www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Should unity realistically return to first millenium standard?

This seems to be another iteration of the "freezing in time" principle that Ratzinger rejected.

Honestly looking for common ground in the first millennium when east and west were united is not freezing anything in time. If we cannot discover with the west what was there, I'm afraid even Jesuits can't help us. It's Fr. Francis Dvornik, S.J., by the way!

First, Sardica gives Rome an appellate function (you can call it jurisdiction if you like) to re-open ecclesiastical cases. This was recognized by the Eastern Churches and applied at several points in the first millennium. But Sardica does not give Rome the power to pass judgment, nor does it give Rome the authority to intervene unilaterally in the affairs of other Churches, which is what happened in the case of Photios and Ignatios.

Second, the deposition of Photios by the Synod of 869-870 was highly controversial and not universally accepted; its rulings were in fact overturned (and its acts burned) at the Synod of 879-880, which also concluded that the deposition of Photios had been illicit. The acts of this synod were ratified by Pope John VIII, and were entered into the Liber Pontificalis as "ecumenical". They remained so for several centuries, until it became expedient to "forget" such a synod every occurred (which is why the Synod of 869-870 is given as the "Eighth Ecumenical Council on Robert Bellamine's list, even though the later synod nullified its acts).

Third, one cannot extend this appellate jurisdiction--canonically very limited--into the kind of "full, immediate, ordinary and universal" jurisdiction claimed by the Pope today. They are unrelated to each other.

Fourth, the acceptance of Pope Nicholas' intervention in the Photios affair was largely related to Bulgaria and related secular matters. Dvornik goes into much greater detail in his seminal The Photian Schism (1947)

Perhaps the Pope of Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs should convoke a "unity" council, in which the all the Bishops would be called together into a true ecumenical council to hash it out and come up with an agreed statement. Let it take as long as it takes.(of course, then, there is the problem of whether or not there would be reception by the Orthodox laity since I am told that a council is not really and truly binding until it is received)

Perhaps it's time for that to happen.

Looking for common ground makes plenty of sense. But "It happened in 861, so therefore it should happen like that now" is something else, not the least of which is that it is too simplistic to really take seriously. It also *didn't* happen before and afterwards, and even then, StuartK is ready to explain to you that what you think happened isn't what happened, whether you believe him or not. So if it becomes a matter of simply picking and choosing which 1st-millenium month or year we want to go by while ignoring everything else, we would be going against Ratzinger's advice, and the discussion has already failed.

The ecclesiology of the one undivided Church of the first millennium and how church structures developed in that epoch is our common ground, not what happened in 861. The events surrounding the Photian schism merely illustrate how Rome exercised jurisdiction and how it was perceived and acknowledged at one time. Yes, east and west need to find an orthodox ecclesiology that works for both, among other things, if unity is to be achieved. It can never be a clumsy and anachronistic recreation of what used to be (an impossible task) or even holding on to what we think we've always had, but it must have a foothold in what we once shared and what we both have developed since.

I noted earlier why not accept the status quo? From AD 33 to 325 there was no such thing as real unity. Perhaps disunity of the the various sects that make up Christianity (RCC, EOC, Mormon) should be accepted as the norm! St Mark of Ephesus got it right!!!

What errors?

Well then, perhaps, this appellate jurisdiction and an acknowledgment of Primacy is enough to build unity on. I would not be too frightened by the kind of Vatican legalese you quoted ("full, immediate..."); I think it sounds worse than it really is, especially since the demise of papal armies - the Swiss Guard doesn't count. I do feel that in a reunited Church the Orthodox hierarchs would speak with a lot more chutzpah than our Greek and Oriental Catholic ones do.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

johnzonaras.

Why are you including Mormons among Christians? They are not Christian. Theirs is a different religion. Theirs is a polytheistic religion. So please, do not buy into the propaganda that they should be included with Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. I was a Mormon. I studied the faith thoroughly. Theirs is a different religion altogether.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Because by doing so we are going against what God wants for the Church. The scandle of Church disunity hurts the Apostolic Churches preach to the world the good new of Jesus Christ!

John 17:21-22:I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

If there is disunity among Christians, then how can we expect the world to be truly converted to Christ?

Mark of Ephesus certainly would not be opposed to unity.

Stuart is correct. The canons of Sardica do not allow the bishop of Rome to overturn a synodical judgment on his own authority; instead, the canons allow him to determine whether the case merits a synodical appeal to be heard by the bishops of the regions surrounding the location of the original provincial synod (see Hamiton Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica, pages 179-200).

Thus, Sardica, though it embodies it in canonical form, actually embraces the notion of primacy as auctoritas, rather than potestas. The Bishop of Rome has no "power" other than to declare a case can be heard by a council of bishops from metropolitan provinces other than the one in which it originated (which itself shows the limitations of jurisdiction in the patristic age). The Pope not only lacks the power to overturn a synodal decision, he lacks the "power" to force the synod to allow the case to be heard by the surrounding provinces. However, the auctoritas of the Pope was so great that, though he had no power to enforce his writ, the synods involved invariably deferred to his decision.

That's one of the easiest parts of all, Father.

Suppose some kind of tentative unity in which Catholic & Orthodox each acknowledge the other as valid.

Then suppose a Council with all represented.

Would that council classify *any* council of the divided churches as ecumenical?

Some regard would need to be given to the councils of each church, leading it to the new council to refine the doctrines/notions/whatever from them.

The councils during the schism would be incomplete or imperfect, not wrong.

Papal infallibility would certainly require not just consultation/approval/consensus of one Church, but many, meaning that attempts to rely on it would not have been successful.

OK, I spent eight years with the Jebbies, and would have joined if it weren't for that celibacy bit (almost married one time I was almost ready, and did marry the other . . .)