www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Contrasting the EO & ByzCath

Greetings in Christ!

I was going to ask the local Catholic priest this question, but I thought I might get more thorough answers here. What is the Byzantine Catholic perspective on the Great Schism? Or to put it more bluntly, what reasons are there that would lead an Eastern Orthodox Christian to embrace the pope as the vicar of Christ as you have (feel free to correct me if I have erred).

Forgive me the sinner.

In XC,
Stepan

As regarding the pope as Vicar of Christ:

p. 80-81 "A short history of Byzantium", John Julius Norwich

"Such was Justinian's wrath on hearing the news that the Pope sought refuge in the Church of St Peter and St Paul. Scarcely had he reached it, however, when a company of the imperial guard burst into the church with the swords drawn. Vigilius, seing them, made a dash for the high altar and a scuffle ensued. The soldiers seized hold of the Pope, by now clinging to the columns supporting the altar, and tried to drag him away by the legs, hair and beard. But the more they pulled, the tighter the clung - until at last the columnes themselves came loose and the altar to the ground, narrowly missing his head.
By this time a crowd had gathered, and was protesting vehemently against such treatment of the Vicar of Christ"

The crowd of the capital was a preSchisma byzantine orthodox protesting about the treatment done to the Vicar of Christ, the Pope.

Hi Stepan. You ask a very good question, the answer to which will undoubtedly have many parts.

For the moment I just want to offer one part, possibly an unexpected part. You ask "what reasons are there that would lead an Eastern Orthodox Christian to embrace the pope as the vicar of Christ as you have" (emphasis added) but I don't really see in quite that way. Yes, I do "embrace the pope", i.e. remain Catholic (I've been Catholic my whole life), but that's a matter of not switching sides; whereas for an Orthodox to become Catholic, it would be a matter of switching sides.

To put it another way, I haven't left Catholicism, but that doesn't necessarily mean I would become Catholic if I weren't already.

1. "Vicar of Christ" was a title held in common with by all bishops in the first millennium. The title particular to the Pope was "Vicarius Petri".

2. The respect held for the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium has really nothing at all to do with the Papal perquisites today.

3. Of all the weak posts you made over time, Arbanon, this is one of the weakest. John Julian Norwich's History of Byzantium? Really?

You could have given a thoughtful answer, such as:

1. Conciliarity cannot exist without primacy, and vice versa.

2. Just as conciliarity exists on the local, regional and universal levels, so too does primacy exist at the local, regional and universal level.

3. The historical nexus of universal primacy has always resided in the Church of Rome, headed by the Bishop of Rome. This has never been disputed by the Orthodox Church.

4. Orthodoxy needs a focus of unity, a locus of primacy, to counteract the centrifugal forces which are pulling it apart.

5. The logical place for such primacy is the Bishop of Rome, as an increasing number of Orthodox theologians such as Olivier Clement and John of Pergamon have stated.

6. The issue, therefore, is not whether Primacy resides with the Bishop of Rome, but how that primacy should be defined and exercised.

7. The understanding of the primacy in the first millennium should be the common reference point for all such discussions of the primacy.

8. Undoubtedly, at the end of the day, both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will see some of their most precious conceits demolished in the restoration of communion, but truth is no respecter of pious myths or polemics.

9. Eastern Catholics can serve a critical role in the attempt to find a new definition and modality of primacy simply by being fully faithful to their authentic Traditions whilst maintaining communion with the Church of Rome, and by insisting that Rome respect those Traditions in their fullness, even where they are different from the Tradition of the Church of Rome. This would, of course, also include the Roman self-understanding of the primacy.

Except for the brash rudeness of point #3 in Stuart's introduction, I agree completely.

He very succinctly summarized an excellent answer.

The problem with Stuart is not simply being rude. That is apparantly his character of a military man!!!!

The point is WHERE ON EARTH do his points contradict my quote?

And i dont see how you are able to dispute a historian like Norwich while you keep yourself as someone worth reading in this forum?!

Let our spoilt StuartK be given another event where he can dis+agree at the same time according to his spoilt "smart" style, where NO other bishop was ever treated the same. It's not simply respect being paid to the Pope.

p. 341, Byzantium the Early Centuries, John Julius Norwich

"Justinian, in full regalia including the imperial diadem, prostrating himself to kiss his foot"

Pope Constantine I and emperor Justinian II, 711 AD.

Let's maintain a modicum of civility, gentlemen.

Many years,

Neil

Again, Arbanon presents an anecdote that does not prove anything one way or the other. Emperor Theodosius the Great, for instance, kissed the foot of Ambrose of Milan. Does that make Ambrose the Heir of Peter? I will concede, gladly, that Ambrose was a far more important person in the Western Church of the late 4th century than Pope Damasus ever was.

The entire church history might turn out to be an weak anecdote for you. Nevertheless, one cannot fail to see:

1. You twisted, basically you lie, the story putting Theodosius to kiss Ambrosius foot.

2. You fail to see the difference of a personal repentance of an emperor in the case of Theodosius and the Empero's stand in his full capacity as emperor with full regalia and imperial diadem (in a so to say, imperial ex cahedra stand) in front of the pope, prostrating himself to literally kiss his foot, in the case of emperor Justinian II.

Hi Arbanon. My first suggestion was going to be that speaking to Stuart, rather than speaking about him in the 3rd person (personally, I know I don't like it when people do that with me), might help the discussion. But I can see that you've started doing so already (post #385624, right above this one).

So instead I'd like to suggest that we can't really expect to resolve an issue, especially one about to the nature of the papacy, on an internet discussion forum. (Not that discussing it here isn't worthwhile, within reason.)

Is this a fact or just a possibility?

It's simply a LIE! StuartK, apparently thinking high of himself, wants to fool us, so that he can twist stories to confuse us and get what he wants.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/theodoret-ambrose1.asp

P.S since we are in plural in this forum we may adress to each other directly or indirectly depending on each case.

Of course I dont expect the nature of papacy to be resolved in this or any forum.

Greetings in Christ!

Thank you to everyone who has contributed. I've gotten my answer. Mods, please lock this thread as I had no intention of creating a debate/flame war.

Forgive me.

In XC,
Stepan