OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 31, 2014, 12:36:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: papal power from 850 to 1200 AD  (Read 3073 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« on: November 16, 2006, 12:57:04 AM »

List concrete instances when Roman popes from 850 to 1200 overstepped their perogatives in the Eastern church. Ie before Innocent III set up rival patriarchs.

(Please do not include the Photius case. Please do not include the addition to the Creed in the Mass at Rome around 1010 since most Western churches added this long before then.)

It is obvious that in this time (1) the popes tweeked their arrogant attitude (2) the popes perceived themselves as temporal rulers who had rights to contested land (3) the popes thought that their monarchial power in the West was also supposed to be used in the East (4) the popes tried to interfere in some Eastern affairs on their own will without appeals made to them. But list concrete instances...

nonchal
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2006, 09:09:01 AM »

Sure thing.
"Concrete issue", for starters:

"Calling" (demanding) St Cyril to Rome to gain the Bishop of Rome's approval of his Mission to the Slavs after he, his work, translations, and dispatch orders were properly received from the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople - circa 869 . Not his business.

BTW, "Filioque" became an issue after the Bishop of Rome finally gave in to the error. We don't meddle within his see (or our own). Until he accepted it, the local use in his see was his problem. I tire of this usual reason of local use being an excuse. It is not.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2006, 01:58:31 PM »

Keep going. I want to compile a list.

Logged
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2006, 02:18:23 PM »

There is Pope Leo I who deliberately refused to acknowledge the Robbers Coucil (Ephesus II 449) making an assumption that Eutchyianism was accepted with Pope Dioskoros of Alexandria. But more importantly emphasized his Tome of Leo in Chalcedon in his to deconstruction of the Eutychios heresy. He applied Papal pressure and influence with the bishop at the Council of Chalcedon to recognize Rome as the the Eternal City giving them "first among equal" status which would have later consequences.

As also specifically the Pope not attending any of the 7 Councils in cities near Constantinople but through Legates he would later accept them.
Logged
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2006, 03:34:43 PM »

There is Pope Leo I who deliberately refused to acknowledge the Robbers Coucil (Ephesus II 449) making an assumption that Eutchyianism was accepted with Pope Dioskoros of Alexandria. But more importantly emphasized his Tome of Leo in Chalcedon in his to deconstruction of the Eutychios heresy. He applied Papal pressure and influence with the bishop at the Council of Chalcedon to recognize Rome as the the Eternal City giving them "first among equal" status which would have later consequences.

As also specifically the Pope not attending any of the 7 Councils in cities near Constantinople but through Legates he would later accept them.

From 850 to 1200
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2006, 04:33:11 PM »

Interesting choice of date parameters for your list. Why these in particular?

Would continuing to not accept Canon 28 from Chalcedon qualify as it spans your period?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2006, 05:18:32 PM »

Interesting choice of date parameters for your list. Why these in particular?

Because this is when most Orthodox scholars believe that the Roman popes started overstepping their perogatives in a (near)schismatic manner. I could have said from (858-867)PopeNicholasI onwards. Then I put 1200 as the stop date because InnocentIII's installation of Latin patriarchs in Eastern Sees around this time was the grand climax. I am interested in the concrete instances that led up to this climax.

Quote
Would continuing to not accept Canon 28 from Chalcedon qualify as it spans your period?

No because this is nothing new to this period. It was Roman custom.

I am interested in (a) concrete instances when popes overstepped their perogatives (b) which were amplified in substance from what was exercised prior to NicholasI (c) and which were also different from how other patriarchs abused their power (d) so that somehow these instances amount up to a schismatic patriarchate.

In other words: show me, apart from the charge that the popes are heretics, that the popes are schismatics. Some prominent Greek ecclesiastics around 1050 to 1150 for instance thought that the pope has fallen from his episcopate due to the sole fact that he is a heretic. Other Greek ecclesiastics at this time thought that there is no substantial break in faith but that there is a pure schism due to papal arrogance. Lets HYPOTHETICALLY suppose that the pope is not a heretic. Prove to me that the Roman popes were outside the Church prior to 1200AD. Concrete instances...

nonchal
« Last Edit: November 16, 2006, 05:20:27 PM by nonchal » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2006, 07:31:53 PM »

Quote
No because this is nothing new to this period. It was Roman custom.

HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh huh?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2006, 07:32:12 PM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2006, 11:29:53 PM »

HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh huh?

What? As far as I know NO pope accepted Can28 from LeoI onwards until after a Latin patriarch was in Constantinople. Thus the non-acceptance of this canon was nothing new to the popes from 850 to 1200. It was Roman custom to not accept it. This is no new assertion of papal power.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2006, 12:07:24 AM »

Schism alone is error enough. The pope's arrogance brought Church of Rome to error. Hence, the h-word. The common opinion was that the breach was not thought of as large, or permanent, but continued to grow as papal arrogance, as you say, increased and more doctrinal differences surfaced. Also, this schism is viewed as gradual and not a discrete point of history. To satisfy you and your conditions, we must take a view we might not really take.  If you're asking us, you should be asking them as well.
You are also ignoring other, secular, factors such as the creation of the "Holy Roman Empire" and its impact on East-West relations.
{Hint: Also, I don't respond well to demands. Can you moderate your tone a bit? If you're looking for a argument, look elsewhere.}
« Last Edit: November 17, 2006, 12:08:22 AM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2006, 11:46:06 PM »

So what else?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2006, 09:12:13 AM »

See post above.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2006, 02:38:53 PM »

See post above.

I saw it. Someone else please...
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2006, 03:15:25 PM »

There is Pope Leo I who deliberately refused to acknowledge the Robbers Coucil (Ephesus II 449) making an assumption that Eutchyianism was accepted with Pope Dioskoros of Alexandria. But more importantly emphasized his Tome of Leo in Chalcedon in his to deconstruction of the Eutychios heresy. He applied Papal pressure and influence with the bishop at the Council of Chalcedon to recognize Rome as the the Eternal City giving them "first among equal" status which would have later consequences.

Huh? I suggest you read "The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon," which have been translated into English by two first-rate scholars in the Liverpool series. Check out info here: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/168966.ctl

In reading the actual records of the council (as opposed to what secondary sources say about it many years later), one finds that there was very little successful papal pressure applied at Chalcedon. Sure, the legates protested this and that, but the imperial commissioners shut them down repeatedly. A rough translation of the ending of the Council:

Papal legates: But we don't like this Canon 28!
Imperial commissioners: Uh, who are you again? Praise be to God that a decision has been made.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2006, 03:41:30 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2006, 04:01:22 PM »

Ouch! $125...pass the collection plate, please.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2006, 04:31:06 PM »

List concrete instances when Roman popes from 850 to 1200 overstepped their perogatives in the Eastern church. Ie before Innocent III set up rival patriarchs.

[. . .]

nonchal
J. M. Hussey's book, "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire," details the process by which relations between the Papal Church and the Orthodox Church broke down during the time period that you have indicated above.  The book highlights the fact that many factors contributed to the rift, including -- but not limited to -- political differences, the various Western doctrinal innovations brought about by the Scholastic theological method, and the rise of a notion of Papal supremacy that radically altered the ancient understanding of the nature of the universal Church as a communion of particular Churches of equal ontological status.

God bless,
Todd
« Last Edit: November 21, 2006, 04:33:26 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.067 seconds with 43 queries.