www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox in Communion with Rome -- trying again

I agree with Karl. I think that if people don't think the See of Rome had primacy in the first millennium, they are fooling themselves and have not read the Church Fathers well enough. One time I counted 21 different statements by early Church Fathers acknowledging the primacy of Rome above all others - it was NOT a primacy of honor but a primacy of Faith and Morals - of orthodoxy. Let's not forget that of the ancient Patriarchates during the Arian heresy ROME ALONE did not lapse into heresy. The Holy Spirit was and is guiding the Petrine See.

Once again I must point out that Roman Catholics confuse primacy with supremacy, in fact using them as synonyms.

Primacy is not supremacy. All too often a Roman Catholic will make an argument for the primacy of the bishop of Roma and think that they are supporting a case for supremacy. They most clearly are not.

Othodoxy understands the concept of primacy very well. It is operative throughout the church, in the workings of every parish, every diocese, every synod and between the synods. That's just how it is. That's how we stay organized over twenty centuries.

One might think that if the RC church suddenly lost the Papacy there would be some sort of crises...no? Wouldn't you think that there would be some emergency meeting at the USCCB to figure out policy and new procedures? After all, where do you send the applications to laicize priests? who approves the selection of bishops? How do we deal with the SSPX?

When the Roman Church walked out of communion (as an autocephalic church, they had a right to quit, even if their complaints were trumped up) the Orthodox churches went on without skipping a beat, nothing changed. No new rules were needed, no new dogmas, no new ecclesiology, nothing. Read your history and look for something, anything. Use any source.

All primates are intimately involved in the affairs of the church, but the supremacy claimed for the bishop of Roma is a new thing. They successfully imposed this new ecclesiology on the weaker more remote churches in the west, but when it comes to the east, the heart and home of Christianity, they failed.

Never before in history has a leader of a church claimed the power to control every church everywhere, claimed to be above even an ecumenical council, claimed the right to codify the canons (delete, modify, compose) upon his own authority, claimed the right to name all bishops, claimed that authority of the offices of Patriarchs everywhere derive from him alone by delegation. Claimed to be the vicar of Christ on Earth.

No, this Supreme Papacy is a new thing. It did not exist in the first millenium, in the earliest centuries not even in the west.

Michael

I don't quite understand your position. Yes, the Patrarch of Rome historically had a tendency to view itself as the supreme pontiff. Was it Clement that first solidified this? I have to check. Of course there was the coronation mass .. Charlemange, that changed everything. Photius, oicwr? no. Why then did Constantine and Methodius approach the Bishop of Rome about their missions in our homeland, even though they were clergy obidient to Photius? Simple. The Carolingians were upset with Byzantine Christianity taking hold in what they thought was their turf. In order not to step on toes, since this was perceived to be in the jurisdiction of the bishop of rome they went to him out of courtesy to discuss their ministry. This doesn'tnot point to a universal supremacy, rather the collegiality that existed at the time. This was not Photius' turf, therefore Photius ( bishop of Constantinople) did not want to step on thte bishop of rome's toes. Likewisein those times if the carolingian missionaries sought to evangelize in Photius' jurisdiction they would have had to ask his blessing to do so.
The early church was not the Microsoft of the time, there was no monopoly of who controlled (which is a bad bad word in Christianity since the whole Judeo-Christian experience has been about not being controlled or being subservent to a political system, look at Genesis, the addition of the day of rest,as slaves they did not get a day to rest, 3500 years later we are back at square one) the Christian world. Instead there were local churches headed by bishops. Each bishop was the shepard of his local church. those churches that held the sacred Tradition/Deposit of Faith shared the Eucharist. there was no single monarchial human individual who rule over Christianity (the true supreme pontiff is Christ).
It is a shame that the effects of the Carolingians and the Holy Roman Empire still jade and mislead people almost a thousand years later. What we need to do is to return to the early church model where power and control over people as subjects did not exist, where love , compasion and the teachings of Christ were the crowning part of our community.

Another history lesson. In the world and time that Jesus was born, died and rose again the average person had no rights. What we take for granted today, life insurance, pensions, free speech, a social safety net (where else can you get a hot mealat 3am?) did not exist. Most people were slaves. The others were roman citizens. If a male Roman Citizen died his wife was left in the cold to raise the children. Hopefully there was some money left to carry on, but usuallyhis business ventures (much like sole propietries today) died with the owner. There was no community support for her, there was no life insurance, etc..If a person was "different" he was an outcast, spat upon and had no support at all (where as today we embrace and have programs for those who are disabled, physically or mentally).
Christ taught that we are all children of God. The early Christian communities were just that, communities. They helped each other, fed each other.. etc... provided the social services we see to an extent in our government today. It is a shame that in many cases these basic and foundational and core values of Christianty are lost today in our world. We argue about who is the supreme king or who is historically the single leader, we argue wheter or not Father did his rubrics correctly, we see each other at church and only there. As Schemmann said today we are considered parishoners in good standing, as long as we pay our dues for membership and show up for church. What he argued was a return to the core principles that Christ taught and the early Christians lived.
Christianity was never meant to be a organization that was more focused on who is supreme pontiff, who rules the roost,did Father perfrom the complete rubrics, did he forget words,who is dressed better, I want the church to cater to my individualitic needs and if they don't I will find another place.. etc..
Christianty is a total community of brothers and sisters who share the Body and Blood of Christ, who pick up our brethren when they fall, go to the aide of someone at 4am, share all things. It is not individualistic. We need to return to these fundamental points of Christianity. I digress, but it is important.
the early church and the Orthodox church today is united because we share the deposit of faith. We have our clergy to guide us and make sure we do not stray from the teachings of Christ. It isn't a power struggle as to holds the keys to the kingdom or who has the ultimate power. Christianity is being a witness to Christ, to share and demonstrate God's will. The very notion of ascribing medieval/feudal governmental structure to the church of Christ distracts people from true Christianity.
mind you I am not taking a protestant view and denying hierarch.
We all know that there are Bishops, the main priests. there are priests who represent the Bishop at the local level and deacons to assit the priest in maintaing the deposit of faith.
Let us strive to return to the original message of Christ. Remember Matthew 25.

My point is that Rome exercised primacy, and Photius, among others, accepted it, at least enough to hold communion with those who believed they could exercise primacy. Many modern Orthodox do not hold to the same position as their forebears. For example, if universal jurisdiction is such a heresy, why is Leo the Great on the calendar? If they could live with him, and even give him the greatest of honors, then a real primacy can't have been too foreign to their thinking.

Let me try to be clearer: certainly the imperial papacy of the middle ages was not present in the first millenium. But just as certainly the model of a purely synodal government, with only firsts among equals, was not present either, whether on the part of the Patriarch of Alexandria or the Roman pontiff. Real governance with real teeth happened; not always wisely or well, but it happened, and we were able to share communion then. Why not now? If Photius could share communion with the pope, why not his successors?

As for looking back to the early Church, be careful of idealizing--there was no perfect period. Read the letters of Paul to find that "the early church model where power and control over people as subjects did not exist, where love , compasion and the teachings of Christ were the crowning part of our community" never existed in practice.

What do you mean by Photius accepting the bishop of rome's primacy? Where do you derive your thoughts on how Orthodox think? It wasn't as if Photius had to email the pope to tell him how to handle things. There is no doubt that the bishop of rome did enjoy a role as the chief mediator when huge issues challenged the deposit of faith.. However the pope did not enjoy the powers he has today in the time of photius. I do commend Pope Benedict for at least proclaming he is willing to return to his historical rule, however he may define it in the end remains to be seen, but at least it is a step.

Peace, brother! It is likely we agree more than we disagree. But I'm going to bed.

There were many good points made on this thread. This is perhaps the best one:

Greetings and Blessings to Everyone!

I have been following this thread with extreme interest. Being an educated historian and a researcher, I am truly focused on "early Church history." I have to say that "all" postings here were truly presented in a professional and historical way. True, there are always two sides to each debate, but the one thing that I received by these very intriguing posts were the "love" that everyone shares of our Church history and the "love" that Our Lord gives to all of us each day!

Does anyone know where to look, via the internet, to get an "accurate" account of those first 1000 years of the Christian Church?

GOD LOVE YOU and may you receive, within your heart, a Holy Lenten Season!

....Ignatius

Since no one source could possibly give a complete account of one thousand years, the response to the question


Can only be that it depends on what topic, you want an account of, and in what specific period.

Sorry to be less than helpful.

Fr. Serge

There is no one clear answer anyway, which is why there remains a divide and why both sides can make substantial arguments for both positions.

The issue is the present anyway. We can look to the past, but we have to deal with things as they are now.

We surely can also deal with things as they should be, and ask "why not?".

Fr. Serge

Hesychios really said it very well. I think the problem is the fact that Catholics often mistake Primacy for Supremacy. The terms are quite different.

Yes the Pope could exert a certain measure of authority when the basic tenants of Orthodoxy were in danger, but He himself was subject to excamunication in the first 1000 years of the Church.

Without digging to much in my Books, Pope Vigilius was deposed if I am not mistaken.

Which Pope Vigilus?

This one seems to have not been deposed [en.wikipedia.org].

I am at work right now, when I get home I'll look it up and post it. I may have gotten the name wrong.

Indeed. I agree.

-- John