Posted on 07/04/2005 5:53:36 AM PDT by MarMema
Everybody knows that one of the major divergences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics is based on the position of the Bishop of Rome in the Universal Church. According to the Romans the Pope is the head of the Universal Church. According to Orthodox doctrine, instead, the Pope of Rome is a bishop equal in dignity to the other bishops. At this point it is interesting to read a qualified opinion: that of St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome (+ 604 A.D.), whose feast is celebrated on 12 March.
St. John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople (feast: 2 September) was a contemporary of St. Gregory. St. John was very pious and ascetic. He prayed at length during the night, and, in order to avoid being overcome by sleep, he used to pin nails into the wax of a candle: the clatter of the nails on a metal dish put under the candle awoke him if he had fallen asleep. Throughout his life St. John was not one to seek human glory. Nevertheless, in the year 587 Emperor Maurice gave him officially the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch."
Today this title sounds a little lofty, but this was not the case in the sixth century. Ecumenical comes from the Greek word oikoumene, that literally means "the inhabited world." Due in part to lack of geographical knowledge and in part to the typical pride of conquerors, the Romans identified the "inhabited world" with the Roman Empire, and therefore, at that time, "ecumenical" was nothing more than a synonym of "Imperial". Constantinople was the "ecumenical" town. The chief librarian of Constantinople, for example, was called "Ecumenical librarian". But this implied only that he was the librarian of the imperial town, and not that he had authority over all the librarians in the empire. "Ecumenical Patriarch," therefore, in Greek, was understood only as "the Patriarch of the Imperial town": just a synonym of Patriarch of Constantinople. As a matter of fact, this title is attested in sporadic use long before.
All the trouble started when the title was communicated to the Pope of Rome: it was translated into Latin as Patricharcha Universalis, i.e., "Universal Patriarch." Pope Gregory reacted because he thought that John was arrogating the supremacy in the Church. Of course, this was not Patriarch John's aim. Some Roman Catholic writers claim that Gregory was vindicating the supremacy to himself. But it was not so. The letters of St. Gregory the Great are available to anybody who wishes to read them. The readers can judge by themselves. Let us start from this letter that he addressed to Patriarch John:
"Consider, I pray thee, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that [the title of Ecumenical Patriarch] is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless thou thyself wilt have power to grow so far as thou determinist with thyself to do so. And thou wilt become by so much the greater as thou restrainest thyself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and thou wilt make advance in proportion as thou are not bent on arrogation by derogation of thy brethren...
"Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John - what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head... "...the prelates of this Apostolic See, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren..." (Book V, Epistle XVIII)
We do not know St. John the Faster's reply. Probably he did not reply at all because he died about one year after St. Gregory's letter (mail was very slow in that period, and one year was not an unreasonable time for a letter to travel from Rome to Constantinople). But St. Gregory continued to express his opinion on Universal Episcopacy. He wrote to Eulogios, Bishop of Alexandria and to Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch in such terms: "This name of Universality was offered by the Holy Synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the apostolic see which by the Providence of God I serve. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this from the mind of a Christian that any on should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honor of his brethren..." (Book V: Epistle XLIII)
To Emperor Maurice:
"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. (Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)
And again to Eulogios, Bishop of Alexandria:
"Your Blessedness... You address me saying, 'As you have commanded.' This word 'command', I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character, my fathers... "...in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg you most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself... For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally." (Book VIII: Epistle XXX)
This story teaches us another lesson. Many times, when we are confronted by the spectacle of events that do not fit the glorious image of the Holy Orthodox Church, we are ready to ask why God allows that such an evil thing happen in His Church. Undoubtedly many people at the time of these events grieved because of the misunderstanding that embittered the relationships between two pious bishops, between two great saints of the Church. And surely, at that time, somebody asked why God allows that such an evil thing happen in His Church. The answer is clear today. The Holy Spirit allowed this misunderstanding so that the opposition of a very eminent Pope to papal authority be well documented. Without these letters we would not have the striking evidence that even in Rome the right to claim a primacy was not recognized.
All quotations are from A Selected Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (1894), P. Schaff and H. Wace eds. Vol. 12. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan. The emphases are the author's.
Question:
Where exactly is this anti-Catholicism (both overt and subliminal) come from in discussion about the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.
Does it come from all the mainline Protestants who have become Orthodox, bringing their biases with them.
For example I notice the constant use of the term "Roman Catholic" when refering to the Latin Rite Catholic Church. As this term comes from the serial wife killer Henry VIII when he set up his Church it is pretty clear where that term comes from.
I have read loads of apologetics (both for and against reunion) and can't help but to come to the conclusion that any Orthodox apologetics materials when referring to Catholics should be using either the term "Latin Patriarch" or the "Patriarchate of Rome", not "Roman Catholic" a term from the reformation.
The pope clearly exercised some authority that was unique to his position and recognized by the bishops in the East, but what was its nature? Was it of divine origin or merely ecclesiastical? What were its limits? Could it be exercised on his own initiative or only in response to an appeal brought to him by others? Was it only over Church discipline or did it extend to doctrine? What was its relation to Church council?
As I stated in another thread, I will be away for 24 hours so please be patient if I do not respond immediately to your postings.
Justinian PING
More semi-historical gibberish, I see. Par for the course for the Catholic-haters on FR, unfortunately.
Marmema, your confusion comes from the fact that at a Serbian "Slava" celebration, there are two things prepared to eat. The first is essentially koliva. This is prepared, I think, because at the Slava commemoration, one is praying for one's Christian ancestors who are departed.
The second thing prepared is the "kolach" -- which is a special bread. The priest cuts into the bread in the sign of the cross, and pours wine into this cross in the bread. The family members hold it and turn it around three times (as I recall) while singing the troparion of the saint.
Many Serbian parishes also serve a Slava celebration for their parish patronal feast.
Since we were received into the Orthodox Church via the Serbs, and since we were the first in our families to convert to Orthodoxy, we ourselves have a family "Slava", although we have rarely since been in a place where we have had a priest who knows how to serve the Slava service. The family Slava is second in veneration to each of us only to our personal patron saint.
We will give an icon of this saint to each of our children when they establish their own homes, and the tradition will, we pray, carry on down through the generations. Long after we personally have been forgotten, the Slava will be a reminder that once our family was not Orthodox, but that some crazy ancestor had the good sense to take the leap! :-) At the time of this feast, the original conversion of the family will be commemorated.
I think it is a wonderful tradition. During the harshest days of Ottoman rule, when all other religious observances were often snuffed out and priests unavailable, the Serbs never stopped having a Slava commemoration, led by the head of the family. It it not an exaggeration to say that in some places and times, only the Slava commemoration kept the faith alive within certain families.
Recently, when the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was having troubles, they appealed to the Patriarchate of Constantinople to see if the EP could help them straighten out their local troubles.
If you look at the statements I have been posting, in the 1895 statement of the EP, this "appeal to Constantinople" is outlined -- but clearly at the request of the local Church, and with the proviso that if things cannot be settled with the help of the EP, that ultimately the final authority is that of the local council of the local Church in question -- not that of the EP. The willingness of any given local church to appeal to the EP for help in resolving a local dispute depends on many things, not least of which is the amount of trust that the given local church has in the current leadership at the Phanar.
I am no historian or canon lawyer, but I think that it is quite clear that this kind of "appeal to Rome" for opinions or settling of disputes did happen -- particularly within the West, but also at times in the East.
Were the Orthodox churches to acknowledge a return to Orthodox belief on the part of Rome, and were Rome to develop a level of trust in the reliability and fairness of opinion, I could certainly foresee Rome returning -- as first amongst equals -- to being the one to whom a given local church might appeal for assistance. Generally, a local church would turn first to a neighboring Patriarchate or to one with which it had its longest relationship. And the assistance and opinion offered by Rome would have to be received as workable -- else a local or regional council would have to work it out.
The Church is a family made up of brothers. Those who have a problem, question, or dispute, will often turn to someone they greatly trust -- often the oldest, but not always -- to help them work things out. That respect is earned, not dictated from above.
I think that if one looks at it this way, all of the patristic quotations and canons make sense. Also, the fact that no maelstrom erupted within the East during the 9th century can be explained in this context: Rome was seen as a Patriarchate that had, during the early centuries, been very reliable in doctrine and for the most part helpful when being appealed to for an opinion (which wasn't often, it seems.)
When Rome itself became the problem, the Eastern Patriarchates most obviously didn't give a second thought as to whether they were failing to obey a bishop with univeral jurisdiction, and it obviously didn't cross their minds that they should follow Rome because its bishop was infallible in doctrine.
Had universal authority and papal infallibility been the universal teaching of the Fathers, this never would have happened: there would have been massive pro-Roman forces arising within the Eastern Patriarchates themselves, and the bishops who rejected Rome's claims of authority and the doctrines Rome taught would have been declared heretics by at least a significant minority of East Romans. This just didn't happen.
That would indeed be a harmful overstatenent, and historically unprovable.
The pope clearly exercised some authority that was unique to his position and recognized by the bishops in the East, but what was its nature? Was it of divine origin or merely ecclesiastical? What were its limits? Could it be exercised on his own initiative or only in response to an appeal brought to him by others? Was it only over Church discipline or did it extend to doctrine? What was its relation to Church council?
That is what has to be determined in the coming negotiations. But I will observe that the Orthodox side will insist on looking at the Petrine ministry not from the time of Pope Leo I, but rather from St Peter onward, in light not only of concensus patrum but history as well.
It may very well be that Petrine ministry may be defined for the first time in terms stated in your response and, if made acceptable to both sides, become the seed of a new era.
Thank you Agrarian for a nice description. I make the zhito/kolyivo even if the priest is not around. Of course I do not make the sign of the Cross with wine over it but simply ask for blessing by prayer. And the bread, oh well, I never mastered that part -- tried once and it resembled a rock in size and consistency (oops!).
Agrarian also touched on another part of Slava which I neglected. Cities, organizations and so on in Serbia have a patron saint -- and therefore their own Slava. Many people in Serbia refer to significant dates by Church calendar name rathere than the Roman date -- such as "the Agreement on the day of Assumption" or "the St. Vitus' Constitution," etc.
Oh, this is going to be a fun thread.
I had never noticed that koliva for a Slava celebration didn't have a candle, but the explanation on your web-page does a good job of explaining the reason.
It confirmed what I had always understood, namely that the koliva at the Slava is primarily for the departed of the family. (And of course just in any memorial service, the koliva is first and foremost an expression of faith and hope in the coming resurrection to eternal life of those for whom we pray.)
In the different tradition churches I have been to, there has never been any universal custom regarding whether a candle is in the koliva or not.
Don't feel bad about the kolach not turning out right. My wife is an expert baker, and making kolach turn out right is very difficult. She spent a day a couple of months ago with an elderly Serbian lady at our parish, helping her prepare kolach for the lady's family Slava, picking up tips...
"Oh, this is going to be a fun thread."
Just join kosta, marmema and me in our discussions of Serbian Slava celebrations and the finer points of preparing kolach and koliva, and we guarantee that you'll have a good time.
It's all that role of the papacy stuff that will give you a headache... :-)
Speaking of which, we should ping a few more Orthodox for their opinions on kolach and koliva! A priest once told me that the weekend's Divine Services start with Vespers on Saturday night, and don't truly end until the last person leaves the meal at church after Liturgy on Sunday morning (and of course it often continues on at "after-parties" throughout the day at various gatherings.)
Stick around, and you'll learn the important stuff!
When I was in school (around 9th grade, IIRC), we were given a school assingment to visit a ceremony of a religion other than our own and write a report on it. Since I was studying Russian for my language requirement, it was only natural to visit the Russian Orthodox church in Hollywood. It was an evening service during Orthodox Holy Week, with a candle procession, etc. Most beautiful service I've ever seen. (Didn't some Russian prince decide to convert solely because of the beauty of the ceremony?)
Dad (1/4 Irish), Mom (100% Irish), and myself all got a good chuckle over the fact that the priest of the Russian Orthodox church had an Irish name. I suppose he felt the call of priesthoood but couldn't handle celibacy. ;-)
All you had to do to confirm that was listen to any of the comments from Father Denis Bradley when he served as the toastmaster for Metropolitan Theodosius celebration dinner in DC a few years back.
Oh, there is a candle -- but it's nbot stuck into the wheet as in the memorial service. The Slava candle is big, usually about 16 inches long or even longer and about 1 inch in diameter. We like to place a little Serbian red-blue-white tricolor at the bottom of it and a little golden cross above it the tricolor.
Below is a picture of a well made kolach. Maybe some will appreciate whay it is difficult.
Excellent photos! That is certainly the most ornate kolach I have seen. And God bless the suffering Serbs of Kosovo.
Another special bread that I love is the Greek tradition of the Vassilopita (Basil's bread) that the Greeks make for St. Basil's day (January 1.)
A gold coin is baked into it, and if your slice has the coin, this is a great blessing. I got it one year!
Well, now that I think about it that year had a lot of trials and tribulations, so maybe it wasn't exactly the kind of blessing I was expecting, but it was still great fun to get it...
Not necessarily: in the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America (Antiochian) we have Fr. Paul Callahagan (not celibate) and Fr. Daniel Griffith (not Irish, but Welsh, and celibate--my own parish priest).
Celts sometimes reach way back to their roots when trying to follow Christ, and end up Orthodox. (The Irish Russian Orthodox priest could have just changed rites and stayed in communion with Rome if celibacy were the only issue. It was probably something like the filioque, or the fluidity of Latin canon law, or an objection to Barlaamite tendancies in the Latin church that pushed him Eastward.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.