The Catholic/Orthodox Schism Much Older Than Believed?

[Here_For_Donuts]

This is a long post!

Do you think the beginning of the schism between the eastern and western churches regarding the role of the papacy began much earlier than 1054? It’s presumable that the differences didn’t appear overnight; both sides had differing views in the years leading up to 1054, and the immediately preceding generations held to these differing views as well.

I don’t wish to discuss who’s right. I only want to discuss just how far back in time the differences in belief regarding Rome extend.

In my exploration of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I’ve come to a strange conclusion, which can be expressed in the following three statements:

**1.) Rome believed itself to possess a place of divine and universal authority, both spiritually and ecclesiastically, from a very early period, possibly as early as the first century.

2.) This was not a universal belief throughout Christendom.

3.) The Catholics would dispute statement 2, and the Orthodox would dispute statement 1.**

So… Just how far back does this difference go? The case can be made that Cyprian (200-258) didn’t subscribe to statement 1, though Pope Stephen clearly did. (Arguments have been made based on both guys’ letters by both Catholics and Orthodox. However, actions speak louder than words; Cyprian convened a council of about 80 African bishops against Stephen. Cyprian and those 80 bishops clearly didn’t view Rome as Catholic bishops today do.)

In 381, Emperor Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople to resolve the Arianism problem in the east. Pope Damasus wasn’t present and hadn’t been involved in calling the council, though he did send representatives.

The third canon of this council states:

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.

This would suggest that the eastern church felt Rome’s authority wasn’t necessarily God-derived, a sentiment which would be echoed again more explicitly by the eastern church a few decades later in the infamous Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEcQFjAGahUKEwjv5cG9s6XIAhVGPD4KHcOFCQw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccel.org%2Fccel%2Fschaff%2Fnpnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html&usg=AFQjCNF4tSvskgBR_zWVusMgMFgaDTFoXw&sig2=0vVzHg_8eWE95PewWgm_ZA], which, though **rejected **by Rome, *undoubtedly *expresses the eastern church’s views on Rome at that time, thus proving that belief in Rome’s claims, while accepted in the west, wasn’t accepted universally.

According to Wikipedia: David Eastman cites the First Council of Constantinople as another example of the waning influence of Rome over the East. He notes that all three of the presiding bishops came from the East. Pope Damasus had considered both Meletius and Gregory (two of the presiding bishops) to be illegitimate bishops of their respective sees and yet, as Eastman and others point out, the Eastern bishops paid no heed to his opinions in this regard.

The following year (382), Pope Damasus, in the most *explicit *way possible, affirms the Roman church’s belief about itself when he, through the “Council of Rome,” issued a decree regarding the official canon of the Bible. In the decree, he makes the following statement about his church:

Although all the Catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …”. In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name “Christians” was first applied, as to a new people.

The passage proves an obvious congruency between Damasus’ beliefs and those of the Catholic Church today regarding Rome. But what’s interesting is the phrase, “…the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior…”

The part I highlighted in bold suggests that he was aware that not all of Christendom believes Rome’s claims. Why else would he include such a peculiar statement? Was this statement a way of countering the eastern bishops’ beliefs as stated in Canon 3?

So…

Am I right or wrong in stating that the divide between east and west extends much further back than 1054? Are my three statements at the beginning of this post an accurate assessment?

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, I’m sure you’re right about the timing, but I think the disagreement had less to do with theology and more to do with politics. In the West, the papacy claimed to be above national politics and refused to be bossed around by kings and princes – although, in practice, popes weren’t always able to live up to that high standard. In the East it was the other way around: the Orthodox Church never made any such claim in connection with the Byzantine Empire, which explains why, as recently as the mid-twentieth century, the Russian Orthodox hierarchy was able to get on well enough with Stalin and his successors.

 

[dvdjs]

Schism involves a formal break of communion. During the first millennium, and even after, the Orthodox and Latin churches were in communion. Your post reveals that the some level of differences of opinions on ecclesiology led to tensions but very rarely to schism in the first millennium.

 

[dmar198]

This is a long post!

Do you think the beginning of the schism between the eastern and western churches regarding the role of the papacy began much earlier than 1054?

Re: the papacy it seems that the dogmatic differences began much later. Papal supremacy was not defined as dogma until Session 6 of the Council of Florence in 1439, and papal infallibility was not defined as a dogma until the First Vatican Council in 1870. Perhaps as a result of this, St. Alphonsus Liguori, who wrote between those dates, does not include anything about the pope when explains the differences between Catholics and Orthodox, but says, “the heresy of the schismatical Greeks consists in denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son; they contend that he proceeds from the Father alone, and this is the difference between the Greek and Latin Churches.” source

It seems clear to me that, even though they were not dogmas until later in Church history, papal supremacy and infallibility appear in various doctrinal decisions in much earlier Christian documents. I think a case can be made that both doctrines appear several times in the first seven ecumenical councils:

Universal Papal Jurisdiction in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/universal-papal-jurisdiction-in-first.html

Papal Infallibility in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/papal-infallibility-in-first-seven.html

It’s presumable that the differences didn’t appear overnight

That seems reasonable.

both sides had differing views in the years leading up to 1054, and the immediately preceding generations held to these differing views as well.

That needs to be shown. In any schism, prior generations can hold to one same doctrine even while contrary views begin in small circles. An example is Arianism: long before the Arians gained control over nearly the whole East and most of the West, prior generations of Christians almost unanimously held to the deity of Christ. But there were significant persons who were exceptions. The Arian heresy did not spring up overnight, but those who study the history of that heresy should not conclude that the preceding generations in the East and some of the West held to the Arian view. Similarly, the differing views re: the papacy certainly did not spring up overnight, but it does not follow that the preceding generations in the East held to a different view.

The case can be made that Cyprian (200-258) didn’t subscribe to statement 1, though Pope Stephen clearly did. (Arguments have been made based on both guys’ letters by both Catholics and Orthodox. However, actions speak louder than words; Cyprian convened a council of about 80 African bishops against Stephen. Cyprian and those 80 bishops clearly didn’t view Rome as Catholic bishops today do.)

I don’t think Cyprian’s council implies that he doubted Roman supremacy or infallibility. The Church’s stance on this issue had not been defined yet and therefore it is my understanding that the pope could be legitimately opposed, even by a local council. Therefore, his actions can be explained without implying that he doubted papal infallibility or supremacy. But St. Cyprian made other actions that are so strongly in favor of papal supremacy and infallibility that I don’t see how they can be explained by those who deny those papal prerogatives. For example, why did St. Cyprian appeal to the pope to depose a bishop in France and substitute another in his place? (source) I think that is a great piece of evidence that St. Cyprian believed the pope had power over other bishops, and unexplainable if he didn’t. And why did St. Cyprian say that that faithlessness cannot enter the Roman Church because it is the chief church? (source) That sounds like protection from error to me.

 

[dmar198]

In 381, Emperor Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople to resolve the Arianism problem in the east. Pope Damasus wasn’t present and hadn’t been involved in calling the council, though he did send representatives.

The third canon of this council states:

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.

This would suggest that the eastern church felt Rome’s authority wasn’t necessarily God-derived

The Canon doesn’t say anything about the source of Rome’s prerogative. I don’t see how people reach that conclusion.

[this] sentiment…would be echoed again more explicitly by the eastern church a few decades later in the infamous Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEcQFjAGahUKEwjv5cG9s6XIAhVGPD4KHcOFCQw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccel.org%2Fccel%2Fschaff%2Fnpnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html&usg=AFQjCNF4tSvskgBR_zWVusMgMFgaDTFoXw&sig2=0vVzHg_8eWE95PewWgm_ZA], which, though **rejected **by Rome, *undoubtedly *expresses the eastern church’s views on Rome at that time, thus proving that belief in Rome’s claims, while accepted in the west, wasn’t accepted universally.

Some may say that it undoubtedly expresses the Eastern church’s views, but I think it is quite doubtable. The same Eastern bishops who passed that decree wrote a letter about it to the pope saying that it was his prerogative either to ratify it or not. source If they thought the Canon was certainly true with or without the pope’s approval, I don’t think they would have used the language they did in their letter about it.

According to Wikipedia: David Eastman cites the First Council of Constantinople as another example of the waning influence of Rome over the East. He notes that all three of the presiding bishops came from the East. Pope Damasus had considered both Meletius and Gregory (two of the presiding bishops) to be illegitimate bishops of their respective sees and yet, as Eastman and others point out, the Eastern bishops paid no heed to his opinions in this regard.

I am not familiar enough with this to comment on it, but thank you for the reference. I can check it out now.

The following year (382), Pope Damasus, in the most *explicit *way possible, affirms the Roman church’s belief about itself when he, through the “Council of Rome,” issued a decree regarding the official canon of the Bible. In the decree…the phrase, "…the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but…by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior…"…suggests that he was aware that not all of Christendom believes Rome’s claims. Why else would he include such a peculiar statement? Was this statement a way of countering the eastern bishops’ beliefs as stated in Canon 3?

First, I don’t think it can be a counter to Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople, because Canon 3 of that Council does not even pretend to place Rome at the forefront, but accepts it as a given. Pseudo-Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon comes closer to doing that, but even it does not say what many doubters of papal infallibility claim it does.

Second, I don’t think the statement is peculiar. He writes that Rome’s position is not from men but from God. That does not imply that the reverse theory was the majority position in the East, only that it was posited by someone who got the pope’s attention. There were other sources who doubted Rome’s position than a few hypothetical Eastern bishops. But the third and fourth ecumenical councils make it clear to me that the vast bulk of the East recognized Rome’s position not as from men but as from God.

BTW the Council of Rome in 382 is interesting re: Orthodoxy for several reasons. One of them is its statement about papal supremacy, but another is its statement about the Filioque: “For the Holy Spirit is not of the Father only or of the Son only, but of the Father and the Son.” source

The text of this council was sent to all the fathers of the First Council of Constantinople, who separately ratified it the year after the Council. (Their ratification is preserved as Canon 4 of the First Council of Constantinople source] in 381, but that was obviously an interpolation taken from the text of the local council that was held in 382, since it refers to the tome of Damasus from earlier in 382.) This helps show that those bishops did not doubt either papal supremacy or the Filioque in their time.

So…

Am I right or wrong in stating that the divide between east and west extends much further back than 1054? Are my three statements at the beginning of this post an accurate assessment?

I think the three statements you made are a pretty clever way to summarize a complicated issue. They seem accurate enough to me, given the appropriate qualifications about #2. Re: the divide between east and west, I hope my comments have been helpful in clarifying that.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Thanks for the replies.

@dmar198:

Thanks for the info. I’ll try to look at those links later on today.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Some things to consider within your analysis.

1. After Pentecost a patriarch in Constantinople never existed until the late fourth early fifth century.
2. Only the Bishop of Rome was looked too as Peter to which “ALL OTHER CHURCH’S ARE TO FOLLOW”
3. After 400 years of persecuting pagan laws against the first 33+ apostolic successors to Peter (Bishop’s of Rome) who were all martyred for their Catholic Christian faith. Pagan Rome lifts it’s laws against the Catholic Church and her bishops.
4. During this freedom, the pagan Emperor Constantine places a Patriarch in his new Rome called Constantinople.
5. It is from this period we have the Eastern Catholic Church being infected by heretics and heresy.
6. During many of these Eastern heresies, where letters of opinions are written, the Popes have little (name removed by moderator)ut, until the heresy reaches a council status, which will be binding upon the whole Church.
7. It is from each of these councils that require the Bishop of Rome’s ratification, not necessarily the Pope’s presence.
8. The Emperor’s at the time when they were Christian looked to the Bishop’s of Rome as having supreme authority over the whole Church. In fact one Emperor surrendered his secular supreme religious title over to the Bishop of Rome which is “Pontificus Maximus”. Although the Popes have never used this title officially. Thus while the Church suffered persecution, and when freed, the secular powers recognized the Bishop of Rome as having supreme authority over the Church, thus the bishop’s of Rome were all sought after and martyred for keeping the faith.

9.** When the Roman Emperor’s were found to be heretical or pagan after Constantinople becomes the new Rome. These heretical emperor’s sought to persecute the Bishop of Rome who refused to ratify any of the Emperor’s and his Patriarch’s ruling over the whole Catholic Church**.

1. The new Patriarch of Constantinople gains such Emperor support who begins to usurp authority from other ancient apostolic see’s as his own. But fails to usurp the authority from the Bishop of Rome. The best the Patriarch of Constantinople could do; was to get his supporters to vote for his equal status to the bishop of Rome.
2. Patriarch is never a divine office instituted by God. Only the Bishop, priest and deacon hold sacramental holy orders. Patriarch is only an ecclesial office which can come and go at any time.
3. It is not until the pagan ruler Constantine placed a Patriarch in his new Rome (Constantinople) that we begin to see this new Patriarch vie-ing to compete or replace the authority from the bishop’s of Rome, with the (don’t under estimate) powerful support of heretical Emperor’s.

**In summary the Bishop’s of Rome authority, as universal Key Holder upon the whole earth as Jesus Christ commissioned Peter to feed and tend His flock; is never questioned until the Pagan Emperor placed his Patriarch in Constantinople. **

We begin to see a political power struggle between the Emperor’s who favor the Patriarch of Constantinople to usurp it’s authority over the whole Church from the Bishop of Rome long before 1054. Which is the time that finally gave the Patriarch of Constantinople invented reasons to accuse the pope and the west of heresy which did not hold up.

 

[truthseeker32]

Gabriel… that might be the most biased, historically inaccurate summary of ecclesial history I have ever read.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel… that might be the most biased, historically inaccurate summary of ecclesial history I have ever read.

I respect your opinion, but would respectfully ask for your rebuttal to my added factual analysis or your response to the OP

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

I’ve tried to read church history from non-Christian and secular sources in an attempt to get a clear view of history. It appears that Catholics and Orthodox have a way of distorting certain facts when making their claims. The websites offering random quotes with no context are the worst offenders!

Wikipedia seems a good place to search this topic. They have a bad rep, but the articles there always seem objective enough.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’ve tried to read church history from non-Christian and secular sources in an attempt to get a clear view of history. It appears that Catholics and Orthodox have a way of distorting certain facts when making their claims. The websites offering random quotes with no context are the worst offenders!

Wikipedia seems a good place to search this topic. They have a bad rep, but the articles there always seem objective enough.

I have no comment on Wikipedia that is constantly being corrected of it’s historical commentaries by professional historians.

There are historical facts to support each of the 12 points posted for you to entertain within the scope of your search.

In respect to the Orthodox posters, history proves that tension between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and the Bishop’s of Rome existed long before 1054, when ever there is a pagan or heretical Emperor ruling from Constantinople.

When ever the Emperor is a Catholic we find the Empire at peace between the Patriarch’s of Constantinople and the Bishop’s of Rome.

In retrospect to this view, The Emperor Constantine is not a Christian until he is baptized on his death bed.

My opinion to your OP is that tensions between the Orthodox Church’s and the Bishop of Rome become apparent after a Patriarch is installed in Constantinople, but no official schism takes shape until 1054.

 

[Rohzek]

I’ve tried to read church history from non-Christian and secular sources in an attempt to get a clear view of history. It appears that Catholics and Orthodox have a way of distorting certain facts when making their claims. The websites offering random quotes with no context are the worst offenders!

Wikipedia seems a good place to search this topic. They have a bad rep, but the articles there always seem objective enough.

If you’re looking for some good secular and academic articles, I’ll refer you to a post I made some months ago. Not all of them are secular, but they are all very well-regarded academics nonetheless. The list below is mostly about the Latin West and the nature of the papacy during the Late Antique and early medieval period. I can give you more, if you are interested, but I think this list is good:

You will be hard pressed to find a non-Christian writer on the papal primacy. The only people who are interested in it are generally only the people with an axe to grind. The best I can offer is a list of the following books, book chapters, and articles which are from historians and patristic studies experts from all sides of the aisle:

1.) Noble, Thomas F. X. “The Christian Church as an Institution.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity, 3: Early Medieval Christianities, c. 600 - c. 1100. Edited by Thomas Noble and Julia Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

2.) Noble, Thomas F. X. “Michele Maccarrone on the Medieval Papacy.” Catholic Historical Review 80, no. 3 (1994): 518-533.

3.) Noble, Thomas F. X. “Morbidity and Vitality in the History of the Early Medieval Papacy.” The Catholic Historical Review 81, no. 4 (Oct. 1995), 505-540.

4.) Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.

5.) Dvornik, Francis.* Byzantium and the Roman Primacy.* New York: Fordham University Press, 1966. Corrected edition, 1979.

6.) Gallagher, Clarence. “Diversity in Unity: Approaches to Church Order in Rome and Byzantium.”* Ecclesiastical Law Journal: The Journal of the Ecclesiastical Law Society* 6, no. 30 (2002): 208-238.

7.) Herrin, Judith. “The Pentarchy: Theory and Reality in the Ninth Century.” In Cristianità d’Occidente e cristianità d’Oriente (secoli VI-XI) : 24-30 aprile 2003. Spoleto, Italy: Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2004. 591-628.

8.) Noble, Thomas F. X. “The Intellectual Culture of the Early Medieval Papacy.” Roma nell’Alto Medioevo, 27 aprile - 1 maggio 2000. Spoleto, Italy: Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 48. 2001. 179-213.

9.) Meyendorff, John. Imperial Unity and Christian Division: The Church, 450-680 A.D. Crestwood, NY: St. Valdimir’s Seminary Press, 1992.

10.) Runciman, Steven. The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XIth and XIIth Cenuturies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.

11.) Grant, Ken. “A Divine Mandate: Pope Gregory VII’s Defense of Papal Authority.” In Authorities in the Middle Ages: Influence, Legitimacy, and Power in Medieval Society. Edited by Sini Kangas et al. 2013. 39-54. ISBN 978-3-11-029449-1

12.) Eldevik, John.* Episcopal Power and Ecclesiastical Reform in the German Empire: Tithes, Lordship, and Community, 950-1150.* New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

I realize this is a lot, but considering that your dilemma is no small matter, it does not hurt to be too informed. Most of these works, of course, cover the Middle Ages. I do not know the religious affiliation of Thomas Noble, Judith Herrin, Clarence Gallagher, Ken Grant, Steven Runciman, or John Eldevik. They seem to keep such personal matters out of their work. Gallagher though is a theologian of some sort I imagine. Francis Dvornik was a Catholic priest. His work is good, but it is clear that he does have an agenda. John Meyendorff was an Orthodox theologian, who wrote a lot on church history and patristics. I picked his book precisely because Thomas Noble said it was good and recommended it in one of his footnotes.

Steven Runciman is dead, but he was a highly respected Mediterranean historian for his time. Thomas Noble is a Carolingian historian who tends to focus on papal Rome during the Early Middle Ages. Judith Herrin is now retired, but she is probably one of the most respected Byzantine historians in the field right now. Ken Grant and John Eldevik are historians. I can testify to the quality of John Eldevik’s work, but it is daunting despite its relatively short length.

I’ve listed these in the order I think you should read them. #1 is fairly easy to read. #2 is essentially a book review and summary of a history that is written only in Italian sadly. #3 is the most important thing to read before going any further down the list. You must not skip it. Although it is 20 years old, Noble gives you a basic summary of all the historical work regarding the papacy. His concerns about it, and vision for expanding the work are very much applicable to this day. It will help you understand the rest of what you read. John Eldevik’s book will be the most difficult for you to read probably, which is why it is last. It also covers the latest time frame on this list. All the books and articles here basically cover the fourth century AD to 1200 AD. I focused on this period, because sadly we have very few sources that can illuminate much on the Roman primacy. They can be interpreted either way because they are so vague. The Late Antique Period, the Early Middle Ages, and the High Middle Ages are the places where you are most likely to find your answer.

P.S. Despite some of these works being in foreign language essay collections, all of them are written in English.

 

[brittrossiter]

If my memory is correct, as far as the order of events is concerned, the pope’s name was first stricken from the diptychs in Constantinople not in 1054, but shortly after the installation of Pope Benedict VIII in 1014, which was the first time that the filioque was sung as part of the creed in Rome. Prior to that, in the roughly 130 years since Pope John VIII’s peace with Photius in 879 concerning the filioque, there had not been much tension between the churches concerning the creed. (The Gregorian reforms ultimately took care of that lack of tension, however.)

Fr. Adrian Fortescue has an excellent treatment of the history of the filioque from the Roman Catholic church’s perspective in his book Rome and the Eastern Churches.

 

[Rohzek]

This is a long post!

Do you think the beginning of the schism between the eastern and western churches regarding the role of the papacy began much earlier than 1054? It’s presumable that the differences didn’t appear overnight; both sides had differing views in the years leading up to 1054, and the immediately preceding generations held to these differing views as well.

Am I right or wrong in stating that the divide between east and west extends much further back than 1054? Are my three statements at the beginning of this post an accurate assessment?

I disagree with the last part of statement 1. Most professional historians today generally attribute the beginning of papal claims to Pope Leo the Great or Pope Innocent I in the fifth century.

I think the differences developed over a significantly long period of time. Unlike the Christian East, the Latin West really didn’t have the benefit of the ancient highway of the day: the Mediterranean Sea. Sure the Latin West had access to it in France, Italy, and Spain, but much of the Northern European Christians did not have it. The end result was that the Christian East was much more uniform culturally despite the incessant amount of heresies that pervaded it. The Latin West on the other hand, took a significantly longer period of time form a unified front that we normally attribute to the modern-day Catholic Church. I’d say this development of unity really only reached full bloom around the 12th century, but it was a long time coming. As a result, there was a lack of conflict for the most part between the East and West during the first 1000 years of the church.

I must forewarn you about something with regards to papal history prior to the fifth or sixth centuries. The problem with going back to the historical record prior to then is that it is difficult to get the full picture or context of papal and other ecclesiastical statements. Often both sides, Orthodox and Catholics, take things out of context (personally I think Catholics do it more, but that’s just me). So I think the best way to figure out when the tension really arose would be to begin during the 5th or 6th century and work your way forward in history till the 12th or 13th century. The historical picture and context is much more clear, far less polemical in who wrote the book/article, and just far better researched regardless of who wrote it.

I know I supplied a lot of info in my previous post and that some of the articles or books might leave you with questions or some confusion. So if ever have any questions, feel free to pm me, should you decide to read some of the stuff on that list.

Also, if you have trouble getting any of the articles, I may be able to help you with that on some of them.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would recommend reading a Greek Orthodox author who converted to Catholicism while considering the same questions the OP has.

James Likoudis “Ending the Byzantine Schism” and more.

He tells it like it is from an Orthodox point of view and removes the historical, secular politics and bases his faith solely on Jesus Christ teaching’s and revelations.

His books sets both Roman Catholics straight and Learned Orthodox historians.

 

[dmar198]

It appears that Catholics and Orthodox have a way of distorting certain facts when making their claims. The websites offering random quotes with no context are the worst offenders!

I’m the author of several of the pages I linked you to, and I can edit them to provide more context. And I am happy to do so as long as it brings more accuracy to the articles. What do you think would be the best way to provide context? Is it okay, in your view, to quote a snippet and then link to the full text, or should I quote longer portions and maybe underline the parts that I think are most relevant? Or is the missing context more in the line of the fact that I don’t include alternative interpretations? I’d appreciate any suggestions you have for improvement.

 

[truthseeker32]

1. Only the Bishop of Rome was looked too as Peter to which “ALL OTHER CHURCH’S ARE TO FOLLOW”

This was not a universally accepted position in the early church. Furthermore, Rome was not looked to for its Petrine authority, but because it preserved the orthodox faith. The early church was much more autocephalous than you let on.

1. During this freedom, the pagan Emperor Constantine places a Patriarch in his new Rome called Constantinople.

He didn’t “place” a patriarch in Constantinople, he appointed one of the bishops in Constantinople to the level of patriarch.

1. It is from this period we have the Eastern Catholic Church being infected by heretics and heresy.

A few points that need to be made here. First, there were heresy problems in both the East and the West. For example, the West had to deal with Arianisms popularity among the Visigoths and Ostrogoths. Second, the vast majority of Christians lived in the Eastern part of the empire, and the major theological institutions were in the East, so of course there were debates regarding heresy and their records took place in the East. It had nothing to do with the East itself and everything to do with the demographic and institutional characteristics of Christendom.

Finally, you begin from the assumption that Rome has never fallen into heresy. This, however, needs to be demonstrated given that The Roman Catholic Church now officially proclaims several doctrinal points that were not promulgated by the Early Church.

1. It is from each of these councils that require the Bishop of Rome’s ratification, not necessarily the Pope’s presence.

Because he is one of the patriarchal sees, not because he is in charge of the Church.

1. The Emperor’s at the time when they were Christian looked to the Bishop’s of Rome as having supreme authority over the whole Church. In fact one Emperor surrendered his secular supreme religious title over to the Bishop of Rome which is “Pontificus Maximus”. Although the Popes have never used this title officially. Thus while the Church suffered persecution, and when freed, the secular powers recognized the Bishop of Rome as having supreme authority over the Church, thus the bishop’s of Rome were all sought after and martyred for keeping the faith.

You are applying your anachronistic understanding of what Papal Primacy means onto an early Church that didn’t understand things as you do. The Bishop of Rome was seen as the first among bishops, but he was not seen as a “supreme authority.”

**In summary the Bishop’s of Rome authority, as universal Key Holder upon the whole earth as Jesus Christ commissioned Peter to feed and tend His flock; is never questioned until the Pagan Emperor placed his Patriarch in Constantinople. **

It is never questioned because it was never universally accepted. Why would the Church have asked questions about something that didn’t even exist to them?

Your points have little “fact” about them. Instead, each is phrased in such a way that it supports the Roman Catholic position on Papal Primacy, but fails to accurately describe the religious and political developments in the early Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

truthseeker32;13332872]This was not a universally accepted position in the early church. Furthermore, Rome was not looked to for its Petrine authority, but because it preserved the orthodox faith. The early church was much more autocephalous than you let on.

Correction, your Unorthodox late view of the Primacy of Peter did not exist prior to a Patriarch existed in Constantinople.

Here is the “UNIVERSAL KNOWN” position since the Apostolic Father’s.

Written around 130 A.D. by St. Irenaeus "that tradition derived from the apostles, of **the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome **by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The early Church is not “autocephalous” prior to Constantinople. She is under pagan persecuting laws. Yet the Saints who write and fight against heresies look to Rome as not only the Church holding the true apostolic Faith, but the Church for all others to follow.

Pre-Constantinople, We can speak of Pope Clement disciplining the Corinthian Church and Pope Victor I (189-198) “chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church…, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented” (catholicfaithandreason.org/origen-185-253-ad.html).

But this is a topic for another day. Addressing the OP here; We do not have apostolic see’s usurping the authority of other apostolic see’s or East and Western Church tension’s about “authority” until post Constantinople.

He didn’t “place” a patriarch in Constantinople, he appointed one of the bishops in Constantinople to the level of patriarch.

We both agree here. Except when an Emperor lifted a heretic to the office of Patriarch of Constantinople.

Suffice it to say, A Patriarch is never an Apostolic office.

A few points that need to be made here. First, there were heresy problems in both the East and the West.

There were heresies when Peter and Paul walked the earth on your technicality.
But when the persecution of the Church ended, It was the East that was infected by heretics and heresies that were unknown in the West.

For example, the West had to deal with Arianisms popularity among the Visigoths and Ostrogoths. Second, the vast majority of Christians lived in the Eastern part of the empire, and the major theological institutions were in the East, so of course there were debates regarding heresy and their records took place in the East. It had nothing to do with the East itself and everything to do with the demographic and institutional characteristics of Christendom.

Arianism which came from the East is defeated by the Pope in the West long after 1054 during the 6th century. Our OP is not addressing this time line.

Finally, you begin from the assumption that Rome has never fallen into heresy. This, however, needs to be demonstrated given that The Roman Catholic Church now officially proclaims several doctrinal points that were not promulgated by the Early Church.

You presume that those Eastern Church’s who were in full communion with the Popes fell into heresy. I do not presume such a fallacy. The Pope and the councils later would name these Eastern Church’s who remained in full communion with the Pope as “ORTHODOX” compared to their sister Church’s who were dubbed “HETERODOX” found to be teaching error.

Because he is one of the patriarchal sees, not because he is in charge of the Church

.
Who ever gave you the idea that the Pope is in charge of the whole Church? I as a Catholic do not believe that, my local bishop does not believe that, and the Pope’s themselves never proclaim such a fallacy.

In fact in recent decades the Pope’s had to reteach the American English bishop’s that they are apostolic successors in charge of their own Church’s.

You are applying your anachronistic understanding of what Papal Primacy means onto an early Church that didn’t understand things as you do. The Bishop of Rome was seen as the first among bishops, but he was not seen as a “supreme authority.”

I agree with you, we should not force a post-Constantinople (unorthodox) ideology of the Papal primacy into the minds and hearts of those who reveal their apostolic (pre-Constantinople) faith as looking to Peter and his apostolic successors as always “the Church to follow”.

It is never questioned because it was never universally accepted. Why would the Church have asked questions about something that didn’t even exist to them?

The Popes authority is never questioned pre-Constantinople, Secular history and early Church councils reveal the Bishop’s of Rome in high esteem and the only apostolic see, that other apostolic successors would appeal too, when ever an Eastern council did not rule in their favor.

Your points have little “fact” about them. Instead, each is phrased in such a way that it supports the Roman Catholic position on Papal Primacy, but fails to accurately describe the religious and political developments in the early Church.

No, I am not head hunting here. I am merely introducing subjects to the OP to consider about the tensions that predated 1054, between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome. I can produce facts, when they are called for.

Peace be with you

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

That Irenaeus quote has been taken out of context by Catholics.

The quote comes from his book Against Heresies. He was speaking against heresy, justifying the authority of the true churches based on their apostolic heritages.

I’ve actually read the entirety of Against Heresies. In Irenaeus’ day, there existed little pockets of heresy and schism alongside the “worldwide” churches that held the true faith. His argument to the heretics was this: your community can only trace itself back a few years, whereas all the churches throughout the world–all who hold to the same faith–can trace back to the apostles via apostolic succession. (Many churches back then kept literal lists of all bishops in this chain, according to another part of his book.)

Iraneus wasn’t arguing papal supremacy because the heretics wouldn’t have accepted such an argument. One part of the quote the Catholic apologists deceitfully leave out is where Irenaeus says that it would be tedious to list all the lists of all the apostolic sees, so he chooses Rome on account of its illustrious history and because it’s the nearest apostolic see. (He was writing in modern-day France. If I recall correctly, elsewhere in his book he says that he doesn’t have access to the other apostolic sees’ bishop lists because of the great distance.)

When you think about it, it makes absolutely no sense for Irenaeus to claim papal primacy even if he did believe in it. He was trying to reason with non-believers–people who didn’t accept ANY church authority in the first place. It would sort of be like a Catholic today trying to tell a Protestant to listen to Rome because it’s the supreme authority. A Catholic wouldn’t do this; he would offer proof that both sides agree on, such as historical documents (or, in the case of Irenaeus, the fact that “all demonstrably apostolic churches in the world” teach “the same unified faith”). Or, to put it another way, it would have been like an evangelical telling an atheist to believe in God “because it says so in the bible.”

To accuse Irenaeus of arguing for papal supremacy in the context of his book is to accuse him of circular reasoning.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That Irenaeus quote has been taken out of context by Catholics.

The quote comes from his book Against Heresies. He was speaking against heresy, justifying the authority of the true churches based on their apostolic heritages.

I’ve actually read the entirety of Against Heresies. In Irenaeus’ day, there existed little pockets of heresy and schism alongside the “worldwide” churches that held the true faith. His argument to the heretics was this: your community can only trace itself back a few years, whereas all the churches throughout the world–all who hold to the same faith–can trace back to the apostles via apostolic succession. (Many churches back then kept literal lists of all bishops in this chain, according to another part of his book.)

Iraneus wasn’t arguing papal supremacy because the heretics wouldn’t have accepted such an argument. One part of the quote the Catholic apologists deceitfully leave out is where Irenaeus says that it would be tedious to list all the lists of all the apostolic sees, so he chooses Rome on account of its illustrious history and because it’s the nearest apostolic see. (He was writing in modern-day France. If I recall correctly, elsewhere in his book he says that he doesn’t have access to the other apostolic sees’ bishop lists because of the great distance.)

When you think about it, it makes absolutely no sense for Irenaeus to claim papal primacy even if he did believe in it. He was trying to reason with non-believers–people who didn’t accept ANY church authority in the first place. It would sort of be like a Catholic today trying to tell a Protestant to listen to Rome because it’s the supreme authority. A Catholic wouldn’t do this; he would offer proof that both sides agree on, such as historical documents (or, in the case of Irenaeus, the fact that “all demonstrably apostolic churches in the world” teach “the same unified faith”). Or, to put it another way, it would have been like an evangelical telling an atheist to believe in God “because it says so in the bible.”

To accuse Irenaeus of arguing for papal supremacy in the context of his book is to accuse him of circular reasoning.