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

[onemangang]

I think I heard this covered on an Orthodox podcast called Ancient Faith Radio

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton/3_cheers_for_pope_benedict

ancientfaith.com/specials/episode/primacy_and_the_pope

I almost don’t want to share this next one, because if I remember correctly, it misrepresents Catholic teaching, and is a bit of a straw man

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy/orthodox_and_roman_catholic_differences

 

[Nine_Two]

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?

The Bishop of Rome was simply considered the first in honour, historically. This means he took the place of honour when bishops met, he chaired, or appointed the chair, for meetings, etc. Through the honour of his post, he became a last court of appeal quite early on, but this should not be confused with an active power over other Churches. He could only rule when asked, and he didn’t have any legal expectation to this privilege.

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).

The Emperors were not considered to have power over Patriarchs, but that didn’t stop them from trying to assert it over them. This happened in both the East and the West, although they were most successful in Russia.

 

[couponfit]

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.

Orthodox do not maintain communion with the Pope for many reasons. Mostly it is because Roman Catholics do not get along well with the Eastern Orthodox faiths. The other day I heard a lay RC tell an ordained EC that she would pray for his conversion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s persepective on the issue.

google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome&sa=U&ei=WPskT5zrM6T20gHbx5G4CA&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=4EZZNDbeNwqaoQp8A54Fpw&usg=AFQjCNGeIxk2kE39WUCzKlY-aJCrMX5efQ

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

You give yourself too little credit. There’s no reason to treat you as if you’re stupid; you’re not!

The story of Photius basically goes like this:

The main dispute with Photius was over papal jurisdiction. When Photius ascended to the patriarchal throne in 858, the West rallied around his deposed predecessor, Ignatius. Pope Nicholas I in 861 sent legates to Constantinople in order to examine whether Photius had been canonically elected. The legates eventually reached the conclusion that Photius indeed had been canonically elected. Upon returning to Rome, they found out that this was not at all Pope Nicholas’ intention. He wanted for them to declare Photius’ ordination to be invalid. Pope Nicholas’ next course of action was to convene a synod in the West in 863 to declare a sentence of deposition against Photius.

The reaction in the East was to ignore this synod, because they believed that Pope Nicholas I had declared this deposition non-canonically. Firstly, Ignatius did not submit an appeal against his deposition, so along those lines, Pope Nicholas I could not claim that he was using his canonical prerogative outlined in the canons of Sardica, because no appeal had been sent. Secondly, the canon from Sardica did not grant the pope the power to convene and preside over the retrial in Rome, it gave him the right to demand for a retrial to be held involving the bishops of a neighboring province (of where the original judgment took place) and the right to send legates.

The related canon from Sardica:

Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere [that is, papal legates], let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right–that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

fordham.edu/halsall/source/sardica5.html

In 867, Photius convened a synod in which Pope Nicholas I was excommunicated for heresy. The heresy in question was that he supported the Germanic missionaries in Bulgaria, who used the Filioque in the Creed (this is how the Filioque debate really got started, although from St. Maximus the Confessor’s writings, we can see that it was already a point of contention two centuries earlier). There is even some evidence that Emperor Michael III sent a letter to the Frankish Emperor Louis II, offering to recognize him as Emperor of the West in exchange for deposing Nicholas I. Photius’ luck changed, however, when Emperor Michael III was murdered by Basil the Macedonian, who usurped the throne. One of Emperor Basil’s first acts was to depose Photius and reinstate Ignatius, with the hope of securing an alliance with both Pope Adrian II and Louis II.

In 869-870, a council was held which condemned Photius. This has become known by the Roman Catholics as the Eighth Ecumenical Council. It was not long, however, before Photius had managed to gain Emperor Basil’s favor. Not only this, but he had also reconciled with Patriarch Ignatius, and when he fell ill, Photius used his knowledge of medicine to tend to him as he died. After Ignatius died, Basil had Photius appointed as Patriarch in 877. One of Photius’ first acts upon his ascension (for the second time) to the Patriarchal throne was to declare his predecessor Ignatius a saint.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Continued from above:

The Emperor convened a council in 879 in order to clear up some issues left by the previous council which condemned Photius ten years prior. Pope John VIII sent his legates to this council, attended by 383 bishops (almost three hundred more than the bishops who attended the council ten years prior), where several issues were taken care of. Firstly, Photius was exonerated and rehabilitated (contrary to rumors which persist to this day, Photius died at peace with both the Roman Church and the Eastern Church, although for political reasons which will be explained later, he had been exiled from Constantinople). Secondly the council of 869-870 was declared to be invalid. Thirdly, the council forbade any additions to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, a definitive blow for those who professed the Filioque (one that was not to last for very long, however). This council was accepted by the papal legates, and the four Patriarchates in the East. Whether Pope John VIII accepted the council is a matter of contention amongst scholars. However, the West’s acceptance of Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople seems to suggest that the council was accepted de facto in the West, only to be repudiated later in favor of the Council of 869-870 in the eleventh century.

Eventually, Basil I grew paranoid and in 883 imprisoned his son, future Emperor Leo VI, and would have even blinded him, had it not been for Photius’ intervention. Emperor Basil I died in a hunting accident in 886, and in that same year, Leo became Emperor (some implicated Leo in the death of his Father). Despite lacking evidence for it, Leo was convinced that Photius had played a part in his removal from power in 883, and so forced him to resign, and sent him into exile in a monastery in Armenia where he would die in 893. It seems, however, that Leo VI eventually had a change of heart towards Photius, rehabilitating his reputation in Constantinople, and allowing his body to be buried within the city after Photius’ death.

Anyway, the point of giving this long story is to show that the dispute between East and West really rested more on the issue of whether the popes were attempting to overstep their canonical boundaries. The East to this day would hold that Pope Nicholas I had far exceeded his canonical prerogatives, while the West I suppose would not view it that way. A similar issue also underlies the events leading to the mutual anathemas of 1054, which largely were an issue of abused primacy (from the Eastern perspective), not of doctrine. It also points out some of the issues which have not been quite as widely explored as the Filioque, which has become quite the whipping boy in “reuninon” councils, including what the nature of Rome’s “primacy” should be (from the Eastern perspective, strict adherence to the canonical prerogatives given to her, which makes for a very weak primacy), and just which council should be regarded as authoritative, the one of 869-870 or the one of 879-880. I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen any definitive answers to these issues like I have to the issue of the Filioque (although even on that issue, we have not reached agreement).

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

Settling grave matters does not mean jurisdiction. You don’t go to the President of the United States to settle problems with the law, you go to the courts.

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?)

If in 2000 years the Pope has some authority he has never used, then he probably doesn’t have it. There have been many cases in history where he could have. Just with the Great Schism, why didn’t the Pope just depose those bishops in the East against him if he did have jurisdiction there and replace them with bishops loyal to him?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Settling grave matters does not mean jurisdiction. You don’t go to the President of the United States to settle problems with the law, you go to the courts.

If in 2000 years the Pope has some authority he has never used, then he probably doesn’t have it. There have been many cases in history where he could have. Just with the Great Schism, why didn’t the Pope just depose those bishops in the East against him if he did have jurisdiction there and replace them with bishops loyal to him?

That is one of my biggest questions too. Presupposing that the pope had such powers necessarily leads one to the conclusion that all of the Clergy in the East had conspired to rebel against the papacy. To me, this conclusion just seems much less likely than the conclusion that the East just never saw the primacy of the papacy in that way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is one of my biggest questions too. Presupposing that the pope had such powers necessarily leads one to the conclusion that all of the Clergy in the East had conspired to rebel against the papacy. To me, this conclusion just seems much less likely than the conclusion that the East just never saw the primacy of the papacy in that way.

Even if all the Bishops in the East conspired against him, if he still had such jurisdiction he still could have deposed all of them and appointed other bishops into their positions. Why wasn’t Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius replaced by another bishop when he ws excommunicated if Rome had jurisdiction over Constantinople? I mean, lets say for example that the Archbishop of Archdiocese X was excommunicated. Would Rome just allow Archdiocese X to schism or would the bishop be replaced so that Archdiocese X would still be in communion with Rome? We’re talking within the Latin Church here. Because a lot of people say the Pope’s jurisdiction is universal, meaning he should have the same rights within his own Church as he does with other sui juris Churches. So if he can do that within the Latin Church, shouldn’t he be able to do that with Constantinople back then?

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

On your question as to the “jurisdiction” of the Emperors over the Patriarchs:

The Emperors, being civil authorities, possessed much power in Early Christianity, both East and West (through the Western Roman Empire and later the Exarchate of Ravenna). It was not uncommon, for example, for the Eastern Emperors to meddle with the appointment and deposition of Patriarchs. Similarly, the Exarch of Ravenna exerted political influence over who was chosen as Pope in Rome. This of course, was allowed because they were absolute monarchs who could do basically as they pleased. I do not think that this was an ideal system, but it was simply the reality of the time. The Emperors also had a great deal of influence over councils (the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were called by an Emperor).

If you will read the short biography of Photius I wrote above, you’ll see a rather personal example how an Emperor could make or break the life of a Patriarch. Similarly, if you investigate the Council of Ephesus, you can see how the life of the Church was incredibly political back then (and yet many of these men are saints). At Ephesus, Cyril started the council before John of Antioch and his bishops arrived. This outraged John of Antioch who called his own council, which deposed Cyril. Eventually, the Emperor had to step in to settle the matter, and he decreed that both councils should be followed, so Cyril and John of Antioch (and some others) were deposed. Cyril, however, managed to bribe the right people, and he started a riot which besieged the Emperor’s palace, causing the Emperor to accept only Cyril’s council of Ephesus and depose Nestorius for heresy. Another case would be at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, where the Emperor forced Pope Vigilius to accept the council’s decision by imprisoning him until he would approve.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Even if all the Bishops in the East conspired against him, if he still had such jurisdiction he still could have deposed all of them and appointed other bishops into their positions. Why wasn’t Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius replaced by another bishop when he ws excommunicated if Rome had jurisdiction over Constantinople? I mean, lets say for example that the Archbishop of Archdiocese X was excommunicated. Would Rome just allow Archdiocese X to schism or would the bishop be replaced so that Archdiocese X would still be in communion with Rome? We’re talking within the Latin Church here. Because a lot of people say the Pope’s jurisdiction is universal, meaning he should have the same rights within his own Church as he does with other sui juris Churches. So if he can do that within the Latin Church, shouldn’t he be able to do that with Constantinople back then?

Instead, they had to wait for a crusader kingdom to be established in Constantinople for that to be accomplished. A true shame. The schism might be healed by now were it not for that unfortunate period of history.

 

[Tridentinum]

Great, another one of these threads. They need to be banned, they just get flooded with Eastern Orthodox evangelization.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Great, another one of these threads. They need to be banned, they just get flooded with Eastern Orthodox evangelization.

In which case, why have this forum at all, if we cannot even discuss matters with our closest estranged cousins, the Eastern Orthodox?

What of the threads about Islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses? Are they not acceptable as well? In my opinion, those are the ones who attract the real evangelists, by the way.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

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.

The Orthodox Church rejects papal universal jurisdiction because it believes that the Church has always worked its affairs in a conciliar fashion. The Pope in Rome (the Patriarch of the West) worked in conjunction with his brother bishops, and had a primus inter pares (first among equals) rank with regards to the other major patriachs. According to the Orthodox, this meant that the Pope always held a primacy of honor, but not in practice.

Orthodoxy has always accepted that the See of Rome always had a special position in the Church, but they reject that translating into universal jurisdiction.

 

[milidrag]

… 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? …

Not quite and not exactly.

Rome was first in diptychs because she was a Royal City, not because she was the Seat of St. Peter (and she may be a See of St. Peter, but not the See of St. Peter).

I refer you to 2nd Canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council which proclaimed the Ecumenical (Universal) acceptance of the local Council of Sardica.

 

[Wesley7]

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

---

Probably because the Vatican Papacy declared Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallbility in which other Orthodox bishops do not want to be subject or in submission the Pope of Rome . . .

 

[Filii_Dei]

---

Probably because the Vatican Papacy declared Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallbility in which other Orthodox bishops do not want to be subject or in submission the Pope of Rome . . .

So you are suggesting that if the Vatican rescinded Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility, the Orthodox would accept his universal jurisdiction?

You might like to read that again. That sounds remarkably similar to a Catch-22 paradox. :yukonjoe:

 

[Wesley7]

So you are suggesting that if the Vatican rescinded Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility, the Orthodox would accept his universal jurisdiction?

You might like to read that again. That sounds remarkably similar to a Catch-22 paradox. :yukonjoe:

In the history of the RCC . . Vatican councils I and II were convened about matters concerning doctrine.

So . . .The Orthodox Church would maintain their Autocephaly in their different Churches and respective dioceses.

In conciliar matters, its not any of my concern.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Continued from above:

The Emperor convened a council in 879 in order to clear up some issues left by the previous council which condemned Photius ten years prior. Pope John VIII sent his legates to this council, attended by 383 bishops (almost three hundred more than the bishops who attended the council ten years prior), where several issues were taken care of. Firstly, Photius was exonerated and rehabilitated (contrary to rumors which persist to this day, Photius died at peace with both the Roman Church and the Eastern Church, although for political reasons which will be explained later, he had been exiled from Constantinople). Secondly the council of 869-870 was declared to be invalid. Thirdly, the council forbade any additions to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, a definitive blow for those who professed the Filioque (one that was not to last for very long, however). This council was accepted by the papal legates, and the four Patriarchates in the East. Whether Pope John VIII accepted the council is a matter of contention amongst scholars. However, the West’s acceptance of Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople seems to suggest that the council was accepted de facto in the West, only to be repudiated later in favor of the Council of 869-870 in the eleventh century.

Eventually, Basil I grew paranoid and in 883 imprisoned his son, future Emperor Leo VI, and would have even blinded him, had it not been for Photius’ intervention. Emperor Basil I died in a hunting accident in 886, and in that same year, Leo became Emperor (some implicated Leo in the death of his Father). Despite lacking evidence for it, Leo was convinced that Photius had played a part in his removal from power in 883, and so forced him to resign, and sent him into exile in a monastery in Armenia where he would die in 893. It seems, however, that Leo VI eventually had a change of heart towards Photius, rehabilitating his reputation in Constantinople, and allowing his body to be buried within the city after Photius’ death.

Anyway, the point of giving this long story is to show that the dispute between East and West really rested more on the issue of whether the popes were attempting to overstep their canonical boundaries. The East to this day would hold that Pope Nicholas I had far exceeded his canonical prerogatives, while the West I suppose would not view it that way. A similar issue also underlies the events leading to the mutual anathemas of 1054, which largely were an issue of abused primacy (from the Eastern perspective), not of doctrine. It also points out some of the issues which have not been quite as widely explored as the Filioque, which has become quite the whipping boy in “reuninon” councils, including what the nature of Rome’s “primacy” should be (from the Eastern perspective, strict adherence to the canonical prerogatives given to her, which makes for a very weak primacy), and just which council should be regarded as authoritative, the one of 869-870 or the one of 879-880. I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen any definitive answers to these issues like I have to the issue of the Filioque (although even on that issue, we have not reached agreement).

Boy, what a story. This would make a good movie…
Thanks for the patience.
I read it all 5 times to make sure I got the details…

 

[Filii_Dei]

In the history of the RCC . . Vatican councils I and II were convened about matters concerning doctrine.

So . . .The Orthodox Church would maintain their Autocephaly in their different Churches and respective dioceses.

In conciliar matters, its not any of my concern.

I’m not sure if I catch your drift…