Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Eastern Catholicism
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Feb 16, '12, 11:31 pm
Paul theApostle's Avatar
Paul theApostle Paul theApostle is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Posts: 1,949
Default What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

In the beginning the East used to appeal to Rome to settle disputes like St John chrysostom did

I guess a Russian or Serb Orth would appeal to Constantinople nowadays,but what if Patriach Bartholemew got exiled or wanted to appeal,what would he do?

can he still appeal to the Pope?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Feb 17, '12, 12:09 am
Nine_Two's Avatar
Nine_Two Nine_Two is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2009
Posts: 6,158
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

The Pope would have no standing. He and whatever other Church he had a disagreement with would decide on another church to help settle the dispute.

The idea that this is a power that is absolute does not exist in Orthodoxy. Churches often choose to go to him, but he does not have any ability to enforce his opinions on them until they do.
__________________
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Feb 17, '12, 1:19 am
Khalid's Avatar
Khalid Khalid is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2011
Posts: 2,366
Religion: Orthodox w/ Reformed tendencies. Fides quaerens intellectum.
Send a message via Skype™ to Khalid
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Yes, canonically, he could, based only on the interpretations of the first seven ecumenical councils, but he never would.

In any case, the "primus inter pares" of the "ecumenical" Patriarch isn't first among equals in any way except in some nebulous concept of honor (that is, there is no authority or any other concrete superiority attached to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which isn't that hard to see given that Constantinople is not an apostolic see): there is great ethnic strain, historically and today, between different patriarchates and individual EO churches, such as Russian v Greek. Communion is maintained, but relations are not always very friendly. I'm not sure, but I don't see a case happening where the Slav Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia would be appealing to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople.
__________________
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - II Timothy 2:15

Above all things Truth beareth away the victory: ... great is Truth, mighty above all things. - III Esdras 3:12,4:41
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Feb 17, '12, 3:10 am
Paul theApostle's Avatar
Paul theApostle Paul theApostle is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Posts: 1,949
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine_Two View Post
The Pope would have no standing. He and whatever other Church he had a disagreement with would decide on another church to help settle the dispute.

.
Even if he got exiled like Chrysostom and had nowhere else to go?

I think the Pope must have been an important figure in the beginning if he had power to settle big disputes in the church and problems in the East

Isnt it a loss now for the Orth/Eastern church to not have that person the Pope to settle disputes and problems?

Or say to confirm or validate(?) Ecumenical councils?

Can the Orthodox church function without the Pope who seemed to play an important hand in the early church?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Feb 17, '12, 4:19 am
Hesychios Hesychios is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 11,826
Religion: Olde fashioned Christian
Smile Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul theApostle View Post
Even if he got exiled like Chrysostom and had nowhere else to go?

I think the Pope must have been an important figure in the beginning if he had power to settle big disputes in the church and problems in the East
You are making a lot of assumptions here ...

First of all, appeals for adjudication from outside a synod were fairly common (in church time, which takes a long view) in the early church. It was a way of finding an impartial chair to help resolve disputes. So it usually was not the Pope but some neighboring prelate that was asked to judge. The thing is, the Pope did not have 'power' to resolve disputes in other churches, he was asked to help decide things which couldn't be resolved locally, but the local church would still have to 'make it happen'. Sometimes it was a matter of persuading the emperor, because it was going to involve evicting someone from their cathedral and home. Just like today when someone is illegally occupying a house has to be evicted, the county sheriff has to come in and do it, and some means has to be established to persuade the sheriff's department that they are doing this correctly and legally. The Pope (along with other voices) could be enlisted to help persuade the emperor to send soldiers to kick someone out and restore someone else.

Sometimes the Arians had all the persuasion with the government, but we don't think of them as having authority in our church either. When St Ambrose was bishop of Milan he was more persuasive than the bishop of Rome of his day, and he did his fair share of excommunicating other bishops.

There was a lot of incidents of people fleeing to one See or another to some third place (sometimes Rome) for support or protection, and this was cause for a lot of negotiations to restore harmony, but if one looks at the early canons one can see that this was actually uncanonical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul theApostle View Post
Isnt it a loss now for the Orth/Eastern church to not have that person the Pope to settle disputes and problems?
There was the recent case where the church of Jerusalem was having trouble removing their patriarch, and the EP convened some meetings of hierarchs which eventually decided to recognize the Jerusalem synods' new choice. The state of Israel was extremely unhappy with this development, but the synod moved on anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul theApostle View Post
Or say to confirm or validate(?) Ecumenical councils?
This is always done locally. Every synod has to confirm a council. The western church was just one of many which had this power for itself.

Thus (for example) when the Pope objected to the Canon 28 of the Coouncil of Chalcedon, it went into full force and effect anyway, the Pope really couldn't affect the outcome. He didn't have to like it. It was later restated in the Quinesext Council (which the Pope also did not recognize), and then finally the Pope reversed himself and accepted it as part of Canon 5 of the first Lateran Council. If the Pope doesn't approve something it doesn't mean his word is final, that is for the church at large to decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul theApostle View Post
Can the Orthodox church function without the Pope who seemed to play an important hand in the early church?
What do you think about it?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Feb 17, '12, 6:28 am
Paul theApostle's Avatar
Paul theApostle Paul theApostle is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Posts: 1,949
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post
What do you think about it?
I dont know how to explain it really but
from following alot of posts of Catholics here ,ive noticed they believe the EO lacks certain things

i cant recall them all or explain them either but ive seen many arguements from RCs regarding EO

some things about inconsistent practices or beliefs about divorce or contraception

lack of an authoritive figure or head figure to govern the church

howcome they havnt had any Ecum councils after the schism?


IF one believes in the RC position that the Pope is head pastor of entire church and all should be in union with him then i guess that makes EO outside of the that union with the head pastor which wouldnt be a good thing and i believe would make the EO defective IF the CC is 100% holy and true to the orthodox faith

but IF EO is the only true church as you all believe and RC is heretical than sure ,your church is/would be functioning fairly well i would say

but with these two equations ,it beats the **** out of me which one is the right one to believe or know

have a great day
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Feb 17, '12, 7:13 am
Hesychios Hesychios is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 11,826
Religion: Olde fashioned Christian
Smile Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul theApostle View Post
howcome they havnt had any Ecum councils after the schism?
The Orthodox have had a lot of Councils since the schism.

The term 'ecumenical' was used for the first seven becuse they were held for the church of the empire, essentially the imperial house. Thus they were called by the emperor for the church at large within the empire. Other churches outside the empire would be asked (and it was hoped) to attend if possible and otherwise approve of the work of those councils so that there might be harmony worldwide.

The church still holds councils but in fact the empire is gone, so to call it ecumenical would be something of a misnomer, and the Roman Catholic 'councils' are in fact mislabeled when they are called ecumenical. Recent Popes have sometimes used the more correct term of 'General Council of the West' to describe them (a term which was also appropriate to Arles).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul theApostle View Post
IF one believes in the RC position that the Pope is head pastor of entire church and all should be in union with him then i guess that makes EO outside of the that union with the head pastor which wouldnt be a good thing and i believe would make the EO defective IF the CC is 100% holy and true to the orthodox faith

but IF EO is the only true church as you all believe and RC is heretical than sure ,your church is/would be functioning fairly well i would say
The thing to remember here is that after the schism the Orthodox church did not have to reorganize itself, or how it's authority functions. It just kept doing what it always did.

Not even one new canon was needed. nobody had to say "gee, what do we do now?"

They didn't ask "who's going to name our bishops for us?"
nor "who's going to promote or transfer our bishops for us?"
nor "who's going to regulate our liturgy for us?"
nor "who's going to canonize our saints for us?"
nor "who's going to settle our disputes for us?"
nor "who's going to delineate our territories for us?"
nor "who's going to call our councils for us?"
nor "who's going to declare our dogmas for us?"
nor "who's going to keep our calendar of saints and observances for us?"
nor "who's going to regulate our institutes of religious life for us?"

They didn't ask these things because the Pope never controlled these things within their own authority. The Orthodox Eastern Catholic churches always took care of themselves and didn't change their modus operandi after the event.

But since that time a whole host of new canons was written in the west to describe the Papal prerogatives that were introduced later. One might think that if the papacy didn't need these canons before the schism they wouldn't need them after the schism either. But apparently the western church had to be educated about what the Popes are supposed to do, and perhaps the canons were composed for that purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul theApostle View Post
but with these two equations ,it beats the **** out of me which one is the right one to believe or know

have a great day
You have a great day too
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Feb 17, '12, 3:43 pm
Ignatios Ignatios is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2008
Posts: 594
Religion: Antiochian Orthodox
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post




The thing to remember here is that after the schism the Orthodox church did not have to reorganize itself, or how it's authority functions. It just kept doing what it always did.

Not even one new canon was needed. nobody had to say "gee, what do we do now?"

They didn't ask "who's going to name our bishops for us?"
nor "who's going to promote or transfer our bishops for us?"
nor "who's going to regulate our liturgy for us?"
nor "who's going to canonize our saints for us?"
nor "who's going to settle our disputes for us?"
nor "who's going to delineate our territories for us?"
nor "who's going to call our councils for us?"
nor "who's going to declare our dogmas for us?"
nor "who's going to keep our calendar of saints and observances for us?"
nor "who's going to regulate our institutes of religious life for us?"

They didn't ask these things because the Pope never controlled these things within their own authority. The Orthodox Eastern Catholic churches always took care of themselves and didn't change their modus operandi after the event.

But since that time a whole host of new canons was written in the west to describe the Papal prerogatives that were introduced later. One might think that if the papacy didn't need these canons before the schism they wouldn't need them after the schism either. But apparently the western church had to be educated about what the Popes are supposed to do, and perhaps the canons were composed for that purpose.

You have a great day too
Thank you brother Hesychios for this very valuable and indeed great points you brought up, I never looked at it from this corner, it is the most logical and indisputable evidence I ever saw, good work and May God bless you and all †††
__________________
Praise be to the LORD, the God of our fathers.
Then we cried out to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression.
May the LORD our God be with us as he was with our fathers; may he never leave us nor forsake us.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Feb 17, '12, 5:26 pm
Nine_Two's Avatar
Nine_Two Nine_Two is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2009
Posts: 6,158
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Excellent post Hesychios.
__________________
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Feb 17, '12, 10:41 pm
Sepp Sepp is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2011
Posts: 32
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post
Thus (for example) when the Pope objected to the Canon 28 of the Coouncil of Chalcedon, it went into full force and effect anyway, the Pope really couldn't affect the outcome. He didn't have to like it. It was later restated in the Quinesext Council (which the Pope also did not recognize), and then finally the Pope reversed himself and accepted it as part of Canon 5 of the first Lateran Council. If the Pope doesn't approve something it doesn't mean his word is final, that is for the church at large to decide.
This is certainly the situation as I had understood it, but I am no longer so sure after looking into the era more closely. The main problem for me is that we have a 5th century Pope (and saint) who believes that he has the authority to confirm or reject individual canons of a council. Regarding Canon 28, he says in a letter to the Empress:

Quote:
I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter.
And the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time appeared to accept that Leo had the authority to do so. In a letter to Pope Leo, he says (emphasis mine):

Quote:
As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.
I have only found the above quote in one source, and would like to find further testimony to it. In any case, it seems clear that Pope Leo claimed the power to ratify the decisions of the council for the entire Church, and those in the east were aware of this claim. What bothers me is this: if the Pope was truly innovating in claiming this authority, why did the other bishops not speak in unison against him?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Feb 17, '12, 11:05 pm
Nine_Two's Avatar
Nine_Two Nine_Two is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2009
Posts: 6,158
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sepp View Post
This is certainly the situation as I had understood it, but I am no longer so sure after looking into the era more closely. The main problem for me is that we have a 5th century Pope (and saint) who believes that he has the authority to confirm or reject individual canons of a council. Regarding Canon 28, he says in a letter to the Empress:



And the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time appeared to accept that Leo had the authority to do so. In a letter to Pope Leo, he says (emphasis mine):



I have only found the above quote in one source, and would like to find further testimony to it. In any case, it seems clear that Pope Leo claimed the power to ratify the decisions of the council for the entire Church, and those in the east were aware of this claim. What bothers me is this: if the Pope was truly innovating in claiming this authority, why did the other bishops not speak in unison against him?
That quote sounds quite suspect. I'd be interested to see it with a source.

As to why no one spoke up, because peace within the Church was so highly valued, no one wished to shake the boat, especially at a time like that. Unfortunately they could not foresee what would come of it.
__________________
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Feb 18, '12, 11:49 am
Sepp Sepp is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2011
Posts: 32
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine_Two View Post
That quote sounds quite suspect. I'd be interested to see it with a source.
I found it on a number of sites, but all seem to go back to an essay by the Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore. I've found his essay in a few places, and he lists the quote as coming from "Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132" I am feebly attempting to track it down further, but if anyone here can help it would be appreciated.

There is also a reference to it at the CCEL site. At first glance, this lends some support to the idea that the quote is genuine: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf....iv.cxxvi.html

Quote:
As to why no one spoke up, because peace within the Church was so highly valued, no one wished to shake the boat, especially at a time like that. Unfortunately they could not foresee what would come of it.
I just find this hard to accept based on my reading of the history. The Patriarch of Constantinople is frequently criticized by other churches for his far more modest claims today. Any modern bishop claiming such authority as Leo claims here would be, at the very least, sternly rebuked. I can't conceive of the bishops of the 5th century (who were no strangers to dealing with heresy) allowing such a serious innovation to go unchallenged. It seems more probable to me that they were silent because they were not scandalized by Leo's claims.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Feb 18, '12, 12:06 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,597
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine_Two View Post
That quote sounds quite suspect. I'd be interested to see it with a source.

As to why no one spoke up, because peace within the Church was so highly valued, no one wished to shake the boat, especially at a time like that. Unfortunately they could not foresee what would come of it.
George C. Michalopulos writes:
Unfortunately, this did not end the controversy. Bishops in Egypt and Syria remained defiant and the first schism in Christianity occurred, resulting in the installation of two rival popes in Alexandria, one clinging to the monophysite doctrine, the other upholding the Chalcedonian view. (The schism, along with the dual papacy of Alexandria survives to this day). In addition, one of the council’s canons (28), likewise had a lingering effect, some of which we are dealing with at present. According to the official acta of the council, twenty-seven canons were officially recognized. Sometime later, three additional canons were furtively inserted but one of these, Canon 28, was hastily removed on order from Pope Leo upon the recommendations of his legates, who coincidentally were not present when this particular canon was drafted. For several centuries thereafter, no more mention was made of Canon 28 and the following ones, 29 and 30 respectively, were viewed as commentary upon other canons and not as canons in and of themselves.
As for the offending canon, its verbiage was certainly troubling in that it elevated Archbishop Anatolius of Constantinople to patriarchal status and confusingly, made him overlord of three autocephalous metropolitan sees (Asia, Thrace, and Pontus). Both actions were unsettling to say the least.
http://www.aoiusa.org/2009/09/canon-...use-or-effect/
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Feb 18, '12, 12:34 pm
Nine_Two's Avatar
Nine_Two Nine_Two is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2009
Posts: 6,158
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sepp View Post
I just find this hard to accept based on my reading of the history. The Patriarch of Constantinople is frequently criticized by other churches for his far more modest claims today. Any modern bishop claiming such authority as Leo claims here would be, at the very least, sternly rebuked. I can't conceive of the bishops of the 5th century (who were no strangers to dealing with heresy) allowing such a serious innovation to go unchallenged. It seems more probable to me that they were silent because they were not scandalized by Leo's claims.
In the modern age it isn't all that surprising though, we know what comes from such claims.

Alexandria, Constantinople, and even Moscow today hold titles made in another era that would be unacceptable to claim now.
__________________
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Feb 18, '12, 5:17 pm
Khalid's Avatar
Khalid Khalid is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2011
Posts: 2,366
Religion: Orthodox w/ Reformed tendencies. Fides quaerens intellectum.
Send a message via Skype™ to Khalid
Default Re: What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

If you can find it today, read "Russia and the Universal Church" written by Vladimir Soloviev.
__________________
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - II Timothy 2:15

Above all things Truth beareth away the victory: ... great is Truth, mighty above all things. - III Esdras 3:12,4:41
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Eastern Catholicism

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8481Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: SueZee
5153CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4429Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: daughterstm
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3864SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3763Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3334Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3288Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3227Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3118For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: SueZee



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:13 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.