Eastern Orthodox still recognize the bishop of Rome as the Patriarch of the regional church. Not as the leader of the whole church but as one of several Patriarchs of autocephalous regional churches.
For the Orthodox, the Ecumenical Patriarch (Archbishop) of Constantinople is the primus inter pares (first among equals).
Yeah and I have shown you some documents and citations from the first millenium That affirmed quite different things.
For example
Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, pages 95 and 96https://macedonia.kroraina.com/en/fdbrp/dvornik_byzantium_and_the_roman_primacy_1979.pdf :“Another courageous defender of the cult of images, Stephen the Younger, in 760 rejected the Iconoclast Council of 754. Naturally, he mentioned the patriarchs who had likewise rejected it. Speaking of the Pope, he says “according to the prescriptions of the canons, religious matters cannot be defined without the participation of the Pope of Rome.” The most eloquent and the most telling testimony on the Primacy of the Pope is given to us by the intrepid defender of the cult of images, the Patriarch Nicephorus. In his work Byzantium and the Roman Primacy in defense of the cult of images he exalts the importance of the decisions of the seventh ecumenical council when he says:“This Synod possesses the highest authority. … In fact it was held in the most legitimate and regular fashion conceivable, because according to the divine rules established from the beginning it was directed and presided over by that glorious portion of the Western Church, I mean by the Church of Ancient Rome. Without them [the Romans], no dogma discussed in the Church, even sanctioned in a preliminary fashion by the canons and ecclesiastical usages, can be considered to be approved, or abrogated; for they are the ones, in fact, who possess the principate of the priesthood and who owe this distinction to the leader of the Apostles.”
“Come then from the West, O imitator of Christ, arise and do not cast us off forever; to you Christ our God has said, “and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” Behold the time and the place; help us, you who have been appointed by God for this, stretch out a hand as far as it is possible; you have the power from God FROM BEING FIRST AMONG ALL, in which position you were also placed. Terrify, we pray, the heretical beasts with the pipe of your divine word; O good shepherd, lay down your life for the sheep of Christ, we beseech you.”
And you’d be hard pressed to find someone more eastern than Theodore the Studite.
I noticed the link doesn’t work here. If you click on this post Salvation without Christ - #126 by 1Cor15.54 there is the same link I posted in the past and there it actually works. Strange.
The Orthodox church is not an uniform monolith. It has included diverse voices, also regarding the bishop of Rome.
In the history, there have been attempts to correct the broken relationship (schism) between the churches of the west and east. Those negotiating tried to form statements that could be signed by both parties. One of the tricks used was that the Latin and Greek versions of the statements were slightly different, giving both parties the possibility to claim that the other party accepted their claim. Such tricks did not end in lasting agreements. As the bishop of Rome continued to claim the leadership of the whole church, the Orthodox rejected that claim and apparent steps towards unity halted.
It seems that the Orthodox negotiators were willing to allow more space for such Latin expressions that seemed to confirm the position of the bishop of Rome. After all, in the Orthodox view the bishop or Rome was the Patriarch of the autocephalic (regional) church. It seems to reflect a stronger hope towards reconciliation and unity among the Orthodox than among the negotiators of the Pope. When the Orthodox realized that the goal of the Pope was dominion instead of reconciliation, the attempts for unification, including the statements, were forsaken.
The historians are not always neutral. For example, the historian you mentioned, Francis Dvornik, is a Catholic priest writing from the viewpoint of his background.
Whether he was catholic is neither here nor there since he cited Stephen the Younger, and unless you claim that he deliberately forged Stephen’s words his own personal faith is irrelevant.
But they didn’t reject his leadership in the first millenium, this is what those citations were meant to show.
In the historical disputes, there are always at least two differing viewpoints. If you prefer one viewpoint, you tend to select details or quotes that seem to support that viewpoint.
That happens in the writing of history by historians, in the debates about religion, politics, etc. Unfortunate but very common.
We can often see the same pattern in the debates about interpretations, also on this Forum. Selective picking of verses or details that seem to strengthen my claims and refute the claims of the other party. Common but quite far from a real attempt to find the truth. Basic debate (or apologist) training aims towards winning such disputes, not towards finding the truth together.
Your view leads to there being no definitive scripture.
Vinnie
But he wasn’t giving his own opinion, he was quoting Stephen the younger; not giving his own interpretation of his words. And in the topic salvation without Christ I have quoted quite a few eastern fathers who accepted Rome’s authority.
Oops. Wrong altogether.
I said no definitive meaning
Maybe you can’t see that as being different.
Richard
That doesn’t even address what I said.
Neither did the Lutherans.
Which is deceptive, because bishops being chosen by Rome is an innovation, not ancient practice.
Absolutely – and since the scriptures are the final standard, the “referee”, that is how it must be.
Amen.
Rome loves to talk about tradition handed down apart from the scriptures, but the only objectively know tradition is the scriptures. Thus novel teachings have emerged with the pretense that they were always believed.
The actual context of the scriptures is not the RCC, it is the culture and worldview that produced them.
Which appears to be the case, so that’s not an issue.
That’s patently false. Try reading the premiere Protestant document, the Augsburg Confession.
It is actually more faithful to the Word than what Rome holds.
That contradicts a number of things Jesus said.
Where in that does it say that “one” means a human institution?
It’s too bad that there was never a patriarch for France, one for Spain, etc.
Nicely put.
Methinks you will have to “prove” this assertion.
Richard
Well, Jesus didn’t say “You can think any old thing and it will set you free”, for starters.
And He promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth, not into opinions they felt comfortable with.
Well, there are different viewpoints to the matter. Lutheran churches do not form one global organization with a single administration (‘Magisterium’). From a RCC viewpoint, that may be seen as ‘splitting’ to ‘many denominations’. Applying Orthodox terminology, we might speak of autocephalous Lutheran churches that may have differing teachings about some doctrinal issues.
Some might also claim that the separation of the Lutheran churches lead to further divisions based on a similar kind of unyielding keeping of differing interpretations.
On the other hand, we may see much of the western splitting as the splitting of the Catholic church to thousands of ‘denominations’. Most have common catholic roots and early history but the whole is currently divided into many units and the smaller units do not obey the administration of the biggest ‘splinter’, the RCC.
From the viewpoint of a person in the RCC, all the others have gone astray. From the viewpoint of a person in another ‘splinter’, for example a Lutheran, the largest splinter has drifted astray in some (but not all) doctrinal interpretations.
Edit:
We all have our subjective viewpoints to the matter. What I wrote above is an attempt to look at the matter from many viewpoints, to draw an overall picture.
My personal viewpoint is from a ‘splinter of a splinter’. The Catholic parishes of Finland (at that time the eastern part of the Swedish kingdom) were transformed into Lutheran parishes by the order of the Swedish king. The order gave only two options: accept the change or leave the Kingdom.
The ‘splinter’ that is my current home church formed from a revival movement within the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, the direct continuation of the former Catholic parishes. At that time, there was no religious freedom and being born within the sphere of the Church tied people to being members of the Church throughout their life, no matter what their personal beliefs were. The social and spiritual work done by the revival movement was criticized by many priests, and some members of the revival movement were condemned by the national law to punishments for failing to obey the orders of the Church. That situation continued until a new national law on religious freedom was accepted. The unaccepted revival movement felt that they were forced to take an official status by registering as the Evangelical Free Church of Finland. That formed a splinter from the national Lutheran church, the continuation of the Catholic parishes.
Depends on the viewpoint how this development is seen. One possibility is to see it as splintering of the RCC within that region. First by dropping the first letter ‘R’ (the connection to ‘Rome’, including the dominating rule of the Pope and the associated ‘Magisterium’), then by the formation of a splinter from an unaccepted revival movement with some differing interpretations.
Splintering
It has an intrinsic negativity that contradicts unity and “One Church, one Faith one Lord”. As long as we see Christianity as splintered we will never achieve ecumenical unity.
Division is caused by intolerance and dogma, epitomised by the belief that one belief is right. It doesn’t matter which one.
Unity is not agreement or even concession (condescension) or tolerance, it is about acceptance, and that is a much more difficult thing.
As long as we have a black and white or linear view of truth there can be no unity.
“But it goes against all logic for there to be more than one truth”
Whoever said that God complied to human logic!
In fact, half the problem is trying to convince ourselves that God is human in total, as opposed to Christ being God in human form.
Richard
I agree that it matters what words we use. If you feel that ‘splintering’ is a bad word, you can replace it with ‘division’ or an even better word. Whatever word we use, it does not change the underlying reality: the phenomenon and the driving reasons behind the phenomenon.
I hope that a growing proportion of Christians can realize the difference between having disagreements about some doctrinal issues vs, sharing the position within the universal body of Christ. The latter is the fundamental basis of unity - being followers of the same Lord and aiming towards the same goal, despite some disagreements about doctrinal issues.
The differing interpretations about doctrinal details may prevent harmonic cooperation within the same organization but do not remove the shared position within the universal body of Christ.
I am not convinced that there is a better word.
Or at least one without negative implications.
Perhaps what is needed is not within our language or comprehension. Even the notion of a "personal " faith seems to be seen as unhelpful.
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.