Why are we talking to Constantinople instead of Moscow?

[Formosus]

You must have a broad mind. Why don’t you check the history. the history of constantinople began only in the 3rd century. before that there were 3 centuries. in those centuries what happened? then see that in those centuries the patriarch of antioch was the superior and head of all the churches. at constantinople, the head patriarch only a bishop. Roman pope was only a bishop. Only in the 4th century, emperor declared that bishop of constantinople is a patriarch and he is the ecumenical patriarch. on what basis? only becuase of political reasons.

Alexandria and Rome have always held higher positions then Antioch. Rome, as attested to by Early Church fathers, was a final arbitor in disputes among the various churches, and Alexandria was the second most important city in the Empire and had a large Christian population (as well as the orgins of monasticism and the home to several early church writers). The Bishop of Constantinople is the Oecumenical Patriarch because of the Fourth Ecumenical council. Constantinople was the center of the christianized Empire so of course it would be raised second only to the See of Peter.

I suppose you could be an Oriental Orthodox and be denying this council, but no apostolic church (to my knowledge) places Antioch higher then Alexandria.

 

[eelpis]

Because you made a promise to raise them Catholic, when you married someone who’s not a Catholic.

That’s part of being a father and actually a part of the marriage vows, a real father cares for his children and very much about their souls. If you want what’s best for your children you would want to raise them in the Catholic faith.

The children can follow their mother to her liturgy too.

 

[malphono]

Alexandria and Rome have always held higher positions then Antioch. Rome, as attested to by Early Church fathers, was a final arbitor in disputes among the various churches, and Alexandria was the second most important city in the Empire and had a large Christian population (as well as the orgins of monasticism and the home to several early church writers). The Bishop of Constantinople is the Oecumenical Patriarch because of the Fourth Ecumenical council. Constantinople was the center of the christianized Empire so of course it would be raised second only to the See of Peter.

I suppose you could be an Oriental Orthodox and be denying this council, but no apostolic church (to my knowledge) places Antioch higher then Alexandria.

I’m not sure why there is a repeated reference in this forum (not necessarily in this particular thread or by any particular poster) to a particular hierarchy (“pecking order” might be better) among the 3 ancient patriarchates. To me, this is a non-issue. Peter’s Chair at Rome gives Rome primacy, and that leaves Alexandria and Antioch.

What palakerala2008 says doesn’t seem far from the truth, though. Peter’s first Chair was at Antioch. The name “Christian” comes from Antioch. St John Chrysostom came from Antioch. And politically, I believe Antioch was considered the “Second City” of the Roman Empire before the rise of Constantinople.

In saying that, my intention is not to engage in an argument nor to in any way denigrate Alexandria. As I see it, Antioch and Alexandria are equal in dignity.

 

[gilbertgea]

"Why are we talking to Constantinople instead of Moscow?"

The short answer: Because the Patriarch of Constantinople is the ranking bishop in the eastern so-called “Orthodox” churches. His position is somewhat analogous to the Pope’s position as Patriarch of the West. He’s something of a focal point and it just makes sense.

On the other hand, to raise this individual’s level of dignity to that of somehow appearing equal to the Pope is sheer and utter nonsense. The Pope is the top bishop in Christendom: he is over and above everyone else. Period. No “ifs”, “ands”, or “butts”. He should be receiving the P. of C. as a commander would a subordinate commander who has caused or perpetuated a mutiny for the past 500-1,000 years, or a king who has suffered the rebellion of one of his dukes.

I particularly found the “lifting” of the so-called “excommunication” against the Pope done by the P. of C. strangely amusing. Gee, thanks dude. So, how does that work? I’m a patriarch (i.e. under a pope) and I excommunicate the pope (my superior)? So, if I am an employee, or middle management, er even a senior executive, I can fire the president of the company?

This is one reason among many that the Church has gone adrift: its leaders refuse to lead and its teachers refuse to teach… except when we’re “leading” each other in a *Kaffeeklatsch *and teaching each other that it is more important to not offend people and be nice to each other than it is to teach correct doctrine.

The Pope needs to just tell Patriarch Whatshisname, “Look, you want to put an end to the schism, then submit to the authority of Rome and end it. It’s that simple. Anything else is not going to fly.” (I’m sure it would sound much better in Latin, German, or Italian…) If the good P. of C. doesnt want to play ball, he can stay out of the game for another 500-1,000 years.

Semper fidelis,

G.E.A. Gilbert

 

[joshhackerspmdo]

the excommunications you refer to were not of the pope. The papal legit excommunicated the patriarch of constantinople and he and a synod of bishops excommunicated the two legits (i cannot remember their names).

and anyway isn’t the course twords ecclesiatical unity more important than who did what to whom. We need to keep things in perspective.

 

[Nicholas82]

"Why are we talking to Constantinople instead of Moscow?"

The short answer: Because the Patriarch of Constantinople is the ranking bishop in the eastern so-called “Orthodox” churches. His position is somewhat analogous to the Pope’s position as Patriarch of the West. He’s something of a focal point and it just makes sense.

On the other hand, to raise this individual’s level of dignity to that of somehow appearing equal to the Pope is sheer and utter nonsense. The Pope is the top bishop in Christendom: he is over and above everyone else. Period. No “ifs”, “ands”, or “butts”. He should be receiving the P. of C. as a commander would a subordinate commander who has caused or perpetuated a mutiny for the past 500-1,000 years, or a king who has suffered the rebellion of one of his dukes.

I particularly found the “lifting” of the so-called “excommunication” against the Pope done by the P. of C. strangely amusing. Gee, thanks dude. So, how does that work? I’m a patriarch (i.e. under a pope) and I excommunicate the pope (my superior)? So, if I am an employee, or middle management, er even a senior executive, I can fire the president of the company?

This is one reason among many that the Church has gone adrift: its leaders refuse to lead and its teachers refuse to teach… except when we’re “leading” each other in a *Kaffeeklatsch *and teaching each other that it is more important to not offend people and be nice to each other than it is to teach correct doctrine.

The Pope needs to just tell Patriarch Whatshisname, “Look, you want to put an end to the schism, then submit to the authority of Rome and end it. It’s that simple. Anything else is not going to fly.” (I’m sure it would sound much better in Latin, German, or Italian…) If the good P. of C. doesnt want to play ball, he can stay out of the game for another 500-1,000 years.

Semper fidelis,

G.E.A. Gilbert

Yea, “dude”, that’s how Popes talk, right? They refer to other Patriarchs as “dude”. We don’t need attitudes like that “dude”. Isn’t that the homeroom bell I hear? You’re going to be late.

 

[Nicholas82]

*** If the good P. of C. doesnt want to play ball, he can stay out of the game for another 500-1,000 years.

Semper fidelis***,

G.E.A. Gilbert

Yes, we will keep the true Faith for the next 500 years as we have for roughly 2000 years, or until Christ returns, whichever comes first… with or without the Bishop of Rome. With would certainly be nice though.

 

[White_Russian]

My sister-in-law is Russian Orthodox. As a teen-ager,her father escaped Russia in the 30’s after his parents were arrested. He never saw his parents again or knew the reason for the arrest. When he came to America after the war under the Displaced Persons Act, he lived two blocks from the local Russian Orthodox Church, but chose to go to a Russian/Greek Orthodox church that was under the Patriachate of Constantinople. His reason for not going to the local RO church was that he believed the priest, who was trained by someone from the Moscow seminary, was a communist. He always said that the few churches and seminary in Moscow during the Stalinist era were infiltrated by KGB agents and for that reason did not trust the priests in the U.S. unless they came from an American or Canadian seminary. I am confused as to how a Russian church can be under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Also isn’t there some friction between the Moscow and Consantinople patriarchies?

 

[jimmy]

"Why are we talking to Constantinople instead of Moscow?"

The short answer: Because the Patriarch of Constantinople is the ranking bishop in the eastern so-called “Orthodox” churches. His position is somewhat analogous to the Pope’s position as Patriarch of the West. He’s something of a focal point and it just makes sense.

On the other hand, to raise this individual’s level of dignity to that of somehow appearing equal to the Pope is sheer and utter nonsense. The Pope is the top bishop in Christendom: he is over and above everyone else. Period. No “ifs”, “ands”, or “butts”. He should be receiving the P. of C. as a commander would a subordinate commander who has caused or perpetuated a mutiny for the past 500-1,000 years, or a king who has suffered the rebellion of one of his dukes.

I particularly found the “lifting” of the so-called “excommunication” against the Pope done by the P. of C. strangely amusing. Gee, thanks dude. So, how does that work? I’m a patriarch (i.e. under a pope) and I excommunicate the pope (my superior)? So, if I am an employee, or middle management, er even a senior executive, I can fire the president of the company?

This is one reason among many that the Church has gone adrift: its leaders refuse to lead and its teachers refuse to teach… except when we’re “leading” each other in a *Kaffeeklatsch *and teaching each other that it is more important to not offend people and be nice to each other than it is to teach correct doctrine.

The Pope needs to just tell Patriarch Whatshisname, “Look, you want to put an end to the schism, then submit to the authority of Rome and end it. It’s that simple. Anything else is not going to fly.” (I’m sure it would sound much better in Latin, German, or Italian…) If the good P. of C. doesnt want to play ball, he can stay out of the game for another 500-1,000 years.

Semper fidelis,

G.E.A. Gilbert

The problem with this is that the authority of Rome as you understand it is a development of the west in the last millenium. The east NEVER held the view of Rome that the west now holds of Rome. They never saw the pope as having universal jurisdiction. They never believed in papal infallibility. So to many in the east this simply sounds like hubris.

 

[White_Russian]

Hey, what’s going in Cuba? The Castro brothers attended a dedication of the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Havana. Patriarch Batholomew himself consecrated the cathedral. Batholomew gave them the Order of St. Andrew. This sounds too much like the Soviets during the WWI when they needed the help of the Orthodox Church. The Cathedral was confiscated during the '60s and turned into a children’s theater. Deja vu!!

 

[Amadeus]

The problem with this is that the authority of Rome as you understand it is a development of the west in the last millenium. The east NEVER held the view of Rome that the west now holds of Rome. They never saw the pope as having universal jurisdiction. They never believed in papal infallibility. So to many in the east this simply sounds like hubris.

I agree that this has been the crux of the matter as far as the Eastern Orthodox Churhces are concerned.

However, a slight opening of the window has been generated by the dialogues within the official International Commission as exemplified by its recent last Fall (2007) meeting in Ravenna, Italy.

The 13 Orthodox members of the Commission (the ROC walked out and Bulgaria’s representatives were absent) voted with their Catholic counterparts to issue the *Ravenna Document *which recognizes the existence of a *Protos (*or a Primus) in the Church at the universal level, akin to the role currently held by the Pope in the Catholic Church. Heretofore, the Orthodox only recognized at most a Protos in the Church at the regional level a la the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

At the next meeting of the Commission (probably Fall of 2009) the Orthodox and Catholic delegates will tackle the ramifications of such a concept and, should there be one, how it is to be exercised in a reunified Church.

 

[jimmy]

I agree that this has been the crux of the matter as far as the Eastern Orthodox Churhces are concerned.

However, a slight opening of the window has been generated by the dialogues within the official International Commission as exemplified by its recent last Fall (2007) meeting in Ravenna, Italy.

The 13 Orthodox members of the Commission (the ROC walked out and Bulgaria’s representatives were absent) voted with their Catholic counterparts to issue the *Ravenna Document *which recognizes the existence of a *Protos (*or a Primus) in the Church at the universal level, akin to the role currently held by the Pope in the Catholic Church. Heretofore, the Orthodox only recognized at most a Protos in the Church at the regional level a la the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

At the next meeting of the Commission (probably Fall of 2009) the Orthodox and Catholic delegates will tackle the ramifications of such a concept and, should there be one, how it is to be exercised in a reunified Church.

True enough, but the condesension of the post by gilbertgea is not going to help anything and it is only a confussion of the issues. It assumes that the EO and any other eastern Churches are just insubordinates who are prideful and disobedient. Never mind that the early Church(at least in the east and probably in the west as well) didn’t view the true Church simply as that which was subordinate to the Roman Pope. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was that which professed the true faith of the apostles.

That doesn’t mean that Rome doesn’t have a universal primacy. But how that would be expressed remains to be determined.

 

[JohnVIII]

That doesn’t mean that Rome doesn’t have a universal primacy. But how that would be expressed remains to be determined.

Did the chair of St. Peter exist during the time of the Apostolic Ecumenical Council recorded in acts chapter 15? Saint Peter was there but the ruling bishop was St. James the Brother of God. Pope Gregory had objected to calling the Patriarch of Constantinople the Ecumenical Patriarch because Constantinople was not founded by St. Peter. But, interestingly enough, he did not object to either of the patriarchs of Antioch or Alexandria to hold the title Ecumenical Patriarch; the reason being that Alexandrian and Antioch both were founded by St. Peter. In other words, Rome does not have exclusive rights to universal jurisdiction (which is what the title Ecumenical Patriarch implies). The only way that universal jurisdiction can be exercised is within the medium of an ecumenical council. Within the context of an ecumenical council whoever is the chief hierarch of that council exercises a sort of universal jurisdiction, but only within the context of the ecumenical council itself.

I know that this is a Roman Catholic forum and that this is not the teaching of present-day Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church today teaches that the Pope has universe jurisdiction and that he can exercise it directly, and is not required to exercise it indirectly within the context of an ecumenical council. But I’m presenting to you my thoughts on this issue because the only thing that I am interrested in is what the truth is. The jurisdictions of all the local churches and their limitations were clearly spelled out in the early canons of the church. The limitations of the Church at Rome were clearly spelled out as well.

Each Catholic Jurisdiction enjoys independence and freedom from the authority of any other jurisdiction; and Canon eight of the third ecumenical Council makes this very clear. It says:

Bishops of the province of the Cypriotes Zeno and Evagrius, has announced an innovation, a thing which is contrary to the ecclesiastical laws and that Canons of the Holy Apostles, and one which touches the freedom of all. … The same rule shall hold good also with regard to the other diocese and churches everywhere, so that none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formally and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors. But if anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall regive it back to its rightful processor, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, … lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us a free gift by His own blood. It has therefore seemed best to the holy and Ecumenical Council that the rights of very province, formally and from the beginning belonging to it, be preserved clear and inviolable, in accordance with the custom which prevailed of yore, … If, on the other hand, anyone introduce any form conflicting with the decrees that have been sanctioned, it has seemed best to the entire holy and Ecumenical Council that it be invalid and of no effect.

The Patriarch of Constantinople refused to call himself the Ecumenical Patriarch until after the schism between Rome and the other four patriarchates. The potential authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch has never been used, as there has not been an ecumenical council in the Orthodox Church since the time of the schism. Hence, the term Ecumenical Patriarch has only been honorary. After the Patriarch of Constantinople submitted to the authority of the Pope at the Council of Florence, his authority, honorary or otherwise, was rejected by the Orthodox Church. It was said that “new Rome has followed the way of old Rome, behold a third Rome appears (Moscow), and a fourth there shall not be”. Perhaps the reason that the Patriarch of Moscow has not assumed the title Ecumenical Patriarch is because he also knows that Moscow is not founded by St. Peter. However, Moscow does see itself as the third Rome; and if ever the Orthodox Church has another Ecumenical Council the chief hierarch within that council I suspect will probably be the Patriarch of Moscow.

Rome cannot hold a true Ecumenical Council all by herself without the other patriarchates. As canon 34 of the Holy Apostles says:

It behooves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognize him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own perish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[dave_boyd]

A few things –

• JP II said that a reconsideration of the role of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, as least as to how it is practically exercised, was on the table for discussions with the Orthodox. I don’t recall reading anything by B16 on the subject, but I don’t think it has changed.

• I would like to point out to our Orthodox brethren that, in the last few decades, the centralized authority of the Pope has been the bulwark, or the firebreak perhaps, for sound teaching and small-“o” orthodoxy in the Catholic church. Some dissenting voices in the Catholic church have, (e.g. McBrien in his Encyclopedia of Catholicism) in fact, misused ecclesiological arguments of Eastern Christians, both separated orthodox and Eastern Catholic, to advance their latitudinarian “progressive” agendas by attacking the Pope’s authority. Absent Rome, the Catholic Church, at least in Western Europe and the English-speaking world, would have gone spinning into the abyss that the Anglican Communion is falling into. This doesn’t settle any of the arguments about the role of the papacy, etc., but it should help our Orthodox brothers and sisters understand why many Latin Catholics react strongly and emotionally to arguments for limiting the Bishop of Rome’s authority.

• The real sticking point for Moscow is, from what I understand, the Eastern Catholic Churches, especially those of the Byzantine Rite, and most especially the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Moscow seems the regard the dissolution of these churches as a precondition for any serious talks about restoring communion. I, as a Latin, would see such an action towards the Eastern Catholic churches as a betrayal of them, who have witnessed with their blood to their belief in the unity of their churches with the See of Peter. Although in the long run, such a merger of identities of the Catholic and Orthodox of the Byzantine Rite would seem inevitable if communion is re-established, doing so prematurely, before a greater degree of trust is re-established between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic, would probably be a disaster for the spiritual well-being of the flock of Eastern Catholic churches. Remember that the experience of the Ukrainian Catholics, from their point of view, is that the Partriarchate in Moscow was a collaborator with their oppressors.

• I long for the day when I join my Orthodox brethren at the table of the Lord, and I hope it happens on this side of eternal glory. Nevertheless, perhaps the hand of the Holy Spirit is in some of the delays, in order that reunion will be done well, in a way that lasts for centuries.

 

[jimmy]

• I would like to point out to our Orthodox brethren that, in the last few decades, the centralized authority of the Pope has been the bulwark, or the firebreak perhaps, for sound teaching and small-“o” orthodoxy in the Catholic church. Some dissenting voices in the Catholic church have, (e.g. McBrien in his Encyclopedia of Catholicism) in fact, misused ecclesiological arguments of Eastern Christians, both separated orthodox and Eastern Catholic, to advance their latitudinarian “progressive” agendas by attacking the Pope’s authority. Absent Rome, the Catholic Church, at least in Western Europe and the English-speaking world, would have gone spinning into the abyss that the Anglican Communion is falling into. This doesn’t settle any of the arguments about the role of the papacy, etc., but it should help our Orthodox brothers and sisters understand why many Latin Catholics react strongly and emotionally to arguments for limiting the Bishop of Rome’s authority.

Hello Dave, good post. I agree with this. I think that the west is struggling with secularism and needs a strong papacy at this time in history. The pope acts at this time to protect the western church. Maybe the Eastern Orthodox could sympathize with this if it is emphasized that it is an instance where the Spirit has worked in the Church of the west in a specific time and place to solve problems. I think the EO would be willing to say that the Church can adjust to certain atmospheres and times. At certain times the Patriarchs may have had more authority over the other bishops and the Spirit worked through the Church in this atmosphere to protect it from error. But ultimately they would say that all bishops are equal

 

[JohnVIII]

• JP II said that a reconsideration of the role of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, as least as to how it is practically exercised, was on the table for discussions with the Orthodox. I don’t recall reading anything by B16 on the subject, but I don’t think it has changed.

“The Orthodox” really consists of 15 separate autocephalous Catholic Churches. I see no reason why the authority of the Pope, within his jurisdiction, should be limited in any way that is contrary to the Apostolic Traditions. Every jurisdiction has a Chief Hierarch. The Chief Hierarch is “St. Peter” for that jurisdiction, and he alone has that authority within that jurisdiction, but exercises that authority via a synods of bishops, where he can demand, within that synod, that certain things be done with regard to the entire jurisdiction. The Chief Hierarch also decides when the Synod begins and when it ends. If any bishop within that jurisdiction takes action that affects the entire jurisdiction outside the authority of that Synod he would be acting schismatically. So, why can’t it be that the authority of the Pope with regard to Rome and all who are subject to her (which, by the way, should include England as England is within the jurisdiction of Rome) - why can’t the authority that the Pope exercises within his jurisdiction be quite a different thing than the Eucharistic relationship that one jurisdiction shares with another, such as the relationship that the Pope would have with Constantinople or with Moscow? In other words, why is it so important that the Pope hold Constantinople and Moscow as if they are no different than England, considering them to be in rebellion against the authority of the Pope as England was? England was surely under the jurisdiction of Rome, but Constantinople and Moscow have never been under the jurisdiction of Rome. The relationship between Rome and Constantinople is therefore different than the relationship between Rome and England. But then again, just like my example above with regard to the Chief Hierarch and his Synod, so too, during an Ecumenical Council, the one who is Chief in that Ecumenical Council - quite probably the Pope - can demand that certain things be done with regard to the entire Universal Church so long as he does so within that Ecumenical Council.

As I understand it, this, as I explained above, is how the Holy Traditions of the Church, with regard to the unity of the Church have been passed down to us from the apostles. I ask the question, why is it necessary that the one who sits in the Chair of St. Peter operate contrary to the Traditions from the apostles and create a new form of unity where the whole world is a single jurisdiction? Did St. Peter remain Bishop over Antioch when he left Antioch and went to Rome to be the first Bishop of Rome? If St. Peter retained his authority over Antioch after being Bishop there for seven years, and then in the year 53 AD became the first Bishop of Rome, there would then be two bishops in the See of Antioch, both St. Peter and Bishop Evodius who is chosen in 53 AD to be the second Bishop of Antioch. And having two bishops at the same time in the same See is a violation of one of the strictest Traditions from the apostles. If the Pope does indeed have universal jurisdiction he would have to have inherited this from St. Peter, and it would seem to me that the only way that St. Peter could have had this universal jurisdiction is that he would first have to be the bishop of every church in existence, one by one, and then take that accumulated authority with him as he went to Rome to sit there as the sole bishop over every see in the entire world. Then any bishop who took his place in one of his former sees (such as bishop Evodius did in Antioch and 53 AD) would have to be either a usurper of the authority of St. Peter, or he would have to be something less than a bishop.

The way to unity given to us from the apostles worked quite well for the first seven ecumenical councils. The one world jurisdiction method to unity attempted now for well over a thousand years has not achieved any results; save only during the false-union of Florence, which didn’t produce any of the fruits of Christian unity, but only served as the grounds by which a large number of Greek bishops were cast out of their offices being rejected by the laity of the church. Isn’t it possible that the reason one way works and one way does not work is because one way is ordained by the Holy Spirit another way is not ordained by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The real issue, regardless of which Patriarch the Holy Father is talking to, is the Papacy and the current power it possesses, power that is historically in dispute.

That begs the question. The alleged ‘dispute’ regarding the authority of the See of Peter is a post-schism invention. Does Holy Scripture have any place in this conversation? Has the Gospel of Matthew been removed from the Canon? Does Mt. 16:13-19 resonate with any of the faithful here? The Lord did not speak empty words and would not have uttered them if He did not mean them as He said them. It is very protestant to deny the Lord’s words mean what they say.

Peter is clearly singled out by Our Lord for leadership and, in addition, personal primacy over his brothers (“You in turn must strengthen your brothers,” Lk. 22:32). In the New Testament Peter is mentioned by name more than twice as often as the rest of the Apostles combined. It to Peter the Lord gave the command, “Feed my sheep.” Three times. John arrives at the empty tomb before Peter, but waits to let Peter enter first. Peter is the first one out the door on the Day of Pentecost and the first to proclaim the Gospel after the Ascension. He is the only one of the first Apostles to speak in Acts.

There are two very important facts of early Church history our Orthodox brothers overlook: The entire Church, East and West, was known as “The Catholic Church” and the Bishop of Rome was the final arbiter.

When he discovered the heresy of Nestorius (mid-5th Century), Cyril of Alexandria, who was the leading bishop of the Eastern Church, did not take matters into his own hands, but deferred to Pope Celestine and sought his authority in dealing with Nestorius. Ancient custom, he said, persuaded him to bring the matter before the Pope It was a decree of Pope Celestine that gave Cyril the means to resolve the heresy and clearly there was no opposition to the Pope’s authority by ANY Eastern bishop until much, much later. It should not go unnoticed that an heretic was elected to the See of Constantinople and it took the Pope to dislodge him.

The vast majority of “traditional”/“semi-traditional” Roman Catholics will not accept anything less than the Pope of Rome maintaining the full power which he enjoys today.

It’s not a matter of what the Catholic laity will or will not accept, it’s a matter of what the Lord decreed, what He set in place as He built His Church. The authority given to Peter is clear and unambiguous: “I will entrust to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Mt. 16:19. This is not idle chatter by the Lord. If He didn’t mean those words, He wouldn’t have said them.

Parenthetically, what you call “the full power which he enjoys today” is not 'full ‘power.’ It is the authority, given by the Lord, to declare what is and is not true Christian doctrine and dogma. As has been noted, it is that auathority which has held the Catholic Church together for almost 2000 years and through some very troubling times.

Luther’s intent in his rebellion was to eliminate papal authority, and he did. Before his death he was to lament, “I removed one pope, now we have 500 popes!” Today there are over 33,000 popes in the protestant world.

The Orthodox Church has survived as a disembodied unity in apostolic successon, having valid orders and sacraments by the grace of God and the protection of the Holy Spirit, but it is incorrect to refer in any way to Her as the true survivor of the Early Church. It just isn’t true.

The vast majority of Orthodox Christians will accept, at most, the Pope of Rome returning to pre-Schism status as First Among Equals.

Which is very close to saying nothing. I have always held ‘first among equals’ as a completely empty accolade. What does it mean? He gets the drumstick?

…but should we come in to Communion with each other, the Pope would have to spend some time as just being “Equals” with the other Patriarchs and the EP would remain First Among Equals.

I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one, my friend.

It is an impasse that may never be forded.

Or that one, either.

 

[Ghoti]

Which is very close to saying nothing. I have always held ‘first among equals’ as a completely empty accolade. What does it mean? He gets the drumstick?

Nah, the Pope’s nose…

 

[dave_boyd]

Mr. Rombola

That kind of proof texting doesn’t in any real credible way establish that the Bishop of Rome must exercise authority in the church and have the particular powers that the Pope now has – to say, appoint bishops in Eastern churches or have all Eastern churches subject to a dicastery “for the Oriental Churches” in Rome. JPII was so explicit in his willingness to reconsider the role of the Pope. Both you and John VIII are I think reading far too much detail into what scripture and tradition mandate for the role and authority of the Pope. Fortunately, intercommunion and corporate union, if that is what the Lord wills for us, doesn’t depend on converting the most obstreperous people in either the Western or Eastern camp, though there may be a wider range of people in the Eastern world with an effective veto, from Athos to Moscow.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Mr. Rombola

That kind of proof texting doesn’t in any real credible way establish that the Bishop of Rome must exercise authority in the church and have the particular powers that the Pope now has – to say, appoint bishops in Eastern churches or have all Eastern churches subject to a dicastery “for the Oriental Churches” in Rome. JPII was so explicit in his willingness to reconsider the role of the Pope. Both you and John VIII are I think reading far too much detail into what scripture and tradition mandate for the role and authority of the Pope. Fortunately, intercommunion and corporate union, if that is what the Lord wills for us, doesn’t depend on converting the most obstreperous people in either the Western or Eastern camp, though there may be a wider range of people in the Eastern world with an effective veto, from Athos to Moscow.

Thank you, Mr. Boyd, for your comments. Let me say first, I didn’t make that stuff up. I learned it from the history of the Church and the Gospels and I invite you to peruse the same for validation. Your allegation of ‘proof texting’ needs more proof to be accurate. If you really think I’m reading too much into the Lord’s words in Scripture and the practice of the early Church, please be specific and tell me where I went wrong.

I agree with your implication the Pope should not have the authority to appoint bishops to the Orthodox Church(es) and that a dicastry in Rome should not rule Her. Please recall what I said about papal ‘power’:

  "Parenthetically, what you call "the full power which he enjoys  today" is not 'full 'power.' It is the *authority,* given by the Lord, to declare what is and is not true Christian doctrine and dogma. As has been noted, it is that auathority which has held the Catholic Church together for almost 2000 years and through some very troubling times."

The Pope has, and should retain, the divinely delegated sole authority to declare what is and is not doctrine and dogma. Everything else is on the table. At least to the extent I have the power to declare everything else on the table.