www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church

John,

You are right that it is much more complicated than I have presented it to be. I just didn't feel like writing a novel. I just wanted to make the point that not all of us see the schism as a result of mutual sin and simple misunderstanding. I do believe that real doctrinal differences emerged and it was no longer possible for us to be in communion with one another.

Joe

Of course, you both may be right; if that is true, are you saying that Constantine's creation of a "Catholic" Church to serve as a bulwark of his empire and replacement for the pagan state religion, from which the RCC and the EOC came, was a bad idea because of everything that flows and has flowed from it? That is one possible interpretation of your comments. Please clarify!

It is taking me time Joe - but I am leaning your way you can realize how difficult and unsetteling this is for me (an RC who has defended Papal Primacy in the past).

I am seeing things in a new light and it takes a bit of time to be sure the light is real.

-ray

Joe, I am speaking as a roman historian and analyzing the history of the period. My comments are simplistic because of the complex nature of the ancient evidence and this is not the place to analyze the motivations of Eusebius of Caesarea when he wrote the _Vita Constantini_ or Lactantius when he wrote the_DMP_. Before the Council of Nicaea, one can a solid case that the "church" was a a lose confederation of believer who held a multitude of beliefs which were not necessarily in accord. Constantine forced a uniformity of belief on the confederation. Remember he did not care what the belief was as long as everybody read off the same dance card. Constantine was only a Christian after he was baptized on his deathbed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian. Constantine' politics and views on Christianity were so ambiguous that he can be interpreted in a multitude of ways(http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm).

Yes but that communion of Churches you refer to now is no longer what it was 1500, 1000, and 500 years ago. To say that the structure and organization of the Catholic Church changed over the centuries while the Orthodox preserved it would be incorrect in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure I'd be right in assuming that St. Photius would be very surprised to see that the Greek Orthodox Church is independent from Constantinople! I also think he would be surprised in learning that there are 3 patriarchates in his former territory (Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia)!

And the Catholic Church (the one whose communion centers around Bishop of Rome) is still a communion of Churches, just a lot more centralized than the Orthodox Church due to the fact it is dominated by the Western Church. The Orthodox Church too is more centralized than most admit - the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem are commonly given the prefex "Greek Orthodox" and have been dominated by Greek born prelates in the past (I believe this is still an issue for the Church of Jerusalem.)


The Eastern Church also contributed to the schism, not just the Western one. Who is more at fault is up for debate but it's wrong to say the East was some innocent victim (edit: I know you didn't claim the East was innocent, and I agree with you that the way papacy evolved in the West was the primary reason for schism - I thought I would clarify to people reading this that both sides had a role to play.)

Zan, you make an interesting point. When I was a child in Catholic [parochial school, I was feed the pap that Rome was an unchanging institution as I am sure many of the EOC felt about their opwn church. As I came of age, I came to the realization (it did not take a mental genius) that all human institutions --even those with apparent divine origin -- change. BTW, St. Photius is my favorite saint because he stood up for what he believed. I am sure that there are some English Catholics who like SIR Thomas Moore for the same reason, although in the eyes of most Anglicans he was a a demented fool. It comes down to whose ox is being gored!!!!!!

BTw, there are two Popes of Alexandra: the Greek patriarch and the Coptic one, not counting the numerous Roman Catholic uniate
patriarchs who claim the same title. Much the same can be said about those who claim to be Pope of Antioch, none of whom (correct me if I am wrong) actually reside in Antioch! My favorite uniate patriarch title is the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. Where does he reside and is he a friend of Bart of Constantinople? Which patriarch actually holds the legitimate episcopal throne in any of these sees? Ah, again it depends on whose ox is being gored and I would hate to put number forward of the total oxes involved. As Orthodox, I am surprised, Constaniople did not set up a uniate bishop for the city of Rome...after all there is an uniate Armenian patriarch of Constantinople......

Lol you remind me - yesterday I was shocked to learn that St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher has a feast day listed on the Anglican Church's (Church of England) calendar and they are considered Anglican saints! Along with St. Ignatius Loyola!
(look at July)
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/calendar/holydays.html

It is seriously one of the more ridiculous things I have ever seen.

Take a look at the saints listed in the BCP of the Episcopal Church here in the USA. You do not have to be Anglican to be a Anglican saint! Ignatius Loyola an Anglican Saint.. how droll!!!

There is no Catholic Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. The Armenian Apostolic Church has a "Patriarch of Constantinople" but he is subbordinate to the Armenian Catholicos of Cilicia.

The most common Patriarchal title in the Catholic Church are the three Eastern Catholic patriarchs who use "Patriarch of Antioch": the Maronites, Melkites, and Syriacs. Each of these Churches recognize each other of having a patriarchate. There really is not some huge argument over it because it is not a concern - they are all in communion with each other. It would be pointless and wrong to merge the three because they each have their unique customs, liturgics, spirituality, and history that well worth preserving not to mention individual ethnic groups who are worthy of self rule and we are proud of our diversity.

As far as Alexandria is concerned there are only two in the Catholic communion (hardly numerous) - the Coptic Catholic Patriarch and the Melkites have a titular patriarch of Alexandria.

The only other instance (in the modern day) of mulitiple Patriarchs are the two patriarchs of Jersulam - the Melkite one and the Roman one.

Orthodox may find this confusing but they have the same thing really - that is several jurisdictions for a particular ethnic group whose bishop occupies the same see. For example how many Orthodox bishops of New York are there? How about Chicago?

Chicago:
OCA
ROCOR
Greeks
Serbians
Romanians

New York
OCA
ROCOR
Russian Patriarchate
Greeks (Constantinople)
Serbians
Ukrainians (Constantinople)
Antiochians

You are correct, but do a Google search of Catholic Armenian patriarch of Constantinople and you might find yourself surprised. I was about to note that there was also an Armenian patriarch of Constantinoplem which you referred to.

Well, I would remind you there had been a move to eliminate the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria, but for some reason it would not happen. How to deal with these ethnic patriarchates will only become an issue if Rome and Constantinople ever reunite.

Dear Zan,

In the interest of clarity and accuracy you may want to research the above jurisdictions as to their correct see titles. The Russian patriarchial bishop is a vicar bishop of the Patriarch of Moscow and has not bore the title "New York" since 1970. The Serbian hierarch bears the see title "Eastern America" and is resident in the Pittsburgh area, and the Ukrainian hierarchs under the Ecumenical Patriarch bear titular see titles, not ones of US cities.

I believe also that neither of the Romanian jurisdictions have hierarchs in Chicago. Let's not over-inflate a situation more than it is.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I believe that was Bishop Kyril In Pittsburgh or am I behind the times?

He was Bulgarian and before his merger into the OCA in 1976 his see was Toledo Ohio and Toronto.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Let us assume that Zan was not referring to the formal titles of various hierarchs, but rather to the places over which they have or assert jurisdiction. That could make it easier.

A discussion of titles is seldom edifying and always confusing (guess who the "Locum-Tenens of Caesarea in Cappadocia" is?).

Fr. Serge