Why do the Greek Orthodox reject the universal jurisdiction of the Pope?

[DavidFilmer]

I’m curious to know the reasons that the Greek Orthodox (and some others) reject the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. I am NOT, repeat NOT asking about infallibility, but only about jurisdiction.

I understand that the Orthodox do not have a direct Latin origin. But that doesn’t mean the guy in Rome can’t be in charge of the Church in Greece (and every other Church).

It is not my intention to debate these reasons (though, sigh, I’m sure others probably will). I am only trying to find out what these reasons are and understand the rationale behind them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m curious to know the reasons that the Greek Orthodox (and some others) reject the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. I am NOT, repeat NOT asking about infallibility, but only about jurisdiction.

I understand that the Orthodox do not have a direct Latin origin. But that doesn’t mean the guy in Rome can’t be in charge of the Church in Greece (and every other Church).

It is not my intention to debate these reasons (though, sigh, I’m sure others probably will). I am only trying to find out what these reasons are and understand the rationale behind them.

Because it was never the case that the Pope had jurisdiction in the territory of other Patriarchs.

 

[Nine_Two]

We reject it because it is a Latin fiction.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

Is this a topic for Eastern Catholicism?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is this a topic for Eastern Catholicism?

It should be, because we share the same opinion.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I’m curious to know the reasons that the Greek Orthodox (and some others) reject the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. I am NOT, repeat NOT asking about infallibility, but only about jurisdiction.

I understand that the Orthodox do not have a direct Latin origin. But that doesn’t mean the guy in Rome can’t be in charge of the Church in Greece (and every other Church).

It is not my intention to debate these reasons (though, sigh, I’m sure others probably will). I am only trying to find out what these reasons are and understand the rationale behind them.

Because of a crazy dispute called Filioque. Just Google it or Wikipedia it.

 

[Nicea325]

Because it was never the case that the Pope had jurisdiction in the territory of other Patriarchs.

Really? Then why would any Eastern bishops travel hundreds of miles to let the Bishop of Rome (outside their territory) settle grave matters?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Because of a crazy dispute called Filioque. Just Google it or Wikipedia it.

That’s not quite accurate, in my humble opinion. The earliest disputes were over authority. The Filioque only happened to be a side issue. For example, the dispute over Photius was mainly an issue of jurisdiction, not of the Filioque. If anybody is interested in hearing about this event from an Eastern perspective, I would be glad to elaborate.

 

[Safia]

This should help you out, my friend.

God bless!

 

[DavidFilmer]

Because of a crazy dispute called Filioque. Just Google it or Wikipedia it.

No, *filoque *was a result of their rejection of universal jurisdiction, not the reason for their rejection of universal jurisdiction. The Orthodox felt at liberty to reject *filioque *because they did not feel that they were subject to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Rejection of the Pope’s authority preceded rejection of the filioque clause.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, *filoque *was a result of their rejection of universal jurisdiction, not the reason for their rejection of universal jurisdiction. The Orthodox felt at liberty to reject *filioque *because they did not feel that they were subject to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Rejection of the Pope’s authority preceded rejection of the filioque clause.

That’s also untrue. Plenty of popes, like Pope Leo III did not support the addition of the Filioque into the Creed. He opposed it so much, that he had the Creed inscribed without the Filioque on Silver plates, so that it would not be changed. With such inconsistencies from Rome, which popes should the East have obeyed?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Because it was never the case that the Pope had jurisdiction in the territory of other Patriarchs.

Is it possible that he had jurisdiction but did not commonly exercise it? (kinda like the Pope today has jurisdiction but does not commonly exercise it?)

 

[DavidFilmer]

That’s also untrue.

So you are telling me that the Greek Orthodox accepted the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome up until Pope Benedict VIII (I think) inserted filioque into the Creed?

 

[Cavaradossi]

So you are telling me that the Greek Orthodox accepted the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome up until Pope Benedict VIII (I think) inserted filioque into the Creed?

No, they didn’t accept a universal jurisdiction, beyond the right for a pope to hear appeals against judgments and order a retrial. The Filioque and the papal claims are two separate but related issues which came up at about the same time, so it is incorrect to say that one was the cause of the other.

 

[DavidFilmer]

…beyond the right for a pope to hear appeals against judgments and order a retrial.

I’m not familiar with this. Can you elaborate on these rights?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m not familiar with this. Can you elaborate on these rights?

This was a canonical prerogative. I believe it comes from the canons from Sardica.

 

[milidrag]

Is it possible that he had jurisdiction but did not commonly exercise it? (kinda like the Pope today has jurisdiction but does not commonly exercise it?)

No.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

That’s not quite accurate, in my humble opinion. The earliest disputes were over authority. The Filioque only happened to be a side issue. For example, the dispute over Photius was mainly an issue of jurisdiction, not of the Filioque. If anybody is interested in hearing about this event from an Eastern perspective, I would be glad to elaborate.

To me, please explain if I were stupid…
thanks…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

No, *filoque *was a result of their rejection of universal jurisdiction, not the reason for their rejection of universal jurisdiction. The Orthodox felt at liberty to reject *filioque *because they did not feel that they were subject to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Rejection of the Pope’s authority preceded rejection of the filioque clause.

Do not angry, brother Orthodox.
In my language, we call it Byzantine to a discussion where somebody want to divide an hair in two, distinguish between 2 identical twins.
One good example were the iconoclasts, there were people killed and churches vandalized (comes from “vandal”…) because some fine details, should we use images or not.
So, the “filioque” was one of those fine points without any interest at all.
But this time things were different.
In the East, we had the same Byzantine People, enjoying theologian discussions without end.
In the West, we had the descendants of the Barbarians (vandals, swedes, Huns, visi and Ostrogoth,), violents as hell. They were the people of the Middle Ages, of the Crusades, the fights and so on. They were recently been civilized by the monks of Cister and Benedictines.
When, the Cardinal-descendent-of barbarians went to Constantinople, he could not understand the fine points. He was a man to cut the nod without counting up to 3 and could not stand more than half and hour discussion.

So, things got into rupture. Excommunication to each other that only recently was lifted.

I like to see a Series about Aircraft Disasters. I am not sadistic, I only want to know, hoe top class craft, piloted by the best among men, maintained and supported by the best technology, just crash.

Principle One: An accident is never result of one cause. Mostly, it is caused by more than 4/5 causes. Each one would not cause the disaster but the 5 together, at the same time, joined, caused the disaster.

Moral of the History: To blame the rift to one cause, no matter what, for me, it is shortsighted.

 

[EricFilmer]

So far, the Orthodox (name removed by moderator)ut in this thread seems to be that the Bishop of Rome never had jurisdiction over other patriarchs to begin with. I have heard it said before that the pope was historically considered “first among equals” (due to Rome being the Seat of St. Peter) but that was the extent of the consideration given to him. Can anyone verify that this is an Orthodox position? And, if so, can someone tell me, in practical terms, what such a consideration would entail?

Finally, I have a question that does not involve the pope but may possibly still have bearing on the topic at hand. It is my understanding that Christian emperors were considered to have jurisdiction over the patriarchs, at least to some extent. Is that true or am I mistaken? (I admit that my knowledge of the history of the Eastern Church is not very extensive).

For the record, my intention is to honor the spirit of this thread that my brother expressed in the OP. In other words, I am not asking these questions as the prelude to a debate, but only out of a sincere desire to understand the Orthodox position on them. If someone can provide quotes from Orthodox catechisms or Orthodox history texts, then I would be very grateful, but I invite whatever (name removed by moderator)ut people are willing to give.