Myth #1: First Among Equals
The first myth is that the Pope of Rome used to be “First Among Equals” (and/or “Ecumenical Patriarch”) and then “placed himself over the other bishops, wanting to be Head of the Church.”
FACT: The Pope NEVER held the title “First Among Equals.” However, he DID posses the titles “Vicarius Christi” (Vicar of Christ, late 300’s), “Servus Sevorum Dei” (Servant of the Servants of God, mid-400’s), and Yep, you guessed it, “Head of the Church” (late 400’s), a title by which the Pope is addressed, not only by innumerable Eastern Fathers, but ALSO by the synodal letters from THREE Ecumenical Councils (Chalcedon, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II). So, any Orthodox who denies that the Pope of Rome is Head of the Church does not stand with the Council Fathers.
As for Ecumenical Patriarch, that was an out-and-out creation by the Byzantine government in the 600’s (and it was never offered to Rome, but was designed for Constantinople). Gregory the Great was the first to deny this title to the P.of C. (calling it “haughty” and “unTraditional”) and the denials continued well into the 900’s (when Photius demanded to have it); and, after him, Michael Cerularius which was fuel to the fire re: the Great Schism.
Myth #2: Five Patriarchs with Equal Authority
The 2nd myth goes like this: “There used to be 5 Patriarchs, all with equal authority. Then, the Pope of Rome broke off from the Church, whereas the other 4 remained.”
Now,
this again, is not only revisionism, but out-and-out Greek bigotry. As stated, it makes it seem like there were 4 independent Patriarchs at the time who freely refused to stick with Rome in 1054. However, once one bothers to read the history, that’s not the case at all.
In 1054, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not the local bishops who used to rule from these sees (since all of the locals broke off with the Monophysites). Rather, the Orthodox bishops of these sees in 1054 were all Byzantine Melkites – Imperial appointees from Constantinople! Furthermore, they were presiding within Muslim countries; and their flocks were puny at best (most of the Christians in those regions being Monophysite, not Orthodox). So, they were no longer the great metropolitan sees of the ancient Church.
So, when the Orthodox say that there were 5 patriarchs and 1 broke off, that is not the case at all. It was not a 4 to 1 split. It was a 1 to 1 split – Rome and Constantinople. The sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem at this time (ruled by imperial-minded Greeks from Byzantium) did whatever Constantinople told them to do. And, if Churches like the Copts and the Jacobites turn out not to be Monophysite after all, then these men weren’t even the the legitimate bishops! But, the “Greek invaders” as the Copts and Syrians saw them.
So, in essence, the aforementioned Orthodox myth implies (nay, declares) that one must be Byzantine Greek in order to be in the Church. This is most anathema.
And so much for the “poll of bishops” to determine orthodoxy. By 1054, Byzantium had done away with that replacing (rightly or wrongly) the legitimately-elected bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem when they did not agree with the Byzantine decisions at Chalcedon. So, if Orthodoxy truly believes that correct doctrine is determined by a poll of the teachings of all bishops everywhere, then Orthodoxy is guilty of hypocrisy (from about 451 on).
Myth #3: An Ecumenical Council must be “Ratified” by the Laity
Myth number 3 is that an Ecumenical Council, even if agreed upon by all the bishops, cannot be ratified without the approval of the laity. In this, Orthodoxy gives the VERY wishy-washy reason of: “Well, we are all the Church.” Well, yes we are, but that’s not how Councils work. For example, the pro-Arian councils after Nicaea were approved by the people of the Eastern Empire (and for over 20 years!). Yet, did that make Arianism orthodox? In the same way, Nicaea was never “approved by the people.” It was declared to be so by the bishops and the Emperor. Same goes for all the other Ecumenical Councils including and especially Chalcedon, which was rejected by the majority of Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, and Palestine. So, where was the mandate from the laity here?
No, my friend Orthodox myth # 3 is a straw man, created to explain away why the Byzantines backed out of Lyon II and Ferrara-Florence – both cases in which ALL the Eastern Patriarchs approved of Western orthodoxy. This idea that “oh, well, the people must approve of it” is IMPERIAL in nature, not Spiritual or Ecclesiastical at all. For goodness sake, what did the average Greek know about the theology of Filioque?! Ah! But, they did know about the differences between East-West civilizations. And, if the “people” disapproved of Lyon and Ferrara-Florence, it wasn’t because the “Holy Spirit” was moving them! Come on!
It was because of their bigotry against those “Western barbarians,” who – as we all know – “couldn’t be right.”
So, again, Orthodoxy’s love affair with Imperium clouds its vision, even in matters of who are the “people of God.” Only the Greeks? I think not.
What about all the Westerners, and the Non-Chalcedonians? Why didn’t “the people” of the West or the Orient refuse to agree with the non-Conciliar heresy? Aren’t they anointed by the Spirit thru Baptism too? Or are only the “civilized Byzantines” given this charism?
(cont.)
(Since why are you highlighting what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about attendance at the council if you both seem to agree that no Western bishop attended, and that this does not “invalidate” the council?)