Here's a link to the paper that the summary refers to -- I've excerpted two sections below::
The role of the bishop of Rome at times of crisis in the ecclesial communion
23. In the first millennium, the Church experienced many times when ecclesial communion was in peril, as, for example, when the definitions of Nicaea were challenged by the condemnation of orthodox bishops at certain councils held in the fourth century in the East, and when the Christological formula of Chalcedon was challenged by monophysitism and the "Henotikon" (which occasioned the Acacian schism) in the fifth century, and then by monoenergism and monothelitism in the seventh century, and also at the time of the iconoclast crisis in the eighth and ninth centuries. Catholics and Orthodox both recognise the importance of the role played by the bishop of Rome at these times.
24. In fact, from the fourth century onwards, there was a growing recognition of Rome as a centre to which appeals or requests for help in various circumstances might be directed from the whole Christian world. In 339-40 Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, made an appeal to Pope Julius. In the words of the Pope, quoted by Athanasius, "He [Athanasius] came not of his own accord, but he was summoned by letter from us" (Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 29; cf 20, 33, and 35). Thus it appears that Julius did not simply respond to an appeal from Athanasius, but himself took the initiative in 'summoning" the bishop of Alexandria. Here, then, the role of the pope seems to have been more than simply appellate.
25. Requests for help made to Rome in moments of crisis were sometimes accompanied by similar requests to other major ecclesiastical sees. John Chrysostom (404), for example, appealed not only to Rome but also to the bishops of Milan and Aquileia. Thus, action taken by the bishop of Rome was intended to be coordinated, in a conciliar spirit, with action by other major sees. Moreover, the initiatives of the bishop of Rome tended generally to be undertaken within the framework of the Roman synod and usually referred to that synod. From this point of view also, they therefore had a conciliar or synodal character. For instance, in correspondence during the Photian dispute, bishops of Rome emphasised that they had taken their decisions in accordance with the rules or canons, and synodically ("regulariter et synodaliter" or "canonice et synodaliter").
26. The procedure to be followed in appeals to Rome was elaborated by the Council of Sardica (342-3, canons 3-5). There it was laid down that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the pope, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops of the dioceses adjoining that of the condemned bishop. If so requested by the condemned bishop, the pope might also send representatives to assist the bishops of the neighbouring dioceses. Though it was originally intended to be an ecumenical council, Sardica was actually a local council held in the West. Its canons were accepted in the East at the Council in Trullo (692).
27. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);
– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole.
Though the role of the pope does receive specific mention here, there are different interpretations of the terms, symphonia, synergos and symphronountes. This matter needs further study.
28. It can be affirmed that in the first millennium the bishop of Rome, as first (protos) among the patriarchs, exercised a role of coordination and stability in questions relating to faith and communion, in fidelity to the tradition and with respect for conciliarity.
The influence of non–theological factors
29. During the first millennium, a number of factors which were not directly theological played a considerable role in relations between the Churches of the East and West, and influenced the understanding and exercise of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. These factors were of various kinds, for instance, political, historical, socio-economic, and cultural.
30. As indications of relevant factors, the following may be stated:
– the terminology, mentality and ideology of the Roman Empire;
– the fluctuations of imperial politics with regard to the life of the Church;
– the transfer of the capital of the Empire to the East;
– the decline and fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and the consequences this had for the political and cultural equilibrium between East and West;
– the progressive cultural distancing between East and West, leading to mutual ignorance, estrangement and misunderstanding;
– the Muslim expansion in the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, as well as in the regions of North Africa and Spain;
– the rise of the Western Empire of Charlemagne;
– the personal influence of certain historical figures.
An awareness of the non–theological factors at work in the relations between Christian East and West and an appreciation of how they have interacted with various theological factors enable a deeper understanding of the life and faith of the Church, and in particular of the diversities that developed between East and West.
3 Comments •
Comments:
I’ll comment here, to leave room for the discourse on the other thread.
I have quite a few Orthodox friends, mostly converts but a few cradle, I am utterly fascinated by their thinking. Mainly, just because it is not what I am used to and so sucks me in to new pondering. I still very Western and Augustinian, but their openness to not having to have everything explained is so opposite RCC and Calvinist, that there is a magnetic draw for me to listen to what they have to say.
I am no means an expert, but almost universal amongst my friends is this strange dualism, the Great Schism hangs much more heavily on their hearts than it does my RC friends, yet a equally as deep suspicion of the Pope and Rome.
It is strange, they seem to really want a unified Church, even more than the last two Pope (I talking at the laity level, so ponder it is throughout), yet an equal passion of distrust. They can tell you the subtle differences (such crossing themselves right to left instead of left to right, where RC’s don’t even seem to have a concept of the EO, except in confusion [one RC apologist directly contradicted the Pope in the CCC, confusing them with the Copts {who refute the charge of monophysity, interesting acting like Anglican pre-GAFCON pointing to their liturgy}].
—-
I had an experience recently with another folks Protestant background unconsciously try to enforce their doctrine inside Anglicanism, they were NOT Baptist, so let me use the Baptist as an example, tried to enforce Zwingli instead of looking to Cranmer, Hooker & Parker, not understanding they had “changed zip codes” as it were and cause just a little bit of strife. Shocked at this and suddenly asking questions they should have when they entered Anglicanism, the response was an unhealthy, well we need to have unity in Christ (which I understand is they think they should win and enforce their understanding, thus unity). I can tell you how differently my Orthodox friends think, sure plenty of folks of SFIF attempt to correct me when I ponder if something is a “Seven Ecumenical Council Issue” or not [thanks, but no thanks, you are wasting your words, I have real honest to goodness Eastern Orthodox people to ask and engage instead of you ‘logical’ point to be made—how very Western of you
] - make no mistake about it we ARE VERY DIFFERENT, yet I think these Western Protestant friends are missing something, it is not proclaiming unity that we have unity, in fact I’ve now come to see that as a fake unity, man-made and thus will not last, but I do feel a unity with my brother and sisters in Christ who are Orthodox, it is as if something deep in my spirit, the Spirit, is testifying, something that can not be mathematically (or any other form of logic) expressed but I know this other brother, of Orthodox expression, is testifying to the Real Jesus, that so many who fill the episcopacy in my denomination do not—a Holy Mystery as my brother might explain it.
This last rabbit trail (since the “—-”) is a pretty poor attempt to give words to what I’ve experienced with my Orthodox friends, they are so VERY different, but there is a unity, maybe more so than with my Roman Catholic friends, though as many folks have tried to [very unsuccessfully] try to correct me and point out the differences, which I’d actually agree (logically), but there is this strange other realm outside of cold reason at work too, not emotion or existentialism either.
All to say I think the will be both a pull towards responding in seeking a full unity and an equal repulsion from the bishop of Rome. I do not understand it so much logically, but seen it from my Orthodox brothers to sense it, but not quantify it.
—-
My final footnote is I’ve observed a unity and division between my Orthodox brethren (Greek, Russian, Antichian, etc.), that they may be very comfortable with this seemly equal unity and complete division between.