I have read a nice book on the idea of Church (and of papacy) in the past (by a greek, J. Spiteris, not available in English).
So I checked the real motivations that leaded the EO to reject the papal autorities.
A part from lots of addivtive motivations (like the filioque or the theory of 5 patriarchs) there were two real motivations:
- the first is the role of any bishop: reading the letters of Ioannes X Camateros to Innocent III, we can almost say that the Costantinople patriarch was more right than the pope. Anyway this is NO more a actual cause of un-agreement because the CC in the councils of Trent and CVII had really changed direction, and now there is no proplem to understand the strict link between bishop and his church.
- the other motivation is extremly interesting and probably it the actual cause of the rejecting of the papacy: it is the role of the Bizantium Emperator: I believe that present EO shall check their history to realize that.
When Costantine splitted in two the Empire, re-founded Costantinople, he also desired to unit the Church, and so it was.
Please consider the structure of the Bizantine Empire (320-1453): by first it covered ALL the civil world and it had to have ONE Church (no mind if arian, nestorian or iconoclast: the important was to be one).
And the Emperator was the Head of the Church:
- he named and installed the Patriarch (or rejected the patriarch)
- he convoced the councils and approved the acts
- any people had to prostrate in front of him
- his icons (of the living emerator) were take in procession
- he was considered not a lay-people (even if not ordained): ad instance he could go back te iconostasis, he could preach and give blessings
- his power and his legittimy came by God (and of course he had illimitate powers)
- he used the title of "VICAR of CHRIST"
In fact there was: "One Civil World, One Empire, One Emperator, One Church".
What about the West? on history books we read that the western Roman Empire felt down on 476, but that was not the feeling of the people in such a time. In fact Bisanzium Empire went on considering the West as a part of the empire, even if they had no more power (wel, Bari in Italy was bizantine till 1181).
It was extremly clear that the Bizantine gave the first place to Rome NOT because Rome was the see of Peter, but ONLY because Rome was the first capital of the Roman Empire (you shall always remember that the Bizantine Empire WAS at 100% the Roman Empire)
And the pope? in the V-VIII the pope was the bishop of a very poor city, in a desolated country: he had the title of first between the bishops because his town (poor and desolated) was Rome: but in fact any decision were taken in Bisantium, and so this situation was not a issue for the unity of the Empire (and of the Church)
Bizantines got very upset when the pope crowen Charles Magnus on 800: the saw the bishop of Rome to have betrayed the Empire and the Emperator to a barbarian King who had the haeteur to call himself Roman Emperator (each time you read in EO texts the pejorative word 'francs' to indicate the western people, that is the cause)
Historically from 800 to about 1050 the pope was submitted by Western Emperators, but later the pope start a haevy fight for indipendence: that was something of incredible for such a time: to separe the Church from the Empire (well, actually to put the Church over the Empire): and so the pope highlighted that his power came from Peter, not from the (Western) Emperator.
When the papacy explained the this understandind to the East, the Bizantines could NOT accepted it: they had already a "Vicar of Christ": the Emperator !
The pope, as Head of the Church, as Vicar of Christ was if direct competition with the Eperator: more: the papacy was broking the base idea of the East: One Civil World, One Empire, One Emperator, One Church.
What happened later? we know the story: the Bizantium Empire crashed, not mainly by the Turks, but for intenal problems. The West did not helped. A new spirituality growed in the East: the esicasm, that had as effect a 'quietism': not to mind the Church as part of the Empire, but reced in monastries.
And the "One Civil World, One Empire, One Emperator, One Church"? This undestanding went on in Russia, that so was called "the Third Rome". This explain the incredibol nationalism of the Church of Russia (and so the problem with the unitates).
So I checked the real motivations that leaded the EO to reject the papal autorities.
A part from lots of addivtive motivations (like the filioque or the theory of 5 patriarchs) there were two real motivations:
- the first is the role of any bishop: reading the letters of Ioannes X Camateros to Innocent III, we can almost say that the Costantinople patriarch was more right than the pope. Anyway this is NO more a actual cause of un-agreement because the CC in the councils of Trent and CVII had really changed direction, and now there is no proplem to understand the strict link between bishop and his church.
- the other motivation is extremly interesting and probably it the actual cause of the rejecting of the papacy: it is the role of the Bizantium Emperator: I believe that present EO shall check their history to realize that.
When Costantine splitted in two the Empire, re-founded Costantinople, he also desired to unit the Church, and so it was.
Please consider the structure of the Bizantine Empire (320-1453): by first it covered ALL the civil world and it had to have ONE Church (no mind if arian, nestorian or iconoclast: the important was to be one).
And the Emperator was the Head of the Church:
- he named and installed the Patriarch (or rejected the patriarch)
- he convoced the councils and approved the acts
- any people had to prostrate in front of him
- his icons (of the living emerator) were take in procession
- he was considered not a lay-people (even if not ordained): ad instance he could go back te iconostasis, he could preach and give blessings
- his power and his legittimy came by God (and of course he had illimitate powers)
- he used the title of "VICAR of CHRIST"
In fact there was: "One Civil World, One Empire, One Emperator, One Church".
What about the West? on history books we read that the western Roman Empire felt down on 476, but that was not the feeling of the people in such a time. In fact Bisanzium Empire went on considering the West as a part of the empire, even if they had no more power (wel, Bari in Italy was bizantine till 1181).
It was extremly clear that the Bizantine gave the first place to Rome NOT because Rome was the see of Peter, but ONLY because Rome was the first capital of the Roman Empire (you shall always remember that the Bizantine Empire WAS at 100% the Roman Empire)
And the pope? in the V-VIII the pope was the bishop of a very poor city, in a desolated country: he had the title of first between the bishops because his town (poor and desolated) was Rome: but in fact any decision were taken in Bisantium, and so this situation was not a issue for the unity of the Empire (and of the Church)
Bizantines got very upset when the pope crowen Charles Magnus on 800: the saw the bishop of Rome to have betrayed the Empire and the Emperator to a barbarian King who had the haeteur to call himself Roman Emperator (each time you read in EO texts the pejorative word 'francs' to indicate the western people, that is the cause)
Historically from 800 to about 1050 the pope was submitted by Western Emperators, but later the pope start a haevy fight for indipendence: that was something of incredible for such a time: to separe the Church from the Empire (well, actually to put the Church over the Empire): and so the pope highlighted that his power came from Peter, not from the (Western) Emperator.
When the papacy explained the this understandind to the East, the Bizantines could NOT accepted it: they had already a "Vicar of Christ": the Emperator !
The pope, as Head of the Church, as Vicar of Christ was if direct competition with the Eperator: more: the papacy was broking the base idea of the East: One Civil World, One Empire, One Emperator, One Church.
What happened later? we know the story: the Bizantium Empire crashed, not mainly by the Turks, but for intenal problems. The West did not helped. A new spirituality growed in the East: the esicasm, that had as effect a 'quietism': not to mind the Church as part of the Empire, but reced in monastries.
And the "One Civil World, One Empire, One Emperator, One Church"? This undestanding went on in Russia, that so was called "the Third Rome". This explain the incredibol nationalism of the Church of Russia (and so the problem with the unitates).