate was abolished and the Holy Synod of the ROC was turned into a branch of the government, even with some civil leaders were added as leaders in this branch.
 
Nine_Two said:
You are right, however that organizational structure is far closer to the Roman Catholic structure than it is to the modern Anglican structure. I was simply looking for a quick and easy comparison, you’re right though, the Russian Orthodox Church under the tzar’s is a much better example, although still not perfect.
Click to expand...
Under the Emperor after 1721 it was even more so. Under Peter “the Great”, the Patriarchate was abolished and the Holy Synod of the ROC was turned into a branch of the government, even with some civil leaders were added as leaders in this branch.
 
Nine_Two said:
The question was asking if the East still used the same liturgy it used since day one. I pointed out that the most common liturgy makes no such claims.
Click to expand...
Oh? Huh. I must have missed that.
 
Ignatius said:
Which one don’t you consider truely Orthodox, and why?
Click to expand...
The Assyrian Church of the East. It rejected the First Council of Ephesus. It accepts Theodore of Mopsuestia as the definitive figure in their Christology, a figure who was condemned not only by the Oriental Orthodox, but also the various Chalcedonian traditions. It establishes no category of continuity between the Man Jesus and God the Word, like how we establish a hypostatic continuity by saying that the hypostasis of the humanity is the Word. It will not admit that God suffered on the Cross. There are any number of issues which indicate that it is beyond the bounds of orthodoxy into some degree of Nestorianism.
 
John_Larocque said:
especially since at the beginning of Pope Vigilius’ reign, he was actually an anti-pope.
Click to expand...
I have heard this claimed by some Roman Catholics, and yet the Vatican’s official listing of the popes indicates that Vigilius was a legitimate pope beginning at the very time of his elevation.
 
John_Larocque said:
Although both East and West followed the same Councils for several centuries, there were differencers of opinion over Chalcedon and Nicea II between the Eastern and Western church. The latter council rehabilitated the orthodoxy of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Justinian is reputed to have inserted his TheoPaschite formula into the Divine Liturgy.
Click to expand...
I think you are thinking of Constantinople II, not Nicaea II. Nicaea II treated the veneration of icons in 787.
 
Whoops, my bad on confusing Nicea II with Constantinople II. I’m referring to the one during the era of Justinian and Vigilius.
agiosotheos said:
I have heard this claimed by some Roman Catholics, and yet the Vatican’s official listing of the popes indicates that Vigilius was a legitimate pope beginning at the very time of his elevation.
Click to expand...
Essentially, the emperor took it upon himself to fire the existing Pope because they didn’t like the results of the papal election in which Silverius succeeded Agapetus. It was almost without precedent. In the Roman calendar, Pope Silverius is venerated as having died a martyr’s death, because of his treatment at the hands of his deposers. Silverius opposed Monophysite heresy, and he opposed reinstating a Monophysite patriarch of Byzantium. This angered the palace at Byzantium. Charges were made that he colluded with the Goths but in between the period when Vigilius was installed and Silverius resigned was somewhere around six months. But lo and behold, Vigilius, upon being made pope (and briefly antipope) did not always bend to the will of the emperor. Justinian held him captive in Byzantium for 8 years.

The East sometimes referred to the West as “crypto” Nestorians, because of their stance on the Three Chapters controversy. For the West, Chalcedon was a settled matter.

Apparently this went on for 2 centuries:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy

One of the significant figures is Pope Martin I who died a martyr’s death, along with Maximus the Confessor. Both opposed Monotheletism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Martin_I

I remember reading about Pope St. Martin in Olivier Clement’s book on Christian mysticism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Council_of_649
The Lateran Council of 649 was a synod held in the Basilica of St. John Lateran to condemn Monothelitism, a Christology espoused by many Eastern Christians. The council did not achieve ecumenical status in either East or West, but represented the first attempt of a pope to convene an ecumenical council independent of the Roman emperor.
Click to expand...
According to Ekonomou, the irony of the Council was that the denunciation of the theology of Constantinople came from the “collaboration of a Greco-Palestinian pope and a Constantinopolitan monk employing a style of theological discourse whose tradition was purely Eastern”.[1] Although Pope Martin I and Maximus the Confessor were abducted by Constans II and tried in Constantinople for their role in the Council (Martin I being replaced as pope before dying in exile), their position was ultimately endorsed by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680.
Click to expand...
Maximus the Confessor is one of the most revered figures in the Eastern church. According to OrthodoxWiki, Martin the Confessor, last pope to be martyred, is also widely venerated in the East.
Troparion (Tone 3) [1]
Click to expand...
Code: 
You strengthened the Church with true doctrine, 
Wise hierarch Martin. 
You declared the two natures of Christ, 
Putting heresy to shame. 
Entreat the Lord to grant us His great mercy.
Click to expand...
Kontakion (Tone 8)
Click to expand...
Code: 
High Priest and teacher of the mysteries, 
You poured forth streams of doctrine. 
You expounded the true doctrine of the two natures and wills of Christ. 
Intercede for those who cry: "Rejoice, blessed Father Martin."
Click to expand...
 
John_Larocque said:
Essentially, the emperor took it upon himself to fire the existing Pope…
Click to expand...
I know the whole background. I am pointing out the fact that you call Vigilius an antipope at the beginning after his elevation, but the listing of popes provided by the Vatican actually recognizes the papacy of Vigilius as having started at the time of his elevation and the papacy of Silverius actually ending after that point. They don’t say that Vigilius was an antipope, but somehow designate there being two popes present at the same time.
John_Larocque said:
The East sometimes referred to the West as “crypto” Nestorians, because of their stance on the Three Chapters controversy. For the West, Chalcedon was a settled matter.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Chalcedon itself was crypto-Nestorian.
 
I find it interesting that you laud popest for their stance against the “Monophysites” even though Rome now holds Communion with some of them.
 
spiritualbent.com/?page_id=106
Answer: Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid wrote, “Vigilius actually started off his papal career as an anti-pope, during the reign of the genuine pontiff, Silverius. This was, in large part, due to the influence of empress Theodora. In exchange for his position, Vigilius was to approve three Monophysites (heretics who believed Christ only had a divine nature), Anthimus, Theodosius and Severus. So while it is true that Vigilius approved the heretics, he only did so as an anti-pope, not an actual pope! Obviously then, this has nothing to do with papal infallibility…When he took that position, he reversed his previous stance on the three Monophysites (Madrid, Pope Fiction, pp.148-149)
Click to expand...
Note, some view this letter of support to the Monophysites (eg. Catholic Encyclopedia) as a fiction, although Gary Wills treats his early Monophysite support as the genuine article.
 
I doubt any of those three figures believed that Christ only had a divine nature. I know that Severus certainly did not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top