Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[frjohnmorris]

I will try to diplomatically respond to your rant. However it is difficult to respond calmly to such a stream of insults towards the Eastern Orthodox Church. Your attitude does nothing to further the cause of Orthodox Catholic reconciliation. Much progress has been made in the American and International Orthodox Catholic Dialogues, but attitudes like yours threaten to destroy all that progress and make it more difficult for us to overcome our differences and once again be one Body in Christ. It is most unfortunate that you do not recognize that sincere Christians can disagree without resorting to insults.
Christ did not give St. Peter unlimited authority over the other Apostles or the rest of the Church. That is why he had to have the consent of the Apostles at the Apostolic Council recorded in Acts 15 to liberate Gentile converts from the Jewish laws.
There is nothing in the history of the ancient Church that can be used to support Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction much less infallibility. The exact opposite is true. St. Irenaeus of Lyons did not hesitate to correct Pope Victor when he tried to exceed his authority by threatening to excommunicate the Churches in Asia Minor during the dispute over the date of Easter. St. Cyprian openly rejected Pope St. Stephen’s argument concerning the Baptism of heretics. He even presided over a local council in Carthage that rejected Pope St. Stephen’s position on the issue commenting that all Bishops have equal authority and that there is no such thing as a Bishop of Bishops. Thus there is no historical evidence that the pre-Nicean Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as having anything more than a primacy of honor.
The Ecumenical Councils exercised authority over the whole Church including Rome. That is why the 1st Ecumenical Council passed Canon VI which limited the authority of Rome to the areas already under Roman jurisdiction and affirmed the independence of Alexandria and Antioch. The Tome of Pope St. Leo only became an official statement of the doctrine of the Church only after it was read, studied and approved by the Council of Chalcedon. The Council of Chalcedon also passed a canon giving clergy the right to appeal a decision against them by their Bishop or Metropolitan not to Rome, but to Constantinople. Significantly Pope St. Leo I did not object to this canon although it took away from Rome the limited right to hear appeals given at Sardica and gave much more authority to hear appeals to Constantinople. The 5th Ecumenical Council certainly showed that it had authority over the Popes when it threatened to excommunicate Pope Vigilius if he did not accept its decrees. Pope Vigilius was wrong to threaten to reject the decrees of the 5th Ecumenical Council. It was necessary to condemn the 3 Chapters to insure that Chalcedon was interpreted as originally intended, that is in conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. By itself, it is possible to misinterpret Chalcedon in a Nestorian way as did the heretic John Calvin.

As an Orthodox Christian, I accept Canon 28 of Chalcedon because it was passed by an Ecumenical Council. The ancient Church followed the administrative divisions of the Roman Empire. The ancient Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch became Patriarchates because they were the capitals of the province. When Constantinople became the new capital of the Empire, it was only natural that it should be given equal status with the Old Rome.
The charge of Caesaropapism is a myth. Whenever the Emperors meddled in doctrinal affairs the Church stood up to them. The Church supported St. Athanasius against the Arian Emperor Constantinus II. The Church canonized St. John Chrysostom who had been exiled by the Empress Eudoxia. The Church eventually supported St. Maximus the Confessor who was condemned by Emperor Constans II The Church stood up to the Emperors during the iconoclastic controversy.
You forget that the Pope closed the Byzantine Churches in Southern Italy before Patriarch Michael closed the Latin Churches in Constantinople. I have never heard or read any reliable historical source that reported that the Eucharist in the Latin Churches in Constantinople was ever desecrated. That sounds like one of many of Cardinal Humbert’s false accusations against the Eastern Church. You also forget that Pope Leo IX used the forged Donation of Constantine to support his claims to universal authority over the Church.
I do blame Cardinal Humbert for starting the schism. For one thing he had no authority because Pope Leo IX had died and when a Pope dies the authority of his legates ceases. He failed to treat Patriarch Michael I with the respect due a Patriarch of the Church. For another, he insulted the married clergy of Constantinople calling their wives whores and their children bastards. He also made false accusations against the Eastern Church such as accusing us of dropping the filioue clause from the Creed. Then on his own authority Humbert marched into the Agia Sophia Cathedral and laid a bull of excommunication on the Holy Table. The Crusaders finalized the schism by throwing Orthodox Bishops out of their sees and replacing them with Latin Bishops. Read Runciman’s The Great Schism for a scholarly discussion of the schism.

With the prayer that you will recognize that sincere Christians can discuss their disagreements without resorting to exchanging insults and will remember that our goal is the reunification of Orthodoxy with Catholicism not continuing the schism.

The Very Rev. John W. Morris PhD

 

[GaryTaylor]

Regardless of whether or not Pope St. Leo recognized Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon that an Ecumenical Council passed such a canon shows that the ancient Church did not recognize the Pope as having universal jurisdiction no matter what the Popes claimed.

The papal legates were not present for the vote on this canon, and protested it afterwards, and it was not ratified by Pope Leo in Rome. The near-immediate result of the council was a major schism. The canons were translated from Greek to Latin then forwarded to Leo. Also the Councils in this period had no mass transportation, it was not uncommon for representatives of See’s to be missing thus the later ratification or not. Churches that rejected Chalcedon in favor of Ephesus broke off from the rest of the Church in a schism, the most significant among these being the Church of Alexandria.

However, there is even more evidence from Chalcedon that the ancient Church did not recognize the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Canon IX of Chalcedon actually gave the Patriarch of Constantinople greater authority to hear appeals than Canon V of Sardica had given to Rome. Significantly, Pope St. Leo accepted this canon.

A belief in a primacy of jurisdiction was in fact manifested in a letter written by the Council to Pope Leo.

1.You are set as an interpreter to ALL of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that faith. And so we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of the truth.

2.Besides all this he (i.e. Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour—we refer to your holiness—and he intended to excommunicate one who was zealous to unite the body of the Church.

Fr Hardin

Its shows not only jurisdiction but the right to ratify or not which again leads to the rejection of 28

The Pope is Peter’s spokesman and the divinely authorized guardian of the Church. The explanation is that the bishops believed Rome had a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church by divine right. This factor would have rendered the See of Constantinople’s relationship with Rome of secondary importance.

Furthermore they remained in communion thus there is no explicit evidence that such a notion of controversy over Canon 28 being rejected existed. After the catastrophe of the after shock of the Council its highly unlikely even a peep was mentioned about 28 and its rejection. Furthermore due to this council attempts to later reconcile the OO failed and they preferred to remain in exile rather than subscribe to a faith contrary, Only in recent years has a degree of rapprochement been attempted, and we call this brotherly love. Ought to be ashamed.

In reality and the real world brothers and friends don’t abandon you. In fact in my own experience in this land of the shadow, they are exactly the ones who COME BACK FOR YOU!

That’s what this unheard of preceding did for the universal church. Mass schism still reverberating through Christs Kingdom

And btw way a position of honor has only to do with population, by the very means which Constantinople and Alexandria changed position its self evident this is no longer true by the very means which one was raised and the other changed. This is from a perspective of Christian love which permeates, not a legalistic view or geographical view of ancient times where no mass transportation existed In my IMHO. Thus should a new Council emerge Moscow may well be the Second See of honor. Further more should we indeed get our act together the USA may well be and intricate part of the equation. That is by the very sequence of events which transpired. Its not hard to imagine.

Anyway I don’t mean to go off on a tangent Father, I guess that’s what occurs when you start thinking with your heart instead of your head.

Peace

 

[Reuben_J]

We would say the same thing, except that Christ is the head of the Church. Let us back up a little bit. What is the Church? The Church is a Eucharistic Assembly. It is the Eucharist that makes a group of people a Church. The head of each Eucharist Assembly is the Bishop, or the Priest appointed by the Bishop to act as His representative in the parish. Whenever the Faithful gather with their Bishop or Priest for the Eucharist, as St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “there is the Catholic Church.” However, in Greek Catholic does not mean universal, but full or complete. That is there is nothing lacking in the fullness of the local Eucharistic Assembly that is essential to being the Church. The world wide Church is created by the Communion between the Bishops of the local Churches. Other offices such as Metropolitan, Patriarch or Pope are merely administrative. Thus, all Bishops are successors to St. Peter, not just the Pope or the Patriarch of Antioch. All Bishops are spiritually equal. No one Bishop is infallible or has universal jurisdiction. Decisions within an autocephalous Church are made by the Holy Synod and the Primate working together. Decisions on the international level are made by Ecumenical Councils or Pan Orthodox Councils. There is an honorary ranking of Churches, but it is only honorary, for each autocephalous Church governs its own affairs and elects its own Bishops.
You can argue with me all you want, but it is historical fact that the ancient Church followed the administrative divisions of the Roman Empire with the Bishop of the capital of the Province or Metropolis given the title Metropolitan. It was his duty to call the Bishops of the Province together to administer the affairs of the Church in the Province. When St. Constantine built a new capital of the Empire in Constantinople, Constantinople became the New Rome. The Church followed its old traditions and the Archbishop of the New Rome became senior Bishop in the Empire with equal rank with the Bishop of the Old Rome. This decision was made by the 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451 and ratified by the 5th, 6th, and 7th Ecumenical Councils. Ecumenical Councils have authority over the whole Church, not the Bishop of the Old Rome, who only had a primacy of honor because of the prestige of Rome as old capital of the Roman Empire. Therefore it does not mater what the Popes of Old Rome thought for the Church meeting in Ecumenical Council had spoken. Do not forget, Antioch is also the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul and the Patriarch of Antioch is just as much a successor to St. Peter as is the Bishop of Rome but because in the ranking of cities in the Empire Antioch came after Rome and Alexandria. That is how the Church operated before the schism. Therefore the solution to our division is to go back to the way things were in the ancient Church with the Bishop of Rome having a primacy of honor as senior Bishop, but respecting the independence of each autocephalous Church and the highest authority being a general council representing all of the local Churches presided over by the Pope or his representative since the Pope is the first among equals in the Church. Naturally, the other Patriarchs would respect the independence of the Church of Rome to administer its own affairs according to its own customs. In places like the United States, we would have parallel jurisdictions much like there are now. For example, just as the Melkite Churches are under the authority of the Melkite Bishop, not the local Latin Rite Bishop we would remain under our own Bishops, but would be in Communion with the local Latin Rite parish.

Archpriest John W. Morris

You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you much. I would probably say the same idea but word them differently. I am in a foreign country now - I do travel a lot - I am writing from my Ipad, so I would be brief.

I understand if you meant by Constantinople as the new Rome if it’s because it is administering a region. That’s not the same as if the Papacy is moved from Rome to Constantinople. Your Orthodox colleagues do not agree with me but I will say this again - that the local Bishops do have their autonomy in their diocese over local administration and custom. Not every single dot that they must conform to the Pope. But the Pope nevertheless is their chief Bishop and the one who appoints them. I hear that you admit the Pope’s primacy and this is a good starting point for any reconciliation. Though that’s for separate subject.

We believe that Christ is the head of the Church too. I thought I remind you that since you mentioned it.

 

[Reuben_J]

I agree with you wholeheartily
It did seem to me that it was appearing that somehow both the Pope in Rome and the Patriarchate of Constantinople were equals meaning they shared the same power as head of theChurch to which I don’t agree with. Also it was my understanding that the emperor thought he’d try to have the Pope move to Constantinople or just make Constantinople the new head of the whole Church; a polical thing, as it is known that he wanted to control the Pope and the Church as a whole. That was my understanding of the history. I do not think it matters where the Pope lives as He still head of the whole Chuch just as he was when he lived in France.

Yes, and it is important to note that the emperor despite all his power was unable to move the Papacy to Constantinople without the Pope’s agreement. That the emperor wanted to elevate the status of Constantinople as equal, if not higher than Rome, is something we can ponder about today. Thus we hear today of the church’s ranking. Probably that kind of idea originated not from the Church but those who had political motive.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right, perhaps it would be beneficial to focus in on the idea of position of honor. I’m of the belief many of us understand this differently. This is not a fault but an individual understanding of study in observance of what we as individuals see as the whole picture. This too through word of mouth permeates be it on a small cultural level or a larger level of a See.

Its very different to say Christ gave St Peter a position of honor, than to say we as humans elevated or demoted a position of honor through population and geographical positioning and socio political reasoning.

Christ gave all the Apostles a position of honor and authority by Biblical understanding. Yet he did not specify geographical location. By the very definition of Apostle and their travels thus being sent. I believe this to be true. He built the Church upon one and one being His spokesman thus physical representative. He gave all equal honor and authority to be the check and balance of the one and to go forward as a whole to spread the Good News. And when He stated “I’m with you always” that indeed meant their successors who keep his commandments and word. I propose that all we are seeing in this check and balance in action and in reality. We are only in a flashing moment of “always” and we are all called to realize this and to push forward in re-establishing broken communion. Which is exactly the reason Christ came back for man. Refusing this communion is the very reason for the fall.

Nevertheless then when we say position of honor , its plausible there are various understandings.

St Peter biblically is the spokesman for the Church self evident and by the Apostle Pauls self submission in Rome among other biblical realities. Yet in honor both Peter and Paul are honored at every single ordination. This doesn’t negate St Pauls God given position of honor or how the relationships of the Apostles are described in interaction. This is indicative of the respect and honor given and places in perspective the very notion. \

This is very different than stating a specific area has a position of honor. In this case reality can and has changed.

Should the apostolic succession of a founded See change location. The apostolic succession doesn’t change, only the location in physical reality changes in the world. That’s of the world, not of Gods spiritual reality nor does this change the significance of the Bishops wherever they may be in the world.

Anyway I could be wrong, but I believe its plausible. I’m open to hearing what other have to say.

And Fathers right about the respect level here. Its a shame and doesn’t help when a constant stream on bans, suspensions occur or intelligent individuals become frustrated and refuse to continues to engage. And it certainly doesn’t help those beginning a very long journey. Very counterproductive.

There is no more effective way to reconcile than through us as the Church militant coming to terms and spreading the truth and love through word of mouth which may well start here and spread. We are our own worst enemy as usual. I know this is difficult and in particular between east and west. And I admit my own part. Still we need to do better. We also shouldn’t view a strong conviction as insulting.

 

[Novocastrian]

You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you much. I would probably say the same idea but word them differently. I am in a foreign country now - I do travel a lot - I am writing from my Ipad, so I would be brief.

I understand if you meant by Constantinople as the new Rome if it’s because it is administering a region. That’s not the same as if the Papacy is moved from Rome to Constantinople. Your Orthodox colleagues do not agree with me but I will say this again - that the local Bishops do have their autonomy in their diocese over local administration and custom. Not every single dot that they must conform to the Pope. But the Pope nevertheless is their chief Bishop and the one who appoints them. I hear that you admit the Pope’s primacy and this is a good starting point for any reconciliation. Though that’s for separate subject.

We believe that Christ is the head of the Church too. I thought I remind you that since you mentioned it.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that the Papacy or the Primacy were moved from Old Rome to New Rome (Primacy perhaps, after the schism, assuming Old Rome to be incapacitated due to heresy). As far as I’m aware, the Constantinopolitan bishops have not made any claim to specifically Petrine primacy, etc.

 

[frjohnmorris]

You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you much. I would probably say the same idea but word them differently. I am in a foreign country now - I do travel a lot - I am writing from my Ipad, so I would be brief.

I understand if you meant by Constantinople as the new Rome if it’s because it is administering a region. That’s not the same as if the Papacy is moved from Rome to Constantinople. Your Orthodox colleagues do not agree with me but I will say this again - that the local Bishops do have their autonomy in their diocese over local administration and custom. Not every single dot that they must conform to the Pope. But the Pope nevertheless is their chief Bishop and the one who appoints them. I hear that you admit the Pope’s primacy and this is a good starting point for any reconciliation. Though that’s for separate subject.

We believe that Christ is the head of the Church too. I thought I remind you that since you mentioned it.

I appreciate your reasoned response. As I am sure last night I received a very insulting response from an irate poster.
The Eastern Orthodox Church has never denied that Rome held a primacy. The issue that divides us is over what that means. I believe that was a primacy of honor as first among equals and that the Pope did not have universal jurisdiction or infallibly. For in the ancient Church there was local autonomy. In each province the local Bishops were led by the Bishop of the provincial capital or Metropolis, thus the title Metropolitan who presided over meetings of the Bishops that together made all important decisions. Canon IX of the Council of Antioch 341
Canon IX.
It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the
metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

This canon establishes the principle of administration by councils. Notice that the Metropolitan did not have veto power but had to administer the Archdiocese with the consent of the others. Canon V of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea 1 in 325 required that the Bishops of each province meet at least twice a year. Thus the Church was administered by what we call the Holy Synod of the Bishops presided over by the Metropolitan. Canon VI of 1st Nicaea established 3 Metropolitnates, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Although Rome had a primacy of honor, each Metropolintate administered its own affairs and elected the local Bishops and Metropolitan (canon IV of 1st Nicaea). After the founding of Constantinople on the site of the ancient village of Byzantium, the Bishop of Byzantium was raised to the level of Metopolitan of Constantinople at the 2nd Council, I Constantinople in 381 and given a rank of honor equal to the Old Rome by canon 28 of Chalcedon in 451. The Bishop of Jerusalem was given Metropolitan rank by Chalcedon. Eventully, the Metropolitans were called Patriarchs in the Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, and Popes in Rome and Alexandria. All decisions were made by councils, some local and some international. The ultimate authority in the Church was an Ecumenical Councils representing all 5 Patriarchates. All Patriarchs including the Pope were under the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
It is on this issue that we differ. Eastern Orthodox continue to follow the old form of polity. The Roman Catholic Church evolved differently into papal rule. The problem that I have with the modern papacy is that the authority that belonged to council in the ancient Church has been concentrated into the hands of one man, the Pope by giving the Pope an absolute veto and instead of electing Bishops locally giving the Pope the authority to appoint the Bishops. Despite the passionate arguments to the contrary, the ancient Popes had no such authority, but like every other Patriarch had to abide by the decisions of his Synod and of an Ecumenical Council. As holding a primacy of honor, the Pope had great influence, but did not have absolute authority or veto power as do modern Popes. That is where we disagree. I believe that Roman Catholicism concentrates too much power in the hands of the Pope and has made a major mistake by not making the Pope accountable to the College of Cardinals or an Ecumenical Council and by giving him the authority to unilaterally make ex cathedra declarations on the teachings of the Church. In the age of the ancient undivided Church doctrinal decisions were made by Ecumenical Councils which had authority over every Bishop of the Church including the Bishop of Rome.
Despite the fervor of the defenders of the papacy, the papacy as we know it today did not exist in the age of the undivided Church. No serious historian will argue that it did. The Popes slowly gained authority, first over the rest of the West, and then tried to gain authority over the East. When the papacy tried to gain authority over the East, the Eastern Patriarchs refused to give up their ancient right of autonomy and submit to the power of the Popes, and the result was the schism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

Yes, and it is important to note that the emperor despite all his power was unable to move the Papacy to Constantinople without the Pope’s agreement. That the emperor wanted to elevate the status of Constantinople as equal, if not higher than Rome, is something we can ponder about today. Thus we hear today of the church’s ranking. Probably that kind of idea originated not from the Church but those who had political motive.

Thank you, that was my point that it was generally due to polical motives that many of the problems occured between the Churches, a power struggle if you will. I also agree that we should in good faith try to understand where the other is coming from and how they understand the postion they take I do think unity will happen and since God works in mysterious ways and time is not an imediate thing to God He will in His way bring all in union with the help of man as He likes, to do His will and work through man.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You know I hate keep to changing the subject yet it seems each and every post requires questions which beg for elaboration.

I believe we all can agree the Primacy continued to develop through time. I see this as natural in definition. Yet we then add infallible into the equation St Cyrian again comes to mind with No Salvation Outside the Church. From reading Augustine, Athanasius, Ambrose and St John Chrysostom this is what comes to mind. The last below with Homily 25 on John.

“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful. He has not the same Head, he has not the same Father, he has not the same City, nor Food, nor Raiment, nor Table, nor House, but all are different; all are on earth to the former, to the latter all are in heaven. One has Christ for his King; the other, sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes; one has worms’ work for his raiment, the other the Lord of angels; heaven is the city of one, earth of the other. Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?”

All the Saints above spoke similar on this in that the faithful are indeed the baptized. My point being that infallible indeed existed and this is but one example. And this preceded any council. Thus the truth confirms itself. Same as with other early realties which indeed such as this are infallible. The Councils re-affirmed a truth which already existed.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Thank you, that was my point that it was generally due to polical motives that many of the problems occured between the Churches, a power struggle if you will. I also agree that we should in good faith try to understand where the other is coming from and how they understand the postion they take I do think unity will happen and since God works in mysterious ways and time is not an imediate thing to God He will in His way bring all in union with the help of man as He likes, to do His will and work through man.

Both sides were influenced by secular political forces. The coronation of Charlemagne in 800 was one of the factors that led to the schism. Charlemagne and his court set themselves up in opposition to Constantinople and used theology in the process. The German Emperors championed a distinctive Western theology that neglected the Eastern Fathers in favor of Augustine. They pressured the papacy to made the adoption of the filioque a symbol of their distinctive Western theology. The Germans drove the followers of Sts. Cyril and Methodius out of Moravia because the Archbishop of Salzburg wanted control of the area for himself. Then Western missionaries went into Bulgaria, which geographically is in the backyard of Constantinople and clashed with missionaries from Constantinople. That is where the trouble started. The Western missionaries criticized the Byzantine practices, such as using leavened bread, married priests and not including the filioque in the Creed. That is what started the troubles. At the same time Pope Leo IX was reforming the Western Church by increasing papal authority. Part of this reform was the enforcement of mandatory clerical celibacy. Then when Pope Leo IX closed the Byzantine Rite Churches, Patriarch Michael I wrote his defense of Eastern practices and closed the Latin Rite Churches in Constantinople. This led to the disastrous mission of Humbert to Constantinople. I cannot judge Pope Leo IX, but one of the major factor that led him to conclude that the expansion of papal authority was necessary was the Donation of Constantine, which was exposed as a forgery by Lorenzo Valla in about 1440. Thus you are right secular political matters helped cause the schism, especially the rivalry between Constantinople and Charlemagne and his successors.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

I will try to diplomatically respond to your rant. However it is difficult to respond calmly to such a stream of insults towards the Eastern Orthodox Church. Your attitude does nothing to further the cause of Orthodox Catholic reconciliation. Much progress has been made in the American and International Orthodox Catholic Dialogues, **but attitudes like yours threaten to destroy all that progress and make it more difficult for us to overcome our differences **and once again be one Body in Christ. It is most unfortunate that you do not recognize that sincere Christians can disagree without resorting to insults.

I think you need to take a good look at what I was RESPONDING to when I wrote my post, so I suggest you take your own advice:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

And I wasn’t ranting because that would assume that my post was illogical and it wasn’t.

 

[GaryTaylor]

:flowers:

 

[josie_L]

Now if you really believe that all Bishops have the same and equal authority, and you do not, as you assert, account of them according to the magnitude of their cities; he that is entrusted with a small city ought to abide in the place committed to him, and not from disdain of his trust to remove to one that has never been put under him; despising that which God has given him, and making much of the vain applause of men. You ought then, dearly beloved, to have come and not declined, that the matter may be brought to a conclusion; for this is what reason demands

Notice that he states that all Bishops have the same and equal authority. Here he is making a reference to St. Cyprian.

All bishops are equal in that they are all bishops (that is what St. Cyprian is saying), i.e., the same sacraments that were applied to the bishop of Rome are the same that would be applied to the bishop of Patara (a bishop so unknown in Church history except for the fact that he ministered to Pope St. Silverius when he was exiled by General Belisarius), however, they are not equal in authority, i.e., jurisdiction. Let me take an excerpt from Adrian Fortesque’s book, "The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 to explain:

"Anglicans often tell us that all bishops are equal, as if this principle were an objection to the papacy. So they are, as far as the order of the episcopate is concerned. There is only one order of bishops; no one can be, in any sense, more a bishop than another. If a man is ordained Bishop of Rome, he receives exactly the same sacrament as ne who is ordained bishop of the smallest suffragan see in the most remote land. The bishop of Rome, as far as order goes, is no more a bishop than the bishop of Krishnagar. But all bishops are NOT equal, in the sense that none has authority over any other. In this sense the statement is false and can be proved to be false from the very beginning of the Church history. It can be proved false by other examples than that of Rome. From the beginning there have been cases of bishops who had EXTRADIOCESAN authority, that is, jurisdiction, real jurisdiction, over their fellow bishops. To this day the Anglican must be familiar with the idea of an archbishop, who has authority outside his own diocese over other bishops, though these do not thereby cease to be real ordinaries and do not become merely his auxiliaries. Over archbishops, there were still, in some cases, primates, sometimes over primates such great people as exarchs. . . . In the first six centuries it was a very solid authority. Over archbishops, primates, and exarchs stand those greatest bishops of all: the five patriarchs. Their authority was always, is still, very great indeed. It is seen only in the East, because there is but one patriarch in the West, who is the Pope himself. But the principle is there; it should help anyone who has difficulties to understand at least the possibility of the Pope’s jurisdiction over than bishops. The point that seems to make all the difference in appreciating the Pope’s position is that this is not an isolated fact. The papacy is the topmost point of a regularly graduated hierarchy of bishops, in which each has authority over those under him. . . .

Or is there something specially impossible in the idea of a man having authority over other bishops, successors of the apostles as he is himself? Then how about the jurisdiction of an archbishop, a primate or a patriarch? But Christ is the head of the Church (cf. Col 1:18). Of course he is. He is the head of each diocese, too, the head of each province and patriarchate. If he can have a visible vicar to represent his authority over the diocese and patriarchate, what difficulty is there against the idea of a still higher vicar of Christ, representing his authority over all? We know that Christ governs, teaches and sanctifies his Church through men, his vicars. Christ baptizes; Christ consecrates; Christ forgives sins; he rules the diocese. Christ rules the whole body, too, at headquarters; here, too, he does so through his minister. . . . The pope is not, in the absolute sense, head of the Church; the head of the Church is Jesus Christ, our Lord, as our English catechism says. The Pope is the vicar of that head and is therefore the visible head of the Church on earth, having authority delegated from Christ over the Church on earth only, just as every diocesan bishop has authority delegated from Christ over his diocese only."

 

[josie_L]

:flowers:

Are those for “moi”? :kiss4you:

 

[GaryTaylor]

Are those for “moi”? :kiss4you:

Father is a cool fellow. I honor his position, but his authority? Possibly! I think there’s a difference. I could be wrong also. On a more serious note I believe its wonderful he’s taken time to involve himself here at CAF. I think that’s the gest of the problem honor/authority.

 

[spina1953]

Father is a cool fellow. I honor his position, but his authority? Possibly! I think there’s a difference. I could be wrong also. On a more serious note I believe its wonderful he’s taken time to involve himself here at CAF. I think that’s the gest of the problem honor/authority.

I totally agree!!! Its how we learn the differences we have and hopefully try and find ways of bringing together what has been fractured between the East and West. The Catholic arguments have been for me a learning experience in the more I learn about our Catholic faith and the reasons why there is seperations in beliefs the more I pray that God will cause us to reunite in one faith and one belief. Learning of what divides the Orthodox and their postion in this debate has caused me to think more deeply in the history of those differences.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I think you need to take a good look at what I was RESPONDING to when I wrote my post, so I suggest you take your own advice:

And I wasn’t ranting because that would assume that my post was illogical and it wasn’t.

I found the tone and attitude towards Orthodoxy expressed in your post very offensive. It was aggressive and insulting towards Eastern Orthodox Christians. You are not going to help the cause of Orthodox Catholic unity by demanding that we give up our ways and submit to papal authority. You are not going to influence us favorably towards Catholicism by calling us heretics or insulting our Faith.
I have frankly expressed my opinion, but have tried not to insult Roman Catholics or their beliefs. I have tried to write calmly and with the support of solid historical evidence backed up by citations in primary sources such as the decrees and canons of the Ecumenical Councils to support my opinions. I have also based my historical accounts on recognized historians. I just checked Runciman’s The Eastern Schism and several other books and find no account of any desecration of the Eucharist by Easterners in the Latin Churches in Constantinople. If something like that had happened, I am sure that at least one of the books in my library would have mentioned it. No professionally trained historian does not agree that the papacy as it exists today did not exist during the early years of Christianity. Every recognized scholarly history of the church agrees that the papacy developed and increased its authority over time. The period in which the schism took place was a time of reforming Popes who under the influence of the Clunic movement emphasized the authority of Rome over that of local Bishops and clerical celibacy. It was also a time in which the Popes were emphasizing the independence of the Church from royal control. It was 1077, a few years after Cardinal Humbert’s disastrous mission to Constantinople that Henry IV stood barefoot in the snow outside a castle where the Pope was staying in Canossa while begging for forgiveness from Pope Gregory VII. Thus your argument that universal papal jurisdiction and papal infallibility has always existed in the Church is one that no historian would accept. If you believe that the development of the Papacy was the will of God, I cannot prove that you are wrong, no matter how much I disagree with you because that is a matter of personal belief. However, when you misrepresent history, I cannot help but correct you because I know my church history well enough to teach it on the college level.
I have always felt that if I offended someone even uintentually that I should apologize. Therefore, I apologize to you. Now you owe me an apology

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

I totally agree!!! Its how we learn the differences we have and hopefully try and find ways of bringing together what has been fractured between the East and West. The Catholic arguments have been for me a learning experience in the more I learn about our Catholic faith and the reasons why there is seperations in beliefs the more I pray that God will cause us to reunite in one faith and one belief. Learning of what divides the Orthodox and their postion in this debate has caused me to think more deeply in the history of those differences.

Amen, He made some interesting points. Another good one Is/was the very question: Was the early Church autocephalous in jurisdiction? There’s been some very good responses here also, nevertheless its a point which one can even through in-depth research come to see either way.

 

[spina1953]

Amen, He made some interesting points. Another good one Is/was the very question: Was the early Church autocephalous in jurisdiction? There’s been some very good responses here also, nevertheless its a point which one can even through in-depth research come to see either way.

Agreed!!!

 

[josie_L]

The German Emperors championed a distinctive Western theology that neglected the Eastern Fathers in favor of Augustine. They pressured the papacy to made the adoption of the filioque a symbol of their distinctive Western theology.

The filioque is a perfectly orthodox expression of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and (through) the Son, but if it isn’t, my question to you is why don’t the Orthodox view the council of Constantinople IIII as ecumenical (it denounced the filioque) or rather why don’t you have an ecumenical council declaring the filioque as false?

The Germans drove the followers of Sts. Cyril and Methodius out of Moravia because the Archbishop of Salzburg wanted control of the area for himself.

True, but are you aware that Pope Hadrian II confirmed St. Methodius (Cyril had died) “as chief missionary to Moravia and archbishop and Papal legate there, and sent him back to his new converts in 869 with full endorsement of his Slavonic liturgy.”

Then Western missionaries went into Bulgaria, which geographically is in the backyard of Constantinople and clashed with missionaries from Constantinople. That is where the trouble started.

Not all historians have the same view on the matter as you do, in fact, the Khan (ruler) of Bulgaria who was interested in Christianity was also worried about being subsumed into Constantinople’s jurisdiction via the Church of Constantinople:

"Their Khan, Boris, was an able and far-seeing ruler who sought a higher spiritual destiny for his people and himself, but feared becoming dependent on the church of Constantinople, Bardas and Photius, in Emperor Michael III’s name, launched a counter-stroke of naked religious imperialism. The Byzantine army and fleet made a surprise attack on Bulgaria in the summer of 863, when most of Bulgarian army was campaigning in Germany and the country was gripped by a famine. The principle conditions for peace were renunciation of the alliance with Louis the German and an agreement to accept Christianity from Constantinople rather than from Rome. This was almost exactly the moment that Pope Nicholas ordered the reinstatement of Ignatius as Patriarch of Constantinople and Photius excommunicated if he did not accept him. . . . . But Khan Boris of Bulgaria was no man’s catspaw. . . .He was baptized in Bulgaria in 864, and ordered - in keeping with the military character of the conversion of his country up to that time, if not with the proper conditions for the reception of the sacrament - his subjects to be baptized as well. He put down the resulting revolt with an iron hand. By doing so, he carried out the terms of the treaty forced upon him in 863: he had accepted Christianity from Constantinople for himself and his people. But in 866 he turned to Rome, asking Pope Nicholas to send him bishops and priests, and to answer 106 questions about the obligations their new faith imposed on the Bulgarians. Nicholas responded with a splendid letter, one of the prime guideposts of Christian missionary history, wisely discriminating between harmless pagan customs that could be preserved and those customs which were essentially contrary to Christian doctrine and morality and therefore had to be rejected. He sent Bishop Formosus of Porto (near Rome) and Bishop Paul of Populonia to Bulgaria. Boris had wanted a Bulgarian patriarch, but was well satisfied particularly with the personable and understanding Formosus.

This was taken from Warren Carroll’s "The Building of Christendom, pg 360.

The Western missionaries criticized the Byzantine practices, such as using leavened bread, married priests and not including the filioque in the Creed. That is what started the troubles.

No, this is not when the trouble started as Constantinople was trying to gain ascendancy before Charlemagne and Western missionaries were even an issue (although relations became more strained between Rome and Constantinople after Charlemagne).

At the same time Pope Leo IX was reforming the Western Church by increasing papal authority. Part of this reform was the enforcement of mandatory clerical celibacy. Then when Pope Leo IX closed the Byzantine Rite Churches, Patriarch Michael I wrote his defense of Eastern practices and closed the Latin Rite Churches in Constantinople. This led to the disastrous mission of Humbert to Constantinople.

First, how could Pope Leo IX increase papal authority in the Western Church when he was the only Patriarch of the West? Second, Pope Leo IX did not close the Byzantine churches the Normans who conquered Southern Italy did. And Patriarch Michael was not only closing Latin Rite churches in Constantinople, but desecrating the eucharist as well:

The Byzantine patriarch attacked the Latin churches in Constantinople - Latin-speaking churches which existed since the time of Constantine; and he declared that their Eucharist was invalid because the Romans use unleven (rather than leven) bread – something that the Western Church (along with the Armenian Church) had always done since the time of the Apostles (Jesus Himself used unleven bread at the Last Supper, since it was a Passover feast and there would not have been any leven bread in Jerusalem at the time). But, the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius tried to force the Byzantine rite on the Romans living in the Eastern Empire. So, he took armed soldier into the Latin churches in Constantinople, and had them open the Tabernacles and throw the consecreated Eucharist in the streets. This is a historical fact. It is discussed by both Kallistos Ware and by Meyendorff in their books.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.php