OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 04:04:43 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: Investiture Controversy  (Read 1638 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« on: January 20, 2010, 10:17:43 AM »

Is it the Orthodox view that the Emperor or Secular Powers have authority over the Church or that the Church has authority over itself alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy

For example, who was right between Pope Gregory and the German Emperor Henry the 4th? Was it valid practice for Henry to convene the Synod of Worms? Was the reforms of Pope Gregory and Henry the 3rd legitimate? In the upheaval prior to these reforms was the Church in the West more legitimate even though mired in crimes against God and Men?

What is the Orthodox view of the Cluniacs of the time?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 10:43:35 AM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2010, 11:28:08 AM »

Is it the Orthodox view that the Emperor or Secular Powers have authority over the Church or that the Church has authority over itself alone?

Well, the emperor and the bishops he could strong arm submitted to the Vatican at Lyons and Florence, yet we are still Orthodox.  So I think you have your answer.


Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy

For example, who was right between Pope Gregory and the German Emperor Henry the 4th?

Why should we get involved in your squabbles?

Quote
Was it valid practice for Henry to convene the Synod of Worms? Was the reforms of Pope Gregory and Henry the 3rd legitimate? In the upheaval prior to these reforms was the Church in the West more legitimate even though mired in crimes against God and Men?

What is the Orthodox view of the Cluniacs of the time?
Preceded by the monks of Athos.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2010, 12:09:03 PM »

Is it the Orthodox view that the Emperor or Secular Powers have authority over the Church or that the Church has authority over itself alone?

Well, the emperor and the bishops he could strong arm submitted to the Vatican at Lyons and Florence, yet we are still Orthodox.  So I think you have your answer.


What about the Bishops which the Emperor appointed? When did that practice begin?

Quote
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy

For example, who was right between Pope Gregory and the German Emperor Henry the 4th?

Why should we get involved in your squabbles?

In order to know where we are going, we need to know where we're from. This 'squabbles' are the seedbed for the later Papacy. I'm interested what Orthodoxy would have done if in the same place in history. This will illuminate where we agree and where we might have gone wrong.

I don't know 'any' Catholic Scholars who deny the 'development' of Papal Supremacy in the West. What I think might be a contention is, as Papist points out, such 'development' may be looked upon many as simply 'Positive Law' or the legal acts of legitimate authority through time just as we might view the development of the Emperor appointing Bishops in the East.

Quote
Was it valid practice for Henry to convene the Synod of Worms? Was the reforms of Pope Gregory and Henry the 3rd legitimate? In the upheaval prior to these reforms was the Church in the West more legitimate even though mired in crimes against God and Men?

What is the Orthodox view of the Cluniacs of the time?
Preceded by the monks of Athos.
[/quote]

This is not an answer... but a claim of superior authority. The Cluniacs were 'the' driving force of reform in the Western Church prior to the Reformer Popes of the 11th and 12th Centuries. In fact, one might argue that it was the Cluniacs who laid the ground work for the reforms of the Papacy in the 11th and 12th Centuries and the centrality or supremacy of Papal Authority over that of the untrustworthy piety of the secular powers to exercise authority over appointing Bishops and other clergy to their office.

How does the Orthodox view them and the reforms of this period. Was it invalid? If it wasn't invalid, then we need to know or understand how the Orthodox might have handled this.

If you feel the need to be dismissive of the topic you don't need to say anything at all.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 12:09:27 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2010, 02:16:25 PM »

As a historian, I find this topic very interesting. I would say that, on a fundamental level, conditions in the east and west were quite different. On the surface it looks simple enough--the east has seemingly more government involvement in the Church, and in the west, particularly after the Papal Reformation of the latter half of the 11th century, the Church has more involvement in the secular world--for although Pope Gregory VII and his partisans rallied for the Church to be free of secular control, the papacy more and more, from that time, exercised involvement in secular affairs. A classic case of this, I think, is the Norman invasion of England, where the pope blessed William the Bastard to invade England and seize the crown for the sole objective of bringing England more firmly under papal control. This was illustrated by a papal anathema on Harold and anyone who fought for him. This is, in my thinking, the papal version of investiture, with the pope claiming the right not only to decide which bishops rule where, but which kings. So, in this way, Gregory VII was more wrong than Henry IV from an Orthodox point of view. "Lay investiture," not only under Henry VII, but centuries before that, could be a bit of a problem, but, following the Roman imperial model also used in the east, where there was a symphonia of Church and state for common ends, and bishops were not only church rulers but imperial officials, Henry IV was more justified. Of course, I have my biases. But I see in Gregory VII's resolution of this issue the beginning of future problems in the West resulting from the division of the sacred and secular. Instead of symphonia, there is discord. Was it all incense and roses in the east? Certainly not. Many of the eastern emperors were thugs with a penchant for strange theologies, but I think the east today turned out differently culturally, politically, in part because of this emphasis on Church-state cooperation rather than antagonism. One can debate whether "different" is better or worse, of course. I won't do that here because it opens up a complicated can of worms.

In sum, there were different forces at work in the east and west to get Gregory VII and Henry IV and their eastern contemporaries to the point in which they lived and worked. Different concepts of government and ecclesastical power, different traditions, different laws and canons and, by that time, different cultures.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2010, 02:30:20 PM »

I don't know if I understand your premise right, but are you wondering if there had been something the Orthodox could have done to help solve problems in the west prior to the investiture crisis?

I am not sure that any intervention would have been appreciated at that time, as most eastern involvement in western affairs from the invasions of Justinian onward had many negative consequences, some of which were intended--like the abduction and exile of Pope St. Martin I or the holding of Pope Vigilius hostage until he broke with his own bishops and precedent and issued a posthumous anathema on Theodore of Mopsuestia. And then there was the Council in Trullo under Justinian II of the Golden Nose, which by eastern conciliarity imposed strange novelties on the Western Church without its input, something which the Western Church would do later through papal supremacy to the east.

The perennial problem in the west was the political vacuum, particularly that centered around Rome, which both left the pope vulnerable and in the bizarre position of being both a bishop and a secular ruler. This power vacuum led to various unfortunate situations. Later, in the 9th and 10th centuries it led to moral turpitude, against which the Cluniacs were a backlash and the Papal Reformation was the end result.

I really don't get the feeling, reading history, that many out east were cognizant of these problems facing the popes and the Western Church in general. The Byzantines were a rather snobby bunch. However, for a brief moment, under the too-short reign of Otto III and Theophano and Pope Sylvester II, it appeared that a form of eastern symphonia and stability might blossom. But Otto died young and was succeeded by St. Henry II, who was of another mind, and Pope Sylvester was thwarted by his adversaries.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 02:37:57 PM by Shanghaiski » Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2010, 09:47:15 AM »

I guess we are going to ignore the better part of a millennium when the Tsar was Patriarch...eh?  Old Ivan got rid of that pesky go-between that plagued the Greeks for so long.  Smart fella...no?

Father Ambrose is always going on at great length about the peaceful Orthodox, who have never waged a war...I find that to be a truly fascinating perspective.

M.

As a historian, I find this topic very interesting. I would say that, on a fundamental level, conditions in the east and west were quite different. On the surface it looks simple enough--the east has seemingly more government involvement in the Church, and in the west, particularly after the Papal Reformation of the latter half of the 11th century, the Church has more involvement in the secular world--for although Pope Gregory VII and his partisans rallied for the Church to be free of secular control, the papacy more and more, from that time, exercised involvement in secular affairs. A classic case of this, I think, is the Norman invasion of England, where the pope blessed William the Bastard to invade England and seize the crown for the sole objective of bringing England more firmly under papal control. This was illustrated by a papal anathema on Harold and anyone who fought for him. This is, in my thinking, the papal version of investiture, with the pope claiming the right not only to decide which bishops rule where, but which kings. So, in this way, Gregory VII was more wrong than Henry IV from an Orthodox point of view. "Lay investiture," not only under Henry VII, but centuries before that, could be a bit of a problem, but, following the Roman imperial model also used in the east, where there was a symphonia of Church and state for common ends, and bishops were not only church rulers but imperial officials, Henry IV was more justified. Of course, I have my biases. But I see in Gregory VII's resolution of this issue the beginning of future problems in the West resulting from the division of the sacred and secular. Instead of symphonia, there is discord. Was it all incense and roses in the east? Certainly not. Many of the eastern emperors were thugs with a penchant for strange theologies, but I think the east today turned out differently culturally, politically, in part because of this emphasis on Church-state cooperation rather than antagonism. One can debate whether "different" is better or worse, of course. I won't do that here because it opens up a complicated can of worms.

In sum, there were different forces at work in the east and west to get Gregory VII and Henry IV and their eastern contemporaries to the point in which they lived and worked. Different concepts of government and ecclesastical power, different traditions, different laws and canons and, by that time, different cultures.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2010, 10:56:04 AM »

I guess we are going to ignore the better part of a millennium when the Tsar was Patriarch...eh?

What millenium was that?  You are refering to the Most Holy Governing Synod scheme: it started January 25, 1721 and ended November 5, 1917.  That's short two centuries, and way short of a millenium.  Counting isn't your strong.

Quote
  Old Ivan got rid of that pesky go-between that plagued the Greeks for so long.  Smart fella...no?

Grand Prince Basil II was the one who nominated St. Jonah.  Boris Godunov nominated St. Job, the first Patriarch.  What Ivan you talking about?

Quote
Father Ambrose is always going on at great length about the peaceful Orthodox, who have never waged a war...I find that to be a truly fascinating perspective.


Yes, so alien from your own.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2010, 10:59:18 AM »


Father Ambrose is always going on at great length about the peaceful Orthodox, who have never waged a war...I find that to be a truly fascinating perspective.


The Orthodox never having waged a war...?  Goodness gracious!  What a liar I am!   My nose must be two feet long.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2010, 11:08:55 AM »

 Grin  First the Greek captivity, then the Latin captivity...

I like that....The Most Holy Governing Synod Scheme....That works for me!!

I guess we are going to ignore the better part of a millennium when the Tsar was Patriarch...eh?

What millenium was that?  You are refering to the Most Holy Governing Synod scheme: it started January 25, 1721 and ended November 5, 1917.  That's short two centuries, and way short of a millenium.  Counting isn't your strong.

Quote
  Old Ivan got rid of that pesky go-between that plagued the Greeks for so long.  Smart fella...no?

Grand Prince Basil II was the one who nominated St. Jonah.  Boris Godunov nominated St. Job, the first Patriarch.  What Ivan you talking about?

Quote
Father Ambrose is always going on at great length about the peaceful Orthodox, who have never waged a war...I find that to be a truly fascinating perspective.


Yes, so alien from your own.


Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2010, 11:25:12 AM »


What about the Bishops which the Emperor appointed? When did that practice begin?

For many hundred years secular rulers appointed the Pope of Rome, in fact almost until our own lifetimes. The Eastern Emperor did this directly and, sometimes, through the Exarch at Ravenna. The Pope also had to pay a considerable sum of money to the Emperor as a "thank you."

The Emperor had not just a right of veto but of outright appointment. Just start reading some of the lives of the Popes.

This is in the first millennium when East and West were united...

"In these earlier centuries of the Byzantine Empire, the problem of ecclesiastical polity (government of the church) was rather complex.

"Complicating matters was the fact that the Pope of Rome was subordinate politically to the Byzantine Emperor, who sat in Constantinople. Up until the eighth century (as is usually not noted) the pope was in fact even appointed by the Emperor or, more directly, through his civil governor in [Ravenna] Italy."


http://archons.org/patriarchate/history/pentarchy.asp

When the Byzantines withdrew  the Normans took over and they placed their own boys on the throne as Popes.  After them it was the secular nobles of Rome who selected who would be Pope.

Right up until the early 20th century the secular authority was preserved in papal elections.  France and Spain and Austro-Hungaria had the right to veto a papal election.  The right was last used by the Austro-Hungarian Emperor in 1905 to veto the election of Cardinal Rampolla.   The Cardinals were not happy about this but in the end they were obliged to obey the Emperor and Rampolla was not allowed to become Pope.  In his stead the Cardinals elected the man who became Pope Pius V.



 
 
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2010, 11:29:54 AM »

I think you mean Pius X, Father.

I wonder if there was also CIA involvement with papal elections just as with elections of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2010, 12:19:16 PM »

Prest-o!-Change-o!

Could we please get some citations for these claims?

M.


What about the Bishops which the Emperor appointed? When did that practice begin?

For many hundred years secular rulers appointed the Pope of Rome, in fact almost until our own lifetimes. The Eastern Emperor did this directly and, sometimes, through the Exarch at Ravenna. The Pope also had to pay a considerable sum of money to the Emperor as a "thank you."

The Emperor had not just a right of veto but of outright appointment. Just start reading some of the lives of the Popes.

This is in the first millennium when East and West were united...

"In these earlier centuries of the Byzantine Empire, the problem of ecclesiastical polity (government of the church) was rather complex.

"Complicating matters was the fact that the Pope of Rome was subordinate politically to the Byzantine Emperor, who sat in Constantinople. Up until the eighth century (as is usually not noted) the pope was in fact even appointed by the Emperor or, more directly, through his civil governor in [Ravenna] Italy."


http://archons.org/patriarchate/history/pentarchy.asp

When the Byzantines withdrew  the Normans took over and they placed their own boys on the throne as Popes.  After them it was the secular nobles of Rome who selected who would be Pope.

Right up until the early 20th century the secular authority was preserved in papal elections.  France and Spain and Austro-Hungaria had the right to veto a papal election.  The right was last used by the Austro-Hungarian Emperor in 1905 to veto the election of Cardinal Rampolla.   The Cardinals were not happy about this but in the end they were obliged to obey the Emperor and Rampolla was not allowed to become Pope.  In his stead the Cardinals elected the man who became Pope Pius V.



 
 

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2010, 12:48:52 PM »

Is it the Orthodox view that the Emperor or Secular Powers have authority over the Church or that the Church has authority over itself alone?

Well, the emperor and the bishops he could strong arm submitted to the Vatican at Lyons and Florence, yet we are still Orthodox.  So I think you have your answer.


What about the Bishops which the Emperor appointed? When did that practice begin?

With St. Constantine: Bishop Hosios was his personal pick to precide over Nicea I.


Quote
Quote
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy

For example, who was right between Pope Gregory and the German Emperor Henry the 4th?

Why should we get involved in your squabbles?

In order to know where we are going, we need to know where we're from. This 'squabbles' are the seedbed for the later Papacy. I'm interested what Orthodoxy would have done if in the same place in history. This will illuminate where we agree and where we might have gone wrong.

Well, on this point you have the fact that the Vatican dusted off the nullified council of Constantinople IV (869), abandoning Constantinople IV (879), which Council gives a basic Orthodox response to your question (all five patriarchs at the time, and one of, if not the, largest gathering of Orthodox bishops met).

Quote
I don't know 'any' Catholic Scholars who deny the 'development' of Papal Supremacy in the West.

Oh? I've seen plenty. Even refereing to a "Pope Clement," for instance, is an anachronism.

Quote
What I think might be a contention is, as Papist points out, such 'development' may be looked upon many as simply 'Positive Law' or the legal acts of legitimate authority through time just as we might view the development of the Emperor appointing Bishops in the East.

We haven't had an emperor appointing bishops for some time now. And when we did, still he had to take into consideration the hierarchal, episcopal Constitution of the Church.  That didn't change.  The constitution of the Vatican's episcopacy is quite different from its origins.

Quote
Was it valid practice for Henry to convene the Synod of Worms? Was the reforms of Pope Gregory and Henry the 3rd legitimate? In the upheaval prior to these reforms was the Church in the West more legitimate even though mired in crimes against God and Men?

A Emperor running a Church versus a bishop running a state.  Quite a choice.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2010, 12:50:08 PM »

Grin  First the Greek captivity, then the Latin captivity...

I like that....The Most Holy Governing Synod Scheme....That works for me!!

I guess we are going to ignore the better part of a millennium when the Tsar was Patriarch...eh?

What millenium was that?  You are refering to the Most Holy Governing Synod scheme: it started January 25, 1721 and ended November 5, 1917.  That's short two centuries, and way short of a millenium.  Counting isn't your strong.

Quote
 Old Ivan got rid of that pesky go-between that plagued the Greeks for so long.  Smart fella...no?

Grand Prince Basil II was the one who nominated St. Jonah.  Boris Godunov nominated St. Job, the first Patriarch.  What Ivan you talking about?

Quote
Father Ambrose is always going on at great length about the peaceful Orthodox, who have never waged a war...I find that to be a truly fascinating perspective.


Yes, so alien from your own.



What Greek captivity?

Btw, what Ivan you talking about?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 12:50:40 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 0.086 seconds with 41 queries.