Did the Orthodox Churches ever submit to the Pope's Authority?

[GodHeals]

Hi,

Did the Orthodox Churches ever submit to the Pope’s Authority?

If so, why don’t they currently believe in the need of a Pope, a Vicar of Christ?

Did the Apostles that went separate ways always converge on the teachings with Peter as the Head of the Church throughout their years evangelizing all men throughout different areas in the region?

I read the following about the Armenian Orthodox… it seems some of them have come back to the Catholic Church as Armenian Catholics?

The Armenian Apostolic Church (Armenian: Հայաստանյայց Առաքելական Սուրբ Եկեղեցի, Hayastanyayc̕ Aṙak̕elakan Sowrb Ekeġec̕i) is the world’s oldest National Church,[2][3][4][5] is part of Oriental Orthodoxy, and is one of the most ancient Christian communities.[6] Armenia was the first country to adopt Christianity as its official religion in 301 AD, in establishing this church.[7] The Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church claims to trace its origins to the missions of Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus in the 1st century and is an early center of Christianity. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Orthodox_Church

I am still questioning the Catholic Church based on the need for a Pope when there were five councils: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. I don’t know much about the history of the Church and why Rome would have the Pope as the Head, especially when the Orthodox say Rome broke away, and Catholics say the Orthodox broke away. I am sure it is a long discussion, but if you can concisely give me both the ARGUMENTS against the Church and COUNTER ARGUMENTS for the Church, included in my questions above, that would be great!

Thank You,
Brian

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi,

Did the Orthodox Churches ever submit to the Pope’s Authority?

Depends what you mean by this. Certainly they did not submit to the administrative rule of the Pope, but whenever a Pope teaches orthodoxy, like Pope Leo the Great, then they submit to the Pope’s teaching. But it had to do more with the orthodoxy of the Pope’s teaching, rather than the Pope being the Pope.

If so, why don’t they currently believe in the need of a Pope, a Vicar of Christ?

Why do we need a Pope? Christ has promised us that he will be with us until the end of ages. Christ promised us the Holy Spirit to fill us and guide us. Why do we need a vicar when God is already with us?

Did the Apostles that went separate ways always converge on the teachings with Peter as the Head of the Church throughout their years evangelizing all men throughout different areas in the region?

There is no evidence in that. How do you think St. Thomas would communicate with St. Peter all the way from India in the First Century?

I read the following about the Armenian Orthodox… it seems some of them have come back to the Catholic Church as Armenian Catholics?

There have been a number of Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) who have come into union with Rome, for a varied number of reasons.

 

[Elizium23]

Why do we need a Pope? Christ has promised us that he will be with us until the end of ages. Christ promised us the Holy Spirit to fill us and guide us. Why do we need a vicar when God is already with us?

We need a Pope because we are Catholics (check the site you visit: it ends in catholic.com)

We need a Pope because Christ also promised “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

We need a Pope because such has been the structure of the Church since Christ ascended into Heaven after giving her authority to bind and loose on Earth.

I can think of myriad other reasons we need a Pope, as I am sure the Orthodox can come up with just as many reasons that they don’t. But that is why they are Orthodox and we here are Catholic. Constantine, it is personally painful to watch your slow apostasy from your Latin Church Catholic roots, and the insults against my own Church and particularly the West are becoming hard to bear. Now that you are OCA, perhaps you should find yourself another forum.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We need a Pope because we are Catholics (check the site you visit: it ends in catholic.com)

Check the thread you are replying to, it is addressed to the Orthodox.

We need a Pope because Christ also promised “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

I hope you realize that there is nothing in that passage that logically concludes to the need of a Papacy.

We need a Pope because such has been the structure of the Church since Christ ascended into Heaven after giving her authority to bind and loose on Earth.

I suggest reading more into the early Church and you’ll be surprised that such structure you speak of did not exist in the early Church. In fact, by the First Council of Nicaea, they were only beginning to introduce Metropolitans into the ecclesiology. There wasn’t even a Patriarch back then, much less a Pope.

I can think of myriad other reasons we need a Pope, as I am sure the Orthodox can come up with just as many reasons that they don’t. But that is why they are Orthodox and we here are Catholic. Constantine, it is personally painful to watch your slow apostasy from your Latin Church Catholic roots, and the insults against my own Church and particularly the West are becoming hard to bear. Now that you are OCA, perhaps you should find yourself another forum.

First, this question asks about the Orthodox point of view. So what do you want, the same when Roman Catholics try to answer for Eastern Catholics, you also want to answer for the Orthodox now?

Second, you have no right to send me away from this forum.

 

[Elizium23]

No, this thread is addressed to Eastern Catholics, or it would be in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

And there has always been a Bishop of Rome. No, patriarchs and metropolitans and titular bishops and cardinals may not have sprung fully-formed from the head of Peter, but Peter was the Bishop of Rome and his successor is today considered the second Pope. There is an unbroken line of succession which Catholics can claim, reaching back to the Apostolic Age and Peter’s reign.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, this thread is addressed to Eastern Catholics, or it would be in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

The thread title is, “Did the Orthodox Churches ever submit to the Pope’s Authority?”

 

[Elizium23]

The thread title is, “Did the Orthodox Churches ever submit to the Pope’s Authority?”

Isn’t that the definition of an Eastern Catholic Church?

Please read the OP’s second sentence:

If so, why don’t they currently believe in the need of a Pope, a Vicar of Christ?

Note the third person. If s/he were addressing the Orthodox, then wouldn’t s/he use “you”?

We are Catholic. Please check your browser again; site still says “catholic.com”. All questions herein are addressed to Catholics, since Catholics are the primary users and target audience of this site. If the OP wished to address some other group, the OP would have done it explicitly; rather than addressing Catholics implicitly by posting in our Eastern Catholicism forum, where Catholics (Eastern and Roman alike) are the ones reading and answering questions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Isn’t that the definition of an Eastern Catholic Church?

The OP was asking about the Orthodox, not the Eastern Catholics. Read the entire post, it is clear as day. This is not the first time someone posted an Orthodox related question in the EC forum.

 

[Mickey]

there were five councils: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.

They were called Patriarchates. The Vatican has recently dropped the title, “Patriarch of the West” for the Pope.

 

[Elizium23]

The OP was asking about the Orthodox, not the Eastern Catholics. Read the entire post, it is clear as day. This is not the first time someone posted an Orthodox related question in the EC forum.

It is clear to me that the OP used “they” in the third person. It is also clear as day to me that when an Orthodox accepts the authority of the Pope, he is Eastern Catholic. What exactly is your problem with those definitions?

 

[malphono]

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is clear to me that the OP used “they” in the third person. It is also clear as day to me that when an Orthodox accepts the authority of the Pope, he is Eastern Catholic. What exactly is your problem with those definitions?

The OP asked, “If so, why don’t they currently believe in the need of a Pope, a Vicar of Christ?”

Do Eastern Catholics currently do not believe in a need for a Pope? They do. It is clear as day the question of the OP is about the Orthodox Church.

 

[Mickey]

Did the Orthodox Churches ever submit to the Pope’s Authority?

There are many Popes from the first century that the Holy Orthodox Church recognizes as saints.

But I am not sure what you are asking when you use the word “submit.”

 

[Mickey]

It is clear as day the question of the OP is about the Orthodox Church.

Yes. That is how I read it also. Perhaps the OP should either clarify…or the thread could be moved to a different sub-forum.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes. That is how I read it also. Perhaps the OP should either clarify…or the thread could be moved to a different sub-forum.

Yes, it is a common mistake here. Either they don’t know the rules of the EC forum or that they believe that ECs can answer the question better.

 

[Elizium23]

The simple answer is that yes, the Eastern Orthodox Churches had always accepted the Pope’s authority (it would be a stretch to say that they submitted) until the Schism of 1054 broke East and West apart, over doctrinal divergence but primarily political issues that had already been percolating under the surface for centuries. Papal primacy was a major factor in the division, and the East was clearly sick of Rome’s claims to absolute authority over the whole Church, and moved in the direction of a collegial authority (low Petrine view).

Now far be it from me to say that the Church was one happy family before 1054, because there were plenty of controversies and heresies and councils designed to sort them out. But the Church throughout the known world was more or less unified with intercommunion and a recognizable hierarchy accepted by all Christians, with notable exceptions such as the non-Chalcedonians (Oriental Orthodox) and the Assyrian Church of the East. The Byzantine Eastern Orthodox trace a clear lineage directly from the primitive Church, of which Peter was the bishop of Rome, and depending on your Petrine view, he was first among equals or head of the Church.

 

[Apotheoun]

I think it is best to say that the Eastern Churches throughout history have accepted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome among the Patriarchs and even the universal episcopate, but that does not mean that anyone in the East would ever, or should ever, accept the idea of being in “submission” to the Pope. Nor does it mean that the Bishop of Rome has authority over the other Patriarchs and bishops, because that would be to conceive “authority” in a manner similar to the Gentiles, and Christ condemned that idea.

 

[fordhamstudent]

The Eastern Orthodox Church before the schism saw the role of the Patriarch of Rome as the guardian of Orthodoxy and thus the first among equals who was necessary in settling disputes among patriarchates and especially theological disputes–which is why the See of Rome gained a position of pre-eminence among the other Patriarchal Sees. The development of the Papacy was due in part to the move of the center of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople–which not only left the Pope of Rome vulnerable to attacks, but caused it to later assert its leadership leading to the crowning of Charlemagne as holy Roman Emperor.

The development of papal prerogatives such as universal jurisdiction and temporal and spiritual power over all the Churches was due mostly in part to a theological reflection on the role of St. Peter in the NT as a justification for the increasing temporal and spiritual power of the See of Rome. If the capital of Rome would never had shifted to the Eastern Roman Empire the theological development of the office of the Pope of Rome would have stayed patristic in orientation with Rome as first among equals, settler of disputes, co-convener of Ecumenical Councils, and guardian and protector of Orthodoxy instead of the current development which the Eastern Orthodox find problematic in the journey toward ecclesiastical unity. The Holy Father understands this reality with the Orthodox and is allowing a theological reflection on this very issue which may not rescind the later development of papal prerogatives, but a least will reveal that the Pope understands the historical issues in the development of Papal self-assertion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think it is best to say that the Eastern Churches throughout history have accepted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome among the Patriarchs and even the universal episcopate, but that does not mean that anyone in the East would ever, or should ever, accept the idea of being in “submission” to the Pope. Nor does it mean that the Bishop of Rome has authority over the other Patriarchs and bishops, because that would be to conceive “authority” in a manner similar to the Gentiles, and Christ condemned that idea.

That’s how I read the Councils in particular Sardica. Its not easy if you look back from today with todays mindset, you really need to read going forward without preconceived ideas.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think it is best to say that the Eastern Churches throughout history have accepted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome among the Patriarchs and even the universal episcopate, but that does not mean that anyone in the East would ever, or should ever, accept the idea of being in “submission” to the Pope. Nor does it mean that the Bishop of Rome has authority over the other Patriarchs and bishops, because that would be to conceive “authority” in a manner similar to the Gentiles, and Christ condemned that idea.

Universal episcopate? In what sense do you mean this?