www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Rome & Constantinople

As bad as the relations are between Rome and Moscow.The relations between Rome & Constantinople are good. JPII and the Patriarch Bartholomew I always seemed to get along.The Patriarch was an honored guest more than once at the Vatican. He had a place of honor on the high Alter of Saint Peters more than once.He was given a church in Rome for use of the Orthodox .

Dear JohnyJ,

Yes, many of us know this and rejoice in it!

Thanks for your comment,
Alice

It is true that Rome and Constantinople are getting along (as a matter of fact I have a BIG picture of Pope John Paul the Great and Patriarch Bartholomew sitting together) and I have been wondering what would happen if the Ecumenical Patriarch (and the his Synod) agreed and entered in communion with Rome. Do you think any other Orthodox Churches would follow? or would this cause further problems?

God bless

My guess is two things would happen:

- It would touch off a massive internal schism within the churches under the Omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

- He would remove himself from communion with all of the other autocephalous churches because they would not follow him.

That is of course all on the presupposition that this event took place in the current climate.

In conversations with most Catholics I get the impression they don�t have a very good feel for the place of the Ecumenical Patriarch within the church or how he is perceived by other Orthodox. That could be just who I�ve talked to though.

Andrew

Dear Bernardo,

Historically, the EP would not do anything without the O.K. from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Patriarch Athenagoras, it was, who wanted to concelebrate Mass with the Pope, commemorating him etc.

But the Moscow Patriarchate asked him not to, saying the communist government would clamp down on the ROC if that happened.

The only way such reunification would occur is within the context of a union Council between the Churches on the model of the Councils of the first millennium.

In that case, I don't think Rome would agree beforehand to attend a Council where the Pope is equal to all other Patriarchs, eventhough he would be "first among equals."

But who knows?

Alex

It depends in what sense the other Patriarch's meant equal, doesnt it? I mean Pope John Paul II had no problems sitting on a throne of equal height to the Ecumenical Patriarch and when Benedict XVI visits Phanar in the fall I doubt he'll attempt to treat him as a subordinate.

The Papacy has been dogmatically defined as not being first among equals. The scenario Alex outlined simply cannot and will not happen, no matter at which height chairs are placed.

I love my Catholic brothers and sisters, but in truth I don't even have the slightest belief that reunion will ever occur.

Andrew

Again Andrew it depends on how you interpret the term first amongst equals. Rome herself would claim that she is first amongst equals but that this title is not one that can be reduced to honorific status. Rome would claim that she acts as the centre of unity and that in the interest of that unity at times she can intervene in the affairs of other local churches.

Pastor aeternus is pretty clear in what it states, and the problem is not what the semantics of what first among equals means.

The Orthodox believe in an infallible church, but not an infallible Pope. I don't see that changing, and I don't see the Catholic Church changing the dogma.

Andrew

Well we think the infallible Pope is still first amongst equals and the letter from the Sixth Ecumenical Council to Pope Agatho on his 'divinely inspired' letter of doctrine shows that one can balance to the two ideas. However, you are correct in saying if the Orthodox will not accept this fact then unity really is impossible.

The issue isn't first among equals, it is the infallibility. I'm sure this has been argued many times before on this web site. Both sides can be argued, both sides have history to bolster their claims.

The fact is though no doctrine existed before the schism assigning infallibility to the Pope. There is however dogma now that effectively has closed the door to returning to the pre-schism state because it has assigned personal infallibility to the Pope.

Andrew

Andrew writes that "The Papacy has been dogmatically defined as not being first among equals." Might one request a specific reference for this definition? I've never run across such a dogmatic statement from either a General Council or a Pope speaking ex cathedra.

Incognitus

That was my fault, bad wording there.

I should have said the Papacy has been dogmatically defined as not being simply first among equals. I grant you the Papacy is still viewed that way along with the additional charism defined for the office in Pastor aeternus.

Andrew

Before there is any unification - which will happen when we all do what Jesus wants instead of what we want - both Catholics and Orthodox need to get to know each other, forgive the sins of the past, bend a little and grow in Christian love. I think that this board does a great job in bringing together Catholics and Orthodox. Sure, there are Latin triumphalists and hardline Orthodox. There probably always will be.

Arguing polemics won't do it.

(formerly jw10631)

I fully support the creation of an independent state, like the Vatican, with Hagia Sophia as the centerpoint, just like St. Peter's Basilica. Give all the Christians of the world this opportunity to restore this Holy place to its rightful place!

In Christ, Michael