ThomasPeter Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 the only thing keeping the Roman and Ortodox churches apart is the role of the pope? why do they no longer see him as having full jurisdiction? did this chang in thought come after 1054 or before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adeodatus Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 This is a very complicated history, made more complicated not least by the interference of political factors (emperors, barbarian invasions), geographical separation (East and West Mediterranean), and linguistic barriers (Greek and Latin). I think the Orthodox would generally want to say that most of their quibbles with Catholics boil down to the Latin developments of doctrine. Most of these are misunderstandings (Filioque, original sin, recent Marian dogmas). The consensus we are trying to build is the agreed role of the Bishop of Rome in the first millenium. The Easterners certainly acknowledged the authority of the Pope then. Rome was/is the highest court of appeal, especially to adjudicate in matters of dispute. Rome consistently sided with the orthodox interpretation of the Faith, and championed orthodoxy. Even after the Schism in 1054, it wasn't a clean break. Catholics and Orthodox continued to act (right up to the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries) as though they were in communion with each other. The Orthodox would join Catholics in Corpus Christi processions, and Jesuits were invited by Orthodox bishops to catechise the Orthodox Faithful. It is only more recently (19th century) that relations have soured between East and West. In general these disputes are centred on fears about the Pope's possible high-handed dealings with the East. Pope John Paul II has shown the Orthodox that they have nothing to fear. He has even invited them to dialogue with him about the Pope's role in the East in ther first 1000 years, and also about how his authority should be exercised with respect to the ancient Patriarchates of the East. A possible scenario is that the Patriarchates retain considerable self-governance, while the Pope has none of his universal primacy disregarded. He would just refrain from intervening in their particular churches unless of course this was a matter concerning the orthodoxy of the Faith, in which case they are even now willing to confess that Rome is certainly the highest court of appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now