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

[Mickey]

Fellow Catholics - the Church has never taught that only St. Peter is the Rock…of course Christ is also the Rock.

Correct. And of course you cannot separate St Peter from his confession of faith. But it is that very confession of faith that is the rock on which the Church is built. And Christ is the Spiritual Rock (1 Corinthians) and the Cornerstone (Ephesians).

It baffles me sometime when Catholics take offense about this. For some reason, I think Catholics think that this passage (cherry picked out of Matthew) is the proof certain for the supremacy of the Pope Rome. It has nothing to do with that. Holy Orthodoxy loves St Peter! Every Orthodox bishop is like St Peter because of the confession of faith that Christ is the Messiah…the Son of the living God. We have a high feast for the Holy Apostles SS Peter and Paul preceded by many weeks of fasting.

If we say to ourselves ’ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ then we too become Peter, for whoever is united to Christ becomes Peter.
Origen

 

[Mickey]

I am not even sure what this argument is directed against. We don’t deny Peter a primacy among the apostles, we simply deny the claim that one must necessarily conclude from this fact the truth of the modern day papacy. And all on the grounds of this simple point of disagreement, we in this thread have been told we are haters of the papacy, fallaciously compared to Protestants, dragged into irrelevant and rather acerbic arguments about whether our Church is the true Church (that is not the topic of this thread), and now we have our sanity called into question. It seems to me that we have our heads screwed on relatively straight here, to be honest.

It’s all par for the course.

 

[brb3]

Who named Simon PETER ?
What’s translation of Peter ?

ROCK !!

checkmate …

Who walked on water ?
Who raised the dead ?

The Rock … CHECKMATE Redux

 

[steve_b]

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?

.

Would the apostles have asked Jesus, why do we need Peter? Of course not.

 

[chimo]

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?

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

The question of the authority of a Holy Father to preside over the whole Church is the basis of this problem we have in understanding by what forms and definations can be acceptable for the whole Church. It is my own understanding that the East and West actually were not in Communion and agreement even in the early Church as it is sometimes stated. This can be true for the two great witnesses had three things going against this so called Communion. First was language, second was geography and third was a distinct different settings of their exterior sacramental ways. Really there was no intercommunion back then. How can anyone know the other when they hardly travelled and when one speaks latin and the other Greek. No there was hardly any intercommunion among the Laity. Oh yes the Bishops of each Church met on many occasions but they needed interpretation when attending the others Liturgy.

It is in the twentieth century and in this one that the Laity are coming into their own and are discovering who each other are. The language and geogaphic barriers are gone and since our theologies were made with some noticable differences we are dscovering we are also made different. These differences are important for they give to us the means to discover why East and West was made different. The author of these differences was the Holy Spirit and He made sure to establsh them so as to be available to the Laity of the 20th and 21st centuries. You see the two Churches or the two great witnesses as I call them needed to find their own makeup, identity, characteristics and personalites before this same Holy Spirit will instruct them to discover each other. Just like two individuals who needed time to find themselves before they come to know each other so God ordained His two protogees to work after the same pattern.

The struggles of the last 1300 years are what I call “growing up” pains and need not to be the front issues of our discovering of each other. The Popes and Patriarches are now ever learned men who will not act carelessly as it was done in the past for the “former things” have pass away and are now replaced by maturity and longing for the other. We are now in the beginning of this stage of discovery and expectation and it will be the Laity that God has been waiting for to be the front leaders to take charge of this transformation to make our Churches that united Witness He needs to show this world His Church.

It wasn’t necessary for the East to have the Pope of Rome as their leader since they all had their own “Popes” in the form as Patriarchs. These Patriarchs essentially did their work to care their respective Churches of the East. The Pope needed time to build up the Church of Rome as we see it today. These two great Churches were the backbone of God’s message to His world. We have now emerged out of our dfficult formation years and are now ready to become more united than we ever had before. This will take time when the Laity will discover the richness and even the “wine” which the other can give. Sooner or later these issues regarding the Pope to be the “chief shepherd” will come as soon as his office can be recognized to be the importance as a “sign for this unity.” Indeed it is important for the Holy Father to have this care of the Church of God. The Papacy is a great gift God gave to His Church and someday the East will see this sign and gift as necessary for their welfare.

The question of what authority the Holy Father is to have is what this debate is all about. His authority I believe if it is to be acceptable to the rest of the East must be pastoral in its essence if it is to work. This pastoral authority will be more defined later on as we are getting there yet slowly but surely. The East is much different than the West and the conditions of the past will not work to their conclusions so another aspect and consideration must be looked for. Contacts were very important and continued contacts must be further developed. When more understandings do come and more of us are educated in both teachings of East and West then the future will be possible for these more learned men to accept and understand each other.

 

[Schism_hater]

If Christ wished to be understood as the Rock, he would of Preached that first Pentecostal Sermon, .

I’m glad you brought up Pentecost. According to you, Christ had already proclaimed Peter to be Pope, leader of the Church, keeper of the keys, etc. yet what was the post-Ascension, pre-Pentecostal Church doing? Waiting- for the descent of the Holy Spirit, upon the whole Church, just as Christ had promised. It was THEN that the Church began preaching, teaching, growing, working miracles. Think about it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Jesus is the Rock. The confession of Peter is the Rock. Peter is the Rock. Since when did we (and by we I mean almost everyone in this thread) become Fundamentalist Protestants who can only derive one simple meaning from a verse of Sacred Scripture? Often the Scriptures, being an expression of the deep and rich mysteries of our faith, have multiple layers of meaning! Just as the Psalms can refer both to David and Our Lord, so can the Rock refer to both Christ, who is ultimately and truly the Rock (or Cornerstone) and also to Peter, who shares in Christ’s role as Rock. St. Ignatius tells us to look upon the bishop as if looking upon the Lord Himself - if the bishop is an icon of Christ the High Priest…why can’t St. Peter (and his successors) be icons of Christ the Rock? I don’t understand why it is mutually exclusive.

Fellow Catholics - the Church has never taught that only St. Peter is the Rock…of course Christ is also the Rock. Our Orthodox brothers are correct that many Fathers identified the Rock as Christ or St. Peter’s confession. Orthodox brothers - my Catholic brothers are correct that other Fathers identified the Rock as St. Peter. The Faith is rich and full of mysteries - it isn’t always either / or!

Peter is the rock because of his confession. Do you think Jesus would build His Church on Peter if Peter went the way of Judas? Is the value of Peter in him being Peter, or is it in the faith he professes?

I agree with you, it is not mutually exclusive. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built. And so is every Apostle and every Bishop since.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Who raised the dead ?

Acts 20:7-12
7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. 9 Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. 10 Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” 11 Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. 12 The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted.

 

[steve_b]

For some reason, I think Catholics think that this passage (cherry picked out of Matthew) is the proof certain for the supremacy of the Pope Rome. It has nothing to do with that. Holy Orthodoxy loves St Peter! Every Orthodox bishop is like St Peter because of the confession of faith that Christ is the Messiah…the Son of the living God. We have a high feast for the Holy Apostles SS Peter and Paul preceded by many weeks of fasting.

FWIW, the apostles made a similar confession as Peter would make in Mt 16, only they made it earlier in Matthew’s gospel

Re: [Mt 14:33 ]
32* And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying,* “Truly you are the Son of God.” …

Jesus could have said to the apostles, hey guys “your confession was a revelation from the Father” and so I tell you, (plural) I’m going to change everybody’s name to Rock (Peter), and I give you (Plural) the keys to the kingdom,…But we can see, Jesus didn’t say a thing.

Jesus waited till Mt 16 to bestow on Simon alone, (not plural) a name change, and gave Peter alone, (not plural) the keys to the kingdom of God, because that’s what the Father wanted.

Peter is the Father’s choice.

*Jn 5:19 *
*the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. *

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

U make strong case for why the Church needs ONE to make the tough calls & settle disputes. Any effective government has either a King, PrimeMinister, Pres, or Dictator.
Having a number of Patriarchs, or Leaders like the Protestants do …is never gonna work.

Even the Indians knew u need ONE Chief !! Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians …a ticket to disaster.

We have a King, Jesus Christ. Patriarchs aren’t Popes, that is the greatest mistake of every Roman Catholic regarding Orthodox ecclesiology. They aren’t “Pope-lite”. The Church is formed like the Roman Republic, the bishops are the senators and the Emperor is Christ

 

[Mickey]

the apostles made a similar confession as Peter would make in Mt 16, only they made it earlier in Matthew’s gospel

Great point. And as we know the keys are linked to binding and loosing and we see in Matthew 18:18 (and again in St John’s Gospel) that all the Apostles were given that authority.

Jesus could have said to the apostles, hey guys “your confession was a revelation from the Father”

Are you saying that the Apostle’s confession of Jesus as the Christ was a bunch of marlarkey? For shame!

 

[Mickey]

Peter is the Father’s choice.

Christ chose all the holy Apostles.

Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matt 19:27-28

 

[ConstantineTG]

Christ chose all the holy Apostles.

Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matt 19:27-28

And this is crucial because no one seat (or throne) is higher than the other. And this is why Judas’ place was filled, but nowhere in Scripture was there any successor to any of the other Apostles. Because they died in the faith, they retain their place of honor forever.

 

[steve_b]

Great point. And as we know the keys are linked to binding and loosing and we see in Matthew 18:18 (and again in St John’s Gospel) that all the Apostles were given that authority.

There are the keys, & there is binding and loosing. No mention of keys is made in Mt 18:18

Are you saying that the Apostle’s confession of Jesus as the Christ was a bunch of marlarkey? For shame!

Nonsense. I said no such thing. The confession must not have been the trigger. Jesus Chose Peter, because Peter is the Father’s choice.

 

[steve_b]

Christ chose all the holy Apostles.

But He didn’t make everyone Peter.
M:

Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matt 19:27-28

It still doesn’t make everyone Peter.

 

[dvdjs]

The schism in fact did not happen in 1054 at Constantinople either. Several decades later in the same century, some Roman pope asked why the bishop of Rome was not commemorated in Constantinople. The response of the synod was rather matter-of-factly to declare that Rome had not been removed from the diptychs for canonical reasons, and that therefore the bishop of Rome should be temporarily placed back on the diptychs until his customary letter announcing his enthronement with a profession of faith was sent to Constantinople. 1054 is arguably not date of the schism, and this actually means that Constantinople in some respects remained in communion with Rome longer than Antioch did.

Fine, what date would you like? I summarized the from 1054 to the present.

They did so uncanonically, as well.

How was this uncanonical?

That is a good joke. Expulsion by crusading Franks, last I checked is not a canonical reason for deposition. Rather sanely, the holy synod of Constantinople agreed. The questionable rationale of the OCA deposition of former Metropolitan Jonah aside, there is in fact such a thing as a canonical deposition of a hierarch by his synod.

Not really a joke. The clergy and, as was very important at that time, the new head of state, wanted a new bishop. So they deposed the old one. Very typical in Orthodoxy - back in the Byzantine era, in the days of the Rum Millet, and still with some echoes today,

The bishop of Antioch fled to Constantinople, and his expulsion from the city was rightly recognized as being unjust. Similarly, the synod of the great city found the election of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem to be invalid. The solution, it is true, could have been more faithful to the canons, but the faithful outside of Frankish controlled lands still accepted the legitimacy of these patriarchs, over the patriarchs installed by the Franks.

Is there a record of these ostensibly synodal findings? What were the particular charges? How did the Constantinopollitan church appointing a Patriarch, resident in Constantinople, for another church? Who accepted them - when, where, and how?

The EP was essentially kept in line as unionist by imperial policy. But the anti-union resistance outside of the empire, by bishops already conquered by the Turks, was much stronger than the small unionist party. The end of the union was inevitable, not because of the fall of the empire, or the Turks, but because it was a minority position in the Orthodox world as a whole.

Yes, the union was opposed by Bishops “conquered by the Turks” - those conquered before the Fall of C’ple or after. And you may be right that the conquest was inevitable, but i don;t see that as probative of the “Orthodoxy” of the accepting the Sultan’s position on union.

Or one can look at the Georgians, who refused to approve of Florence, and remained anti-union, despite not being part of the Rum Millet. Anti-unionism was definitely not confined to the Rum Millet.

One could. Or Russia. But the question raised by CTG was about the* supposed lack* of Easterners taking the Roman, pro-union position. The answer is that the idea of a lack of such people is misinformed. The opposition was, obviously, not unanimous, but it was there. The Czar may have been opposed to the Union the Metropolitan of Kiev was in favor, and remained in favor even after everyone else caved when the Czar gave his decree. So did the C’ple, until its fall, And to this day, the Eastern Catholic churches are a clear refutation of any idea that no Easterners advocate a pro-union position.

 

[steve_b]

And this is crucial because no one seat (or throne) is higher than the other. And this is why Judas’ place was filled, but nowhere in Scripture was there any successor to any of the other Apostles. Because they died in the faith, they retain their place of honor forever.

Luke 12:39-44 ." Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward οἰκονόμος oikonomos*]*whom his master will set καθίστημι *kathistēmi make ruler] *over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions”.

Definition οἰκονόμος *oikonomos] = *steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has intrusted the management of his affairs

Definition καθίστημι *kathistēmi make ruler] *1) to set, place, put a) to set one over a thing (in charge of it) b) to appoint one to administer an office

Then this dispute happens at the last supper over who’s greatest among the apostles. Jesus sets the apostles straight. It’s Peter who is to lead THEM ergo also the Church.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744436&postcount=60

 

[dvdjs]

The claim can only be said to be specious if one rejects the authority of Chalcedon. If the non-Chalcedonian bishops in those areas were the legitimate bishops, then it doesn’t even matter whether the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch sided with Rome or Constantinople, because it logically follows from recognizing that the non-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were the legitimate patriarchs that Chalcedon was a false synod, and that both Rome and Constantinople were in error by the time of the East-West schism, and have been in error for 1500 years.

I am happy to place such importance on the finding of a Council. Now tell me: What Ecumenical council has ruled on the propriety of placing counterparts to the Patriarchs installed by the Crusaders in the Holy Land, or the Melkite Patriarch? On the excommunication of Catholics by the East?

Again, this polemic depends heavily upon ecclesial indifferentism and relativism. The legitimacy of a bishop is determined neither by the number of his faithful nor by the predominant ethnicity of his faithful, but by the truth of his confession, the orthodoxy of his faith.

Fine, but in making this argument, you actually make my point, revealing the lack of substance of the “four of five partiarchates agree” argument. In the end it is simply a matter of a unilateral declaration of the Orthodox of their self-perception of their own Orthodoxy that is important. Everything else then falls into place. That position is crucial, because it is necessary to disregard the actual facts on who has agreed with what and when. It is an entirely respectable position. I don’t agree with it, of course, but I cannot argue against it; it is just an article of faith. But back to the “four of five partiarchates agree” argument - the argument that I responding to - that argument has no substance.

 

[dvdjs]

Except they always have, because a synod has always been recognized to have more power than any one bishop.

Good grief. We have had occasion to talk of uncanonical acts and interventions by Patriarchs. The EP, for example, wielded more power than the Serbian Patriarch whose Patriarchate he eliminated.
How is such an act consistent with the idea that “Eastern Churches have always functioned synodally”?

 

[Schism_hater]

Luke 12:39-44 ." Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward οἰκονόμος oikonomos*]*whom his master will set καθίστημι kathistēmi make ruler] over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions”.

Definition οἰκονόμος oikonomos] = steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has intrusted the management of his affairs

Definition καθίστημι kathistēmi make ruler] 1) to set, place, put a) to set one over a thing (in charge of it) b) to appoint one to administer an office

Then this dispute happens at the last supper over who’s greatest among the apostles. Jesus sets the apostles straight. It’s Peter who is to lead THEM ergo also the Church.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744436&postcount=60

A classic example of eisegesis (reading something into scripture that isn’t there). Christ never tells the apostles Peter is to lead them or rule them. In Luke he indicates Peter will have a leadership role in the early Church, which no one denies. That is far removed from the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Not to mention Acts 15 destroys any notion of Peter as “ruler” over the early Church, much less his successors.