(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...   

A Fine Example of Roman Catholic Apologists' History Writing (long but worthwhile). 

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re: Reconciliation, Towards Unity: JOINT STATEMENT BY POPE, ORTHODOX PRELATE (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re: PAPAL APOLOGY TO GREEK ORTHODOX (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re: "Enemy" Churches Praying Together: Pope and Orthodox Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re: Read What Christodoulos Says to John Paul II (Christopher Yip)
Re: Reflections on the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and Lesser-Known Byzantine Atrocities (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re: Greek Atrocities Against the Latins (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re: Past Reunion Efforts Disrupted (Due to Islamic Occupation)? (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Date: 2001, Jun 07
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

This is a long post but I believe it is worth your while if you are interested in a concrete example of how Roman Catholic apologists re-write history. This is an EXCELLENT example of how anti-Protestant Mr Tan argues history. He claimed in another post that "anti-Catholic Mr Yip" is unreliable when it comes to information presumably because I am so-called "anti-Catholic". Now, that would naturally mean that anti-Protestant Mr Tan's information is more reliable. By the way, I AM anti-Roman Catholicism because it teaches a different Gospel from that given by Christ and the apostles. I do have Roman Catholic friends with whom I get along just fine. As I have said in response, Protestant apologists quote from official sources especially in stating the doctrines and beliefs of other denominations. We quote Orthodoxs for Orthodox doctrine, Roman Catholics for Roman Catholic dogmas, etc. Our dear opponent's charge is clearly blowing smoke only. So, is his information better? Here, we have a good example of the "good" information he provides. The "history" of Eastern Orthodoxy is given by anti-Protestant from Catholic Answers, a Roman Catholic apologetics organisation. Let us compare what they say with what the Eastern Orthodoxs say about themselves. The Eastern Orthodox's statements are taken from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople official website at http://www.patriarchate.org/. One of the two sources used here is: A Short History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, "First Among Equals" in the Eastern Orthodox Church by Deno Geanakoplos, Professor of Byzantine History and Orthodox Church History at Yale University The other source is not given by the website. REAL vs. FICTITIOUS History Eastern Orthodoxy (Catholic Answers) One of the most tragic and frustrating divisions that exists within Christianity is the one between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. Since 1054, the year the split became official, the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy have existed in a painful state of separation, though both have valid holy orders and apostolic succession through the episcopacy, both celebrate the same sacraments, both believe almost exactly the same theology (differences will be examined later in this tract), and both proclaim the same faith in Jesus Christ. With all of these things shared in common, why the division? What caused the division? And what, if anything, can be done to bring about a reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches? This tract will consider these issues. We should first realize that the root of all division between Christians is human sin. Man is the cause of these divisions, not Christ, who desires that all Christians be united in one faith, believing and proclaiming the same doctrine (John 17:21). Paul exhorted the early Christians to cultivate this unity: "I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me . . . that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, 'I belong to Paul,' or 'I belong to Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas,' or 'I belong to Christ.' Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor. 1:10-13; cf. Phil. 1:27, 2:2). In the fourth century, St. John Chrysostom said that if Christians truly followed the teachings of Christ, there would soon be no pagans left. Likewise, there would be no splits in the Body of Christ. Let's take a look at the historical background to the Catholic/Orthodox split. After the Roman Empire legalized Christianity in A.D. 312, the Catholic Church elevated five patriarchs (bishops of ancient centers of Catholicism that had been founded by one of the apostles) to govern the quickly-expanding ranks of believers. These patriarchs became the principal bishops of the Catholic Church, and they had authority over subordinate bishops who held lesser sees within their patriarchate. In order of importance, the five patriarchates are Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. One of the official titles of the Pope is "Patriarch of Rome." http://www.patriarchate.org/book/FIVE_SEES.html According to the Roman Catholic concept of the Church, the pope, himself one of the five patriarchs (the word "pope" means simply in Greek, "father" or "papas") holds not only titular primacy as primus inter pares (first among equals) over all the patriarchs (a claim always recognized, incidentally, by Byzantine Constantinople), but, from the view of authority and jurisdiction, the right even to intervene and to act as supreme judge in the internal affairs of all other churches. Opposed to this latter theory is the Eastern concept of the "Pentarchy." That is, instead of a papal "monarchy" governing the entire Church, there exists a supreme body of five heads, the patriarchs above named, each of whom exercises jurisdiction over his own ecclesiastical area and who meets together with the other patriarchs in ecumenical councils to regulate matters of dogma and church discipline. This pentarchic theory was firmly established by the time of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the mid-sixth century, as is clearly reflected in his nomocanones (combined civil-ecclesiastical law codes). Emperor vs. Patriarch To understand the history of Eastern Orthodoxy, one must understand how its character was shaped by the ever present conflict between the Church and state in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. After the western Roman Empire collapsed in A.D. 476, the eastern half continued under the title of the Byzantine Empire and was headquartered in Constantinople. The patriarch of that city had jurisdiction over the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and served under the emperor, who ruled those lands with military might. The emperor wielded tremendous influence in Church affairs. Some emperors even claimed to be equal in authority to the Twelve Apostles, and as such claimed to have the power to appoint the patriarch of Constantinople. Although the two offices were legally autonomous, in practice the patriarch served at the emperor's pleasure. Many patriarchs of Constantinople were good and holy bishops who ruled well and resisted imperial encroachments on Church matters, but it's hard to withstand the designs of power-hungry or meddlesome emperors who had armed soldiers at their disposal. The patriarch often attempted to bolster his position in the Universal Church to give himself more leverage in dealing with the emperor, and this usually brought him into conflict with Rome. Chris: Catholic Answers make it sound like this problem of the Emperor interfering with the Church happened only in the East. They also claim that only the Eastern Patriarch struggled for independence from the Emperor. This is untrue. http://www.patriarchate.org/book/FIVE_SEES.html In these earlier centuries of the Byzantine Empire, the problem of ecclesiastical polity (government of the church) was rather complex. Complicating matters was the fact that the Pope of Rome was subordinate politically to the Byzantine Emperor, who sat in Constantinople. Up until the eighth century (as is usually not noted) the pope was in fact even appointed by the Emperor or, more directly, through his civil governor in Italy. But at the time of the Iconoclast struggle in the eighth century the Pope declared himself politically independent of the Emperor and set himself up as possessing, in effect, not only ecclesiastical but temporal power over the West. This claim was actually to be implemented in the later medieval period. In the Byzantine East basic in the history of the Patriarchate was the fact that the Emperor was always resident in the same city. For centuries the West, the papacy in particular, has claimed that Byzantine imperial authority was "Caesaro-papistic," a pejorative term signifying that the emperor held in his hands both complete temporal and ecclesiastical authority. The fact is, however, that though the emperor, if he so desired, could almost invariably work his will in matters of church administration, he could never in the end dictate to the patriarch of Constantinople in matters of dogma. Nor did the emperor possess the indelible mark of the priesthood, the power to administer the sacraments of the Church. True, the emperor alone of all laymen could cross before the iconostasis, cense and preach to the congregation, summon ecumenical councils and even administer Holy Communion to himself But noteworthily the Communion had first to be consecrated by a priest. Moreover, however successful some emperors seemed temporarily to be (in the Iconoclastic struggle, for example), they could never unilaterally pronounce on dogma without the sanction of an ecumenical council at which all five patriarchs had to be present. Hence, the Emperor, despite his possession of these remarkable "liturgical" privileges, cannot be said to have been a true "king-priest." In the later centuries of the Byzantine Empire (1261-1453), when the Emperor seemed willing to pay the papal price (religious union of the Greek Church with Rome) in order to secure military assistance against the Turkish threat, the Byzantine populace, led especially by the monks, lower clergy and of course, the Patriarch, refused to dilute the purity of their faith to secure such aid. For they believed that the wrath of God would descend upon them if the holy pronouncements of the "Seven Sacred Ecumenical Councils," handed down to them from the forefathers (patroparadoton), were altered by so much as an iota. In all the various struggles waged for the preservation of the purity of the Orthodox faith, whether Orthodoxy was threatened from without by external enemies or from within by heretics, the Patriarchs by their stance stood in the vanguard of the defenders of the Orthodox faith. http://www.patriarchate.org/book/First_Phase.html During this first period the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople gradually increased, though he seemed sometimes to be under the thumb of the emperor. The latter, for political reasons (or as some emperors put it, for the sake of oikonomia, that is survival of the Basileia, meaning the empire), sought occasionally even to alter the dogmas decreed by the Ecumenical Councils in order to placate politically dangerous heretical groups in the East such as Monophysites, Nestorians, or Monotheletes. This tendency of the emperors to seek to interfere in the "inner life" of the Church reached its climax in the acts of the Isaurian Emperors during the famous Iconoclast struggle (726-43). These anti-icon rulers sought to destroy all the icons (representations of Christ, the Virgin and the Saints) on the grounds (they declared) that they were not being properly venerated but instead worshiped by the people virtually as idols. (Some scholars believe that among other reasons motivating the emperors was their belief that the monks, the chief protectors of the icons, were becoming too numerous and an increasingly "unproductive" element in society. They paid no taxes in these difficult times of continual Arab invasions and did not serve in the army.) In any event, after a desperate struggle of over a century, Orthodoxy and icon-veneration finally triumphed and the icons were restored... As a result of the triumph of these Iconodule views, the authority of the Orthodox Patriarchs, who usually led the struggle against the Iconoclasts, became more important in the Byzantine Empire than ever before. This may vividly be seen in the fact that henceforth the Patriarch was depicted by Byzantine artists in their paintings or mosaics as standing on the same level with the emperor instead of below him, as had formerly been the case. http://www.patriarchate.org/book/FIVE_PHASE_HISTORY.html Because of its leading historical role, notably in the formation and crystallization of Christian dogma and traditions, and no less in presenting them in the face of continual dangers, the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the person of its chief officer, the Patriarch, has acquired the title among the Orthodox church hierarchy (that is among the present-day Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Rumanian, Syrian, etc. churches) of "First among equals." Yet, unlike Rome, his hegemony is today far less (if at all) one of actual jurisdiction over the other Orthodox patriarchates and autocephalous churches (which arose in some cases after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 in Russia, Serbia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Georgia, etc., Cyprus however being autocephalic, or independent, since the very early church). His is rather a spiritual authority, and as such the Patriarch is looked up to by all with deep devotion and respect as upholder of, and principal connecting link among all the sometimes rather disparate Orthodox churches. During the years of conflict between the 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. Chris: Note that it was Constantius who became attached to Arianism with a fanatic intolerance, who installed the Arian heretics, Eusebius of Nicomedia and George of Cappadocia to the sees of Constantinople and Alexandria respectively, thus displacing Paul and Athanasius. If such acts forced upon the See of Constantinople is supposed to somewhat make it less orthodox in its stand, then the same can be said of Rome. Pope Liberius (AD 352 – 366) himself apostasised by subscribing to an Arian confession and maintaining church fellowship with the Eusebians. On this condition he was restored to his papal dignity, and received with enthusiasm into Rome in AD 358. And pity those who have died in Arianism under the "infallible" guidance of Liberius. No wonder he was not canonised as a saint! What is interesting is that while Roman Catholics justify Liberius’ apostasy as a moment of weakness and still extol his virtue, any mistake by Constantinople is unforgiveable! Read here for a Roman Catholic justification (the usual excuses!) of Liberius’ action at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm. Remember that while Paul of Constantinople and Athanasius of Alexandria chose exile than to submit to Arianism, Liberius chose Arianism. On the other hand, the Arian Philostorgius related that Liberius was restored only when he had consented to sign the second formula of Sirmium, which was drawn up after the summer of 357 by the court bishops, Germinius, Ursacius, Valens; it rejected the terms homoousios and homoiousios; and was sometimes called the "formula of Hosius", who was forced to accept it in this same year, though St. Hilary is surely wrong in calling him its author. The same story of the pope's fall is supported by three letters attributed to him in the so-called "Historical Fragments" ("Fragmenta ex Opere Historico" in P.L., X, 678 sqq.) of St. Hilary, but Sozomen tells us it was a lie, propagated by the Arian Eudoxius, who had just invaded the See of Antioch. St. Jerome seems to have believed it, as in his "Chronicle" he says that Liberius "conquered by the tedium of exile and subscribing to heretical wickedness entered Rome in triumph". The preface to the "Liber Precum" also speaks of his yielding to heresy. St. Athanasius, writing apparently at the end of 357, says: "Liberius, having been exiled, gave in after two years, and, in fear of the death with which he was threatened, signed", i.e. the condemnation of Athanasius himself (Hist. Ar., xli); and again: "If he did not endure the tribulation to the end yet he remained in his exile for two years knowing the conspiracy against me." St. Hilary, writing at Constantinople in 360, addresses Constantius thus: "I know not whether it was with greater impiety that you exiled him than that you restored him" (Contra Const., II). V. MODERN JUDGMENTS ON POPE LIBERIUS Historians and critics have been much divided as to the guilt of Liberius. Stilting and Zaccaria are the best known among the earlier defenders; in the nineteenth century, Palma, Reinerding, Hergenröther, Jungmann, Grisar, Feis, and recently Savio. These have been inclined to doubt the authenticity of the testimonies of St. Athanasius and St. Jerome to the fall of Liberius, but their arguments, though serious, hardly amount to a real probability against these texts. On the other hand, Protestant and Gallican writers have been severe on Liberius (ee.g. Moeller, Barmby, the Old-Catholic Langen, and Döllinger), but they have not pretended to decide with certainty what Arian formula he signed. With these Renouf may be grouped, and lately Schiktanz. A more moderate view is represented by Hefele, who denied the authenticity of the letters, but admitted the truth of Sozomen's story, looking upon the union of the pope with the Semi-Arians as a deplorable mistake, but not a lapse into heresy. He is followed by Funk and Duchesne (1907), while the Protestant Krüger is altogether undecided. The newest view, brilliantly exposed by Duchesne in 1908, is that Liberius early in 357 (because the preface to the "Liber Precum" makes Constantius speak at Rome in April-May as though Liberius had already fallen) wrote the letter "Studens paci", and, finding it did not satisfy the emperor, signed the indefinite and insufficient formula of 351, and wrote the three other contested letters; the Arian leaders were still not satisfied, and Liberius was only restored to Rome when the Semi-Arians were able to influence the emperor in 358, after Liberius had agreed with them as Sozomen relates. The weak points of this theory are as follows: There is no other authority for a fall so early as the beginning of 357 but a casual word in the document referred to above; the "Studens paci" is senseless at so late a date; the letter "Pro deifico timore" plainly means that Liberius had accepted the formula of 357 (not that of 351), and had he done so, he would certainly have been restored at once; the story of Sozomen is untrustworthy, and Liberius must have returned in 357. It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter.] Ironically, in the Church's eighth-century struggle against the Iconoclastic heresy (the heresy that denied that sacred icons and statues were good and useful to the liturgical life of the Church and sought to eliminate all sacred images), it was the pope and the Western bishops mainly who defended and fought for the Catholic practice of venerating icons (which even to this day is still very much part of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality), and the patriarch of Constantinople sided with the heretical, iconoclastic Emperors. Chris: Again, our dear opponents at Catholic Answers have given half-truths. Let me complete the story. In AD784, the Patriarch of Constantinople Paul IV, who earlier held iconoclast views but changed his mind at this time, wrote to the Empress Irene, the mother and regent for her son Emperor Constantine VI, a minor then, requesting to convene an ecumenical council to correct the iconoclast heretics. Now, if Liberius’ earlier action of resisting the Arian Constantius was admirable, what about Paul IV who convened the 7th Ecumenical Council to correct the iconoclast errors? In that year, Paul IV abdicated from the see of Constantinople and was succeeded by Tarasius, who also wrote to the Empress for the same request. This is what Paul IV said when asked for the reason of his abdication: "Because I fear that, if death should surprise me still in the episcopate of this royal and heaven-defended city, I should have to carry with me the anathema of the whole Catholic Church, which consigns me to that outer darkness which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for they say that a certain synod hath been held here in order to the subversion of pictures and images which the Catholic Church holds, embraces, and receives, in memory of the persons whom they represent. This is that which distracts my soul-this is that which makes me anxiously to enquire how I may escape the judgment of God-since among such men I have been brought up and with such am I numbered." (The Imperial Sacra. Read at the First Session. Found in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII, col. 49.) Empress Irene said that Paul IV died as soon as he said these words. 1054 And All That The Norman conquest of southern Italy touched off the Great Schism, the final tear in the fabric of Christendom. When the Catholic Normans took over the Byzantine-Rite Greek colonies in southern Italy, they compelled the Greek communities there to adopt the Latin Rite custom of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. This caused great aggravation among the Greek Catholics because it went against their ancient custom of using leavened bread. In response, Patriarch Cerularius ordered all of the Latin-Rite communities in Constantinople to conform to the Eastern practice of using leavened bread. You can imagine the uproar that ensued. The Latins refused, so the patriarch closed their churches and sent a hostile letter to Pope Leo IX. What followed next was almost a comedy of errors. In an attempt to quell the disturbance, the Pope sent a three-man delegation, led by Cardinal Humbert, to visit Patriarch Cerularius. But things grew worse instead of better. The legates presented the patriarch with the pope's reply to his charges. Both sides managed to infuriate each another over diplomatic courtesies, and when the smoke cleared a serious rift had developed between the pope and the patriarch of Constantinople. This was not, however, the actual break between the two communions. It's a popular myth that the schism dates to the year 1054 and that the pope and the patriarch excommunicated each other at that time, but they did not. Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware (aka Timothy Ware) writes: "The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper . . . After [an initial, unfriendly encounter] the patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a Bull of Excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom . . . Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such)" (The Orthodox Church, 67). The New Catholic Encyclopedia says that, "The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when this unfortunate sequence of events took place. This conclusion, however, is not correct, because in the bull composed by Humbert, only Patriarch Cerularius was excommunicated. The validity of the bull is questioned because Pope Leo IX was already dead at that time. On the other side, the Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legates and abstained from any attack on the Pope or the Latin Church." (These mutual excommunications of the individuals involved were revoked in 1965 by the pope and the Byzantine patriarch.) In reality, there was no single event which marked the schism, but rather a sliding into and out of schism during a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations. The East's final break with Rome did not come until the 1450s, a few decades before the Protestant Reformation. Attempts at Reconciliation "Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them . . . The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in east and west were largely unaware" (Kallistos Ware, 67). Chris: Really? Not from the Orthodox’s viewpoint. http://www.patriarchate.org/book/Western_Hostility_Grows.html Western Hostility Grows In the eleventh century the Byzantine Empire began to decline in strength. This was not only because of the parade of external enemies constantly attacking the empire's territory (often simultaneously on three or even four fronts) but because of internal unrest and decay. Ultimately, owing at least in part to Western (especially Venetian) economic rivalry, even of cupidity for Byzantium's trade and riches, and to political rivalry with Constantinople, the West became increasingly hostile to the Byzantines. Because of the prevailingly religious temper of the age, this antagonism was most clearly expressed in the growing ecclesiastical rift between the two churches, in the rivalry between the patriarch of Constantinople and the pope of Rome. Constantinople as the "New Rome" now claimed an equality of honor with old Rome, while Rome insisted on its jurisdictional authority over the Eastern patriarchs. The Churches differed over the dogma of the filioque, and in the liturgical question of the azyma -- that is, the use by the Orthodox of leavened bread in the Eucharist in contrast to the unleavened bread of the Roman Church. Finally, there was the difference in the epiklesis, different beliefs as to the moment when the miracle of metavole -- the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ -- occurs in the liturgical service… It was specifically in order to annul or cancel these historic mutual excommunications of 1054 (lasting up to modern times) that, largely at the initiative of the late great Patriarch Athenagoras, these mutual personal excommunications of 1054, which have always in symbol marked the final division of the two great branches of the Christian Church were finally lifted in 1965 at the historic meeting in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI. This did not, however, revoke the long-lasting schism between the two churches. The two communions attempted to reconcile on a number of occasions. In 1274 the Second Council of Lyons was held, which brought about a union of the Eastern churches with Rome that lasted until 1282, before they again went into schism. Another reunion council, the Council of Florence, was held between 1438 and 1445. This council was faced much adversity, including repeated transfers of its location, but it eventually succeeded in bringing the two communions back together, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were reconciled once again to Rome. Chris: Yippee! Happy happy! So they were united after all … or did they? Read on. But all of this changed when the Byzantine Empire collapsed suddenly in 1453. A soldier forgot to lock one of the gates of the fortified city of Constantinople, and the Turks exploited the mistake and sacked the city. With the Turks in control of the capital city, the rest of the empire crumbled quickly. Under pressure from the Muslims, most of the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome, and this is the split that persists to this day. The current Eastern Orthodox communion dates only from the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation. Chris: Want to hear the truth? From the Orthodox Church: http://www.patriarchate.org/book/Third_Period.html In the third period of patriarchal history, from 1261 to 1453, but increasingly after the late fourteenth century, the last but greatest enemy of the Byzantines, the Ottoman Turks of Asia, advanced closer and closer to Constantinople. In this period, the once mighty Byzantine Empire had so shrunk in territory that by 1300, almost all that remained, besides Constantinople itself, was part of what we call today Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, and a strip of western Asia Minor. (Asia Minor of course had earlier been entirely Greek and the very backbone of the Byzantine Empire.) The danger from the advancing Turks soon became so pressing that in order to secure military aid, the Emperors were forced to turn to the greatest source of power in the West, the Papacy. But the popes of Rome would offer no aid unless the Greeks accepted the popes as the head of their church, in other words, unless they converted to Roman Catholicism with its beliefs and practices. (Special effects please: Thunder! Lightning) The Byzantine common people of course violently objected to this, as did the monks, nuns, almost all of the middle class, and the larger part of the upper class. Some of the upper class, including very few prelates, for the sake of political expediency (or sometimes from even an admiration for the vigor of the Latin Scholastic philosophy) supported these Emperors who were willing to pay the papal price for military aid. Actually, the Greek people soon became split into two factions, the pro-unionists and the far larger group of anti unionists, over the question of whether aid from Rome should be accepted. The problem became so acute that in 1274 (at Lyons in southern France) and again in 1439 at the famous Council of Florence, Italy, religious union between the two churches was (temporarily) achieved, or at least signed. But the Byzantine people in general adamantly refused to accept these two councils. They insisted that since all five of the patriarchs were not present at both these councils (as Byzantine canon law demanded since no subsequent council had declared them to be "ecumenical" and since most Greeks believed the Byzantine delegates were coerced into acceptance, both Councils of Lyons and Florence were invalid. The Patriarch himself, followed by the vast bulk of the Greek populace, therefore refused to compromise his Orthodox beliefs by accepting papal jurisdiction as well as belief in the filioque and the azyma in order, presumably, to save the Empire. (Special effects please: Thunder! Lightning) Eastern Fragmentation Two subsequent events, one external, the other internal, served to reduce the status of the patriarch of Constantinople to nearly to that of a figurehead. The sword of Islam gave military protection to the center of the Eastern Orthodox world, but at a high price. The Muslim sultan sold the office of patriarch to the highest bidder, and changed the occupants often to keep the money rolling in. From 1453 to 1923, the Turkish sultans deposed 105 out of the 159 Patriarchs. Six were murdered, and only 21 died of natural causes while in office. Chris: Did Orthodoxy succumbed to all these? Nope. In fact, read the story of their bravery of the Patriarchs. http://www.patriarchate.org/book/Fourth_period_Tourkokratia.html With the tragic fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, the fourth period, that of the "Tourkokratia," begins. And the process of the accretion of power in the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople actually accelerates. The Turkish (Islamic) Sultan now in a sense assumed the function of the former Byzantine emperor and invested him with his authority in much the same manner as before. Under Sultan Mehmet II, the Turkish conqueror of Constantinople, Gennadios Scholarios, the learned Greek scholar of philosophy and patriot, was invested as the first Orthodox Patriarch under Turkish rule. A fiery man, uncompromisingly Orthodox, he managed to secure concessions for his church from the Sultan who respected him. Thus, under Mehmet II the patriarch was given authority not only as the religious but also as the supreme head of all the Orthodox peoples subject to the Turks, including Serbs, Bulgarians, and Albanians, as well as Greeks. The Patriarch had his own court and preserved the old Orthodox liturgical ceremonial, but he was not permitted to retain Hagia Sophia which now became a Turkish mosque. Moreover, he was in all political matters directly subject to the will of the Sultan. Despite his increased authority, the Patriarch nevertheless had to walk a tight rope. On the one hand, he had to appease his Turkish master who was Islamic and on the other hand, seek to nourish the faith among the Orthodox faithful. The actions of the sultans, especially the successors of Mehmet II, were often unpredictable and inconsistent. They deposed patriarchs at will and set up others whose election they manipulated. Sometimes they would punish the Greek population for alleged violations of the Sultan's will by putting to death a patriarch through strangulation or other violent means. The patriarchal actions, therefore, had to be circumspect in the extreme, often appearing devious to outsiders as they strove to protect their flock and even help themselves to survive. Their so-called "Phanariot" diplomacy (from "Phanar," the section of Constantinople to which the patriarchate was moved by the Sultan) sometimes had to be more convoluted than that of the Byzantine period itself. Another mighty blow that weakened the authority and effectiveness of the patriarch came from Russia. Ivan the Great assumed the title of "Czar" (Russian for "Caesar"). Moscow was then called the "third Rome," and the Czar tried to assume the role of protector for Eastern Christianity. With the collapse of the patriarchal system, the Eastern Church lost its center and fragmented along national lines. Russia claimed independence from the patriarch of Constantinople in 1589, the first nation to do this. Other ethnic and regional splintering quickly followed, and today there are a total of eleven independent Orthodox Churches, along with the Orthodox archbishops claiming the title patriarch in the original six patriarchal sees. The Russian Orthodox Church dominates contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy, representing a full seven-eighths of the total number of Orthodox Christians. Chris: From the way they put it, Constantinople was disappearing like Atlantis into the ocean of obscurity. But, not so from the Orthodox. Russia did not claim independence as if broke away from Constantinople. The truth is that the Orthodox Church has always believed in the concept of oligarchy and autocephaly: http://www.patriarchate.org/book/Third_Period.html It is a remarkable irony of history that in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when the power of the Byzantine emperor was sharply declining as a result of the severe territorial diminution of the empire, the authority of the Patriarch, in contrast, markedly increased. Russia, though Orthodox, was never politically part of the Byzantine Empire, but from virtually the beginning of the conversion of its Prince Vladimir in 989, the Patriarch of Constantinople governed the Russian Church. Not only did he appoint their chief bishop (the Metropolitan of Kiev and later Moscow) and sent to Russia the chrism when their bishops were ordained, but he was also looked upon by all Slavs of both the Balkans and Russia as the true leader of the Orthodox Christian world. Things were now reversed and, contrary to earlier times, the patriarch had become in effect the protector of the Emperor. This may be clearly seen in the Byzantine Patriarch Anthony's rebuke to the Russian Tsar, who had written to him in 1395 that "there is now no emperor." Anthony's response was that "there can be no church without the emperor." In any case, the Byzantine patriarchs now performed remarkable work in preserving Orthodoxy, not only from the propaganda of Latin missionaries who seemed to be everywhere in the Greek East, but also in the face of the forced or sometimes even voluntary conversions to Islam of the conquered Greeks of Asia Minor. http://www.patriarchate.org/ecumenical_patriarchate/chapter_1/struggle_for_Orthodoxy.html The provinces of the Ecumenical Patriarchate comprised at the end of the 15th century 72 Metropolitanates, 8 Archbishoprics and 78 Bishoprics, while the Syntagmation of Patriarch Chrysanthus of Jerusalem (1715) recorded 66 Metropolitanates, 7 Archbishoprics and 57 Bishoprics. On the whole the number of the provinces did not meet with great changes. The Church of Russia, which had received Christianity from Constantinople (988) and had been organized as one of the Metropolitical Sees of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (988-1589), was supported by the Mother Church after the Fall (1453) in a variety of ways in the establishment of the self-sufficiency of its spiritual life, especially through the despatch to her of educated clergy or monks who undertook the task of correcting and renewing the relation of the local Church with the sources of Orthodox tradition and spirituality (Maximus the Greek, and others). The proclamation of the Church of Russia as a Patriarchate (1589) by the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II Tranos (1572-1579, 1580-1584, 1587-1589) not only did not weaken but, on the contrary, strengthened much more the relations of the new Patriarch with the Mother Church, which continued to exert a direct spiritual oversight in Little Russia which had been unsettled by the Polish domination and the provocative activity of Latin Uniatism. (Chris: Although Russia was recognized a patriarchate by Constantinople in 1589, nevertheless, this too, was eventually abolished, but not by Constantinople. Peter the Great replaced it by a governing Synod in 1721. The Synodal Period that followed lasted until the Bolshevik Revolution, when the patriarchate was once again restored (1917). Today, Russia ranks fifth after the four ancient patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.) This care was expressed not only through the various ways the Mother Church gave spiritual assistance to the daughter Church by supporting the struggle against the theological propaganda of the Latins or the Latin-minded members of the Academy of Kiev (i.e. through the foundation of the Slavo-Hellenic Academy of Moscow by the Lichoudes brothers), but also by applying the exceptional authority of the First throne of the Orthodox Church for the purposes of safeguarding the canonical tradition in dealing with serious internal problems (revision of liturgical books, canonical procedure in judging Patriarch Nikon of Russia, etc.). The exceptional authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was conjoined to the canonical right of hearing appeals (Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council). The famous Tomos of the Patriarchs of the East providing a solution to the 25 chapters of the Church of Russia (1663) was signed by the Patriarchs Dionysius III of Constantinople, Paisius of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch and Nectarius of Jerusalem. The question and the answer of the Eighth chapter are typical of the whole document: Question: Whether it belongs to the throne of Constantinople to pass every judgement on other Churches and whether it is from the same that every ecclesiastical affair receives its final outcome (?). Answer: This privilege belonged to the Pope before he was cut off from the Catholic Church on account of arrogance and willful evil-doing. Since, however, he was cut off, all the affairs of the Churches are referred to the throne of Constantinople and receive their outcome from it, because according to the canons it has equal primacy with Old Rome. (M. Gedeon kanonikai Diataxeis vol. 1, pp 350f. … The proclamation of the autocephaly of the local Churches of Greece (1850), Serbia (1879), Rumania (1885), Poland (1924) and Albania (1937) and of the autonomy of the local Churches of Finland, Czechoslovakia, Esthonia and Lettonia (1923) were established by means of Synodical Tomes of the Mother Church, which distinguish the extra jurisdictional authority of the Ecumenical throne from jurisdictional relations and put forth a new perspective on its mission in the Orthodox Church. The Mother Church's attribution of Patriarchal honour to the Churches of Serbia (1920), Rumania (1925) and Bulgaria, after the lifting of the Bulgarian schism (1945) and the restoration of the communion of the Bulgarian Church with the Mother Church (1961), formed the new canonical context of the relations of the local Orthodox Churches to each other and to the Ecumenical Throne, which continued its exceptional mission in this new canonical context, ministering to the unity of the Orthodox Church in the orthodox faith and in the canonical order. The Filioque problem One theological disagreement that has received a great deal of attention over the centuries has to do with of the Latin compound word filioque ("and the Son") which was added to the Nicene Creed by Spanish Catholic bishops around the end of the sixth century. With this addition, the creed says that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." Without the addition it simply says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Eastern Orthodox have traditionally challenged this, either saying that the doctrine is inaccurate or, for those who believe that it is accurate, that the pope had not authority to insert this word into the creed. Many today, both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, are of the opinion that this controversy was a tempest in a teapot. The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father is intimated in Scripture and present in the earliest Church Fathers. At the reunion council of Florence, when the citations from the early Fathers were shown to the Orthodox delegates, they accepted the doctrine. Controversy over it only arose again after the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome under pressure from the Muslims. Chris: Is it true that the Eastern Orthodox Church accepted the filioque (Latin – fili = Son, o = from, que = and)? Nope. Earlier, I have already quoted this portion on the Council of Florence. http://www.patriarchate.org/book/Third_Period.html The danger from the advancing Turks soon became so pressing that in order to secure military aid, the Emperors were forced to turn to the greatest source of power in the West, the Papacy. But the popes of Rome would offer no aid unless the Greeks accepted the popes as the head of their church, in other words, unless they converted to Roman Catholicism with its beliefs and practices. The Byzantine common people of course violently objected to this, as did the monks, nuns, almost all of the middle class, and the larger part of the upper class… The problem became so acute that in 1274 (at Lyons in southern France) and again in 1439 at the famous Council of Florence, Italy, religious union between the two churches was (temporarily) achieved, or at least signed. But the Byzantine people in general adamantly refused to accept these two councils. They insisted that since all five of the patriarchs were not present at both these councils (as Byzantine canon law demanded since no subsequent council had declared them to be "ecumenical" and since most Greeks believed the Byzantine delegates were coerced into acceptance, both Councils of Lyons and Florence were invalid. The Patriarch himself, followed by the vast bulk of the Greek populace, therefore refused to compromise his Orthodox beliefs by accepting papal jurisdiction as well as belief in the filioque and the azyma in order, presumably, to save the Empire. http://www.goarch.org/access/orthodoxfaith/fundamental_teachings.html THE THIRD PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY The Orthodox Church believes "in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of life" (Nicene Creed). The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, Who proceeds from the Father only (cf. John 15,26). The Church firmly opposed the opinion that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son, and pronounced the correct belief in the Nicene Creed at the Second Ecumenical Synod. The Orthodox Church does not phrase filioque, "and of the Son". According to the Scriptures, the Son Jesus Christ only sends the Holy Spirit in time, saying: "I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father" (John 15,26). It is evident from the Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only; this was the belief from the very beginning of the One Undivided Church. When the church in the West inserted the "filioque" phrase into the Creed, this innovation precipitated the Great Schism of the Undivided Church. The "filioque" phrase is an error. It is not found in the Scripture. It was not believed by the Undivided Church for eight centuries, including the church in the West. It introduces a strange teaching of a double procession of the Holy Spirit and refers to two origins of the Spirit's existence, thus denying the unity of the Godhead. (THE FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS of the Eastern Orthodox Church, A concise presentation of some fundamental teachings of Faith, Worship, Norms of Living and Principles of Administration of the Eastern Orthodox Church. By Rev. George Mastrantonis) The Councils A more substantive disagreement between Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox concerns the role of the pope and the ecumenical councils in the Church. Both sides are agreed that ecumenical councils have the ability to infallibly define doctrines, but a question arises concerning which councils are ecumenical. The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"--I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). Catholics recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven. Catholics recognize there as having been an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, however, the Eastern Orthodox close off the ecumenical councils in 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority since that time. One of the reasons the Eastern Orthodox have not claimed to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical. In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is "accepted by the Church" as such. But that test is unworkable: Any disputants who are not happy with the result of a council can simply point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the Church as a whole has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority. Chris: Now we now where anti-Protestant Mr Tan gets his idea that rebellion against authority does not mean no authority. Here, Catholic Answers use the same incredible argument – any disputant not happy with the conciliar decrees can use their own disagreement as evidence against the acceptance of the Council as ecumenical, so we cannot base the ecumenicity of a council on such disagreements. Simply incredible! Imagine George Bush tells Arafat and Sharon, "OK, this peace agreement is considered binding on all Palestinians and Israelis once both of you sign it." Let’s say Sharon signs it but Arafat doesn’t. Using Catholic Answers’ incredible logic, Sharon can now announce to the world that the peace pact is binding on all Palestinians and Israelis. Arafat may not be happy and refuses to sign, but that is his problem. This peace pact is authoritative and binding. After recovering from logical concussion, the history student will realise that the definition of an ecumenical council rests precisely on the acceptance of the decrees by both the East and West! An Ecumenical Council may be defined as a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world. It is not necessary to make a council ecumenical that the number of bishops present should be large, there were but 325 at Nice, and 150 at I Constantinople; it is not necessary that it should be assembled with the intention of its being ecumenical, such was not the case with I Constantinople; it is not necessary that all parts of the world should have been represented or even that the bishops of such parts should have been invited. All that is necessary is that its decrees find ecumenical acceptance afterwards, and its ecumenical character be universally recognized. The Seven Ecumenical Councils were all called together at the commandment and will of Princes; without any knowledge of the matter on the part of the Pope in one case at least (1st Constantinople); without any consultation with him in the case of I Nice, so far as we know; and contrary to his expressed desire in at least the case of Chalcedon, when he only gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had already convoked the synod. From this it is historically evident that Ecumenical Councils can be summoned without either the knowledge or consent of the See of Rome. For a council to be ecumenical, the five patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) must either be represented:, or that the decrees find acceptance with all. These five together are known as the Pentarchy: one Latin-speaking in the West, and four Greek-speaking in the East. The Eastern Orthodox has remained faithful to the concept of an ecumenical council. http://www.goarch.org/access/Companion_to_Orthodox_Church/dogmatic_tradition.html e) Later Councils The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Church of Christ. From this point of view, any general and major councils even after the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity [1054] may still be considered and called "ecumenical councils." However, in deference to the "ecumenical problem" and as a matter of pastoral prudence and strategy, the Church has not given the name "ecumenical" to Councils that do not represent the "undivided Church" of the Byzantine Empire. (The Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church. Rt. Rev. Maximos Aghiorgoussis, Th.D.) The authority of the Pope Since the Eastern Schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honor among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority. But the concept of a primacy of honor without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible. At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter's relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes his special mission to them and not simply honor among them. In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28-32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31-32). In John 21:15-17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"--in other words, is he more devoted to him than the other disciples? When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: "Feed my lambs" (22:15). Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as "these," as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of pastor (shepherd) over them. Again, a reference to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honor with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral discipline as well. Chris: The entire Church, including the East, since the first century has never accepted Rome’s claim to have universal jurisdiction. Even the early bishops of Rome never thought of themselves as such. It simply is untrue that the East only claim this after the Schism. Can the reader see how Catholic Answers prejudices the East? This is Catholic Answers history for you! John Meyendorff was a world renowned and highly respected Orthodox theologian, historian and patristics scholar. He was dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and Professor of Church History and Patristics. He gives the following explanation of Origen’s interpretation and of his influence on subsequent fathers in the East and West: Origen, the common source of patristic exegetical tradition, commenting on Matthew 16:18, interprets the famous logion as Jesus’ answer to Peter’s confession: Simon became the ‘rock’ on which the Church is founded because he expressed the true belief in the divinity of Christ. Origen continues: ‘If we also say "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," then we also become Peter...for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’ According to Origen, therefore, Peter is no more than the first ‘believer,’ and the keys he received opened the gates of heaven to him alone: if others want to follow, they can ‘imitate’ Peter and receive the same keys. Thus the words of Christ have a soteriological, but not an institutional, significance. They only affirm that the Christian faith is the faith expressed by Peter on the road to Caesarea Philippi. In the whole body of patristic exegesis, this is the prevailing understanding of the ‘Petrie’ logia, and it remains valid in Byzantine literature...Thus, when he spoke to Peter, Jesus was underlining the meaning of the faith as the foundation of the Church, rather than organizing the Church as guardian of the faith (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham, 1974), pp. 97-98). Meyendorff explains the meaning of Cyprian’s use of the phrase ‘chair of Peter’ and sums up the Cyprianic ecclesiology which was normative for the East as a whole: The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage, according to which the ‘see of Peter’ belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus ‘through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honors.’ Pseudo–Dionysius when he mentions the ‘hierarchs’—i.e., the bishops of the early Church—refers immediately to the image of Peter....Peter succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University, 1974), p. 98). Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as ‘successor of Peter’ in Carthage...For Cyprian, the ‘chair of Peter’, was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses ‘the power of the keys’ to remit sins. And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), pp. 61, 152). Yves Congar, the Roman Catholic theologian and historian, affirms the fact that the Eastern Fathers of the patristic age and afterwards did not hold to the view of an exclusive Petrine primacy at Rome. These are not the comments of a Protestant historian, but of one of the most eminent Roman Catholic theologians and historians of this century: Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion—we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch—but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. The same can be said of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene (Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University, 1959), pp. 61-62). It does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16–19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 398). It must be confessed that the consciousness of the Roman primacy was not expressed in the East at the period when the primacy became classically fixed in tradition, at least not with a clarity that alone could have avoided schism. In the great councils held in the East, there had never been a formula on the universal primacy by divine right...We do not find texts in the East as strong as those in the West; the rescripts of Theodore and of Valentinian II and Valentinian III concern the West. In a number of documents Rome is merely portrayed as an ecclesiastical and canonical court of first instance. In other texts, Rome is recognized as having the right as first See, of intervening to preserve the purity of doctrinal tradition, but not to regulate the life of the churches or to settle questions of discipline in the East. Finally—and to our mind this is the most important point—although the East recognized the primacy of Rome, it did not imply by this exactly what Rome herself did, so that, even within the question on which they were in agreement, there existed the beginning of a very serious estrangement bearing upon the decisive element of the ecclesiastical constitution and the rule of communion (Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University, 1959), pp. 61-62.) The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West...In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century...From the perspective of an ecclesiology which is not only theoretical but is also put into practice, we are confronted by two logics. The East remained oriented on the logic of local or particular churches in communion with one another in the unity of faith, love and eucharist; this unity was realized by means of exchanges and communications and then, when the need made itself felt, by the holding of a council. It was a unity of communion. The West, which Islam had cut off from North Africa, accepted the authority of the Roman see, and over the course of history Rome occupied an increasingly prominent place. It is a fact that the two gravest crises between Byzantium and Rome arose in times when the papal authority was affirmed most strongly: with Photius under Nicholas I and John VIII, and with Cerlularius at the time of the so-called Gregorian Reform (Nicholas II, Leo IX, Humbert, Gregory VII) (Yves Congar, Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty-Third, 1982), pp. 26-27) Pierre Batiffol likewise affirms the fact that the Eastern Church, historically, has never embraced the ecclesiology of Roman primacy: I believe that the East had a very poor conception of the Roman primacy. The East did not see in it what Rome herself saw and what the West saw in Rome, that is to say, a continuation of the primacy of St. Peter. The bishop of Rome was more than the successor of Peter on his cathedra, he was Peter perpetuated, invested with Peter’s responsibility and power. The East has never understood this perpetuity. St. Basil ignored it, as did St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. John Chrysostom. In the writings of the great Eastern Fathers, the authority of the Bishop of Rome is an authority of singular grandeur, but in these writings it is not considered so by divine right (Cited by Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University, 1959), pp. 61-62). Doesn’t it make you wonder where on earth did the folks at Catholic Answers study church history? Return to Topical Tract Page Return to Catholic Answers Home Page © 1996 Catholic Answers, Inc. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the copyright holder. Last modified May 25, 1996. Can Roman Catholic history be trusted? Let the reader decide. Christopher

to: "A Fine Example of Roman Catholic Apologists' History Writing (long but worthwhile)."

Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998,1999, 2000, 2001 Antioch Networks International. All Rights Reserved.
The Agora Forum is a registered trademark of Antioch Networks International.

Back to Antioch's Home Page
For more information, please send your request to: forumaster@antioch.com.sg.