Question about the great schism
Posted 08 March 2011 - 08:16 AM
Is this true? Did he misinterpret history (and maybe I am misremembering what was said too)? Was there a council meeting about Papal supremacy? Did 4 other Patriarchal Bishops dismiss Rome's claim? Did any Eastern Bishops accept Papal supremacy during the time leading up to or during the Great Schism?
I have been looking for the answer to this and haven't been successful. I thought I would post this to see if someone could answer. Hopefully, there is a plain, straitforward answer.
Thank you for any help in understanding what happened.
Posted 08 March 2011 - 08:51 AM
It's easy to see how this might have come about: as the Empire disintegrated in the West, secular power moved into the hands of the warlords (whatever they were called), and the mindset of the time was extremely hierarchical - everyone was someone's vassal, or so it seemed. The Pope had to become the top warlord in the minds of the other warlords in order to maintain the position of the Church. It's a human failing to believe your own propaganda after a while.
Posted 08 March 2011 - 02:45 PM
The "long answer" to your question is quite complex and takes study in history and politics, in theology, in culture and language, and in human nature to fully understand. It covers the period from say the 7th Century to the 13th Century (or maybe beyond if you take it up to the dogma of "papal infallibility" which really cemented the split). Although the primary issue was papal supremacy, there were a host of other theological and practical issues such as the use of the filioque in the creed, the date of Easter, the use of unleavened bread, and so on. It is really a fascinating topic, but takes a lot of time and study.
Fr David Moser
Posted 08 March 2011 - 09:48 PM
Posted 08 March 2011 - 10:20 PM
The canons of the early ecumenical councils make clear that the rankings are based on a primacy of honor (presvia tis timies) due to the secular prestige and importance of the city to the empire. Thus Alexandria ranks in front of Antioch even though Antioch was the more important city of early christianity, Alexandria being the more important and influential secular city to the empire outranks it. Bottom line is Rome's honorary ranking has nothing to do with Peter. Papal supremacy is not biblical.
The emperor Justinian, the greatest emperor of the roman empire codified into law the 'pentarchy' in 545 a.d., basically the 5 Sees overlooked church life in their respective regions and were tied with the administrative regions of the empire. According to this law the primacy of the Church within the empire is Rome due to seniority followed by Constantinople (new rome) but both hold equal priveleges. The law also acknowleges that the bishops of the other Sees are also 'pontiffs':
novela 131: Concerning The Precedence of Partriarchs.
' Hence, in accordance with the provisions of these Councils, We order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all other sees.'
As the empire began to shrink and crumble Rome aligned itself with the up and coming Franks and hence papal supremacy was born, no longer having to answer to the other ancient seats or to the empire that gave them the rank.
Edited by Kosta, 08 March 2011 - 10:42 PM.
Posted 09 March 2011 - 03:02 AM
I still dont understand how it is possible for one Patriarchal Bishop to think he has supremacy when none of the others agreed with him. In my mind, it would be the same as if John McCain had stood up before the elections and without any voting and declared himself President of the U.S., because he was the oldest candidate and that gave him supremacy. ???? It is just kinda odd.
And considering the circumstances of what was happening in the East with the invasions. I would compare the treatment to abandoning your family during mass riots to fend for themselves. It seems illogical.
Maybe I should read some of these book suggestions before I comment anymore.
Again, thank you.
Posted 09 March 2011 - 03:49 AM
Posted 09 March 2011 - 12:51 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users