The Argument Between Rome and Constantinople
As the Formula of Concord affirmed, quoting Irenaeus, the man from
the East who served as bishop in the West: dissonantia ieiunei non
dissolvit consonantiam fidei (SD X, 31). Yet order-driven (law!) as
both the Roman and Constantinopolitan churches are, it is no surprise
that the supremacy question keeps them appart. One could say, AC VII
and Ap. VII/VIII have yet to be heard by Rome and Constantinople.
I add to the above Luther-quote that Luther is referring to the
First Council of Constantinople in 381, by the third canon of which the
bishop of Constantinople was elevated in rank because he was the bishop
of the New Rome. Can. XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon (451), while
acknowledging Rome’s seniority, then gave him jurisdiction over the
whole heathen world outside the circumscribed jurisdictions of the
other four bishops of the classic pentarchy (Alexandria, Antioch,
Jerusalem, Rome). Unsurprisingly, the Roman popes did not directly
recognize these two canons of otherwise highly important councils
(Trinity, Christology!). Can councils err after all when they go beyond
Scripture? Hmm…
The situation got more complicated after the fall of Constantinople
in 1453, when Zoe / Sophia, a niece of the last Byzantine emperor,
Constantine XI (he, faithful to the decrees of the union Council of
Ferrara-Florence in the 1430s, died in fellowship with the Roman pope
at the hands of the Turks when The City fell; his brother, Thomas, died
in Rome, a faithful son of the pope — as did, in 1503, Thomas’ son,
Andrew, who bequeathed his title (Emperor of the Romans) on Ferdinand
II of Aragon from where the title ended up with Charles V of Augsburg
fame), married Ivan III, the leader of the emerging Russian empire, who
then felt entitled to call Moscow the "Third Rome", which, according to
ancient political-ecclesial logic, placed the patriarch of Moscow above
both Rome and Constantinople. This not only makes relations to the West
(Rome) difficult; this is a festering wound in the Orthodox community
as well. — So much for "unity" in the East! So much also for a path
that really does not lead to genuine unity in the church! (Anybody
still looking East or West starry-eyed?)
Thank God for Luther’s rediscovery of what is constitutive of the church and therefore necessary for godly church union!
Dr. Holger Sonntag writes: It is really remarkable that the
argument between these two ancient churches to this day comes down to
the question of church order. The faith is mainly the same, with
different emphases, some of which are expressed in the greater or
lesser appreciation of St. Augustine. Certainly nothing "modern"
hermeneutics couldn’t handle. When pressed in the 17th century,
Orthodox theologians felt far greater proximity to Rome (despite their
grievances against the pope’s supremacy claims and Catholic
proselytizing in Poland and in the Ukraine in the course of the
Counterreformation) than to Geneva / Canterbury — Wittenberg /
Tuebingen had already lost out in the 16th century.