What is a fair way to accurately express BOTH the Catholic and Orhtodox churches' continuity with the early church?

[dmar198]

St. Photius is venerated as a saint in the Byzantine Catholic Church and in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. He is on their calendar of saints, and is venerated on Feb. 6.
east2west.org/spirituality.htm
From Melkite Sophia Press, Vespers :
By a lawless decree, O holy one, you were torn from your faithful flock and suffered grievously for the Faith, O radiant hierarch, most glorious, blessed Photios of great renown, firm foundation of the Church, steadfast pillar of piety. Hence we honor you with all zeal, O initiate and teacher, wise in the doctrine of Orthodoxy and far-famed herald of grace and truth.

Yes, I am aware that Photius is venerated as a saint in some Catholic communities. That is one reason why I stated that I think I was wrong to call him a heretic in the formal sense.

 

[Tomdstone]

*]

I would really love to add some research to this thread, but I’ve got things that are keeping me busy.

A few things I’d like to note before I have to stop: first, when I referred to the tracing of heretics earlier, I was primarily referring to Photius and (later) Mark of Ephesus.

Second, I think I was wrong to call them heretics in the formal sense. I don’t think the Church had defined the issues that they preached heresy about, so they would only have been material heretics at best. Plus, many people in the Church think the Orthodox language about the filioque can be interpreted in a correct way. And also, Photius died in communion with the pope.

Third, it is my understanding that the See of Antioch did Not side with Constantinople during the schism, but rather wrote a gentle rebuke to them, and said we should remain united to the pope. It was one of his later successors who broke communion, and I don’t think their schism lasted that long. The guy who remained in communion with Rome lasted until 1062, and another one was in communion with Rome by 1098. I’m not sure how the guys in between viewed the schism, but there is evidence that at least some of them were in communion with Rome, including John VI, who was appointed to the see of Antioch in 1090.

Fourth, Antioch went in and out of communion with the pope several times between 1062 and the 1700s, and to this day there is Still a Catholic patriarch of Antioch.

Fifth, I think there is a misleading argument afoot here. Has anyone ever heard the argument that Rome must be the one that left communion with the others, because there were five patriarchates and it was Rome versus the rest? It’s a kind of “four-versus-one” argument, but I think it is a bad one. (One reason why is because Antioch remained in communion with Rome, but there’s more to it than that.) I think that argument neglects the importance of western metropolitans. When Rome and the Eastern churches split up, it wasn’t just Rome versus the other four, it was Rome, Lyons, Arles, Toledo, Seville, and several others against a bunch of Eastern cities…and remember that Antioch remained in communion with Rome. Some of these western metropolitans were listed in the Church Fathers right up there with the patriarchates. I would put Carthage up there too, except Carthage’s Catholic population had been basically lost to Muslims a long time before.

Sixth, connected to that, I think the “four-versus-one” argument is misleading because I think it forgets the dependent status of the eastern patriarchs. In a similar way to how the western metropolitans were under Rome’s control, so also I think the eastern patriarchs were under Constantinople’s control. For example, consider the guy in Antioch who had remained in communion with Rome. When he died, Constantinople appointed an anti-Rome patriarch there. Antioch didn’t leave, it was taken out of communion by Constantinople – in my view. So to me it was more like Rome versus Constantinople than Rome versus “the other four.” There were other western cities but I think they were under Rome’s control, and there were other eastern cities and patriarchates but I think they were under Constantinople’s control. If this view is accurate, then the “four-versus-one” argument loses a lot of weight because it can be viewed as “one biggie versus the other biggie.”

Okay, I really need to go now. I hope to get back to this someday.*Eventually, the Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria broke communion with Rome and remained in communion with Constantinople. If they thought that the Pope had universal and supreme jurisdiction over them, why did all the Orthodox patriarchs eventually break communion with Rome?

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, I am aware that Photius is venerated as a saint in some Catholic communities. That is one reason why I stated that I think I was wrong to call him a heretic in the formal sense.

Please, please hurry with your decision. We are all eager to resume our liturgical life.

 

[Peter_J]

Please, please hurry with your decision. We are all eager to resume our liturgical life.

(Kidding.)

 

[SyroMalankara]

Eventually, the Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria broke communion with Rome and remained in communion with Constantinople. If they thought that the Pope had universal and supreme jurisdiction over them, why did all the Orthodox patriarchs eventually break communion with Rome?

Why did the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs appointed by Constantinople remain with Constantinople? The same reason the Latin Patriarchs remained with Rome. Why did the Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs break with both Rome and Constantinople? Because they were threatened by the Imperial authority and the See that was most close to that secular force.