2 ms·

> After all, the Pope was once one of the patriarchs of what is now the Orthodox Church This isn't true: the formal institution of the Pentarchy (ordering the

> After all, the Pope was once one of the patriarchs of what is now the Orthodox Church This isn't true: the formal institution of the Pentarchy (ordering the Church under five patriarchs -- Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch) was only introduced by the decrees of the Quintisext Council (692), which the Pope notably refused to ratify. In essence, the eastern patriarchs declared there to be a Pentarchy with the Pope as 'first among equals' (a "prerogative of honour"), while the Pope continued to claim a position of pre-eminence over all other bishops. > It is impossible for the two to be in schism if the institution was infallible prior to the schism itself The Catholic position is essentially that ratification by the Bishop of Rome is a pre-condition for the Church to make a declaration on matters of faith or doctrine. With that in mind, divergences like the Quintisext Council or the Iconoclast Crisis are at best local policies, at worst heresies, but certainly not "teachings of the Church" which later had to be "reverted". The later schism is also just that -- the Patriarchs in the East choosing to break off from the "primary body" of the Church, moving from a state of union to a state of disunion, but leaving the Church itself still secure. While I'm not quite as well-versed as with Catholic doctrine, my understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox position is symmetrical, though less strictly defined since the Orthodox tend towards a less legalistic expression of Church hierarchy. They believe that the Church speaks through a consensus of its patriarchs, and therefore that the Pope has simply broken off of the Church by declaring otherwise. In their case, cases like the Council of Hieria (the council which instituted Iconoclasm) are invalid because neither the patriarchs nor their representatives were present at the council -- so heresy was never professed by the Church.

eadmund 2y ago
> The Eastern Orthodox … believe that the Church speaks through a consensus of its patriarchs I understand that the Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church, and the Church speaks through the Ecumenical Councils (not through the patriarchs). Of course, there have been false councils, too, and the only way to distinguish between them is that some are recognised by the Church as ecumenical and some as false. Practically speaking, one might say that the Church speaks through the Church.
- achierius 2y ago
  That's true; The key thing I'm pointing at is that the way Orthodox scholars justify which councils are legitimate vs those that are not has been through whether or not the Patriarchs are represented, similarly to how Rome uses Papal approval for the same purpose.

eadmund 2y ago

> The Eastern Orthodox … believe that the Church speaks through a consensus of its patriarchs I understand that the Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church, and the Church speaks through the Ecumenical Councils (not through the patriarchs). Of course, there have been false councils, too, and the only way to distinguish between them is that some are recognised by the Church as ecumenical and some as false. Practically speaking, one might say that the Church speaks through the Church.

achierius 2y ago
That's true; The key thing I'm pointing at is that the way Orthodox scholars justify which councils are legitimate vs those that are not has been through whether or not the Patriarchs are represented, similarly to how Rome uses Papal approval for the same purpose.