The Petrine views

[frjohnmorris]

It appears or seems to me that the Byzantine transformation of the Roman empire, began by Constantine the great, continued by Theodosius, and finally achieved by Justinian, produced no more that a nominally Christian state. its laws, its institutions, and a good deal of its public morality all retained unmistakable characteristics of the old paganism. Slavery continued to be legal: crimes especially political misdemeanors, were punished by law with exquisite cruelty. This contrast between professed Christianity and the practical savagery is aptly personified in the founder of the second empire; Constantine believed sincerely in the Christian God, paid honor to the Bishops, and exercising the right of a pagan husband and father putting Fausta and Crispus to death.

So glaring a contradiction between faith and life, however, could not last long without some attempt at reconciliation. Rather than sacrifice its actual paganism, the Byzantine empire attempted in self-justification to pervert the purity of the Christian idea. This compromise between truth and error lies at the heart of all those heresies( often devised by the imperial power and always, except in certain individual instances, favored by it) which distracted Christendom from the fourth century on.

The fundamental truth and distinctive idea of Christianity is the perfect union of the divine and the human individually achieved in Christ, and finding its social realization in Christian humanity, in which the divine is represented by the Church, centered in the supreme Pontiff, and the human by the state. This intimate relation between Church and state implies the primacy of the former, since the divine is previous in time and superior in being to the human. Heresy attacked the perfect unity of the divine and the human in Jesus Christ precisely in order to undermine the living bond between Church and state, and to confer upon the latter an absolute independence. hence it is clear why the emperors of the Eastern empire, intent on maintaining within Christendom the absolution of the pagan state, were so partial to all the heresies, which were but manifold variations on a single theme.

It is historically evident that all of the heresies actively supported or passively accepted by the majority of the Greek clergy encountered insuperable opposition from the Roman Church and finely came to grief on the rock of he Gospel. This is especially true of the Iconoclastic heresy; for in denying all external manifestation of the divine in the world it made a direct attack on the raison deter of the Chair of St. Peter as the real objective center of the visible Church.

I would point out that in the West it was not that much better in that many Popes and Bishops and clergy were very much corrupt. yet today the Church does not have that political power it once had due to having to maintain the West that the Eastern emperors should have done but neglected once Constantine and his successors left the West to their own designs.

What really happened in the Medieval West is that the Popes became Caesar and took upon themselves the attributes of a medieval absolute monarchy.
The East tried to follow the teachings of Christ to "“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21. It did not always work, because sometimes the Emperors crossed the line and attempted to interfere in the spiritual and doctrinal affairs of the Church, but in the end the Church eventually always overcame the Emperors and defended its doctrine from imperial interference as was the case with the Iconoclastic crisis. Even in Tsarist Russia after Peter I made the Russian Orthodox Church a department of state, the imperial authorities had no power over the doctrine of the Church.
The problem with the papal arguments is that they cannot be reconciled with the decisions and canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils which recognize no papal supremacy, infallibility or universal papal jurisdiction. Instead, the canons establish the principle of local self rule which we have continued in Orthodoxy through our system of autocephalous self-governing Churches. The supreme authority in the ancient Church was not the Pope, but an Ecumenical Council as is the case today in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I believe that if the papalism of Vatican I were truly the will of God, it would not have taken until 1870 for the Popes to achieve full power over the Western Church, but instead, if if were really the will of God that the Popes have the authority that they now have over the Catholic Church the Popes would have always had such authority over the Church, which we know from a study of history they did not have during the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

It seems that when the Empire spilt into east and West, the East neglected the West from Constantine onwards, though attempts by Byzantine emperors did reclaim part of the West, Italy and Sicily till the Normans etc. fought the Byzantine army and drove them back to the East. That being said it is true that many kings in the West tried to influence the Pope and some did for a time. What I was trying to say is that the east was just as bad morally as the West. The emperors felt that they had the right to interfere in religious matters and in the West when there was not clear ruler who else was going to try and keep some order in the West if not the Emperor in the East who was it seems very clear was not going to. maybe things would have been quite different if the emperor ruled in the West instead of in the east, but that did not happen as it is apparent that emperors did not like the West in the first place. So it seems from Byzantine history the emperors were just as bad. As far as the council goes I have heard that argument to many times and so know it by heart by now, but that does not mean that Councils are always the best way to keep unity, since history shows that those in the East that did not accept the councils decisions went their own way and are not in union with Rome or the Orthodox. From what I have read over the years the East was always suspicious of the West just as the West was suspicious of he East.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It seems that when the Empire spilt into east and West, the East neglected the West from Constantine onwards, though attempts by Byzantine emperors did reclaim part of the West, Italy and Sicily till the Normans etc. fought the Byzantine army and drove them back to the East. That being said it is true that many kings in the West tried to influence the Pope and some did for a time. What I was trying to say is that the east was just as bad morally as the West. The emperors felt that they had the right to interfere in religious matters and in the West when there was not clear ruler who else was going to try and keep some order in the West if not the Emperor in the East who was it seems very clear was not going to. maybe things would have been quite different if the emperor ruled in the West instead of in the east, but that did not happen as it is apparent that emperors did not like the West in the first place. So it seems from Byzantine history the emperors were just as bad. As far as the council goes I have heard that argument to many times and so know it by heart by now, but that does not mean that Councils are always the best way to keep unity, since history shows that those in the East that did not accept the councils decisions went their own way and are not in union with Rome or the Orthodox. From what I have read over the years the East was always suspicious of the West just as the West was suspicious of he East.

The centralized rule of the papacy did not work too well to keep unity in the West which is far more fragmented than the East due to the Reformation, which was a direct result of the corruption of the Western Church, especially under the leadership of men like Pope Alexander VI. On principle, I believe that the conciliar system is better than one man rule like Rome. I do not believe that it is good to give too much power and authority to one man. I believe that a study of the history of early Christianity shows that the conciliar system was the system adopted by the ancient Church as we see from the Apostolic Council recorded in Acts 15 and the Ecumenical Councils. During the first 1,000 years of Christian history every major decision and every major controversy was resolved by councils. Every Patriarchate was administered by its Patriarch and Holy Synod, which had authority over every Bishop of the Patriarchate including the Patriarch himself. In the East, we have kept that system, only Rome evolved into the papacy? If the papacy were God’s will for the Church, why was it not there from the beginning? We know historically that it was not and that the conciliar system was. That is why, I as an historian cannot accept the papal claims.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

The centralized rule of the papacy did not work too well to keep unity in the West which is far more fragmented than the East due to the Reformation, which was a direct result of the corruption of the Western Church, especially under the leadership of men like Pope Alexander VI. On principle, I believe that the conciliar system is better than one man rule like Rome. I do not believe that it is good to give too much power and authority to one man. I believe that a study of the history of early Christianity shows that the conciliar system was the system adopted by the ancient Church as we see from the Apostolic Council recorded in Acts 15 and the Ecumenical Councils. During the first 1,000 years of Christian history every major decision and every major controversy was resolved by councils. Every Patriarchate was administered by its Patriarch and Holy Synod, which had authority over every Bishop of the Patriarchate including the Patriarch himself. In the East, we have kept that system, only Rome evolved into the papacy. If the papacy were God’s will for the Church, why was it not there from the beginning? We know historically that it was not and that the conciliar system was. That is why, I as an historian cannot accept the papal claims.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

I will try to be diplomatic, but given the amount of westernization that has taken place among Eastern Catholics, and their acceptance of papal authority, I do not think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are good examples of Eastern Christianity.

Fr. John W. Morris

This is actually a good illustration of what I’m talking about. Are we to classify churches according to whether they are Eastern (or should I say "whether they are really Eastern?) or Western? * Certainly we Melkites, and GCs in general, complain a lot amongst ourselves about Latinizations, but Latinized or not doesn’t change our Catholicity.

But more to the point, what about the Western Rite Orthodox? Is the fact that they are Western a problem? (or perhaps I should say, is the fact that they are not fully Western a problem?)

• “In Christ there is no East or West.”

 

[frjohnmorris]

This is actually a good illustration of what I’m talking about. Are we to classify churches according to whether they are Eastern (or should I say "whether they are really Eastern?) or Western? * Certainly we Melkites, and GCs in general, complain a lot amongst ourselves about Latinizations, but Latinized or not doesn’t change our Catholicity.

But more to the point, what about the Western Rite Orthodox? Is the fact that they are Western a problem? (or perhaps I should say, is the fact that they are not fully Western a problem?)

• “In Christ there is no East or West.”

There is no doubt that there is a difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. It seems that almost every ecumenical dialogue between Orthodoxy and any Western Church, Catholic of Protestant eventually becomes a discussion of the differences between Western and Eastern Christianity. I participated in the dialogue with the Lutherans and after a few sessions the dialogue centered on Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, and the filioque.
Western Christianity is more legalistic and relies far more on human reason that Eastern Christianity. Western Rite Orthodox are liturgically Western, but are theologically pre-schism. They represent Western Christianity before the differences became divisive, before Augustine became the most influential of the Fathers and before Scholasicism.
Western Rite Orthodox came to us. We did not send missionaries to convert Western Christians as Rome did in the East.
Latinization did take place among the Greek Catholics. In Byzantine Daily Worship the commemoration of St. Gregory Palamas is replaced with a celebration of relics. Of all the Eastern Fathers, St. Gregory Palamas best represents the difference between East and West.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[twf]

There is no doubt that there is a difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. It seems that almost every ecumenical dialogue between Orthodoxy and any Western Church, Catholic of Protestant eventually becomes a discussion of the differences between Western and Eastern Christianity. I participated in the dialogue with the Lutherans and after a few sessions the dialogue centered on Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, and the filioque.
Western Christianity is more legalistic and relies far more on human reason that Eastern Christianity. Western Rite Orthodox are liturgically Western, but are theologically pre-schism. They represent Western Christianity before the differences became divisive, before Augustine became the most influential of the Fathers and before Scholasicism.
Western Rite Orthodox came to us. We did not send missionaries to convert Western Christians as Rome did in the East.
Latinization did take place among the Greek Catholics. In Byzantine Daily Worship the commemoration of St. Gregory Palamas is replaced with a celebration of relics. Of all the Eastern Fathers, St. Gregory Palamas best represents the difference between East and West.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father- the Melkites definitely venerate St Gregory Palamas; Peter is a Melkite. Maybe it is the Ruthenians you are thinking of?
Did you see my earlier reaponse regarding the “democratic model”?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father- the Melkites definitely venerate St Gregory Palamas; Peter is a Melkite. Maybe it is the Ruthenians you are thinking of?
Did you see my earlier reaponse regarding the “democratic model”?

Byzantantine Daily Worship does not commemorate St. Gregory Palamas as the Orthodox do. Instead, the text notes that the Second Sunday of Lent “according to ancient liturgical discipline,” is dedicated to the commemoration of St. Gregory Palamas. However, the text states, “The theology of Palamas contains some errors…,” Therefore, text explains that in 1843 the Melkite Patriarch Maximos II Mazloum declared that instead of St. Gregory, relics should be commemorated on the 2nd Sunday of Great Lent. p. 797.
Byzantine Daily Worship was prepared by Archbishop Joseph Raya, the Melkite Archbishop of Aka, Haifa, Nazareth and all Galilee and published by the Alleluia Press in 1969. When I was in seminary that was the official service book of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton. St. Gregory Palamas is one of the most important Orthodox theologians, so important that he is always commemorated on the 2nd Sunday of Great Lent. St. Gregory is the Orthodox answer to Latin Scholasticism. p. 402…
I know that now Melkites venerate him as a Saint, because I use the Melkite Menaion which is a straight translation from the Arabic text and contains no Latinizations. . However, there was Latinization in the Melkites and even more so in some other Greek Catholics who have First Communion and other Latinizations. Byzantine Daily Worship also has a service of the “Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament.” You cannot get more Latin than that.

The Greek Catholics are a sore topic for Eastern Orthodox, because many of us feel that the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are a way to confuse Orthodox into accepting the papacy. The Greek Catholic Churches look Orthodox, the Liturgy is Orthodox, but they are not Orthodox, because are not in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, but instead accept the papacy. I once attended a Melkite Liturgy in Florida. The Priest embarrassed me in front of everyone by becoming very upset because I would not serve with him or take Holy Communion. When a Melkite Priest acts as if there is no difference between us although he accepts the papacy, this sort of thing does not cause Eastern Orthodox to feel too comfortable with the Greek Catholics. Offering our people Communion and pretending that there is no difference by calling yourselves “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” confuses the faithful and ignores the very real differences between The Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and the Melkite Patriarchate of Antioch, which is united with Roman Catholicism.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

I would agree with Peter J. that as Catholic’s we do not classify according to whether they are Eastern or Western other that as rites within the Catholic Church. The main reason for non-unity in the West was due more to the rise of nationalism which came about with the rise of the Reformation. From the time of the Apostles till the 300’sAD in the East there appears to be much in the way of disunity in the sense that the various Churches in the East were teaching and preaching different doctrines and beliefs, although not all the Churches but enough that Constantine called for a council in order to bring unity in the Churches. If this was not so, why then would Constantine have reason to call for a council to resolve the issues that were plaguing the Churches in the East? In the West at that time there was no disunity in doctrines or beliefs so far as I can understand it from what history I have read. It also seems to me that the 7 councils all were about issues that seemed to be problems more so in the East than in the West.

It is true that the cause of Western disunity is due to the Reformation, but it also due to the rise of nationalism as what was the empire in the West fragmented into various countries each with their own language, cultures and thinking. Yes, we have had some bad Popes and Bishops and priests, but that is nothing new since even in the East the same is true with Patriarchs, Bishops and priests.

Division between the East and West occurred early on till Constantine unified the empire, Then again in the 400’sAD the empire again split into East and West, why? some due to barbarians invading the West from the East, Language, culture differences, and suspicions of Western ideas and thinking.

 

[Peter_J]

The Greek Catholics are a sore topic for Eastern Orthodox, because many of us feel that the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are a way to confuse Orthodox into accepting the papacy. The Greek Catholic Churches look Orthodox, the Liturgy is Orthodox, but they are not Orthodox, because are not in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, but instead accept the papacy. I once attended a Melkite Liturgy in Florida. The Priest embarrassed me in front of everyone by becoming very upset because I would not serve with him or take Holy Communion. When a Melkite Priest acts as if there is no difference between us although he accepts the papacy, this sort of thing does not cause Eastern Orthodox to feel too comfortable with the Greek Catholics.

I agree 100%, and I’m sorry that you and some other Orthodox have had such experiences.

 

[Peter_J]

There is no doubt that there is a difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. It seems that almost every ecumenical dialogue between Orthodoxy and any Western Church, Catholic of Protestant eventually becomes a discussion of the differences between Western and Eastern Christianity. I participated in the dialogue with the Lutherans and after a few sessions the dialogue centered on Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, and the filioque.
Western Christianity is more legalistic and relies far more on human reason that Eastern Christianity. Western Rite Orthodox are liturgically Western, but are theologically pre-schism. They represent Western Christianity before the differences became divisive, before Augustine became the most influential of the Fathers and before Scholasicism.

I can understand how you would see it that way. I would describe it just slightly differently: I would simply say that they are both Orthodox and Western (much as I would say that Greek Catholics are both Catholic and Westerrn).

 

[frjohnmorris]

.

Division between the East and West occurred early on till Constantine unified the empire, Then again in the 400’sAD the empire again split into East and West, why? some due to barbarians invading the West from the East, Language, culture differences, and suspicions of Western ideas and thinking.

In calling the 1st Ecumenical Council, Constantine simply followed the normal way the Church had dealt with doctrinal disputes following the example of the Apostolic Council recorded in Acts 15. I still believe that is the best way to make decisions in the Church. The conciliar system worked rather well during the first 1,000 years of Church history. The West also had its doctrinal problems. The genesis of the filioque was an effort to counter the influence of Arianism in Spain, because the Visigoths had been converted to Arianism.
I agree that in terms of outlook and approach to doctrine and administration, the schism began long before 1054. It really began when the West and East lost a common language and could not understand each other. Originally, the common language of Christian theology was Greek. Augustine the primary Father in the West could not read Latin, and relied an translation of the New Testament into Latin that contained errors in some important passages. That is not Eastern triumphalism. That is simply a fact. Then in 800 when Pope Leo took upon himself the authority to crown Charlemagne Emperor, a political factor was added because the Western Emperors wanted to show themselves legitimate by accusing the Eastern Church of heresy. The German rulers favored the filique clause so that they would have grounds to charge the East with heresy. The Council of Frankfurt of 794 condemned the 7th Ecumenical Council, the II Council of Nicaea of 787, because an incorrect translation of the acts of the council into Latin failed to adequately distinguish between worship and veneration. Meanwhile the Popes began to make claims to universal jurisdiction based largely on the forged Donation of Constantine. At this time, the movement to enforce clerical celibacy spread through the West. When Cardinal Humbert arrived in Constantinople in 1054, he demanded obedience to Rome and condemned married clergy in the crudest terms. Because of his lack of proper respect for the Patriarch of Constantinople and his statements condemning Eastern practices, when he uncanonicaly excommunicated Patriarch Michael I, it was the wrong move to make by someone interested in reconciliation between East and West. In actuality, Cardinal acted uncanonically because Pope Leo IX who sent him had died and after a Pope dies his legates lose their authority to act in his name. Unfortunately, the Crusades solidified the schism, when the Latin Crusaders went through the East and threw out the Orthodox Bishops and put Latin Bishops in their place. Antioch, the Patriarchate under which I serve, had nothing to do with the conflict between Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople, yet when the Crusaders took Antioch in 1098, they exiled the Orthodox Patriarch John VI and put a Latin Bishop in his place. They did the same thing when they took Jerusalem the next year.
Nationalism certainly played a role in the Reformation, but it is a gross over simplification to attribute the spread of Protestantism to nationalism. Certainly, the German princes that supported Luther would rather see their subject’s money go to them through taxes than sent to Rome. However, it would be a serious mistake not to attribute the spread of Protestantism to the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church in the early 16th century.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

According to Rodney Stark in his book God’s battalions he says that the Fourth Crusade culminated in the crusaders’ sacking of Constantinople, ; it has long served as a primary proof that the Crusades were a shameful episode in the greedy history of the West. He goes on the say that there is a whole school of scholars who, in addition to lamenting the damage to the city, claim that the Fourth Crusade was from the start nothing but a diabolical Venetian plot to eliminate Byzantine commercial competition. yet, theres nothing about the prior sacks of the city by Byzantines themselves during political coups; in 1081 Alexius Comnenus allowed his foreign mercenaries to plunder the capital for three days. Nor is there a word to acknowledge the centuries of Orthodox brutalities against Latin Christians; in 1182 the emperor incited mobs to attack all Western residents of Constantinople , which thousands including women, children, and the aged, were massacred, many more deaths than are thought to have occurred during the city’s sack by the Cusader’s. Not a word about the instances of Byzantine treachery that occurred during each of the first three crusades and that cost tens of thousands of crusaders their lives. It is not surprising that these many acts of betrayal built up substantial animosity toward Byzantium. Then in 1204, those who had journeyed east as members of the Fourth Crusade also were deceived by a Byzantine emperor who, after the crusaders helped restore him to the throne, broke his glittering promises and launched fire ships against the Crusader fleet. Meanwhile, the Latin residents of Constantinople fled the city in fear of heir lives recalling the massacre of 1182 .

 Alexius facing unflinching hostility from his subjects; the priests and upper class hated the Latin's and held them in contempt. The main reason why the Crusaders attacked  and sacked the city of Constantinople is because they were attacked first by the Byzantine army and navy. The Pope was especially angry that the crusaders sacked the city of Constantinople, instead of trying to retake the Holy Land.

There is much that you wrote that I agree with , however, history shows that from the start there were far to many differences between Eastern and Western thinking of how they viewed each other, that begun long before Christianity, that did not change when Christianity began. I would like to point out that there were a great many who wanted to be Pope and even killed for it, so no matter which side one takes there is plenty of blame to go around for the things tat happened in the past.

.

 

[frjohnmorris]

According to Rodney Stark in his book God’s battalions he says that the Fourth Crusade culminated in the crusaders’ sacking of Constantinople, ; it has long served as a primary proof that the Crusades were a shameful episode in the greedy history of the West. He goes on the say that there is a whole school of scholars who, in addition to lamenting the damage to the city, claim that the Fourth Crusade was from the start nothing but a diabolical Venetian plot to eliminate Byzantine commercial competition. yet, theres nothing about the prior sacks of the city by Byzantines themselves during political coups;
.

What does this have to do with the removal of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch by the Crusaders in 1098? As the great historian Stephen Runciman wrote, the Latin take over of the Patriarchate of Antioch solidified the schism, which before had been seen by most Eastern Orthodox as only a quarrel between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Rome. As a matter of fact in a letter to Patriarch Michael I, the Patriarch of Antioch agreed with the Ecumenical Patriarch’s objections to certain Latin practices, but opposed breaking with Rome. However, when the Crusaders took Antioch, they exiled the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and appointed a Latin Patriarch in his place. Although the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch returned to Antioch after almost 200 years in exile under Patriarch Theodosius IV (1269-1276), Rome continued to appoint Latin Patriarchs of Antioch until 1953 and finally abolished the office in 1964.
The Crusades are hardly a shining moment in Christian history. The Crusaders showed no respect for the Eastern Christians in the areas they conquered. The agreement with the Emperor was that the Westerners were supposed to restore the liberated territories to their rightful ruler, the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Instead, the crusader leaders established principalities for themselves and then tried to force the Eastern Orthodox in the territories they captured to convert to Roman Catholicism. The conquest of Constantinople was an orgy or rape pillage and plunder that lasted for 3 days. They put a keg of beer on the Altar of the Cathedral and a Prostitute on the Patriarch’s Throne, the same throne that St. John Chrysostom had sat upon. After the restoration of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople to their rightful see in 1261, Rome continued to appoint Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople until 1948 and abolished the position in 1965.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Wandile]

What does this have to do with the removal of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch by the Crusaders in 1098? As the great historian Stephen Runciman wrote, the Latin take over of the Patriarchate of Antioch solidified the schism, which before had been seen by most Eastern Orthodox as only a quarrel between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Rome. As a matter of fact in a letter to Patriarch Michael I, the Patriarch of Antioch agreed with the Ecumenical Patriarch’s objections to certain Latin practices, but opposed breaking with Rome. However, when the Crusaders took Antioch, they exiled the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and appointed a Latin Patriarch in his place. Although the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch returned to Antioch after almost 200 years in exile under Patriarch Theodosius IV (1269-1276), Rome continued to appoint Latin Patriarchs of Antioch until 1953 and finally abolished the office in 1964.
The Crusades are hardly a shining moment in Christian history. The Crusaders showed no respect for the Eastern Christians in the areas they conquered. The agreement with the Emperor was that the Westerners were supposed to restore the liberated territories to their rightful ruler, the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Instead, the crusader leaders established principalities for themselves and then tried to force the Eastern Orthodox in the territories they captured to convert to Roman Catholicism. The conquest of Constantinople was an orgy or rape pillage and plunder that lasted for 3 days. They put a keg of beer on the Altar of the Cathedral and a Prostitute on the Patriarch’s Throne, the same throne that St. John Chrysostom had sat upon. After the restoration of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople to their rightful see in 1261, Rome continued to appoint Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople until 1948 and abolished the position in 1965.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father I’ve been observing this thread for some time now and with all due respect, your history is way too one sided. It biased so much that one would think the east had no part to play in the schism.

The logic behind having a latin patriarch is the logic of having a Greek orthodox patriarch in Alexandria (or at least the original reason), legitimacy.

Secondly papal claims were based more on western petrine tradition than the donation. The donation was merely something used to add more weight but was not what the claims were based on. Pope Gregory the great and Leo the Great as well as Damasus and many other popes had already been claiming supremacy and universal jurisdictions of Rome. In fact pope Gregory was into the practice of electing bishops like the modern papacy, and boldly claimed Eastern subjection to roman authority.

Pope Damasus wrote as follows:

: “…Though all the Catholic churches diffused throughout the world are but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the Primacy by the voice of Our Lord and Savior in the Gospel: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this Rock…shall be loosed in heaven.’ …The first See of the Apostle Peter is therefore the Roman Church, ‘not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.’ But the second See was consecrated in Alexandria, in the name of blessed Peter, by his disciple Mark the evangelist… And the third See of the most blessed Peter is at Antioch…”

So too Pope Gregory the Great wrote :

“As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city.” (Lib. IX, Ep. 12)

The east too had political and religious sins against the west. If we are going to talk about the past, let us be ready to admit our own faults.

Further concerning eastern Catholics… The are fully Eastern. Have your forgotten who the Melkites are and how they came to be? Who are you, ** western priest** in an eastern church in the west, to tell a Syrian women who lives in the east but is syriac catholic that she is not eastern?The Orthodox do not own the term Easter nor do catholics own being western. I’ve heard it being said eastern Catholics aren’t eastern and this is the most absurd comment I have heard in my life. It is, with all due respect…
stupid… Plain and simple. Eastern Catholics were Eastern churches with Eastern christians that came into communion with Rome.:::

 

[Cavaradossi]

Secondly papal claims were based more on western petrine tradition than the donation. The donation was merely something used to add more weight but was not what the claims were based on. Pope Gregory the great and Leo the Great as well as Damasus and many other popes had already been claiming supremacy and universal jurisdictions of Rome. In fact pope Gregory was into the practice of electing bishops like the modern papacy, and boldly claimed Eastern subjection to roman authority.

There was an enormous difference between what they claimed and what was permitted of them. For example, you mention Pope Gregory taking part in the election of bishops, but when he attempted to extend his sphere of influence into Northern Italy (where the right of episcopal consecration and confirmation belonged to the Archbishop of Milan), he was strongly rebuffed by the Northern Italians. Pope Gregory even went so far a to send soldiers to attempt to coerce the Northern Italian sees to submit to him, at which point those sees submitted a petition to the emperor, who affirmed their rights against the expansionist claims of the Roman See.

Have your forgotten who the Melkites are and how they came to be?

Perhaps he has, but then there is a great deal of collective amnesia as to how the schism in the See of Antioch was brought about. It is forgotten, for example, how Orthodox Christians were encouraged by Jesuit missionaries to make acts of submission to the Pope in secret while continuing to attend Orthodox churches and to live outwardly as if they had not defected from Orthodoxy, a sort of ecclesiastical subterfuge, whereby converts were made in secret, therby not even alerting the Orthodox who (mistakenly) trusted the Jesuits to the reality that these covert conversions were being effected by the Jesuits, who came to the Middle East under the pretext that the Orthodox had invited them in to educate their people. With the disputed election of Cyril Tanas, the scene was then already primed by at nearly a century of Jesuit activity in Antioch for a mass public defection of those who had already defected in private.

A similar situation was also brewing in Alexandria in the same century, when the very same Cyril Tanas consecrated a rival Patriarch of Alexandria, who then went to Alexandria pretending at first to be a priest, only to then go on to claim to be the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria, going so far as to bribe Ottoman officials in an attempt to oust the Orthodox Patriarch. Through, however, a combination of fierce resistance by figures like Eustratios Argenti and the failure of the pro-papal party to secure for themselves legitimacy in the eyes of the Ottoman civil authorities, the See of Alexandria was spared the same fate suffered by Antioch (and lest I should be accused of making this up, this is all well-attested in Metropolitan Kallistos’ book on Eustratios Argenti).

Even though it may seem ridiculous to the of us who are distanced from it, there is a very real historical reason why the Orthodox in the Greek tradition have been so wary of the Unia, as they to this day continue to view it as an ongoing act of ecclesiastical subterfuge.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father I’ve been observing this thread for some time now and with all due respect, your history is way too one sided. It biased so much that one would think the east had no part to play in the schism.

The logic behind having a latin patriarch is the logic of having a Greek orthodox patriarch in Alexandria (or at least the original reason), legitimacy.

Secondly papal claims were based more on western petrine tradition than the donation. The donation was merely something used to add more weight but was not what the claims were based on. Pope Gregory the great and Leo the Great as well as Damasus and many other popes had already been claiming supremacy and universal jurisdictions of Rome. In fact pope Gregory was into the practice of electing bishops like the modern papacy, and boldly claimed Eastern subjection to roman authority.

Pope Damasus wrote as follows:

So too Pope Gregory the Great wrote :

The east too had political and religious sins against the west. If we are going to talk about the past, let us be ready to admit our own faults.

Further concerning eastern Catholics… The are fully Eastern. Have your forgotten who the Melkites are and how they came to be? Who are you, ** western priest** in an eastern church in the west, to tell a Syrian women who lives in the east but is syriac catholic that she is not eastern?The Orthodox do not own the term Easter nor do catholics own being western. I’ve heard it being said eastern Catholics aren’t eastern and this is the most absurd comment I have heard in my life. It is, with all due respect…
stupid… Plain and simple. Eastern Catholics were Eastern churches with Eastern christians that came into communion with Rome.:::

There is no doubt that one can assemble a series of quotes from ancient Popes that support the papal claims. However, one cannot show that anyone but the Popes accepted those claims. We forget that before the Muslim conquests most Christians were Eastern. Remember before 1054 there were 5 Patriarchs, 4 of which were in the East. I do not know how much the Eastern Patriarchs knew about the growing claims of Rome. Either they were not fully aware of the growing extent of Roman claims or decided to ignore them since the Pope could not enforce them on the Eastern Church. I do know that when Rome tried to extend its influence in the East, that the Eastern Patriarchs refused to give up their historic and canonical rights to self-administration and submit to papal authority. It took centuries or the Popes to gain authority over the Western Church. Milan was independent of Rome for centuries. The first attempt of a Pope to extend his authority to the East involved the efforts of Pope Nicholas I to remove St. Photius the Great. At first the Patriarch and the authorities in Constantinople ignored his refusal to reject the election of St. Photius. It was only when enemies of the Patriarch gained power at court that St. Photius was removed and Ignatius restored to the Patriarchal throne. However, papal disapproval was not enough to remove St. Photius. Instead a council was required to reinstate Patriarch Ignatius. Instead, Pope Nicholas had to appeal to a council to remove St. Photius, the Council of Constantinople 869. Significantly, when the papal legates claimed that the Pope had the authority to issue declarations on doctrine binding on the rest of the Church, Patriarch Ignatius and the Eastern delegates informed the papal legates that all 5 Patriarchs must agree for any doctrinal decision to be binding on the entire Church. Finally, however, Ignatius died and a council, Constantinople 879, reinstated St. Photius and revoked the decisions of the council of 869. The second time, that the Pope attempted to enforce his claims on the Eastern Church was in 1054. As we all know, Patriarch Michael I and the people of Constantinople refused to submit to the demands of Cardinal Humbert. At that point the arrogant Cardinal excommunicated Patriarch Michael, officially beginning the schism.
I really do not want to get involved in a discussion over the Eastern Catholics. As I indicated before, this is a very sore point for Eastern Orthodox. It would take someone much more diplomatic than I am to discuss this issue with a Catholic without becoming offensive. Although I live in the United States, before I converted to Orthodoxy, my education was entirely secular, a PhD in history. That is why, as I am sure your have noticed, most of my contributions to this discussion have emphasized history. My theological education was entirely Eastern. I graduated from an Eastern Orthodox seminary, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Boston, and have been an Eastern Orthodox Priest under Antioch or almost 34 years. From an Eastern Orthodox point of view if a Bishop is in Communion with another Bishop, that means that they share the same doctrine. The doctrine of Rome is Western. Regardless of what rite a Bishop uses, if he is under the Pope this means to us that he agrees with the Western doctrine taught by Rome, otherwise why would he accept papal authority?

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

The Crusaders who removed the Patriarch in Antioch did so without the approval of the Pope. While it is true the Pope called for a crusade to free the Holy Land from Muslim rule and help return the territories belonging to Byzantine empire, this was done at the request of the emperor. While I can agree that the Crusades showed no respect for Eastern Christians, it is also true that Byzantine Christians had no respect for Western Christians and thought them nothing more than barbarians.

It may have started out as a quarrel between the Patriarch of Constantinople and Rome but the tensions began long before that… You say nothing about how the Byzantines took over Italy and Sicily and tried to make everyone Orthodox nor of the brutalities against Latin Christians by Byzantines and try to make Eastern Christians victims in all this as though it is all the fault of the West. The West developed separately just as the East did, however, unlike the East that had an emperor the West had no one except the Pope till Charlemagne was made emperor, which the East did not like, but the truth is that since the emperor did not do anything for the West or even try to rule the West, someone had to if the eastern emperor was not going to.

Sadly so many wars are caused by religious differences, its the my way or else. While it is good to understand the past and the events that took place, it is well to remember that we are to forgive just as Jesus commands us to. While there some sore points between East and West concerning religious thinking and authority about who has control whether it be the Pope or the councils it seem to me to be high time to get over those differences and look to ways of resolving those differences since the past is the past and can not be changed as what was done is done and the need to resolve issues are more than ever needed.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Crusaders who removed the Patriarch in Antioch did so without the approval of the Pope. While it is true the Pope called for a crusade to free the Holy Land from Muslim rule and help return the territories belonging to Byzantine empire, this was done at the request of the emperor. While I can agree that the Crusades showed no respect for Eastern Christians, it is also true that Byzantine Christians had no respect for Western Christians and thought them nothing more than barbarians.

It may have started out as a quarrel between the Patriarch of Constantinople and Rome but the tensions began long before that… You say nothing about how the Byzantines took over Italy and Sicily and tried to make everyone Orthodox nor of the brutalities against Latin Christians by Byzantines and try to make Eastern Christians victims in all this as though it is all the fault of the West. The West developed separately just as the East did, however, unlike the East that had an emperor the West had no one except the Pope till Charlemagne was made emperor, which the East did not like, but the truth is that since the emperor did not do anything for the West or even try to rule the West, someone had to if the eastern emperor was not going to.

Sadly so many wars are caused by religious differences, its the my way or else. While it is good to understand the past and the events that took place, it is well to remember that we are to forgive just as Jesus commands us to. While there some sore points between East and West concerning religious thinking and authority about who has control whether it be the Pope or the councils it seem to me to be high time to get over those differences and look to ways of resolving those differences since the past is the past and can not be changed as what was done is done and the need to resolve issues are more than ever needed.

The issues that divide us can be easily resolved, simply go back to the way things were before the schism and reunite on the basis of Vincentian Canon, “that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” That means on the basis of the consensus of the Holy Fathers and the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Rome would have the same position it had before 1054, senior Bishop holding a primacy of honor as “first among equals,” but without universal jurisdiction, infallibility and subject like every other Bishop to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

I really do t see that happening but if were to be, there are several doctrinal issues that have to be resolved before any reunion could happen so far as I can see it. I guess so far as I can understand it and from what many of the Catholic posters have said that seem to have more knowledge than I have,. it seems from Catholic interpretation it is more than a primacy of honor, and the Pope is the visible head of the Church not just some figure head. I understand that you are going to say that it has to be the way you think it was before the schism, and that is fine, but in the end I just do not see it that way and I rather doubt that those who or have authority in such matters if they really want reunion will go the way you think it needs to go.