Why are the Orthodox being taught this? [Moved from OBOB]

I have never heard anyone but reactionary schismatics, who are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, to state such things about the Pope. (I have been an active Orthodox Christian for over half a century.) Oriental Orthodox are not reactionary schismatics, but I must state that I have never heard any of them say such inflammatory things either. Although it will not be of much comfort to you, please know that these schismatics also say wretched things about our Patriarchs and Bishops.

That is an actual quote, but it does not mean what non-Catholic apologists want it to mean. Here is the original letter it is from:

CHURCH FATHERS: Registrum Epistolarum, Book V, Letter 21 (Gregory the Great)

But, one must also read a previous letter on the same topic, found here:

CHURCH FATHERS: Registrum Epistolarum, Book V, Letter 20 (Gregory the Great)

Notice, in the context, the title "universal bishop" means that there is only one true bishop, with all the others simply being vicars of the universal bishop. Notice, this is not Catholic teaching. From Leo XIII's encyclical Satis Cognitum:

14. But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also "chose, twelve, whom He called apostles" (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.

Click to expand...

Note, St. Gregory does not deny his own universal jurisdiction and ministry to the whole Church, in fact he affirms it strongly when dealing with this very controversy with John the Faster (from the second letter linked above):

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, do you love Me? Feed My sheep John 21:17. To him it is said, Behold Satan has desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not. And thou, when you are converted, strengthen your brethren Luke 22:31. To him it is said, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven Matthew 16:18.


Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!

Click to expand...

Obviously, what was meant by "universal bishop" in the context of this controversy is not the same as the Petrine ministry understood by the Catholic Church then or now.

This is a good discussion to have right now, for me, at least.

I am taking a church history course (Catholic) and we have obviously been following the development of the office of the papacy. It has become very clear to me that the issue is not as cut and dry as I used to think (and was told, as a Catholic). I'm not sure how it makes me feel. Confused, I suppose.

I think oftentimes that we as Catholics due the complexity of this issue a great injustice by suggesting that everything is and has always been so clear-cut.

nvm, I found it

Gwendolyn said:

This is a good discussion to have right now, for me, at least.

I am taking a church history course (Catholic) and we have obviously been following the development of the office of the papacy. It has become very clear to me that the issue is not as cut and dry as I used to think (and was told, as a Catholic). I'm not sure how it makes me feel. Confused, I suppose.

I think oftentimes that we as Catholics due the complexity of this issue a great injustice by suggesting that everything is and has always been so clear-cut.

Click to expand...

i would say that the office of the pope has been over exagerated because of the east west schism, the Church had the patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. but then when the schism happened, the west only had the Bishop of Rome, it only made sense that the office would be built up a little bit at the time, also the political instability in the west in the middle ages caused for the office of the Pope to become exagerated. but i believe that the Church is getting a much more balanced view of the Papacy

The other key thing to remember is that the Pope is not in hostile territory. The Pope is able to travel freely, he has the beautiful St. Peter's Basilica to celebrate the Mass in, and to can greet his faithful.

I don't know if any of you saw the 60 Minutes interview with His All Holiness Bartholomew, but his headquarters are not anything spectacular. He cannot travel freely, he lives in a country that is hostile to his faith, and basically wants him dead.

So politically speaking, the Ecumenical Patriarch is weaker because Constantinople is not the great power that she once was.

Not only is the EP in hostile territory, but so is the Jeruselum Patriarch, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Antioch. And it is only within the past 20 years that the Moscow Patriarch has come out of hostile territory.

So I think that because the Patriarchs of Orthodoxy are in these situations, and the current Pope of Rome is politically strong, people assume it was always that way.

Constantinople was once the powerhouse of all of Christendom and the world (prior to the schism). There used to be over 80 clergy to serve communion on Sunday at the Church of Hagia Sophia during the time of St. John Chrysostom because so many people came for Divine Liturgy. They had to have two choirs take turns singing during the Liturgy so that one would not get too worn out. The Emperor Himself used to ride in on a horse.

But alas, those are days gone by.

The Church of Hagia Sophia was turned into a Mosque after the fall of Constantinople and is currently a Museum.

It is natural that most people think that the schism which divided the Church came in 1054 and thereabouts; five hundred years later than the first schism.

After 451 the Great Church was plunged into turmoil by the refusal of parts of the East to accept the Council of Chalcedon's definition of the two natures of Christ. Although attempts were made to prevent schism, they had not succeeded when the forces of Islam emerged from the Arabian desert; within half a century Egypt, Palestine and Syria were under Muslim rule; they remain so to this day. After the 650s there were, effectively only two free historic patriachates - Rome and Constantinople.

The former was the more historic See, the latter not having been a See until the 320s. Rome was the place where the martyrs St. Peter and St. Paul were buried. It had been a centre of the Faith when Byzantium was a trading post. It was recognised as having a primacy of honour.

But Constantinople was the centre of Imperial Government by the fifth century. It had the emperor. It had the riches that came with being the Imperial capital. Not unnaturally, it tended to see itself as the most important city in the world.

Rome spoke Latin. Constantinople, Greek. By the fifth century this was beginning to matter, since the old tradition of speaking Greek in Rome was dying out, whilst Latin was not much used in Constantinople. Some of the linguistic problems this could cause were apparent at Chalcedon, where Leo's Tome needed to be translated into Greek, at which point some of the Eastern Fathers thought that it sounded a little Nestorian in its definition of the two natures; in Latin the meaning is clear; the Greek translation was less clear.

All of these things created difficulties within Christendom. The Bishop of Rome had to maintain his position without any imperial army at his back. Leo the Great showed what could be done by facing down Attila the Hun by faith alone. But both he, and his successors, stressed the Petrine claims as the basis for their authority. In the East these claims were sometimes read as claiming the authority of a 'universal bishop'; but as Gregory the Great shows, this was not what Rome was saying.

Many volumes have been written on the reasons for the 1054 schism. what remains true is that after that date the East and the West developed in different ways. Some Orthodox, like some Protestants, have a view of the Papacy which matches what their Churches perceive to have happened; this they receive on trust. The accuracy seems clear to those who read what Orthodox writers write; but of of course, if they held the Catholic view, they'd be Catholics!

One of the best books I've read on all of this is by a Dominican Monk, Fr. Adrian Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches (1992). It is amazingly well-balanced, and I have yet to read a book by an Orthodox author which is half as fair to the Catholic side as Fr. Adrian is to the Orthodox side. If you can pick it up on the Internet, I heartily recommend it. Fr. Adrian wrote his doctorate on Orthodox theology and has a thorough knowledge of it.

peace,

Anglian

Anglian, your posts are always a blessing, thank you

Dear Rhamiel,

Thank you

So often what Orthodox know about Catholics they are taught from their own tradition, which I have found has less than a sufficient understanding of what the Catholic Church really holds. The issue of Papal Infallibility is one which few grasp. I know it is complex, but, and I am speaking only of my own OOC, some do not wish to hear that what they thought was not so.

peace,

Anglian

QuantaCura said:

That is an actual quote, but it does not mean what non-Catholic apologists want it to mean. Here is the original letter it is from:

CHURCH FATHERS: Registrum Epistolarum, Book V, Letter 21 (Gregory the Great)

But, one must also read a previous letter on the same topic, found here:

CHURCH FATHERS: Registrum Epistolarum, Book V, Letter 20 (Gregory the Great)

Notice, in the context, the title "universal bishop" means that there is only one true bishop, with all the others simply being vicars of the universal bishop. Notice, this is not Catholic teaching. From Leo XIII's encyclical Satis Cognitum:

Note, St. Gregory does not deny his own universal jurisdiction and ministry to the whole Church, in fact he affirms it strongly when dealing with this very controversy with John the Faster (from the second letter linked above):

Obviously, what was meant by "universal bishop" in the context of this controversy is not the same as the Petrine ministry understood by the Catholic Church then or now.

Click to expand...

thanks for this info

to me it all comes down to Peter being the 'rock'. I've never seen a good argument against that. Especially as related to Isaiah.

Eucharisted said:

I found this so-called "quote" from Pope Gregory the Great:

Click to expand...

So did I

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop...

"Thou Art Peter" - Ecumenical Relations in the Orthodox Church

Full of Grace and Truth: St Gregory Dialogos, the Pope of Rome

(Type a title for your page here)

Pope St. Gregory I ("the Great"), Born 540 A.D., died 12 March 604 A.D., Doctor of the Church

Beliefnet Discussions - Beliefnet.com

Quoting A Roman. Bishop -- Gregory The Great - Gospel Guardian vol.6, no.27, pg.2-3b

surely more than two?

Eucharisted said:

I've seen some lies on Orthodox websites about Catholic doctrine (saying we buy souls out of Purgatory, saying we sell New Age artwork, etc.)

Click to expand...

I thought you did.

Anglian said:

So often what Orthodox know about Catholics they are taught from their own tradition, which I have found has less than a sufficient understanding of what the Catholic Church really holds. The issue of Papal Infallibility is one which few grasp. I know it is complex, but, and I am speaking only of my own OOC, some do not wish to hear that what they thought was not so.

Click to expand...

I'd find it odd for an OO who wants to be Catholic speaks for most Orthodox about what Orthodox think of Catholics!

(whispers) dont let them in your head

(whispers) dont lt them in your head

the enemy at the gate says 'no pope' Jesus says "Pope" Jesus said Church (not churches) and nothing would prevail against it

please dont call Jesus a liar

BAFRIEND said:

(whispers) dont let them in your head

(whispers) dont lt them in your head

the enemy at the gate says 'no pope' Jesus says "Pope" Jesus said Church (not churches) and nothing would prevail against it

please dont call Jesus a liar

Click to expand...

Huh?

Montalban said:

So did I

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop...

"Thou Art Peter" - Ecumenical Relations in the Orthodox Church

Full of Grace and Truth: St Gregory Dialogos, the Pope of Rome

(Type a title for your page here)

Pope St. Gregory I ("the Great"), Born 540 A.D., died 12 March 604 A.D., Doctor of the Church

Beliefnet Discussions - Beliefnet.com

Quoting A Roman. Bishop -- Gregory The Great - Gospel Guardian vol.6, no.27, pg.2-3b

surely more than two?

Click to expand...

well as pointed out before, the Catholic Church agrees with Pope St. Gregory about the "Universal Bishop" the Pope in Rome is not set up like the Universal Bishop that the debate St.Gregory was a part of.
it is taken out of context when used agianst the Catholic understanding of the Papacy

Montalban said:

I'd find it odd for an OO who wants to be Catholic speaks for most Orthodox about what Orthodox think of Catholics!

Click to expand...

he is right, most EO do not really understand what the Catholic Church teaches about the Papacy

as a lamb i am directed by the gentle nudging of the shephard's crook- not the howling of the wolf !!!