Wondering:

Council of Chalcedon stated that Rome had primacy because it was the capital of Rome, and that Constantinople should have similar privileges because it was the New Rome.

Now, to my knowledge, the Western Patriarch never accepted this definition of the Council. Since this canon did not have UNIVERSAL acceptance, then it is not de fide.

I have heard and read this geopolitical rationale being used against the claims of the Papacy TODAY. I see that it is a Church-dividing issue. My question is, is this a VALID reason to divide the Church. In other words, can the Orthodox use this reason as a canonical ground of dispute - I mean, since it never had universal acceptance in the first place, and the Church was UNDIVIDED [B}DESPITE[/B] that disagreement?

Another question: if the two Churches reunite, is it still possible to hold this geopolitical view as a basis for primacy - I mean since this was the case in the undivided Church anyway?

Personally, I find the Catholic view more appealing and in line with the honor of the Patriarchates. My understanding of the Catholic view is that a Patriarchate (well, at least the original four) gained its prominence NOT because they were popular political or secular centers, but because the Patriarchal Churches were established by the Apostles or apostolic men.

Well St Andrew established Constantinople...

And I believe that Rome has accepted canon 28 of Chalcedon...at least, when they though the schism had been overcome during one of the Reunion "Councils"...


Anton

If that is the case (not that I'm doubting) I wonder why it is that Orthodox authors are still appealing to that geopolitical rationale as an argument against the papacy. I think I recently read a book by Schmemman (I forget who it was actually, but it was by an Orthodox author published in the 1990's) echoing that argument. Granted, I think he was just stating the state of affairs, not that it was his own opinion.

Blessings.

The "if that is the case" refers to the statement about Constantinople, not the second statement about Rome's acceptance of the Canon. As far as I know, the only thing Rome accepted was the STATUS of Constantinople, not the geopolitical rationale behind Chalcedon's Canon. I could be wrong. However, I have read criticisms levelled at Orthodoxy by Catholic apologists to the effect that the use of that geopolitical rationale by the Orthodox only evinces the parochial - as opposed to universal - basis of the Orthodox Churches (or at least for those who appeal to the geopolitical rationale).

Blessings

Rome did NOT have primacy because of Rome being the "capital" of the world at the time nor it was based on geography.

Rome had primacy because of St. PETER who went to Rome.

SPDundas

Christ is risen!

SPDundas,

Then what about Antioch?

Tony

Glory to Jesus Christ!

SPDundas is right.

Simon Peter passed through a lot of places, and he actually prominently led the congregations at Antioch, but he left the care of that church to another. In that sense it could be said that Jerusalem was left to the care of James in the same way.

Simon Peter ended his days at Rome. Some scholars have maintained that he spent as much as 15 years at Rome, even accounting for his travels. Peter's own disciples would have been centered in Rome (probably Helenized Jews mostly).

It seems clear that the early fathers regarded Rome as the See of Peter. There doesn't seem to be any other city of the ancient world that had ever claimed to be the See of Peter, and there are no records I know of from contemporaries that dispute the claim. The silence speaks volumes.

Michael

Right - the cannon proposed that the Emperor of New Rome should have second place “honor” after the primate of Rome. A one line cannon. It seems to me it was an attempt to secure a prominent role for the Emperor by making primacy (and the church authority that primacy had) appear to be based upon a geo-political rational instead of apostolic succession, and upon honor (voluntary agreement) instead of apostolic succession (appointment by Jesus). A subtle ploy.

Within Christianity, the emperor did not have any kind of spiritual church authority and this was a radical break from hundreds of years of tradition where the emperor/king was believed to be a man-god and divinely appointed head of state and civil religion.

A lose summary follows…
The last Byzantium emperors, thiniknig to displace the Pope, resorted to force by confiscating monasteries, churches and the lands and property of anyone (monks, clergy and laity) remaining loyal to Rome. Lands and monasteries donated to the church became the personal property of the Emperor to be given out as reward to bishop who supported him as head of the church. Excommunications and accusations of heresy were used, improperly, as weapons for political gain. A particular nasty player was Justinian… evoking a few councils of which Latins were specifically ‘not invited’. The councils dealt with legitimate issues but most often contained a little kicker. One or two small concessions that the Emperor would like passed. The Emperor then trying to get the bucket of results passed (which included his own rider) ratified by the Pope so that the council that he had convened, by his own Empirical authority, would actually become oecumenical - but the Pope became wise to this and avoided things - to which Justinan asked Peter to come to Constantinople so they could mend fences - and then had his entourage killed and the Pope himself imprisoned and his life threatened. But the Pope refused to be used as a pawn in the game. Which Pope would want to be known as the one who sold out apostolic succession?? Justinain dare not kill the Pope outright as that would have galvanized anyone on the fence and not yet swayed - to Rome. It was better not to create a martyr before the switch was accomplished.

Placed on the throne of Constantine (who did so much to build the church up on the temporal level) Justinian tried to become its spiritual head also. Constantine had put his throne to the service of the church and Justinian sought to put the church to the service of the throne. Justinian used the age old ruse of “what appears to be true - is true” or better said “reality is perception”. … and laid the groundwork for the schism (a human division). Those in political power and wealth put the propaganda machine into overtime.

If you can understand that pivotal point in Christianity (social Christianity) you can put the dynamics of the history that followed - into place.

With Christianity as good as divided - Muslims found it opportune time to retake the Holy Land and begin to attack Chritianity The Byzantine empire (being on the frontier) found itself fending off Saladin’s attacks - already drained from sending man power to the defense of the Holy Land - and called to the Roman world for troops in order to defend - Christianity itself.

The Roman world was hesitant to come to the defense of those who had divided Christianity (think of Catholics being asked to defend Protestants even while Protestants were actively killing and imprisoning Catholics) and when they reluctantly did - they naturally had to marched through Byzantine lands in order to face the Muslims. While there (in Byzantium) the common Roman Christian crusader felt that they might as well take care of the Christian apostates while they were there anyway… and so Constantinople was going to get a regime change. It was not a disciplined army. The battle turned into a sack and chaotic riot. Commanders were divided on the issue and the common crusader was out of control. It was a disaster.

The Pope of Rome did not ask for that nor condone it - but I would guess that upon hearing about it most felt - it would not hurt. I believe that the Pope alone realized what horrible consequences would follow when news of the surprise came. But with the final physical division of East and West - and all real communication lost due to temporal reasons - and lack of the internet temporal Christianity was now geographically divided.

I do not wish to paint the West as sinless. Temporal power has welded far to close - East and West. Apostolic ‘poverty’ was gone - across the board. Providence had lost its throne and world politics took it. Providence would do something about that.

If you cast your mind back into history you will find that - upon the return of Israel from the Babylonian exile - something similar took place. Babylon had thought that transplanted Jews would eventually blend into Babylonian culture. But the Jews - were a fanatic people. They would rather die - than not wash hands before a meal. Eventually - their numbers threatened to collapse Babylonian culture - so the best thing was to be rid of them. Babylon would ‘graciously’ allow Israel to return and provide plenty of support. A costly program of incentives - but by doing it properly would assured itself that Israel would not reconstitute itself to retaliate one day. And so while the purists (minority which would be known as Judah) returned to Jerusalem itself they did so with little support - While Babylon instead gave massive aid to what would become the 10 Northern tribes of Samaritans (known from then on as Israel) by funding to build a copy of the Jerusalem Temple for them and supplying its priesthood and its own translation of the books of Moses and all substance needed including a copy of the original Ark. Claiming that the originals books of Moses were lost (probably were) the Samaritans believed that they had the only authentic exact copies. But Judah re-wrote the books of Moses from the memory of some of the original high priesthood - rebuilt the Temple by hard labor - and would do without the Ark. So who had the originals? No one. Whose copy was authentic? The result was Israel divided and wasting time fighting about ‘doctrine’ and wording and who was - authentic.

This is the way I read the history.

Purely from a historical perspective - Islam began with a Pope like figure, located in Istanbul Turkey. The same human factors broke up Islam into its factions. This also lends historical support to the original position of the Pope as succession and not honor - as a Semitic way of doing things. The idea of the church as a democracy came from the Greeks.

This has all been from the human historical point of view. The essential tenant of Christ have been adhered to by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic - so a division of the human elements of the church took place (language, vestments, rites, cooperation, etc...)

-ray

Rome was first amon equals because it was the capital of the empire this is said by the council itself. If it had this primacy because peter was supposedly bishop there then, Antioch would be first among equals.

Whem Rome does come out of its heresy, and returns to Orthodoxy, then it will be restored to the first among equals.

In Christ
Nektarios

Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff, professor of canon law and church history at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, in writing about St. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans, wrote in ("The Primacy of Peter", pages 125-126 (1992)):
Fr. Alexander Schmemann wrote (same book, pages 163-164):
I do not put forth these quotes to indicate Orthodox acceptance of the primacy of Rome. Both articles go on to acknowledge the lack of a developed Orthodox theology on the role of the Rome, the need for one and a discussion of the Orthodox position. Rather, I post these quotes so that Daniel might see that even Orthodox scholars do not have all the answers that he pretends to have. Daniel would do well to spend his time on focusing on what Orthodoxy professes, rather than on what it rejects in Catholicism.

What follows is a general comment directed at no one in particular.

[Mount soapbox and begin oration - as assembled begins to wander away in boredom]

With no offence to brother Daniel meant at all…

This is a profoundly true statement.

Whatever the situation was, whatever prompted any division (human division) into an “Orthodox block” or Orthodox community of churches - there is a fact that the Orthodox community of churches have had an authentic development (just as the Roman Catholic world has) and that development and evolution is a vital life within the entire Catholic Church. It is what the Administrator calls “what Orthodoxy professes”.

There is a positive aspect of the Orthodox church and there is a negative aspect (just as there is to the Roman Catholic churches). The positive aspect is its consistency of feeding its flock from the sacramental well - and its further development of understanding of the concepts of Eastern theology - and its emphasis on family (including extended family) and finally and most importantly its consistency in spreading the authentic gospel. This (what I have just described) is what Orthodoxy professes.

Its negative aspect has been to define itself as a church by a definition of “not Latin” or “not Roman“. And to see itself too much as a ‘defender of the faith’ through passing judgment upon other members of the body of Christ as to - the definition of words. I know where this tendency comes from.

If one visit’s the early fathers - and takes a look at the situation and cultures they were in - one can certainly understand where this tendency has come from. The earliest form of the Catholic Church was Jewish - and from there - when it became gentile - it was the Greeks who championed it. When the Church stepped out from the cosmogony of the Old world (the cultures of the day of Moses) and into philosophy and theology of the New world (the day of Greek philosophy) it was the Greek fathers who did it - who accomplished it. It was they who hammered out its theology into a form of which the Greek language and concepts gave it an identity and a vehicle within the growing New world.

If one understand the history and evolution of cultures - one can easily see that the early Greek fathers of the church were - a two sided coin. They propelled the church into the gentile world at a time when philosophy was on the rise and cosmogony was on the wane - by hammering out a solid theology using Greek concepts and terms. This propelled (with good speed) the Church where every Greek philosophy and its terms - were the language of logic. I would repeat that. This propelled (with good speed) the Church where every Greek philosophy and its terms - were the language of logic.

These early, mostly Greek - fathers created a gateway - a bridge - from the waning old cultures of cosmogony and myth - into the new world and cultures which used Greek terms and logic.

As the gentile world was swept by Hellen - so went the church triumphant.

Things would have been fine and continued fine - if the entire world used Greek terms and concepts as the vehicle of logic.

But - it doesn’t - and the Hellenisation of the world - also had its time limits.

If one is to understand Eastern theology - one must learn it in Greek terms and concepts.

Within the Roman world - Greek logic was not used because there was Roman logic (Latin). And wherever Roman influence dominated - there too the church went and flourished - That it - The Latin Church.

And where neither the Greek language or Latin language was influential - neither the Greek nor Latin fathers had much influence (Coptic, Ethiopian, etc..).

Language and cultural concepts is - therefore - a variable - and not the gospel itself. If the gospel gave rise to all these different expressions - then the gospel itself - is a common denominator - and not the variables of language and cultural concepts. This then, common denominator, IS the gospel itself … and all particular churches of culture (which the Orthodox is one of - and the Roman Church is also) are ‘members’ of one universal body ‘of Christ’.

What the early Greek fathers did - was a two sided coin. They solidified Christian theology into Greek terms and concepts (giving great growth within Hellen culture) - and - they solidified Christian theology into Greek terms and concepts (stunting the universal nature of the church).

I have often said - that for all the wonderful good the mindset of the early Greek fathers did for the church - I consider it a miracle and proof that God exists in as much as the church - survived - them - at all.

But one must step back - and see how God - used them. They were not so special and neither are we. They were, after all - human - and so are we. If you want to know how human they were - just read all the bickering they did - bickering so bad and at times - violent - that Councils we necessary to settle matters.

I digress - as usual.

The fact is - that one never gets as close to Christ - as one does when he begin within his own particular church (meaning be the best Roman Catholic that you can be - be the best Orthodox that you can be - be the best Byzantinne that you can be - be the best Copt that you can be - etc.. etc..) and then begins to take account of all the 'variables' that comprise the entire universal Church. Nothing points better to the invisible - than when you realise that all variables - point to the same thing.

Think less about the 'mote' in your brothers eye - and more about the mote - in your own.

[Dismount soapbox to find that all have already left to go get hot dogs]

-ray

{ray's post}

The fact is - that one never gets as close to Christ - as one does when he begin within his own particular church (meaning be the best Roman Catholic that you can be - be the best Orthodox that you can be - be the best Byzantinne that you can be - be the best Copt that you can be - etc.. etc..) and then begins to take account of all the 'variables' that comprise the entire universal Church. Nothing points better to the invisible - than when you realise that all variables - point to the same thing.

Think less about the 'mote' in your brothers eye - and more about the mote - in your own.

-ray [/QB][/QUOTE]

I totally agree with Ray's idea, now if I could remember on how to post quotes correctly.


james

Dear-in-Christ RayK,

Islam began in the Arabian Peninsula in A.D.610. Its "Prophet" was Mohammed. Islam arrived conquering Constantinople (after the conquest called Istanbul) in A.D.1453, over 800 years after Islam began.

Tony

Ray,

I understand your final conclusion well enough (take the mote . . .), and I agree with it.

It was my understanding that there is considerable historical evidence that one prime purpose of the crusades was the removal of wealth from the Byzantine east to some Italian city-states. I also believe they did a lot more than "march through."

Your discussion of how Justinian somehow caused the crusades is fascinatingly partisan. I haven't heard that historical distortion before.

Thanks for telling me my problem. Gosh, I wish I were nonjudgmental like you. Thanks for pointing out all our problems and how we brought them on ourselves.

Please elaborate.