www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West How much unity do we want?

"Rome has no authority to be appealed to."

The Council of Serdica makes quite clear Rome has ultimate appellate authority. This has never been disputed by the Orthodox, who made frequent use of it in the course of their various theological disputes.

"Rome has appellate authority, but this would be an intra-Church issue and does not need the involvement of the Pope."

Both Serdica and subsequent cases indicate that Rome has appellate authority in cases between Churches, and on cases within Churches. Thus, Maximos the Confessor, in his dispute with the Church of Constantinople, appealed to Rome over the Monothelite controversy. There are numerous other instances on record.

The principal Orthodox objections to the papal prerogatives as they exist today revolve around two issues: infallibility, and immediate universal ordinary jurisdiction. The former, as a number of Orthodox theologians have noted, can be "clarified" into something acceptable to the Orthodox (in practical terms, the issue is moot, since no Pope has used an ex Cathedra statement since Pius XII, and no one is likely to use it again).

But the latter is the real, practical sticking point, and as Archbishop of Vsevolod wrote, the Orthodox would need to have a definition in writing of the times and manner in which a Pope could intervene unilaterally in the affairs of another Church.

Dear brother StuartK,

Yes, I just wanted clarification.

We're not talking about a doctrinal matter. We're talking about an ecclesiastical matter .... I confess, I was about to write, "...which the Pope should not get involved in." And then I remembered the Meletian Schism where St. Basil pleaded with the Pope to settle the matter. St. Basil didn't say, "You nor your legates have any say here in Antioch." Instead, St. Basil says that he will only hold communion with the one whom the Pope would hold communion with.

The principal Orthodox objections to the papal prerogatives as they exist today revolve around two issues: infallibility, and immediate universal ordinary jurisdiction. The former, as a number of Orthodox theologians have noted, can be "clarified" into something acceptable to the Orthodox (in practical terms, the issue is moot, since no Pope has used an ex Cathedra statement since Pius XII, and no one is likely to use it again).

But the latter is the real, practical sticking point, and as Archbishop of Vsevolod wrote, the Orthodox would need to have a definition in writing of the times and manner in which a Pope could intervene unilaterally in the affairs of another Church.

I myself am of the opinion that the Pope should never intervene unless appealed to except in two instances - 1) Faith and morals; 2) a universal canon. Even then, he must exercise great restraint in trusting his brother Patriarchs to be able to take care of the problem first. I guess the point is kind of moot, for I don't think the Pope would even have word of such a problem until and unless someone from that particular Church asks for the Pope's help.

We're not talking about a doctrinal matter. We're talking about an ecclesiastical matter .... I confess, I was about to write, "...which the Pope should not get involved in." And then I remembered the Meletian Schism where St. Basil pleaded with the Pope to settle the matter. St. Basil didn't say, "You nor your legates have any say here in Antioch." Instead, St. Basil says that he will only hold communion with the one whom the Pope would hold communion with.

...As soon as I got home, after contracting a severe illness from the bad weather and my anxieties, I straightway received a letter from the East to tell me that Paulinus had had certain letters from the West addressed to him, in acknowledgement of a sort of higher claim; and that the Antiochene rebels were vastly elated by them, and were next preparing a form of creed, and offering to make its terms a condition of union with our Church. Besides all this it was reported to me that they had seduced to their faction that most excellent man Terentius. I wrote to him at once as forcibly as I could, to induce him to pause; and I tried to point out their disingenuousness.

...your anxiety for all the Churches is no less than that which you feel for the Church that has been especially entrusted to you by our common Lord; inasmuch as you leave no interval in speaking, exhorting, writing, and despatching emissaries, who from time to time give the best advice in each emergency as it arises....I have therefore determined to send to your reverence our brother Dorotheus the deacon, of the Church under the right honourable bishop Meletius, being one who at once is an energetic supporter of the orthodox faith, and is earnestly desirous of seeing the peace of the Churches.

In my former letter it seemed to me sufficient to point out to your excellency, that all that portion of the people of the holy Church of Antioch who are sound in the faith, ought to be brought to concord and unity. My object was to make it plain that the sections, now divided into several parts, ought to be united under the God-beloved bishop Meletius. Now the same beloved deacon, Dorotheus, has requested a more distinct statement on these subjects, and I am therefore constrained to point out that it is the prayer of the whole East, and the earnest desire of one who, like myself, is so wholly united to him, to see him in authority over the Churches of the Lord. He is a man of unimpeachable faith; his manner of life is incomparably excellent, he stands at the head, so to say, of the whole body of the Church, and all else are mere disjointed members. On every ground, then, it is necessary as well as advantageous, that the rest should be united with him, just as smaller streams with great ones. About the rest, [i.e. Paulinus, Rome's man, and his adherents] however, a certain amount of management is needed, befitting their position, and likely to pacify the people. This is in keeping with your own wisdom, and with your famous readiness and energy. It has however by no means escaped your intelligence, that this same course of procedure has already recommended itself to the Westerns who are in agreement with you, as I learn from the letters brought to me by the blessed Silvanus.

I wished to detain the reverend brother Dorotheus, the deacon, so long at my side, with the object of keeping him until the end of the negociations, and so by him acquainting your excellency with every detail. But day after day went by; the delay was becoming protracted; now, the moment that some plan, so far as is possible in my difficulties, has occurred to me concerning the course to be taken, I send him to approach your holiness, to make a personal report to you on all the circumstances, and show you my memorandum, to the end that, if what has occurred to me seems to you to be likely to be of service, your excellency may urge on its accomplishment. To be brief, the opinion has prevailed that it is best for this our brother Dorotheus to travel to Rome, to move some of the Italians to undertake a voyage by sea to visit us, that they may avoid all who would put difficulties in their way

Each hill has a church on top, the Catholic Cathedral known as Agios Giorgios (St. George) on one and the Greek Orthodox Church, Anastasis (Resurrection) on the other. This island is very unusual in Greece in that it has an almost equal mix of Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox. Intermarriage is not discouraged, and each belief is considerate of the other, even joining in each other's festivals in the outlying villages. This is also the island for which the Pope gave permission for Catholics to celebrate Easter on the same calendar date as the Greek Orthodox Church.

All St. Basil's letters have as their purpose getting rid of Paulinus, Rome's man in Antioch, and restoring St. Meletius, as was done by the Second Ecumenical Council, which St. Meletius opened.

When would that be, as St. Basil (like St. John Chrysostom) was ordained by Patriarch St. Meletius, the one NOT in communion with the Pope of Rome. That was Paulinus, the one who ordained St. Jerome. Paulinus' line died out, and none of the four patriarchal lines the Vatican has for Antioch claims to be traceable to Paulinus: they all claim St. Meletius. St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Basil's close friend and collegue, also favored St. Meletius, letting him open the Second Ecumenical Council, the Fathers of whom were not in communion with Rome when they wrote the Ecumenical Creed.

This is a nice and simple vision that exists on the Greek island of Syros, which has had a significant Roman Catholic population since the 1500's:

I recall reading a National Geographic article about another Mediterranean island (I forget the name) where the Orthodox faithful are served by a Catholic priest most of the time.

Dear brother Isa,

Ummm...Would this be the same Council that sent its decrees to Pope St. Damasus for confirmation (per the Tradition of the Church)?

Everyone knows that this period was pretty confusing, with bishops being in communion with other bishops who were not in communion with each other. For you to claim that the Fathers of the Council were not in communion with Rome is, as stated in my previous post, simply not based in historical fact.

During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor. The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.

Dear brother Isa,

Every Catholic relation of the incident I've read states that the papal legate was out of line for installing Paulinus while Meletius was in exile. And that Rome approved Paulinus based on jaundiced and biased accounts of Meletius' orthodoxy (or claimed heterodoxy). The See of Alexandria also sided with Paulinus. It was a big understanding, nothing more. The overt actions of the see of Alexandria had as much to do with the perpetuation of the schism as the silence of Rome on the matter. But, as stated, it was all a big misunderstanding.

And I don't see anything from St. Basil's letter to St. Meletius that could even be construed as contradicting St. Basil's confession that he would side with whomever Rome sided with.

But, as I was disappointed, I have been constrained to beseech you by letter to be moved to help us, and to send some of those, who are like minded with us, either to conciliate the dissentient and bring back the Churches of God into friendly union, or at all events to make you see more plainly who are responsible for the unsettled state in which we are, that it may be obvious to you for the future with whom it befits you to be in communion.

The fact of the matter is that, as far as St. Basil was concerned, the whole matter was still up in the air. I'm sure he wanted Paulinus out of there, but your insinuation that this somehow takes him out of communion with Rome has no basis in fact. You might as well claim that Basil was out of communion with Athanasius as well.