www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Reconciliation and Reunion

Which one of the many autocephalous monasteries of the Holy Mountain should we woo? As they cannot agree with each other, and sometimes come nearly to blows, perhaps we should wait for the Holy Mountain to make up its mind, first?

Stuart,

Thats my point. Rome cannot woo. And yes when the Holy Mountain does make up its mind you will have your answer. but we should listen to and not just listen at each other. Did you read the letter? How many signed it? Looks like they can find common ground on at least one thing. Chad

Chadrook,

Orthodoxy cannot survive simply by being in reaction. The question has been asked, "What forms of primacy are acceptable to the Orthodox Church", and Orthodoxy has proven incapable of giving any sort of affirmative answer. It's quite willing to say what is not acceptable, but when asked about what it would accept, it gets all coy. And when it gets what it says it wants, it then decides it didn't want that at all, or that it wants something in addition.

I don't say this is a singularly Orthodox failing--more generally, I have found it universal in Eastern Europeans of all stripes--they just don't know how to close a deal.

I have always been told that Rome is simply in a place of honor. But you have to agree that the vast majority of its followers are very different from the Orthodox. This is really one of the biggest thing to overcome.

Really it will come down to the Orthodox world coming together and putting forth what is acceptable to all the churches involved. That is why I said wait for the up coming council that everyone in the orthdox world is talking about. I think that when and if this historic council happens you will have your answer. Chad

The trouble with saying "Rome is simply in a place of honor" is the term meant something different in the first millennium than it does today. Theirs was an honor-based society, in which prestige (auctoritas) was often more important that juridical power (potestas). So, when the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon give Rome precedence among the patriarchates, it is something a bit more than being Lord Mayor of London and getting to cut ribbons at the opening of shopping malls. As I have repeatedly said, such auctoritas as was wielded by the Bishops of Rome meant that his opinions carried great weight and were rejected only with great trepidation. All new doctrines, opinions and teachings sought the endorsement of the Bishop of Rome, without which they were regarded with suspicion.

The reverse side of the coin was Rome's inherently conservative nature at that time. Having no theological or exegetical "school" of its own, Rome held onto that which it received and changed only reluctantly. Until the 9th century, it never interfered unilaterally in the internal affairs of other Churches, but waited upon the appeals of others.

"After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 78 A.D., the Christian Church of Jerusalem temporarily ceased to exist, and the Roman congregation and the administration of its bishops advanced to the forefront.

Basing their actions on the central location of Rome as the imperial city and on the fact that Rome was the seat of many first century apostles, the Roman bishops began as early as the third century to advance their leadership position in the Church. The bishops of the eastern provinces of the Roman empire disagreed with this attempt of the Roman hierarchy to assert its preeminence or supremacy.

Starting from the second and third centuries. Ireneus of Lyon was considered the leader of Gaul, Cyprian of Carthage was another church leader, and Bishops Mauritania and Numedia of Alexandria guided the churches in Egypt. Ephesus became the seat of the churches in Asia Minor, as Rome was the seat of the churches in the Italian peninsula and Gaul. Following the establishment of Ecumenical Councils, such churches emerged as leaders in their regions, possessing both ecclesiastical and secular power. This did not create a conflict among them, nor detract from their equality, and matters regarding all the churches were decided by all the Church representatives in the Ecumenical Councils.

The thirty-fourth apostolic rule states, "bishops of all churches are required to be the first, as the head, and nothing is to be decided without their consent: each one to do only that which concerns his area and region which is his responsibility. But the head does not decide without the consent of the rest. This preserves solidarity. Blessed be God the Lord, Father, Son and the Holy Spirit." In this rule was expressed the main principles guiding the Councils.

In general, apostolic rules and rules of the ancient councils did not allow independence of the head bishop, and especially not absolutism of the Church. Decisions on religious and canonical matters were the responsibility of the Councils of bishops, regionally, or when necessity demanded, at an Ecumenical Council.

Furthermore, political situations resulted in a continually growing influence of the bishops of Rome (the popes). Attacks of barbarians in the 4th century and the resulting emigration of European people contributed to this. Such barbaric attacks advanced across ancient Roman provinces, washing away signs of Christianity. In the midst of the newly created governments, Rome stepped forth as the standard bearer of the apostolic faith and heritage. The high authority of Roman bishops also controlled religious matters from 4th to the 8th centuries in the Byzantine Empire, where the bishops of Rome were considered the defenders of Orthodoxy. Thus, gradually the bishops of Rome considered themselves called to govern the entire Christian world. A new push towards strengthening this despotic attitude of the Roman popes was in a decree issued during the 4th century by the Emperor Gracianus, acclaiming the person of the Roman pope (a title carried by the Roman and Alexandrian bishops meaning "father"). As early as the 5th century, Pope Innocent declared, "nothing can be decided without the assembly of the Roman Council and especially in regards to faith, all bishops must defer to the Apostle Peter, who is the head of the Roman bishops." In the 7th century, Pope Araphon demanded that all the churches accept the rule of the Roman church, claiming its institution by the words of Apostle Peter. In the 8th century, Pope Stephan wrote, "I am the Apostle Peter, by the will of God through the merciful calling of Christ, Son of the living God, in charge of all His power to be the light of the whole world."

All these grandiose claims of the popes were not at first taken seriously by the eastern bishops and did not divide the Church. All were bound by one faith, Sacraments and the awareness of belonging to the one Holy, Apostolic Church. But, unfortunately for the Christian world, this union was shattered by the Roman bishops in the 11th century and the centuries following. The separation of the Roman Church deepened when new dogmas appeared. First, the Roman church changed the Creed of Faith, adding the words "and the Son" after the words indicating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. In short, is incorrect and lacks any historical or dogmatic support. Next, they developed new and alien doctrines including a system of "papal indulgences," which provided absolution from sin through payment of money to the church. This was followed by other strange teachings such as the "immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary and the so-called "infallibility" of the Pope. In so doing, they departed further and further from the true Church, and they distorted the very nature of the Church.

The arrogant claims to supremacy of the bishop of Rome, along with the false teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, brought division between the Orthodox Churches of the East and the western Roman Church. The official separation occurred the year 1054 A.D., when the Roman Cardinal Humbert placed on the altar of St. Sophia in Constantinople the papal decree declaring a curse on all who do not agree with the Roman Church.

Religious and secular life in the Europe of the 11th century were closely intertwined. Secular government and the ability to declare war were not supposed to be within the powers of a bishop, yet the popes of Rome developed and consolidated such secular powers and influence. Pope Pius IX declared a mandate that all Catholics accept the Roman pope’s rule of their secular affairs. At the decree of the pope, whole nations, taking sword in hand, advanced towards those whom the pope named his enemies. In the 13th century, the pope not only crowned the kings, but allowed disputes between princes, and by his power was able to declare or conclude wars. Furthermore, he had the power to crown kings and emperors or have them removed and their supporters exiled, and he exercised other such far-reaching political powers.

In their battle for power the popes were tireless and used many occasions to remind others of their supremacy and infallibility. Thus, Pope Benedict VIII in 1302 wrote in his papal bull, "we announce that the holy apostolic clergy and Rome’s high priest are responsible for the whole world, and the high priest is the direct descendent of the Apostle Peter, prince of the apostles, representative of Christ on earth, head of the entire Church and father and teacher of all Christians." Similar words can be found in the declaration of the Council of 1870, which finally canonized the "infallibility" dogma and the heresy of the "immaculate conception." In the articles on canonical truth, published in 1917, Pope Benedict XV wrote, "The Roman high priest is inheritor of the first holy Peter, and not only has the honor of being first but has all the highest power of advocacy over the entire Church." This extreme arrogance of the Roman bishops gradually widened the chasm between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church. One must remember, in spite of this growing schism, that before the 11th century, the Orthodox Church was in communion with right-believing Roman bishops who cherished the canonical principles established by the apostles regarding the independence of the regional churches. In fact, the Orthodox Church venerates several of the early bishops of Rome, such as St. Leo, as saints.

Nevertheless, in the battle for secular power over the world, the later Roman bishops engaged in disputes with the learned teachers, since a sword in the hands of "representatives" of the gentle Savior was not becoming, and deeply affected the image of the bishops’ service. Many representatives of the Church and independent nations began to be aware of that. The 14th century was the beginning of the religious and moral downfall of the popes. Their power became more secular than ever, with intrigues, courtly vanity, and avarice. The people began to be disgruntled under the despotic oppression of those representing the pope. A German historian writes, "The clergy behave disrespectfully towards the teaching of catechism, they ignore the Gospel and writings of the Holy Fathers, they are silent about faith, good works and other blessings, they do not speak of the worthiness of our Savior and His miracles . . . and these people hold the highest position in the Church which calls them to be pastors of souls!"

The results were soon evident. In the beginning of the 16th century, Protestantism was born, which came about as a protest against the Roman popes and was partly due to the criminal inquisitions and tortures committed by the Roman church, and the selling of papal indulgences. And before long, Protestantism itself fragmented into various sects".-Bp Alexander (Mileant)

Chad

I do not concur with this all too neat pseudo-historical analysis. It's also polite to identify the source of this material, so that one may assess its authority as well as to allow for proper rebuttal. That's how civilized discourse works.

Look at the bottom. Bp Alexander (Mileant).
Since I have been Orthodox less than ten years i cannot yet correct my bishops. Have you ever read any Romanides? I really like his discourse on Franks,Romans,Feudalism and doctrine.
Chad

That's not a reference. You need to provide, at the very least:

1. Author
2. Title
3. Date
4. Publisher or
5. URL, if published on the web.

I've read Romanides, and as an historian he's not a bad theologian. That is to say, his interpretation of the facts is simplistic, reductionist, tendentious and was out of date even when he first published it. I see that Bishop Alexander is something of a fan of Father John, too. I tend to side with Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart, who once referred to Romanides as "a dyspeptic Greek".

Chad,

Thank you for providing that link. For the most part, the examples the monks provide are one-sided, but the issues addressed are serious enough as to merit some genuine discussion, rather than to simply brush them away.

One item, however,simply didn't look right, and that was the alleged letter of Pope Benedict XVI to [Patriarch] Lubomir Husar, dated 22/2/2006, which is quoted as saying:This impresses me as possibly being spurious, both because its affirmations appear to run counter to known statements by the Pope with regard to the same subject, and because it sounds completely incongruous. A careful look at this quoted statement reveals that it starts out in descriptive terms ("The mission that the Greek Catholic Church has undertaken ..."), but then slips into prescriptive language ("... on one side, it must ... on the other, it must ..."), without any of the appropriate transitional language.

Furthermore, the alleged letter appears to be trying to establish first-time ground rules regarding the role of the ECCs, as if the subject had never been addressed before.

The more I reflect on this, the more it's bothering me. Would anyone happen to know where we might find the text of this alleged letter?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sects1_e.htm
Bp Alexander (Mileant)+2005
Sorry I am new to what needs to be done. But I still use the old stuff. I come from ROCA and this website is very good. I am not sure when it was published but I think long before Fr.John wrote his book. Fr John also has a book called Patristic Theology that is very good.

I have no hatred for your churches nor do I believe that you are false or without grace. I only believe you are misguided as do you I.

But I dont understand where you are coming from? Are you not Ukrainian? When I was Catholic the strongest supporters of Orthodoxy were you guys.I was even told of the hopes of your own See in Kiev. Even today Kiev is a hot bed of discord for both East and West. When it comes down to it you are the key. Without the support of Kiev nothing will be accomplished.The EP and Rome can talk but the Slavs hold sway on everything. No way will it happen without the middle. So I would say the first thing to work out is Kiev then you can speak of Union. After that we discuss how wrong my view of history is. And I finish with another page from the web. http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/uniate_tragedy.aspx

Chad

Someday I may see this phrase followed by something reasonable, rather than a bizarre pronouncement of someone's personal and unsupportable view, but I'm still waiting.

It's closely related to, "You have to respect . . ."

Nope. Not even a Slav, so no dog in this fight--I can be objective.


I agree that Ukraine is the key, but only because the Russian psyche has not resigned itself to the independence of the near abroad, and because the Church of Moscow has remained far too close to the Russian government. In other words, the dispute over the Kyivan Church is largely political, not theological or ecclesiological.

Also, I personally never speak of union. Union implies some sort of subordination and assimilation. Like the Church of Rome, I think the proper resolution is neither, but a true communion in the Holy Spirit.

Stuart,

We've spoken here or there about the Russian Church and its continued ties to the Russian government as being problematic to the situation in that region.

Do you know whether or not this view is also shared by other Eastern Orthodox, or is this a perspective that tends to be more distinctively Greek Catholic?

I'm asking because I'm still trying to understand that whole issue.

thanks

Well, there are certainly a lot of Ukrainian Orthodox who think it is a problem. And I suspect that the Ecumenical Patriarch is not too happy about it, either, given the situations in Georgia and Estonia.