What is "Eastern Orthodox"?

[Wesley7]

From what I understand, in the liturgy the Deacon or the Priest reads the words of the Gospel to those attending the worship services on the Kalendar.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Russia was granted it in the 15th century, I believe. The others came at different times. It was a very volatile time for many Orthodox during the 13-20th centuries with the onslaught of Islam, the Ottomans and the Communists. Possible reasons why it took so long for autocephaly to occur for many Orthodox areas. All in God’s providence, however.

If I recall correctly, didn’t the Russian Orthodox unilaterally proclaim autocephaly, to the great ire of the Patriarch of Constantinople?

I think you misunderstand the powers of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Never did he “rule” over certain territories, rather he had pastoral care over new churches which were being established as part of the missionary work of his Patriarchate (also realize that other autocephalous churches are free to do their own missionary work. The Antiochians, Russians and the Ecumenical Patriarch have all participated quite fervently in missionary work for the last century at least, if not for longer in the case of Russia).
In the specific cases of some of the churches you have mentioned, I am not sure that I can really comment because my knowledge of the history of most of the Slavic churches is lacking. In the case of Russia, I do believe that its declaration of autocephaly was discussed with the Ecumenical Patriarch beforehand, and was accepted by the four Patriarchates. It is also worth mentioning that some autonomous churches did declare autocephaly unilaterally, but this was only usually under times of great political stress when some sort of barrier had come between communication with the mother church and the autonomous church tied to her (take for example the Orthodox Church of America, which was granted autocephaly from Moscow because of the impossibility that Moscow, then under communist rule, could help in its administration. That has now left the OCA in a rather messy situation where some sees like Constantinople do not recognize it as being autocephalous but other sees like Moscow do, but this is certainly an extraordinary situation, and one that we as Orthodox should all hope is resolved soon. America, as it seems wont to do, is mired in controversy yet again).

Perhaps he didn’t have a kind of jurisdiction that the Pope in Rome enjoys over the Catholic Church, but it seems to me that he has some kind of direct sovereignty over the other ones. Certainly he must have had some kind of direct influence during the era of the Byzantine Empire? Wasn’t there great strife vis-à-vis the various Christian groups in North Africa and the Middle East?

 

[dvdjs]

Firstly though, a bit of history. The essence-energies distinction was explicitly defined by Gregory Palamas in response to the Hesychasts Barlaam’s attacks upon Hesychasm…
In response to Barlaam’s objections, Gregory Palamas formalized (or one could also say clarified) the essence-energies distinction. It is important to realize that Gregory Palamas did not invent the distinction, as the Cappadocian Fathers already spoke of and distinguished between essence and energies. Much in the same way that terms like “hypostasis”, “ousia” and “physis” (in English, person, essence and nature respectively) started off as vague theological terms which were later given precise meanings so that they were all clearly defined by the time of Chalcedon, so to did Gregory Palamas clarify the distinctions between two terms, essence (“ousia”) and energy (“energeia”), which were widely in use by the Cappadocian Fathers centuries before his time.

A tangential remark: you have given a nice example that epitomizes the concept of development of doctrine.

Barlaam, brought up in the Latin Scholastic tradition was scandalized by the idea of humans experiencing the uncreated.

The reality is that he wasn’t.

Orthowiki:

Barlaam was born about 1290 in a Greek community in Calabria, Southern Italy, in an area that then used the Eastern rite. Taking monastic vows, Barlaam was a monk on Mount Athos, and abbot of San Salvatore at Constantinople.

myriobiblos.gr/texts/engl…as_barlaam.pdf

Barlaam was born in southern Italy in an Orthodox family. Becoming
a monk, he moved to Constantinople, where he was “hegoumenos” of the
Akataleptos monastery until 1341.In the mid-1330s he began to attack
“Hesychasm” for both its theology and manner of prayer. He accused
Gregory Palamas of Messalianism, and argued that the light on the Mt.
Tabor at the transfiguration was created and not eternal. The local council of
Constantinople of 1341 condemned Barlaam and ordered his anti-hesychast
writings burned. He returned to the West, converted to Catholicism at
Avignon in 1342 and became bishop of Gerace in Calavria (1342-1348).
After his death, he was anathematized by the Orthodox Church in 1351, and
most of his anti-palamite works were destroyed.

According to Orthodox sources he was a cradle EO, a monk of Athos, then a hegumen in Contantinople during his debates with Palamas. He went West after his repudiation in Constantinople,

Also, from, Ghosty, on a previous thread, from which I repeated the above:

Barlaam did indeed go West, but prior to his bout with St. Gregory he was staunchly Byzantine. His major works up until that point were against the Pope and St. Thomas Aquinas (who explicitly taught as St. Gregory Palamas did). He went West mostly to escape persecution after he was branded a heretic; he made no serious theological writings or contributions in the West (and they don’t seemed to have explored his controversy with Palamas). Most of this is from memory, from Fr. John Meyendorf’s works on St. Gregory Palamas and the Palamite Controversy.

I someday hope that I might have a better understanding of it like that of Gregory Palamas. It reflects the venerable tradition of mystical theology in the Eastern Orthodox Church whereby experience of God, not logic, is the only truly acceptable way to come to know Him, and this of course, can only be accomplished through fasting,

According to the myriobiblos essay, Palamas’s employed Aristotelian methodology.in his arguments against Barlaam. His teaching on the matter was, as Ghosty indicated, parallel to that of Aquinas, whose had been opposed by Barlaam. I think that this bit of history is useful, not onlt to correct the record, but to help understand the significance of rational inquiry in a life of faith - a synergistic interaction, not an antagonistic one.

I am skeptical of the part of the quote. “of, course, …only”. That seems to be a dramatic claim that I don’t think is consonant with Orthodox tradition; especially in the context of a discussion of the Hesychasts.

 

[dvdjs]

I think you misunderstand the powers of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Never did he “rule” over certain territories, rather he had pastoral care over new churches which were being established as part of the missionary work of his Patriarchate…

Except when he did. As leader of the Rum millet (and even before the Ottoman final conquest) he did rule over other Patriarchates; indeed it had even happened that a Patriarchate would be abolished and the laity brought under his direct rule - err “pastoral care”.

The conversion of entire nations in the Eastern Orthodox Church has for the most part followed a predictable pattern. Firstly missionary efforts would begin. In this initial stage, a local church hierarchy would be set up using hierarchs and bishops imported from the mother church and the liturgy would be translated into the local language. Once a stable church structure has been established, the church would be granted autonomy (a step below autocephaly) The second step would be to replace all of the imported hierarchs and bishops with native hierarchs and bishops (achieved after a few generations perhaps). After this process was completed, the church would then be granted autocephaly, and would be elevated to the same rank as a patriarchate in terms of jurisdictional matters.

This “predictable pattern” is lovely, but unfortunately not true - arguably in general. Actually history is far more “intriguing” than this.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Except when he did. As leader of the Rum millet (and even before the Ottoman final conquest) he did rule over other Patriarchates; indeed it had even happened that a Patriarchate would be abolished and the laity brought under his direct rule - err “pastoral care”.

This “predictable pattern” is lovely, but unfortunately not true - arguably in general. Actually history is far more “intriguing” than this.

Yes, power was consolidated into the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarch during Ottoman times, but for obvious reason. After the Great schism, and the Muslim conquests of the other three ancient Eastern sees, who but the Ecumenical Patriarch remained as a confessor of Orthodoxy? In such a situation, it was only natural that power would come to gradually rest in his hands.

Once the Ottomans overthrew the Byzantine Empire, the Ecumenical Patriarch was forced into the position of not only being a religious leader but a secular one. This was an accident of history under Islamic rule. In Islamic thought, religion and secular government are one and the same, and so the Ecumenical Patriarch was somewhat forced into the position of not only being the spiritual leader of all Greek Christians living as Dhimmi under the Ottoman Empire, but also the secular leader of an independent Greek nation inside of a nation, so to speak. While today’s happy nobody-but-the-Europeans-can-do-evil history text books might talk of the wonders of Ottoman religious tolerance, the truth is that the Ottomans were historically quite disruptive to Christian life, even requiring that candidates for the Patriarchate should be able to pay a fee for the title (essentially then selling the throne to the highest bidder). It is incredibly fortunate for the Orthodox world that the Russians were free to keep the faith relatively safe while the Greeks had their culture destroyed under Ottoman rule.

The Roman Catholics often seem not to realize the extreme fortune they were dealt by history. Muslim rule is an absolutely crushing system designed to stamp out all other competing religions while preserving the guise of “religious freedom”. Sure, you are free to practice your religion under Muslim rule, but only if you can pay the tax for it. And if you can’t, either you convert or they chop your head off. Also, converting a Muslim to Christianity is illegal (why do you think there are no Christian Missionaries in Saudi Arabia?), and crimes committed against Dhimmi perpetrated by Muslims often go unpunished (just look at what’s happening to the Copts today). Sure, you can criticize the Ecumenical Patriarchate all you want for consolidating power under Muslim rule, but can you really say that he was given much of a choice? And isn’t it quite telling that now, when she is no longer forced to hold the power over the Greek Orthodox world that she once did, Constantinople has given her power up and allowed things to go back to how they once were?

As for the “intriguing” history of how churches gained their autocephaly, yes this can be true at times. It cannot be denied that some churches have rather politicized histories. However, those are only a handful. In Orthodoxy today, we have 14 autocephalous churches, and many of them were established with rather little intrigue involved. Gaining autocephaly can be a hairy process at times (look at the OCA), but such cases are extraordinary and hopefully temporary. My point still stands, nonetheless, that the modus operandi for Orthodoxy when converting a nation (especially now in the 21st century when political interference in religious life is much less than in the past) is approximately as I described.

 

[jam070406]

The Roman Catholics often seem not to realize the extreme fortune they were dealt by history. Muslim rule is an absolutely crushing system

What???
The West had to defend itself against Islam. Many died trying to protect Christendom against the tyranny and destruction of Islam.
Ever hear of the battle of Lepanto?
Only, today, the Church gets demonized for things like the Crusades and Inquisition.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What???
The West had to defend itself against Islam. Many died trying to protect Christendom against the tyranny and destruction of Islam.
Ever hear of the battle of Lepanto?
Only, today, the Church gets demonized for things like the Crusades and Inquisition.

Yes, and the Muslims also overran Spain, but thankfully for the history of Western Civilization they were stopped in France (the modern world is forever indebted to the Franks). I speak of, however, not resisting Muslim invasion, but living under Islamic hegemony, which the Roman Catholic Church never truly had to undergo (again, thankfully so).

On a slight tangent: The Crusades and the retaking of Spain by Isabella and Ferdinand were perfectly justified to be honest. I have no idea why we in the West so enjoy demonizing ourselves in history books these days; it is a trend that I hope should stop one day, before we pollute the minds of the next few generations into hating everything that has made them what they are.

 

[dvdjs]

Yes, power was consolidated into the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarch during Ottoman times, but for obvious reason…
… And isn’t it quite telling that now, when she is no longer forced to hold the power over the Greek Orthodox world that she once did, Constantinople has given her power up and allowed things to go back to how they once were?
…
As for the “intriguing” history of how churches gained their autocephaly, yes this can be true at times. It cannot be denied that some churches have rather politicized histories. However, those are only a handful.

Good. We agree first that your earlier remark about ruling over others is far from correct. Yes, there were reasons for the great exercise of power by the EP. But those reasons don’t change the facts about the power being wielded.

I am unpersuaded, however, about the “handful”. I think it is closer to the truth the in no church (post-schism at least) did authocephaly (let alone use of the vernacular) evolve according to your neat outline. And the true history bears on your “isn’t it quite telling…” comment.

During the long decline of the Ottoman empire, regions free of the Ottoman yoke, would move for autocephaly and independence from the Ottoman controlled EP. (Independence from the Ottoman controlled EP, who had little capacity to support local churches, and also had levy huge taxes to buy installation from the Sultan was also a factor at work in some of the unias.) The EP opposed every such movement, although he was essentially powerless to stop it. In some cases (as with the Russians) it just became, over time, a fait accompli; after some time, recognition was granted. In other cases recognition was expedited to avoid a threatened local union with the Catholic Church.

The EP still has interesting notions about his role as leader in the diaspora churches. Maybe that is quite telling.

 

[dvdjs]

Here is a keeper from Bishop Tikhon, retired from the OCADoW

When did the Ecumenical Patriarchate begin to refer to itself, rather than to the now closed Church of St. Sophia, as "The Great Church?"That same Patiarchate once assumed a primacy because, being located in the Emperor’s city, it could do so for that reason.

Then in a sad period of history when the Church of Constantinople and its patriarch belonged to the Unia, the Uniate Patriarch fled before the invading Turks and the Uniate Emperor presumably fell in battle. But the invading Sultan, by fiat, simply abolished the Unia by installing an Orthodox Patriarch in place of the absconded Uniate Patriarch Gregory, and IMPOSED the primacy of the newly installed Patriarch OVER all Christians (including Orthodox Christians) in the Ottoman Empire. At the time of the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, the EP was not an 'EP" at all! When the city fell, and for some time before that, it was in dogmatic union with Old Rome which therefore held the very first place of honor over Constantinople.

The present primacy of the EP is a direct linear result of the command of the Sultan, who granted the EP the first place in honor and authority, and who made sure that, as loyal subjects, neither the Constantopolitan Patriarchs nor their Subordinates, the “Eastern Patriarchs” would approve anything coming from the West, such as a calendar reform. The Sultan also made sure that the Eastern Patriarchs would not allow the Roman Pope to claim a monopoly on indulgences and their sale. The Eastern Patriarchs did supinely condemn the calendar reform and condemn the Roman Pope for claiming the Exclusive right to grant and sell indulgences. Why, as recently as the time of St. Nicholas the Hagiorite one could buy indulgences from the Phanar, and a letter still exists granting St. Nicholas indulgences for his friends, in response to his request to purchase some.

 

[dvdjs]

On a slight tangent: The Crusades and the retaking of Spain by Isabella and Ferdinand were perfectly justified to be honest. I have no idea why we in the West so enjoy demonizing ourselves in history books these days; it is a trend that I hope should stop one day, before we pollute the minds of the next few generations into hating everything that has made them what they are.

What a pleasure that we have an EO poster with this attitude.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Good. We agree first that your earlier remark about ruling over others is far from correct. Yes, there were reasons for the great exercise of power by the EP. But those reasons don’t change the facts about the power being wielded.

I am unpersuaded, however, about the “handful”. I think it is closer to the truth the in no church (post-schism at least) did authocephaly (let alone use of the vernacular) evolve according to your neat outline. And the true history bears on your “isn’t it quite telling…” comment.

Well, the only ones I can really think of that happened pre-schism were Bulgaria (which was full of intrigue) and Cyprus (which other than an upset Antioch, didn’t have much going on).

Your ideas about the use of the vernacular being some how mired in difficulty, however, are flat out incorrect. To say so is to forget the memory of Saints Cyril and Methodius who translated numerous books from the Bible (including the Psalms and the Gospels) and the liturgy into Old Church Slavonic (I suppose back then it was just known as Slavonic).

During the long decline of the Ottoman empire, regions free of the Ottoman yoke, would move for autocephaly and independence from the Ottoman controlled EP. (Independence from the Ottoman controlled EP, who had little capacity to support local churches, and also had levy huge taxes to buy installation from the Sultan was also a factor at work in some of the unias.) The EP opposed every such movement, although he was essentially powerless to stop it. In some cases (as with the Russians) it just became, over time, a fait accompli; after some time, recognition was granted. In other cases recognition was expedited to avoid a threatened local union with the Catholic Church.

This is true, power does corrupt. If anything, this should be an argument for the reasons why we should keep our relatively decentralized leadership of today.

The EP still has interesting notions about his role as leader in the diaspora churches. Maybe that is quite telling.

Well, no, he is the leader of the diaspora churches. There is no “interesting notion” there, just plain fact. These are people left without a national church in this case, which is foreign to Orthodoxy. Should the diaspora have just been left to rot? No. The ultimate goal, of course is the establishment of autocephalous churches, in those nations where the members of the diaspora now reside.

 

[Cavaradossi]

When did the Ecumenical Patriarchate begin to refer to itself, rather than to the now closed Church of St. Sophia, as "The Great Church?"That same Patiarchate once assumed a primacy because, being located in the Emperor’s city, it could do so for that reason.

Then in a sad period of history when the Church of Constantinople and its patriarch belonged to the Unia, the Uniate Patriarch fled before the invading Turks and the Uniate Emperor presumably fell in battle. But the invading Sultan, by fiat, simply abolished the Unia by installing an Orthodox Patriarch in place of the absconded Uniate Patriarch Gregory, and IMPOSED the primacy of the newly installed Patriarch OVER all Christians (including Orthodox Christians) in the Ottoman Empire. At the time of the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, the EP was not an 'EP" at all! When the city fell, and for some time before that, it was in dogmatic union with Old Rome which therefore held the very first place of honor over Constantinople.

The present primacy of the EP is a direct linear result of the command of the Sultan, who granted the EP the first place in honor and authority, and who made sure that, as loyal subjects, neither the Constantopolitan Patriarchs nor their Subordinates, the “Eastern Patriarchs” would approve anything coming from the West, such as a calendar reform. The Sultan also made sure that the Eastern Patriarchs would not allow the Roman Pope to claim a monopoly on indulgences and their sale. The Eastern Patriarchs did supinely condemn the calendar reform and condemn the Roman Pope for claiming the Exclusive right to grant and sell indulgences. Why, as recently as the time of St. Nicholas the Hagiorite one could buy indulgences from the Phanar, and a letter still exists granting St. Nicholas indulgences for his friends, in response to his request to purchase some.

Yes, a great quote from the venerable Tikhon indeed; what a true confessor of Orthodoxy was he. Thankfully, the Ecumenical Patriarch of today is a far different from what he is denouncing. That does, however, seem to be a misrepresentation of the what was going on during that period in history. Let us be honest, had the Muslim threat not been so immediate, the Council of Florence never would have happened. Even after the Council and the union had supposedly taken place, the people rose up and deposed their Patriarch for what they saw as him selling out the purity of their faith for worldly benefits. The union you speak of was never accepted by the imperiled population of Byzantium, and a majority of Bishops recanted their positions upon returning home, all but nullifying the Council of Florence in the East. As a nice extra added twist, the “new Patriarch” mentioned by Tikhon who was installed by the Sultan was Gennadios, one of the Bishops who signed at the Council of Florence but later recanted.

This all being said, I’m unsure why you would reference incidents from one of the most volatile periods of Orthodox history and try to make broad generalizations about the power of the Ecumenical Patriarch from that. That borders on cherry picking, does it not? The accidents of history have happened, but the power of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is nothing like centralized powerhouse it became to be in the past. Why not look at the other periods in history when there was not such a pressing need to fight off foreign invaders or communists in order to form a more complete picture of Ecumenical Patriarchate?

 

[jam070406]

This all being said, I’m unsure why you would reference incidents from one of the most volatile periods of Orthodox history and try to make broad generalizations about the power of the Ecumenical Patriarch from that. That borders on cherry picking, does it not? The accidents of history have happened, but the power of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is nothing like centralized powerhouse it became to be in the past. Why not look at the other periods in history when there was not such a pressing need to fight off foreign invaders or communists in order to form a more complete picture of Ecumenical Patriarchate?

I would agree with this. And I would ask that the Orthodox afford the same attitude towards the Papacy. Look to Pope Benedict and not a medieval time period that is nothing like the 21 century.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I would agree with this. And I would ask that the Orthodox afford the same attitude towards the Papacy. Look to Pope Benedict and not a medieval time period that is nothing like the 21 century.

Yes, this is true. The Pope is not a complete tyrant, nor do I think anybody who is level-headed would insist upon that notion. There are several differences, however, between the power which we give to the Ecumenical Patriarch today (whose role and powers would theoretically be supplanted by the Pope in a united Church) and the powers which are given to the Pope today, and those differences are quite real, creating a real barrier in the way of reunion. Let us hope that we will be able to work out these differences in the future.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Yes, power was consolidated into the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarch during Ottoman times, but for obvious reason. After the Great schism, and the Muslim conquests of the other three ancient Eastern sees, who but the Ecumenical Patriarch remained as a confessor of Orthodoxy? In such a situation, it was only natural that power would come to gradually rest in his hands.

Once the Ottomans overthrew the Byzantine Empire, the Ecumenical Patriarch was forced into the position of not only being a religious leader but a secular one. This was an accident of history under Islamic rule. In Islamic thought, religion and secular government are one and the same, and so the Ecumenical Patriarch was somewhat forced into the position of not only being the spiritual leader of all Greek Christians living as Dhimmi under the Ottoman Empire, but also the secular leader of an independent Greek nation inside of a nation, so to speak. While today’s happy nobody-but-the-Europeans-can-do-evil history text books might talk of the wonders of Ottoman religious tolerance, the truth is that the Ottomans were historically quite disruptive to Christian life, even requiring that candidates for the Patriarchate should be able to pay a fee for the title (essentially then selling the throne to the highest bidder). It is incredibly fortunate for the Orthodox world that the Russians were free to keep the faith relatively safe while the Greeks had their culture destroyed under Ottoman rule.

The Roman Catholics often seem not to realize the extreme fortune they were dealt by history. Muslim rule is an absolutely crushing system designed to stamp out all other competing religions while preserving the guise of “religious freedom”. Sure, you are free to practice your religion under Muslim rule, but only if you can pay the tax for it. And if you can’t, either you convert or they chop your head off. Also, converting a Muslim to Christianity is illegal (why do you think there are no Christian Missionaries in Saudi Arabia?), and crimes committed against Dhimmi perpetrated by Muslims often go unpunished (just look at what’s happening to the Copts today). Sure, you can criticize the Ecumenical Patriarchate all you want for consolidating power under Muslim rule, but can you really say that he was given much of a choice? And isn’t it quite telling that now, when she is no longer forced to hold the power over the Greek Orthodox world that she once did, Constantinople has given her power up and allowed things to go back to how they once were?

As for the “intriguing” history of how churches gained their autocephaly, yes this can be true at times. It cannot be denied that some churches have rather politicized histories. However, those are only a handful. In Orthodoxy today, we have 14 autocephalous churches, and many of them were established with rather little intrigue involved. Gaining autocephaly can be a hairy process at times (look at the OCA), but such cases are extraordinary and hopefully temporary. My point still stands, nonetheless, that the modus operandi for Orthodoxy when converting a nation (especially now in the 21st century when political interference in religious life is much less than in the past) is approximately as I described.

The West was besieged by the Muslims in Spain, in Sicily, Rome itself was plundered. The Islamic armies post-Constantinople swallowed up Catholic lands in Cyprus, Crete, the Balkans (Dalmatia, Croatia, Hungary), and reached the gates of Vienna (twice). That’s quite a lot on their plate, wouldn’t you agree?

Personally no, I cannot fault the Ecumenical Patriarch for consolidating power. It’s an obvious thing to do when you are so dearly threatened. I still pray the Lord extend his hand over the EP Bartholomew I, I certainly wouldn’t want to be in his shoes in modern Turkey. I know he shoulders a tremendous burden.

However, isn’t it a little odd to criticize the Pope for consolidating his power, when in many circumstances he was beset by similar conditions as the EP in Constantinople? What could have happened to the Church with the fall of the Roman Empire in the West had the Pope not used his position to his advantage and strength his jurisdiction over the Church?
Let’s not forget that Arianism was embraced by many of the Germanic tribes that conquered Rome. It was one of the reasons why the filioque was adopted in the West, specifically to combat that heresy. Who knows what could have happened.

At any rate, I think that in any future rapprochement between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, a compromise with regard’s to the Papacy’s powers could be found. Somewhere between ‘make and break a bishop’ and simply ‘primacy of honor.’

 

[dvdjs]

Even after the Council and the union had supposedly taken place, the people rose up and deposed their Patriarch for what they saw as him selling out the purity of their faith for worldly benefits.

This is not true, at least according to Bishop…

As a nice extra added twist, the “new Patriarch” mentioned by Tikhon who was installed by the Sultan was Gennadios, one of the Bishops who signed at the Council of Florence but later recanted.

The convenience of being reasonable. But the key point made by Bishop that you should note: There was an EP (apparently not deposed by the rising up of the people); the Sultan installed a new one, by fiat.

This all being said, I’m unsure why you would reference incidents from one of the most volatile periods of Orthodox history and try to make broad generalizations about the power of the Ecumenical Patriarch from that. That borders on cherry picking, does it not?

You made statements pertaining to Orthodox history that are simply not true. The contrary examples prove the error and lack of generality of your statements. That is not cherry-picking; it is the fundamental approach to hypothesis testing.

Perhaps you meant to say: ideally here’s how things would work, but circumstances are often complex, so in reality, it pretty much never happens in the ideal way. No quarrel. But representation of Orthodox history as some unchanging and/or sinless and faultless ideal is, IMO, a conceit that is not only an offense against truth, but is a great barrier to reconciliation. Perhaps EOs could better understand Catholic’s perspective on the what the papacy means, if they maintained a less mythologized view of the workings of primacy within the EOC.

 

[dvdjs]

Well, the only ones I can really think of that happened pre-schism were Bulgaria (which was full of intrigue) and Cyprus (which other than an upset Antioch, didn’t have much going on)

I think that Cyprus may be the only smotth case, over history, which is why I specified post-schism cases.

Your ideas about the use of the vernacular being some how mired in difficulty, however, are flat out incorrect. To say so is to forget the memory of Saints Cyril and Methodius who translated numerous books from the Bible (including the Psalms and the Gospels) and the liturgy into Old Church Slavonic (I suppose back then it was just known as Slavonic).

Again you shift to a pre-schism situation. What about post-schism - eg the relatively recent adoption of the vernacular in Romania. (What about modern Russian and Greek?) Tell me about the Arabic in the Middle East (or even about the development of a local, Arabic hierarchy.) Developments, where they have occurred, often had a Catholic (Eastern Catholic) connection.

Well, no, he is the leader of the diaspora churches. There is no “interesting notion” there, just plain fact. These are people left without a national church in this case, which is foreign to Orthodoxy. Should the diaspora have just been left to rot? No. The ultimate goal, of course is the establishment of autocephalous churches, in those nations where the members of the diaspora now reside.

I think that you summarize the view of the EP very well. But surely you know that there are others eg the MP - that have views that are strongly opposed to this one.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The West was besieged by the Muslims in Spain, in Sicily, Rome itself was plundered. The Islamic armies post-Constantinople swallowed up Catholic lands in Cyprus, Crete, the Balkans (Dalmatia, Croatia, Hungary), and reached the gates of Vienna (twice). That’s quite a lot on their plate, wouldn’t you agree?

Right, the Roman Catholics were indeed beset by Muslim invasions. It is very fortunate that they were never definitively conquered, or else we probably would not be speaking English right now. This is, of course, the main difference between the Eastern experience with Muslim conquest and the Western experience, for in the East, we actually lost.

Personally no, I cannot fault the Ecumenical Patriarch for consolidating power. It’s an obvious thing to do when you are so dearly threatened. I still pray the Lord extend his hand over the EP Bartholomew I, I certainly wouldn’t want to be in his shoes in modern Turkey. I know he shoulders a tremendous burden.

However, isn’t it a little odd to criticize the Pope for consolidating his power, when in many circumstances he was beset by similar conditions as the EP in Constantinople? What could have happened to the Church with the fall of the Roman Empire in the West had the Pope not used his position to his advantage and strength his jurisdiction over the Church?

I can agree with that, it is not very all level-headed to criticize the Pope for consolidating power in the West under similar circumstances of lawlessness. What else is one to do? Some Orthodox like Timothy (Kallistos) Ware can be rather sympathetic in their portrayal of the plight of the Popes in the dark ages.

Let’s not forget that Arianism was embraced by many of the Germanic tribes that conquered Rome. It was one of the reasons why the filioque was adopted in the West, specifically to combat that heresy. Who knows what could have happened.

Sort of. There were several Popes who themselves opposed the filioque in the West. It was a rather contentious thing introduced by the Franks (likely for the reasons you stated above). The questions now surrounding the filioque are:

1. Is it heretical? A very clear, official definition for what is meant by “Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit” would probably need to be made for the Orthodox to feel comfortable with it being taught. If there is nothing that is clearly heretical about the official definition, then the Eastern Orthodox could call it a theologoumenon (a theological opinion), and feel comfortable with it being taught in Western Christianity.
2. Must it be in the Latin version of the Creed? To the Orthodox, the theological decisions of ecumenical councils are infallible, and therefore to add something to the Creed is seen as being impossible without another having another ecumenical council. Certainly, from the Eastern perspective, there is no problem with it being in other Creeds like the Apostle’s Creed, just the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

At any rate, I think that in any future rapprochement between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, a compromise with regard’s to the Papacy’s powers could be found. Somewhere between ‘make and break a bishop’ and simply ‘primacy of honor.’

Likely so. A middle ground which is consistent with our shared Patristic Traditions will likely have to be found. Honestly, the Eastern Orthodox might be ok with the Pope’s ability to make and break bishops within his own immediate jurisdiction (the Roman Catholic Church), so long as that ability doesn’t extend to every church in communion with Rome. Other things like Papal infallibility make the Eastern Orthodox (perhaps understandably so) much more nervous.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Again you shift to a pre-schism situation. What about post-schism - eg the relatively recent adoption of the vernacular in Romania. (What about modern Russian and Greek?) Tell me about the Arabic in the Middle East (or even about the development of a local, Arabic hierarchy.) Developments, where they have occurred, often had a Catholic (Eastern Catholic) connection.

I honestly cannot tell you much about Romania, as I am not familiar with their situation, other than being the only Romance speaking country with a large Orthodox population. As for Arabs, I believe a majority of them already have a hierarch, and he is the Patriarch of Antioch. I do know that several Antiochian churches in my area offer Arabic liturgies.

I think that you summarize the view of the EP very well. But surely you know that there are others eg the MP - that have views that are strongly opposed to this one.

Yes, the MP does have many divergent views from the EP, such as the MP’s more cautious approach towards ecumenism or the MP’s recognition of the OCA’s autocephaly (this one likely causes most of the tension between the MP and the EP over the EP’s jurisdiction over the diaspora). This is likely something that will have to be solved with a general council of the church (when that will next happen, I cannot say). The Moscow Patriarchate, of course, we must remember is just beginning to get back on track after the disastrous effects of communism in Russia. It is not unnatural that they should take rather conservative stances and be wary of potential threats to the regrowth of their patriarchate. Also, it should be noted that disunity of opinions does not necessarily represent disunity in Faith. Orthodoxy surely does have a very rich level of diverging opinions (for lack of a better way to put it) when it comes to matters outside of faith, but her unity in her Faith is quite solid.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Sort of. There were several Popes who themselves opposed the filioque in the West. It was a rather contentious thing introduced by the Franks (likely for the reasons you stated above). The questions now surrounding the filioque are:

1. Is it heretical? A very clear, official definition for what is meant by “Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit” would probably need to be made for the Orthodox to feel comfortable with it being taught. If there is nothing that is clearly heretical about the official definition, then the Eastern Orthodox could call it a theologoumenon (a theological opinion), and feel comfortable with it being taught in Western Christianity.
2. Must it be in the Latin version of the Creed? To the Orthodox, the theological decisions of ecumenical councils are infallible, and therefore to add something to the Creed is seen as being impossible without another having another ecumenical council. Certainly, from the Eastern perspective, there is no problem with it being in other Creeds like the Apostle’s Creed, just the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Mmm maybe but a great number of fathers, both in the East and the West, approved of the filioque. In fact it wasn’t an issue in the East until a lot of time after it was already adopted in the West. We could go on ad nauseum on this, and probably wouldn’t conclude anything.

Likely so. A middle ground which is consistent with our shared Patristic Traditions will likely have to be found. Honestly, the Eastern Orthodox might be ok with the Pope’s ability to make and break bishops within his own immediate jurisdiction (the Roman Catholic Church), so long as that ability doesn’t extend to every church in communion with Rome. Other things like Papal infallibility make the Eastern Orthodox (perhaps understandably so) much more nervous.

Perhaps there could be a precise, narrowly defined definition which could quel Orthodox hesitation towards it? I mean Papal Infallibility the few occasions where it’s been used have been nothing more than a rubber stamp.

I don’t see Catholics and Orthodox unifying in my lifetime.