The Primacy Of The Pope

[ThomasPeter]

as i was reading on the Orthodox view of the pope (for my speech) i came accross something that surprised me. the books i was reading (The Greek Orthodox Church by Fr. Demetrios J. Constantelos, and The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers by Stanley Harakas) say taht the bishop of Rome wasnt always the leader of the church. they say that before 1054 (the schism) he was the "first among equals." that teh "papacy" was origionaly made of a synod of the archbishops where he was "head". they go on to say that it was around 1054 taht the Roman church was the one that broke off. in the first book mentiond it says on pages 44-46 (if you happen to have the book) "It was the western church taht estranged itself from the eastern church. since 330 constantinople wa sthe capitol of the empire... by abandoning old-rome and moving to the greek east, constantine indicated taht the future of the empire lay in the east. the byzantine greeks almost ignored the developments of the western church. out side of lip service- which they paie dto teh sole patriarch of the west as the "frist among equals" in honor, as the bishop of teh old capitol- they never considered the roman bishop the pontifex maximus. the relations of the two divisons of chirstendom were intesified after the ninth century when the holy roman empire emerged in the west together with several powerful popes, such as Nicholas I (858-867), who thought of extending their authority to the east, as they had been commanding ecclesiastical figures in teh west... the greek east, which knew of no such precedence, refused to accept the papal claims and made her position clear. " he then goes on to quote a letter from Nicetas, archbishop if Nicomedia, to the bishop of Havelberg in the 12th century. "my dearest brother, we do not deny to the roman church the primacy amongst the five sister patriarchates... but she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office... if the roman pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us... hurl his mandates at us and our churches. not by taking counsel with us but by his own arbitrary pleasure... in such a case what could have been the use of the Scriptures? the writings and teachings of teh fathers would be useless. the aurthority of the roman pontiff would nullify the value of all because he woudl be the only bishop, teh sole teacher and master." what is the catholic responce to this? his the history true? was there a time when the pope wasnt so powerful? any comments on this would help me. it seems like the authority of the pope is weakend by this. but, i know there must be something that up holds his authority despite this. thank you very much!
tom

[Adeodatus]

If we are to be one with the Orthodox, we must engage in telling the truth, albeit with charity. The book you quoted from does not seem to be interested in truth very much, but represents an extreme and newer Orthodox view. The extract you quoted is quite a biased and jaundiced view of history. Moderate Orthodox and those with historical sensibilities would not want to say such things.

For one thing, the view presented in that book is a strong form of 'Caesaro-papism' (i.e. "the emperor as pope"). The Eastern Christians, and later the Orthodox, were more alligned to the State authorities and came under the control of emperors. After Constantionople fell and became the capital of the Muslim Ottoman Empire, the Sultan took over the role of the emperor, and would interfere in the affairs of the Orthodox Church, even appointing their Patriarchs. It is a very broad generalisation that where the West had the Pope, the East had the emperor or sultan running the show.

The West has always insisted that the Church is essentially independent of the State. Even when the papacy was controlled by powerful families (at the low points of our history), there was never any attempt to theologically justify the role of kings or emperors in the affairs of the Church and its Councils. State interference and sin were seen as aberrations, not as the will of God.

So the papacy has never been about the bishop of the capital city of the Roman empire. The capital may move, and did move many times (Rome, Ravenna, Milan, Constantinople), but the Pope is bishop of the city where Peter and Paul were martyred. It has nothing to do with State authorities or capital cities.

If you want a more balanced view of these things, I recommend (by an Orthodox) "The Orthodox Church" or "The Orthodox Way" by Bishop Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, and (by a Catholic), "Rome and the Eastern Churches" by Fr. Aidan Nichols OP. They are excellent introductions to a complicated and unfortunate history.