Okay, I recently read a book on the Orthodox Church, and not surprisingly, a large portion of it talked about the schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. One of the causes of that chism was that followers of Rome believed that the Pope was In Charge of everyone, while the followers of Constantinople considered the Pope to be the Bishop of Rome - sort of a first among equals kind of thing, with all the other bishops.
Anyway, the book (The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware) seemed to indicate that the Pope is still considered to be the Bishop of Rome, despite the facts that he is now the head of another church. So my question is: how much attention does Orthodoxy pay the Pope? Any at all? Does the Pope even pay lip service to being the bishop of Rome?
One of the big theological rifts was the filioque clause. Does the Holy Spirit proceed only from the Father or from both the Father and the Son? That was considered a rather significant debate at the time of the schism.
Pope John Paul II has made some conciliatory gestures, and discusses the importance of ecumenism in the 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That They May Be One). However, that publication makes it very clear that the Pope still holds a firm belief in the uniqueness and primacy of the Bishop of Rome:
“The Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of the Church which preserves the mark of the martyrdom of Peter and of Paul. By a mysterious design of Providence it is at Rome that Peter concludes his journey in following Jesus, and it is at Rome that he gives his greatest proof of love and fidelity. Likewis Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, gives his supreme witness at Rome. In this way, the Church of Rome became the Church of Peter and of Paul.” (section 90, Ut Unum Sint)
Pastorally, the Orthodox pretty much ignore the pope completely. He has nothing to say to them, any more than Catholics would think that the Archbishop of Canterbury had anything to say to Catholics.
Theologically, I’m sure that Orthodox theologians look over the published works and pronouncements of the pope in the same way that RCC theologians would look over the works of an Orthodox patriarch or the the works of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They would look for new and interesting points or ideas or older beliefs expressed in new ways, simply as a way to keep their own understanding of the RCC positions clear.
When John Paul visited Greece last year, the Greek government prepared for the possibility of riots, the antipathy to the papacy is so strong, there. There were demands from a number of Greeks (and not just old fogey religious zealots) to deny the pope a visa. John Paul was rather spectacularly successful in diffusing much of the bad feelings with a public apology for past wrongs imposed by the RCC on Orthodox believers. He won over even more former adversaries when it was obvious that he and the patriarch (metropolitan?) obviously hit it off very well, personally.
That doesn’t end the rift, of course. There are many theological issues dividing the two groups. In addition, most of the Orthodox churches are nationally governed. Having wooed the Greeks, John Paul will need to go on to the Russians and other Orthodox groups. (The Greeks were key to begin the process because they are the eldest surviving Orthodox branch (I believe).) The Russians would be a hard “sell,” not because the people are so passionately involved, but because the Russian Orthodox hierarchy considers all the members of Western Christianity to be interlopers on their turf. (The RO church has been successful in getting the Duma to pass a number of laws that severely restrict other religions while giving preferential treatment to the ROC.) I am not that familiar with the Orthodox groups from Syria or Bulgaria and similar locations.
Dang, I can’t find a cite for it, but I just read somewhere (I think) that the Church of St. John Lateran in Rome is the Pope’s official “home church” as Bishop of Rome, and that the only time services are held in there is when he’s presiding as Bishop of Rome, that the rest of the year it’s closed (except as a museum). And I thought that was once a year, but I can’t find it anywhere.
Oh, Catholics still consider the pope the bishop of Rome. They just think that he has responsibilities and authority that make him more than the “first among equals.” I figured that he probably appointed a vicar to run the diocese in his “extended absence” handling matters papal, so I dropped “diocese of Rome” into Google and came up with this Diocese of Rome Web Page with a link to Diocese of Rome description.
I remember reading somewhere that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church removed their excommunications of each other. It’s a vague memory but it was around 1997.
to give the lowest and most common denominator explaination.
at first there was a group, rome, constantinople, antioch, jerusalem, and alexandria. all were equal, all had one vote.
due to rising and falling empires, some had political aspirations. when rome declined as an empire the power of the pope became a bit more secular. in the east the byz. empire held a bit of a tighter hand on the patriarchs. add diffrent theo. views ie the filioque, and marion issues, things can get rather heated. in the times of no internet, and rather slow ships and camels, letters were exchanged, some of them under the names of people who had died. in 1054 the final split arrived and the pope isn’t mentioned in orthodox services and the patriarchs are not mentioned in catholic services. russia took the place of rome in the orthodox patriarchates.
in a 20th century turn without the clamp of communism some of the orthodox patriarchates are having a bit of power hunger themselves. with the break up of the soviet union some of the churches that were under the russian patriarchate wanted to switch over to constantinople to get away from being under “russian rule.” there was a bit of a kick up with both patriarchs not mentioning each other in liturgies. however within a month everything was settled and they now mention and pray for each other in liturgies. it was interesting to follow and there could have been a very serious split if the two had not gotten on the phone and talked.
the founding fathers were very smart to have separation of church and state.