Be the first person to like this.
I'd really like to hear someone chime in who has more authority or knowledge on this.
All I really remember is the nutshell version. 500ad we had 5 patriarchs each equal, but the one from Rome was given first honor (to speak?), then Constantinople, then Antioch, then Jerusalem, then Alexandria.
After a few hundred years, the ones in Rome became more legalistic as they grew by growing more political power which was the way things were done there. This was until the point that the Patriarch (now Pope) got it in his head that since he was first among equals he was better and could boss them around.
Then some jerk cardinal tried to excommunicate the patriarch of Constantinople, because of a variety of reasons. Partially social, partially economic, but basically the cardinal was trying to put the patriarch in his place.
This apparently wasn't proper to do, and went against the councils as there wasn't unanimity or at least agreement from the other 3 patriarchs of the time. So the other three came in and sided with Constantinople and then excommunicated the pope of Rome in what was is 1056? This divide was rather cemented in a crusade a few hundred years later.
So from one point of view we are the best, our pope is the top, we did the deed first. The more Orthodox point of view is, you were first among EQUALS, and what you did wasn't legal. Add a sprinkling of heresy here.
Anyway I'd like to read something more authoritative. I believe another reason the Roman's say their authority is superior is because they derive theirs to Peter. Which is odd, the Romans were the ones to kill him, no?
I'd really like to hear someone chime in who has more authority or knowledge on this.
All I really remember is the nutshell version. 500ad we had 5 patriarchs each equal, but the one from Rome was given first honor (to speak?), then Constantinople, then Antioch, then Jerusalem, then Alexandria.
Ditto.
Think about it... St. Gregory the Dialogist himself, who was pope of Rome rejected today's understanding of papacy. He said that anyone who would take to himself rule of the entire church IS anti-christ. Pretty strong words, and they come from the Roman Pope himself. The Roman Pope before the split (great schism of 1054ad) did not consider himself ruler of the entire church. The Eastern Orthodox church held, and always will hold, that the pope was first among equals. Peter also established the antiochian see. There was also the see of Alexandria. They also referred to the Alexandrian bishop as the pope in historical texts. Pope is simply a latin term meaning \"papa.\" It was a term of endearment. The Traditional thought in regards to the pope of Rome was that he was first among equals. His decisions held greatest weight, but was not the sole decision maker in the church and he could be excommunicated and certainly was not infallible. There were ecumenical counsels where the pope was corrected and threatened with excommunication unless he change his opinion. Needless to say, the pope got inline (until the great schism of course). No one in the Orthodox church claims that the pope did have a sort of authoritative opinion, but there were obvious restrictions. After the conversion of the empire to constantinople, they continued to refer to Constantinople as Rome. They even called it the New Rome. There were controversies wondering if Rome was still first among equals or if that authority was now at constantinople. Then when Russia converted to Christianity, they were prophesied to be the Third Rome, and there would never be another Rome. This was prophesied by a Canonized Saint. Therefore, it there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the Roman Bishop was NEVER the supreme authority of the church, but only first among equals. He had a position of authority, but that authority only went so far. The farther Rome goes, the more they pervert that authority. No one could ever have imagined in the early church that they would declare the pope infallible! Many of the Catholic priests faught against this perversion, but ultimately it went how it went. The Pope is now considered infallible. There was already an abuse of power by the pope, now there is even more so. The Orthodox Bishops, to my understanding, are saying, \"Let the pope come back, let us return to days of old. He will return to being the first among equals. But away with this ungodly heresy that he is supreme ruler. We will not unite falsely to heresy!\"