It reveals an apostolic Church with Peter (who St. John Chrysostom, revered by both Churches, confesses to be given an individual and unique charge to tend Christ’s flock) as its spokesman. Wherever the apostles are to be found, there also (as Acts 15 reveals) is Peter, the prince of the apostles and leader of the apostolic choir (St. Chrysostom’s own words).
Indubitably, you’re right.anon48198893:
It reveals an apostolic Church with Peter (who St. John Chrysostom, revered by both Churches, confesses to be given an individual and unique charge to tend Christ’s flock) as its spokesman. Wherever the apostles are to be found, there also (as Acts 15 reveals) is Peter, the prince of the apostles and leader of the apostolic choir (St. Chrysostom’s own words).
Maybe not from a more monolithic Latin perspective. But if you were to ask a Greek Orthodox if they were members of the same Church as an Antiochian Orthodox, they would emphatically agree.
Sure, which is why they generally and historically recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople. Remember though that their understanding of the role of primacy is far, far more limited than the Latin one.
Sure. It’s how they’ve exercised Church Discipline for roughly 2000 years. Historically, it has worked fine with the conflicting parties generally returning to communion.
This is the systemic problem/systemic blessing of Orthodoxy.
I am not sure if this is fair to the Eastern Orthodox. As I understand them, they believe that the concelebration or at least the acknowledgement of each other’s patriarch/bishop in the Divine Liturgy unites the church because the unity as espoused in the creed is being united in the literal Body of Christ. I am not even sure if the absolute power of the Pope of Rome, who, according to Vatican I, can depose and raise bishops according to his will, is rooted in most of the church fathers of the early church. But, then again, some Church Fathers affirmed the Filioque while others denied it or were silent about it. Hence, I am confused as to which church is the true continuation of the Church as preached by the apostles.
I recall Nicaea discussing the authority of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch in having similar power over their sees as Peter’s heir had over his. Canon 5? 7? Somewhere around there.
But, sometimes he needs to take action to serve unity. For example, should there be a dispute as to the rightly elected Patriarch, the Pope would serve as the final court of appeal to settle the issue, so that peace would be resolved. Or say a See had been sufficiently corrupted that it became necessary for the unity of faith and charity that someone “outside” be appointed. That could serve unity.
The issue was never about whether Rome was the Seat of Peter, the issue was what precisely that meant. The Orthodox Church, under the auspices of the Heirs of Constantine, did not feel that it owed Rome any particular service, and viewed Rome as being a first among equals. In other words, the Eastern Church was willing to acknowledge Rome’s supremacy, providing that supremacy was of a ceremonial kind, and did not have any kind of coercive authority. Beyond that, after the final collapse of the Western Empire, Rome could hardly legitimately call itself the head of the Christian Church, whereas Constantinople remained an Imperial City and the Eastern Church remained under its protection.
It’s a bit more than that. Certainly the Papacy didn’t want to end up like they did after the fall of the Western Empire, beholden to either German warlords or the ultimate Warlord, Justinian. At the same time, the Church after the decline of the Carolingian Empire went a lot further than merely trying to ring fence itself against threats (since, in reality, under the Carolingian model, it had obtained the ultimate special status by sponsoring a new Emperor and acting under his auspices as God’s chosen heir to the Caesars). The Papacy took a much more proactive role in European politics, and apart from creating growing divisions among the European princes, the Byzantine Emperors were all too conscious that any significant acknowledgment of Rome’s primacy would be a Trojan Horse. Let Rome tell Eastern clerics what to do, and the next thing you know, the Pope would be asserting authority over the Emperor.
I’d argue that Rome badly overreached. While it had some temporary victories, like the ones over Emperor Frederick II and Henry II of England, I don’t think it’s too strong an argument to make that those battles with the European Princes laid the groundwork for the Reformation. You don’t think those German princes watching the battles between Luther and Rome didn’t see an opportunity to finally “rid themselves of that meddlesome priest”?
The Orthodox acknowledge the Pope of Rome as successor of Peter, along with the Patriarch of Antioch. The Orthodox also acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome had primacy among the Bishops of the early Church. From the Ravenna Document, “Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch ( To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs.” What is disputted is, “They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.”