www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Melkites at Vatican I

At the time that St. Maximos wrote about Rome, Rome was orthodox and had repudiated the heretical opinion of Pope Honorius I, who played a major role in the development of the heresy of Monothelitism, by suggesting that instead of having one energy, the original form of the heresy, that Christ had one will. That is why the 6th Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius I for heresy.
The idea that Constantinople had the desire to dominate Rome is not true. There is not a single instance in which the Patriarch of Constantinople tried to interfere in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of the West.
Because it was the New Rome, Constantinople was given rank after Rome by the 2nd Ecumenical Council, I Constantinople in 381. At Chalcedon, Constantinople was given equal rank with Rome.
In the East we have the concept of seniority, or presbia. Senior rank is purely honorific. It does not imply that a senior Patriarch has jurisdiction over those who have a rank lower than h has. I am an Archpriest. However, if I concelebrate with a Priest who is below me in rank in his own parish, I serve as second in rank to the Pastor who has seniority within his own parish. The same is true of Patriarchs. If the Patriarch of Antioch serves in Moscow the Patriarch of Moscow presides because he has seniority within his own Patriarchate although the Patriarch of Antioch has higher rank than the Patriarch of Moscow. In the ancient Church Rome had the highest rank among the other 4 Patriarchs, but he had no authority over them. However, the Priest or Bishop with seniority over his own parish of Diocese may out of courtesy ask a Priest or Bishop higher in rank than he is to preside.

Fr. John W. Morris

When Pope St. Gregory misunderstood the assumption of the title Ecumenical Patriarch by St. John the Faster, he objected arguing that there is no universal Bishop in the Church. Actually, St. John's title did not mean that he was claiming to be the universal Bishop. It only meant that he was the Bishop over the imperial city and the emperor's Bishop.
One of the problems that led to the schism was that the East spoke and thought in Greek, while the West spoke and thought in Latin. As a result they did not always understand each other.

Fr. John W. Morris

It is also true that St. Irnaeus of Lyons advised Pope Victor that excommunicating the Churches of Asia Minor was beyond his authority.
The controversy over the date of Easter was not resolved by the Pope. He did not have the authority to resolve it. It was finally resolved by the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325.

Blessings

Fr. John

During the ancient Church, the Popes made no claims to universal jurisdiction. That only came later, and was based on the Donation of Constantine, a document that was later proven to be forged. The first Pope to use the Donation of Constantine to claim authority over the Eastern Patriarchs was Pope Leo IX, who sent Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople in 1054. However, after news arrived in Constantinople that Pope Leo IX had died, Patriarch Michael ignored the Cardinal's demands for submission to Rome, because once a Pope dies, his legates no longer have authority. Meanwhile during a public discussion at the imperial palace, Cardinal Humbert alienated the clergy and people of Constantinople by proclaiming that the wives of the married Priests were whores and their children bastards. He also told a monk who defended the married Priesthood that he spoke like he came from a brothel instead of a man from a monastery. However, despite the fact that he no longer had authority to act, Cardinal Humbert took it upon himself to excommunicate the Patriarch, beginning the schism.
I too have studied church history. I have a PhD. in history and have taught church history on the university level. I have also written three books and many articles on church history. I do not agree that the history of the ancient undivided Church proves that the Popes exercised universal jurisdiction. The exact opposite is true. Only an Ecumenical Council exercised universal jurisdiction over the ancient undivided Church. The Ecumenical Councils had authority over every Bishop of the Church, including the Bishop of Rome. Read Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council, it limits the authority of the Pope to the West and affirms the independence of the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch to those areas traditionally under their jurisdiction. Canon XVII of the 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451, gives the right to hear appeals from clergy who have a problem with their own Patriarch not to Rome, but to Constantinople.

Blessings

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John,

The Melkites are saying that before 1054 there was enough common agreement between East and West about papal authority for there to be full communion, and that they call upon both East and West to determine exactly what that papal authority was and to return to it.

My personal read of history would agree with you that Roman Catholics tend to read Vatican I back into church history. I would disagree with you that Roman primacy was merely an honorary one of first among equals. ISTM that in the first centuries Rome functioned as the the conservative guardian of orthodoxy and that there are historic example of where popes stepped into other local Churches to condemn heresy and remove heretics. That suggests a primacy that was not just one of honor.

In the end, the matter will not be resolved until both East and West examine each historical occurrence together and find a way to agree to the meaning of each.

John

Thank you, John. This is very well stated. This has to be our starting point, and I think the present bishop of Rome is ready to start from there. I've never been so optimistic. I think the Melkites, persecuted and small as they, are leading the way! May God bless them.

The problem with the Melkite approach is that it lacks specifics. It does not define what role the Pope actually played in the ancient united Church. My studies of church history have led me to believe that the Pope played a role like that the Ecumenical Patriarch plays today in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Roman Catholic, on the other hand, read back into the pre-schism period Vatican 1 or the claims to universal jurisdiction made by medieval post-schism Popes like Boniface VIII. Until exact agreement is reached on what powers the Pope would have in a union of Orthodoxy and Rome, union will not be possible.

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John,

I notice you write generalities which lack specifics, in an ahistoric manner favourable only to EO, but usually unsupported. I noticed this on the Catholic Forum before your suspension there, as well. For example, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you insist on the EO propaganda that Justinian created the Hymn that St. Severios of Antioch actually wrote. Among other generalities, you make claims against RCs, ECs, and OOs which are historically open to multiple interpretation, but you only present the pro-EO view.

As to the EPs role today, what is that exactly? The EP does claim more authority - temporal and spiritual - than you would like, while Moscow would deny any authority to the EP except to sit in the highest high chair - although they claim more than the EP ever did to itself.

And why would the Papacy be placed in the role of the EP of today's Orthodox world - stuck in an secular Islamic republic with no rights for educating it's own clergy, no lineage due to governmental restrictions, fractured views by other Patriarchates, ignored by other jurisdictions in Asia while siting Canons on authority, etc? Why this, and not the more ancient tri-Petrine Primacy, or the Syriac/Coptic model, or the Assyrian model?

I RESPOND: What ancient tri-Petrine model? That was only the opinion or Rome and then only during later times. The 2nd Ecumenical Council showed that the this model was not accepted by the ancient Church when it raised Constantinople to 2nd rank below Rome. The 4th Ecumenical Council went even further and recognized Constantinople as holding equal rank with Rome. The Ecumenical Councils affirmed local self-administration and always treated Rome as subject to their authority. That is not generalization. It is historical fact. During the age of the ancient united Church, Rome had no universal jurisdiction. If I am wrong show me a canon that shows that Rome had any jurisdiction outside of its own Patriarchate. Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council limits the authority of Rome to the West and affirms the independence of Alexandria and Antioch. The canons provide for the election of Bishops within what eventually were called Patriarchates and required no confirmation by Rome for the consecration of a Bishop. The 4th Ecumenical Council sent the Tome of Pope St. Leo for a committee to study to determine its orthodoxy before it accepted it. The 5th Ecumenical Council threatened to excommunicate Pope Vigilius unless he accepted its condemnation of the Three Chapters. The 6th Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius for heresy. It is not possible to reconcile Vatican I with the actions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.
As far as Eastern Catholicism is concerned, that is one of the major points of contention between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Fr. John W. MorrisI notice you write generalities which lack specifics, in an ahistoric manner favourable only to EO, but usually unsupported. I noticed this on the Catholic Forum before your suspension there, as well.

I RESPOND: What happened to me on the Catholic Forum only confirms my fear that some Catholics are not interested in real dialogue with Eastern Orthodox. The people who run that Forum are not interested in allowing freedom of expression by anyone who does not agree with the Roman Catholic Church. They really do not want to read an authentic Eastern Orthodox point of view. Their idea of reunion is on their terms and submission to Rome. That will not happen. I do not have contempt for Catholicism. I do not agree with the papacy, but there is a difference between disagreement and contempt.

For example, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you insist on the EO propaganda that Justinian created the Hymn that St. Severios of Antioch actually wrote. Among other generalities, you make claims against RCs, ECs, and OOs which are historically open to multiple interpretation, but you only present the pro-EO view.

I RESPOND: I only present the EO view because my studies of history have led me to conclude that the Pope had nothing at all like the power and authority in the ancient undivided Church that he has today. I have studied the Ecumenical Councils and believe that they reflect the conciliar administration of the Church and definitely assume authority over all Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome. If the ancient Popes had the authority that modern Roman Catholics claim he had, that would be found in the canons. It is not. If I emphasize anything, I emphasize history. Actually, I admitted that it is quite possible that Servius of Antioch wrote the Hymn, “Only Begotten Son...” that we sing during the 3rd Ode of the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

As to the EPs role today, what is that exactly? The EP does claim more authority - temporal and spiritual - than you would like, while Moscow would deny any authority to the EP except to sit in the highest high chair - although they claim more than the EP ever did to itself.

I RESPOND. The EP holds a primacy of honor as first among equals. He has the authority to call and preside either in person or through his representative over Pan-Orthodox councils. There is a limited authority to hear appeals on controversies and to call a Pan-Orthodox Council to decide on their merit. However, he has no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of another autocephalous EO Church or to make doctrinal proclamations binding on the entire Church. I admit that sometimes Constantinople claims authority that Moscow and the rest of Eastern Orthodox does not recognize.

And why would the Papacy be placed in the role of the EP of today's Orthodox world - stuck in an secular Islamic republic with no rights for educating it's own clergy, no lineage due to governmental restrictions, fractured views by other Patriarchates, ignored by other jurisdictions in Asia while siting Canons on authority, etc? Why this, and not the more ancient tri-Petrine Primacy, or the Syriac/Coptic model, or the Assyrian model? [/quote]

I RESPOND: What ancient tri-Petrine model? That was only the opinion or Rome and then only during later times. The 2nd Ecumenical Council showed that the this model was not accepted by the ancient Church when it raised Constantinople to 2nd rank below Rome. The 4th Ecumenical Council went even further and recognized Constantinople as holding equal rank with Rome. The Ecumenical Councils affirmed local self-administration and always treated Rome as subject to their authority. That is not generalization. It is historical fact. During the age of the ancient united Church, Rome had no universal jurisdiction. If I am wrong show me a canon that shows that Rome had any jurisdiction outside of its own Patriarchate. Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council limits the authority of Rome to the West and affirms the independence of Alexandria and Antioch. The canons provide for the election of Bishops within what eventually were called Patriarchates and required no confirmation by Rome for the consecration of a Bishop. The 4th Ecumenical Council sent the Tome of Pope St. Leo for a committee to study to determine its orthodoxy before it accepted it. The 5th Ecumenical Council threatened to excommunicate Pope Vigilius unless he accepted its condemnation of the Three Chapters. The 6th Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius for heresy. It is not possible to reconcile Vatican I with the actions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.
As far as Eastern Catholicism is concerned, that is one of the major points of contention between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
I have been thinking. If the ranking of the Patriarchs were based on its relationship with St. Peter, Antioch would be ranked above Alexandria, because St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome. Alexandria's only link to Rome is that St. Peter sent St. Mark there.
There is no need to resort to personal insults just because I disagree with you.

Fr. John W. Morris

I have been thinking. If the ranking of the Patriarchs were based on its relationship with St. Peter, Antioch would be ranked above Alexandria, because St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome. Alexandria's only link to Rome is that St. Peter sent St. Mark there.

Fr. John W. Morris

"The Melkites are saying that before 1054 there was enough common agreement between East and West about papal authority for there to be full communion, and that they call upon both East and West to determine exactly what that papal authority was and to return to it."

If that is the case, why do so many Catholics on this type of discussion become so offended when an Eastern Orthodox Priests attempts to explain and justify from the history of the Early Church the Eastern Orthodox point of view on the powers held by the Bishop of Rome in the ancient undivided Church?

Fr. John W. Morris

Not this Catholic, Father John.

Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, I must note that many Orthodox are equally offended by Roman Catholics who attempt to explain this from their pov.

Fortunately, there are enough of us willing to explore the issue from the premise of just what did preserve unity through the first millennium, including the lengthy periods when Orthodoxy itself was preserved by Rome when the heterodox iconoclasts held sway in Constantinople.

The 1989 "Agreed statement on conciliatory and primacy" of the North American Orthodox Catholic Dialouge, chaired for decades by the mutually respected retired Metropolitan Maximus of Pittsburgh (http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/conciliarityandprimacy.html) outlines both our points of common understanding while bluntly recognizing those issues which keep us apart:

" The particular form of primacy among the Churches exercised by the bishops of Rome has been and remains the chief point of dispute between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, and their chief obstacle to full ecclesial communion with each other. Disagreement has often centered on the way in which the leadership exercised by Peter in expressing and confirming the faith of the other disciples (Matt 16.17f.; Lk 22.32; John 21.15-19) is to be realized in Church life. The Orthodox have emphasized that the role of Peter within the apostolic college is reflected principally in the role of the church. Roman Catholics have claimed for the bishops of Rome, since the fourth century, not only the first place in honor among their episcopal colleagues but also the "Petrine" role of proclaiming the Church's apostolic tradition and of ensuring the observation of canonical practices. "

This is expanded upon in the 2010 "Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future" of the dialogue. http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html. " At the heart of our differences stands the way each of our traditions understands the proper exercise of primacy in the leadership of the Church, both within the various regions of the Christian world and within Christianity as a whole. In order to be the Body of Christ in its fullness -- to be both “Orthodox” and “Catholic” -- does a local community, gathered to celebrate the Eucharist, have to be united with the other Churches that share the Apostolic faith, not only through Scripture, doctrine, and tradition, but also through common worldwide structures of authority -- particularly through the practice of a universal synodality in union with the bishop of Rome? " http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

While Pope Francis' recent comments about conciliarity are positive, we Orthodox remain skeptical that a redefining of the Papacy in a way acceptable to the Orthodox could be accomplished in light of Vatican I and what we suspect would be the rejection by a significant majority of Catholics worldwide of any significant diminution of Papal authority following centuries of strident polemic from Rome in support of the same. (We face the reverse problem of our faithful accepting any union following centuries of our own polemical anti-Roman teachings.)

At least we talk these days.

TO DMD

That is very good summary of the problem. Please pray for me, I am in the process of passing a kidney stone, and am in a lot of pain.

Fr. John W> Morrs

Your reply gladdens my heart. Only when we talk with each other and try to find common ground will we be able to finally heal the schism.

Fr. John W. Morris