Why did none of the other sees side with Rome during Schism?

My knowledge of history is shabby but I was curious about this and wanted to ask… during the East-West schism with the conflict between Rome and Constantinople, if Rome was correct and if it was the primal/supremal See, then why did not any of the other sees side with Rome?

Then it seems like Rome is it’s own witness whereas the East seems to belong to Christ’s promise that ‘where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them’. Please explain to me this. Thanks.

Most did. There are over 20 Eastern Sees in full communion with Rome (and under the ultimate authority of the Pope). These are sometimes called the Eastern Catholic Churches, although I have been told this is not technically correct.

Their Bishops participate in Ecumenical Councils (and vote) alongside their Latin brothers.

This is the argument that the Eastern Orthodox oftentimes give to support their view that although the other sees did recognize a primacy of honor for Rome, they did not recognize the jurisdictional supremacy of Rome.

Because Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were all Greek.

The East-West split did not start in 1054, but many centuries earlier, probably most truly beginning when the Roman church switched from Latin to Greek in about the second century. A lot of people on both sides did not read the other side’s language, and texts were not being printed and circulated in many copies as they are now. With limited communication between the two halves of the Empire, differences grew and evolved without anyone really noticing them, and then certain events merely highlighted the chasm which had grown between the two sides.

Throw in the ethnic and political differences, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I mainly want to just observe this thread… and maybe some questions

Side with Rome regarding what?

Then it seems like Rome is it’s own witness whereas the East seems to belong to Christ’s promise that ‘where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them’. Please explain to me this. Thanks.

Did He mean majority rules? Did Peter not receive the keys individually, in front of the rest?

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Byzantium and the Roman Primacy

by Francis Dvornik

The many polemic writings issued in the East and in the West from the eleventh century, denying or defending the primary position of the Roman Bishop, have, so far, failed to produce the desired effect on either side. Mutual distrust caused mostly by political divisions and the different development of the Church’s organization in East and West, manifested particularly from the eleventh century on, have often embittered the minds of the controversialists and prevented the faithful on both sides from considering the problem without prejudice.

Instead of repeating all the known arguments pro and contra, let us try the historical method and examine the position which the Byzantine Church took on this problem from earliest times on up to the period when the estrangement between the Eastern and Western parts of mediaeval Christianity became apparent and began to envenom the atmosphere in which the Churches had to live.

Rocks_91 31
during the East-West schism with the conflict between Rome and Constantinople, if Rome was correct and if it was the primal/supremal See, then why did not any of the other sees side with Rome?

As Dr Warren Carroll has pointed out in The Building of Christendom, 1987, (Vol. 2 of A History of Christendom), p 365, note 80: “There can be no reasonable doubt that St Athanasius as Patriarch of Alexandria and St John Chrysostom as Patriarch of Constantinople fully recognised and accepted Papal primacy (Chapters 1 & 3).”

Not only does ecumenical mean universal but the fact that the Orthodox choose to limit themselves to 7 Ecumenical Councils merely defines the limitations of their own choosing which extends to Papal primacy and infallibility. Further regressions from doctrine are expressed in the Orthodox rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and permitting divorce, remarriage and contraception.

Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant
by John Burger 11/23/2010

Seewald also brought up a question in regard to the declaration Dominus Iesus, and the Holy Father simply said that it’s too complex an issue to deal with in the setting of the interview.

In that discussion about unity with the Orthodox, Sewald asks, “Will Pope Benedict restructure the papacy in order to foster the unity of Christianity?” The Holy Father corrects Seewald in his interpretation of the phrase “First among equals” applying to the successor of St. Peter. He says it is not the formula we believe as Catholics and adds, “The pope has specific functions and tasks. … The question (for the Orthodox) is precisely whether the pope has specific tasks or not.” What tasks is he speaking of?

The pope is the principal and foundation of the unity of the Church. That can’t be carried out by a group of people. That is the function of Peter as the head of the apostolic college, the Prince of the Apostles. To put it very plainly, that’s the first task. He is the bishop of the universal Church, and it’s a difficult point for the Orthodox to accept, but one can’t be faithful to Catholic teaching and say that the Roman pontiff is simply one more patriarch. No, he has a service to unite all — all the patriarchs, all the particular churches into one. And that involves a direct and universal governance.
ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-what-the-pope-really-meant/

785. I know very little about Eastern Rite Churches separated from Rome and would like to know at least something of them.
The Catholic Church has to conduct her ecumenical activities on two fronts, one with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the other with the various Protestant Churches of Western Christendom. Normally, English-speaking Catholics are more in contact with the latter and correspondingly unfamiliar with Eastern Orthodoxy. The first thing to be noted is that not all Eastern Rite Churches are separated from Rome. There are about twenty groups of Eastern Orthodox Churches existing as national Churches in a state of separation from Rome and independently of one another as regards authority or jurisdiction. So we have the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Syrian, or Russian, or Rumanian, or Bulgarian, etc. As contrasted with these twenty separated groups, there are nine or ten different Eastern Rite Churches which are in union with Rome, acknowledging Papal Supremacy. These are popularly spoken of as the “Uniate Eastern Churches” and members of them are recognised by the Pope as Catholics every bit as much as Western or Latin Rite members of the Catholic Church.
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=15&n=787

It is my understanding that the See of Antioch did not break Communion with Rome, at least not when the others did. When the Patriarch of Constantinople sent an epistle announcing the supposed errors of Rome, the Patriarch of Antioch wrote him back, saying:

“I beg you, I implore you, and in spirit I embrace your sacred feet and entreat your Divine Beatitude to give way and to accommodate itself to circumstances. For it is to be feared that you, in trying to heal these differences, may only make a schism, which is worse, and that in trying to lift them up you may cause a great calamity… I would not ask for more than the correction of the Creed… Consider what would certainly happen if that great first and Apostolic See be divided from our holy Churches – wickedness would spread everywhere, and the whole world would be upset, the kingdoms of all the earth would be shaken, everywhere would be much woe, everywhere tears.”

(The original Greek of the above document with a Latin translation can be found here at paragraph 21. Some selections are translated into English here.)

Then it seems like Rome is it’s own witness whereas the East seems to belong to Christ’s promise that ‘where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them’. Please explain to me this. Thanks.

I think that passage is being misapplied. One reason is, I do not think Jesus was referring to two or three patriarchal sees being infallible, but two or three individual bishops having authority to make some decisions in their local churches when they gather in council together.

Moreover, it is my understanding that Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem all left communion with Rome during the Acacian Schism, but that both the East and the West now acknowledge that Rome was right all along. So I think there is precedent for Rome being right while all the other Sees are wrong.

And when the four other patriarchies did leave Communion with Rome, I don’t think that left Rome by itself. Lots of bishops are under Rome other than the four other patriarchs, and lots of ancient metropolitan sees are under Rome too, such as the See of Lyons, the See of Seville, and the See of Milan. So even when the four other patriarchs left, it is my understanding that Rome still had the majority of the Christian world on its side.

Please let me know if that helps. God bless!

I was surprise to learn that St. Augustine wasn’t translated into Greek until the late Middle Ages.

  My patron saint didn't accept the Immaculate Conception either but is a doctor of the Church, though he would have accepted the papal definition immediately. It did require some 600 years for the doctrine to be infallibly confirmed. 
 With contraception, the vast majority of Catholics were sure that it was going to be permitted to married couples under certain circumstances and Blessed Paul VI countered the nearly universal expectation.The Orthodox forbid abortifacients but do allow some use of other means provided t they aren't used for self-indulgence.

This can be used as an example of how the use of papal authority, first to remove the question from Conciliar consideration and then confine it to the work of a commission, and then to counter the commission’s re ommendations, can be counterproductive. Yes, Paul VI was prophetic - but the prophet was not listened to in his own See, even by collaborators from the Council.
The Orthodox method appeals more to my innate conservatism - prudence and plodding are sometimes better weapons than prophetic authoritative utterances - but sometimes divine audacity is needed, a Peter who will jump out onto the waves.

Which make up less than 0.5% of the Catholic Church. The rest is Latin Rite.

CarmelJerome #10
With contraception…This can be used as an example of how the use of papal authority, first to remove the question from Conciliar consideration and then confine it to the work of a commission, and then to counter the commission’s re ommendations, can be counterproductive. Yes, Paul VI was prophetic - but the prophet was not listened to in his own See, even by collaborators from the Council.

First, the infallible condemnation of contraception, against the capitulation by the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference in 1930 which broke the consensus of all Christian sects with the Catholic Church against contraception, was by Pope Pius XI who teaches “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” Casti Connubii, 56, 1930].

The only reason for the Commission study was to offer reasons as to whether the new chemical – “the Pill” – was morally acceptable for use. There was nothing “counter-productive” except the defiance against the Magisterium of some Commission members, of whom two were friends of mine.

The most neutral answer one can possibly give is that there was a large cultural divide, which only continued to get wider. Any detailed answer beyond such would probably be insufficient. If you wish to look into the history of the matter, then I suggest you find a library that can get you the listed materials below. I’ve posted this list in another thread before, but I think it would helpful to you if you really want to find a satisfactory answer. Someone here as already given you the title of a great book by Francis Dvornik. I’ve listed the works below in the suggested reading order. The books and articles highlighted in blue are those that specifically concern the schism, should you choose to read only them. The others merely highlight the development of the Latin Church, which I deem equally important.

1.) Noble, Thomas F. X. “The Christian Church as an Institution.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity, 3: Early Medieval Christianities, c. 600 - c. 1100. Edited by Thomas Noble and Julia Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

2.) Noble, Thomas F. X. “Michele Maccarrone on the Medieval Papacy.” Catholic Historical Review 80, no. 3 (1994): 518-533.

3.) Noble, Thomas F. X. “Morbidity and Vitality in the History of the Early Medieval Papacy.” The Catholic Historical Review 81, no. 4 (Oct. 1995), 505-540.

4.) Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.

5.) Dvornik, Francis. Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. New York: Fordham University Press, 1966. Corrected edition, 1979.

6.) Gallagher, Clarence. “Diversity in Unity: Approaches to Church Order in Rome and Byzantium.” Ecclesiastical Law Journal: The Journal of the Ecclesiastical Law Society 6, no. 30 (2002): 208-238.

7.) Herrin, Judith. “The Pentarchy: Theory and Reality in the Ninth Century.” In Cristianità d’Occidente e cristianità d’Oriente (secoli VI-XI) : 24-30 aprile 2003. Spoleto, Italy: Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2004. 591-628.

8.) Noble, Thomas F. X. “The Intellectual Culture of the Early Medieval Papacy.” Roma nell’Alto Medioevo, 27 aprile - 1 maggio 2000. Spoleto, Italy: Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 48. 2001. 179-213.

9.) Meyendorff, John. Imperial Unity and Christian Division: The Church, 450-680 A.D. Crestwood, NY: St. Valdimir’s Seminary Press, 1992.

10.) Runciman, Steven. The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XIth and XIIth Cenuturies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.

11.) Grant, Ken. “A Divine Mandate: Pope Gregory VII’s Defense of Papal Authority.” In Authorities in the Middle Ages: Influence, Legitimacy, and Power in Medieval Society. Edited by Sini Kangas et al. 2013. 39-54. ISBN 978-3-11-029449-1

12.) Eldevik, John. Episcopal Power and Ecclesiastical Reform in the German Empire: Tithes, Lordship, and Community, 950-1150. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

I realize this is a lot, but considering that your question is not a small one, it does not hurt to be too informed. Most of these works, of course, cover the Middle Ages. I do not know the religious affiliation of Thomas Noble, Judith Herrin, Clarence Gallagher, Ken Grant, Steven Runciman, or John Eldevik. They seem to keep such personal matters out of their work. Gallagher though is a theologian of some sort I imagine. Francis Dvornik was a Catholic priest. His work is good, but it is clear that he does have an agenda. John Meyendorff was an Orthodox theologian, who wrote a lot on church history and patristics. I picked his book precisely because Thomas Noble said it was good and recommended it in one of his footnotes.

Steven Runciman is dead, but he was a highly respected Mediterranean historian for his time. Thomas Noble is a Carolingian historian who tends to focus on papal Rome during the Early Middle Ages. Judith Herrin is now retired, but she is probably one of the most respected Byzantine historians in the field right now. Ken Grant and John Eldevik are historians. I can testify to the quality of John Eldevik’s work, but it is daunting despite its relatively short length.

I’ve listed these in the order I think you should read them. #1 is fairly easy to read. #2 is essentially a book review and summary of a history that is written only in Italian sadly. #3 is the most important thing to read before going any further down the list. You must not skip it. Although it is 20 years old, Noble gives you a basic summary of all the historical work regarding the papacy. His concerns about it, and vision for expanding the work are very much applicable to this day. It will help you understand the rest of what you read. John Eldevik’s book will be the most difficult for you to read probably, which is why it is last. It also covers the latest time frame on this list. All the books and articles here basically cover the fourth century AD to 1200 AD. I focused on this period, because sadly we have very few sources that can illuminate much on the Roman primacy. They can be interpreted either way because they are so vague. The Late Antique Period, the Early Middle Ages, and the High Middle Ages are the places where you are most likely to find your answer.

P.S. Despite some of these works being in foreign language essay collections, all of them are written in English.

:clapping:
Well, I’m impressed.
Is anyone else impressed?
I’m impressed.
:clapping:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.